Like an overhead projector? That you'd write on with erasable marker? That's just nuts! The past really is another country.
Also... what is with those various strike-spare animations? They are different at various alleys and a lot of them seem like they came right out of a crack hallucination.
I agree it was legal and I even agree it wasn't a great look which is kind of the Clintons in a nutshell. I just think you're projecting and exaggerating most of the alleged nefariousness of it. What it boils down to is that the Clintons caused billions of dollars to flow to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have. No one has been able to demonstrate any actual corrupt acts, any corrupt exchanges -the right just spins it up in their imagination; asserts it's true and then, jaw droppingly, try to one up on it when in power. It worked so well against the Clintons because they’d always been very skeevy but we’ve watched them throw it at every left wing political figure since: Biden; Bernie and, idiotically, even at Barrak fishin Obama (who is virtually the exact opposite of the Clintons both for good- he’s squeaky clean, and for ill- he’s always seemed to disdain retail politicking).
And that's where I bridle at the whole mess of it. You don't get to blame W's trillion-dollar war adventures or the way supporting his massive deficit spending obliterated libertarianism and neoconservatism in the hearts of the masses on Bill Clintons antics in the 90's. The neocons and the libertarians let W discredit them themselves. You don't get to blame Trump hollowing the GOP out and wearing it like a skin suit while being a convicted fraudster and nakedly (and legally convicted) being corrupt on Hillary Clintons behavior as Sec of state*. The GOP and conservatives sold their souls on that on their own.
And you sure as fish don’t get to blame the things Trump is doing now on the fishin’ Clintons- they’ve been off the scene for almost a decade now. Economic Sanity? The Clintons epitomized it and dragged the left along. Ethics? The Clintons committed appearances of impropriety but the right has convicted and unabashed corruption. And the Clintons never provoked constitutional crises and the GOP under Trump is churning it out on the weekly.
*Though anyone and everyone is entitled to blame her for losing to him. God(ess) damn it Hill, you. Had. One. Job.
To be clear the little pleasure in this case is Stefanik's discomfiture; expecting a seat out of those districts isn't something you celebrate unless it's in hand.
First, your timeline is completely backwards since the pardons under Bill Clinton came a decade and change before the private server so unless HRC was time travelling the one couldn't have been in the service of the other.
Second, I simply am pointing out how you keep descending into talking about speculative or perceived Clinton crimes in response to genuine, convicted and materially factual right wing crimes.
I don't need to claim the Clintons are pure as the driven snow to observe that their the vast majority of their alleged crimes exist, overwhelmingly, as a matter of right wing spin and imagination and that is not, remotely, equivalent to crimes by their right wing counterparts that have been tried in court, convicted and sentenced.
I mean I lay the blame for HRC's loss on HRC first and foremost but the GOP did string it out through long drawn out investigations and the hypocrisy is shocking.
I'll also note that you have this amusing tic vis a vis the Clintons where, when a right wing figure is literally convicted in a court of law or otherwise caught red handed in something you shrug it off and then wax rhapsodic into speculative tea leaf reading about unsubstantiated crimes the Clintons are alleged to have committed to somehow balance it out.
Also, full credit, the idea that Clinton was running a private email server just like Colin Powel did before her so she could sell pardons (so Obama then was selling pardons? Really??) is a new and entertaining one for me.
Just that. From the article at the end of the first paragraph where he shifted to talking about the gay angle. "Gay men didn’t start acting straighter; straight people started acting like us."
Looks like the only connection is that the author is gay and is comparing how straight dating has become more like gay dating- whether women acknowledge that or not.
Well Schumer said he's support cloture but that he wouldn't whip in favor of it. If he himself and a couple other Senators vote yes on Cloture but it doesn't hit 60 then that could, potentially, be the best position to be going into a shut down. But if Matty and a couple other folks are correct that the shut down, in of itself, plays into Trump and the Muskrats hands it could by a pyric victory.
