Shrub Watch
June 02, 2004
Clinton vs. The Shrubs

Update 6/5/04 - No, nobody got a clip, and, seemingly, nobody cares.
I also heard Clinton say a couple days ago during some publicity for his book that he "liked" daddy Shrub. So it could have all been in fun anyway.

Hey did anybody grab the clip of Clinton getting pushed by daddy shrub at the WWII Memorial last weekend? This is all I heard about it.

Thanks!!

lisa

Bush I pushes Clinton by kos Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:22:31 EDT

Hmmm, I wasn't watching the WWII Memorial ceremony, but apparently there was a bit of jostling around. Reef the Dog reports in the Open Thread comments:
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43's face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don't know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I'm not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.
I wonder what happened...

Here is the complete thread of:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/29/162231/064

Bush I pushes Clinton
by kos
Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:22:31 EDT

Hmmm, I wasn't watching the WWII Memorial ceremony, but apparently there was a bit of jostling around. Reef the Dog reports in the Open Thread comments:
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43's face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don't know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I'm not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.
I wonder what happened...

Misc ::


Display:
Bush I pushes Clinton | 190 comments (190 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
That was crazy (none / 1)

I saw that as well. I wonder what that was all about.

by BryanRI on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:26:42 EDT

description (none / 1)

Can someone who saw it describe it in more detail? Did Bush I look angry? What was Clinton's expression when he wagged his finger? I hope someone tells us what he was saying. Maybe the mic was on.

Don't understand NY politics? Try The Nor'Easter
by jd in nyc on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:45:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

I saw it (none / 0)

before it happened I was gawking at Clinton there chatting with W, didn't notice Bush I at first because his back was toward the camera a bit. Then they were laughing a bit about something, and Bush I shoved Clinton like you might shove a brother making a good natured joke about you. However, the little group broke up at that moment with W walking off in that "opportunity" sort of way one dodges out of a conversation at a party.

- pyrrho
by pyrrho on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 01:05:08 EDT
[ Parent ]

I think we're reaching a bit here (3.50 / 2)

I saw it also. I thought it looked like good natured banter between members of the Club of Presidents. Bush I has always appeared a bit awkward. I think he probably made a playful physical guy contact, but with a bit more force than he intended. End of story.

by rusrivman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:45:12 EDT
[ Parent ]

If Clinton wagged (none / 0)

his fucking finger in my face, I'd shove him, too. Both are very belligerant body language. But I wonder what Jr said to provoke Billy's finger wagging.

George's classmates on his performance at Harvard, "...completely out of his depth." (and two decades of drug and alcohol abuse haven't helped any.)
by NorCalJim on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:46:59 EDT
[ Parent ]

If I were standing face to face (4.00 / 2)

with Dubya, I'd wag more than my finger in his face. Good for Clinton! I hope he was threatening Dubya, something along the lines of, "I've got more CIA pull than you do as president, and when I'm through making phone calls you won't even have time to clean up the empty beer cans before you leave the WH!" After which, Poppy said, "yeah, we'll see who's got more CIA pull, asshole," and he pushed Clinton.

"And Orwell's hell, a terror era coming through. But this little brother's watching you too" -Zack de la Rocha, Voice Of The Voiceless
by Subterranean on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:55:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'll put my money... (3.50 / 2)

on the Clenis. Can we get the Bush twins to hold the "Round x" signs?

by Roastbeef on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:27:37 EDT

Hmmm (3.50 / 2)

Maybe you have the players wrong. Knowing Bill, he might have "gone a round" with the Bush twins, and Grandpappy found out. ;)

by ElitistJohn on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:00:26 EDT
[ Parent ]

ROFL! (none / 0)

Were there any threesomes?

by davybaby3 on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 01:38:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

I wonder if we'll ever know ... (none / 1)

or if we'll ever see the picture shown again on the news ...

If we do, I bet Olberman will be the one to show it ...

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:27:53 EDT

or... (none / 1)

or Jon Stewart

by runchadrun on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:28:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0)

I was thinking 'news' ... but since Stewart tells it like it is better than the 'not-fake' news programs ...

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:31:11 EDT
[ Parent ]

Daily Show (none / 0)

Anyone know when they're coming back? This is a HORRIBLE time to be in reruns.

Maryscott O'Connor -- Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.
by Maryscott OConnor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:09:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Probably Monday or Tuesday (none / 0)

I can't remember them ever being gone for more than two weeks, except maybe after September 11, and that's how long it's been. Memorial Day may push it to Tuesday, but I doubt it'll be much longer.

It better not, anyway. I'm going through withdrawal pains over here.

It's not that I disagree with Bush's economic policy or his foreign policy, it's that I believed he was a child of Satan sent to destroy the planet Earth. -BH
by Ben Grimm on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:34:38 EDT
[ Parent ]

This is normal... (none / 0)

...they took a break this long at the same time last year. Look for them to be back Tuesday.

Do not adjust your mind, it's reality that is malfunctioning.
by Alumbrados on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:34:43 EDT
[ Parent ]

Faithful Tivo says... (none / 0)

June 1. Just started watching the reruns again and nearly fell off my couch when McCain came out and started looking under the cushions for that chart that Rummy forgot.

by sujal on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:15:37 EDT
[ Parent ]

Ot, but most relevant (3.00 / 4)

In honor of this holiday I share with you Sir Karl Popper :

A few reasons why Karl Popper is obscure and unknown while the totalitarian philosophers he debunked (Karl Marx, Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, etc) are still widely known with easily available literature is that the people who would use us, much like hitler used the masses. is because we want to trust our leaders, however time and time again we are disillusioned.

