Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I met notbob once. At a bar on ____. We each ordered a bourbon. My wife ordered a bourbon.

Halfway through our drinks I had the sense NB wanted to compliment my wife's hairdo, but he didn't. So then I was pissed. When the manic was in charge, why was he coming onto to her? Then, the depressive took over, and I'm like, why didn't he compliment her? I was packing and thought about getting on a train, and seeing where it ended up, you know the feeling, I know you do, but instead I ordered another drink.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I met NotBob once. At a bar on _____. One of the original craft cocktail bars. Some other lawyer chatting board riff raff were there.

He was amiable but distant. I became preoccupied trying to determine what was causing him to be this way. It was fascinating how he could be superficially the most pleasant guy in the room, and yet at the same time be completely disengaged with everyone and everything around him. Later in the evening, I caught him with his guard down. He was looking into his drink, with a big, hand-chipped ice cube floating in it, half-singing, half-muttering, "You killed the cat, burned it in antifreeze. Dumped in the truck with the rest of the cattle feed." Then I saw his eyes, and instantly knew he had a head full of mescaline. Which he later confirmed at the after party while applying nipple clamps to a more-than-willing 5YS.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Gwink, why do I want to punch Brad Marchant in the face every time I see him? I don't even dislike the Bruins.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

He's got one of those punchable faces. Like Bobby Valentine's. And because this is the PB, like Paul Ryan's.

(it's Marchand)

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Doh! I should have known that. I apologize to you, but Not Him, for the error.

Agreed. Paul Ryan definitely has a punchable face - especially here:

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.c...ality=85&w=366

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Jesus. The alum of all the schools I went to are constantly embarrassing me.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Whose fault is that, Coltrane, whose fault is that???????

I saw Rakim on Wednesday night. It was good, in no small part because he showed up, which made it a far different experience than the last time I tried to see him. I can say in candor that pretty much everyone in the audience know more Rakim lyrics than I did. But I was able to do my part on Paid in Full, where he basically rapped the first two lines (lines which Thurgreed and I agreed are perhaps the best opening lines of any song) and then held out the microphone and let the audience do the rest. Here is some kind of cheesy funk, but notable because 3 and a half minutes in, you can see where Eric B and Rakim got the opening drum beat from, and 2 minutes and twenty seconds in is the flute sample. It's the Soul Searchers with Ashley's Roachclip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAgY5MqpUq4

Here is the souped up version of Paid in Full:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7t8eoA_1jQ

The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone.
 

Because St. Patrick's Day is bipartisan, I give you this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/hbo/statu...42236538376192

Also because I have kind of a crush on Mrs. Trudy Campbell a/k/a Alison Brie.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Howard Jones says no one is to blame.

Tyler Cowen
 

The interesting part starts at 1:17: http://www.businessinsider.com/econo...esident-2017-3

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Yeah, that's what I said.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Unfortunately, that whole "care about people" thing gets in the Dems' way again.

Fortunately, they don't have the power to stop the GOP if it chooses to blow itself up.

Re: Tyler Cowen
 

Is this a link to the Chuck Berry...thing? Not the music thing.

Re: Tyler Cowen
 

Dude, your profile photo is coming true.

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/as...xlarge-169.jpg

TM

Re: Tyler Cowen
 

I watched this. Kind of. "Interesting" is a generous characterization. Some guy says that, although he has no idea if this is what is actually going on, maybe this is a way for us as a nation to get these angry negative feelings out of our system in a relatively harmless way. Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe it will actually be the start of a dangerous and resurgent white nationalist movement. He doesn't know, which he admits as a preface to his little speech, and you don't know and I don't know. Not to distract from the rampant speculation about what is going to happen or what this all means, but here is what I do know. The fucking president continually lies about really serious shit (and also really stupid trivial shit) and all his spokespeople continually lie and it is a really fucked up situation. Also, how is what Tyler Cowen described analogous to taking a placebo? I don't get the metaphor. That is actually interesting to me. How does placebo metaphor fit this scenario?

