Friday Talking Points -- The Party With No Shame

[ Posted Friday, May 28th, 2021 – 17:54 UTC ]

The Republican Party continued its downward slide into shamelessness today, as they successfully used the Senate's filibuster to block a bill which would have created an independent commission to investigate the unprecedented attack on the United States Capitol (by insurrectionists who wanted to stop Congress from officially declaring the winner of the presidential election, because they didn't like the election's result). Six Republicans voted for the measure, and one more has said he would have if he had been present. Forty-eight Democrats voted for it, and assumably the two who were absent (Patty Murray and Kyrsten Sinema) would also have voted to approve the measure. But that only adds up to a possible total of 57, which still would have left the bill three votes short of the necessary 60. An odd footnote: the final vote (54-35) actually represented 60.7 percent of the senators who were actually present for it -- but that's not the way the filibuster rules work.

Republicans aren't even pretending to hide their real reasoning any more, that's the peak (nadir?) of shamelessness they have now achieved. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski made news as she begged her fellow Republicans to support the measure:

To be making a decision for the short-term political gain at the expense of understanding and acknowledging what was in front of us on January 6th, I think we need to look at that critically.... I think it's important for the country that there be an independent evaluation. Is that really what this is about, is everything is just one election cycle after another?

But Mitch McConnell had already answered that with a resounding: "Of course it is!" by arguing against the commission this week in a closed-door meeting of his caucus (which Murkowski presumably attended), telling his fellow Republicans that voting for a commission could hurt them in the midterm election cycle. That is the sole reason McConnell is not interested in investigating the worst attack on the seat of American government since 1814. He was just fine with Benghazi investigation after Benghazi investigation, because they were designed to do political damage to Hillary Clinton, but he knows that if the truth about Donald Trump's actions that day are ever fully exposed, it will hurt his party's brand. One of Republicans' biggest fears with the commission is that it would not meet the set deadline of preparing their final report by the end of this calendar year. If it went into 2022, it could impact the midterm election. And we certainly can't have that, as far as Mitch is concerned.

So instead, what is almost certainly going to happen now is that Nancy Pelosi will put together a select committee in the House, which will be as partisan as the Democrats feel like making it. This committee will not have an artificial timetable imposed on it, and it will not have the features of the proposed independent commission (which was modelled on the 9/11 commission, to ensure fairness). It will be completely and utterly run by Democrats, since they hold the majority in the chamber. The investigation is going to take place, in other words, it's just going to be a lot more partisan now that Republicans have walked away from the idea of a bipartisan and independent commission. To put it another way, Republicans may have just successfully shot themselves in the foot.

This isn't too surprising when you realize how far the party has gone down the rabbit hole these days. This is a conscious choice for most Republican politicians, because they are terrified at the sheer (and growing) lunacy of their own base voters -- a majority of whom firmly believe Trump's Big Lie that the election was somehow stolen from him. Fealty to Trump is now the sole tenet of the Republican faith.

Consider the following: Arizona's state government is about to pass a law that strips the ability of one elected official to defend election practices in court and hands it to a different elected official. This law is temporary and only applies to the term of office both will serve out. The reason? One is a Democrat and one is a Republican. You can guess which is which.

In Nevada, the state Republican Party just voted to censure one of its own for her refusal to feed the Big Lie. This is a fairly common occurrence, these days, among state-level Republicans, but this one was notable because they packed the committee vote with members of the Proud Boys, in order to pass the censure. The Proud Boys advocate political violence and White supremacy, so the Republicans are now officially welcoming terrorists not only into its ranks but into its party power structure.

Republican voters are embracing increasingly-bizarre conspiracy theories, aided and abetted by the right-wing media. And some conspiracy theorists have already been elected to Congress and continue to make bizarre pronouncements, as Marjorie "Three-Names" Taylor Greene did this week, on the subject of masks and vaccinations against a global pandemic:

You know, we can look back at a time in history where people were told to wear a gold star, and they were definitely treated like second class citizens, so much so that they were put in trains and taken to gas chambers in Nazi Germany. And this is exactly the type of abuse that Nancy Pelosi is talking about.

Later, she doubled down on this outrageous idiocy, tweeting: "Vaccinated employees get a vaccination logo just like the Nazi's [sic] forced Jewish people to wear a gold star." And, when challenged, she responded: "I stand by all of my statements, I said nothing wrong." This is the same woman who, earlier, explored creating a caucus based on "Anglo-Saxon political traditions," please remember.

This is today's Republican Party. The House leadership is so terrified of the rabid nature of their own base that they refuse to punish members who compare having to wear a mask or prove vaccination status with the Holocaust. The party itself has been radicalized from within, and the only ones with the power to stop it are cowering in fear instead of standing up for what is right. Extremists run the show, and everybody else is trapped in a bunker mentality where they have abdicated any moral or political power to the crazies.

Greene raised $3.2 million for her re-election fund in just the first quarter of this year alone -- an outrageously-high amount for a House freshman (or for any House member, period). This is where the power now lies, within the Republican Party, and the "leaders" know it full well.

Meanwhile, suspected underage-sex-trafficker Matt Gaetz, who is travelling with Marjorie Three-Names (in their "Craziest of the Crazy" tour of America), just said this:

The internet's hall monitors out in Silicon Valley, they think they can suppress us, discourage us -- maybe if you're just a little less patriotic, maybe if you just conform to their way of thinking a little more, you'll be allowed to participate in the digital world. Well, you know what? Silicon Valley can't cancel this movement or this rally or this congressman. We have a Second Amendment in this country, and I think we have an obligation to use it.

Gaetz made this literal call to arms -- an encouragement to his followers to just go out to Silicon Valley and gun people down -- the day after a horrific mass shooting in San Jose, California (right in the heart of Silicon Valley). The Republican Party's shamelessness just knows no boundaries, folks. Neither Gaetz nor Greene face any punishment for their outrageous behavior as of this writing, and it's a pretty safe bet neither will face any punishment (at the hands of their fellow Republicans, at the least) in the future.

Another part of the growing GOP insanity seems to be feeding what can only be called the "Big Lie Industrial Complex." The three-ring circus of a ballot "audit" in Arizona looks like it will be adopted elsewhere (although other states may take precautions to avoid the worst idiocies of the Arizona fiasco). Georgia and Wisconsin seem like they'll be next. There is zero chance that any of these will overturn anything (Joe Biden is going to stay president no matter what, in other words), but they do successfully siphon money into the "fake vote auditing" industry (which was created specifically for this purpose, it's worth pointing out).

