Friday Talking Points -- Biden's Independence Day Speech

[ Posted Friday, March 12th, 2021 – 19:05 UTC ]

Last night, the president of the United States stood before us all and uttered the following stirring words, in a call for unity: "Mankind -- that word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests." He went on to inspire us further: "We're fighting for our right to live, to exist, and should we win the day the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday but as the day when the world declared in one voice: 'We will not go quietly into the night. We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on. We're going to survive!'" By the end of it, there was not a dry eye in the house.

Oh, wait, we seem to have mixed up our transcripts. That speech was actually given by "President Whitmore" in the film Independence Day. How could we ever have made such a silly error?


It's a pretty safe bet that someone in the White House speechwriting office reviewed that clip, before writing President Joe Biden's speech last night. Not to have done so, in fact, would have been political malpractice. Here is what President Joe Biden actually said: "After this long hard year, that will make this Independence Day something truly special. Where we not only mark our independence as a nation, but we begin to mark our independence from this virus." Totally different, right? However could we have mixed them up?

Amusing movie references aside, President Biden laid down three of these markers in his speech, which will come as a relief to everyone who has been yearning for some shred of an iota of presidential leadership since this time, one year ago. Biden promised us all three things: (1) every adult will be able to at least get in line for a vaccine shot by the first of May, (2) every adult will actually receive their shot by the end of May, and (3) by Independence Day, we'll all be able to have family and friends over for a backyard cookout. Large crowds might not be possible, but smaller gatherings just for a barbeque will be the goal.

Those are all very tangible signs of hope, and are downright inspirational because they will give the American people something not very far in the future to look forward to. This is going to be critically important because it's always at the tail end when people start to get so tired of the restrictions that everyone just starts pretending that there's no crisis anymore. Biden's timeline allows people to say to themselves: "Well, it's only for a couple more months, we can do this!"

Which is exactly what is needed right now. Something to look forward to.

The stylistic differences between Biden and our previous president are pretty plain to see. We've gone from: "I alone can fix it" to:

I promise I will do everything in my power, I will not relent until we beat this virus, but I need you, the American people. I need you. I need every American to do their part. That's not hyperbole. I need you. I need you to get vaccinated when it's your turn and when you can find an opportunity, and to help your family, your friends, your neighbors get vaccinated as well.

In other words, we're all in this together, but the end is now in sight. Which, obviously, is a refreshing change for the better in presidential priorities and outlook.

Biden has set some rather ambitious goals. He may not be able to fully meet them. But hair-splitting whether he fully does or not isn't really the point -- the point is to give people something to look forward to and show everyone that there is a plan to get us all back to normal as fast as possible.

What Biden didn't do last night was take a political victory lap. Or, if you prefer football metaphors to racing, Biden didn't spike the football at all. This isn't to say that he won't be doing so soon -- he has actually already begun this sales job, holding what was initially supposed to be the signing ceremony for the American Rescue Plan Act today in the Rose Garden (with 17 Democratic members of Congress to help him celebrate). The bill was delivered yesterday, faster than expected, so Biden just went ahead and signed it to further hasten the stimulus payments to working Americans. Can anyone imagine the previous president forgoing a made-for-TV bill signing just so that average people would get their checks a day early? Biden also notably didn't insist on placing his name on the checks, which also saved time.

Biden's victory lap will have a name: the "Help Is Here" tour. Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, their respective spouses, and all kinds of surrogates will blanket the country with events designed not only to inform everyday Americans what is in the American Rescue Plan, but also how to take advantage of all the benefits.

Biden has learned his lesson from 2009, when Barack Obama famously refused to do such a sales job for his American Recovery Act. This allowed his opponents to define it for him, which the Republicans then gleefully did. But now, the American Rescue Plan is already wildly popular, so this "help" tour is likely only going to make it even more popular.

Republicans -- astonishingly -- can't quite seem to figure out how to react to it all. They have done a lousy job of demonizing Joe Biden, in general. It's just tough to try to get people to hate Biden. Even at the recent gathering of conservatives (CPAC), vendors were reporting that nobody was interested in buying all their anti-Biden shirts and hats and whatnot. Even the staunchest conservatives just can't muster enough hatred for Biden, it seems.

Republicans can't quite figure out how to demonize the plan, either. They have been floundering around seeking a way, mostly to no avail. They tried to claim "stimulus checks will be going to illegal immigrants," which is just not true at all (you need a Social Security number to receive a check), and then they tried to fearmonger over the fact that some prisoners (with incomes) will get checks -- which is exactly the same as all those bipartisan bills passed last year.

This was amusingly summed up in the Washington Post thusly:

So Republicans will essentially be saying, "We know the government just gave your family $8,000, but aren't you mad that some prisoner's family might have gotten some money, too? C'mon, get mad!"

In a nutshell, they got nothin'. Earlier, they tried to claim that because the bill wasn't bipartisan, it was somehow bad. This only led Biden to completely redefine how the term is used, politically, which he continued reinforcing this week: "Without the overwhelming bipartisan support of the American people, this would not have happened. Overwhelming public support -- every public opinion poll shows overwhelming support for this plan. And for the last weeks, it's shown that. Every public opinion poll shows the people want this, they believe it's needed, and they believe it's urgent." That, according to Biden, is the only measure of bipartisanship that counts, or is necessary. And he's right.

Republicans truly hate this bill because unlike just about every other massive piece of legislation for the past 30 or 40 years, this one will go to working Americans and not the wealthiest among us. Biden can easily show this with a few easy-to-understand graphs that show which income groups will benefit from the American Rescue Plan versus which made out like bandits after the previous GOP tax cut (which cost roughly the same amount of money, around $2 trillion).

But the big problem for Republican politicians is that a huge percentage of GOP voters (by the polling, anywhere from 40 percent to 60 percent of Republicans) support the plan. Which may be why the right-wing media echo chamber is notably not filled with outrage over the bill (as it usually is, when Democrats chalk up a win), but instead they've retreated into meaningless culture war skirmishes (that Democrats, for the most part, are just flat-out ignoring, this time around).

Republicans are getting increasingly desperate in trying to fight the plan. Senator Rick Scott has actually gone on the record telling Republican governors to put partisan ideology ahead of the welfare of their own constituents. No, really:

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who is set to meet with Donald Trump this week at Mar-a-Lago, is beseeching states and cities across America to refuse federal aid and put politics over policy. In a missive sent to governors and mayors just after the bill was approved on Wednesday, Scott tarred the piece of legislation as "massive, wasteful and non-targeted." He encouraged state and local leaders, by way of sending back the aid, to demand that Congress "quit recklessly spending other people's money."

"By rejecting and returning any unneeded funds, as well as funds unrelated to COVID-19," his letter read, "you would be taking responsible action to avoid wasting scarce tax dollars. After all, every dollar in this package is borrowed."

Good luck with that one, Ricky. My guess is that precisely zero Republican governors are going to flat-out refuse billions of federal dollars, and that zero Republican working families are going to tear up and refuse to deposit their stimulus checks. Because it is so completely insane to expect that, obviously.

Late in the week, Republicans tried a new tactic. When the economic recovery hits, they tell us, Joe Biden and this new law will have had nothing to do with it, because all the credit should go to the previous president. Seriously, that's what they're left trying to argue.

So Democrats, from Joe Biden on down, are going to blanket the country for the next few weeks celebrating all the ways that the American Rescue Plan is going to help everyone out, and how the end to this year-long crisis is now in sight and achievable, while Republicans will be left to argue the opposite -- that all the good things are really somehow bad, and how it all somehow would have happened without this legislative achievement. They gambled that they could do to this law what they did to Obamacare -- so successfully demonize it (mostly by lying about it) that popular opinion would turn away from it. However, they miscalculated this time because: (1) the effects of the recovery plan will be felt almost immediately, and (2) it is already wildly popular. Neither of these things was true for Obamacare, which is why their demonization campaign worked so well, back then.

This time, though, Biden and the Democrats seem to have the winning hand. And this time Biden isn't going to be shy about touting the benefits of this crowning legislative achievement to the skies. Help is not just on the way, we'll be hearing (hopefully over and over again), help is actually already here.


Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

President Joe Biden certainly had a good week, capping off his first 50 days in office with the American Rescue Plan Act and his first primetime address to the nation. And we do have one specific Honorable Mention before we get to the main award.

