lookin

Perhaps one day you will also sit upon the throne.

Thanks! In context, even funnier than I remembered.

Not to muddle your mortuarial musings but didn't you have a brilliant wheeze some time back about casket linings? Can't put my hands on it.

Oh, my. The whole Family is dotty about her. I wish I had a collection of shoes like that.

Princess Hi??? We're not sure We're amused.

Ask a silly question . . .

All that was before we discovered rimming.

I too miss the days when we had a Republican Party that stood for more than a single issue. I think a healthy democracy depends on having at least two good choices when we go to the polls, one that is a little better for some folks, and one that is a little better for other folks. But the Republicans have so polarized the choice around the single poorly defined issue of "big government" that anyone who has more than a single functioning brain cell feels left out. Is there anyone who can even say what "big government" means? Does it mean the percentage of GDP that the government spends? We're nowhere near the top. Does it mean the percentage of GDP that we pay in taxes? We're nowhere near the top. Does it mean the percentage of GDP that we spend on safety nets for our citizens? Again, we're nowhere near the top. Does it mean the percentage of GDP that we spend on wars? Well, there we are near the top. But do you hear the Republicans campaigning for big reductions in the "defense" budget? Or higher taxes to pay for our wars? Not a chance. In fact, it was our last Republican administration that took us into two wars in the Middle East while actually lowering taxes. Was there so much as a peep from Republicans about the national debt then? The only time "big government" becomes an issue these days is when there's a discussion about spending some of our tax money on taking care of the poor, the elderly, and the sick. Even though Social Security is a self-funded program which has always run a surplus, and has been used as a piggy bank for war and to keep other taxes low, the Republicans are hell-bent on raising the retirement age and cutting cost-of-living increases. Republicans are increasingly identifying themselves as a party that doesn't give a shit about most of the average folks in the United States. They'd rather let someone lose their home than get health insurance. They'd prefer another billionaire to someone who is finally able to send a child to college. I apologize for lumping all Republicans under a single banner. There are plenty of Republicans who do not want to see their party highjacked by a fringe group that is probably the most blatantly selfish group of individuals since before the French aristocracy learned how to ride a tumbrel. I'd have more respect for the Tea Party if they would actually stand up in the light of day and admit they want a nation of haves and have-nots. Or if they would agree to a tax that would pay down the trillion dollar debt for even one of our Middle East wars. Or if they would stop hollering for an "alternative" to Obamacare and actually present one. But they are too self-serving to do it. They'd rather see the poor folks in this country get poorer, all the while telling them that they are merely providing them with a 'path' to become as rich as they are. As if there's a chance in hell. While I won't lump all Republicans under this banner, as I am sure many are not, I do hold them liable for not taking the actions necessary to get rid of this selfish bunch of malcontents while they still have a chance. I understand that it will take some courage to do it, and they may take a step backward by doing so. But they're on course to lose the viability of the Party for a long time to come if they don't. And I'll hold the Democrats and Independents liable too. I think the sooner they start educating the voting public that a feel-good campaign against "big government" is little more than a campaign to dismantle the safety net that keeps many of us out of the soup kitchens, the better. /rant

No, no, I can't say that I do. The precise number has remained tantalizingly out of reach.

We're just as happy as can be! Say Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. We shut it down for two whole weeks, And screwed the bums who called us freaks. If Boehner thinks he'll stop our rave, He must be living in a cave. We'll turn the Party into scum! Say Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Doesn't this belong in the ButtTorrent thread?

Of course I know my fly is open. That's the next part of the ritual.

If it's entertainment you're after, check out The Borowitz Report. A few recent favorites: OCTOBER 16, 2013 CRUZ: “THE DREAM OF KEEPING POOR PEOPLE FROM SEEING A DOCTOR MUST NEVER DIE” POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Acknowledging that the government shutdown was coming to an end, an emotional Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took to the Senate floor today to make an impassioned speech, telling his colleagues, “The dream of keeping poor people from seeing a doctor must never die.” ...CONTINUE READING >> OCTOBER 9, 2013 REPUBLICANS SHUT DOWN PREFRONTAL CORTEXPOSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an escalation of the stalemate gripping Washington, House Republicans voted today to shut down the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that controls reasoning and impulses. The resolution, which passed with heavy Tea Party support, calls for a partial shutdown of the brain, leaving the medulla and cerebellum, sometimes referred to as the “reptilian brain,” up and running. ...CONTINUE READING >> OCTOBER 1, 2013 MILLIONS FLEE OBAMACAREPOSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ UNITED STATES (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of Tea Party loyalists fled the United States in the early morning hours today, seeking what one of them called “the American dream of liberty from health care.” Harland Dorrinson, 47, a tire salesman from Lexington, Kentucky, packed up his family and whatever belongings he could fit into his Chevy Suburban just hours before the health-insurance exchanges opened, joining the Tea Party’s Freedom Caravan with one goal in mind: escape from Obamacare. “My father didn’t have health care and neither did my father’s father before him,” he said. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to let my children have it.” ...CONTINUE READING >>

Sounds like a pretty nice trip! You may also want to keep an eye out for the Purple Panther.

