Comments on: Don’t look at me! He’s the one that tried to sell my seat.

By: TigerShark

TigerShark — Tue, 05 May 2009 05:04:03 +0000

why is it if a conservative says something strong…its called pounding the RNC rhetoric….but if a liberal does the same its called shining the light….newsflash brainiacs….DC’s been in trouble longer than the last 8 yrs….and as long as ya keep sendin the same horse to the race…gonna get the same results….is obama clean?….dunno…but look at who he’s around….his finance manager….obama says..I’ll hold wall street responsible..but yet when his finance manager was the head of fannie mae or freddie mac(not sure which n dont care)….when the senate started to investigate…he took 90 mill and ran…now I ask you…if obama’s campaign finance manager franklin raines was in charge of the aforementioned agency….wouldnt that make him a banker?….and as for TARP…regardless of whose administration it was that concocted the idea….IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE BRANCH THAT POUNDED IT THRU…..against opposition by the republicans….pay attention!!!!!

By: Lllll.

Lllll. — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:00:21 +0000

P.S. thank you Death Wyrm

By: Lllll.

Lllll. — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:27:52 +0000

…this just proves that several of my favorite sayings are true; ‘you get what you’re taxed for: death and strangers”

By: rhorho

rhorho — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:00:50 +0000

Okay, bad example, but it looks like you’re
getting what I mean.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:39:49 +0000

Yes and no My brain works differently than that, and I’m not taking offense at the implication that GWB is being looked at for war crimes, because the fact remains that he more than likely WILL BE even though he’s not at this moment.
-
I think it’s a case of differently working thought processes colliding together to make a scary little collage of irritation, hehe.
-

By: rhorho

rhorho — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:58:02 +0000

Perhaps this was a silly misunderstanding. I think you’re likely to agree that your first post about Rahm started off with a troll sentence, then backed off of itself. You probably thought that post had a net effect of zero, yes? Because you took it back?

See what you think of this paraphrase:

“GWB is being looked at for war crimes. Let’s not clear felons before their appeals come in. *said as a turn of phrase, not to imply that GWB is now or ever was or ever will be a felon* *said in the really fast talking announcers disclaimer voice*”

Your first reaction might be, “Gee, rho is being snarky, implying that GWB is a defendant, and a felon. Sure, she went funny later, but she’s definitely trying to say that GWB is a criminal. That much is clear. If she didn’t mean it, she wouldn’t have posted anything.”

See what I’m getting at?

By: Jane St.Clair

Jane St.Clair — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:08:21 +0000

Stop guys, you’re choking me up here. All this emotion between the two of you is too much. I’m serious, stop hugging right now.

By: AtlasShrugged

AtlasShrugged — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:29:14 +0000

True. I just wonder how much the office of President is going to age him .

By: AtlasShrugged

AtlasShrugged — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:27:44 +0000

Put the light bulb back in your mouth and go blow up a toy train- you’ll feel much better !!!

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:54:10 +0000

What you’ve done is taken part of a single post I made, took what I said and turned it into what you think I meant, and then are using it to try and make me back down. I didn’t say what you’re accusing me of saying, nor did I mean what you’re accusing me of meaning.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:37:28 +0000

It’s not backpedaling when I’m just saying what I’ve been fricking saying the whole time.

By: slan agat

slan agat — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:34:57 +0000

You’re doing fine, froo, that’s an excellent job backpedaling. You’ll be safely away from the cliff in no time.

By: rhorho

rhorho — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:34:41 +0000

From your article:

“Whatever you think of Emanuel — an abrasive, take-no-prisoners political brawler — he has always struck me as exemplifying the best in the traditional if sometimes messy politics of getting things done for people. He may be hard-charging, even mean, but he seems to be a principled man — the polar opposite of Blagojevich.”

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:33:06 +0000

Look, I’m tired of this getting blown out of proportion. I said he had something to do with the investigation. HE DOES. He’s being looked at by a grand jury ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE ON THE TAPES. That doesn’t mean he did anything wrong. I’m just not taking a stance either way as far as innocence or guilt. I didn’t say he did anything. I’m just not ready to completely absolve him until the entire text of the tapes is out. Why is that such a bad thing??