Representative Tim Ryan gave a great little speech on the House floor this week, while the chamber was debating the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (the "PRO Act"), which will make it a lot easier for Unions to organize. Ryan was indignant about the priorities of the two parties, and he really let fly in spectacular fashion:

Mr. Speaker, one of the earlier speakers said: "This is the most dramatic change in Labor law in 80 years," and I say: "Thank God." In the late '70s, a CEO made 35 times [what] the worker [made]. Today it's three-to-four hundred times the worker. And our friends on the other side [are] running around with their hair on fire. Heaven forbid we pass something that's going to help the damn workers in the United States of America! Heaven forbid we tilt the balance that has been going in the wrong direction for 50 years! We talk about pensions, you complain. We talk about the minimum wage increase, you complain. We talk about giving them the right to organize, you complain. But if we were passing a tax cut here, you'd be getting in line to vote yes for it. Now stop talking about Dr. Seuss and start working with us on behalf of the American workers!

But this week, instead of handing out a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, we are instead minting a brand-new Most Impressive Democratic Legislation award (with no time reference at all, since this truly is up there in the all-time list). And we're handing this first-ever award to the American Rescue Plan Act (which we sincerely hope everyone soon starts calling "ARPA," since it would save so much typing).

Seriously, it is indeed hard to overstate the importance of this legislation. Phrases we've heard used already: "The era of trickle-down economics is over," and: "The era of 'big government is the problem' is over," and: "This will end welfare reform as we know it." These, of course, are all throwbacks to previous famous presidential lines (from Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan). We've also heard it described as: "...with no exaggeration, the single most important piece of anti-poverty legislation since Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society."

We've been trying to keep our own list of all the good things contained within this landmark new law. The notable issue which didn't get included, of course, was raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but because that in particular (whether by chance or design) drew so much opposing fire that all the rest of it emerged completely unscathed. Here is what the American Rescue Plan does, on top of the parts everyone already knows (sending out $1,400 stimulus checks, paying for vaccine distribution, and paying money to reopen schools safely):

  • $27.4 billion in rental assistance,
  • $10 billion in homeowner assistance,
  • $5 billion in Section 8 housing vouchers,
  • $5 billion in homelessness assistance,
  • a whopping $40 billion (the most since World War II) towards childcare,
  • 12 million more people will be able to sign up for health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges,
  • a family of four making $90,000 a year will see their Obamacare premiums drop by $200 a month,
  • nobody will pay more than 8.5 percent of their household income to buy an Obamacare benchmark plan,
  • reduce the number of uninsured by 1.3 million,
  • Medicaid expansion sweetened to entice the remaining 12 states to expand,
  • Earned Income Tax Credit boosted for 17 million people,
  • $31.2 billion for tribal governments and Native American communities,
  • a one-third reduction in poverty in America,
  • a one-half reduction in child poverty,
  • $28.6 billion for the restaurant industry (one of the hardest-hit by the pandemic),
  • Money for mass transit systems (also hard-hit),
  • 185 Union pension funds will be protected,
  • student loan tax law changed to avoid tax penalty for having a loan forgiven,
  • closes loophole that for-profit diploma mills were using to rip off veterans,
  • disadvantaged farmers (many of them Black) will get money to help with loans and purchasing new land, and
  • money for hospitals to help them cope with both vaccinations and the pandemic itself.

That is a breathtaking amount of things to cover in a single bill, and it is likely not even a complete list. The biggest and most dramatic new thing the bill will do is to send out the child tax credit as a monthly payment to struggling parents, rather than just as a tax write-off at the end of the year. This will help millions of children in the most direct way imaginable, and is the biggest reason experts are predicting a drop in child poverty rates of one-half. This won't be permanent, but if the program goes well, Democrats will definitely push hard to make it permanent when it expires.

As we said, this is a stunning array of programs to convince the American people that government truly can be a force for good -- which runs counter to the Republicans' main message since Ronald Reagan's time. For once, Democrats acted like Democrats. Or, at the very least, "acted like Democrats did back when F.D.R. was around."

Joe Biden said several times on the campaign trail he wanted to emulate the boldness of F.D.R. This is nothing new, really -- most Democrats who run for president idolize Roosevelt. But Biden has now begun his tenure by actually passing a sweeping bill that even F.D.R. would have been proud of. Biden doesn't get all the credit, no Democrat does -- this was a group effort which included good ideas that Democrats have attempted to get passed over the past 40 or 50 years. It really is that impressive.

Which is why we had to create the special Most Impressive Democratic Legislation award to properly honor it.


Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We have one (Dis-)Honorable Mention award to hand out this week, for Kyrsten Sinema's rather odd performance on the Senate floor. Sinema was voting against including the minimum wage hike in the bill, and she traipsed onto the floor, struck a little attention-seeking pose, and (quite obviously) gleefully stuck her thumb down to register her vote against the minimum wage.

Now, please remember, Sinema is a senator from Arizona. Another senator from Arizona is already famous for a critical thumbs-down vote. But when John McCain did it, he was voting to save affordable health insurance for millions of people. Sinema was voting to deny the lowest-paid Americans a long-overdue raise. See the difference? One senator bucked his party to do what was right, while what Sinema did was the complete opposite. Which is why she gets a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, for displaying her own dishonorable attitude.

But, sadly, there's really only one Democrat possible for this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, and that is (once again) New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The accusations are mounting, and (as of this writing) six women have now accused Cuomo of various improper behavior, including unwanted kisses. The latest one was the most damning, because the accusation in this case was that Cuomo stuck his hand under her shirt and groped her breasts.

Now, politicians can survive being accused of sexual misconduct (and even sexual assault) if there is only one accuser and nobody corroborates the story. But when the number of accusations rises above five, then these scandals are usually unsurvivable. Cuomo is under investigation, and a growing number of his fellow Democrats from New York have now called on him to resign immediately. So far, Cuomo is defiant, repeating his claim that all these women are lying and nothing ever happened.

And, of course, this all comes on top of another scandal, that Cuomo manipulated COVID deaths in nursing homes to make himself look better -- which is far more serious, since it involves many deaths.

At this point, we have to add our voice to those telling Cuomo he has become far too big a distraction to effectively carry out his duties. He needs to step down and admit that he's never going to be president some day. Even refusing to run for another term as governor isn't enough any more. There are just too many accusers and too many people backing them up.

Cuomo must go. And every week he sticks around, he's going to be eligible for yet another MDDOTW award.

[Contact New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]


Friday Talking Points

Volume 609 (3/12/21)

Before we begin, we have two odds and ends to get to first.

You will have noticed that there has been no discussion anywhere in this article of the British royal family. There's a very good reason for that, one that sadly too many of our fellow Americans in the news industry seem to have forgotten. Specifically, America fought an entire war so that we never had to pay the British monarchy the slightest bit of attention ever again. It's right there in the history books, folks.

And secondly, we must express our sadness upon hearing that Norton Juster has passed away. Or, as he might have insisted upon, "died." Juster was the author of an incomparable and timeless children's book, The Phantom Tollbooth, which was published with the equally-incomparable artwork of his apartment neighbor at the time, political cartoonist Jules Feiffer. We recommend this book to all and sundry, of any age whatsoever. It is an excellent book that points out the folly of language and ingrained thinking better than any other children's book we ever personally read. Requiescat In Pace, you will be missed.

With those out of the way, let's get right to this week's talking points, which are a rather mixed bag.


   Biggest in two or three generations

Democrats have already started using this theme, so expect it to become prominent soon.

"The American Rescue Plan Act is the biggest piece of poverty-fighting legislation in either two or even three generations. It will reduce poverty in America by one-third. It will reduce child poverty by one-half. Please name me another bill which has done anything close to this since the 1960s. You can't, because none exists. You have to go back to L.B.J.'s Great Society for any sort of comparison at all, and if the American Rescue Plan proves to be even bigger than that, then you'd have to go all the way back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to find such an ambitious plan to lift people out of poverty. Democrats are getting things done in Washington and making life better for tens of millions of hardworking Americans. Republicans refuse to join in, because Democrats refuse to shower goodies on Wall Street, corporate America, or the ultra-wealthy. It is nothing short of a cruel joke when today's Republicans try to claim they are the party of working-class Americans, when they always refuse to lift a finger to help a single one of them. Democrats don't just give lip service to this idea, they get things done, period."


   Priorities are crystal clear

This just puts the icing on the ideological cake, really.

"While Democrats were busy passing this historic legislation, you know what Republicans were busy with? They proposed getting rid of the estate tax, so that the Paris Hiltons of this world won't have to pay a dime in taxes when they inherit billions of dollars. Folks, that is the difference between the two parties, in stark relief. Democrats want to help the little guy, Republicans can't be bothered with anyone who isn't already in the top one percent."


   Already trying to steal credit

This could be a dictionary entry for the term chutzpah, really.