I got MattY's analysis too and it did give me pause. Seeing one of my favorite socialists and one of my favorite fanatic Republicans both saying he's wrong suggests his analysis has some merit to it so I do feel marginally better.
The continuing resolutions of the past were, by and large, simply a continuation of the status quos. Inviting the GOP to vote for them was an invitation to the GOP to lose nothing. This CR is full of items the GOP loves and the Dems hate. Voting for it is naked surrender to extortion. If Schumer had the spine that God(ess?) gave a jellyfish he'd have whipped a no vote and told the GOP to do what they would in the shutdown, own the results and come back to him when they were ready to offer a typical CR. This is pretty naked surrender to extortion on Schumers part and I haven't read anything from him that suggests he's avoiding anything Trump and the Muskrats wouldn't do anyhow. Looks like near total surrender to me and I have tried earnestly to give Schumer the benefit of the doubt in the past. What's he going to surrender on next?
Was more tongue in cheek than anything. I have a vague feeling like the West Coast liberal zone is somewhat more nimble than the East Coast liberal zone in adapting so it doesn't surprise me that San Fran is moving faster.
I'm willing to hold my fire until they actually vote yes, personally. If they go "no position" right up to the 11th hour and then vote no on cloture; basically a Sen. Collins stunt if they include some footsie; then I will have nothing but nice things to say about 'em.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
Is that before or after he tries to migrate Social Security off its legacy systems and onto newer ones in the course of a couple months?
https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-administration-cobol-benefits/
On “Weekend Plans Post: Pantherine Vandals”
What cat isn't?
On “Bowling — Balling Up the Score”
Heh, my "enjoyment" of bowling is so marginal it'd easily tip it into a "nope, never wanna do it no matter how good the company is" mindset.
On “Martin Niemöller, and Who First They Came For”
Yes it's very well done! Good on you DavidTC!
On “Bowling — Balling Up the Score”
Okay automated pin setters make a lot of sense- could you imagine paying for pin boys?
"
Like an overhead projector? That you'd write on with erasable marker? That's just nuts! The past really is another country.
Also... what is with those various strike-spare animations? They are different at various alleys and a lot of them seem like they came right out of a crack hallucination.
On “Don’t Go Torching Cyber Trucks”
Well done.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
I agree it was legal and I even agree it wasn't a great look which is kind of the Clintons in a nutshell. I just think you're projecting and exaggerating most of the alleged nefariousness of it. What it boils down to is that the Clintons caused billions of dollars to flow to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have. No one has been able to demonstrate any actual corrupt acts, any corrupt exchanges -the right just spins it up in their imagination; asserts it's true and then, jaw droppingly, try to one up on it when in power. It worked so well against the Clintons because they’d always been very skeevy but we’ve watched them throw it at every left wing political figure since: Biden; Bernie and, idiotically, even at Barrak fishin Obama (who is virtually the exact opposite of the Clintons both for good- he’s squeaky clean, and for ill- he’s always seemed to disdain retail politicking).
And that's where I bridle at the whole mess of it. You don't get to blame W's trillion-dollar war adventures or the way supporting his massive deficit spending obliterated libertarianism and neoconservatism in the hearts of the masses on Bill Clintons antics in the 90's. The neocons and the libertarians let W discredit them themselves. You don't get to blame Trump hollowing the GOP out and wearing it like a skin suit while being a convicted fraudster and nakedly (and legally convicted) being corrupt on Hillary Clintons behavior as Sec of state*. The GOP and conservatives sold their souls on that on their own.
And you sure as fish don’t get to blame the things Trump is doing now on the fishin’ Clintons- they’ve been off the scene for almost a decade now. Economic Sanity? The Clintons epitomized it and dragged the left along. Ethics? The Clintons committed appearances of impropriety but the right has convicted and unabashed corruption. And the Clintons never provoked constitutional crises and the GOP under Trump is churning it out on the weekly.
