ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I use to think she was hot but now even if I had her mouth taped I'd still feel dirty.Salazar said:
I approve of whoever is choosing Sarah's wardrobe. My milfometer is in smoking pieces on the ground.
Poligaf episode 2010: The Empire Strikes Back
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
RustyNails
Member
It looks like Tetsuya Nomura designed her outfit
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I would have been much worse.The Chosen One said:
She was reading from his newsletter, reading a quote from that man, and he called her a liar over it.
Fuck that shit.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Gallup says 10.1% for unemployment
platypotamus
Member
ToxicAdam said:
I didn't even make the cut? I knew I had been doing less commenting lately, but damn.
Aaron Strife
Banned
17 over Republicans (226-209) or 17 over 218 (235-200)?Thunder Monkey said:
The former seems more realistic.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
17 over Pubs.Aaron Strife said:
The Chosen One
Member
Thunder Monkey said:
But yeah she was also laying the sarcasm and hyperbole pretty thick at times. In the past I gave her props for arguing with Republicans calmly and intelligently, Jst let them twist by their own words. Tonight she certainly failed at the former. She got too agitated and wouldn't let the guy talk and she wouldn't give him clear concise questions. Fail.
I guess she hasn't had a Republican on the show for such a long time that she got too excited. :lol
Aaron Strife
Banned
Cool. Seems like enough leg room to pass some okay legislation. The problem is in the Senate anyway. I'm not too sure about Reid getting rid of the filibuster.Thunder Monkey said:17 over Pubs.
PPP hit up Connecticut this week and also looked at 2012, which looks shitty for Lieberman, which is good for America. In a two-way contest against the Democrat Chris Murphy (the only declared D candidate?), he loses 47-36. In a three-way with Murphy and Peter Schiff, he only gets 19%, and if the Republican is Jodi Rell, 17%. Murphy wins in all scenarios.
Byakuya769
Member
RustyNails said:
Yep, he had some other ridiculous statements.
aaron strife said:
Nah, he did terribly. Crist did the best, Rubio didn't mess up, and Meek had to try the hardest and said some ridiculous stuff.
aaron strife said:
Honestly, speaking for myself, my friends, and the community that I volunteer in, blacks really don't care about Meek. I think Obama proved that blacks aren't just blindly going to turn out in droves for any black politician ,even Obama had to prove himself thoroughly. I would feel much more comfortable with Crist in the senate seat, and challenging him in a few years with a more competent democrat, than Meek/Crist allowing Rubio and his nuttery to be a senator.
RustyNails said:I posted more than Puddles, empty vessel, Incognito and Byakuya?
You bastard!
RustyNails said:
Hahaha. Never mind, all forgiven.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Maddow was hard to watch tonight. She tried so hard to pin the guy down on his own statements, but he came ready to fight. She would have been much more effective if she shortened her questions and then went to town on his answers. Her strategy of reading something he couldn't see (even though he wrote it) wasn't fair to the poor bastard.
He's obviously a scumbag, but she could have been much better.
And Lou Dobbs is a fucking pro. That girl better get her shit together before going on TV again.
He's obviously a scumbag, but she could have been much better.
And Lou Dobbs is a fucking pro. That girl better get her shit together before going on TV again.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Hey Bakuya, when did you get your tag? Either way high five my douchebag brother!
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Federal judge upholds key provisions of health care law
BY DAVID ASHENFELTER AND PATRICIA ANSTETT
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
A federal judge in Detroit today upheld key provisions of President Barack Obamas landmark health reform law.
In a 20-page decision, U.S. District Judge George Steeh refused to issue an injunction to halt preparations for putting federal health reforms into full effect in 2014, a law known as the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March. Steeh also dismissed the major points of the suit requiring Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing those who dont starting in 2014.
Steeh is the first judge nationally to rule on accusations that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by requiring most people to buy health insurance or face penalities.
The Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian legal center which sued along with four plaintiffs, said it plans to appeal the decision.
I think its important that this decision be reversed to prevent Congress from overreaching the way it did in passing the original mandate, said law center attorney Robert Muise. He predicted the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. His clients opposed being forced to buy health insurance.
Nation-wide, several dozen lawsuits have been filed to stop the reforms. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and 19 other state attorney generals brought one of the challenges, which is set for oral arguments in Florida Dec. 16, according to Cox spokeswoman Joy Yearout.