"What's truly hilarious is that one Republican -- Senator Roger Wicker -- is already trying to claim credit for the good ideas in the American Rescue Plan even though he voted against it. Yep, he's trying to bamboozle the voters of Mississippi into thinking he was for this new law, when -- along with every other Republican in Congress -- he refused to vote for it. Don't believe any Republican for the next two years who tries to claim any credit for any of this stuff, folks, because it was Democrats and Democrats alone who got it done. And we think the voters are smart enough to remember that when the next election rolls around."


   Quality versus quantity? Really?!?

One of those classic "says the quiet part out loud" incidents happened this week. We're going to leave this one in its raw form, as an exercise for readers to create a Democratic talking point on their own, because this one truly is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel (most especially that "everybody shouldn't be voting" line):

For all of the stereotypes about elected officials being circumspect in how they speak to the public, often carefully withholding their true views, there are moments when honesty shines through. As when Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh (R) was explaining to CNN why he supported new restrictions on voting in the state.

"There's a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans," he said. "Democrats value as many people as possible voting, and they're willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote -- but everybody shouldn't be voting."

"Not everybody wants to vote," he added, "and if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they're totally uninformed on the issues. Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well."


   Most ex-presidents still care about the American people -- except one (of course)

We have successfully made it all the way through this column without ever typing his name out, but in this particular instance he really does need to be called out, so we'll make this one exception.

"Three of the four living ex-presidents just appeared with their wives (our ex-first ladies) to urge the public to get their vaccine shots as soon as they become eligible. That's right -- Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all showed videos of them and their wives getting their shots, in a new public service ad. Of course, Donald Trump couldn't be bothered, after getting vaccinated in his final days in office away from public view. So what was he doing instead? Trying to stop all of America from giving Joe Biden any credit whatsoever with a petulant email to the media, which ended with the rather-pathetic: 'I hope everyone remembers!' Donald Trump is first, last, and always all about Donald Trump -- because he could care less about anyone else in this country."


   If a Trump tweeted in the middle of the forest, would anyone hear it?

But there was one notable thing about this communication effort.

"Getting kicked off of Twitter has hurt Donald Trump more than anyone ever predicted, at the time. Think about it -- he had absolutely nothing to say about the American Rescue Plan, even though it is a towering legislative achievement compared to anything Trump managed -- and it happened in Biden's first 50 days in office. Now Trump is petulantly trying to remain relevant by sending out an email claiming credit for all the vaccines to what he still insists on calling 'the China Virus.' But you know what? I bet you didn't even hear about Trump's email this week, because it was so inconsequential and non-newsworthy that everyone just essentially ignored it. And that truly is the best revenge on an egomaniac -- to absolutely deny him the ego-food he desperately craves."



We would give proper credit to the late-night comedian who first used this line, but we forget which one it was and are too lazy to look it up. We think it was Seth Meyers, but we could be wrong about that.

"This is what passes for a 'scandal' in the Biden White House. The story broke this week that one of Biden's dogs was involved in what was termed 'a biting incident' and both dogs were summarily dispatched back to Delaware, away from the White House excitement. With Joe Biden, even his scandals are boring -- because this is literally a story of: 'dog bites man.'"

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground


133 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Biden's Independence Day Speech”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Biden loses out to a piece of legislation. Geez, Louise! If the president didn't have bad luck, he wouldn't have any luck at at. Heh.

    Seriously, very nice piece, from start to finish, about a very nice piece of legislation.

    And, just have to say that it is surely the irony of all ironies for any Republican to be talking about how ill-informed voters shouldn't be allowed to vote. And, that is all I'm gonna say about that.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Also, this week ... didn't Mitch McConnell say something along the lines of if the economy starts to rock and roll like there's no tomorrow it will have nothing to do with the Biden administration or the ARPA.

    Well, it's not going to be easy for Democrats to put a stake, at long last, through the heart of the Republican cult of economic failure and take over the mantle of competent economic stewards but Democrats must do it if it's the last thing they ever do!

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    RE: talking point 4 - i thought it was supposed to be 'one person, one vote' and not 'my vote is higher quality than yours.'

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    CW -- A most pleasing FTP column! It sure is nice to not have to even consider what Dear Leader Trump is saying.

    That Twitter & Facebook ban is making Trump irrelevant tho anything besides his remaining desire to eviscerate "his" so-called Party. All good and well, sayeth MtnCaddy.

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Having said that I feel that the biggest remaining impediment to Progress is the idiot 74 million voters for Trump. "Alternate reality" blah blah blah...they have to be addressed. To that end I reprint...

    The deep story went like this: You are an older white man without a college degree standing in the middle of a line with hundreds of millions of Americans. The queue leads up a hill, toward a haven just over the ridge, which is the American dream. Behind you in line, you can see a train of woeful souls—many poor, mostly nonwhite, born in America and abroad, young and old. “It’s scary to look back,” Hochschild writes. “There are so many behind you, and in principle you wish them well. Still, you’ve waited a long time.” Now you’re stuck in line, because the economy isn’t working. And worse than stuck, you’re stigmatized; liberals in the media say every traditional thing you believe is racist and sexist. And what’s this? People are cutting in line in front of you! Something is wrong. The old line wasn’t perfect, but at least it was a promise. There is order in the fact of a line. And if that order is coming apart, then so is America.
    -- Strangers in their Own Land
    Hochschild, Arlie Russell 2016

    and further once again post your recent column Here to Help column.

    Forgive me, Weigantia, for hearing on this topic. But I feel that the combination of the above quote along with your incisive/prescient column is a key to unraveling the madness.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    see: stuff

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...for HARPING on this topic...

    Well, it's not going to be easy for Democrats to put a stake, at long last, through the heart of the Republican cult of economic failure and take over the mantle of competent economic stewards but Democrats must do it if it's the last thing they ever do!

    Yep. This Comrade is watching the Dems to see if they're for real about undoing the EVIL of Reaganism.®

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Yea, verily.

    Succeeding generations should NOT be satisfied with the mess that we collective dumbf*cks have left for them.

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...we collective dumbf*cks refer to us Boomers who voted for Saint Ronnie in 1980 (the first election that I was eligible to vote in) because...

    1- A gallon of gas price went up under Carter, and,

    2- Them damned Iranians took our diplomats hostage while Carter was President.

    As time goes by, Jimmy Carter will get increasingly better reviews than Reagan, and Repug Presidents in general will be increasingly viewed in a negative light.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Will ARPA be the thing that finally exposes the Republican cult of economic failure for the nonsense it has always been, once and for all!?

  11. [11] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, should we be satisfied that you at least provided real talking points this week, instead of a 'rant'?

    The list of lesser-known measures included in the COVID-19 relief legislation was marvelous. Surely 4 or 5 of those would stand alone as talking points.

    Why instead did you dedicate 6 of 7 to the words and deeds of Republicans and their apologists?

  12. [12] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    'Most Impressive Democratic Legislation'? Really? I guess that means that no one in Congress had to lift a finger, not writing it, not shepherding it through committee, and surely not keeping her caucus together.


  13. [13] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Here are two other historic bills that sailed through the House of Representatives on their own. (Why didn't we know that legislation is autonomous and sentient during all those years when Republicans controlled the House and Senate?)

  14. [14] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    1) 'Protecting the Right to Organize Act'
    'The legislation — which would make it easier for workers to join and form unions by empowering the National Labor Relations Board to levy fines and extending collective bargaining rights to independent contractors ...

    Unions have thrown their weight behind the legislation, which leaders have described repeatedly as one of their top priorities for a Biden administration. Indeed, the executive board of the AFL-CIO — the nation’s largest federation of unions — plans to meet Wednesday to discuss its position on eliminating the filibuster, likely the only path forward for seeing the PRO Act enacted.

    “I assume that [Senate passage] requires getting rid of the filibuster for sure, or finding some way around it,” Levin said.

    Senate HELP Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told POLITICO that she plans “to fight hard to make sure we honor the essential workers that have kept us going during this pandemic by getting the PRO Act across the finish line.”'

  15. [15] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    2) H.R. 8 and Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021'

    'H.R. 8 would expand background checks on individuals seeking to purchase or transfer firearms, and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021 would close the "Charleston loophole," a gap in federal law that lets gun sales proceed without a completed background check if three businesses days have passed.'

  16. [16] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Three more Biden nominees were confirmed by the Senate. But for some reason these Democrats continue to be denied even an 'honorable mention' as MIDOW.

  17. [17] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    1) This is perhaps the most satisfying. I'm hoping that Merrick Garland investigates and prosecutes Elaine Chao for corruption, 'guiding' projects to Kentucky while she was Trump's Secretary of Transportation.
    'Democrats have praised Garland, a federal appeals court judge who was snubbed by Republicans for a seat on the Supreme Court in 2016, as a highly qualified and honorable jurist who is uniquely qualified to lead the department after a tumultuous four years under former President Donald Trump. Many Republicans praised him as well, saying he has the right record and temperament for the moment. The vote was 70-30.'

