Barack Obama's e-mail?

So~A long groan excuse

Why B.O. is wearing new sneakers, and still begging for cash contributions for new pairs of socks?

What next? I want to be nice but, will there be a B.O. fan club in the near future and we can to become card carrying B.O. members?

I still want to vote for who? Mona Lisa?

If a fund raising cookie sale was organized by the elect B.O. committee of loyal supporters, and if B.O. sells oatmeal cookies, schnauzer puppies, and SPCA barn cats that are dropped off at my place, who wants?

and if the cat licks my chin,

I'll not answer B.O.'s e-mail.

B.O. needs to write via e-mail!

Why is B.O. so impotent in bed?

No! O, who does care, anyway?

Yes. sinjab, @ 2:40. Bill Moyer's.

Now what? I feel real bad-gassed.

Who knows what I'm talking about?

As to the comments section here, it isn't much different than the old UT, just open to a broader audience and naturally it appears the "quality" has suffered. It went up at Balkanization when Bart first moved over there? And since when did you have a problem with the first amendment? Those that can't hang in there are just our version of the cocktail weenie set. Screw 'em and good riddance

Telco PACs Gave $8K to Dems Who Changed Their Vote on FISA

Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, AlterNet at 10:00 AM on June 24, 2008.

How much is the Fourth Amendment worth? For some Dems, less than a compact car.

Submitted by Pamela Heisey

HOUSE DEMS WHO CHANGED THEIR VOTE TO SUPPORT FISA BILL, GIVING IMMUNITY TO TELCOS, RECEIVED, ON AVERAGE, $8,359 IN PAC CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VERIZON, AT&T, AND SPRINT

The average might have been about $8K but Steny Hoyer appears to have received about $29K as per the chart included in the post.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/rights/89267

I know that this nuanced position [...] will be misunderstood because of the complexity of the issues and the subtleties of my rationale.

It lacks the punch of "depends on what the meaning of is is" and "I voted for it before I voted against it," but reeks ever so much more of rank douchebaggery.

Let a thousand T-shirts and bumperstickers bloom!

Got to admit I liked the notion of Dodd reading the Denver Post editorial opposing telecom immunity to Ken Salazar who was acting as president/chair. I'll even forgive Dodd that quirky little grin he gave Salazar when he mentioned Salazar might already have seen it.

Correction: In a previous thread I claimed that Udall was opposing Beauprez for Allard's Colorado Senate seat. I spoke in error. Udall is opposing Bob Schaffer for Allard's seat. That error doesn't change the thrust of my argument that telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping (shrouded by the fig leaf to be voted on tomorrow) will remain supported by Colorado's Senate representatives well into the next election.

The estimated 2007 population of San Francisco was approximately 765,000 with nearly 16,000 people per square mile making it the second-most densely populated major American city. You can estimate the number of registered voters has increased some over the almost 500,000 in 2004. It might be close to 600,000 now. June 3rd primary results show an embarassingly low number of people even bothered to vote in the congressional race, unless voting for Pelosi.

Democratic

County Returns

Districtwide Results

Candidate Votes Percent

Shirley Golub 10,107 10.7 %

Nancy Pelosi 83,517 89.3 %

Republican

County Returns

Districtwide Results

Candidate Votes Percent

Dana Walsh 7,903 100.0 %

Libertarian

County Returns

Districtwide Results

Candidate Votes Percent

Philip Z. Berg 276 100.0 %

Mona,

Chris cannot seem to refrain from snarky "defenses" of Libertariansim, and today raises his hackles before the bait is even set out. However, LWM and some others are not innocent in this, either.

Usually you are smarter than this. You have it backwards. Not the first time. Sinnard set the bait out. It raised William's hackles. He's entitled. I could say more but what's the point? Just read the numbers above and weep. As to the comments section here, it isn't much different than the old UT, just open to a broader audience and naturally it appears the "quality" has suffered. It went up at Balkanization when Bart first moved over there? And since when did you have a problem with the first amendment? Those that can't hang in there are just our version of the cocktail weenie set. Screw 'em and good riddance

http://cboldt.blogspot.com

20:13: Senator Dodd shutting down the Senate, passes a mess of bills; a S.Res.599 expressing condolances to the families of Boy Scout victims of the Iowa tornadoes; another resolution honoring victims of the Khobar Towers bombing. After morning busines, resumes consideration of the Housing Bailout.

Obviously reading without thinking, he asks to re-enter a period of morning business, then to strike that, then to the script that describes the presence (and effect) of objection to details in the Housing Bailout - "this shows how the will of one Senator can disrupt Senate progress."

He segues into the FISA subject, and his objection to retroactive immunity, and PURE SPECULATION of massive invasion of privacy, couched as an assumption a massive invasion occurred, and a demand to find out who was responsible.

He claims he is limited in the amount of time he can talk, being in post-cloture time. True that, But there is a MASSIVE disconnect, because he is occupying Housing Bill post-cloture time to debate FISA. There will be ANOTHER post-cloture time, after the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to FISA has been passed - tomorrow or the next day (Senator Dodd says, "sometime in the next 24 to 48 hours," a reflection of the expected time to complete Housing Bialout). There can be still another post-cloture period, if cloture is forced and obtained on final passage of FISA.

What's funny, is that some people will take Dodd's speech tonight as "FISA filibuster," when in fact, he's just burning time charged to the Housing Bill. What he's doing now has ZERO impact on the parliamentary status or process on the FISA bill.

- - cboldt