By: slan agat

slan agat — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:29:53 +0000

froo, I’m calling bullsh!t. Not presuming innocence IS presuming guilt, by casting aspersions and attempting to tear down credibility. You don’t have to pull out the Mark Slackmeyer GUILTY!GUILTY!GUILTY! to be out of line on this – as you yourself argued when it was TC doing it. You’ve said yourself that “it’s likely” he did something, and then admitted you were spitballing? Fine, you were spitballing. Cut it the fnck out.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:24:00 +0000

Crap, forgot to close off the bold. SOrry.
-
And Rahm has been involved with (as I said) sticky politics before, so is it so far outside the bounds of normal thinking to bring that up? He’s a shady political figure, based solely off his past performance. NOT HIS FUTURE PERFORMANCE. He’s done some strange political things in the past that were skirting the bounds of legalities. It’s not beyond the pale to think that it would follow that he’s very good at it, seeing as how he’s never been sent to jail.
-
THAT”S ALL I SAID. He’s good at what he does, no matter what that might be.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:21:30 +0000

“You know as well as I do that Rahm could have been acting ‘on behalf’….”
-
“I’m not presuming guilt, but I’m also not presuming innocence knowing Rahms rather sticky past”
-
That’s all I said. Also, there is a link that shows that he is being looked at, although in a peripheral way by the Attorney Gen’s office. Only because he was involved.

By: pittypat

pittypat — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:13:10 +0000

Happy 2009 guys! This dial up sucks, so
I’ll be back next year …

By: pittypat

pittypat — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:11:20 +0000

I agree. The “hasn’t been caught yet”
claims are an indictment.

By: rhorho

rhorho — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:07:50 +0000

@froo: Saying it’s *likely* that Rahm did something wrong, along with your earlier claim to know whether Rahm is “being looked at,” which you DON’T, is irresponsible in the best light. Even your statement that “Rahm’s a little more schooled than that” implies that he has done something wrong, without proof.

Patience, please: We will have actual facts in a short while. It’s just as likely that Rahm has been asked for silence, to aid any continuing investigation, than it is to presume guilt. We are taught in school that defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Rahm isn’t even a defendant!

@DWN: She’s creating shadows, just like TC was doing a little while ago.

By: pittypat

pittypat — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:07:09 +0000

With a penis?

By: slan agat

slan agat — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:06:50 +0000

Actually, you’re splitting a pretty fine hair there between saying he did something and saying it’s *likely* he did something. True that froo hasn’t whipped out the Mark Slackmeyer GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! yet, but directly above you she admitted that she’s saying it’s likely Rahm did something dirty and then admitting she’s spitballing.

Call rho for overreacting if you must, but calling bullsh!t when she’s making a legitimate bullshit call is swinging too far the other way.

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:52:14 +0000

@rhorho: And I am going to back Froofrou here. She isn’t saying he did anything. She is saying he isn’t cleared yet. For one making a fuss about facts not in evidence, you are certainly claiming them against froofrou here.

It is actually rather annoying. She doesn’t have a leg to stand on because she isn’t trying to stand on anything. Get it?

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:48:31 +0000

I NEVER SAID HE DID ANYTHING. I said it’s likely, but it’s just as likely that Obama had eggs with his toast this morning. We know he’s on the tapes. We don’t know what he said. That’s all I said. Dammit.

By: rhorho

rhorho — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:41:34 +0000

With Rahm, you are presuming guilt before the facts come out. Stop doing that. As of this point in time, there is more going for his innocence than for his guilt. For one thing, he hasn’t been named in an indictment. You don’t have a leg to stand on.

*sows acorn above buried Right-Wing Conspiracy-Nut side of froo’s brain in hopes that something good will come of it, eventually*

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:29:18 +0000

Blago comes from the Shaggy school of defense. Even if you’re caught red-handed, deny deny deny! It wasn’t me!
-
Rahm’s a little more schooled than that, as is Obama. It would be foolish to run off at the mouth like Blago did and then be proven so horribly wrong. Rahm is acting wisely keeping his mouth shut until the whole truth comes out.
-
*slaps down Right-Wing-Conspiracy-Nut side of brain that is screaming ‘NO! THE TRUTH WILL NEVER COME OUT! BLARGH!*
*buries that side of brain under 6 feet of dirt and tequilla*

By: rhorho

rhorho — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:24:46 +0000

No, I’m not “looking at the non-denials as
evidence” of anything.