  18. [18] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    2) 'Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge was confirmed by the Senate 66-34 to serve as President Joe Biden's Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

    She will be the second-ever Black woman to lead HUD and the first woman to lead the department in over 40 years.'

  19. [19] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    3) 'With a bipartisan confirmation vote of 66 to 34, Regan will become the first Black man to lead the EPA in the agency's 50-year history.
    Regan has been serving as the secretary of North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality. He previously led the Environmental Defense Fund's efforts to combat the impacts of the climate crisis and air pollution, according to the state's government website, and also worked at the EPA during the Clinton and Bush administrations.'

  20. [20] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Sen. Synema deserves a dishonorable mention for theatrically casting her vote (one of eight) on a dead-end amendment. Meanwhile a Democrat who voted against the ENTIRE COVID-19 relief bill doesn't merit a single word?
    'Rep. Jared Golden, who has represented Maine’s 2nd Congressional District since 2019, was the only lawmaker from either party to break ranks on the bill.'

  21. [21] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    I am not a New York voter and could care less whether he stays or goes. But the New York attorney general AND the state legislature have announced investigations. Thus the feeding frenzy of DEMOCRATS who are circling Gov. Cuomo, righteously demanding his resignation, is premature. It's sadly also typical of progressives, who greedily eat our own.

    It's a replay of Sen. Al Franken's treatment, at the hands of Sen. Gillibrand most famously. So I propose a new term for the Weigaphere, "Franken-ized": to be accused, tried, and convicted by one's fellow Democrats based on sensational media reporting. Thus, "Gov Cuomo is being Franken-ized."

    Have I already mentioned that Biden was also accused of sexual harassment in March 2020? Where would we be today if he had been Franken-ized and withdrawn from the race?

  22. [22] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, knowing your -obsession with-, er, excuse me, "advocacy for" legal marijuana, I foresee another bending of the rules on the MIDOW in the next week or so. ALL OF MEXICO will be declared Democratic!
    'Mexico is on the verge of creating the world’s largest legal marijuana market, a move that could pressure President Joe Biden to embrace weed, too.

    Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies passed landmark legislation Thursday morning, ahead of a April 30 deadline set by the country's Supreme Court to legalize recreational sales. The Senate is expected to back the bill in the coming days. '

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    These rants are becoming rather, well, predictable.

    And, it's time to embrace weed!

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    [12] you sort-of answered your own question. CW dedicated most of the body of the post to the positives of the democratic legislation, so by the time he got to 'talking points' all that was left to discuss was republicans' continued obeisance to donald trump and failure to do anything worthwhile.

    that said, it probably would be a good idea to pare down the list of positives into talking point format.

    [13-15] the senate is a tougher nut to crack, and always has been. that doesn't mean accomplishments in the house don't count, but the level of difficulty is lower so they don't count for quite as much. these are very important issues to tackle, so passing house legislation is a good first step.

    [16-19] these confirmations are all great. the successful nominees may yet turn out to be impressive if any of them actually does something noteworthy in their position. i'd say it's likely that at some point at least one of them does.

    [20-21] being from new york i think i can safely say you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about on this front. no matter what political party he's from, andrew cuomo has always been a special kind of awful, and nothing synema or golden voted on amounts to a fart in the wind next to his ongoing misdeeds. as mentioned in the article, perhaps coming after him over six sexual misconduct allegations is focusing on the wrong issue, but this is no 'franken' situation. not given all the nursing home patients he needlessly exposed to covid, then covered up by fudging the numbers, then used his influence to try to insulate his political allies from consequences, all while grandstanding against trump on national television over essentially the same issue.

    [22] yeah that's kinda true. the legalization crusade is given a substantial forum here.

    we are armed with mighty joint!
    -gregory hines, history of the world part I

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The single most important anti-poverty legislation since LBJ.

    It's nice to know my great-grandchildren will be celebrating the passing of the 15 dollar minimum wage and their great-grandchildren will be celebrating the passage of Medicare for all.

    Hooray for BMI in 2220!

    Not a great track record of a response for 60 years of suffering. Now that this legislation is out of the way, we can return to another 60 years of normal (insert sarcastic cheer).

    To paraphrase David Bromberg, you've got to suffer if you want to sing for the "Blues".

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.
    Get Real.
    Get Credible.

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    italyrusty wrote,

    So I propose a new term for the Weiga[s]phere, "Franken-ized": to be accused, tried, and convicted by one's fellow Democrats based on sensational media reporting.

    Yeah I remember when Al Franken got thrown under the Democratic Righteousness Bus. All for, what, some jokes in perhaps poor taste and cupping his hands in front of but not actually touching a sleeping women's breasts.

    IMO this was an overreaction. I'm down with the #MeToo, er, movement but I bleeping HATE what I consider excessive #Political Correctness.

    This fiasco trashed a good Progressive Senator's carrer -- spank you very much, Senator Gillibrand!


  27. [27] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Caddy [26} Is there any OTHER kind of PC?

  28. [28] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    It's just never good enough for you, is it? Why don't you go ahead and try to convince us that it didn't matter that Biden beat Trump last year, and that it doesn't matter that the Democrats now control Congress. All because no one is willing to bring a knife to a gunfight by self limiting their fundraising to satisfy your One Demand fantasy.

    You ought to take your own tiresome closing slogan as seriously as you want us to:

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.¹
    Get Real.²
    Get Credible.³

    ¹ No one is buying what you're selling, hello? And for the record 80 million Americans rose up to fire Trump.

    ² If OD was a viable campaigning strategy someone would have employed it by now. What do you not "get" about that?

    ³ Repeatedly claiming that there's no difference between the Dems and Repugs just kills your credibility. For just one example, I'm sure 500,000 dead Americans would disagree with you. You know, if they weren't dead. And telling people on your OD website that you are essentially a zero is, to put it kindly, less than inspiring.


    You're trying to sell a shitty product and you don't have the first clue as to how to sell anything. You are therefore simply engaging in effing useless trolling.

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:



    Nothing like a good smackdown of Don Harris to get my day rolling!

    That, and The All American Breakfast:

    Coffee, donuts and a cigarette -- woot!

  30. [30] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:



    Bleyd once wrote:

    I'm seeing a pretty monumental flaw in your OD plan. You essentially seem to require a majority of the citizens to simultaneously go on strike against non-OD candidates in favor of a single OD-friendly candidate in order for it to work. That's simply unrealistic.

    First you'd have to find a candidate who agreed to OD's principles and who is popular enough to get the financial support of such a huge segment of the population that they could out-raise the major party candidates. That alone is simply not possible to do all in one go. No candidate of sufficient popularity would willing risk handicapping themselves so monumentally with the rules as they stand.

    Even if you could find such a candidate though, how are you expecting to get so many small donors that they could keep up with the current fund raising system? How are you going to convince them that their donations wouldn't be in vain, that the candidate they're supporting would have a realistic chance of beating someone entrenched in the current system? Most people aren't willing to throw money at causes they don't believe have a chance.

    So I ask you, what is the workable plan of action you are proposing? Ideals and concepts are great, but unless you have a way to put them into practice, they won't get you far.

    Let's add Kicks two cents:

    ...and after all these years, you still haven't answered a boatload of questions along the same lines.

    A strong and competent leader would not take big money to run their campaign. ~ Don Harris

    Prove it. Your equating of "big money" with evildoers is tedium ad nauseam and something for which you've yet to provide any proof despite multiple requests to do so.

    You've claim repeatedly that those who would accept more than your mandate aren't worthy, strong, competent, etc. Prove it. I could set my own arbitrary purity test and claim that those candidates who don't say 25 "Hail Mary's" a day aren't "strong and competent" leaders because I said so. I mean, if they're not willing to hit their knees and do the praying, they cannot possibly be worthy to lead. It sounds stupid because it is. Your standard operational statements sound likewise. one cent:

    A- Don, we agree that BigMoney has corrupted our government.

    B- It follows that money is important to winning elections, right?

    Here are my questions:

    1- What about the ocean of PAC money out there? Corporate money, Citizens United "dark" money and (possibly/likely in Trump's case) foreign money?

    2- What about the partisan divide? Whether it's a Dem or a Repug that adopts OD, s/he will have a floor of only 45% as voters of the other party will reject that candidate out of hand, period.

    Okay, Dude. Now's your chance to address the above myriad One Demand shortcomings. Have at it!

  31. [31] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Caddy [26] Is there any OTHER kind of PC?