When Republicans like Liz Cheney tie themselves into knots to explain why they fight against Trump's Big Lie, but still support all the voter suppression laws Republicans are passing in state after state, they usually only want to talk about voter ID. But that's not the bulk of these new laws at all:

In Michigan, a voter transportation law bars "anyone from hiring transportation for bringing voters to the polls unless the voters are physically unable to walk." This has nothing to do with security at all. It allows rich people to call an Uber to go to a polling location, but it would bar churches from hosting "souls to the polls" events, a common turn-out-the-vote practice used by African American communities. This is straight voter suppression aimed at the poor, the elderly and African Americans.

Georgia and Florida have both banned the distribution of water or food to anyone waiting in line to vote (though they still allow poll workers to provide these items). Again, this does nothing to make voting more secure; it makes it more arduous, especially in African American-majority precincts where wait times are longer than in whiter precincts. Democracy Docket found that "every single county in the Atlanta metro area saw an average wait time of 45 minutes or more, meaning the region as a whole saw some of the longest wait times in the state. The most densely populated and majority Black region of the state was also where it was hardest to vote early in 2020."

Meanwhile, nearly three dozen bills seek to limit early voting, some of which are aimed squarely at African American communities. Democracy Docket reports:

Texas's HB 2293 would restrict early voting to between the hours of 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. -- a deliberate attack on the 24-hour early voting sites set up by Harris County in 2020 that led to record turnout and expanded ballot access for people who worked long daytime hours and could not get time off.

Once again, this has nothing to do with voter IDs (it's in-person voting!) and does not make voting any more secure. It is about making it more difficult for certain people (mostly hourly employees and many with child-care issues) to vote.

Or, in other words, making it harder for Democrats to vote. Because the Republican Party is now shamelessly trying to stack the deck in their favor.

This all means 2020 was nothing more than a dry run, to them. If Republicans formed a 1/6 commission, it would be to investigate why the insurrection didn't succeed and make recommendations to do a better job overturning election results in the future. This is not hyperbole -- this is what is actually happening in America, right now.

Mitch McConnell threw his own political heft behind the effort to stop the independent commission from being formed. He tried to paint it all as some partisan effort, even though the bill was co-written by a Republican and had already had 35 House Republicans vote for it. In other words, Mitch just shamelessly lied about it, to justify killing it. But that has never bothered him, and it certainly doesn't now, in this dawning new era of Republican shamelessness.

The only remaining question is what Democrats are going to do about it all.


Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We don't really have a candidate we feel earned the respect of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week, sorry. Chuck Schumer forced the 1/6 commission vote in the Senate, where several Democrats made a forceful case for the bill, but no single one of them really stood out. Schumer's speech was forceful, but for blunt language we have to at least give an Honorable Mention to Jon Tester, for letting us know exactly how he sees things:

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said he believes there will be a future Jan. 6-style attack on the Capitol and "the outcome is going to be far worse."

"We've got to get to the bottom of this shit," Tester said. "Jesus. It's a nonpartisan investigation of what happened. And if it's because they're afraid of Trump then they need to get out of office. It's bullshit. You make tough decisions in this office or you shouldn't be here."

Can't say we disagree with any of that, personally.

We had one other Democrat of note who also deserves at least an Honorable Mention, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, for convening a long-term grand jury panel whose assumed purpose will be to intensely study Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and other high-ranking executives (including members of Trump's family), and decide whether to indict anyone or not.

This almost rises to the level of the MIDOTW, but not quite. Grand juries are intensely secret proceedings, so it's not even guaranteed that Trump is the true target or not. And there is no guarantee of an indictment of the disgraced former president, or of anyone else. Even if indictments do get handed down, there is no guarantee of success in court, either. So there's still a long way down this path to go before we will truly be impressed (to put it another way). Maybe it's just being "once bitten, twice shy" after waiting for Mueller for so long, that could be it....

As always, if anyone's got another nominee for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, let us know in the comments -- we could easily have overlooked someone.


Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

In some sort of recurring nightmare, we've got a (Dis-)Honorable Mention to give out (yet again) for a Democratic governor who issued mask and social-gathering rules for her state -- and then immediately got caught violating those rules at a party.

This time it is Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer who got caught having fun in violation of her own stated guidelines. Whitmer did issue a chagrined apology afterwards ("Because we were all vaccinated, we didn't stop to think about it. In retrospect, I should have thought about it. I am human. I made a mistake, and I apologize."), but this was a pretty easy mistake to avoid in the first place, we've always thought.

Our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, however, is none other than President Joe Biden, who has already broken his own self-imposed deadline for progress in talks with Republicans over infrastructure. Biden had said he needed to see significant progress towards a deal by Memorial Day, but even with the absence of such progress, Biden's going to push the deadline forward "a week or possibly two," just in case bipartisanship suddenly magically breaks out in the Senate Republican caucus.

This is a fool's errand. It is just going to waste two more weeks (more, if Republicans can finagle it...) of precious time, with absolutely nothing to show for it at the end. The two sides are still unbelievably far apart, and the Republicans' offers have been pathetically small (much smaller than most media organizations even admit, which we wrote about earlier this week). It is chasing rainbows, pure and simple, to expect this situation to suddenly resolve itself.

The Washington Post had a good dissection of the impossibility of this task:

Let's start by considering three possible outcomes of this effort. First, Congress could pass a meaningful infrastructure bill with support from members of both parties. This is what both sides say they want (though that isn't quite true, which we'll get to in a moment).

Second, Democrats could pass an infrastructure bill with zero Republican votes. This is probably what will end up happening, provided that Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), self-appointed guardians of bipartisan compromise, can be persuaded that the effort to win the support of Republicans was performed with sufficient enthusiasm.

Third, the bill could fail altogether, either because Manchin or Sinema pulls their support, or because a Democratic senator falls ill and can't vote for it in the 50-50 Senate, or for some other reason.

Here's where we get to the important part. This is how President Biden would rank those three outcomes in order of his own needs and desires:

  1. Bipartisan passage of the bill
  2. Democrats-only passage of the bill
  3. Failure of the bill

And here's how Republicans would rank those outcomes in order of their needs and desires:

  1. Failure of the bill
  2. Democrats-only passage of the bill
  3. Bipartisan passage of the bill

As you can see, they're precisely reversed. Which is a big problem if you're hoping for an agreement.

If the bill passes on a bipartisan basis, Biden gets a double victory: He can claim a big legislative win, and also tell voters that he has achieved his goal of bringing cooperation back to Washington. He'll have done what other presidents failed to do, breaking the partisan logjam and showering benefits on communities across the country for years to come.

Which is precisely why that's the least desirable outcome from the GOP's perspective: Biden will get the credit, and voters will be a little less likely to believe that Washington can't get anything done. That would be terrible for Republicans, since dysfunction and gridlock increase voter dissatisfaction and produce a big win for the opposition party in midterm elections.

If the bill fails, on the other hand, it's a huge win for the GOP, a black eye for Biden, and proof that Democratic rule isn't delivering for people. They show their own partisans that they're mounting an effective opposition, and show everyone else that Biden is ineffectual and weak.