The attorney generals suit argues that the federal government cant force people to buy a product merely because they are U.S. citizens. But federal attorneys say Congress can regulate interstate commerce and has imposed laws for more than 200 years requiring men to buy muskets and ammunition, for example.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department was pleased with the decision and added that it "will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation.''
Marjorie Mitchell, executive director of the Michigan Universal Health Care Network, the states most active proponent of federal health reforms, said Steehs ruling gives me some hope all the cases are thrown out. We need this health care reform.
The law was passed to provide health insurance to millions of uninsured people, including 1.3 in Michigan, and to make it more affordable and easier to understand.
According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, health care reforms will benefit 1.3 million people in Michigan who do not have insurance and lower health care costs for another 459,000 Michigan citizens through a national insurance exchange.
BY DAVID ASHENFELTER AND PATRICIA ANSTETT
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
A federal judge in Detroit today upheld key provisions of President Barack Obamas landmark health reform law.
In a 20-page decision, U.S. District Judge George Steeh refused to issue an injunction to halt preparations for putting federal health reforms into full effect in 2014, a law known as the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March. Steeh also dismissed the major points of the suit requiring Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing those who dont starting in 2014.
Steeh is the first judge nationally to rule on accusations that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by requiring most people to buy health insurance or face penalities.
The Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian legal center which sued along with four plaintiffs, said it plans to appeal the decision.
I think its important that this decision be reversed to prevent Congress from overreaching the way it did in passing the original mandate, said law center attorney Robert Muise. He predicted the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. His clients opposed being forced to buy health insurance.
Nation-wide, several dozen lawsuits have been filed to stop the reforms. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and 19 other state attorney generals brought one of the challenges, which is set for oral arguments in Florida Dec. 16, according to Cox spokeswoman Joy Yearout.
The attorney generals suit argues that the federal government cant force people to buy a product merely because they are U.S. citizens. But federal attorneys say Congress can regulate interstate commerce and has imposed laws for more than 200 years requiring men to buy muskets and ammunition, for example.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department was pleased with the decision and added that it "will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation.''
Marjorie Mitchell, executive director of the Michigan Universal Health Care Network, the states most active proponent of federal health reforms, said Steehs ruling gives me some hope all the cases are thrown out. We need this health care reform.
The law was passed to provide health insurance to millions of uninsured people, including 1.3 in Michigan, and to make it more affordable and easier to understand.
According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, health care reforms will benefit 1.3 million people in Michigan who do not have insurance and lower health care costs for another 459,000 Michigan citizens through a national insurance exchange.
Byakuya769
Member
LovingSteam said:
Yep douchebag brotherhood. Got it yesterday, I believe, in the "mum with 5 kids gets boobjob, laptop with welfare" thread...
Four_Chamber
Member
RustyNails said:
Why she gets national attention is beyond me. She is the perfect combo of ignorance and insanity.
"You're a misognist! See how you're talking to me?!" :lol
She got eaten alive by everybody in that panel except her bff the host.
This has nothing to do with party, IMHO, and everything to do with our generation being fucking retarded.
EDIT: Before more people get the wrong idea of my intention as I guess I wasn't clear:
I know the argument that there is no right to privacy, that the concept of privacy itself -- of being able to be alone while surrounded by millions -- is a transient and somewhat contemporary concept which was a product of the industrial revolution and urbanization that resulted. That for most of the history of our civilization, agrarian societies existed in smaller groups bounded by dunbar number analogs in which there was no privacy... blah, blah.
Your name is fucking Krystal Ball, I know you can't control your parents decisions and they did unfairly set you off on an invariable path toward the stripper pole, but come on.
Sexiest? GTFO. We all do stupid shit, it's fun. But if you're going to act like a drunk and deep throat a dildo that's on some dorky looking guy's forehead, don't recorded it for all history. For your kids sake, and doubly so if you want to run for congress. It's not sexiest, I'd be saying this about a gay male politician as well, it has nothing to do with your mouth-action: it has to do with you being stupid enough to let it be recorded.
It's a very sad development actually as I don't think it would be so bad if the lower house had less career politicians who are groomed for the job since they were a sperm. As it is, this type of pedigree doesn't necessarily produce statesmen (LOL), but it does unfairly tip the scales toward an over-representation of views in the chamber that are the product of more affluent families who can put their kids through the right schools, with the right bullshit achievements on their resumes, etc.