    I'm tempted to say, "No, there isn't," but for the fact that:

    American heterosexual cis-white men* have dominated America culturally and economically from Day 1. Back before the 1960s that meant:

    1- Blacks, asians, hispanics in their place.

    2- Women barefoot and pregnant -- not competing with men in the workplace.

    3- Likewise Jews, Irish Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists in their places.

    4- Gays etc in the closet.

    PC is the Liberal response to this. It's meant to give respect to all these other Americans. But IMO it's gotten way the bleep out of hand. Just like forced school busing, it's an overreach, ya dig?

    *I do NOT agree that we should capitalize "black" "hispanic" etc groups. That's overreaching.

  32. [32] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Death to #PoliticalCorrectness! said the otherwise Loud and Proud Libtard.

  33. [33] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Is there any OTHER kind of PC?

    Ya, the kind that runs windows...

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ya, the kind that runs windows...

    isn't "runs" a bit strong?

  35. [35] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    No Don Harris?

    C'mon guy. This is the last time I'm going to waste time on your silly One Demand fantasy.

    Cat got your tongue?

    What a surprise.

  36. [36] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Political correctness is a bad word (kind of like socialism is, in a different context) to a lot of people who would never be caught dead saying things that were screechingly called politically incorrect thirty to fifty years ago.

    Such people might say, to explain the difference, "Well of course I would never say that. That's not about being PC, that's just about not being rude - or racist."

    Political correctness, in other words, is just plain good manners, only a little bit ahead of its time.

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Good point. Like the "Socialism" label it kind of disserves what is fundamentally the notion of showing people respect.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Sorry about my [23] ... must have been in some kind of mood . :-)

    Always like reading your stuff - just lay off Chris, okay!? Heh.

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Say, have we decided on a theme for Sunday night?

    If not, let's make it a free-for-all and settle in on a theme for next week???

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy (28,29,30)-
    Been there, done that.

    Twice I have answered those comments for you (beyond the times answered for others) and you said you would get back to me and never did.

    Now you post them again and claim I won't answer. Pure projection.

    If you can dig up those quotes you can dig up my answers and answer them or expose yourself as a troll.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party was originally fashioned on my favourite radio station's Saturday Night Dance Party. Which began as an answer to the pandemic and lockdowns etc etc ... you know, as a way to have fun when having fun was kinda outlawed.

    But, there is usually no response on their facebook page so if you have time and wanna have some fun, check it out!

  42. [42] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Don Harris wrote:

    If you can dig up those quotes you can dig up my answers and answer them or expose yourself as a troll.

    This is my "getting back to you."

    Since you've "already addressed these concerns" [28][29][30] then you should be able to answer them right now, in a jiffy!

    Telling me to go look up your shit translates to Nope, I don't have a reply. I cannot address these concerns.

    I trust we won't be hearing from you again this weekend. But don't worry, I saved em for the next time you troll Weigantia and I'm going to keep jamming em down your throat until you man up and "answer zee question, Alt Mann." Or disappear.


  43. [43] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    I think "freeform" is a great suggestion, Elizabeth! Looking forward to some fuuunnnn!

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent! Me, too!

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hey i should have specified, gregory hines was the actor quoted but the character he played was josephus.

    swiftus: Hey, what country are you from?
    josephus: Ethiopia.
    swiftus: What part?
    josephus: Hunn'et twenty fifth street.

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy [fpc]

    I am really starting to believe that Joseph R. Biden is EXACTLY THE MAN FOR THIS MOMENT.

    you're about fifteen months over par on that epiphany, but better late than never.

    as an old buddy of mine on this board used to say:

    welcome to the party, pal!
    ~die hard


  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I miss that guy.

  48. [48] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Yippie Yi Yo Tieyay!

  49. [49] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    nypoet22 [24] (About Cuomo) I've read several articles about the nursing home deaths. That is a completely separate issue from the sexual abuse allegations, of course, but the NY Democrats who are demanding his head don't seem to be separating the two (the latest pronouncements use loftly language that he has 'lost the confidence of his governing partners'). Not being a New Yorker, I have no idea how popular (or not) is Cuomo among the political class. In your opinion, is there an element of revenge, as I've read suggestions of?
    An investigation of the nursing home reclassifications (reminder, the total number of deaths was not underreported, according to the accusations) by your wonderful AG Letitia James. But I hope that cooler heads will prevail and your legislature awaits the results.

  50. [50] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [23] and [38]:

    1) My opinion of legal weed isn't important to anyone.
    2) Apology accepted
    3) As I hope I've communicated more than once, the FTP column is a highlight of my week, especially since 9 March 2020. I wouldn't waste my time commenting if I didn't care deeply. While my comments surely have more than their fair share of snark, I also hope that Chris finds them constructive.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy (42)-
    You had your opportunity to respond to the answers I gave when your nonsense was first posted. You chose instead to run and hide.

    Now you are telling me that this time you will not pull the football out. I am not Charlie Brown.

    In what reality does me saying I already answered your comments and you can easily find those answers translate into I don't have an answer?

    The reality is that you do not have an answer to my answers so all you can do is post the same nonsense over and over again without ever addressing my answers.

    What makes you think avoiding addressing my answers is going to convince me I am wrong?

    The fact that you keep using dodges instead of addressing my answers is an admission by you that you can't make an argument to refute my answers.

    Prove me wrong. Pick up and continue the discussion where it left off with a rational argument.

    Grow up.

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy-
    By the way, you are not jamming anything down my throat.

    All you are doing is sticking your own head up your own ass.

  53. [53] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    If you aren't a regular reader of Politico, you should at least check each weekend for the 'Cartoonists on the week in politics'. This week's had several sardonic and insightful panels.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Did I ask? Great! I know.

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Sexual abuse, nursing home deaths and officials feeling like Andrew Cuomo's chickens may be coming home to roost, only seem unrelated to someone who hasn't followed the last decade of New York politics. Here's a brief (but FAR from exhaustive) primer:

  56. [56] 
    TheStig wrote:


    All of your folksy, repetitious sloganeering doesn't change the fact that political spending closely approximates a Nash Equilibrium Game.

    In nearly all cases, outspending your challenger is the optimal strategy. If you don't win, you can't legislate. Serious candidates get this. Their campaign mangers can work the odds with reasonable accuracy. If you want to limit campaign contributions, you are going to have win some elections within the existing money driven system. In current practice, campaign spending is somewhat self's the Limu Emu Rule...only spend what you need.

    Speaking of things that are stuck places, what happened to your web site????

  57. [57] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    A Gal Pal of mine sent me a movie trailer from an anti-abortion movie that's called "Unplanned," and I wrote back:

    Okay, I watched the trailer a couple of times & here's what I think:

    First off, it appears to be a very professionally done movie about a woman's change of heart regarding abortion rights. I DO have some fact quibbles: I don't think the fetus (not BABY & not an UNBORN BABY - in English the term is FETUS) feels pain as early as portrayed. Second, Planned Parenthood is not "one of the most powerful corporations in the world," that's pure malarkey. For the record PP provides contraception & screens for cancers & STDs. I trust you don't have a problem with that kind of Public Service & Outreach, right? Only 3% of their money goes to help poor women get an abortion so it's not some heartless, evil entity that exists to "kill babies" as Right-wing media sometimes portrays PP. Also for the record, nobody advocates for "late term abortions" -- that's a tiny fraction of the total and is generally performed when the women's health is threatened. And no matter what Fox News says absolutely NOBODY advocates "infanticide."

    WHILE I have heard of women who get serial abortions -- "no big deal" -- it appears that abortion is a difficult decision for most.

    The thing is being anti-abortion is a RELIGIOUS opinion (that fully 60% of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT.)
    THE FIRST AMENDMENT guarantees Freedom of Religion, right? But Freedom of Religion doesn't mean anything without FREEDOM FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S RELIGION. And the Religious Right wants to impose this religious belief on ALL of us. One cannot be "against Big Government" yet demand that Government should supervise women's uteruses, or what consenting adults do in the bedroom.
    You see, abortion is just like Gayness -- both have been around forever and both will ALWAYS be around, period. Back alley abortions, drinking Lysol & all of the dangerous ways that desperate women try to self-abort is cruel & unacceptable compared to safe, legal abortions and is beneath us as a civilized Country.

    BESIDES, the MOST anti-abortion folks will ever accomplish is MAKING IT TOUGHER & MORE DANGEROUS FOR POOR WOMEN IN RED STATES to get an abortion.

    IF one has money one WILL get an abortion. Think about it -- when some Republican politician or maybe a televangelist knocks up their Secretary -- BOOM -- they arrange for a discreet abortion. Always been that way and always will be that way in the real (not theological) world.

