Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bal]

I like the way they refer to "leftists" like fucking Lenin is in the back room making vodka tonics for everyone.

[Büge]

I kept seeing it as "The Republicans of Dane [Cook] County." Because they seem to have a lack of respect for their peers, they never stop hassling you with their material and are loud rather than relevant.

[Royal☭]

Walker backs down on the court order

[Rico]

I like the way they refer to "leftists" like fucking Lenin is in the back room making vodka tonics for everyone.

Shit where can I sign up?

[Royal☭]

I am accepting applications right now.

[Thad]

My guess is that their egos are so inflated that they can't just go back and revote on the bill, since this is all about open meeting laws that they violated.

Exactly.  Another case where if they'd just shut up for a second they'd come out ahead, as passing it again would be trivial.

OTOH, they don't really have any incentive to act like adults at this point; they've spent all their political capital and nothing they do now is going to get back the constituens they've lost.  The people who are still in their camp WANT to see them act like Fox News hosts instead of public servants.

...so really, I'm not sure what they intend to achieve now that they HAVE backed down.  Maybe avoiding legal repercussions for telling a judge they don't give a fuck what she has to say?

[Bal]

I like the way they refer to "leftists" like fucking Lenin is in the back room making vodka tonics for everyone.

Shit where can I sign up?

Little known fact, Lenin's vodka tonics were considered terrible. Though this may have to do with the fact that cutting vodka with anything in Russia is actually punishable by death.

[Mongrel]

Though that ignores the fact that most 'Vodka' over there is actually a hybrid between 'something Gramma made in the tub' and 'soviet-era drain cleaner... hey they were just gonna throw this shit out, can you believe that?'

[Mongrel]

So an obsessive fellow I know sent me this link stating that it demonstrates a congressional attempt to circumvent the constitution and pass legislation into law entirely through the legislative branch.

When things get down to the really legalistic stuff, I can easily get lost, but... it looks like he's right? Specifically, the bit that states that "If you don't do anything this becomes de facto law by blah blah blah..." Am I missing something important here?

EDIT: He attempted to clarify things, but uh, I'm not sure I follow:

WaPo tries to explain the logic:

Essentially, it means that if only the House passed a bill stating that H.R. 1 would become law with no action by the Senate or the president, the enacting of H.R. 1 into law would be unconstitutional.

But, if the Senate were to pass H.R. 1255 (and if the president were to sign it), the Senate would be determining its own rules for how H.R. 1 would become law (i.e., by the Senate not passing its own funding bill by April 6). So, that would be in accordance with the Constitution, the House Republicans’ argument goes.

Of course, this ignores that even in such a scenario, any bill would still need to be signed by the President to become law, although the Senatorial half of the equation is shady enough.

[Smiler]

From what I think I read, the bill would make it possible for the House to circumvent everyone else and pass bills and make them law if they deem that the other branches of government are not doing their job.

The best part is that of course it is a Republican bill. Big ups to the Republicans who actually didn't lock-step vote on this. They will suffer days of having a -D next to their name whenever they show up on Fox News.

Granted I didn't put much effort into reading and trying to figure it out, but it is about as much effort as the guy who wrote this thing is putting into being a representative of our government.

[Ted Belmont]

Six-year-olds, Dude.

[Brentai]

On the one hand that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

On the other hand it's financially punishing Texans for raising dumbfuck kids.

[Royal☭]

AuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCUFCUKFKDLJNGlksnbndgnf

Everything in that article pretty clearly indicates that various municipalities have found way to increase the tax burden on poor people. AUGOIHng

This just makes me angry all the goddamn time.

[Norondor]

dude why are you so upset :)

america doesn't have social problems :)

don't you know pessimism isn't cool :)

[Royal☭]

Oh no wait I can beat that

How about just putting children in prisons

[Mongrel]

Which thread was it where I was predicting that eventually all sites the US didn't like would be moved lock stock stock and DNS to other countries?

Because the next stage in that process is here.



Slightly more details here

[TA]

"Slightly more details" including the bank fraud and money laundering charges.  Pretty legit crimes.

[Metal Slime]

Democrats mess up the Republicans and cause chaos by opting to vote "Present" instead of "No"

Apparently the only way to win is not to play at all....

[Mongrel]

"Slightly more details" including the bank fraud and money laundering charges.  Pretty legit crimes.

Assuming of course the charges really do bear out and this doesn't turn out to be a Yukos Oil kind of thing. That honestly wouldn't surprise me these days. But it's more likely that the bank fraud etc. charges are just a forced way to nail them for something they really had no way of nailing them on (running an online gambling site). and probably relates to their making payouts to US gamblers for online poker without labeling them as such.

It was recently pointed out that just before the new year there was a proposed bill which had a rider in it which officially legalized online poker in the US, but in doing so forbid any poker site that wasn't based on an American brick-and-mortar casino from getting a license to operate for two years. The argument being made is that that's a pretty clear statement of intent (as far as policy goes).

Anyway, even if the charges are 100% legit, I still think the chilling effect applies.

[Cait]

If the described transactions are true, this is nothing like Yukos. Yukos was over quasi-legal tax havens, this is over Pokerstars et al. telling banks "Gambling? We don't do gambling, we... uh... sell golf balls!" because it's illegal for banks to accept money derived from online gambling. Which is either bank fraud or money laundering depending on whether golf balls actually did enter the picture.