*Though anyone and everyone is entitled to blame her for losing to him. God(ess) damn it Hill, you. Had. One. Job.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
To be clear the little pleasure in this case is Stefanik's discomfiture; expecting a seat out of those districts isn't something you celebrate unless it's in hand.
"
Also Trump and the Muskrats would be, presumably, walking and talking a lot softer if they knew that excessive clowning would get them snap elections.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
First, your timeline is completely backwards since the pardons under Bill Clinton came a decade and change before the private server so unless HRC was time travelling the one couldn't have been in the service of the other.
Second, I simply am pointing out how you keep descending into talking about speculative or perceived Clinton crimes in response to genuine, convicted and materially factual right wing crimes.
I don't need to claim the Clintons are pure as the driven snow to observe that their the vast majority of their alleged crimes exist, overwhelmingly, as a matter of right wing spin and imagination and that is not, remotely, equivalent to crimes by their right wing counterparts that have been tried in court, convicted and sentenced.
"
Oh no heheh.
"
I mean I lay the blame for HRC's loss on HRC first and foremost but the GOP did string it out through long drawn out investigations and the hypocrisy is shocking.
I'll also note that you have this amusing tic vis a vis the Clintons where, when a right wing figure is literally convicted in a court of law or otherwise caught red handed in something you shrug it off and then wax rhapsodic into speculative tea leaf reading about unsubstantiated crimes the Clintons are alleged to have committed to somehow balance it out.
Also, full credit, the idea that Clinton was running a private email server just like Colin Powel did before her so she could sell pardons (so Obama then was selling pardons? Really??) is a new and entertaining one for me.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
Yeah good point, basically a very mild version of the delusions John Warnock Hinckley Jr. entertained in the 80's.
"
Just that. From the article at the end of the first paragraph where he shifted to talking about the gay angle. "Gay men didn’t start acting straighter; straight people started acting like us."
"
Err, no, this is Chait- he has no confusion at all about why the right does the various things it does.
"
As usual he's right.
"
Looks like the only connection is that the author is gay and is comparing how straight dating has become more like gay dating- whether women acknowledge that or not.
"
Agreed.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Well Schumer said he's support cloture but that he wouldn't whip in favor of it. If he himself and a couple other Senators vote yes on Cloture but it doesn't hit 60 then that could, potentially, be the best position to be going into a shut down. But if Matty and a couple other folks are correct that the shut down, in of itself, plays into Trump and the Muskrats hands it could by a pyric victory.
"
I got MattY's analysis too and it did give me pause. Seeing one of my favorite socialists and one of my favorite fanatic Republicans both saying he's wrong suggests his analysis has some merit to it so I do feel marginally better.
"
The continuing resolutions of the past were, by and large, simply a continuation of the status quos. Inviting the GOP to vote for them was an invitation to the GOP to lose nothing. This CR is full of items the GOP loves and the Dems hate. Voting for it is naked surrender to extortion. If Schumer had the spine that God(ess?) gave a jellyfish he'd have whipped a no vote and told the GOP to do what they would in the shutdown, own the results and come back to him when they were ready to offer a typical CR. This is pretty naked surrender to extortion on Schumers part and I haven't read anything from him that suggests he's avoiding anything Trump and the Muskrats wouldn't do anyhow. Looks like near total surrender to me and I have tried earnestly to give Schumer the benefit of the doubt in the past. What's he going to surrender on next?
On “Of Amtrak, AI, and Arguing About Trains on the Interwebs”
Was more tongue in cheek than anything. I have a vague feeling like the West Coast liberal zone is somewhat more nimble than the East Coast liberal zone in adapting so it doesn't surprise me that San Fran is moving faster.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
I'm willing to hold my fire until they actually vote yes, personally. If they go "no position" right up to the 11th hour and then vote no on cloture; basically a Sen. Collins stunt if they include some footsie; then I will have nothing but nice things to say about 'em.
"
Heck I imaging the current GOP would declare it bipartisan with one vote.