    No way Roe v. Wade will be overturned. And even if it is the 60% of Americans that believe that the decision should be up to a woman & her Doctor and NOT Big Government would soon fix that.

    I think the Republicans have used the Religious Right's opposition to abortion to get you guys to vote for the Party that wants to undo the New Deal by, to quote Saint Ronnie, "shrinking Government until it's small enough to drown in a bathtub."

    They pander to you to get you to support endless tax cuts for the rich -- that's their bottom line. And this kind of makes you guys look bad:

    "Feed the rich & screw the poor? Who cares -- they're against abortion!"

    "Allow Corporations to trash our planet? No worries so long as their political allies vote against abortion!"

    "George W. Bush lies us into war with Iraq and kills perhaps a million Iraqis? Meh -- at least he hates the baby killers."

    I'd be more impressed with the Religious Right's sincerity on this issue if they sponsored and promoted programs to facilitate adoptions & financially and emotionally support women who might be persuaded to go that route. But I follow politics, er, religiously and I just don't hear about anything like that.

    I appreciate that you reached out to me so we can consider this issue together. It's sometimes not easy to talk about politics and I value this opportunity to do so with someone that I like & respect. AND I DO look forward to your reply!

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    also, to address the individual points rusty made:

    I have no idea how popular (or not) is Cuomo among the political class. In your opinion, is there an element of revenge, as I've read suggestions of?

    revenge is really the wrong word. andrew cuomo has been a corrupt, amoral, misogynistic hypocrite bully for his entire political life (although highly competent - which is just about the only point of contrast distinguishing him from donald trump). most have not been burned personally to the extent that they'd want revenge per se, but i'd wager the rest of the new york political class kind-of feel he's had some sort of comeuppance due for quite awhile.

    An investigation of the nursing home reclassifications (reminder, the total number of deaths was not underreported, according to the accusations) by your wonderful AG Letitia James. But I hope that cooler heads will prevail and your legislature awaits the results.

    no, the total number of covid deaths statewide was not doctored. however, the statistics attributing those deaths to hospitals and nursing homes were falsely distributed to hide the number who died as a direct result of the governor's decision to force nursing homes to admit covid patients from the hospitals. then, the governor personally created immunity provisions to insulate nursing home owners from liability for their failure to prevent those covid patients from dying, or from infecting and causing the deaths of other residents. for specifics as to how that happened, see below:


  59. [59] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    So, Don "Zero not a Hero" Harris said bad words and insults -- boo hoo!

    I'm (not) sorry I didn't reply on your schedule, for I have a life.

    I went through the trouble to collect the arguments against OD and presented them for you to address, all in one place. If you had shot them down before than it should be no problem to shoot them down again, in a jiffy.

    Instead of taking this opportunity to reply (and to respect my attempt to give you the time of day) you tell me to go back through hundreds of comments to make your case for you!




    When you say I can't be bothered to defend OD you're saying I can't defend OD.

    Put up or shut up.

  60. [60] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:



    Although I, too, think that you've been a tad harsh on Herr Weigant,

    1- FTP is likewise something I always look forward to. Even if it was the only column that he posted each week I'd still have a mancrush on his commentary.

    2- I, too, am sometimes underwhelmed with his work product. The way I see it, that unavoidable occurrence simply makes his outstanding stuff that much more enjoyable. It's kind of like sports, Victory would be joyless without sometimes losing. You can't have one without the other.

    3- You wrote,

    I wouldn't waste my time commenting if I didn't care deeply. While my comments surely have more than their fair share of snark, I also hope that Chris finds them constructive.

    I love this statement and I'm 100% on board with it! If Weigantia didn't give a bleep then no one would put in the kind of effort demonstrated here in the Peanut Gallery, yea verily.

    4- Dude, why not write your own Talking Points? This is the right forum for the exchange of ideas (whoops --unless you're Don Harris) and as you know [57] I'm not shy about jumping on the Soapbox myself -- woot!

    5- Unlike, say, Political Correctness (there I go again!) I don't think it's possible to overdo the snark. So, Mazeltov, Baby. Have at it!

  61. [61] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Now if you'll excuse me for a moment, I gotta go post "Black Betty" again.

  62. [62] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yay, Elizabeth! Let's do a "freeform" and "no rules" Sunday Night Dance Party.

    Er, "no rules" except no posting "Black Betty."

    Guys &'s not going to be easy for me. But I view this as a personal growth opportunity, so I'll do my very best!

    Just call me The Man of Steel.

  63. [63] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I miss that guy.

    He was a much higher quality troll than our current dollar store version...

  64. [64] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    So who are you referring to?

  65. [65] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale was adept at defending his trolling at least until the last year or so. Our OD branded dollar store cheapo version, not so much as evidenced by this thread...

  66. [66] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Gawd, I hope you're not referring to The Former Troll Known as Michale.

    Sure, the guy was way more intelligent than OD-Boi. And I liked all of the movie and television references.

    But he was way the hell too vicious -- pushing pushing pushing buttons until he got someone to pay attention to his sorry as.

    And the acres of cut-and-paste boldified Right-wing blather was tough on my eyes.

    Fuck him. The quality of this Comments section was vastly improved once he slithered back under his rock. I DO wonder, though, if the fool participated in the Capitol Insurrection.

  67. [67] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I didn't think he was any good at defending his trolling. Like so many Repugs he'd simply change the subject/Whataboutism when his malarkey was challenged.

    The guy was NOT any more interested in persuasion/the exchange of ideas/etc. than is OD-Boi. He struck me as someone who got his jollies by pissing people off...

    What a pathetic way to go through life.

  68. [68] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Stormy Daniels is back in the news because of her affair with Trump.

    She's being indicted
    for Inciting an Inch Erection

  69. [69] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The thing you have to realize about Michale is he changed very slowly over the years into what you describe. He was always brash, but not so seeped in right ideology beyond his pet causes and not so toxic. Many here do remember him through rose tinted glasses of what he was rather than what he became...

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy -
    You do not have to go through hundreds of comments.

    All you have to do is look through the threads you pulled the quotes from and will likely find my replies to those you quoted.

    You could also go to the two times you previously posted and I answered and you said you would get back to me.

    I am not saying I will not defend One Demand. You are just playing games and dodging addressing my answers that were already provided.

    The only way you can prove me wrong about saying I will not defend One Demand would be for you to address my provided answers and then I refused to acknowledge your response.

    Your attempt is not to give me an opportunity to respond which I already did it is to make me reply again and then ignore it as you have done before. It deserves no respect, only contempt.

    It is not a dodge as the answers have been provided, unlike you that have consistently avoided addressing my answer then re-posting what I already answered.

    I have put up. You are the one that has shut up instead of responding.

    You are the one that has not continued the discussion. It's all on you no matter what else you want to claim.

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale was much more toxic than me and there are many here now that are more toxic than me.

    What is evidenced in this thread that makes you reach the conclusion that I am not adept at making my case for One Demand?

    If you are referring to Mtn Caddy's ridiculous nonsense, that is only evidence of mtn caddy trolling.

    Michale was a higher quality troll than me as is mtn caddy as they are/were trolls and I am not.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Many here do remember him through rose tinted glasses of what he was rather than what he became...

    I resemble that remark. Besides, it isn't possible to view Michale through rose-coloured glasses. Heh.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll be a little late to the party tonight - have to learn how to do links properly, or not, among other things ...

  74. [74] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:


    You are not toxic but painfully repetitive in your generally unwanted solicitation. The reality for both Michale and you is "troll" as a term does not have enough nuance.

    What is evidenced in this thread that makes you reach the conclusion that I am not adept at making my case for One Demand?

    Part of advocating for a cause is to answer the same questions over and over. That's why the answers become more slick over time the longer someone advocates.

    Plus, your answers are bullshit.

  75. [75] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Your attempt is not to give me an opportunity to respond which I already did it is to make me reply again and then ignore it as you have done before. It deserves no respect, only contempt.

    I used small words because English isn't your first language:

    If you had shot them [OD's fatal flaws] down before than it should be no problem to shoot them down again, in a jiffy.

    When you say I can't be bothered to defend OD you're saying I can't defend OD.

    Put up or shut up.

    No one here buys your fantasy, whatsoever. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because when people point out OD's problems you fail to convince? Or completely dodge it like today? What do you not "get" about the concepts of "responding"* and "persuading?"*

    *Dammit! Sorry, I promised little words for our OD-Boi.

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, kids ... it's that time again and not a minute too soon, I can see.

    It's the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party!

    Let's get it on ...

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I was turned on to the Cult this past week and found that I really love their stuff ... here is Heart of Soul

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Am I high? Or, did we do this last week? I can't remember.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are a few covers out there that really do more than justice to the original tune. I'd like to highlight a few of my favourites tonight.

