Which means we'll all get both acts of this cheesy drama all over again, except this time it will be: "Kabuki, Holiday Edition!"

Can't hardly wait. :)

Heh.

Indeed.

It was one of my favourite movies because Willem Dafoe was in it ... White Sands ... and, that was one of his memorable lines. You'll have to watch it!

the lego movie? i give up!

JL

I have been here ready to engage in rational discussion and all that the rest of you have provided is trolling.

Hahahaha hahaha hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahaa. Eyes watering. Hahahaha hahaha hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahaha. hahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahaa. Can't breath. Hahahaha hahaha hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha. hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahaa. Rolling on the floor. Hahahaha hahaha hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha. hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahaa. Ass about to fall off. Hahahaha hahaha hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahaha. hahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahaa...

What movie is that from?

i've always wanted an opportunity to say that! ha!

note to logician: does that one qualify as 'no true scotsman?' i think it might.

Shame on me? Excuse me? For what, pray tell!? What the hell did I do now??

I recommend music ... and pie! :)

It is not a purity test (another standard recycled line of bullshit), it is an adequacy test.

I think the old Michale/Spock quote is in order:

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

If I am the only one using it then I am the only one that is using the term correctly.

Not even slightly self aware on that one?

And it is a worthy and deserving cause.

Then why do you consistently go out of your way to fuck it up?

If what I say matters why do you keep trolling with bullshit instead of engaging in rational discussion.

I did not say what you say matters, in fact you have proven just the opposite, I said it should matter if you wanted success.

It is not an insult if it is true and your continued use of "Coward" to all that you disagree is as pathetic as it is inaccurate.

tu quoque, check.

Bingo!

Generally small donation vs absolutely 100% purity test small donation. You are the only one who uses the later...By the way, how many candidates have you found to meet your definition?

Gosh, the person initiating childish insults doesn't like it when they get it back, proving my point on who is projecting. Thanks.

Lying again? You have thrown insults in this thread long before I joined it...

But I am not advocating for a cause, at least not through my nom de plume. You are. What you say matters. Or at least it should if you are serious about any sort of success. The price

i would have gone with the slightly more esoteric but no less profound:

"Maybe we don't see ourselves the way we really are."
- Russell Hammond, almost famous

Your "facts" do not meet the definition of the word. Trump and Bernie did run small donor campaigns especially early in the 2016 primaries as I have mentioned to you previously. Not by OD definition, but by general political definition as the political class would define it. Seems Herman Schwartz agrees. Now lets see: professor of law vs you. I think I'll go with the professor of law when determining facts...

As I have mentioned before, think about someone interested in your idea and researching your organization and name. They come here. Does your childish insults help your case or hurt it?

A bit cheese with that whine?

You really can't handle anyone disagreeing with you. It would be hilarious if it was not so pathetic. You got your moment in the sun and they agreed with us...

Ha-ha!
Nelson Muntz

i'll take my pie and continue politely requesting that CW recognize it for the ingenious political strategy that it is. i've been here three times as long as you have, and i'll continue to be here until CW decides to finally shut it down. both he and ralph nader have earned the respect others show them. one certainly can't say that for everyone.

...very well said.

it was six words long.

But I bet you already also knew that.

i know most of what you'll write before you set fingers to keys. and none of it holds a candle to pie.

Of course, you could have just congratulated me on my persistence finally paying off

you got paid? i hope it was less than 200 dollars, or you might have to spam yourself for it.

You really are a poor excuse for a human being.

super! ad hominem was my center bingo square. still waiting on the fallacy fallacy or no true scotsman for the win.

it's ralph's show, and he's mentioned you twice. i'd be feeling more congratulatory if i suspected you might actually do something useful with that exposure. i'm always open to the possibility of being wrong, but i haven't been yet. especially not where pie is concerned.

Take your pie and go troll somewhere else.

i'll take my pie and continue politely requesting that CW recognize it for the ingenious political strategy that it is. i've been here three times as long as you have, and i'll continue to be here until CW decides to finally shut it down. both he and ralph nader have earned the respect others show them. one certainly can't say that for everyone.