The Daily Dose is a rare old 45 by Homer Brown & His Group. It's "Sweet Peter Pt. 2" (which coincidentally is Hank's nickname):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTtI...BE6FEE0BD746A1

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

So it looks like Nunes and his Russian Party cohorts are undermining the investigation he supposed to be leading. So who investigates Nunes and Ryan?

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

In less consequential but also disturbing news, did Donny Trump, Jr. seriously just Twitter-mock the mayor of London after today's terror attacks? It's like some sort of Twitter-based douchebag Tourette's Syndrome runs in the family. #stepawayfromthekeyboard #orjustkeeptypingidontgiveafuck

Today's Daily Dose is "Breezeman" by Cymande:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uspNPBfh3-I

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Nobody. Because there's no there there.

The suggestion of nefarious behavior worked on Hillary during a campaign because she was facing a vote. Trump's in office. Focusing on the Russia thing is chasing the holy grail. It doesn't fucking exist. Sure, a clown like Stone may get indicted for smoothing, but Trump's not sophisticated enough, and Manafort is too smart, for there to have been any real collusion. (Manafort was playing his Russians, selling entree to nothing. He's the only guy more surprised than Trump that Trump was elected.)

While Trump plays Nunes, and Nunes plays Schiff on this Russia bullshit, the narrative to which average voters are actually paying attention - ACA repeal - gets short shrift.

Friday's headline should read, if the Dems are smart, "Tea Party Sinks ACA Repeal." That ink should not be competing with, "Schiff Says Nunes is Backstabber."

No one gives a fuck about the Russia story expect people reading boards like this, and the sliver of people still paying attention to the stories about it in WaPo and Times.

Millions more care about the ACA Repeal. And they care a lot.

The Dems are chasing too many shiny objects.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Nunes is awful. I will donate to his challenger.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Is he vulnerable? I know Issa is very vulnerable to a Democrat, and a top target, and Chaffetz might be vulnerable if we can get Mullin to run as either a Republican or Independent, but kicking the shit out of the idiots who have made a mockery of Congressional investigative powers over the last couple decades would be truly sweet.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

You're kidding, right?

We basically already know that Stone and Flynn were at least talking to Russian intelligence. You honestly think they didn't do any joint game planning?

Now, maybe you just don't think it matters or care about it, but there's certainly something there to look at.

Wait, you think the average voter is paying more attention to the ACA repeal details? Um, no.

I guess I think "Trump fails to deliver on health care promises" is probably better for the Dems.

That may be true.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

I think there is actually something wrong with you. Your desire to morph what is happening around you into something that fits your pre-conceived opinions is astounding. We just heard yesterday that [and I quote,] "there is more than circumstantial evidence now" that Trump associates colluded with Russia in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 election.

We also have the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is tasked with investigating the current administration run to the very people he is investigating (and the fucking press) with information he has attained in the course of his investigation before talking to anyone else in the Committee.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Also, didn't you leave?

TM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

They're fucked whether they pass this bill or not. It's a terrible bill that will do heavy damage to their constituents, so they can't pass it. But if they fail to pass it, they look like fucking fools since they control everything. They know it. I think Ryan figures if he can push it through, at least he gets the tax reform for the rich he's had a hard-on for his whole life.

TM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

not fair. We all did, at least once.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Usually for more than 5 minutes.

(And everyone faced this question upon their return.)

TM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Once a Russian Party apologist, always a Russian Party apologist.

One of the odds things about the Greedy Old Party denizens is that they simultaneously love to proclaim they're independent while adhering to every apology possible to let the Russian Party off the hook. Sebby, of course, will have nothing but glee for any tax savings that result from screwing people out of healthcare.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Leaving was a way of saying "I'm not taking the blame for this shit storm I helped create" and trying to get us to back off from calling out his bullshit. By taking a few days off, he hoped we'd forget, he's part of why the Russians are running the place.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

I didn't. I was never here. In fact, it is the tendency of people like Sebastian to speak with absolute certainty about issues that they does not have knowledge about that prevented me from ever stepping foot into this fetid cesspool of a so-called political debate in the first place.