While Republicans can't guarantee that outcome (since Democrats can still pass the bill through the reconciliation process with a simple majority), by withholding their votes they reduce the margin for error Democrats have down to zero.

In sum, bipartisanship is in Biden's interest, but it is most assuredly not in Republicans' interest. They must surely be tickled pink about the fact that reporters constantly grill the White House about whether the president is being sufficiently bipartisan, but seldom ask Republicans what they're doing to compromise and seek cooperation.

Republicans are stalling, quite obviously, because the longer they can make Biden hunt for the bipartisan red herring, the less time there will be to pass such a bill with only Democratic support.

Biden should have stuck to his deadline, plain and simple. One week or even two isn't going to change the situation at all. He should know this, and up until now he seemed to. His sense of urgency seems to have flagged. He's already getting pressure from progressive Democrats to move on, and this pressure needs to increase so Biden will at least stick to his second, more-vaguely-defined deadline and eventually just walk away from the Republican stalling tactics.

For not doing so starting next Tuesday morning, though, Joe Biden is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact President Joe Biden on his White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]


Friday Talking Points

Volume 620 (5/28/21)

As we occasionally are wont to do, this week's discrete (but hopefully never discreet) talking points will be pre-empted, because we felt a rant coming on. Over roughly the next two months (since Congress scarpers off to sunny vacations for the entire month of August every year), Joe Biden's agenda will either largely happen or largely not happen. Which, as usual, will come down to the Senate. Which, as is currently usual, will come down to two specific Democratic senators.

To avoid disaster, every other Democrat needs to send these two the strongest message possible. So we decided to toss our two cents in, to get this ball rolling.


The stakes couldn't be higher

It is now official. The Republican Party has no shame. It is beyond being shamed, because they simply don't care anymore (not that they ever really did, all that much). Mitch McConnell leads the pack in being absolutely shameless in the party's complete and total acquiescence to a strongman leader. The Dear Leader is all, everything else is secondary -- including their solemn oath to defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is the same Mitch McConnell who stood on the Senate floor -- hours after an insurrection briefly interrupted the business of Congress and postponed the certification of the Electoral College vote -- and denounced the very same Dear Leader for instigating the violent takeover of the U.S. Capitol. Now, however, Mitch has joined the shameless bunch who will do anything in their power to avoid holding Donald Trump responsible for the January 6th attack. Mitch isn't denouncing the mob anymore, he has surrendered to the mob, plain and simple. Because a commission finding out the truth might impact Republicans' ability to get elected in the 2022 midterms. This is about as shameless as it gets, but it's really only the tip of the iceberg.

The Republican Party has been taken over by radicals and extremists and all the sane Republicans who still hold office now cower in terror of their own base. It is past time to call all of this out for what it is. The Republican Party can no longer be reasoned with, because they have abandoned all reason. They have abandoned reality itself. And they are increasingly supportive of using violence as an acceptable political tactic. This is frightening, but it's what happens when a political party is taken over by extremists and fully radicalized.

The party no longer has conservative roots, instead what they are left with are the shifting sands of conspiracy theory. Most Republicans still think Joe Biden isn't the freely and fairly elected president, even though this is an evil lie. Republican politicians refuse to correct this, because they are terrified of the blowback from their own voters who fervently believe Trump's Big Lie.

Republicans have zero interest in governing. People from Mitch McConnell on down see anything positive that happens in America under a Democratic president as a bad thing. They are actively rooting for the president of the United States to fail, and they are doing everything in their power to make sure that failure happens. They are absolutely shameless -- they used to hide behind dog whistles and plausible deniability, but nowadays they just come right out and admit it. And prove it, by the way they vote.

Joe Biden, the Democratic Party -- and, in specific, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema -- are now faced with a choice. They can choose to reform the Senate's rules so they can get some important things done, in the hopes of convincing the public that when Democrats are in charge they can govern effectively -- or they can choose to allow Mitch McConnell to block Biden's entire agenda, after which Republicans will run for the midterms on the slogan: "Democrats can't get anything done!" That's it. Go big, or you might as well just go home because other than the budget, nothing at all is going to happen for the next year and a half in the United States Senate.

Up until now, Manchin has been allowed (indulged, really) to opine about the fantasy version of the Senate he carries around with him in his head, where Republicans are reasonable politicians who want to work for the betterment of America no matter which party is in charge. That Senate does not exist in reality, but Manchin is still clapping his hands hard in the hopes that Tinker Bell will revive and somehow get better. The time for this indulgence, though, is now over.

Since he was sworn in, Joe Biden's average job approval rating with the public has hovered right around a very healthy 54 percent. This popularity would only grow if he accomplishes more good things. Republicans know that, but some Democrats seem unclear on the concept. The only way Democrats are going to be successful in the midterm elections is if they have a solid message of: "Look at all the good things we have accomplished! Re-elect us so we can get more good things done!

That's really Democrats' only chance. Midterms normally skew against the party in power, and the next round will happen after redistricting, which will allow Republicans to gerrymander their districts even more. The margin of error is incredibly slim, too. But if Democrats run on an amazing economy and amazing new government programs that are tangibly helping out tens of millions of people, then they do have a solid chance at beating the historical odds.

The thing Republicans are really afraid of is how overwhelmingly popular all of what they deride as "socialism" actually is with the American people. Free community college? Sounds good! Free preschool? We'll take it! Help for home health care? What a great idea! All of Joe Biden's agenda items are like this -- when people hear about them and consider how they could make their own lives better, they overwhelmingly support the ideas. What's even more popular is the way Democrats propose on paying for it all -- getting big corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. This is also incredibly popular even with Republicans.

Some of this can be accomplished through the budget, meaning Democrats will be able to at least partially deliver by avoiding the filibuster problem. But there are other important things which need attention too, and for them the filibuster rules simply must be changed. Key among these is voting rights.

Democrats have two bills to fight back against all the voter-suppression laws Republicans are passing at the state level, but they have to move very quickly or else the possibility won't even exist, at least for the 2022 election cycle. Candidate statement deadlines are fast approaching, as are the redistricting efforts, and the new rules need to be in place beforehand. This is an incredibly short window of time -- much shorter than some of the other things on the Democratic agenda. It has to happen now.

But for it to happen, two Democratic senators need to be convinced that the choice is either to reform the filibuster rules to force simple majority votes on voting rights legislation, or to just sit back and watch as all those Republican voter-suppression laws take effect as they take control of both the House and Senate.

Why would any Democrat want to see the second half of Biden's term in office torpedoed in such a fashion? That is the question that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema need to be asked -- repeatedly and pointedly.

What we are talking about isn't some obscure government program that could be reformed or even created, where bipartisan support is necessary to get both sides to the table. This is not something that we can all wait a few years to see how things develop across the aisle. We do not have such a luxury, folks. It really is now or never.