JL

*H/O means Hats Off

BUT in order to win anybody over to OD you must address the points and concerns raised by both Prof. Schwartz and our fellow Weigantians. Otherwise you won't get anywhere. If you don't care enough about OD to engage then you don't care enough about OD. Either "play ball" or stop wasting everybody's time.

There is a person in our audience who I have neglected for longer than his question deserved. And he wanted to ask you, his name is Don Harris. And he said, “I demand that you discuss One Demand with Professor Herman Schwartz and the effect One Demand could have on gerrymandering.” And One Demand, if you're not familiar with it, is a drive that demands politicians run small donor campaigns in order to get votes from the people. So people say to candidates, If you don't restrict your fundraising to small donors, we're going to vote against you. What do you think of that?

Herman Schwartz: Right. Yeah. So I don't know whether that will help because the Republicans don't have problems with money. One way or another, they get it.

So what exactly is incorrect about Prof. Schwartz's pointing out just ONE of the reasons why OD won't have the results that you expect?

it's all the same link, to a playlist with ten songs on it.

@don,

it's not lack of balls, and to be frank not even lack of interest. i'd found and listened to the whole show before you posted the link. the guests made some excellent points, and bless his soul, ralph really did give you a forum, so congrats on that. anyone with a modicum of self-awareness might show him a little more appreciation than one terse thank you followed by a page and a half of invective.

notwithstanding the tone of the question, professor schwartz was pretty patient, and made essentially the same point russ made here, namely that the sort of small-donor campaign you're promoting would suit donald trump and his constituency just fine, while big money has plenty of other routes to power.

pie, on the other hand, is completely democratic and generally immune to the influence of people without taste.

best of luck!

Wow. Just WOW.

I think you just broke the CW record, my friend, for number of links in one post!

And, some very fine tunes they all are. We just scratched the surface of the Blues last night so, I'm thinking, we should do it again, soon, eh?

Fil fron Pegasus analyzing Eva Cassidy singing Over the Rainbow

I just learned of Eva Cassidy long after her death. As soon as I discovered her - not sure how - I bought her Live At Blues Alley cd and I play it often. Her voice is angelic and usually brings a tear to my eye.

Powder Blues Band - Montreux Jazz Festival

Take care, everyone - and stay safe!

Freewill

American Music

Just Came Back (to say good-bye)

Indeed!

Colin James - Why'd You Lie (sexy version)

JL

G'Nite

Autumn Leaves

Hope you love this one, Caddy!

well if we're posting entire albums/collections...

1) The Memphis Blues - Eartha Kitt
2) Crazy Blues - Jimmy Rushing
3) Pinetop's Boogie Woogie - Muddy Waters
4) Dust My Broom - Etta James
5) Boogie Chillun - Beau Jocque
6) Mannish Boy - Zac Harmon
7) Stormy Monday - Eva Cassidy
8) Hellhound On My Trail - Cassandra Wilson
9) Spoonful - Howlin' Wolf
10) The Thrill Is Gone - BB King

ha. was that 4:20 intentional?

And, here's the original by ZZ Top

For example...

Bring It on Home by Led Zeppelin (4:20) to go with I Cant Quit You Now. (6:20)

I've Got Everything I Need, Almost

Dixie Chicken, by Little Feat. The whole live album is fabulous. (8:54)

Downchild - It's Been So Long

Next year in Jerusalem -- er, Vancouver, Elizabeth Miller! Coffee in the mornings, wine and weed in the late afternoons and killer outdoor cafes.

Powder Blues - Thirsty Ears

Man, would this be a fun song to play Bass along with! Tasty everything -- vocals, horns and an axeman who knows how to hold back in the beginning (harder to do than it sounds, especially for cats who just got fast) and increasing the complexity, speed and overall awesomeness of his riffing.

They say,

It's the space BETWEEN the note that makes something tasty.

Boppin' With the Blues

Tom is orginally from Chicago but moved to Vacouver and became an origianl member of ... wait for it ... PRiSM. But, soon after that, in 1978, he formed the Powder Blues Band.

Here's a fun tune ... What've I Been Drinking

Lenny by Stevie Ray Vaughn. (5:07)

And Voodoo Child -- Slight Return, by the same AMERICAN Artist. (7:59)

And, tonight, by popular vote ...er, demand, we will indulge and pay tribute to the Blues.