Actual question for Sebastian. Putting aside that basically everything you said in your post is complete nonsense (e.g., you don't actually know whether or not collusion existed, you have zero information about what Manafort actually said to the Russians, your speculation about whether Trump was sophisticated enough to have engaged in illicit agreements with the Russians is entirely pulled from your ass, and your predictions about what voters do and do not care about have proven astoundingly unreliable in the past), let's just acknowledge that neither you nor I nor anyone else here knows what was said to Russia during the campaign and whether or not there was any influence on the campaign. But if you were a betting man, and you were forced to wager $100,000 on whether or not Trump or his campaign team had communications with Russia about influencing the election or about whether Russia had compromising information on Trump, and assuming you were going to get a definitive answer tomorrow, based solely on the fact that the administration seems desperate to distract from or otherwise subvert any investigation into these communications, wouldn't you put your money on "Yes"?

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

No one but people who already hate Trump, and Graham and McCain, care that his campaign opportunistically worked with Russians. Trump himself encouraged Russians to release HRC emails, on TV. What's the "big reveal" where the candidate himself already admitted the crime?

You think they'll find some conversation in which Manafort directed Russians to hack HRC? Fantasy. The only people likely to be ensnared here are useful idiots like Stone.

It's not illegal to talk to Russians. It's not illegal to tell Russians, "Hey. Keep those Wikileaks releases coming! They're really helping us." And there's no way this goes all the way to Trump. He'd probably be dumb enough to talk to Russians himself, but Putin's people aren't dumb enough to have allowed that to happen. Putin had to keep the Trump people in the dark enough to provide credible deniability. The best I think we'll find here is vague conversations that suggest collusion, but nothing proving direct coordination in any criminal act.

And then there's the final defense: "There is no evidence of the Russians, or anyone else, hacking into voting systems and physically changing votes." (Because that's pretty much impossible.)

The most the Dems get out of this is, "These dirty Trump people opportunistically worked in tandem with the Russians to smear HRC and the DNC and make them look bad. We think this changed the outcome."

Retort: "Tell us something we didn't already know."

Retort 2: "All's fair in politics."

Retort 3: "This is not illegal."

Hence, no there there. Politically, it's meh...

But the ACA debacle? That's a huge winner for the Dems. Monster embarrassment for not just Trump, but the entire GOP. I'd focus there and stop chasing this Russia stuff. Indicting Roger Stone, the best it'll yield, is Page Three crap.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

"And there's no way this goes all the way to Trump. He'd probably be dumb enough to talk to Russians himself, but Putin's people aren't dumb enough to have allowed that to happen. Putin had to keep the Trump people in the dark enough to provide credible deniability."

This is one of the examples of you speaking with complete certainty about something you have no actual information about. If I am wrong about this, then next time you speak to Putin, tell him to keep his shirt on because nobody wants to see that shit. Same advice I gave to Coltrane about standing in front of the microwave-surveillance camera when heating up his yuppie chili.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Of course they had those conversations. Who wouldn't? After the first drips from Wikileaks, it was clear Russia was sitting on a treasure trove of information damaging to Hillary and the DNC.

The important question is, was there communication which would qualify as criminal? Again, given the sophistication of the Russians, I'd have to say no. Given the idiocy of the low level Trump soldiers like Stone, I'd say some infantry there might be charged with crimes.

It's got an Iran/Contra kind of feel to it. You know some shenanigans took place, but nothing really sexy will be pinned on any of the people who matter.

A real criminal conspiracy at the highest levels would require Putin's people trusting Trump and his people. I just don't see the Russians ever doing that. Keeping the Trump people in the dark adequately enough to provide plausible deniability seems a baseline necessity.* It'd be spy malpractice to do otherwise.

__________
* ETA: In this regard, it has an Iraq/WMD bullshit campaign feel to it.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

I'm thinking of it like chess. I could be totally dead wrong. But I'm assuming Putin to be a rational, calculating actor applying sensible risk avoidance. That's a fair assumption.

Assuming that, he had to keep Trump's people in the dark to protect them and himself.

Alternatively, his aim might be to have Trump impeached, to throw us into chaos. But this would result in a Pence Presidency, which would be more Establishment, and not as Putin-friendly. Seems all but certainly self defeating.