Democrats should be running on painting the Republican Party in the exact colors it has chosen. They are extremists and radicals who cannot even support a bipartisan investigation (created by bipartisan legislation) into the worst attack on American democracy since the Civil War. Republicans are either outright lying or silently abetting the Big Lie that the leader of our nation is not legitimate and was somehow fraudulently placed in power.

This is dangerous stuff, folks! This is serious.

The time for any fantasies about bipartisanship suddenly breaking out on Capitol Hill is now over. It ain't gonna happen, period. If it can't happen on the 1/6 commission, then it's not going to happen on anything -- infrastructure, voting rights, police reform, healthcare, climate change, or any of the other crucially-important issues facing everyday Americans. Republicans are -- once again -- absolutely dedicated to doing everything they can to see Joe Biden fail. That is their unifying motivation. They don't even care what he's attempting, how much it would help their own constituents, or how popular any of it is -- they're against it all because the Democrats are for it.

It's about time Democrats realize the bare-knuckles fight they are in. In 2020, Democrats spent a whopping amount of campaign advertising money on trying to convince the voters they would "reach across the aisle" and hammer out bipartisan solutions. This messaging did not work. The American people are much more interested in seeing things get done, and they don't particularly care how it happens -- just whether it does or not. How many voters are seriously going to say: "Well, my daughter now attends community college tuition-free, but I am so offended that this wasn't a bipartisan program that I am going to vote for the party that fought against it"? In the real world, people just don't think like that.

Bipartisanship was an illusion. It was a windmill set up by the Republican Party for the Democrats to helplessly tilt at. There just isn't going to be any bipartisan spirit at all for the next year and a half, and it's time Democrats fully wake up to that fact and start fighting back in the strongest way possible. They need to point out that bipartisanship requires two willing parties and one of them just is not interested right now. Because of this reality, Democrats need to forge strongly ahead without the Republicans and get some things done for the good of the country.

If every Democrat made this case constantly, from Joe Biden down to the lowliest House freshman, then Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin would have to take notice. The other Democrats need to present it as a choice between reforming the filibuster or becoming completely irrelevant in the minority in both houses of Congress next year. Manchin and Sinema can either go down in history as being the crucial votes that allowed a strong Democratic agenda to be enacted, or they can go down in history as the crucial votes that guaranteed minority status for their party in Congress as well as the failure of a sitting Democratic president to get much of anything done.

That is their choice. It's a pretty simple one. Success or failure. And the "bipartisan fantasy Senate" clock has now completely run down. It is now or never, senators.

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground


120 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- The Party With No Shame”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    nadir is the correct term. like your own ongoing nadir of pielessness. why oh why won't you write about pie? it's clearly from a deep sense of shame about your seven-layer devotion to cake.

    cream pie. dream pie.

    cherry pie. berry pie.

    peach pie. quiche pie.

    meat pie. sheet pie.

    low-carb pie. rhubarb pie.

    prawn pie. pecan pie.

    pork pie. torte pie.

    chocolate mousse pie. grapefruit juice pie.

    chicken pot pie.

    got pie?

    get edible.


  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    another minor quibble, all those wapo links are behind a pay-wall.

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    also, bring back the talking filibuster YESTERDAY. Biden already signaled his support for the move, and both manchin and sinema at this point would see it as a compromise.

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...that's the peak (nadir?) of...


    Ahem. Actually, they contradict each other. Swap "hight" for "peak" and "depths" for "nadir"
    and you'll see what we mean.

    -- Grammar Police
    Serving and Protecting

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi will put together a select committee in the House, which will be as partisan as the Democrats feel like making it.

    As there are double digit Repugs in both Houses of Congress, I'd like for Nancy to confer with these brave souls and see if some of them would like to climb abord. Which would make it "bi-partisan."

    Although I'm starting to wonder if more than even 5% of 'Muricans even give a bleep about that political malarkey, as you've oft pointed out. Boy, this ain't the 60s anymore.*smh*

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    i think you mistook the parentheses as an intended synonym, when it was used as an afterthought to suggest a more appropriate replacement. brackets, of course, might better fit the circumstance, but parentheses are still within the bounds of proper usage.

    ~grammar police, internal affairs dept.
    so bad-ass we don't even need capital letters

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The End is near.

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Trans-Island Skyway

    Teahouse on the Tracks

    Both from Donald Fagen's 1993 release Kamakiriad.

    Your quite welcome :D

  9. [9] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Manchin thinks "the people of America" get to vote on constitutional amendments and eliminating the filibuster would "destroy" the government. He's a dim-witted, Republican Lite weasel.

    GQP politicians are not putting party over country as they're often accused of doing. They're putting their personal ambitions and job security over country. They don't seem to care about their party any more than the orange one does.

    Manchin is no different. Sinema may actually be worse.

  10. [10] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Nice rant. Can you also suggest why it is that the Dems evidently don't share your sense (and mine) of panic as the weeks go by in the only spring and summer we have left to get this stuff done?

    To me, that's the question: why aren't the Dems more focused on the desperate need to get their legislative agenda into law before the midterm elections?

    But then I think, hey. I'm not tuned into Washington. I don't really know the ins and outs, the meetings, the strategies, the blind fakes, the set-ups, the traps, the bribes, the girls in the hotel room, the... Oh. Sorry. Flashbacks of those old Allan Drury novels I inhaled when I was a youth just getting into the junkie life of politics-watching.

    Anyway, is it possible that Biden, Schumer and Pelosi actually do know what they're doing, re: Manchin and Sinema and the g--d--n filibuster? And we can't tell because we're watching from afar, dependent on fragile or corrupt or ignorant correspondents from the capital who (as you said this week) cannot actually add two numbers together?

  11. [11] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Since the Dems are willing to let the GQP roll over them without a fight, I'm not sure why the infrastructure bill makes any sense at all. Why pave the way for them. Complete GQP takeover seems assured in a matter of 2 or 3 years. Let them fix it. Or not.

  12. [12] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I hope you won't be writing anything good about Paul Ryan.

    There are only two sides in our binary political structure. Just like Liz Cheney, he's on the GQP side until he isn't.

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I totally disagree with Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

    This is just more Kabuki theater, ye of little faith. Manchin and Sinema are the Dem's weak points and they need way more political cover than they have now to get on board.

    Back in the day I thought Obama bent over backwards re the GOP in order to portray them as insufficiently "partisan" to help his reelection prospects. Well it worked. At the cost of a more adequate stimulus, the Public Option,et al.

    Joe is running a short stripped down version of the same gameplay, only he's going for lasting systemic change. FDR stole.

    Trust the Plan.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    -- Q, out.

  15. [15] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Hey -- don't forget pie are squared


  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    sometimes they fake themselves out. obama certainly did; all that maneuvering and compromise, then ted kennedy dies and it all goes to hell.