"Most of all, those early Americans understood that liberty is fragile. To give any distant body of elites the power to tax and spend to stay in power promises corruption and a Leviathan government more interested in concentrating power for itself than in protecting the rights of its citizens."

Plato asks: "who should rule?"
Popper asks: "how can we minimize the damage a ruler can do?"

"Bertrand Russell described this study, with its companion volume on Plato, as ' a work of first-class importance which ought to be widely read for its masterly criticism of the enemies of democracy, ancient and modern. His (Popper's) attack on Plato, while unorthodox, is in my opinion thoroughly justified. His analysis of Hegel is deadly. Marx is dissected with equal acumen, and given his due share of responsibility for modern misfortunes. The book is a vigorous and profound defence of democracy, timely, very interesting, and very well written."

"The vital question is not 'Who should rule?' but 'How can we minimize misrule?"
-Sir Karl Popper "The Open Society and Its Enemies"

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*
by thor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:31:35 EDT

Popper (none / 0)

He surely should be added to the wiki.

by filchyboy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:36:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

Popper Debunked Aristotle? (none / 0)

Where does Popper debunk Aristotle? I don't remember him doing this anywhere. If it's in "The Open Society" -- and I do not recall any attack on Aristotle in that work -- I'm not sure any attack on the perfectly sane political views of Aristotle could amount to a debunking.

by lysias on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:02:45 EDT
[ Parent ]

I think Popper's allergy... (none / 0)

...to historicism (as he uses the term) caused him to bristle at the mechanistic cycle from monarchy through aristocracy and democracy back to monarchy that can be got out of the Politics.

The necessity and inevitabilty of it would strike him as dangerous, and an entry point for totalitarianism.

He does go upside Plato's head, big time.

And as for what he did to Hegel -- when Sir Karl was done, you coulda sent what was left of the old Prussian fraud home in a manila envelope.

Patria est ubicumque bene. "Their 'Homeland' is wherever they can turn a buck." Cicero, Tusculan Disputations.
by Otis Noman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:34 EDT
[ Parent ]

aristotle (none / 0)

NFNB aristotle definitely errs on the side of the programmatic in his Poetics, too. Worthy of critique, though perhaps not in this forum.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:30:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

Soros is a big admirer of Popper (4.00 / 2)

In his book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Soros has quite a bit to say about Popper and his ideas. Apparently Popper is for him the pre-eminent 20th century philosopher.

Simuilarly, an obscure right-wing pholospher named Leo Strauss apparently inspired the neocons. See this month's Harpers. Both sides have their "modern" philosophers for intellectual propping-up.

Popper is as sound as Strauss is suspect. For a philospher, Popper is remarkably humble and pragmatic. He doesn't get taken in by messianic ideas, and his intentions are simple and noble. He is also very readable. Strauss, like so many ideologues whose thinking is really quite reprehensible once you understand it, goes to great lengths in his writing to obfuscate what he's actually saying so only his true disciples will be able to figure it out.

I think that's a basic distinction between liberal vs. reactionary behavior -- the willingness, or lack thereof, to come clean and say what you mean, openly -- and be judged by it. Do your ideas, clearly and brashly stated, stink? It should be a test every news pundit has to pass.


"The universe is a sphere whose center is wherever there is intelligence." -Thoreau
by samizdat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:16:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

as much as like Soros (none / 1)

I'd much rather Deleuze be the philosophical base of the next left. We'll I suppose their is room for more then 2...


American Dynamics || from the land of the free, politics by design
by Abe on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:04:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

wicked! (none / 1)

The terrorists are already deterritorialized, so we had better step up.

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:28:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Frightening stuff (none / 0)

20 years ago I read a critique of liberal arts departments by John Sawhill. His thesis was that in 1953 liberal arts departments and colleges (the source of rigorous and creative thinking)began the gutting of their first rate minds in an rush for corporate money in applied science departments.

Last night I was doing a survey of Straussian teachers throughout academia and found that much of the vacuum in those departments has been filled (I suspect, intentionally) by the Staussian movement. Those of us who are concerned about the education of our best young liberal minds need to attend to this and start to push for a new strain of genuinely rigorous intellectual persuit. On their brilliance and rigor, no one can question the merits of the Straussians. The direction of their thinking and teaching is another matter entirely, and something to be very concerned about.

by tikkun on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:13:10 EDT
[ Parent ]

Come again? (none / 0)

On their brilliance and rigor, no one can question the merits of the Straussians.

Actually, the merits of the Straussians can most certainly be questioned, and it frequently is criticized, at least in some (and hopefully most) quarters of the humanities.

"You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound
by machopicasso on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:56:29 EDT
[ Parent ]

cf, "Wittgenstein's Poker" (none / 0)

Popper sets up two-dimensional "straw" philosophers throughout the history of philosophy, and knocks them over with a one-dimensional argument. He shuddah stuck with falsification theory and science.

by Mekiah on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:30:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Popper's Not The Best (none / 1)

Popper's an interesting case, but far from the best that modern philosophy can offer. He & his students did a real hatchet job on Thomas Kuhn, after The Structure of Scientific Revolutions came out, and they pretty pretty much knocked the wind out of his sails. So, while the idea of a paradigm shift went on to become one of the major memes of our time, the hard work of making his insight rigorous and useful has never really been done.

