Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“President Wrong on Citizens United Case”

— Which, of course, isn’t much of a deterrent to leftist demagogues like Obama, because “wrong” only means wrong in the sense that it can be measured against something demonstrably right — and the grounds for making such epistemological value judgments have been replaced, in our postmodern worldview, by meaning-by-consensus, manufactured or otherwise.

Or, to put it another way, Obama is only wrong if enough people agree he’s wrong; if he can convince enough people he is right, he is, in fact, right. And it is within this context that the President felt comfortable weaving his assertions last evening: because under the foundational assumptions of progressive ideology, something isn’t a lie if it effectively wills into existence an “established truth.” And this is precisely what you’d expect to happen once meaning is turned over to interpretive communities, and truths are determined by who wields the most power to “affirm” them successfully, then protect them from outside assault.

No, what we witnessed last night was nothing more than progressivism unmasked, baldly asserting itself — in the process, eliciting in zealous adepts like Christopher Buckley a fever pitch of gush approaching near rapture.

To someone like Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, however, Enlightenment principles still hold:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or [o]ther thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.

Well, except there’s a third option.

Namely, that it is merely a truth in progress.

Which is precisely what makes these times so damn frightening.

0 Replies to ““President Wrong on Citizens United Case””

  1. Benedick says:

    I don’t think this particular lie is going to gain any practical currency. Mainly because the ultimate arbiters of Obama’s characterization are the very people whose words he so callously mischaracterized.

  2. Carin says:

    I’m convinced Buckely is no stranger to the stronger forms of illicit drugs.

  3. Carin says:

    Or, he starting the SOTU drinking game around 5ish yesterday.

  4. Jeff Carlson says:

    The State of the Unicorn …

    last night O-5bama lied repeatedly but guess what … he lied during his campaign when hed moved to the middle and 70% of America knew he was lying. The problem then was that the 38% of dems who voted for him knew he was lying and liked the lie because he could get elected doing so. The 32% of repubs who voted against him knew he was lying and hated it because he could get elected doing so.

    its a different world now … and the difference is that substantial percentage of independents now realize he’s lying when he fakes to the center. That is why his polls have tanked. In last nights speech about 70-80% of America knew he was lying at various points in the speech. The problem for Obama is that more than 50% know he is lying and don’t like it.

    Its the age old problem for con men and liars. The only way to fix your liar image is not to talk more but to DO something that proves you were’nt lying.

    Does Obama look like much of doer ?

  5. Jeff G. says:

    I don’t think this particular lie is going to gain any practical currency.

    The scary part? Is that it would, if one unfortunate death occurred at the wrong time.

    That’s what you need to keep in mind: a new “truth” is merely one adept’s vote away.

  6. Benedick says:

    Certainly an important concern, Jeff, as a general matter. But this particular attack by Obama was extra-special dumb. Because the court’s swing vote in this here case is the very guy who actually wrote the opinion about which Obama chose to so brazenly demagogue. Plus, 1 and 2 on the Next to Die List are liberal voters, so no ground will be gained in the short term.

  7. LBascom says:

    I think Alito may have brought this particular lie to a screeching halt. By his immediate and public reaction comes the realization that one of the two must be wrong, and so the public is going to want to know which.

    The only conclusion is, truth is not on Barrys side.

  8. alppuccino says:

    The scary part? Is that it would, if one unfortunate death occurred at the wrong time.

    Can you really characterize Robert Byrd’s death as unfortunate?

    ………..you were talking about someone else, weren’t you?

  9. Mr. W says:

    Obama is rapidly descending into Captain Queeg territory. Glance at the Wikpedia entry on Queeg and you can get a real taste of what is on the way.

    How do you remove a crazy President? For the sake of their party, the Democrats better find out quick.

  10. sdferr says:

    Damn alpuccino, you made me look.

  11. bh says:

    JD Salinger died.

  12. Slartibartfast says:

    I was going to do shots whenever he said “make no mistake”, but decided it’d be better for my liver if I went to Tae Kwon Do class, instead.

    Apparently, Anil Dash thinks we should all pay more careful attention to the SOTU address, even though it’s mostly synthetic. Me, I think that the President (ANY President, really) doesn’t even expect those who voted for him to believe half of what he says.

    Say, wasn’t Anil Dash an occasional commenter, here, once upon a time?

  13. geoffb says:

    He is a “living” constitution[al] scholar of note and as such can birth or abort as he deigns.

  14. JHo says:

    Impossible to know where to begin to describe last night’s clown show. Not representative government serving a people mindful of it’s best place in their lives. Nope.

    So, no more anybody going all bewildered that Obie ran aground a year in. ‘K, lefties?

  15. Paul Zummo says:

    Can somebody help me out here – is that Buckley thing supposed to be a parody that just badly misses, or is the guy serious? I’ve read it like three times and still am not sure.

  16. Danger says:

    If I were Chief Justice Roberts I would write a series of legal articles/opeds discussing constutional topics including bills of attainder, equal justice and the commerce clause.

    It might be looked at as a shot across the bow but I would consider it a proportional response to the stunt Obama pulled last night.

    The left deserves to be put on notice and America desperately needs to have the veil removed from its eyes.

  17. Socrates says:

    Or, to put it another way, Obama is only wrong if enough people agree he’s wrong; if he can convince enough people he is right, he is, in fact, right.

    Well in some ways that has always been the case. And that can be reflected in your American jury verdicts (which while subject to abuse certainly protect inviduals from power of the state). Or more caparious, like the Roman mob giving thumbs up or down.

    Does anyone care to share a Hemlock Smoothie?

  18. sdferr says:

    Diminish the reach and power of the Federal Government (or any government, for that matter) and watch money expended to influence the election of politicians favorable to particular interests diminish as well, not to say disappear, but diminish relative to competitors spending as theirs too shrink in response to rational calculation. No-one spends one hundred dollars into a lottery to win one dollar.

  19. Makewi says:

    sdferr, it seems to me that you would need a consensus on where the “reach and power” of government becomes harmful to the individual and I’m not sure how you get there when the government is in the business of giving shit away to people who don’t feel particularly harmed by it. I think you’d also need to put some reasonable restrictions on the commerce clause because that seems to be the catch all for government expansion in power from even the more conservative leaning folks.

  20. LBascom says:

    I’m not sure how you get there when the government is in the business of giving shit away to people who don’t feel particularly harmed by it

    Me either, but I keep hoping the Black community will figure it out, that would be a game changer.

  21. sdferr says:

    A consensus of political opinion is exactly the right measure in the context of a republican democracy. One must persuade. Which in turn would require, as you point out, that the better interest of the “people who don’t feel particularly harmed” would needs be demonstrated to be other than their reaching out their hands to receive the goods from those “giving shit away”. That such an argument can be made I have no doubt. That the hand reachers would hold still long enough to hear it? No telling. Perhaps experience alone will be their teacher?