    I'll play the original and then the cover.

    First up, it's Canadian rock band Sheriff's When I'm With You featuring the exquisite lead vocals of Toronto's own Fred Curci - he is about 18 here in a rare live version,

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The cover of When I'm With You by a group of extremely talented Canadian musicians, Toque, is phenomenal. Fred Curci was duly impressed and Todd Kearns holds on to that last note even longer than Freddie!

  81. [81] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  82. [82] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Captain! Tricorders indicate the presence of a possible "Cover Songs" theme.

    Alrighty, here's a cover of Black Hole Sun, this by : Eydie Gormé & Steve Lawrence. The original was written and performed by Soundgarden.

  83. [83] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    On a personal note, Elizabeth, I really appreciate you taking the time to post these music links the proper way.

    Aren't you kicking yourself now that you know how easy it turned out to be?

    *sarcasm off*

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, here's a little AC/DC thrown in for good measure - it's from the Austrailian Bandstand from 1976!

    It's A Long Way To The Top (Live on TV)

  85. [85] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, kids ... it's that time again and not a minute too soon, I can see.

    Aw, c'mon Mommy. Me and OD-Boi were just roughhousing a little bit!

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For Prism - Ron Tabak Era fans like me it was pure heaven finding a band from the here and now covering some PRiSM tunes and doing it with precision and so completely true to the original. So much so that now, when I listed to the original, I immediately think of Parallel 49 - United in Rock (I love, love, love that motto!)

    Anyway, here is the original PRiSM tune featuring the wonderful vocals of the late Ron Tabak - it's See Forever Eyes, off of the 1978 See Forever Eyes album,

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, here is the exquisite cover by Parallel 49, featuring the incredible vocals of Rod Raslack ... can't wait to see this band live when we are able to gather for rock concerts again ...

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, this time I'm gonna play the cover first - because it is just so damned good!

    It's Parallel 49 again, this time covering my absolute most favourite Bryan Adams tune, Lonely Nights, and again featuring the soaring vocals of Rod Raslack ...

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, here is Bryan Adams, himself ... Lonely Nights was co-written by Adams and original Prism drummer Jim Vallance, a phenomenal songwriting team!

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Another incredible cover by Parallel 49 - this time, Roxy Roller,

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is the original by Sweeney Todd, featuring Nick Gilder,

    Hey, it's Canada-USA night, tonight!

    United We Rock!

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The first climate apocalypse song was released by Prism in 1977 on their phenomenal debut and self-titled album. Prism was the first Canadian rock band to go "platinum" in their homeland!!!

    Take Me To The Kaptin, featuring the great Ron Tabak on soaring vocals ...

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The incredible Parallel 49 - United We Rock covering Prism's Take Me To The Kaptin,

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Another great Canadian band and cover band ... Kim Mitchell and Toque doing Go For A Soda ...

    First up, Toque with another excellent cover,

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, here's the original with Kim Mitchell,

    This is really making me ache for the time when we can leave the pandemic behind and get back to live music!

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My Caddy, I literally had no time to take to learn how to properly post links ... but I will ... eventually ...

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I feel like heading down to the beach ... with Honeymoon Suite, a great Canadian band from ... you guessed it, Niagara Falls!

    Here they are doing Wave Babies ... love the sound of this tune ...

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can't help but have a ton of fun at a Journey concert!

    Wheel In The Sky

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Zingo was formed in Vancouver, Canada in the early 70's by Vince Nardulli, Dave Skinner, & Frank Dato, After adding Keith Scott, Joe Alvaro, & Michael Skinner, this version of Zingo was formed.The players were known to be dynamic performers & the blend of showmanship & musicianship combined with well-crafted songs made them a popular band, remembered still by Vancouver fans & now to the world."

    Enjoy their beautiful Venusian Lights,

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    How the heck are you?!

    Nice Rob Thomas tunes - been a Matchbox 20 and Rob Thomas fan since Bent was released ... It remains my favourite Rob Thomas tune, along with Smooth ...


  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Santana - Smooth (w/ Rob Thomas)

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This one's for you, Caddy ...

    Black Hole Sun Acoustic - Chris Cornell

    My favourite of his was You Know My Name, theme song from my favourite Bond film, Casino Royale with Daneil Craig ...

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oops, this one's for you, Caddy,

    Black Hole Sun Acoustic

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    This special cover is for you ...

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll finish up my end of things tonight with a very fun song I just discovered recently ...

    Enjoy a Joyride with Roxette!

  107. [107] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy (75)-
    No matter how many times you repeat it, I am not the one that will not defend my position.

    The person (you) that has never provided an answer cannot with any credibility claim the person that has answered (me) is not willing to defend their position.

    No wonder you won't engage in rational discussion on One Demand. You can't even get this right which most people could get right before they even get their degree for graduating pre-school.

    No one here buys my fantasy- why do I suppose that is?

    I do not suppose it is anything but incorrect.

    All of you buy into it because if you didn't think it could work you would actually make rational arguments instead of using dodges. But you can't make a rational argument so you dodge.

    Then you comically claim that I am doing what you are doing. You must know it is wrong to do what you are doing because you accuse me of doing it as doing something wrong. Yet you keep doing it.

  108. [108] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi (74)-
    Troll is not a word that applies to me no matter how nuanced the definition.

    "Part of advocating for a cause is to answer the same questions over and over again."

    Yes. That is true. But that is when people ask legitimate questions and continue the discussion with a response to those answers. When one person keeps making the same claims to reset the conversation and pretends an answer has not been given that person does not have to be answered over and over again. You answer over and over again when different people ask you the same question.

    But at least you agree with me that people should answer questions.

    So why do you let CW get away with never answering when I question his position of advocating for the big money Deathocrats and point out how One Demand can improve our political process?

    "Plus, your answers are bullshit."

    Once again you are incorrect. If my answers were the word that you and everyone else can use but I can't then you would make a rational argument that proves it rather than use dodges to avoid addressing my answers.

    And the answers only have to become more slick if you are trying to deceive people. The commenters here (and CW) are certainly slick, but the only people you are deceiving is yourselves if you think that being slick is working.

  109. [109] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As for me being repetitive, other commenters here repeat claims that I haven't answered something and/or repeat the same dodges instead of making rational arguments addressing the points I make.

    If you find my pointing it out repetitive, then stop doing it and I won't have to point it out.

    CW keeps repeating the same big money Deathocrat propaganda and I keep pointing it out.

    If you find that repetitive tell CW to stop repeating the propaganda and I won't have to keep pointing out his propaganda.

  110. [110] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:


    Troll is not a word that applies to me no matter how nuanced the definition.

    I personally think you are a spammer which is much worse than troll but CW has labeled you troll so troll you are...

    You don't get to label questions "legitimate" nor answers "rational". Especially when only the softballs get answered as legitimate and all answers from you, no matter how dodgy are labeled rational.

    But at least you agree with me that people should answer questions.

    You should try it some time. The hard ones, not the softballs...

    So why do you let CW get away with never answering when I question his position of advocating for the big money Deathocrats and point out how One Demand can improve our political process?

    Because we agree with him that you are a troll (or worse). Plus your idea is a stuck-in-stone politically non-starter run by a lazy incompetent. It has no chance of success because you go out of your way to ensure it has no chance of success.

    If my answers were the word that you and everyone else can use but I can't then you would make a rational argument that proves it rather than use dodges to avoid addressing my answers.

    You spew this dodge over and over but years ago when I took you somewhat seriously all questions I asked that went beyond dripping praise were called bullshit. I have seen the same behavior from anyone else asking even slightly probing questions. We are not fooled.

    But in the end we keep criticizing and will continue to keep criticizing OD to a few ends: You just go away (ideal outcome). In case some random person reads your comments, we like to add a few grains of salt or possibly pounds depending on the quality or lack there of your post. And I think there is a general attempt to push you into bannable behavior in case it's a rare occasion that CW actually reads the comments...

  111. [111] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    **Dept. of Red Card**


    WHAT THE FUCK CHRIS -- WHY have you not BANNED this SPAMMING RETARD Don Harris? DO YOU simply NOT GIVE A FUCK???? He is NO DAMNED USE here in Weigantia.
    Michale self-deported but this guy won't. C' can't be his money, right?



  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    dept. of pie:

    vote for pie!


  113. [113] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Pi was so yesterday...

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW was wrong when he labeled me as a troll.

    That was/is a shameful and disgraceful blemish on CW's history.

    The facts concerning it are there for all to see in the comments that led to it and any objective observer would agree with me and not CW.