  17. [17] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Another great question too put to the two would be...

    Do you really trust McConnel to not pull another Garland and do away with the filibuster if they retake both houses in the mid terms?

    I know my answer, "not as far as I can defenestrate him". Moscow Mitch and his ilk only care about power at all costs, and they will utilize the removal of the filibuster to ram their minority wishes down our collective throats.

  18. [18] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Disclosure: I'm in a highly trained Grammar Police Unit and, as you see, we're so baaad...

    We don't even use letters.

  19. [19] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And again, it's way less aggravating to listen to GQP bald-faced lying if one remembers that Mitch ain't talking to all of us. It's strictly for for MAGAt base.

  20. [20] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    All in all, CW, this earned a 9.7 on the Rant Scale. You've tied together some months in a row's worth of political analyses here.

    If I had a bong I'd raise it to ya!

  21. [21] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Yeah I'd love to defenestrate Mitch as well. With every fiber of my being would be NOT be exaggerating. It'd be sooo much fun -- we could make t-shirts and everything! Political violence, a time (dis)honored American Tradition -- woot!

    Anyways, I'd chose this tall, dark hotel in Moscow. Moms & I stayed there in 2000. My bed was so uncomfortable I named it Bleeping Stalin's Grand Inquisitor.

    But did I mention that it's 30+ stories tall? It's in sight of the Kremlin so #MoscowMitch could give Putin a wink and a smile on his way, er, down. Just like in real life.


    So, remember how the John Birch Society thought America and Ike were secretly controlled by the Commies?

    Wouldn't it be a hoot if it turned out that today's GOP is being secretly controlled by Russia? Them Repugs have sure been trying to trash America saint Saint Ronnie, donchathink?

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...SINCE Saint Ronnie.

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    are you SURE you don't have a bong over there? living vicariously, as it's not legal here and i've not partaken in over a decade.

  24. [24] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Sooome body
    Once told me
    "The world is gonna roll me
    Said I ain't the tool
    In the shed"

    She was looking
    Of dumb
    With her fingers and
    Her thumb
    In the shape
    Of an "L"
    On her forehead

    All Star
    -- Smash Mouth

  25. [25] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Yeah, I know. It is the healthier way of introducing hot, poisonous smoke into one's cardiovascular system.

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Weed out in California is just too strong to smoke it in joints. Potency has likely doubled or tripled in the last decade. Not legal where you're at? Where the hell stuck?

  27. [27] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Ummm, New York -- Duh-Oh!

  28. [28] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Sooome body
    Once told me THAT
    "The world is gonna roll me
    Said I ain't the SHARPEST tool
    In the shed"

    She was looking KINDA
    Of dumb
    With her fingers and
    Her thumb
    In the shape
    Of an "L"
    On her forehead

    All Star
    -- Smash Mouth

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    FYI CW

    I'm doing all this on a smart phone, and while the underline fiction displays just in PREVIEW it does NOT post that way.

  30. [30] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


  31. [31] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    “Today we are witnessing an unabashed attack on any semblance of republican principles in favor of the absolute power of the ****REDACTED**** leader,” said ****REDACTED**** at Stanford University.

    Nevermind who said this, which country is this guy taking about?

    And what other county come to mind as a second possiblity?

  32. [32] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Well folks we seem to be having a dead microphone issue here, so we'll call it a night.

  33. [33] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    MtnCaddy [13]
    You make a very good point. I would even venture to say that Sen. Schumer deserves MIDOW for bring the "Jan 6 commission" up for a vote this week.

    Has anyone noted that this is the FIRST vote in the 117th Congress that was blocked by a filibuster? (I only scanned CW's latest Republican-obsessed rant, so perhaps I missed it. If so, I apologize.) This bill was negotiated by a McConnell-appointed Republican in the House of Representatives and received suprisingly-high support from Republican House members (35, if I recall correctly). This bill is unpopular ONLY with the hardcore Trumpsters, so the (temporary?) defeat of the bill is a terrific message to the American voters about how far "down the rabbit hole" a minority of Republican Senators have gone.

    If the first filibuster had been for 'infrastructure' or 'police reform' or any other more substantive bill, the Republicans might have made the case that their filibuster was justified, using the (tattered to scraps during "The Former Guy's" four years) historical talking points of the Republican Party

    It's important to remember 2 things about Manchin and Sinema:
    1) Manchin's voters overwhelming voted for Trump and Sinema's state is at best "purple". Neither can hope to be reelected espousing a progressive agenda.
    2) Neither is running for re-election.

    Theses two are the key votes to send the filibuster to the "dustbin of history". By demonstrating that the Republicans are blocking popular, BI-PARTISAN-supported legislation only for political gain, Manchin, Sinema, and other Democrats who may be on the fence can (we hope) finally cast their vote based on the groundswell of support from their own constituents (at least those who have a grain of integrity and common sense.)

  34. [34] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Millions of Americans will be reading articles like this in the coming days. These are definitely NOT good for the Republican Party's "brand", and will almost-assuredly convinced many Americans that the filibuster is not good for America.
    'Tellingly Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, who previously condemned Trump’s role in the riot, reportedly asked senators to nix the commission as a “personal favour”. It was a sign that the rot now goes deeper than a cult of personality into the foundations of the Grand Old Party (GOP).

    It is a party that still has room for Matt Gaetz, a Florida congressman under investigation over sex trafficking allegations, who this week appeared to incite supporters to take up arms. “We have a second amendment in this country, and I think we have an obligation to use it,” he said.'

  35. [35] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    italyrusty for [34]

    "Millions of Americans" perhaps read intense inside-Washington politics news. But how many millions - out of an electorate of a few hundred millions?

    I read the other day on another (very respectable) politics blog that a poll had shown that a large majority of Americans cannot identify Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi. (They do know who is president.)

    The blog's (very respectable) authors noted their dismay and made dire remarks about the state of America's education system. But my reaction was more like, "been in the real world much?"

    Most people do not follow politics closely - nothing like Chris' readership, or the people who read the NY Times, or the people who have completed college.

    The use of the filibuster, and the maneuvers to discredit the GOP's 'bipartisan' whining enough to convince those final two senators to disable the filibuster and so pass the president's 2021 program in time to affect the 2022 elections, are entirely inside baseball. "Millions of Americans" have nothing to do with it, I think.

    Chris has pointed this out from time to time, as he did today: no one benefitting from a government program asks how it got passed, and no one noticing that the government can't pass any laws asks who in particular is to blame. It's "the government" to most people, and prizes to any of them who can explain the difference between the federal and state levels of the Big G.

  36. [36] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And thus ends this morning’s pontification by Pope Don Paul the irrelevant…

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, at least Biden isn't on the MDDOTW Leaderboard, yet. But, I know, it's only a matter of time ... :(

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Well folks we seem to be having a dead microphone issue here, so we'll call it a night.