  22. JHo says:

    That such an argument can be made I have no doubt.

    You assume federal operations, at all levels, are aimed at representing citizen aims?

    The adage about the truth putting on its shoes has a parallel: Power corrupts. Politics are asymmetrical. The left is the lie and theft.

    We need to maybe stop thinking the problem is one of persuading other folks so we can all be perfectly represented in proper aims together. By now DC has precious little to do with that. One must not persuade; one must join together and enforce.

  23. sdferr says:

    “You assume federal operations, at all levels, are aimed at representing citizen aims?”

    I’ve no idea what that means.

  24. Silver Whistle says:

    You want to get yourselves over to the Volokh Conspiracy – there are plenty of Obots in the comments who think it was just ticketyboo, unicorny and Skittleicious in a rainbow sort of way. I suspect some of them might even be law students. Can’t tell if any of them are retards from Quebec, though.

  25. LBascom says:

    Another fav of Obama; I inherited this mess from the evil Republicans. Repeated so far and so wide that the general consensus is that it is the truth.

    Ann provides a little history. CAN’T WE AT LEAST GET A TOASTER?

    For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.

  26. sdferr says:

    I read that last night SW and couldn’t help but marvel at the condescension offered J. Alito. A sarcastic “pobrecito”, the gist of much of it.

  27. dicentra says:

    And it is within this context that the President felt comfortable weaving his assertions last evening: because under the foundational assumptions of progressive ideology, something isn’t a lie if it effectively wills into existence an “established truth.”

    Don’t forget Alinsky’s formulation: it’s “true” to the extent that it’s “useful.”

    In other words, if the snow job is successful, it’s as good as true. If the snow job is unsuccessful, they “failed to communicate their message.”

    The president’s assertions aren’t meant to be taken literally (you ignernt rednecks), they’re to be viewed in light of what they can be made to DO–specifically, bring about The Goal.

    I don’t think this particular lie is going to gain any practical currency.

    The purpose of the lie was to discredit SCOTUS in the eyes of the public.

    Mainly because the ultimate arbiters of Obama’s characterization are the very people whose words he so callously mischaracterized.

    The ultimate arbiters are SCOTUS? No, the ultimate arbiters are those who write the history books. Or the first draft of history, but I repeat myself.

  28. JHo says:

    I’ve no idea what that means.

    The word salad at #22 elicited it.

    Are you assuming that federal operations are aimed at representing citizen aims? Would you say that last night the Congress that wildly blew load after load for Obama did so with great sincerity and out of a conviction of the principles consistent with classical, individual American rights?

    Or are we victims of the place?

  29. sdferr says:

    Oh hell no. To any of that.

  30. JHo says:

    Then the persuasion must extend to quite a large majority and must include harsh demotions for elected officials of the kind we have in office today. Not to be too pessimistic, but we don’t have half that will. Here and there in infrequent elections, perhaps. Of the kind needed to stop and then climb back up the slippery slope, that would be unprecedented.

  31. Silver Whistle says:

    The complete contempt some people have for freedom of speech is astonishing, sdferr. Not one of them took a second to wonder why Hillary should have been banned speech.

  32. sdferr says:

    Ha, the unprecedented is a sort of change. As is persuasion.

  33. sdferr says:

    So true SW, they didn’t. In fact, I don’t recall much discussion of the 1st Amndt at all, though surely some must have crept in there?

  34. Silver Whistle says:

    Negative, sdferr, just random wankery about corporations. First Amendment? Who needs that old thing.

  35. LBascom says:

    Excellent point Silver Whistle.

    Some reporter type person should ask Obama, “so, judging by your SOTU remarks to the SC, you believe it was appropriate that the film Hillary was censored by the government?”.

    I’d like to see the color drain from his face while pondering that. (in a Chris Wallace way of course!)

  36. JHo says:

    The complete contempt some people have for freedom of speech is astonishing

    Extend that to find government as service provider and governor. Because life simply cannot be managed without management.

    This is going to take something far beyond persuasion. Which is to say, we’ll do what humans are well-equipped to do when they’re so ill-equipped for foresight: We’ll all fall down together. Or more likely, we’ll go off into some global Utopia.

    We know there’s nothing government can’t wreck that won’t immediately call for fresh legislation. Naturally then, there’s nothing a failed State can’t wreck but that globalism can patch it all up again.

    So it goes. What we need is not a globe so much as an endless plain.

  37. sdferr says:

    I notice that folks complaining about foreign corporations acting in their interests in regards to US elections rarely if ever speak of US citizens holding ownership of corporations in other lands and having interests of their own overseas. J’ever notice that?

  38. Silver Whistle says:

    Taranto made some great points the other day on the fact that a lot of the msm fish wraps criticizing the decision are themselves corporations, but think they’re special and get extra ice cream for afters.

  39. Silver Whistle says:

    Lee, it’s very difficult to ask questions when your gob is full of cock.

  40. The Law says:

    What you fail to understand is that what you cited applies to “Foreign Corporations,” not what Obama was referring to: US corporations with foreign connections and interests, of which there are many.

  41. LTC John says:

    sdferr,

    I’d ask one of those fellas throwing a rock through a Starbucks window in a town where the G-20 are meeting….but I’d probably be too busy jabbing him with a riot baton.

  42. Silver Whistle says:

    What you fail to understand is that what you cited applies to “Foreign Corporations,” not what Obama was referring to: US corporations with foreign connections and interests, of which there are many.

    Oh, I don’t think so:

    “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

  43. LTC John says:

    #41 “what Obama was referring to: US corporations with foreign connections and interests”

    Could you point out that particular point in the speech?

  44. LTC John says:

    Whoops, I see SW already has quoted it. “foreign corporations” does not quite equal “US corporations with foreign connections and interests”.

    Do try again, if you would like.

  45. LBascom says:

    The Law, you mean like these ones?

  46. Silver Whistle says:

    The Law apparently missed the bit where Dear Leader said “special interests — including foreign corporations”. Special interests is what Dear Leader has a stiffy for; well, just those that aren’t his special interests.

  47. sdferr says:

    His aren’t “special”. They’re just regular like folks. Or Volks.

  48. cranky-d says:

    I see, Teh Law. So Obama didn’t say what I heard him say, then? Okee-dokey. And the various arms of the MSM, which is often owned by people who also have foreign interests, gets a free pass? Righty-O. How about, instead, we get what we have now that SCOTUS has correctly ruled in favor of the First Amendment. The solution to bad speech is more speech.

    What I would like to see, if it isn’t a law already, is all political speech being labeled to say who is paying for it, if there is any doubt. Otherwise, unleash the puppies of politics!

  49. Lazarus Long says:

    Wait.

    According to reactionary leftists, the Supreme Court is the font of all proggress in the country.

    Right?

    Right?

  50. Silver Whistle says:

    This wouldn’t be The Law as practiced in Quebec, would it?

