Monkeyboy wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: Beats the hell out of the crap going on in New York and Illinois.

People close to Paterson are leaking that he's going to pick Princess Caroline.

I don't think I like Paterson very much, and it wouldn't shock me at all if he loses next year. What's horrifying is the thought of who might beat him.

I guess upstate NY likes him fore than NYC, but how can he possibly win? Isn't he half-man, half-punchline these days? I realize politics can change greatly over the course of even a few months, but he has more baggage than practically anyone in America, from Keric to his mistress to the 911 fiascos with the bad radios, etc.

Take away the 9/11 and Kerik stuff, and you're basically describing Patterson as well.

jerseyhoya wrote:People keep saying that in this thread, but really good reporters like Lynn Sweet keep referencing the many ways the Senate is going to obstruct the appointment. From the article linked to above:

The new Congress will be sworn in Tuesday. Burris will arrive with no floor privileges because Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White will not certify his appointment. The Senate will likely refer the matter to the Rules Committee, where it will be handled as s-l-o-w-l-y as possible. For example, the rules panel will require a very, very, very complete investigation to make sure the appointment is stain-free.

While the Senate Democrats are slow-walking, they want the Illinois House to fast-walk the Blagojevich impeachment proceedings, and then have a swift state Senate trial, conviction, and installation of Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn as governor. Quinn then can make the pick, preferably a Democrat with an excellent chance of winning either a special election or the 2010 contest.

See also, this article from the Politico.

Sure, they can obstruct the appointment, but pursuant to the Supreme Court case that I cited upthread, I don't think there's anything they can legally do to competely not seat him.

I like caroline kennedy as a senator. there, i said it.

Bakestar wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: Beats the hell out of the crap going on in New York and Illinois.

People close to Paterson are leaking that he's going to pick Princess Caroline.

I don't think I like Paterson very much, and it wouldn't shock me at all if he loses next year. What's horrifying is the thought of who might beat him.

I guess upstate NY likes him fore than NYC, but how can he possibly win? Isn't he half-man, half-punchline these days? I realize politics can change greatly over the course of even a few months, but he has more baggage than practically anyone in America, from Keric to his mistress to the 911 fiascos with the bad radios, etc.

Take away the 9/11 and Kerik stuff, and you're basically describing Patterson as well.

True, but the 911 stuff pretty much ruined him in NYC, and it would be tough to win NY state without doing decently in NYC. And I suspect we haven't heard the worst of the Kerik fiasco.

If there's one man in America, outside of maybe Norquist, I want to see out of public office, it's Ghouliani. So I really hope he isn't viable.

Can't we just send all the Kennedys to exile somewhere like Bolivia?

TenuredVulture wrote:Can't we just send all the Kennedys to exile somewhere like Bolivia?

This sounds like my idea for a reality show from a couple years back: "Bush/Clinton Island."

All the members of the two principal families, plus their top 100 or so retainers and loyalists each, are exiled to some smallish island in the Pacific. Also there are a couple thousand prisoners who accepted exile in return for release, and their families on a voluntary or compensated basis. Members of the two families run against each other in a never-ending series of elections. NOBODY CAN EVER LEAVE.

So, a couple of Kennedys take a bullet, and for the next century, we have to endure the antics and political ambitions of their relatives.

Does anyone under the age of 50 understand the Kennedy Mystique? Other than getting Vietman going and failing to pass significant civil rights legislation, what are the accomplishments of this family of bootleggers?

TenuredVulture wrote:So, a couple of Kennedys take a bullet, and for the next century, we have to endure the antics and political ambitions of their relatives.

Does anyone under the age of 50 understand the Kennedy Mystique? Other than getting Vietman going and failing to pass significant civil rights legislation, what are the accomplishments of this family of bootleggers?

umm...aren't you forgetting they built Camelot? or something like that.

TenuredVulture wrote:Can't we just send all the Kennedys to exile somewhere like Bolivia?

The Bush family bought a bunch of land in Paraguay. Maybe they can live together.

Richardson withdraws from Commerce, due to an investigation going on back in New Mexico.

Being in charge is fun, huh?