In Canada, the Downchild Blues Band really got things rolling around 1969 and celebrated their 50th anniversary in 2019.

Here they are doing Shotgun Blues

Do you know what else isn't hard to do? Posting the damn link to Ralph's video. Just like how Elizabeth took the time to learn how to post her music links (with titles) on Sunday night. It's all there is the "Commenting Tips" above. If you care enough about convincing anyone around here, that is. But nobody here is going to Google something that you can't be bothered to provide the link to.

Tell you what, Don: you post the link and I'll listen to the whole thing. Ralph has been right about politics and our social economic set up for decades, now.

Liberal as I am, CRS, I absolutely hate "PC run amok." While it's important to realize that PC is the Left's attempt to give respect to all of the non-hetero white male segments of society, the TP regarding Grassley's is, IMO, a good example of PC excess.

It's easy and common for Lefties to lapse into feeling morally superior (Cancel culture is another example of this) but action talks and virtue signaling walks.

That is, high income Lefties who practice PC but who aren't willing to pay higher taxes to help all these marginalized groups are talking the talk but not walking the walk. Harumph.

No, the ACTUAL issue is PC run amok!

"Black people don't consider other black people to be "their people"? Or Native Americans, same thing?"

Again, it is the power dynamic difference and the use of "you" people by white people specifically and in historical context in particular in the USA that is THE issue.

"Also, there are places left in the world where nationality and race turn out to be damn near the same thing, right?"

Yes there are, but they are far more rare in modern times, and limited almost exclusively to nations in Africa and Asia due to the consequences of Western colonialism. In fact, the legacy of Western colonialism is why so much of Europe is multi-racial now. In a reversal of migration the now ex-colonial populations have come home to roost, so to speak.

Yes, the folks who are even paying attention (what, 1 or 2 percent of us?) still don't care about how the sausage gets made, only that it's tasty.

And baked into a pie to keep nypoet22 happy.

Black people don't consider other black people to be "their people"? Or Native Americans, same thing? Also, there are places left in the world where nationality and race turn out to be damn near the same thing, right?

"Chris doesn't object to Grassley using the term "Korean people", but he takes major offense at him using the term "your people" whilst addressing a person of Korean heritage.

What the hell CW, sounds like hypermax nitpicking to me."

You MISSED the POINT. Korean people is based on nationality and location, NOT race, just like "British or French" people.

"Don't we ALL have 'people' (of our own), whether politically, religiously, racially or otherwise affiliated?"

Not very self-aware are you??? In this part of your statement, you actually make both C.W.'s and my point, while simultaneously contradicting yourself and negating the original point you were trying to make! We do have religious, political etc. people, but not just one that is specifically RACE based.

Chris doesn't object to Grassley using the term "Korean people", but he takes major offense at him using the term "your people" whilst addressing a person of Korean heritage.

What the hell CW, sounds like hypermax nitpicking to me. Don't we ALL have 'people' (of our own), whether politically, religiously, racially or otherwise affiliated?

And speaking of that, I am kind of shocked - shocked! - that you can write a sentence like "Which is why so many citizens have just tuned out of the process entirely..." in expressing your shock - shock! - that Washington politics is inverted, self-defeating, and inane.

Wait - you mean Americans of the common stripe are suddenly turned off by the inside baseball of Washington politics? Just now, in the 2020s, Joe and Jane Public are abandoning their hitherto admirable addiction to civics and walking away in disgust, because McConnell and Schumer and Pelosi and McCarthy and Biden, etc. etc.?

Got news for you. In the 1990s, American citizens were disgusted by Congressional B.S.

In the 1960s, American citizens thought it was all B.S.

In the 1930s, American citizens were appalled, etc.

In the 1870s, Americans of every description found Congress' antics unbearable.

In the 1840s, Americans were disgusted to the point of physical illness at the appalling display known as the American Congress.

It's poor punditry - jocular journalism - comical commentary - to open a political column with an inane premise that this week's circus on Capitol Hill is the reason why good Americans have suddenly abandoned their faith in good government under the Constitution's Article I. It sounds like you, not the American people, have been living in some dreamworld.