  51. cranky-d says:

    BTW, it’s funny when the Democrats, who basically created special interest politics, bitch about it. If true classical liberals were governing, you would not need special interest groups all that often, and they would only exist to point out inequities in opportunity that needed snuffing out. But when the government is a source of largess to be handed out to the chosen few, special interests breed like fleas on the body politic, all wanting their “fair share” of blood.

  52. Makewi says:

    Both the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union are organizations who routinely engage in political speech and yet for some reason seem not to be a worry to those who have suddenly taken an interest in foreign influence in American “campaign related” speech. I guess some foreign influence is acceptable and some is not.

  53. Silver Whistle says:

    It is hard, indeed almost impossible, not to like Mr. Obama. In recent weeks, I’ve tried—tried my best. But Wednesday night he made it virtually impossible. Even discounting the perhaps 40 percent of the speech that consisted of the usual bromides and platitudes, even the most hardened skeptic must admit—the son of gun gives one hell of a speech.

    I’m sorry, Mr Buckley, but this nuclear-hardened skeptic is going to have to say it was crap, the consistency of cold porridge. And I don’t like him all that much either.

  54. Makewi says:

    The sirens probably gave a hell of a speech as well, but I think you would be better served to ask them for it in writing instead.

  55. JD says:

    Mr Buckley has pretty low standards.

  56. sdferr says:

    Feinstein: “…make a change…”

    Oopsie Barry, watch out, they are slipping away.

  57. keninnorcal says:

    The thing that kept me going through the SOTU last night was thinking “he’s a good man.” Oh wait, that wasn’t what I was thinking.

  58. JD says:

    If Barcky is losing Feinstein, he truly is having a bad couple weeks.

  59. sdferr says:

    Gillibrand has put her chips in with Bloomberg too JD.

    Holder’s head on a pike would do, I think.

  60. JD says:

    Don’t try to get me all excited, sdferr. That is not nice.

  61. sdferr says:

    Saving yourself for Gabrielle Anwar, eh?

  62. Silver Whistle says:

    Gabrielle Anwar could have me if she really wanted, you know.

  63. cranky-d says:

    During the entire speech I was thinking what a lying liar who lies he is, and how he seemed to top himself with every new lie, but I’m bitterly clinging to G-d and guns so what do I know?

  64. JD says:

    From your mouth, to God’s ears, sdferr.

  65. LBascom says:

    Sdferr, OMG!

    Did you see at 2:22, Feinstein said “the administration” while she rubbed her nose with her middle finger?

    Now, where have I seen that before?

  66. Lamontyoubigdummy says:

    Good Lord.

    [from Byron York]:

    About an hour after the end of his State of the Union address, in which he called for an end to the partisan conflict that has plagued his first year in office, President Obama sent out a political fundraising appeal through his permanent campaign organization, Organizing for America…

    …Obama discussed his economic proposals and also vowed not to walk away from the goal of passing a national health care bill. And then the pitch. “I need your voice. I need your passion,” he concluded. Can you help fuel our fight for the middle class with a monthly donation of $15 or more?

    What the fuck, man!? You are now the President of The United States! You are not campaigning to be a goddamn Chicago Alderman. Fuck your lack of spine, your preening entitlement, your back room reach-arounds, your unions, your pathological narcissism, your retarded political 1969 bent, your Alinsky wallpaper, and, for fuck’s sake, stop being a whiny little bitch on public television in front of the whole world. While you may be comfortable being defined as a ridiculous, sneering, faux, dog & pony, ineffectual, incompetent, confused, in 8 feet over your head, hopelessly weak 5 year old temper tantrum, this country is NOT cool with that particular image.

    Cowboy the fuck up.

    Why is this man, the frickin POTUS, fund raising for (apparently) himself one year in?! Not for a particular Dem. Not for the DSCC. $15 bucks a month for just for him I guess. Why? Gonna donate it to the 17.8% of unemployed? Is there a fucking loan payment due on the GM buy that the tax payers can’t quite cover? Sewage clean up in his wife’s little garden? Why does a first year President want or need “campaign contributions”?

    Apparently, David Plouffe got pulled in from whatever race he was helping to tank, and advised the Dumb Dumb in Chief to simply run for President again while he’s, you know, President.

    I bet Jimmy Carter was fucking high fiving everybody within reach today.

  67. JD says:

    When times get tough, Barcky goes campaigning and fundraising.

  68. Slartibartfast says:

    Byron York said “cowboy the fuck up?”

  69. Lamontyoubigdummy says:

    Byron York said “cowboy the fuck up?”

    Well…no. He did leave National Review and is sewing his oats and whatnot, but I should have maybe put some block quotes up there.

    Safe to say, the Cowboys and f-bombs are all mine and in should in no way reflect on Mr. York’s work. Not to say there weren’t f-bombs in his original draft.

    But he has an editor.

    Actually, I think he is one over there.

  70. sdferr says:

    So there were a couple of votes in the Senate today.

    Here’s one. Here’s another.

    Look for the name Brown (R-MA). Didn’t find it, did you?

    Now look for the name Kirk (D-MA). Interesting, no?

  71. sdferr says:

    They are beginning to figure out they’ve got to fight back, finally. Good on ya, Sen. Gregg.

  72. JD says:

    Get ’em, Sen Gregg! I like how they tried to claim that they did not say what they just said.

  73. JD says:

    sdferr – Have you seen or heard when he will be seated? How in the hell is this happening?

  74. newrouter says:

    “Now look for the name Kirk (D-MA). Interesting, no?”

    according to mass law kirk is committing fraud

  75. bh says:

    Good stuff.

    It should be tried more often. It’s not like these idiotic newsreaders are particularly bright with quick tongues.

  76. JD says:

    Thank you for those links, sdferr.

  77. sdferr says:

    Seems to me like Imus has been whaling on that chick for stupidity forever, though none of that has moved the network to reevaluate her presence on air.

  78. JD says:

    She does have very big … eyes.

  79. Slartibartfast says:

    According to CNN, the Senate does not yet have a letter from Massachussetts SecState certifying the election.

    So; no swearing-in; no voting on legislation.

  80. sdferr says:

    Oh, here’s another vote in the Senate today, an even more interesting outcome:

    The Senate approved on Thursday a $1.9 trillion boost in the amount of debt the federal government can take out. The bill, which passed 60 to 40 [along party lines], would establish the new limit at $14.3 trillion — equal to about $45,000 for every American.

    60 – 40 on party lines. Get the picture?

  81. newrouter says:

    someone in mass should sue to prevent kirk from voting

  82. Slartibartfast says:

    Why? He’s acting Senator; no Senator has been sworn in to replace him.

    Do you think he’s violating the law in some way?

  83. B Moe says:

    “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

    You know what really opens those floodgates, Barry? Turning off all the security checks on your credit card software, you treacherous fucking thief.

