Had a busy weekend, hardly any time for the internet, but I was on Twitter for awhile on Friday night, and came across a tweet by lesbifeminist of color Pam Spaudling of Pam’s House Blend:
@Pam_Spaulding: – Iowa U.S. Senator Tom Harkin now supports marriage equality. http://bit.ly/ju4li || Suck it, fundies.
I mean, wow. I had several things to say about the matter; here’s one:
@Pam_Spaulding Imagine if we’d all been tweeting, Prop 8 passes in Cali, SUCK ON IT, LESBIANS! That’d be kinda hatey, don’t you think?
But they don’t get it, of course. I also ran across SEK, who sees nothing wrong with $3 billion in funding for ACORN’s no-bid contract to “help” with the census, echoing Michael Falcone, who thinks that Republicans are spending an “inordinate amount of time obsessing about it.”
Meanwhile, it’s occurring to more and more people that the administration’s attempt to investigate only the White House legal advisors who wrote opinions regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA in the wake of 9-11 has something to do with covering of asses, as it becomes clearer and clearer from memos that Nan Pelosi and many others in Congress were briefed multiple times about enhanced interrogation techniques. I wrote about it, here, and Jules Crittenden has a great round-up about it, here.
Via Moe Lane, linking Serr8d at the Pub, comes Scared Monkeys’ reflection on Scare Force One:
So Ann [Althouse] asks the next most obvious question, “Maybe the pilot took a photograph, but that can’t have been the purpose of the flight. So JAL has the right question: Who was in Air Force 1?†I idea is that since the photo was so bad at such a cost, maybe there was an alternative motive as to why Air Force One was there is the first place. Since the official review of the fiasco, seen HERE, created more questions than answered … It’s time to release the manifest.
I think maybe Serr8d should doctor that photo to have bombs dropping out the bottom.
Wait, I thought no-bid contracts were teh evil?
I’m so confused.
An increasingly common theme among those with common themes.
The word “obsess” especially. With another word about time, repetition, “go on and on,” “always,” etc., right by it, working — working enough — as its proof.
To notice a thing and say “bad thing” takes very little time, doesn’t it? And to do it many times, not much. But it’s hard to swing the heavy words of psychopathy at noticing.
Or, it should be hard. But it isn’t. You can just lie. People enjoy that.
A shared dishonesty — especially one that all who share in it know is so fragilely kept that they can’t even acknowledge its falsity to each other — is a deep bonding experience.
That Althouse! She’s noticed, like, three things in just the last couple days. Her madness seems to be escalating. She may need an intervention. Some therapy. Gang-therapy. So she won’t hurt herself.
Let’s watch.
Good idea! He might could get an A for that.
Actually, it’s about two weeks past the time that manifest ought to have been released. What the hell is there to hide?
Who the fuck cares what he thinks about anything? He’s a toady, a lickspittle, a fascist-in-waiting.
The real purpose of the flyby was a dry run for attempting a repeat of 9/11 by the O administration, so O could then justify expanding federal power over citizens, and to give him political cover to continue the efforts in Afghanistan, and to push into Pakistan.
Right? An inside job, right? Hello?
No, it was most likely a junket, a favor for the very best-est of the best-est supporters. A campaign perk on our dime which is not kosher or legal and so a cover story was dreamed up.
Too bad they just didn’t do a photo shoot along with the junket. It is my opinion that the photo shoot story was a hurried and inelegant cover-up, made up after the fact. A badly done lie is worse than saying nothing at all. It will lead to many more badly done and inconsistent lies.
I hate when that happens. Hosing off my truck’s undercarriage afterward is a real pain.
Did SEK have a roommate who was in ACORN? That would make him an expert in the subject, you know.
Serious question: Why would anyone want to investigate the lawyers who wrote opinions concerning the legality of “enhanced interrogation?” Writing a brief does not constitute taking a decision; it is simply the presentation of an option to the decision-takers, options they have the ability to accept or reject. Even if the opinions presented were wrong, bad law, whatever you want to call them, does the Administration really want to start criminalizing the writing of a flawed legal brief?
What kind of bombs?
If by “flawed” you mean “positions they disagree with” then yes, yes they do.