Quoth BushCo: "No Ugly Politics!"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Bad! Wrong!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:41 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, I really can't figure out this latest gop "move" - we're gonna have a filibuster to protest filibusters! wtf

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:44 (twenty-two years ago)

"It's wrong and it's shameful, and it's hurting the system," he told reporters.
http://pioneer.utah.gov/pot.gif http://www.catalogue.outdoors.ltd.uk/acatalog/kettle.jpg

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:45 (twenty-two years ago)

"It's wrong and it's shameful, and it's hurting the system," he told reporters.

uhm. yeah.

say, what are these other two assholes being filibustered for, anyway?

Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Bush throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his own way non-shockah.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

That's why next week in London will be so fun!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

why does it say

"DEVELOPING STORY Explosions rock Baghdad as coalition troops continue their ground and air assault, military officials say. Details soon. "

on the top of that page???

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Because there's a war on.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, looks like things just got crazier in Baghdad, was waiting to see on further word. Allegedly it's some operation about removing Bad And Evil Elements called "Iron Hammer," I guess. Just makes me think of role playing games.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

iron hammer am


hey, bill pryor ain't all bad

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I hear W is a big Magic the Gathering fan.

Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

what is iron hammer? i don't really get the news here.

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

counterinsurgent op

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Defense attorney Terry Butts retorted in his remarks "propriety is often in the eye of the beholder."

Butts also issued a warning to the panel: "Remember as you judge Roy Moore today that tomorrow you may be judged."

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.freestyle.com.ua/database/images/busta.jpg
all this politickin'/currupt legislation stickin'/it's all a big ol' pile of bullshittin'/FILIBUSTA RHYMES/my mufuckaz tryin' to stick wif da times/shit is totally fuckin' ig'nant like the script for Shamalamadingdong's movie called Signs/shut your fuckin' face hole!/woo-hah! got the Supreme Court all in check/donkeys and elephants ain't earned nuff respect/'bout to get ya shit wiped right off deck/BLAGOW! (ps the end times are coming)

FILIBUSTA RHYMES (nickalicious), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

sigh, if d'amato was still around there'd be a chance we could actually see that acted out

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 13 November 2003 18:59 (twenty-two years ago)

the resistance efforts have been increasing in number and intensity, especially over the last two weeks, and are now at a level (30 attacks a day) at which it has been posited that this is the real guerilla war that has been promised. thus, we're responding more forcefully.

xpost: I always look to Busta for my political analysis. Like when he performed at my school a few years ago and gave shout-outs to "Professor Goooldberg".

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:01 (twenty-two years ago)

also the baathists have maybe figured out that attacking non-us coalition troops is a) easier and b) more effective towards achieving their goals (I say maybe cuz I'm not sure they really have a strategy)(who this is worse news for I'm not sure)

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

also wasn't battle of algiers mandatory viewing for occupation commanders?

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Iron Hammer and Sharp Knife

An envoy from a neighboring country paid a visit to the king at the time when Effendi served as the king's counselor. Harboring ill intent, the envoy took an iron hammer out of his satchel and said to the king proudly, "This hammer resembles my empire!" He then took out a glass bottle and said disdainfully, "This glass bottle represents your country!"

So saying, he put the bottle before the king, held the hammer high and then struck the bottle, smashing it to pieces. He did all this as if no one else was present.

"See how easily your country could be destroyed by a single attack from mine!" threatened the envoy.

The king almost fell from his throne at the words.

"Ha-ha-ha..." the envoy burst into laughter, dizzy with the impact of his action.

At the moment, Effendi went over, picked up a piece of broken glass and slightly poked it at the envoy's hand. The envoy hurriedly let go of the hammer, and nursing his wounded hand in the other, asked in a surprised way, "What do ... you ... want?"

"Nothing," Effendi said in a righteous tone. "I just want to demonstrate that what the pounding of the iron hammer on a glass bottle produces is not just broken glass but countless sharp knives!"

The envoy broke into a cold sweat at the words and fled with his tail between his legs.