What makes Popper really culpable here is that he claimed to be a defender of science, and a severe critic of the Platonic idealist strain in philosophy. But when Kuhn came along with a scientific approach to understanding how science works (history of science as an empirical study), Popper and his circle lambasted him, saying that science couldn't possibly work that way--arguing from how they thought it had to work. They really took a fundamentalist-style approach to defending science, rather than using science self-critically to understand science.

What really ticked them off, for example, was the idea that not just history, but sociology (horror of horrors) might have something significant to say about how science works. How dare a still-underdeveloped "soft" science presume to tell us something about how a crowning "hard" science like physics is or should be done? Better by far to simply rely on their armchair speculations.

In short, Popper's much better within the narrow bounds of Big-P philosophy than he is in integrating it into the rest of the world.

A far better approach (to politics as well as philosophy of science), IMHO, derives from William James, whose work in psychology and philosophy influenced each other profoundly. He is much more consistent than Popper in opposing totalitarian tendencies. This includes being much less cartoon-like in characterizing those he disagrees with.

Let's put the information back in the information age.
by Paul Rosenberg on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:15:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Kuhn is not a scientist (none / 1)

He is a historian of science and a sociologist. And much of his Structure of Scientific Revolutions just passed Sir Karl Popper by, which is unfortunate because I believe Popper is, after Wittgenstein, the most important of 20th century philosophers.

Kuhn was describing science as it happens at the average graduate school or industrial lab. For the most part in those places you are not acting in the classical inductive model - gathering evidence and then drawing conclusions. Instead you are working through an assigned problem governed by the conventional assumptions of your field. In Kuhn's terms, now sadly debased, you are working within a paradigm, solving problems in that paradigm's own terms. Results that don't fit are generally dismissed as failures of technique, it is not your job to push back at the frontiers of science, it is your job to find a more efficient catalyst to do something or other.

In Popper's world every scientist is Einstein. In reality there have been tens of thousands of MS theses that were the result of some Professor assigning some hapless Grad Student to study the effects of adding C to B as compared to the old method of adding A to B. Most science is cookbook science, and only rarely, and by rare people, does the recipe book get torn up and re-written. Resulting in the consequent Paradigm Shift.

There are reference books that actually track how many references to a particular book or article are made in peer reviewed journals. Back when I was running the BAKER Document Delivery Service at UC Berkeley (about 87-90) Kuhn was the number one cited source in the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index), but I suspected then and I suspect now that most of those people actually never read the book but instead lifted the incredibly cool term "paradigm shift" and cited Kuhn as cover.

But enough rambling. Read Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies" (and note it does not attack Aristotle openly) and Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". They are among the most important books of the 20th century.

by Bruce Webb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:53:21 EDT
[ Parent ]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT (3.00 / 2)

Now that's what I'm talking about! That's an image I want to see. Daddy physically protecting Junior! Prove's whose the man. I'd bet GW was praying for God to smite Clenis just after that.

Link Anyone?

$7 Trillion in Debt, 2.6 Million out of work, and they're worried about a few thousand gay marriage Licenses?
by Steven R on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:35:03 EDT

Staged? (none / 1)

Is this some attempt by Poppy and Poopy to cause some kind of mini-Wellstone memorial to make the Democrats look bad?

by JamesB3 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:37:00 EDT

Who looks bad? (none / 0)

How come you think Clinton looks bad when Bush 41 loses his temper and pushes him?

Maybe daddy was taking credit for building the memorial that Clinton approved?

"I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."
by SteinL on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:41:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Media will make Bushies look good. (none / 0)

by JamesB3 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:47:07 EDT
[ Parent ]

No f'n way they can, (none / 0)

a single-handed shove is jesting. Two-handed is a challenge, and a threat. This is Poppy losing it.

"Never mind the trick, what the hell's the point?" Joseph Heller, Catch-22
by wozzle on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:07:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Ummm (none / 0)

The "liberal" media will find a way.

by jfern on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:22:16 EDT
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't surprise me if... (3.66 / 6)

Clinton said something like "you're gonna get beat worse than your Daddy did" to George WPE.

How do you define security?
by PSoTD on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:42:33 EDT

We've got to get a copy of this! (none / 1)

Someone must have a recording of this thing on TIVO or something. I'm dying to see it!

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:43:25 EDT

C-SPAN will re-air (none / 0)

the dedication ceremony circa 8 o'clock p.m. Eastern time, according to its schedule.


-- Bush is such an Adam Clymer!
by rhubarb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:48:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Republican? (none / 0)

Again with that sig! You do know there's a Democrat running against Musgrave, don't you? Or is this some subtle form of trolling I'm not familiar with?

http://www.stan2004.com/

íViva Democracy for America!
by ubikkibu on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:52:33 EDT
[ Parent ]

So what there's a democrat? (3.50 / 2)

OK, so there's a democrat running. Big deal.

Faust is more progressive than Matsunaka, and, because of the low turnout in the primaries, could potentially have a better shot at unseating Musgrave than Matsunaka. The GOP is not going to give that seat up without a huge fight.

I'm not a partisan; I'm looking to see the best person in office, regardless of what party they're in.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:12:37 EDT
[ Parent ]

I don't consider myself a partisan per se (none / 0)

BUT, there is an urgent need to get dem majority in congress (doable but challenging). If for nothing else than to have a damage control contingency in the inprobable event that bush somehow gets (re)elected.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:27:44 EDT
[ Parent ]

I agree with that in general ... (3.50 / 2)

... but why are y'all bothering to take shots at this guy for his sig line? Leave the poor guy alone - he supports a moderate republican. So what? It wasn't even the content of any his posts.

by AdamW on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:05 EDT
[ Parent ]

I understand... (none / 0)

what you're getting at, and I'm hoping for the Dems to take control of the Senate. That's possible.