    Does his not getting struck by lightning prove there is no God or merely that God respects the separation of Church and State?

  84. JD says:

    Why has Brown not been given his Senate seat yet?

  85. geoffb says:

    the son of gun gives one hell of a speech.

    I’d comment on that but I’d be called “vacuous” once more and my tenuous hold on sanity might slip, again.

  86. bh says:

    Does his not getting struck by lightning prove there is no God or merely that God respects the separation of Church and State?

    That cracked me up.

  87. geoffb says:

    Article 1 Section 5
    Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

    17th Amendment
    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    So waiting for the certification of the results or does that matter with a concession? Or is Harry going to play games on the basis of Art. 1 sec. 5?

  88. Slartibartfast says:

    Why has Brown not been given his Senate seat yet?

    This reason, I imagine:

    Chapter 54: Section 116. Certification of results; summons; certificates of election

    Section 116. The governor shall, in the presence of at least five councillors, certify to the results of the examination of the copies of the records of votes cast for governor and lieutenant governor, for councillors, for state secretary, state treasurer, state auditor and attorney general, and for senators and representatives in the general court, and shall issue his summons to such persons as appear to be chosen to said offices. The governor shall issue certificates of election to such persons as appear to be chosen to the offices of senator in congress, representative in congress, clerk of the courts, register of probate, sheriff and district attorney, which shall be countersigned and transmitted by the state secretary. No certification shall be made or summons or certificate issued under this section until after five o’clock in the afternoon of the fifteenth day following a state election, or, in case a state-wide or district-wide recount is held in accordance with section one hundred and thirty-five, until the tabulation and determination under the preceding section have been revised in accordance with the results of such recount; provided, however, that such certification may be made or summons or certificate issued on or after the seventh day following a special state election, unless a candidate who received votes at that election files with the state secretary, not later than five o’clock in the afternoon of the sixth day following the election, a written statement of intention to seek a recount or otherwise to contest the election.

  89. newrouter says:

    “There is an elected and qualified successor to Paul Kirk. His name is Scott Brown. Martha Coakley has conceded the race, and there are not enough absentee ballots to change the five-point spread.”

    link

  90. Slartibartfast says:

    I can’t find anything in Massachusetts statute that permits speeding-along of the certification in the event that one of the candidates concedes.

  91. Slartibartfast says:

    That’s sheer folly, thinking that one’s rational thought trumps the law. It just ain’t so.

  92. newrouter says:

    “Niki Tsongas, widow of 1992 presidential candidate Paul Tsongas, could be sworn in as early as Wednesday, which would give her the opportunity to participate in Thursday’s”

    if you’re a dem the process goes faster

  93. geoffb says:

    I notice that is says “not before” but doesn’t say when after, indeterminate there.

  94. Slartibartfast says:

    The law is an ass, y’know.

    It’d be interesting to see just when the 15-day rule got stuck in there. Mass is, after all, the state that changed the rule saying the governor appoints an interim senator so that Mitt Romney couldn’t appoint a Republican when Kerry stepped out, then changed it back when they had a Democrat in the governor’s office.

    Massachusetts: not a state of laws, not men, but a state of men making laws and changing them for convenience.

  95. sdferr says:

    They don’t have to have an official certification in the Senate Slart. The US Senate can accept an unofficial letter from the Ma. Sec State to the effect that the official cert will be coming along in due course and that the Sec State affirms that no reason exists to impede that cert being fulfilled with the passage of the 15 days.

  96. Swen Swenson says:

    Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 1/28 @ 3:27 pm #
    What the fuck, man!? You are now the President of The United States! You are not campaigning to be a goddamn Chicago Alderman. Fuck your lack of spine, your preening entitlement, your back room reach-arounds, your unions, your pathological narcissism, your retarded political 1969 bent, your Alinsky wallpaper, and, for fuck’s sake, stop being a whiny little bitch on public television in front of the whole world. While you may be comfortable being defined as a ridiculous, sneering, faux, dog & pony, ineffectual, incompetent, confused, in 8 feet over your head, hopelessly weak 5 year old temper tantrum, this country is NOT cool with that particular image.

    Cowboy the fuck up.

    Well said.

  97. JD says:

    Slarti – They had no problem seating Kennedy and Tsongas (?) within a day or two of the special election.

    MA election laws get written in pencil.

  98. Slartibartfast says:

    They don’t have to have an official certification in the Senate Slart. The US Senate can accept an unofficial letter from the Ma. Sec State to the effect that the official cert will be coming along in due course and that the Sec State affirms that no reason exists to impede that cert being fulfilled with the passage of the 15 days.

    Perhaps, if SecState decides to do that.

  99. sdferr says:

    Exactly, it lies at his/her whim.

  100. Mikey NTH says:

    turth in progress has a hard time when it hits reality.

    Watch the infighting to see where the proclamations hit that wall. Or see any of the ‘Downfall’ parodies.

  101. geoffb says:

    Democrats, the Party of “whim” [and Wigger].

  102. Slartibartfast says:

    Niki Tsongas, widow of 1992 presidential candidate Paul Tsongas, could be sworn in as early as Wednesday, which would give her the opportunity to participate in Thursday’s

    It’s not so much that she could have been sworn in Wednesday, it’s that she was.

    I’m guessing it’s a matter of convenience:

    Shortly after being sworn in to the seat her late husband Paul Tsongas held in the 1970s, she joined her Massachusetts colleagues in voting to override President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

    To no avail, but still.

  103. Slartibartfast says:

    To what party do you suppose the Massachusetts SecState belongs?

    No fair peeking.

  104. sdferr says:

    Surely the correct party, as opposed to the right one.

  105. Slartibartfast says:

    I peeked. While finding out the obvious, I stumbled upon this:

    Galvin, as the Massachusetts’ Secretary of State, was found to have violated the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act passed in 2002, in which he failed to report and collect the number sent and the number returned of absentee ballots from overseas Military personnel registered to vote in Massachusetts. After an investigation by the US Justice Department, a settlement was reached to force Galvin to comply with the law.

    Maybe he feels the eyes of Justice upon him, still.

  106. JD says:

    Watch for some more big votes prior to Brown getting seated.

  107. sdferr says:

    Hopefully the decision causes at least something of a dilemma, whether to kow-tow to the desires of the state’s majority party (currently) and its senior Senator or to ingratiate oneself with the soon to be junior Senator and his [possibly] growing political force within the state. Wouldn’t want to get off on the wrong foot with a potential Bigfoot.

  108. Slartibartfast says:

    I’m thinking this is payback for Katherine Harris’ prior use of SecState discretion.

    I’m just guessing that is what’s being said, behind closed doors.

  109. Slartibartfast says:

    Nah, sdferr, they’re going to use Kirk for all he’s worth. While they still can.

  110. sdferr says:

    Certainly could be. I don’t doubt that terrific pressure has been used on Mr Galvin though. How not?