    Heh. I know the feeling ...

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Weed out in California is just too strong to smoke it in joints. Potency has likely doubled or tripled in the last decade.

    Actually, that sounds like my kind of weed. I think I may be purchasing from the wrong place, even though the place is in Vancouver. Go figure.

    My latest purchase of flower was not recommended for beginners. Ha! Yeah, because they'd never go back for more!

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    comes with the job, liz. every president's going to top both the impressive and the disappointing columns, based solely on the import of their position.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Caddy [13],

    Ya-huh! My sentiments, precisely.

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    apropos to nothing beyond the israel-palestine conflict's presence in the news, here's a proposed solution whose time is due.


  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think the 'two-state solution' has been effectively dead for a long time and I cringe everytime I hear Biden say it.

    As for confederation, well, it has worked for Canada. Of course, Quebec is still calling itself a 'nation' and wishes to be identified in our constitution as 'a distinct society' ... just before la belle provine secedes from the rest of Canada. Which failed in the last round of constitutional negotiations, talks that are a veritable Canadian sport!

    And, the first inhabitants of Turtle Island, would say that 'confederation' has failed and continues to fail their best interests, miserably.

    But, at least, we aren't shooting each other over it.

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not that we haven't ever shot each other over it!

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, that is fodder for a whole other blog ...

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, Joshua, you forgot ice cream pie. How could you, possibly?

  47. [47] 
    dsws wrote:


    I don't approve of mocking someone's choice to use two last names.

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    it's probably also not a good idea to mock the distinguished gentlewoman for being a stark raving lunatic either, but what's one to do?


  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


  50. [50] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:



    Fellow Travelers,

    First, we're happy to see you've joined us here on the Dark Side. Bwahahahaha!


    Setting aside the Satan and All His Works thing, in my four decades of experience with God's Grass I've come to believe that
    weed is a lot like wine, with a couple of significant differences.

    The more you spend (remember, "Choosy shoppers choose Jif") the better the aesthetics of the experience will be. Things such as aroma, mouth feel, taste, any harshness issues going down and the aftertaste are considerations.

    And of course there's potency as well as cerebral effects, undesirable side effects, the power of phenomena like The Munchies and Couch Lock. And this is just off the top of my head.

    IMO the main differences are that wine, unlike Cannabis, can be consumed in sufficient moderation that no intoxication need automatically. If'n you take even ONE toke you will get at least somewhat stoned.

    The second difference is that wines have a certain range of alcohol content. You cannot spend enough to get a 80 proof wine -- they don't exist. Cannabis and Concentrates range from, say, 5% up to the 90% range. More buck means more bang!

    Remember, you have the only vote that counts.
    For example, I looove Merlot and the dank red wines, will tolerate a decent Chardonnay and feel strongly that "Friends don't let friends drink White Zinfandel" outta be in the Constitution. But who cares? It's a matter of personal taste.

    Hope this is helpful. There may be a Pop Quiz next Stoneday-- I mean Sunday.

  51. [51] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    DID YOU KNOW that Satan doesn't have to notify people that they may be monitored or recorded for training purposes? He's just like Trump -- you just wouldn't believe the stuff he gets away with!

    Anyways, it ust be a slow day in Hell cuz The Boss heard about "us" and wants you to take a 4-minute Phone Survey. Se Habla Español And you'll receive two tickets, transportation and two nights stay at our -- I mean His -- most popular Theme Park The Hindenburg Express! All you gotta do is, when they call, What? You don't think Satan has everybody's cell phone number? just answer (in your very best Darth Vader breathing voice) "Yes (ptfttttt hissss) My Master! (ptfttttt hissss)" take the Survey Se Habla Español and allow 6-8 weeks for delivery of your Travel Itinerary. Speaking from, er, personal experience I'm sure that you'll have a hell of a time!

    Um, sweet dreams!

  52. [52] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    What? Again? (grumbling) I cannot believe it, folks, but the microphone crapped out on us again! If you can hear me out there, we're gonna do our veeery best to get back on the air tomorrow. This has been a Radio Free Green Valley Lake, high. Above it All broadcast.

    (sound of the Nation Anthem)

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    i don't have the range or recency of experience to speak in respect to cannabis products, but where wine and spirits are concerned, price has only a moderate correlation with quality of experience.

    you're unlikely to find a world-beater under ten bucks a bottle, but i've tasted wines in the fifteen dollar range that are just as good as those that cost fifty, as well as thirty dollar wines indistinguishable from those that cost in the hundreds. in other words, a buyer's knowledge and research yield more bang than bucks.

    rose' wines aren't all terrible, but yes, cheap white zin might as well be vodka and fruit juice, just as most american adjunct lagers are essentially beer-flavored soda. it's not the varietal that's awful, it's a reputation earned by being the flavor of choice for a lot of crappy winemakers. merlot also had a bad reputation for years due to mass-production of poor merlots. but the up-side was that due to the depressed prices you could get a great deal on OUTSTANDING merlot.


  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    which is to say, a bad reputation can be a good opportunity. i wouldn't be surprised if there's a semi-sweet rose' sitting on a shelf somewhere that would shock your taste-buds into convulsions of bliss for under twenty bucks, if you're savvy enough to find it.

  55. [55] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Well, Gentlemen, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about wine. MY thing is minimum 2-year old Single Malt Scotches. Thanks for the skinny and your ... respective hopes, strengths and experiences. (whoops I just blinked and suddenly I found myself in a Meeting.*smh*)

    Until recently I dwelt in the, nasty, brutish and ultimately
    unfulfilling Dread Swamp of sub-Ten Dollar wine. "'It was hell!' recalls former MtnCaddy."

    Anyways, I followed advice that I sometimes gave to a particularly
    Cheapo Real Estate Client of mine in Negotiations:

    You know, you truly don't always get what you pay for, right? But I promise, you truly also NEVER get what you DON'T pay for. There is no Free Lunch in this world, I'm afraid.**

    So I'd spend all my disposa

    Since Covid started I've upgraded to $20 wine and $45 aforementioned Scotch. I drink less frequently but have a better experience. Agreed...before micro-breweries arrived from Heaven above, American beer sucked.

    **It's shocking. Shocking, I tell you -- folks usually liked me for telling them the straight up truth.

  56. [56] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Whoops. We pick it up at the end of the fourth paragraph:


    So I'd spend all I could and that was fine.

    Since Covid started...

  57. [57] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I can give it to you suger coated, or right between the eyes.

    -- Indiana Jones
    The first or second of the IJ© Franchise.

  58. [58] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    G'Nite, y'all.

    New Frontier

    Spill That Wine

    Papa Was a Rolling Stone

    And, with your morning coffee (as at some of you weenie (l)East Coasters are likely finallllly up. Harumpf.