The dems are not going to get control of the House this year; I don't think there's any possibility of it.

Furthermore, what's the worst case here? Faust loses, but beats up on Musgrave, while ignoring Matsunaka. OK, well that's good for the Dems, isn't it, because now Matsunaka has a better chance at winning.

Or, Faust beats Musgrave. Well that's good too, isn't it? (1) Faust is a progressive (2) Matsunaka probably has better chances against Faust, a novice, than he does against Musgrave, who's got the entire GOP party establishment all the way up to Bush behind her.

This is a win-win for progressives.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:35:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

I will agree with you on that (none / 0)

if faust beats musgrave in primary than the race is a far site better for it. so why not support BOTH of them? And I'm not beatin you up or anything but it'd be sweet victory to reclaim the district from a rabid conservative.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:08 EDT
[ Parent ]

limited resources (none / 0)

I've got limited resources.

If Faust loses, I'll support Matsunaka. In the meantime, I'm not letting Musgrave take even her primary for granted.

Most of the politically active people in CO that I've talked to (or got info from indirectly), even some high profile Dems, think that booting her in the primary is the best bet. No one turns out to vote in these things, you don't have to motivate very many people to vote for you to win.

Furthermore, if we get rid of Musgrave in the primary, we can concentrate on getting rid of worse people like Tancredo.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:50:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

House Taken by Democrats? (none / 0)

It's too soon to say whether the Democrats can take the House. But even Republicans are seriously concerned in the under-the-radar shift accompanying Bushit's screwups and his public lying against the mounting evidence that he's serail war criminal.

Roublicans in Congress do have to worry about an electorate is looking also at those who helped Bushit lie the US into Iraq.

It's also those huge tax cuts and the threats to social programs (other than corporate welfare) and jobs.

Too soon to unequivocally assert that the Democarts can't take the House this year. Sorta along the lines that the Democarts would retain control as result of the 1994 mid-terms.


A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain
by jnagarya on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 06:25:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

You beat me to it. (none / 0)

At first I thought maybe another dem was running against musgrave but nay. Unless he wants musgrave outted in primary? Or maybe he's one of those DispairDems that think no Dem will ever win in CO CD4 so better to support a non-rabid Republican.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:13:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

or maybe ... (none / 0)

... he's not a democrat, and just is choosing the person he sees best fit for the job. I know it's really hard to believe there may be independents who come to DailyKos, but try to imagine it.

by AdamW on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:29:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

you've got a point (none / 0)

yes he might not be a Dem and that's okay. But I do feel there is a group within the democratic party I like to call DispairDems and I haven't had a chance to use that term in a sentence and couldn't pass it up. :)


by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:45:47 EDT
[ Parent ]

Or maybe... (4.00 / 5)

... I want Musgrave out and the best person in.

Being a democrat doesn't automatically make you the best candidate.

I also give Faust credit for having some balls. The Dems had to beg and plead with a dozen different people for six months before they could find someone who was willing to run. All of the people they approached before Matsunaka were afraid of Musgrave.

Faust was willing to go out on a limb on his own. That's admirable.

All of this lame Demo-partisanship is no better than the lame GOP-partisanship. Party partisans are the downfall of this country. Start voting for the right people, not people who have the "right" party name. (rolling eyes)

Or, maybe you can explain why I should be a Democrat-partisan in this race. Because so far all you guys have said is "there's a democrat running..." as if that means anything. Zell Miller is a democrat too.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:54 EDT
[ Parent ]

Look at Faust's website-- (none / 0)

From Bob Faust's website, he supports re-introducing an Equal Rights Amendment which includes sexual orientation. And he supports a national universal healthcare program. On these positions, Faust appears to be to the left of Kerry. In the unlikely event Faust gets elected, he appears likely to vote with the Democrats on many issues. Maybe it's about time some Republicans emerge to challenge their party's extreme social conservatism.

by bernalman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:31:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

A vote for ANY Repub is a vote for Tom Delay (none / 0)

Thats why any Dem is better than any Repub.

Its because our system is NOT one of proportional representation. ALL of the power in the House goes to whichever party has the majority and elects the Speaker. Moderate republican? Only when their vote doesnt really count. If it comes down to a party line vote they will go with their leader every time and that guy happens to be Tom Delay.

SO, sure, in a best of all possible worlds I might agree that some Repubs are better than some Dems. But that isnt the system we are faced with here and to pretend otherwise is to give one more vote to Tom Delay.

Steven Kyle
by sck5 on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:30:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Then get rid of Delay (none / 0)

Then work on getting rid of Tom Delay, don't become a blind partisan.

If you don't care about the issues or voting for the best person, then why bother to follow politics at all? Just put your blinders on and tick the box next to every democrat's name on election day, then go back to watching your sitcoms on TV.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 15:17:18 EDT
[ Parent ]

How patronizing (none / 0)

So if someone disagrees with you on tactics then they watch sitcoms? Puhleez.

And I AM working to get rid of Delay - That is exactly my point. I just think that there are more ways to do that than just one.

It is because I DO care about the issues that I would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of him. And if this year that means going into the booth and blindly voting the straight Democratic line, then sign me up. No apologies for that from me. Three and a half years of Bush have made me reconsider the idea of voting against Dems because I dont quite like everything they say.

Steven Kyle
by sck5 on Mon May 31st, 2004 at 04:30:52 EDT
[ Parent ]

But clearly... (none / 0)

you are not concerned about the issues if you are ignoring the candidates and just concentrating on party lines.