  111. JD says:

    I would request the telephone and email records of all communication between DC and the MA Sec of State.

  112. sdferr says:

    Let me put that another way. He (Galvin) has been made to understand.

  113. Slartibartfast says:

    Understand what? There’s a place for you in DC, once your term is up?

  114. sdferr says:

    The reason that there ought to be some tincture of dilemma is that those who are making Mr Galvin to understand may themselves be understood not to understand their own situation, no matter how much they may protest to the contrary. Politics, she’s funny that way.

  115. sdferr says:

    Understand whatever they’ve got in hand to offer to make him understand their intents in Washington vis a vis Sen’s Kirk and Brown. Whether Galvin’s ambitions have shown him to be interested in further state office holding or tend toward DC, he is made to know who can help him and who can hurt him and how.

  116. geoffb says:

    So you are saying those applying the carrot and/or stick to Mr. Galvin may not realize that there are sticks attached to the carrots they cherish also? If so I agree, heartily.

  117. geoffb says:

    That was for #115.

  118. JD says:

    I wonder if the MSM is going to run any articles, or do any segments, on when Brown will be seated.

  119. sdferr says:

    Yes, sort of, though I’m not sure about sticks attached to carrots geoffb; I meant just that the seat of power from which these political actors project can appear to be certain, when that is far from the case. They don’t see their own political demise coming (see Coakley, M.), but those that deal with them on the basis that their power is safe ought to keep potential shifts in mind, if only provisionally. Choose wrong and one day, poof, it’s all gone on account of the lever pullers.

  120. JD says:

    All I see right now is that the powers-that-be in MA and the rest of the Dems are flipping the bird to the will of the people.

  121. sdferr says:

    That more or less sums up what I see as well JD. But don’t the voters of Ma see it too? And if so, don’t these birdflippers think what the voters of Ma might themselves be thinking of having the bird flipped at them? I mean, how stupid can these birdflippers be? Pretty damned stupid, as it turns out. Ramifying the voters most recent choice in its very wake.

  122. geoffb says:

    Stick is the political demise via the lever pullers. Carrot is the desire not only to keep power but power exercised for certain ends. Ends which may bring on the demise.

  123. sdferr says:

    Aha, I see what you mean there geoffb, sorry for my density there. Yes, that’s it.

  124. Slartibartfast says:

    But don’t the voters of Ma see it too?

    Up to them to decide that. It’s generally not a good idea to piss off 52% of the voting population, though.

  125. sdferr says:

    Damn near all day I’ve been thinking that President Wrong should be made to stick hereafter, wherever he may go.

  126. JD says:

    Well, unless the people of MA start making their voices heard, again, there does not appear to be any attention paid to the perfidy of the Dems.

  127. JD says:

    President Wrong is so redundant, on every level.

  128. geoffb says:

    I was just agreeing with you but we both speak oblique at times.

  129. bh says:

    I think both sdferr and geoffb are vacuous.

    Because I have the brain wattage of twenty super geniuses, like Charles.

  130. bh says:

    No, wait. I got that wrong. I’m vacuous and Charles has the brain wattage of 100 super geniuses.

    Just ask him.

  131. JD says:

    Charles is more enlightened than you troglodytes.

  132. cranky-d says:

    Charles our new resident troll or Charles of the tiny footballs what are green?

  133. cranky-d says:

    Has “Charles” replaced “David” as the default troll name? I hope so.

  134. JD says:

    People named Charles are generally not good people.

  135. bh says:

    New troll. He’s really smart. But modest. So modest, in fact, that he was given an award for modesty. And it was the greatest award ever given out to a modest man.

  136. Joe says:

    Mac really did come out with the ipad today.

    MadTV has it covered.

  137. McGehee says:

    When will Apple come out with the iPanema?

  138. McGehee says:

    …and that sounds nastier than intended.

  139. geoffb says:

    Vacuous? Why before Michelson–Morley I was downright aetherial.

  140. Blake says:

    Obama responds to a SOTU.

    http://tinyurl.com/ybvgueq

    Hat tip: Don Surber.

    Cuffy Meigs attached Obama’s response to a Bush SOTU to an Obama SOTU.

  141. geoffb says:

    I did have a thing for Astrud Gilberto when I was a teen.

  142. bh says:

    Man, I love that song, Geoff.

    I had a weird habit in college of putting some songs on repeat for a ridiculous amount of time. That was one of them.

  143. geoffb says:

    I believe it was the first record album I ever bought, just to here that song, so yeah, I understand.

  144. geoffb says:

    hear

  145. bh says:

    Want to know something odd, Geoff?

    Since sdferr linked it, I’ve listened to this probably two hundred times.

  146. bh says:

    201 now.

  147. sdferr says:

    Another brother sister combo, I had a thing for her voice back in the day, particularly her work in the Swingle Singers.

  148. geoffb says:

    Well that Japanese tune you linked on the other thread is similar to what I listened to through the Clinton years. Couldn’t stand the politics in the mix here.

  149. bh says:

    During the Clinton years, I was listening to stuff like this, Geoff.

    You know, because of the phonies.

    I think I’ve heard that song before, sdferr. Can’t place it. But, somewhere.

  150. bh says:

    Think it’s Korean, Geoff. I can tell because I speak both languages fluently. Like Charles.

  151. JD says:

    I spoke Vietnamese to this old dude at a pho shop this evening, and he looked at me like he had seen a yeti. How dare whitey speak the melodic tones of his mother tongue.

  152. geoffb says:

    Well it is very J-Pop.

    The other reminded me of “The Clash” with a bit of “Sex Pistols”

    This group and others around them were my late 70’s early 80’s.

  153. sdferr says:

    You heard it in the movie maybe bh?

  154. sdferr says:

    Astrud’s version.

  155. JD says:

    Oh, I got a Walther today. This was a really good day.

  156. geoffb says:

    Catch you in awhile.

  157. bh says:

    Lot’s of cool stuff going on here.

    Geoff, I would have pegged it J but I found it where they identified it Korean right off the bat. And, dude, thanks for that link, good stuff. Kinda like raw L7.

    JD, you can speak some Vietnamese? That’s really hard isn’t it? Someone told me it was hard anyways.

    Sdferr, maybe that movie. I can’t quite say. It’s there in my head somewhere but I can’t retrieve it.

  158. JD says:

    Better Half speaks it, and I have learned to converse with her and her family, but I am not very good. It is difficult, but not as hard as learning Arabic, which I did in a past life.

  159. cranky-d says:

    What’s the Vietnamese equivalent of “gaijin?”

    Just wondering when I’m being called a barbarian.

  160. JD says:

    Phoentically, it is wee-dang, assuming you are caucasian.

  161. Sdferr, maybe that movie. I can’t quite say. It’s there in my head somewhere but I can’t retrieve it.

    It’s been covered a loooooot.