“Presumption of innocence” is a legal right
of all Americans.

I was musing that no one has presented
the “presumption” argument for Blago,
because the evidence against him is
overwhelming.

Time will tell, and in the meantime, cynical
speculation is counter-productive to the
tasks our nation faces.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:20:10 +0000

As far as Obama being cleared and that therefore clears Rahm, I call bullsh*t on you because you know as well as I do that Rahm could have been acting ‘on behalf’ (with big giant air quotes) and Obama could still have known nothing about it. Obama has been officially cleared. Rahm and the other members of Obama’s staff who had anything to do with this (weren’t there a couple more?) haven’t been. Let’s wait and see on them. I’m not presuming guilt, but I’m also not presuming innocence knowing Rahms rather sticky past.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:17:09 +0000

See, you’re looking at the non-denials as evidence of innocence. You’ll forgive me for being a little more cynical about it and thinking that it’s not an admission of anything yet, that they’re just waiting to see what’s actually ON the tapes. Rahm was acting on behalf of Obama, that much is clear based off the time frame of the tapes. What he actually SAID is up for speculation, and I believe I have stated clearly in the past that I have no idea what was said, nor will I speculate. Only that I hope that no one in the Obama camp was actually THAT stupid.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:29:56 +0000

…a corpuscle?

By: rhorho

rhorho — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:29:33 +0000

*turns attention to Slan’s fine arse*
*(thinks she’s watching the porn channel)*

By: slan agat

slan agat — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:26:58 +0000

…a corpsicle?

By: rhorho

rhorho — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:26:36 +0000

*amused by flies buzzing corpse and Popsicle*
*(thinks she’s watching TV)*

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:24:45 +0000

*is now a corpse with a popsicle* …

By: froofrou

froofrou — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:23:13 +0000

*rolls Rho and DWN back up the hill in their wheelchairs*
*puts brakes on FIRMLY*
*gives DWN a Popsicle to distract him*
*tops off Rho’s Goldschlager*

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:18:40 +0000

*is now a kicked corpse*

By: rhorho

rhorho — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:18:36 +0000

Thanks, n8. Your rockage is legendary.
*offers pen and autograph book*

By: froofrou

froofrou — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:17:36 +0000

*kicks DWN in hindquarters, but laughs anyway because it’s just FUNNY*

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:34 +0000

*flies down hill in wheelchair into a tree*

*dies*

By: rhorho

rhorho — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:14:59 +0000

*ignores DWN’s post*

By: slan agat

slan agat — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:14:25 +0000

Go right ahead, Jane. I’ll let you know privately what you owe me in royalties. ;^)

By: rhorho

rhorho — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:12:42 +0000

*appreciates kind gestures*
*offers froo brand-new glow-in-the-dark Frisbee*

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:11:25 +0000

*pushes wheelchair down hill*
>_>

<_<

By: froofrou

froofrou — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:10:13 +0000

*gives Rho a shot of Goldschlager*
*adjusts Rho’s wheelchair so she can see the fireworks*

By: rhorho

rhorho — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:05:42 +0000

*headdesk*

I was just on the GWB lol, and got confoozled.
My brain is permanently warped.

I can has New Years’ Goldschlager nao??

By: froofrou

froofrou — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:01:02 +0000

And, curiosity here, are you trying to prove my point about your warped brain? GWB isn’t IN the above picture……….. unless you’re comparing Obama to GWB, and I KNOW you’re not doing that

By: froofrou

froofrou — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:59:56 +0000

or an ingrown pubic hair.

By: rhorho

rhorho — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:58:43 +0000

Okay, I’ll relent. Your logic has convinced me: GWB is
not punctual and tidy. In fact, the above photo looks
like he’s scratching at his problem eczema…

By: froofrou

froofrou — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:57:37 +0000

and a penis.

By: n8

n8 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:56:56 +0000

Serious penis is serious.