Zell Miller for President!

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 11:30:17 EDT
[ Parent ]

What makes us better than repubs (none / 0)

.... if we vote strictly on party lines.
I would vote for an Arlen Specter type in heartbeat, over a Zell Miller type.
And as much as it would be great to control the Senate / H of Rep. I would much rather prefer a number of moderates (irrespective of their party)
than a bunch of blind partisans. Look at the repubs now that they control everything,
they have turned into yes men for this administration and the repub leaders. They only care about the R or D attached to someone's name.
They vote for the party, no matter if they really agree with the policy.
And lets be honest, there are plenty of Democrats who have crossed party lines.
Just being a Democrat is not enough. What we need is to have a majority of moderates in the House / Senate.
This way no matter who the controlling party is, we have level headed people who care about the public good ABOVE towing the party line

by avagias on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 12:35:25 EDT
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

This is exactly what I'm getting at. We need to elect people who share our values, not simply worry about what letter is after a politician's name.

I still don't understand why I get shouted down for supporting someone who shares my values, is electable (and in a better position than the Democrat), is going against one of the worst people in Congress, BUT has an "R" after his name...??

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 12:39:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

Pictures: (4.00 / 5)

Is this it? They look pretty playful, though Clenis' finger is a bit intimate in the second one :)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/capt.jwe12505292029.world_war_ii_memorial_jwe125. jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/capt.jwe12605292028.bush_world_war_ii_memorial_jw e126.jpg

Santa Kerry: http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/lthumb.dcn10305291915.kerry_dcn103.jpg


$7 Trillion in Debt, 2.6 Million out of work, and they're worried about a few thousand gay marriage Licenses?
by Steven R on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:46:55 EDT

During's Bush 43's speech ... (none / 0)

Bush 41 leaned over the Clinton and said something but Clinton didn't look to amused and didn't reply.

Maybe Clinton was joking with Bush 41 about their "Jennifer's" ...

by politizine on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:50:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

Is Clinton (none / 0)

giving him the finger?

George's classmates on his performance at Harvard, "...completely out of his depth." (and two decades of drug and alcohol abuse haven't helped any.)
by NorCalJim on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:52:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

I looks like Sr. had Cataract surgery (none / 0)

From the pictures, those thick, black shades indicates Sr. had recent Cataract surgery. not uncommon at his at - now 80 yrs old.

When recovering, people have depth perception problems, as the one eye (they do it one at a time) is going through an adjustment period.

I've seen people do funny things with that problem.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:57:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

41 auditioning for the Matrix?? (none / 1)

Those shades!! Hang a trenchcoat on him and he'd be trying to spin through the air to kick Bill!

Visualize Whirled Peas
by Hoya90 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:03:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

Clearly (none / 0)

The second photo is obviously taken when Clinton told HW to pull his finger. It's a timeless gag.

CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.--Ambrose Bierce
by Manix on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:20:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

WTF is there to laugh about? (none / 0)

The photos of all them laughing together gave me the creeps and reminded me of something I read in an authentic conservative's column (Charley Reese) just yesterday:

"And I'm perfectly willing to concede that virtually all heads of state are evil, differing only in degree. It's so tempting for heads of state to play the great game as if the human beings far below them were merely chess pieces on a board."

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040524/index.php

by rodean on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 08:34:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

It could have been worse (3.88 / 17)

Daddy could have thrown up in Bill's lap ....

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:47:44 EDT

my guess (none / 1)

W probably said something to Clinton about not being a veteran, Clinton probably said at least I, having not served, was never AWOL from the Air National Guard. Pure speculation it makes sense given the nature of the event.

by abe ferlman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:48:44 EDT

The "Wimp" Factor (none / 0)

Anyone got a scan of the Newsweek cover from the late 80s featuring Bush Sr?

Here's MoDo from 2002:

"When Newsweek published its 'Fighting the "Wimp Factor"' cover about Bush senior when he was running for president in 1987, he was so angry he refused to talk to the magazine again until he had a meeting with the editors and the publisher, Katharine Graham. Mr. Bush even knew the precise number of times the word 'wimp' appeared in the article.

"In his memoir, Bush Junior wrote: 'My blood pressure still goes up when I remember the cover.'"

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:49:33 EDT

Well (none / 0)

He kinda had a right to do it. Its what cost Dukakis the presidency. And dislike Sr as much as you want he really was a legit war hero. And a fighter pilot at that (quickest way to die in that era with hte possible exception of bomber crewman).

My other Drunken ravings| Friends dont let idiots run countries
by cdreid on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:39:13 EDT
[ Parent ]

Bush Sr abandoned his crew to their deaths (none / 1)

And dislike Sr as much as you want he really was a legit war hero.

No. He really wasn't.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm

[...] there were two men who knew Bush very well and could have spoken about his loyalty to the men and women in uniform.

Unfortunately, very few people have ever heard of them and neither Radioman 2nd Class John Delaney or Gunner Lt. Junior Grade William White are able to speak. They are on the bottom of the Pacific off the coast of a tiny island where their pilot, Navy Lt. George Bush, sent them when he made his first parachute jump.

http://www.rense.com/general47/hero.htm

What really happened? It was the pilot's job to hold the plane level and slow it down so the crew could get out. Most certainly, the radioman was helping the gunner with his chute when Bush panicked and left the plane. Then the plane rolled into a dive giving the crew no chance. This story went through the fleet and all the Avenger pilots I knew were shocked at what they heard. I heard speculation of a Courts-Martial.