    Going back to Legrand, was listening to the soundtrack to Never Say Never Again last week, which he wrote. It was kinda disappointing. Most of the other Bond soundtracks manage to work the title song in throughout, but he decided to just throw random things together. nice things on their own, just not a coherent soundtrack.

  162. bh says:

    JD, you’re an interesting fellow.

  163. cranky-d says:

    I’m whiter than white, JD.

  164. JD says:

    That would make you a wee-dang, cranky-d.

  165. sdferr says:

    Never heard this before. Man, wacky French jazz musicians. maggie?

  166. OMG, sdferr, it’s like a… a…. Mrs. Miller tribute to Yma Sumac.

  167. JD says:

    bh – I am a terribly un-interesting fellow, to be sure. I have been fortunate enough to have been around when some cool shit happened.

  168. geoffb says:

    Tried this at work but WordPress doesn’t like the letters.

    WaltherPP or WaltherPPK or something newer by them?

  169. JD says:

    Walther PK380

  170. JD says:

    But I still want a PPK.

  171. JD says:

    Bingo. I really like it. It is smooth. My old Sig is smoother, but that is due to use and age.

  172. geoffb says:

    Had a .32ACP-PP back in the 80s. Germans were reequipping their police and a ton of them came on the market.

  173. JD says:

    Now that is a good reliable pistol, geoffb.

  174. bh says:

    Never owned a pistol. I’ve looked at a few but it’s always been rifles.

  175. bh says:

    By the way, sdferr is a legend. As is Bartok. I like email. That is all.

  176. JD says:

    Goodnight, folks.

  177. JD says:

    bh – M700APR might be the most perfect gun I have ever held.

  178. geoffb says:

    Too bad I sold it but I wanted something else, a stainless .38 snubby for my first wife as she was used to that and not the auto.

  179. sdferr says:

    This entire Swingles playlist on the right was why I liked Christine back in the day. Still do

  180. bh says:

    ‘Night, JD.

  181. JD says:

    I need to add a good revolver to my collection. I looked at a ginormous Taurus today.

  182. geoffb says:

    I second that, sleep well.

  183. bh says:

    That’s the idiocy of Chicago and Daley. When you could use a pistol for home defense, it’s illegal.

    It’s not like my German Shepherds were particularly friendly.

  184. geoffb says:

    This is as big as mine get.

  185. geoffb says:

    Handguns that is.

  186. JD says:

    Now that is a fine piece of equipment, bh. This is my biggest … http://www.remingtoncustom.com/HunterGrade_700APR.aspx

    I never tire of this work of art.

  187. geoffb says:

    Once again, cool, JD. I won’t keep you up more. I need bed pretty soon too.

  188. JD says:

    I will try again. Goodnight, folks.

  189. bh says:

    My favorite rifle? A beat up British .303. It’s killed both Nazis and whitetail now.

  190. bh says:

    ‘Night, captain.

  191. sdferr says:

    Current page head at Daily Caller:

    Obama Caves on Terror Trial
    ‘Like a half-baked souffle,’ says source, ‘the plan is collapsing’

    Heh.

  192. JD says:

    Dammit. Burn Notice is on again, and I am stuck in a hotel room. Looks like I am up for another hour.

  193. JD says:

    sdferr – The walkback on this one will be priceless.

  194. sdferr says:

    Ok, JD, so long as you don’t make us listen to your moaning noises, you can stay up.

  195. Heh.

    Why do you hate America, sdferr? You know where they could have it that wouldn’t inconvenience anyone? Gitmo. oh well. Nobody ever asks me about these things.

  196. sdferr says:

    Treacher too, comes through with the funny.

  197. JD says:

    Treacher is great. Almost always.

  198. sdferr says:

    A separated at birth for you maggie.

  199. geoffb says:

    The “plan” wasn’t even “half-baked”. Just a random thought of dinner passing through from ear to ear.

  200. is it cause of the tinyness, sdferr? help my cough syrup addled brain out here.

  201. sdferr says:

    The Obami haven’t figured out the deal yet though, they’re still thinking to bring the fuckers into the States. Congress is gonna have to school ’em further before they get the message. Hopefully by that time, the vast majority of the people will have seen the Obami for what they are and spit them out entire come election time.

    Only partly the tinyness, maggie; there’s something about Gate’s face that bespeaks troll-doll to me, I dunno.

  202. JD says:

    Maggie – Your blanket has become the focal point of Madeline’s existence, or so it seems.

  203. James says:

    This whole post is erroneous simply because Obama mispoke, he said “foreign corporations” instead of “foreign corporate control”. Get a clue. Any foreign interest can purchase, or charter an “American Corporation”. The second biggest news conglomerate in the world is NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch’s gig that owns Fox News and guess what, the largest share holder is a Saudi Prince. Citgo, which markets Hugo Chavez oil, (which btw is now been determined to be the largest oil reserve on earth) is an “American Corporation”. So the law that you cite is meaningless and the President is NOT wrong and the Supreme Court, whose members Roberts and Alito pledged to follow precedent, did the opposite. They lied and manipulated for political payback, smarmy Repugnits as they are.

  204. ah, okay, I can kinda see that.

  205. James says:

    Clarification, the largest shareholder of NewsCorp (besides Murdoch) is a Saudi Prince.

  206. This whole post is erroneous simply because Obama mispoke, he said “foreign corporations” instead of “foreign corporate control”.

    srsly? you have some kind of citation for that?

  207. sdferr says:

    Holey Smoke James, you just want to prove JD right and me wrong don’t you, you rat fink. Come on man, you can do it.

  208. Maggie – Your blanket has become the focal point of Madeline’s existence, or so it seems.

    well, I’m glad it has held up. I always worry about that.

  209. bh says:

    James is who now? End of America, isn’t it?

    James, buy that Exxon stock yet?

  210. JD says:

    James called Barcky and now feels comfortable speaking on his behalf. He has his talking points. Good Allah, these trolls are tiresome.

  211. whoa, are we sure “James” isn’t Barcky? I mean, he’s always sending me emails asking for money and stuff by name, but maybe sometimes he likes to be out among his people in disguise to hear for himself how they feel about him.

  212. JD says:

    How I am going to be proven right, sdferr?

    Maggie – It has held up wonderfully, though it may be disappeared here pretty soon.

  213. James says:

    Like it or not, I am 100% right. Sometime people misspeak but their intent is clear.

    “You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.”
    GW Bush —Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

  214. sdferr says:

    How JD? James appears to insist on remaining a dunderhead, refusing to learn to abandon anachronistic political philosophies and policies grown old, tired and stupid. It seems he cannot let go and change.

    Austin v MCC was an outlying turd of a piece of reasoning and had to go. Constitutionally unsupportable laws don’t deserve to be upheld.

  215. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    even the most hardened skeptic must admit—the son of gun gives one hell of a speech.