Of course I don't know. I'm obviously just providing an analysis of likely scenarios.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

You seem to be assuming that Putin wants Trump to be president. He doesn't really. He wants to be able to create chaos, and having the ability to get the president ousted is a thing he'd like.


How is that relevant to the coordination issue?

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Anyone who was smart enough not to put themselves in a compromising position.

First of all, if they're already helping you, why do you need to talk to them?

Second, you have to be smart enough to know that talking to them exposes you, because they can use that fact against you whenever they want (also, you need to be smart enough to know we're monitoring their communications).

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

The GOP won the House, Senate and WH largely on the promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. Only they could screw it up so badly. I have even called my dumbass congressman to tell him to vote no on the AHCA, and he has a local town hall on Saturday, which Mr. Chick will be attending, so we'll see what he has to say. Of course, he's a dumbass, so I fully expect him to vote for the bill. The best assessment I have seen regarding ACA vs. AHCA is that under the ACA, the government gives you money to buy insurance, while under the AHCA, the government gives you money to buy insurance. The AHCA is definitively no better than the ACA, and I reserve judgment on whether or not it is actually worse. Trump went to give the hard sell and lost votes in the process. I sure hope he checks out the Art of the Deal to learn some negotiation skills for the future. It is disheartening to see so many former conservatives buying into this binary choice nonsense. As if the only two options really were the ACA as enacted and the crap bill they've proposed.


If I were Manafort, and under investigation by the FBI, I'd probably be living on the ground floor, employing a food taster, and investing in a Geiger counter about now.

I have been wholly impressed with the Gorsuch hearings, and I didn't think it possible, but now I love Ben Sasse even more. I think it would be a mistake for Schumer to mount a filibuster, but I also thought it was a mistake to sit out Garland. Schumer's bet is that Trump is a one term President, but as much as I hate the guy, I don't have any confidence that the Dems could beat him on a second try, even as unpopular as he is. See the efforts to play up Chelsea's "spicy" online persona, which make me throw up in my mouth.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Over our lifetime, there have been two things you can say with a very high level of confidence:

(1) When the Russian Party investigates someone, it is usually a crock of shit and goes no where (e.g., Benghazi). They use investigations themselves to punish people, rather than to find the guilty.

(2) When Dems investigate, someone goes to jail. Plame, Iran-contra, Watergate....

I'd speculate the reason for this is that the Dems have a constituency that is less villagers with pitchforks, the Russian party gets together at a convention and encourages everyone to scream "Lock her up" to unsubstantiated allegations of conduct that isn't even illegal.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Sasse is ok by me.

The Republicans ran on repealing a bill they never engaged with, and still haven't engaged with. They need a few years debating health care policy and deciding where they stand. Last time they had that debate here in Massachusetts, the Republicans, being fiscally conservative sorts who liked to work through the markets, fiercely advocated a mandate....

But then, Romney, whom I respect but detest, was indeed a principled Republican.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

I'm sorry, but this is completely untrue. And I'm not going to argue with you about it.

I think you actually think that I am looking at this from a "Who wins this political game" viewpoint. I'm not. If Trump's administration was colluding with the Russians to subvert our election and was coordinating DNC leaks to gain an advantage, that's treason in my opinion. I would feel the exact same way if it were the Obama administration.

Your ability to cordon this off in your mind such that it's just politics, combined, of course, with the conclusions you've just pulled straight out of your ass about what will be found, would be amazing if I didn't already know you. But because it's you, I'll just add it to your overwhelming list of bullshit.

Again, not a political game. Actual lives will be lost and people will be hurt if it's passed.

And I've already said that the Republicans lose whether this is passed or not. I think the Democrats are clearly not voting for this piece of shit for substantive reasons. And I think they're prepared to tie this shit-anvil around Republicans' necks for the foreseeable future no matter how it goes for political reasons.

TM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Bingo.

If they pass it, both Dems and everyone effected will be deeply pissed at them.

If they fail to pass it, both Republicans and everyone affected will be deeply pissed at them.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Round One on health care repeal to the good guys!