Bush was very young. By his own admission, he reacted under stress. It is terrifying to have the cockpit fill with smoke. Possibly, he can be excused for reacting to fear and accepting it as another war time tragedy - but he has been glorified on the History channel, a book is being published, and worst of all, an aircraft carrier is to be named for him. This is unbelievable!! Bush performed badly and was certainly no hero.

At least no-one was killed by Bush Jr's skipping drills for a year.

by Raven on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 05:49:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm a pretty partisan democrat (none / 1)

And actually get a little gleeful at attacking repub hypocrasy. But those two links contradict themselves and each other repeatedly. You have to have one standard for everybody and its wrong to lower the standards because you 'want' the other guy to look bad. This strikes of freeper "clinton/mena/drug dealin/vince foster" trash frankly.

My other Drunken ravings| Friends dont let idiots run countries
by cdreid on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 07:03:57 EDT
[ Parent ]

Not Quite True (none / 0)

At least no-one was killed by Bush Jr's skipping drills for a year.

Except maybe a few young men without congressional daddy's who were sent to war in his place.

"If you aren't completely appalled, then you haven't been paying attention."
by Savage on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 10:26:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Lets get some basic facts straight (none / 0)

Bush was not a fighter pilot, he was flying an Avenger, a torpedo bomber TBF/TBM Avenger: Grumman Torpedo Bomber

From that site, a basic history of the Avenger, we get this:

"George Bush
Undoubtedly, the most famous man to fly an Avenger was George H.W. Bush, later the 41st President of the United States. He joined the Navy in 1942, and became the youngest naval aviator ever in June, 1943. He flew Avengers with VT-51, from USS San Jacinto. On September 2, 1944 he was shot down over Chichi Jima. While Bush parachuted safely and was rescued, neither of his crewmen survived. Bush earned a DFC for delivering his bombload after his TBF had been hit. "

There are some unanswered questions about the crew not making it out of the plane. But a DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross) is a big deal. On the other hand there is a great deal of difference between flying fighters and flying torpedo bombers.

by Bruce Webb on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:52:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

well, the Bush's... (none / 0)

...are pretty well known for staging "candid moments" when they know there's alot of press around. Pushing President Clinton has to be good for shoring up a few points among the didiots, and I honestly cannot believe that Bush I would be that physcial with a near-stranger unless provoked or instructed to do it.

by zoweee on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:55:01 EDT

"Near Stranger?" (none / 0)

Meeting at three Presidential debates, in the transition briefings, and probably several more times? Clinton beat Bush I, and that isn't something the old man would forget.

by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:00:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

bit of an over-reaction there (none / 0)

but yeah: "near stranger." It's not like they go hit the pizza buffet at Friendly's together or anything. There are people I've met any number of times for business and yet don't know a thing about. Merely discussing non-personal matters at length really doesnt convey any sense of fraternity... and I certainly cant think of a valid reason to slug any of those business associates at a veterans memorial service in front of TV cameras.

by zoweee on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:07:27 EDT
[ Parent ]

Transcript of event... (3.95 / 20)

Just copied from a secret source...

[BUSH 41, BUSH 43 and CLINTON standing in a cricle]

BUSH 43: (to Clinton) Well, look who's here. Hey, I'm still trying to get the stains out of the carpeting in the Oval Office.

CLINTON: (wagging finger, playfuly, in 43's face) Now, now, lil' Georgie, don't go gettin' all mouthy without your puppeteer present.

BUSH 41: (upset) I'm not his puppeteer!

CLINTON: (laughing) You? Of course you're not his puppeteer! You're invisible! Has 43 even said hello to you today?

BUSH 41: (shoving Clinton in anger) Why you...

BUSH 43: Has anyone seen Dick Cheney? I haven't seen him in more than a week and, frankly, all of this is making me nervous...

CLINTON: (regaining footing, laughing) Was that a gust of wind?

BUSH 41: You just wait until Babs gets ahold of you...

BARBARA: (walking up) Georgie, have you seen your father?

BUSH 43: No, mom, I haven't. Have you seen Cheney? I'm nervous.

BUSH 41: Babs, I'm right here!

BARBARA: No, I haven't seen Dick. If you see your father please tell him I want to go. Being around all of these old people in wheelchairs pollutes my beautiful mind.

BUSH 43: Will do, mom.

BARBARA: (turning to Clinton) And if you make one more derogatory comment about my boy, I'll whup your ass.

CLINTON: (laughing) You can try, but remember, I'm married to Hillary.

BARBARA: (laughing) Good point. Bye-bye, Georgie. (walking away) Now where did your father go?

BUSH 41: (shrinking until he only eight inches tall, in a aqueaky voice) I'm right here!

[END TRANSCRIPT]

by Bob Johnson on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:56:52 EDT

gave ya a 4... (none / 0)

Pretty funny. Poppy calls her "Bar," though, not "Babs."

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:25:03 EDT
[ Parent ]

When Did Poppy Have a Stroke? (none / 0)

Marching Towards A Landslide
by BrooklynBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:57:24 EDT

My guess is he has (3.75 / 4)

had a few small ones. The forgetfulness, lost in the instant at hand tho it deals with issues absolutely central to his core reality... Bar had to remind him a few months ago in interview iwth Zahn what years he ran (as the candidate) for pretzeldent.
My take was, when she delivered the years '88 and '92 (ever the governess), he still was a tad clueless, but fakes well after a lifetime of, what else? faking it. That was a big clue.