    So that must be the Postmodern Cult’s equivalent to “damning the ‘son of a gun’ with faint praise”, and/or a kind of last gasp attempt to invoke the “raw feels” of euphoria? They might try repeating it enough to mask Obama’s emptiness and abject failure, and to make it “true”, but I’m betting that’s not going to work, and pretty soon. Who the hell is going to go ga-ga over a Fast Train?

    Back to reality, the Gov’t can’t even make slow Amtrack trains work.

  216. though it may be disappeared here pretty soon.

    noooooooo! j/k but, you know, my sister still has a couple of her baby blankets. Her first MIL made one of them (what was left of it anyway) into a pillow case. Cause that’s what she liked them for. felt nice on her face or something, I don’t know.

  217. bh says:

    James, c’mon, tell me, as Exxon can crush us all under its toenail now, how’s your investment doing?

  218. geoffb says:

    Perhaps James is James Earl, the live one. It would explain much.

  219. JD says:

    You are Barcky? Because Barcky and his team of TOTUS writers wrote that speech, and the idea that he did not specifically choose the words he spoke is laughable, James.

    James – Why do you hate hate hate the 1st Amendment?

  220. Like it or not, I am 100% right. Sometime people misspeak but their intent is clear.

    It’s not a question of liking, it’s a matter of supporting your assertion. Cause you’re the only one that picked up on the “foreign corporation/corporate control” thing.

  221. JD says:

    Maggie – We are keeping it, we just want to try to reduce its importance in her day-to-day existence.

    Gotcha, sdferr. But since James knows more than the Supreme Court, and knows more about what Barcky intended to say than Barcky himself, maybe we should defer to his brilliance.

  222. geoffb says:

    Except it is most probable he is like the many other multi-socked ones passing through. The three ring binder commenting. The ones who almost passed the 900 number, talk school.

  223. JD says:

    Dammit, now there is a bad Van Damme movie on. I am destined to be up waaaaaaaaaaaay too late.

  224. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    Like it or not, I am 100% right. Sometime people misspeak but their intent is clear.

    And he sure does need all the AA help from you he can get! Oh, btw, Bush 77, Kerry 76. Bush 2, Kerry 0. Bush wins Iraq, Reid-Obama 0. Obama looking to go into negative territory.

  225. sdferr says:

    James of course, isn’t brilliant, but a dummkopf. It was our hope however, that James, with effort, hard work and will to improve, could make something of himself. He seems to want to have it otherwise.

  226. JD says:

    I love how he knows better than the whole slew of writers that wrote the script for TOTUS what they intended to say. That is priceless.

  227. James of course, isn’t brilliant, but a dummkopf.

    but… but… he’s 100% right cause, um, he quotes GWB a lot… I guess. Well, that’s what I’ve been told, anyway.

  228. bh says:

    Which Van Damme, JD? I liked the one where he beat up those Creoles in the float warehouse.

  229. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    But the son of gun gives one hell of a speech, eh what, James?

  230. Saylor says:

    I don’t know whether is it a lie. But I think Obama is do his best to improve the economy. christian shoes
    ”t

  231. JD says:

    End of America – Given the unlimited power granted those evil corporations, why is their stock value dropping? Wouldn’t it make sense that this unlimited power would increase their value?

  232. JD says:

    sdferr – I have no clue which one it is. He is a cop, just transferred to a new jurisdiction, and is carrying around a pet rabbit. It is bad, but entertaining.

  233. I’ll just tell y’all right now you can skip JCVD. Unless of course, you’re in to that kind of thing.

  234. James says:

    Thanks to Jeff G. for this post. THIS is an argument that Dems want to have… often and loudly. Like the Republican failure to support the Obama initiative to have banks pay back the money they received in the bailout, we WANT to talk about YOUR support of corporate interests put ahead of the American individual voter. Please keep supporting your party line on this. See where it gets you with the thinking voter. (Ditto heads aside)

  235. JD says:

    Like the Republican failure to support the Obama initiative to have banks pay back the money they received in the bailout

    This is such a cute talking point, since Barcky was not allowing people to pay back the money previously. Is anyone actually trying to not repay it? I mean, except for Geithner’s buddies?

    How did the elections in NJ, VA, and MA treat you, James?

  236. sdferr says:

    Yes, we know thinking voters want their government banning books and videos and movies and political speeches James. You’ll go far with that one, no doubt since thinking voters can’t possibly understand the meaning of

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  237. hey, James has bunnies, too, JD!!!!

    oh and googling comes up with maybe The Shepherd: Border Patrol

  238. bh says:

    James, I’m an enormous idiot. Please explain how you plan to make money in this coming rape of the innocent. Thank you.

    (You can’t, you fucking retard. That undercuts your argument, don’t you see? You’re not talking to children here.)

  239. JD says:

    That is it, maggie. James is going to have to deal with JCVD about these bunnies.

  240. It turns out that Jack has a personal reason for going after Meyers — Meyers’s drugs killed Jack’s daughter Kassie (Bianca Van Varenberg) about three months ago, and Kassie was barely 16-years-old. Jack’s pet rabbit was Kassie’s rabbit, and he carries it around in memory of Kassie.

    *sniff*

  241. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    James, wha’ happened, you look sick! Is something wrong?

    Me, I’m only running out of “say it” button space.

  242. JD says:

    James is a short-bus person. No doubt.

  243. I’m guessing James’ bunny is in memory of Teddy K’s seat.

  244. bh says:

    I think it’s sweet as all hell that about the blanket by the way.

  245. JD says:

    I only recently learned how to spell my own name, James, so if a dummerass like myself notes how brain-poundingly stupid you are, that ought to tell you something. But it won’t.

  246. JD says:

    Now bh is mocking me ;-) It is not actually a blanket, it is “BLANKY!”

  247. bh says:

    I occasionally choke because I forget to breath. Yet, still smarter than James.

    C’mon, super genius, give us some stock tips.

  248. bh says:

    Time out. (emoticon) Actually, I do actually think it’s sweet that Maggie sent a blanket and JD’s kid uses it. (emoticon off)

  249. JD says:

    James has the word “inhale” written on the back of one hand, and “exhale” on the other, just in case he forgets what to do.

  250. bh says:

    Actually, again.

    (That’s how you can tell it’s me. Repetition of filler words. It’s ’cause I’m simple.)

  251. sdferr says:

    Almost seems like James gets a little shot of feel-goody brain chemical after his few minutes of hate over here and having had his fix, peddles on off on his tricycle to await another craving, whereupon he returns to hate some more. Gotta admire the tassels on his handlebars though, they’re pinky-peachy.

  252. JD says:

    bh – She didn’t just send a blanket, she sent a blanket that she made. It was one of the coolest baby gifts Madeline Grace got.

  253. JD says:

    Hate hate hate is what drives them. But, they believe themselves to be open-minded, and occupying some superior moral plane. But, all they really are is douchenozzles.