    You Can Call Me Al

    Lastly, for C.R. Stucki, if'n his coffee ain't kickin' in,

    Wake Up

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    That's a lot of words not to live by.

    I've tried the high does edibles and the high price weed and neither gets me stoned for more than five minutes. Ahem.

    I think I may be immune. Maybe I was the pot queen in a previous lifetime.

    In any event, I'll be moving on to magic mushrooms ...

    Or, could I be grinding too much? Or filling the pre-rolls too tight? I don't think so. Or, could it be that one joint, even a long one, just isn't enough for me? Perish the thought that I should have to smoke more than one of them!

    Oh, and nothing beats a good Shiraz-Malbec from the Argentine when it comes to a good glass, bottle of wine. :)

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, by the way, I love my Robert Mondavi White Zinfindel from California (not sure what I pay for it but it's less than $20), especially with my salmon dishes ...

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    The more you spend (remember, "Choosy shoppers choose Jif") the better the aesthetics of the experience will be. Things such as aroma, mouth feel, taste, any harshness issues going down and the aftertaste are considerations.

    Look, I've got no complaints about the aethetics of the experience. Aroma, taste, mouth feel are all good and, there aren't even any real harshness issues, once I got the technique down. I just don't get stoned!!!

    Tell me what I'm doing wrong!!??

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If'n you take even ONE toke you will get at least somewhat stoned.

    Well, that ain't happening. :(

  63. [63] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Dunno why that is! How new are you to weed? How many times have you smoked it? How many times did you mac down an edible?
    How much are you spending per gram or whatever? Is there potency info on the container? With specific info I can easily guide you to the promised land.

    I ask because back when I started no one got high the first time or two. No one. Weed was somewhere around 5% THC potency at the time.

    But nowadays here in California 3½ grams of 20-30% THC flower for $30-45USD should lay you gently down into the couch...with an ice chest full of Ben and Gerry's...a-binge watching Rachel Maddow and John Oliver-- Woo-Hoo!

    Am I High?

  64. [64] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Very important to tell me what you're using to smoke it, too. And you'll be high soon enough, my Pretty!

  65. [65] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Er, I stone guarantee it!

  66. [66] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    There's no way you're even remotely getting high if it goes away in five minutes.

    That's Inconceivable!
    --The Princess Bride

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Caddy, you should know that I am very new to weed. Very! Like within the last few months.

    I've smoked probably a dozen or so joints - all after grinding the flower and then filling an empty pre-roll. I've tried multiple different edibles from chocolates to gummies, from low to high dose - 100mg THC at a time, at the most, so far!

    But, I haven't tried these, yet ... what say you!

  68. [68] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    1- OVER A TABLE or a frisbee,take the flower and pinch off about a cm³ ~your pinky finger nail. I often break it up by hand but grinding is good.

    2- EITHER WAY, you want to end up with small little budlets -- but not full-on powder. If the weed is too moist or it got wet it'll be harder to get it going. On the other hand, if your weed is too dry it smokes more harshly and you lose some of the flavor and aroma effects.

    3-PLACE THE WEED into bong bowl/pipe bowl/whatever bowl. Sit up straight and when you've got your lighter ready first take and blow out a couple of deep breaths. After you blow out you put the device to your sweet lips and fire it up!

    4-IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to take too much smoke in a given hit because one coughs it up -- (Party Foul, Garth) -- and that's wasting product that should still be in your lungs getting you stoned.

    5-YOU DO NOT have to hold in a hit for very long. A tiny hit held in your lungs for 5 seconds and THENCE released, and you'll be good to go.

    6-Smoking Ganja is not like smoking a cigar, but rather IT MUST GET INTO YOUR LUNGS (like a cigarette) to be of any damned use. I've no idea if you have or do any other smoking and if you haven't you may simply be getting smoke only as far as your mouth. That's no kinda news because our bodies automatically try to expell hot, slightly poisonous smoke from your virgin, healthy pink lungs.

    7-YOU CAN do this! I gotta walk a couple-kilometers sometime today, but otherwise I'll be here, checking in to see what's up.

  69. [69] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    The Boss grants double bonus points for weekend work, 'specially Sundays!

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I learned all of those points (1 thru 6) before I took my first hitSo, that ain't the problem. What do you think of my weedsmart link?

  71. [71] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    The Benefits Plan up here "in the field" is nothing exciting. But I do have 72 decidedly non-Virgins to look forward to when the time, er, comes. "Hotties" one would presume haha;D

    Think about it. Hell just has to be full of interesting women! I've surly dated a bunch of them "up here" and to tell truth I kinda developed a taste for them.

  72. [72] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Huh? What's a Weedsmart link?

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    See my [68], you goofball! :)

  74. [74] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    8- You'll know that you got enough smoke when,

    A- you can feel it in your lungs, tickling and/or irritating the insides. You should feel like your chest is full of smoke.

    B-When you blow out a decent hit it should fill something approaching a m² in volume.
    If all you get a tiny little cloud, you're worthless and weak and you drop and give me twenty!


    for " to your success!

  75. [75] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Okay, photography and pricing are right where I'd expect. So it ain't the weed. Here's some literature.

    There are virtually countless individual differences in the efficiency and diversity of liver functions that could affect our experience with edible cannabis.

  76. [76] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    There are scores of ways that cannabis interacts with our brains, so your results may vary. But, I've yet to meet anybody that cannot get stoned. Leave it to some Canuck chick to be the first...If. It's. True -- which I seriously doubt. Let's work on this together.

  77. [77] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    It's gotta be a technique issue. You're a smart Lady and I'm certain that you'll really dig the more cerebral aspects of cannabis versus alcohol. I love getting drunk from time to time. I'm a happy drunk and I tip top much. But booze simply doesn't hold a Bic lighter up to Ganja.

  78. [78] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    JSYK the link in [76] is "18 Klingon is

    18 Klingon Phrases That’ll Save Your Life One Day.

    Be prepared, I always say.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I thought my technique was pretty good, all things considered ... still have a bit of a stash so I'll keep trying ...

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... I suppose it could be that my expectations are just too high. Ahem.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Re point number 2 ... I may be grinding just a bit too much. I'll grind less next time.

    And, revisiting point number 6 ... I don't smoke anything else. Oh, I've tried cigarettes as a kid and hated it! I saw absolutely no point to it and I was turned off by anyone who smoked.

    Smoking weed is different, I know, but I still coughed a bit during the first one or two. I try to avoid very deep inhalations but I do hold it in my mouth for a second or two and then take a good breath and exhale the excess.

  82. [82] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    9-TO get enough in you you should (after holding it in the lungs for five-fto-orevrer-seconds) blow out a volume of smoke somewhat approaching what you see ciggies smokers exhale.