Pervasive technology will only exacerbate this problem. I can't wait for the October surprise of 2024 being a bukaki video.
EDIT: Before more people get the wrong idea of my intention as I guess I wasn't clear:
me said:
celebritysmackblog said:Virginia Congressional candidate Krystal Ball is fighting for her dignity after a right-wing political blog posted these scandalous photos of Krystal, her ex-huband and friends at a costume party back in 2003.
Krystal Ball, now 28, is shown in the photos at a Christmas costume party dressed in a Santa hat, thigh-high stockings, black satin camisole and mini skirt. Her husband dressed as Rudolph with a red penis for a nose.
Krystal Ball is angry that someone leaked the photos to try and ruin her chances during the upcoming election.
She says: Its sexist and its wrong, regardless of political party. And I have a message for any young woman who is thinking about running for office and has ever attended a costume party with her husband or done anything stupid on camera. Run for office. Fight for this country. Dont let this sort of tactic deter you.
Aforementioned pictures:
Link to article and pictures: (nymag, celebritysmack)
I know the argument that there is no right to privacy, that the concept of privacy itself -- of being able to be alone while surrounded by millions -- is a transient and somewhat contemporary concept which was a product of the industrial revolution and urbanization that resulted. That for most of the history of our civilization, agrarian societies existed in smaller groups bounded by dunbar number analogs in which there was no privacy... blah, blah.
Your name is fucking Krystal Ball, I know you can't control your parents decisions and they did unfairly set you off on an invariable path toward the stripper pole, but come on.
Sexiest? GTFO. We all do stupid shit, it's fun. But if you're going to act like a drunk and deep throat a dildo that's on some dorky looking guy's forehead, don't recorded it for all history. For your kids sake, and doubly so if you want to run for congress. It's not sexiest, I'd be saying this about a gay male politician as well, it has nothing to do with your mouth-action: it has to do with you being stupid enough to let it be recorded.
It's a very sad development actually as I don't think it would be so bad if the lower house had less career politicians who are groomed for the job since they were a sperm. As it is, this type of pedigree doesn't necessarily produce statesmen (LOL), but it does unfairly tip the scales toward an over-representation of views in the chamber that are the product of more affluent families who can put their kids through the right schools, with the right bullshit achievements on their resumes, etc.
Pervasive technology will only exacerbate this problem. I can't wait for the October surprise of 2024 being a bukaki video.
RustyNails
Member
Rudolph the red nosed reindick what>
RustyNails
Member
Even the host felt uneasy at the end. You could see it from his expressions. Only guy who was all over Pam was that slick looking fella who's supposed to be media analyst or some shit. The host thought he could lob in the last word with "interesting things you got to say", and the CAIR guy responds with "for interesting things, visit atlas shrugged". There is no comeback to that, son.Four_Chamber said:
Byakuya769
Member
BigSicily said:
So was your outrage so palpable at Scott Brown for doing a centerfold?
Aaron Strife said:
Are you two serious? Believe what you want, but I'm being sincere in stating you should maybe re-evaluate your thinking as the morning after could be brutal. Don't stop supporting your candidates or donating or working hard to GOTV or whatever, but you're mind-fucking yourselves if you think it won't be bad.
A good article out today by the Stuart Rothenberg on the narrative game being waged (link to article):
Stuart Rothenberg said:
Byakuya769 said:
I think the point was to show how technology is changing how politics is being conducted. I didn't say I had a problem with what she did -- reading FTW -- but with her (and societies) laissez-faire attitude toward privacy in the age of pervasive media.
Scott Brown is a great example of an older generation, Christine O'Donnell and her appearances on a -- for the time -- more 'extreme' TV program in the '90s is another great example. This girl deepthroating a reindeer dildo on camera is an example from the facebook era.
FDR's politics were never affected by his polio affliction (or potential cancer?!), Robert Byrd would have looked ridiculous in a pillow case on Real Time w/ Maher.
See?
Aaron Strife
Banned
yeahBigSicily said:
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2024065,00.html#ixzz11jxROILz
I think what scares me the most is if this economy keeps in the tubes for another decade, that some opportunist will seize on the anti-China resentment and take us into a new dangerous trek. Cold War 2, but this time with economic tariffs and sanctions instead of nukes.
Do you know how insanely popular an anti-globalist movement could be if the economy remains in the shitter?