  254. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    James, I know you intend only good, but presenting yourself as a total idiot does not in any way really help my self esteem beyond what it’s already received from Obama in spades.. Thanks for the thought and effort, though.

  255. bh says:

    Gotta admire the tassels on his handlebars though, they’re pinky-peachy.

    Heh.

    And, different subject, given this, I like Maggie even more.

  256. *sigh* guys, I’m getting all emotional here, could we cut it out?

    was just thinking I made that blanket around the last time I was doing a show at the same theater I’m (supposed to be) at currently. this sucks.

  257. JD says:

    Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. Emotions are the suck.

  258. sdferr says:

    Who is Carlos Slim again?

  259. sdferr says:

    Damn, look there, he’s a Mexican fella and he owns a Ginormous chunk of the New Yawk Times? It’s a puzzle, it is.

  260. JD says:

    You just made me laugh out loud, literally. I love how the leftists hate them some captialism, so long as it someone else trying to make money. The huge evil corporations that they like, GE, NY Times, etc .. are quite fine with them.

  261. bh says:

    Carlos is both Mexican and Lebanese. Let us now freak out. Like Barcky at a SOTU address.

    Why does he so hate the other? Kinda racist if you ask me.

  262. JD says:

    They hate the Constitution. They hate the 1st Amendment. And they hate anyone that does not agree with them.

  263. sdferr says:

    Yikes, a double other doubleothering? What ever shall we do under Austin but slap a gag on the man to prevent him corrupting our holy political processes with his doubleothering ways?

  264. JD says:

    Their solution to speech they do not agree with is banning it. It is a truly unpleasant characteristic.

  265. sdferr says:

    Oh, wait, he owns a media corporation? Hold on, hang on a second, don’t such media corporations get special treatments under Austin? I’m thinking they discriminatorily may. Here, let us dust off your jacket Mr. Slim, do pardon, please.

  266. JD says:

    The free press part of the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. Actual free speech, not so much.

  267. bh says:

    “about 400 people gathered at the University of Florida in Gainesville to hear Meghan McCain”

    Keep packing them in Meggie Mac. Not to be too egotistical but I’m pretty sure that many people are around most times I buy a paper at the airport.

  268. bh says:

    On the plus side, the New York Times is… how you say… dying.

  269. sdferr says:

    I’ve been sorta hoping some lucky stiffy would talk Megan into making a sextape, then release it somewhere and we might be rid of her for a decade or so. No such luck as yet, but a guy can dream, no?

  270. JD says:

    JCVD just won a Mexican prison fight.

  271. sdferr says:

    rats, she’s got an h

  272. JD says:

    Maybe she plays for the other team, sdferr.

  273. sdferr says:

    Speaking of the Megyn spellings, that one is due back come next Monday. Hoorah.

  274. sdferr says:

    Yer not intending Nawlins by that remark I take it JD. This I do not know. Though even if, t’would do just as well, no? And provide possibly better entertainments to boot.

  275. JD says:

    better entertainments is always a good thing.

    Did you know that St. Louis has excellent Vietnamese foods?

  276. JD says:

    Now, I am going to bed. Ambien works.

  277. sdferr says:

    “Did you know that St. Louis has excellent Vietnamese foods?”

    No, but DC has been quite well equipped for sometime now. I heart it much. Actually, I heart the foods of that entire region of the world.

  278. bh says:

    Dude, I didn’t even know Chicago had excellent Vietnamese food. St. Louis is an airport to me. Was there once for Christmas. Kinda sad, kinda fun to get hammered with strangers.

  279. bh says:

    DC is also an airport, I think you guys make this stuff up, that there are cities attached to the airports.

    ‘Night, guys.

  280. JD says:

    bh – I will take you on a tour of Vietnamese cuisine in the Chi. It is not the suck.

  281. sdferr says:

    S’ok JD, bh, see ya’s mañana

  282. bh says:

    It’s a secret, so don’t tell anyone. Got an offer. Might move to London next month.

  283. B Moe says:

    THIS is an argument that Dems want to have… often and loudly. …we WANT to talk about YOUR support of corporate interests put ahead of the American individual voter.

    Too bad, because WE want to talk about the First Amendment.

  284. B Moe says:

    And by the way, the original bill did nothing to stop Murdoch and Fox from poisoning our minds, James.

  285. Rusty says:

    James. What exactly does the devil look like? And how much did you get for your soul?

  286. Slartibartfast says:

    whose members Roberts and Alito pledged to follow precedent, did the opposite

    I’d like to have this translated to English, please, because it makes absolutely no sense in the language James is speaking.

    But don’t hate James because he’s an ESL kind of guy. I’m sure everything he says will prove out to be 100% accurate and, you know, full of cites, once a decent translation is found.

    I’m also sure there’s a genius Bananas Foster recipe hidden somewhere in the Qu’ran.

  287. Slartibartfast says:

    Different subject: JCVD may be not so good as an actor and may be famous for acting in martial arts films that almost literally ooze cliche, but at least he’s not an overweight, hemp-wearing stunt-double-double like Seagal is, these days. I mean, I am pretty sure that JCVD can still kick most people in the head.

    Acting-wise, they’re nearly a tie. Who watches those movies for the acting, though?

    Seagal can probably twist me into a pretzel, but I’d probably make him run first, and it’s less easy to twist someone’s arm off at the shoulder while you’re puking up a few quarts of doughnut upside-down cake.

  288. Slartibartfast says:

    Dunno why my comments have this common food theme running through them.

    I scream in frustration.

  289. Jeff G. says:

    I bought JCVD on Blu-ray. Haven’t watched it yet, but I hear that Jean Claude gives an Oscar-worthy performance.

    No, I’m not kidding.

  290. LBascom says:

    Who would think you are kidding?

    I mean, Obama won a Nobel…

  291. Slartibartfast says:

    You ever hear about how Chuck Zito kicked Van Damme’s ass?

    Zito seemed to want everyone to believe that. A lot. Not that it’s unbelievable, but when people keep telling you over and over, earnestly, whose ass they kicked, you gotta wonder just what they have invested in you believing it.

  292. […] This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind. — Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School Hat Tip Protein Wisdom […]

  293. Jeff G is wrong... again says:

    “Since 1974, federal law has banned foreign companies from giving or spending in American elections. Nothing in our current laws, however, explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies and using them to flood the airwaves in support of their preferred candidates. Citizens United gives companies unlimited power to do that – and does not distinguish between American companies and companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests.”
    – Sen. Al Franken, who just announced bill to keep foreign interests out of US elections

    Care to debate this bill, wingnuts? aye????

  294. happyfeet says:

    you want the little president man to bar foreign funding of campaigns? too cute

  295. JD says:

    The trolls are really tiresome. Funny how they now profess to care about foreign money in the process, now. Credit card verification?

    Why do you hate the 1st Amendment, troll?