The weepiness he has evidenced... I'm guessing he also is losing the suppression ability. Little stress factors cause bigger responses. They will keep him closer to home between now and election, evoked often as pretzelfather, trading on his service (of course there are three stories as to the WW2 incident with his plane and all come from him) etc., I remain convinced not all people even knew which Bush they voted for in '00 and others jsut voted for the name.

What else, oh, FOX a little while a go called the incident: "playful shoving".

I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:19:57 EDT
[ Parent ]

They were probably just kidding each other... (4.00 / 3)

...on the square!

by Charles V on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:14:46 EDT

Are you really . . . (none / 0)

on the level about that?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:24:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm ... (none / 0)

plumb sure he is.

by MonkeyBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:27:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

C'mon... (none / 0)

...be straight with us now!

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:34:48 EDT
[ Parent ]

Isn't there . . . (none / 0)

a rule about this?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Precisely the (none / 0)

right angle to take.

"Never mind the trick, what the hell's the point?" Joseph Heller, Catch-22
by wozzle on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:53:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Whoah! Whoah! (none / 0)

No need to be so obtuse about this!

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:56:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Now there's (none / 0)

an acute observation!

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:37:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Let's be (none / 0)

a little complementary.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:16:47 EDT
[ Parent ]

Well, it's (none / 0)

the plane truth.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:45:10 EDT
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0)

but we have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise things get two dimensional.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:03:14 EDT
[ Parent ]

Now... (none / 0)

...you've broken my sphere of thought.

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:41:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

There's a parallel argument here.. (none / 0)

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:43:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

unit values (none / 0)

if only there were a measured response from the GOP.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:48:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

unit values (none / 0)

if only there were a measured response from the GOP.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:48:23 EDT
[ Parent ]

the very fact (none / 0)

that you're having this conversation shows that you've all lost your moral compass.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:18:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

Does this have to (none / 0)

be so protracted?


-- Bush is such an Adam Clymer!
by rhubarb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:41:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

No but I've decided (none / 0)

to let it slide. Rules can be so restrictive.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:45:06 EDT
[ Parent ]

aoeu (none / 0)

You're going off on a tangent now.

Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is...a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial...discrimination.
by TealVeal on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:57:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0)

I saw the sines a while ago.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:12:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Oh no ... (none / 0)

... It's axiomatic that we must have this discussion.

by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:49:55 EDT
[ Parent ]

theoretically, yes (none / 0)

but let's not all run like lemmas off the cliff, now.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:13:29 EDT
[ Parent ]

When talking to people (none / 0)

Who have had strokes or cataracts, you have to watch for the sines

Try a better browser www.mozilla.org
by doug r on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:16:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm wracking my brain ... (none / 0)

... to field a rejoinder for the group to appreciate. It's not ringing true though.


by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:33:07 EDT
[ Parent ]

YOU LOOSE! (none / 0)

the topic is secret Masonic keywords.

by MonkeyBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:18:20 EDT
[ Parent ]

no, you lose (none / 0)

how're we supposed to keep them secret if you go shouting about it, huh?

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:23:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

I beg your pardon (none / 0)

I am most certainly not loose . . .

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:33:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

was there (none / 0)

a point to that?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:39:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

don't question (none / 0)

just get in line.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:48:23 EDT
[ Parent ]

This has gone (none / 0)

flat.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:09:34 EDT
[ Parent ]

when... (none / 0)

you're in this yard, stick to the subject

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:02:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

sorry ;-) (none / 0)

n/t

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:02:41 EDT
[ Parent ]

The long and the (none / 0)

short of it............;-)

I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:18:39 EDT
[ Parent ]

I just saw it on FOX News... (none / 0)

Gotta hand it to FOX, 24 hours a day they are doing real news (I don't want to get into an argument about their slant, whenever a story is breaking, I go to FOX News). The announcer described it as a "playful shove," but the image didn't look very playful. He shoved Clinton pretty damn hard.

by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:15:47 EDT

Isn't it the truth.... (none / 0)

wrt FOX News. They ahve covered the Saudi siege and hostage taking fully today. I jsut strip out the demogoguery and take in the bones of the news.
Works for me.


I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:25:33 EDT
[ Parent ]

wow, me too (none / 0)

I was just thinking today how pathetic CNN and MSNBC are on weekends with their People in the News and Headliners and Legends crap. Since when have Tom Hanks or Billy Graham been in the news, anyway?

Then today, sure enough, there's this Saudi incident, and only Fox is on with the story.

Do any US satellite providers offer BBC news channels (not BBC america)? I'm sick of U.S. networks and Time Warner cable.

by dirtgirl on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:33:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

I spoke too soon (none / 0)

I should have known not to post compliments of Fox News... they're now doing a story about some missing college girl.

by dirtgirl on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:37:24 EDT
[ Parent ]

Weekend before Iowa Caucus (none / 0)

cnn and msGOP were dark, on one of the biggest news events, that only comes every 4 years.

On sunday afternoon, I was looking for viedo of HoHo and Carter in Plains, so I broke down and turned on Fascist News, and all they were doing was attacking Judy, in the sickest ways.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:50:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Some PBS (none / 0)

Channel 54 in San Jose.

If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?
by Mimikatz on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:42:01 EDT
[ Parent ]

Holy shit (none / 0)

That's the first I heard of that today. Haven't had the TV on, and from your mention finally went to msnbc.com.

Every time I turn around things just get worse over in the middle east.

Nice guy or not, if we're at war and I get to choose the guy in the foxhole next to me, I'll pick Kerry. At least I know he's gonna watch my back.
by Steve4Clark on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Losing money + Money Laundering (none / 0)

I saw a clown for the Watimes on C-span and he confessed how they still are subsidies by the Moonies, and that in 20 yrs of operation, they've never turned a profit.