    The rest is just you again repeating your same false statements about me and/or One Demand as if just because you say it it is true when it is not.

    For example, when someone asks a ridiculous question or makes a statement like One Demand requires a majority of people to simultaneously go on strike against non- OD candidates to support a single OD candidate and I explain how that is not true because One Demand can begin to be successful by getting as little as 10% of the national vote as some districts will be above that average, even 10% of the vote in a district is enough to swing a gerrymandered district by taking away or adding to a candidate and how those events will get more citizens and candidates to participate in One Demand participate in future elections there is no response to that.

    Then the false claim is repeated in subsequent comment sections with a claim it was never answered.


  115. [115] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i guess we'll have to save the math songs for next sunday. but you're so obsessed with pi, you can't even distinguish it from pie! clearly you can't argue against what pie is, so you're arguing against what pie is not.

  116. [116] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy (111)-
    Thank you.

    You have again proven my point and will likely get CW involved as it usually takes something like your comment to get him involved.

    To show my appreciation I will give you a hint to help you find my answer that you seem to be incapable of finding even though you could easily find the other quotes you use to troll here.

    The last time you said you would get back to my answer your excuse was you had to do your taxes. When you started commenting again I reminded you to address my answer and refferred you the comment.

    So all you have to do is remember when you did or finished your taxes- unless that excuse was not truthful.

  117. [117] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    CW was wrong when he labeled me as a troll.

    Well, except we all agree with him...

    That was/is a shameful and disgraceful blemish on CW's history.

    Or glorious as the case may be...

    The facts concerning it are there for all to see in the comments that led to it and any objective observer would agree with me and not CW.

    Yet most of the objective observer's here agree with CW. Interesting that...

    The rest is just you again repeating your same false statements about me and/or One Demand as if just because you say it it is true when it is not.

    Really? How many supporters do you have compared with five years ago? I say fewer. How many times has your site been hacked? At least two. How many candidates are listed on your site that match your small donation litmus test? Zero. None of these are false statements. Shall I continue with more statements I toss at you that are demonstrably true?

    Considering you have never got above rounding errors of support, I think your 10% is deep in wet dream fantasy territory.

    Pot. Kettle. Black. Mirror.

  118. [118] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You can't slice a pie without at least inadvertently using Pi...

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  120. [120] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That's not a pie, that's an abomination.

  121. [121] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No one here is an objective observer.

    Great example of giving different statements to prove your previous statements were not false. That's not how it works.

    Your new statements may have truth in them, but they are not relevant.

    How many supporters I have has no bearing on the idea and whether it is valid and can happen. That is just a moosepoop excuse.

    I do not know where you get information my site has been hacked unless you hacked it yourself.

    My site, like many others was shut down incorrectly and then restored.

    As explained many times previously it doesn't matter how candidates are listed in on the site as participants as One Demand is designed to start with voters working together to put pressure on the candidates to participate.

    You mentioned how everyone here agrees with CW's assessment of me being a troll. But you ignore that when I comment at commondreams I always have more people that agree with me than those that don't by a wide margin.

    So there are people that like the idea.

    Pot, kettle, black, mirror?

    Not accurate. I have addressed every concern raised while other commenters have only provided dodges and avoided the issues raised.

    That is me not being cowardly while you are acting in a cowardly manner.

    All you are accomplishing with your attempts to be slick is falling flat on your face and making a fool of yourself.

    You can't convince me I am wrong by being slick. You can only do that by actually addressing what One Demand is and and making rational arguments that prove me/it wrong.

    Please do so so I can fix what is wrong if there is a legitimate problem.

    Otherwise I will keep pointing out your moosepoop.

    I will not go away from being trolled and/or harassed just so you don't have to admit to yourself that you are wrong.

  122. [122] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    No one here is an objective observer.

    Including you?

    I do not know where you get information my site has been hacked unless you hacked it yourself.

    Your site was down until I told you about it. Twice. Once it was being used for online poker scams. Bad enough that you were delisted from search engines and banned from security software for longer. Incompetence no matter how you slice it...

    Not accurate. I have addressed every concern raised while other commenters have only provided dodges and avoided the issues raised.

    Total and complete bullshit. From being told my questions are "bullshit" to occasionally just tossing perfectly normal questions at you to watch you squirm, you have proven unable to answer anything critical of OD.

    But you ignore that when I comment at commondreams I always have more people that agree with me than those that don't by a wide margin.

    Ignore? I addressed it. Remember preaching to the choir? I just didn't answer how you wanted...

    You can't convince me I am wrong by being slick. You can only do that by actually addressing what One Demand is and and making rational arguments that prove me/it wrong.

    Been there done that. As have many here. You just can't take criticism...

  123. [123] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Including me. But I am confident that an objective observer would find I am correct and you and others are often wrong.

    The website may have been down but that does not mean it was hacked. You are probably bluffing about the poker scam.

    Te website criticism is not relevant to whether the idea is sound. That is just another excuse you use to dodge addressing the idea.

    When the organization grows the resources and people that can take care of the website will be available.

    "Total and complete bullshit." and the rest of the paragraph.

    Not accurate. The evidence is in the comments since 2015.

    When your questions are the word I can't use I have accurately pointed it out and explained why.

    All you do is repeat the same false claim but have nothing to back it up other than you said it again.

    Preaching to the choir is not a relevant response when you say I have no support here and that somehow shows no one agrees with me and I show you people that agree with me. It is a moosepoop dodge.

    No you haven't been there done that.

    If you had I would acknowledge it as I have when I have made a mistake here and been proven wrong.

    Though it is understandable that you and others here would not want to ever admit you are wrong as it happens so often here.

    A dodge is not criticism. You have to actually address something in order to criticize it.

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    New column up ... thank the gods!

  125. [125] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:


    Too many bong hit robbing your memory or have you moved on to straight out lying Trump style?

    The evidence is in the comments since 2015.

    Yes it is...

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  127. [127] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    i don't think you're being fair. once in a while someone wanders in from the outside and takes don's comments at face value. look at caddy's initial responses to don from a year ago, and look at his responses now. then perhaps you'll understand why some people find it necessary to engage from time to time.

    yes the whole process is distasteful, and for that i suggest pie.


  128. [128] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Look at mtn caddy responses from a year ago and now.


    At first he thought he could make rational arguments to show I was wrong about One Demand. When he found out he couldn't he switched to the dodges and trolling.

    It seems to me that why people find it necessary to engage is to entertain themselves by trolling or get kudos from the choir because they and the choir mistakenly think their dodges are mike drop moments.

    The process is distasteful because that is what those commenters want it to be.

    If they would engage like adults I would respond accordingly. They will not as I have given them many opportunities to do that they did not take advantage of those opportunities.

  129. [129] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi (125)-
    Straight out lying Trump style?

    No lies in my comment. Again, for the learning impaired, just because you say it does not make it true.

    Everything in my comment is backed up in the comments referred to.

    And that means that your Trump lying comparison has no basis in fact. Just another dodge.

  130. [130] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    At first he thought he could make rational arguments to show I was wrong about One Demand. When he found out he couldn't he switched to the dodges and trolling.

    Ah, no. When he figured out you can not handle rational arguments he started treating you like the troll you are...

  131. [131] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    No lies in my comment. Again, for the learning impaired, just because you say it does not make it true.

    Lying right there. I told you about your site being hacked and what it is being used for when it happened. I was quite serious that I agree:

    The evidence is in the comments since 2015.

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    Look at mtn caddy responses from a year ago and now.


    At first he thought he could make rational arguments to show I was wrong about One Demand. When he found out he couldn't he switched to the dodges and trolling.

    WRONG! at first he thought OD was a pretty good idea and couldn't understand why the rest of us seemed unmoved. just think about that for a second - you had someone strongly aligned with your values and absolutely primed to be on your side and join you.

    then a few weeks later, after reading other people's criticisms and your responses to them, caddy came up with a few ideas he thought might help make you more successful. that was when you convinced him.


  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    i don't think you're being fair. once in a while someone wanders in from the outside and takes don's comments at face value. look at caddy's initial responses to don from a year ago, and look at his responses now. then perhaps you'll understand why some people find it necessary to engage from time to time.

    Actually, I was just trying to be funny. Like the commercial. Why does that always get so lost in translation around here??

    Anyway, I may have been the first to take Don's idea at face value back when it was called something else so I don't really have to backtrack the comments on this. It didn't take too long, though, to figure out that I was about to fall into a giant-sized rabbit hole. Ahem

    I just find the back and forth blather on this mind-numbing so I just ignore it.

    Did you check out that coke zero commercial with the eyeball, tongue and brain? Heh. It's pretty apropos to a lot of what goes on around here. :)

Comments for this article are closed.