--Translated by Chen Haiyan

fletrejet, Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

So basically we're starting "operation get us cut the fuck up"?

nate detritus (natedetritus), Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:14 (twenty-two years ago)

i know i'm just a kneejerk reactionary. While i'm enjoying seeing the Democrats hammering on a single issue like raising the minimum wage and reversing the unemployment trends in the attempt to win some working class appeal , i really would love someone to say, "Why should we trust Bush's judgement in judicial nominees, when we gave him our trust for waging war in Iraq, only to find that we misplaced our trust that time, as he waged it under false pretenses. Enough is enough. He cannot be trusted to make a rational or honest decision. We refuse to confirm his every capricious whim."

badgerminor (badgerminor), Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I think 'we ain't confirming this guy cuz he's a fucking racist' is better actually

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean for a bunch of guys who supposedly worship reagan they haven't seemed to learn his lesson with tough judicial nominees ie. cut bait fukkers cut bait

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:30 (twenty-two years ago)

why are these people so obsessed with getting judicial nominees in for these lifetime appointments when many of their constituents believe that the apocalypse is imminent? What's a few vacancies? Their god will judge.

badgerminor (badgerminor), Thursday, 13 November 2003 19:32 (twenty-two years ago)

because they will approve contested ballot counts.... as a last resort of course. diebold's touch screens run on MS Access the easiest dbase program to fangle.

Vacillating temp (Vacillating temp), Thursday, 13 November 2003 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Basically the entire administration is wearing "Jesus is coming-look busy" T-shirts under their suits.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 13 November 2003 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Judgment is one of the best issues of this election if Dean is the nominee - which one of the two predicted the outcome of the war correctly?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 13 November 2003 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

great story, fletrejet!

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 15 November 2003 03:13 (twenty-two years ago)

cuz he's a fuckin' racist

way to raise the bar Blount.

I'm amazed anyone is happy to watch the fucking juvenile discourse going on in the Senate right now. It deepens my cynicism even more than I thought possible.

These dumbfucks, who consider themselves fucking privileged royalty, are kicking the judicial system around with no regard for anything but their own re-elections. It's a fucking travesty.

My three year old has better comebacks than, "He took my toy last week. I have every right to take his toy THIS week! Nyah, nyah, nyah."

We can debate around and around about how the filibuster and committee votes are supposed to protect the integrity of the system, and prevent the majority from turning the government into something monolithically fraudulent.

But this whole game clouds the greater issue, which is that on nearly every vote taken in Congress, the same old playground bullies are having their way with the system. These petulant games go on at every level, in every committee, and at every fucking appointed agency. The whole fucking ball of wax is all about political power and the fellating it takes to get anything done. Why anyone would want to continue to turn large portions of the workforce over to our federal largesse so that even more of the country can become the playground for political gamesmanship is so beyond me.

And I really don't know how anyone can defend not allowing a full Senate vote, no matter who is in charge. Fucking embarassing.

don weiner, Saturday, 15 November 2003 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I can defend it: some things are important enough to need a LARGE majority, not just 51 people. Life-appointments to high positions are worth every ounce of partisanship the Democrats can muster, especially when past decisions by these judges have been so toxic.

Look, it's not "embarrassing" to open yourself up to charges of obstructionism, etc because you're taking a principled stand! I have to respect Repubs who did the same thing when they blocked appointments of pro-choice judges. They were being highly principled. Unfortunately those particular principles are a load of old crap, so their position is a bit weaker in my mind. But if you look at what decisions in the judges' past the Democrats were objecting to, how can you disagree with trying to make sure the fuckers never saw greater power? (BIG recurring problem for Dems: this story became all about the wrangling and not about the actual issues at stake = Republicans "win" in the press)

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 15 November 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

If a "large" majority is necessary, then change the votes needed to a large majority. Like, say, 60 votes. Or whatever you want it to be. And while we're at it, let's make that the same case for raising taxes, coming up with new forms of welfare (corporate, free drugs, free abortion money, free farm money, etc. etc. etc.) I'm all for making government's ability to increase its power harder. But what we're doing right now with this committee nonsense is putting all the power into the hands of a few. If you think some things need a LARGE majority, then at least give a LARGE majority a chance to vote on it.

And like I posted previously, this happens all the time in other areas and no filibusters ever happen. That's exactly how discretionary spending gets so large--it comes out of committee that way.

don weiner, Saturday, 15 November 2003 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.