At least you were kind enough to let him come sit on your bed and tell you how cute you were and how much he wanted to stay with you. Good breeding always tells!

I often feel the same way. As I often feel that Pelosi isn't leading and that Reid isn't leading. And yet the Democrats are holding together and, for the last few weeks anyway, looking somewhat less disheveled than the Republicans. If he's doing that without leading, then perhaps overt leadership is overrated.

Mebbe yes, mebbe no. If you told me that the 2008 recession had continued unabated and that the DJIA was still at 8000, I might agree with you. But it didn't and it's not. If you told me that unemployment was still at 10%, I might agree with you. But it isn't. If you told me that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still going full bore, I might agree with you. But they're not. If you told me that DADT and DOMA were still on the books, I might agree with you. But they're not. If you told me that GM was out of business, I might agree with you. But it isn't. If you told me we hadn't signed a new START treaty with Russia, I might agree with you. But we did. If you told me we still had an Axis of Evil featuring Iran, I might agree with you. But we don't. If you told me we're still the only developed country that doesn't consider universal health care a basic right, I might agree with you. But we're not. If you told me his Democratic party was eating itself alive, as the Republicans seem to enjoy doing, I might agree with you. But it isn't. If you told me he was leading a charge for us to become a less compassionate society, I might agree with you. But he's not. If you told me we were still waterboarding alleged terrorists, I might agree with you. But we're not. Even his failure to close Guantanamo, which still rankles me, isn't quite the abrogation of a promise I had assumed it was. According to this article today, Obama's administration has quietly and successfully prosecuted 125 foreign terrorists in U. S. federal courts, on U. S. soil, since 2009. This has been done even while many Republicans have been swearing up and down that it was impossible, and even while not a single military court prosecution of a Guantanamo detainee has even been completed, let alone resulted in a conviction. If he wasn't able to close it with the stroke of a pen, he's certainly been building a case that there's not much value in keeping it open. Don't get me wrong. I've got some beefs. For example, I think he's on the wrong side of the privacy issue. But I also think he'll listen to the hue and cry and make some adjustments before he's out of office. Still, I have no doubt that many will continue to insist, until the end of time, that the Obama presidency has not a single redeeming feature. But they'll have to ignore a lot of publicly available information to maintain their position.

That too. I don't see anything that looks like a commode in there.

Growing backlash to government surveillance Oct 12, 6:22 PM (ET) By MARTHA MENDOZA From Silicon Valley to the South Pacific, counterattacks to revelations of widespread National Security Agency surveillance are taking shape, from a surge of new encrypted email programs to technology that sprinkles the Internet with red flag terms to confuse would-be snoops. Policy makers, privacy advocates and political leaders around the world have been outraged at the near weekly disclosures from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden that expose sweeping U.S. government surveillance programs. . . . Federation of American Scientists secrecy expert Steven Aftergood said it is crucial now for policymakers to clearly define limits. "Are we setting ourselves up for a total surveillance system that may be beyond the possibility of reversal once it is in place?" he asked. "We may be on a road where we don't want to go. I think people are correct to raise an alarm now and not when we're facing a fait accompli." U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, who introduced a bipartisan package of proposals to reform the surveillance programs last month, told a Cato Institute gathering Thursday that key parts of the debate are unfolding now. "It's going to take a groundswell of support from lots of Americans across the political spectrum," he said, "communicating that business as usual is no longer OK, and they won't buy the argument that liberty and security are mutually exclusive."

Oh my, I wish I had a Highness like that.

Watch this, Elroy! Daddy's going right between the power lines!

The federal website seemed pretty screwy when I tried it a week ago. Apparently, one of the decisions they made early on was to require folks to register before they could get any data on what plans were available and what they would cost, including subsidies. The feds said that they wanted people to have their actual costs, and that could happen only with prior registration. And it was the registration, with all the passwords and secret questions, that made the system grind to a halt. However, I think I need to call bullshit on their basic premise. A couple of months ago, I was able to browse through a version of the California exchange website and (1) look at the basic plans that were available, (2) enter my age and the hypothetical ages of those in my household, and (3) enter my income. I was then given the monthly cost for the the plan I wanted, as well as the net discounted price. All without having to register. I tried various ages for myself, family sizes and ages, income levels, and plans, just to see what the various costs would be. I learned later that this is the "shopping" mode that the feds decided they didn't want to offer. One of the experienced consultants they hired early in the process told them that it would be vital to offer a "shopping" mode, or they would run into all sorts of problems. Which they have. I am sympathetic to those who make mistakes, even big ones. But it's hard to be sympathetic to those who hire experts to help them avoid big mistakes, and then decide to ignore the experts and make the mistakes. It's not clear, to me anyway, that they can fix these basic design problems in time for a mid-December enrollment of tens of millions of people. I wonder if Obama wouldn't be smart to 'delay' the individual mandate, as the Republicans are asking, in return for some concession from them. If he ends up delaying it anyway, for stupid website design decisions, he'll have nothing to show for it but embarrassment.

If you want my body and you think I'm sexy Come on, sugar, let me know If you really need me, just reach out and touch me Come on, honey, tell me so . . .

.

Standing by . . .