If was reported in the diaries, within the last 10 days, how Fox's ad rate is still lower then cnn, due to demos, and how overall, cnn still has a bigger bottom line.

cnn goes, largely dark on the weekends, as does msGOP, because the data shows it's a money loser.

But murdoch is willing spends his money, takes the lose, in order to get his wingnut message out.

That's why I laugh when apologists say corporations are amoral and they would do liberal radio or libeal tv if it was profitable, that corps aren't griding an axe, they're only motivation is profit.

But It is kinda weird. I love the Simpson, X-Files and various shows over the years (Ally, 70s Show, party of five) on Fox and that money now goes to financing Murdoch's and O'Lielly's Terrorits Organization.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:45:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

Agreed.... (none / 0)

I generally call CNNs public comments line once or twice a week to complain about their repetitive weekend programming.

And it would be another thing if the programming was good...

Then I call another time to complain about the complete unimportance of the majority of Larry King's guests, and how he is unable to conduct a meaningful interview any more. And the fact that they should just go to CNN International overnight, instead of all the replays.

Tim

Don't waive your rights with your flags.
by ttagaris on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:41:17 EDT
[ Parent ]

Seriously... (none / 0)

Why don't they just go to CNN International? Why just replay canned news? CNN sucks.

In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.
by Asak on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:43:27 EDT
[ Parent ]

alt.news (none / 0)

When are we going to get The Economist Channel?

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:50:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

C-SPAN ? (none / 0)

This sounds like the sort of thing C-SPAN would have taped, as well. Any chance they'll be reairing the event later tonight? Their schedule page isn't opening right now.

If anyone hears or reads when/if C-SPAN is replaying the event, please post a message here. Unless this clip becomes something the news starts showing over and over again, of course. Cool?

I'm &y and I approved this message.
by abw on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:15:52 EDT

Sir Karl... (none / 1)

Strauss, like so many ideologues whose thinking is really quite reprehensible once you understand it, goes to great lengths in his writing to obfuscate what he's actually saying so only his true disciples will be able to figure it out.

Correct, and much like Samual P.Huntington of "Clash Of civilizations" fame from which the pnac crowd (and we know who they are) are pushing their Bushco agenda on the sly. Circle of elites w/in elites. Closed society of wealthy power freaks, whom want more power, and will use* America to get it.

use of the term use* here is in the neg sense as in using someone for your selfish gain.

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*
by thor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:35:23 EDT

John L Lewis story (none / 0)

These kinds of things can have a deadly serious political effect. Reminds me of one of the signal events at the formation of the CIO, originally a committee inside the AFL. At the 1935 AFL Convention (I think it was) John L Lewis punched out "Big Bill" Hutchinson, President of the Carpenters and avowed foe of industrial unionism. When upbraided by AFL official, Lewis said "He called me a foul name." It sent a signal that Lewis and the CIO were serious and electrified workers throughout the land. I know it's not his way perhaps inadvisable with an older guy, but it would've been bracing to see Clinton punch his lights out.


by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:33 EDT

would the secret service (4.00 / 2)

break it up, or let them go at it ??

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
by sunzoo on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:46:24 EDT
[ Parent ]

Reservoir Dogs (none / 0)

41, 43, and Harlem Bill each have their own Secret Service. 41 is taken out by Bill's Secret Service. Then 43's Secret Service takes out Bill and his Secret Service. A dying 41 grabs a gun from a fallen agent and empties it into 43.

by Maynard G Krebs on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:08:44 EDT
[ Parent ]

43 = Mr. Pink (none / 0)

n/t

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:16:13 EDT
[ Parent ]

No! (none / 0)

Mr. Pink is the only one that lives!!

I've got no patience now. So sick of complacence now. Time has come to pass. Know your enemy! -Rage Against the Machine
by Aventinus on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:52:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

besides ... (none / 0)

given the slow political death the last few months have given us, wouldn't Mr Orange be more apropos?

"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth! It is wise and terrible."
by section29 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:20:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

No way! (none / 0)

Steve Buscemi is very cool. 43 is, well, not very cool.

Mr. Pink is smart. 43 is, you get the idea...

Also one of the best things about Reservoir Dogs is that you find yourself rooting for Mr. Pink to a large degree. At least I did. Maybe I am psycho.

by destiny6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:16:41 EDT
[ Parent ]

That would leave Cheney in nominal control as (none / 1)

well as actual control. Halliburton would be the first corporation with a cabinet post: Secretary of Looting the Treasury

by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:40:38 EDT
[ Parent ]

SECRET SERVICE (none / 1)

The SS would have grabbed 41 by the scruff of the neck and placed him out of harms way.

Then the SS would have beat the crap out of dubya while back-slapp

Posted by Lisa at June 02, 2004 04:29 PM | TrackBack
Me A to Z (A Work In Progress)
Comments

I've been checking you 5 times since yesterday, and googled as well.. without finding the clip :/

Posted by: tristan on June 6, 2004 01:08 AM

Despite my best efforts to avoid the endless Reagan coverage, I accidently caught the incident in question.

To me, it just looked like the kind of thing any two guys might do when joking with each other. If anyone has heard otherwise, I haven't seen it yet.

Posted by: zak822 on June 15, 2004 07:44 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


No free link advertizing is allowed here. If you post a commercial link in this comment you agree to pay me $500 per link pursuant to the Terms posted here. Type "AGREE" here:

Comments:


Remember info?