Byakuya769
Member
BigSicily said:
I guess you missed this Limbaughesque portion of your post.
BigSicily said:
However, you trying to reinterpret your own messages post facto is becoming a pretty nice gimmick of yours.
So I'll let you get strung along a little more on this issue, then we can collectively correct you. Your response will likely be to post some charts on likely voters models though, while attempting to interwind the analysis with Kant or some shit.
... and the legend will continue.
Looking at Ball's Wikipedia page, she seems like a pretty impressive person. Her family sound like good folks, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krystal_Ball
Go on, BigSicily. Read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krystal_Ball
Go on, BigSicily. Read.
Byakuya769 said:
Wow, I bet that was poetic to your ears; your brain lighting up, your neural activity spiking thinking it's so on-target...
It was a sarcastic, in-jest, take on the issue. It's a silly issue that's has a real point underlying it, I discussed both and had some fun. So fucking sue me.
Byakuya769 said:
Yikes! Maybe you need to get some reindeer ears, calm down.
Dude, are you arguing with yourself?BigSicily said:
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded part of your post.
Or would that make it halfheartedly?
Also, this is not related directly to this so called incident, but how long do we need to keep pretending that such things shock us?
I mean come on, it's 2010 already.
COME ON!
Byakuya769
Member
the walk it back dance.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Pretty much.Aaron Strife said:
I don't believe that Republicans will gain the House, because they are still sitting ten points behind Democrats on congressional approval ratings.
It might be "common knowledge" that the party in power loses seats to the opposing side when midterm elections come up, but these are strange times. And people haven't completely forgotten what happened last time they were in charge, otherwise you'd see those congressional approval numbers flipping.
Salazar said:
Read the part Chichikov bolded. I'm agreeing with you, we need new blood in the house. I'm saying pervasive media: facebook, google, etc are going to make it harder because people aren't acquainted with the power of information and the effect the permanence of digital media will have in 5, 10, 30 years. It's like the badass tattoo that seemed awesome at 18, but worse.
Reread my initial post with this in mind, as well as having some fun with it, and you'll see.
Byakuya769
Member
BigSicily said:
In your opinion, would this have been as big of an issue if the ex husband was the one running for office?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Chichikov said:
Man, fuck your zippers. You'll raise the barn and LIKE it, Jedediah Chichikov!
Incognito said:
I think your being purposely obtuse. As you well know, the rate of change is amazingly fast and accelerating.
It was Sept. 1787 when the Constitution was adopted, it was roughly a hundred years until William Randolph Hearst started his newspaper empire in 1887 that was, AFAIK, the next major change in political media. From then it was roughly 30 years until Harding gave the first radio address in 1919. I believe Eisenhower was the first to have a TV conference in the 50s, so 30 years later. It's been only since the 80s that TV has become more deregulated and politica opinion more dispersed. It's been roughly a decade since widespread internet access reached exploded and reached saturation. What, 12 years since Google. 5 since Youtube...
Just to cement this as it is interesting, and to annoy Byakuya769, this is a very nice graph borrowed from Kurzweil's Singularity is Near:
It really is a whole new world in these terms.
RustyNails
Member
C'mon. How can you pass up that opportunity. Suppose your last name is Ball. Some of the first names are irresistableBigSicily said:
*Crystal
*Basket
*Base
*Eight
*Nut
*Blue
The Chosen One
Member
PantherLotus said:
Agreed. That was basically my criticism as well. Her questions were too long and she didn't let him give complete answers. Even if he was going off base with his answers, she should have let him complete his thought and then respond to that.
It's okay to dredge up one or two old quotes but it seemed her interview was overly reliant on them and they weren't really relevant to current issues (or she did a poor job of making the connection). I hope Maddow learns from this interview and takes some cues from Lawrence O'Donnel.
Yeah it was a bad night for liberal chicks. :lol
I don't like Lou Dobbs, but at the end of the segment I was siding with him. It basically just boils down that there may have been an illegal person working under the contractor that was hired to do landscaping for Lou Dobbs. That's not really a big deal since Lou Dobbs isn't responsible for the contractor's employees and The Nation writer provided no evidence that Lou was aware of these supposed illegal employees of the contractor. Pretty weak stuff. With Meg Whitmen the difference is she hired the housekeeper directly and was made aware of the housekeeper's illegal status.
Byakuya769
Member
BigSicily, I'm generally bemused by you: not annoyed.
- Status