    Don't futz around! Man up -- er, woman up! And smoke it like you mean it. Yes you will cough some at first once you're doing it right.

    But pay attention and in a jiffy you'll be toking in the max -- without coughing --needed to get 'er done, K?

  83. [83] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    ... I try to avoid very deep inhalations but I do hold it in my mouth for a second or two and then take a good breath and exhale the excess.

    That's a wrong answer, Soldier! You're wasting product, and that hurts me. I'm feeling physical pain thinking about that luscious bud that your neighbors are enjoying just about as much as you seem to be.*smh*

  84. [84] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Mouth = Waste of Product. :(

    Lungs = Elizabeth crosses into her
    New Frontier.

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is what I'm working on now ... well, not at this very minute ... too much work to do today! ...

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, okay, okay! I'll change up the technique ...

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I said I hold it my mouth for a second and then take a deep breath ... lots gets to my lungs and only a little is exhaled ...

  88. [88] 
    John From Censornati wrote:


    I highly recommend a water pipe.

    The feeling you get is nothing like alcohol. It's much more subtle and difficult to describe. It's always just on the periphery unless you really over do it. Then it can be kind of "paralyzing" (not in a bad way). The worst part is feeling paranoid if you do, but it'll pass. Don't freak out and go to the ER.

    Like Caddy said, I do believe it's easy for newbies to not recognize it.

  89. [89] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    With Republicans pushing their ridiculous “voting integrity laws” across the country, I think it is high time to attach their arguments to the Second Amendment! We need photo gun licenses along with a gun registry so that we can know for certain that guns aren’t being used or owned by those who are not authorized to use or own them. If requiring a photo ID is OK for one Constitutionally protected right, then surely it is OK for others! Republicans have just opened our eyes to why we need “integrity laws” to make sure that only those we want to be able to buy guns can buy guns. With the increase in mass shootings recently, this should be a priority for Republicans to pass!

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    It's not like I don't feel anything at all. It's just that it's not as euphoric as I thought it might be. And, the 'high' doesn't last very long ... less than an hour.

    Come to think of it, though, I've always headed straight to bed after smoking it. Maybe I have just slept through the high??? That would be just my luck. Humph.

    How do you use a water pipe?

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Very nice!

  92. [92] 
    John From Censornati wrote:


    Don't sleep through it! Watch High Maintenance (HBO) or Rick & Morty (Cartoon Network). Or listen to music (Soundgarden maybe).

    Simple water pipes have a carburetor hole. You cover that and it creates a vacuum while you draw on the pipe. You uncover the hole to clear all the smoke from the pipe. The water cools and filters the smoke.

  93. [93] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I think it's Stoner Song Sunday.

  94. [94] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  95. [95] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  96. [96] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  97. [97] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:
  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I guess I'll have to the official opening, again.

    Welcome, everyone to the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party!

    Tonight I would like to hear a few songs by the late and great BJ Thomas, who died yesterday. He had been battling stage four lung cancer. Ahem.

    My favourite, aside from the theme from Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, is this gem.

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll have fun listening to those stoner songs.

    And, I'll have a contribution to that a little later on ...

  100. [100] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    This my favorite Beatle's tune

    You never give me your money.

    Lungs good...
    Mouth bad, Elizabeth

  101. [101] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    WHEN, NOT IF you get enough smoke in your lungs to be able to"blow smoke rings" I guarantee that you. You. Will. Be stoned! You might, say, black out (JK) and when you come to you'll wish it was 2051, because back here in 2021 all the Ben & Jerry's is

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yep. It was my technique. Lesson learned. Mouth-bad, lungs-good. Got it! Sigh ...

    Here is what an acid trip may look like.

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I can't wait any longer.

    My favourite BJ Thomas song is none other than Raindrops Keep Fallin' ... along with my favourite part of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid!

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just because, an encore performance ...

  105. [105] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ***Here's How***

    When your lungs are full lower the pipe or bong away from your mouth.

    thale it slowly through your lips in an oval shape, about 3cm wide.

    Curl your tongue into a tight cylinder-like point and center the tip in the middle of the "O" shape. Exhale slowly with tiny little puffs. Bunches of little puffs per each toke, dammit!

    Gently pass each little puff past the shape you've created with your tongue and lips. It's not nearly as challenging as it may sound like. But it's fun. Give it five minutes and once you've blown a couple of righteous smoke rings you'll be hooked. It's like Golf, I suppose. A game I love way more than it ever loves me back.

    One or two well struck balls, dropping a long putt and all the flubs, all the embarrassments slip away from consciousness. Aaaand leaves me hungry for more.

    Gonna go walk Betty, my Husky. Be back soon.

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thank-you, my friend!

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tonight, I'm on a natural high as I look back to all of my favourite songs sung by BJ Thomas, RIP ...

    at the Grand Ole Opry

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Almost time for a little Rock 'n Roll Lullaby

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if you're going to play music while getting stoned, especially out west, i think you could do worse...

    riders on the storm


  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks BJ Thomas for all of the great songs you left with us!

    <a href="Whatever Happened To Old Fashioned Love

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I love, love, love Riders on the Storm. My new favourite radio station, Kelowna Classic Rock, plays a lot of the Doors!

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's BJ with Kenny Rogers ...

    I Just Can't Help Believin'

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, won't you play another somebody done somebody wrong song, and make me feel at home while I miss my baby ...

  118. [118] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ***Here's How***

    When your lungs are full lower the pipe or bong from your face.

    Purse your lips in an oval shape 2 or 3cm wide, and curl your tongue into a tight cylinder shape and center in the middle of the "O" shape. Gently exhale, slowly and only tiny puffs. You should get bunches of little puffs from each toke, dammit!

    Gently pass each little puff through theshape you've created with your tongue and lips. It's not nearly as challenging as it sounds, and it's fun!

    Give it five minutes and once you've blown a couple of righteous smoke rings you'll be hooked.

    IT'S LIKE GOLF, I suppose. A game I love way more than it ever loved me back.

    One or two well struck balls, dropping a long putt and all the flubs, all the embarrassments slip away from consciousness. Aaaand thence I am left hungry for more.

    Gonna go walk Betty the Happy Husky...

    Back now.

  119. [119] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Texas Democrats block restrictive voting bill by walking off the floor to deny GOP-majority House a quorum

    The battle is nowhere near over, "[b]ut it was an unmistakable defeat for the governor and fellow Republicans, who had crafted one of the most far-reaching voting bills in the country — pushing restrictions championed by former president Donald Trump, who has falsely claimed that his defeat in the 2020 election was tainted by fraud."

    This egregious piece of Jim Crow garbage will be back when Gov Abbott calls a special session for legislative redistricting later in the year, but it's going nowhere at the moment.

    Kick, I would love to hear you had something to do with this achievement.

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you have a tune to go along with that? ;)

Comments for this article are closed.