Hard to say since they aren't in charge yet. Weeding out a few bad appointments doesn't equal systemic corruption and incompetence, not that you ssaid it did.

btw, racism still exist:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UjxwAr2Mfg[/youtube]
Apparently two young girls reported the comments...so we've now institutionalized another generation. yay

TenuredVulture wrote:So, a couple of Kennedys take a bullet, and for the next century, we have to endure the antics and political ambitions of their relatives.

Does anyone under the age of 50 understand the Kennedy Mystique? Other than getting Vietman going and failing to pass significant civil rights legislation, what are the accomplishments of this family of bootleggers?

Certainly aren't accomplished at driving over a bridge

Uh, I don't think it's on the kids. It's on the airlines.

jerseyhoya wrote:Uh, I don't think it's on the kids. It's on the airlines.

headscarf = terrorist in their eyes. where did they learn that?

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Uh, I don't think it's on the kids. It's on the airlines.

headscarf = terrorist in their eyes. where did they learn that?

Oh please, like if you didn't overhear a bunch of Muslims talking about the optimal place to sit on a plane for safety reasons you won't pee your pants.

Quick, name an american muslim who has committed a terroristic act against the U.S.

Now, quick, name a American Christian terrorist.

I got nothing on the 1st and a half dozen on the 2nd.

I've heard conversations about stuff like that in planes several times. Heck, I probably even had a conversation like that myself. Over the wings and in the tail section are the safest spots. I know I've said that on a plane. It seems like a pretty normal conversation among people who are nervous about flying.

This is what the fearmongers have done to us. Normal conversations and normal people and normal situations are now so scary that we can't function. The constant threat of litigation also doesn't help, as airline are apt to error on the side of safety, even if the situation doesn't really warrant it.

Find me a left handed, Irish Catholic man born on July 19, 1982 who has committed terrorism in the United States.

Now name a Muslim who has.

I cannot find any of type one, and there are plenty in column two.

Too bad those Muslims weren't wearing their "I'm an American Muslim" hats so Monkeyboy could clear them as OK.

Look, the airline effed up big time not letting them fly once the FBI found it was not a big deal, but having a bit of extra vigilance towards Muslims when they are flying isn't exactly the worst thing in the world.

TenuredVulture wrote:So, a couple of Kennedys take a bullet, and for the next century, we have to endure the antics and political ambitions of their relatives.

Does anyone under the age of 50 understand the Kennedy Mystique? Other than getting Vietman going and failing to pass significant civil rights legislation, what are the accomplishments of this family of bootleggers?

jerseyhoya wrote:Find me a left handed, Irish Catholic man born on July 19, 1982 who has committed terrorism in the United States.

Now name a Muslim who has.

I cannot find any of type one, and there are plenty in column two.

Too bad those Muslims weren't wearing their "I'm an American Muslim" hats so Monkeyboy could clear them as OK.

Look, the airline effed up big time not letting them fly once the FBI found it was not a big deal, but having a bit of extra vigilance towards Muslims when they are flying isn't exactly the worst thing in the world.

Yeh, not if you're not a muslim. Maybe we should have them wear gold stars, too.

It's not an abnormal conversation. And why would they want to know the safest place to be if they're terrorists? Wouldn't they have thought that out ahead of time? Wouldn't they be committing suicide anyway? It just doesn't logically follow that a terrorist would be the type of person to have that conversation.

I can usually tell an american muslim from a non-american one based on cultural things and accents, though I guess I could see kids not knowing that. So I'll give you that point, except that the airline certainly knew their nationalities.

I'm not sure I understand the irish catholic thing. I'm just making the point that we are treating people differently because they belong to a certain group and that group hasn't even done anything wrong. If we are going to do profiling, let's at least do it on people who have shown a willingness to cause harm. American muslims haven't done anything at this point, while white supremicist groups have been responsible for several terrorist attacks. If we're going to pull people off planes, let's start by pulling people with shaved heads and tattoos. Nah, can't do that because then we'll be pulling military folks off planes and the public would be outraged.... better to stick with the darkies in the robes.


I'm not trying to attack you here because I doubt we have opinions that differ all that much. I'm just tired of hearing how we should all be so scared that we should give away our civil rights.