Iraq Supplemental Debate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:21:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: 7:19 pm by TL: The Senate has also passed the bill, by a vote of 80 to 14. Hillary and Obama both voted against it.

Update [2007-5-24 19:0:28 by Big Tent Democrat]: The Iraq Supplemental passes 280-142. Link to the roll call vote. I think all the nays were Dems. So the Dems split 142-89 I believe.

The Debate on the Capitulation Bill, as Kos coined it, starts now on C-Span.

Obey looks beaten down.

Basically Obey's argument is we don't have a veto-proof majority. And how that changes for the next appropriation process? It doesn't.

What Obey admits is that the entire House Supplemental process was a joke form the beginning. I agree with him on that. Time to adopt the NOT funding option Rep. Obey.

Update [2007-5-24 17:31:7 by Big Tent Democrat]: The Floor Manager Obey will vote against the Capitulation Bill, joining the Speaker of the House in opposing the bill that Rahm emanuel argued was a great victory. That said, good for Obey.

More...

Jerry Lewis, rightly makes fun of Obey not supporting the very bill he is managing.

And accuses Dems of abandoning the troops.

Hahah! The Dem leadership deserves it frankly. What a stupid tactic they used.

Update [2007-5-24 17:52:40 by Big Tent Democrat]: Hoyer defends the capitulation. Out of Iraq stalwarts Lee and Woolsey speak out against the bill.

Update [2007-5-24 17:55:7 by Big Tent Democrat]: Murtha rises in support of the bill. Sorry Congressman, you did a lousy job this time.

Update [2007-5-24 18:6:12 by Big Tent Democrat]: Murtha lights into Shays, for good reason. Shays was pretending things were getting better.

Update [2007-5-24 18:13:8 by Big Tent Democrat]: Boehner and Pelosi to wind up the debate. Let's see what she has to say about all of this.

John Boehner's speech should remove all doubt for those of you waiting for the Godot Republicans. Did he just break down crying? Is the man all there mentally?

Update [2007-5-24 18:24:10 by Big Tent Democrat]: The Speaker speaks of the new spending and the minimum wage bill.

About the supplemental funding bill, she mentions a Rohrschach test. As if there is any ambiguity in this bill. Puhleaase Madam Speaker. As you yourself note, the benchmarks are waivable. "This is a fig leaf. A token." The Speaker cirticizes the bill and she will oppose it.

she was hoping the PResident would accpet the better proposal from the Democrats.

Madame Speaker, now you know. He won't. Then what is you next move?

Reid/Feingold/McGovern, Madame Speaker. The NOT funding after a date certain option.

Let's get to it.

Update [2007-5-24 18:53:51 by Big Tent Democrat]: The minimum wage and non-Iraq funding measures passed easily.

< Dems Introduce Gonzales No-Confidence Resolution | U.S. Funds Mexican Wiretapping >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Iraq Supplemental Debate | 101 comments (101 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

So much for (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:23:23 PM EST

making the war "illegal." argh!

Obey (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:32:04 PM EST

is arguing against himself and his tctics it seems to me.

I do not get what the heck he is doing?

If he and the rest had listened (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:48:34 PM EST

to all those idiot liberals, he would have been able to hold his head up instead, and he might not look so beaten down today.


Yep (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:50:20 PM EST

The price he and they will pay is nothing (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:52:02 PM EST

compared to soldiers and Iraqis.

He should lay his head on the chopping block and beg.


Or better yet (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:54:20 PM EST

just slink away with his tail between his legs, retire, and change his name.


I merely ask (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:56:04 PM EST

he learn his lesson from this.


: Yeah, that would do. (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:02:44 PM EST

I just had to get those off my chest, you know?

Spin... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by dkmich on Fri May 25, 2007 at 07:34:05 AM EST

Floor Manager Obey will vote against the Capitulation Bill, joining the Speaker of the House in opposing the bill that Rahm emanuel argued was a great victory. That said, good for Obey.

They are all spinning us. Obama and Hillary didn't even vote until last to make sure their no votes didn't change anything. Spinning us.


: Super spin cycle. Did you get an (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by oculus on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:07:48 PM EST

e mail yesterday from the DCCC, I think its called. Pathetic.

It's artistic (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:35:18 PM EST

He's verbalizing the split the caucus. . .


Says wins for most stupid (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:01:26 PM EST

line so far: "We need to leave on a bipartisan basis."

I turned it off. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:23:11 PM EST

I can't listen to Pelosi's crap.

BTD (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by m00nchild on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:08:35 PM EST

It's hard to get your word in edgewise on DKos these days, but when I have the chance to bring up your effortless option I do.

Nothing says you're right than watching a pack of numbskulls prove themselves so very very wrong.

$120,000,000,000.00 (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:11:35 PM EST

Not sure why this number is not mentioned every hour on the hour.

Down the sinkhole. Americans are playing second fiddle to GW's very, very, very, expensive wet dream.

All the newspapers should plaster this outrageous waste of tax dollars as front page headlines.

That should wake people up........ Maybe. Hard to tell cause there is some serious sleeping going on.

Wonder how much per/tear Bohnen made today, from his pro war corporate friends that is.

So let me see if I understand 'Lil Nancy... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Pneumatikon on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:42:53 PM EST

We get crumbs off the table from Little George, and in return he gets to keep murdering our soldiers and holding them hostage.

How did we get stuck with such losers?

80-14 in the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:01:48 PM EST

Obama and Clinton did end up voting no, obviously under pressure. Many, many Democrats voted yes, though.

My safe bet (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Donna Z on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:31:25 PM EST

No matter what is happening on the ground in Iraq, come Sept., the word will go out across the land that everything is sweetness and light. The republicans will be so happy, and the Democrats will not want another fight.

this is the last time i will suggest to others to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by conchita on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:09:25 PM EST

be patient and have confidence in the legislative process, to trust in the system. the system has been gamed. the question now is what are we going to do about it?

This is a defining moment for the netroots (5.00 / 2) (#82)
by yetimonk on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:42:18 PM EST

Either major heads roll over this fiasco or they will never take us seriously. We are a joke to them. They betrayed us on every major issue that got them elected, not just on the war.

We either get a pound of flesh in the form of firing Reid and/or Pelosi or we are a joke to them.

Either we have teeth or we do not. If we do not make the Congressional Democrats pay for this betrayal and publicly humiliate them for it, then we are reduced to impotent whining.

Our credibility and self respect are all on the line now. This is a defining moment.

Not a prayer of a chance, (none / 0) (#92)
by oculus on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:31:44 AM EST

since the netroots weren't able to agree on whether to push for Reid/Feingold. Too much dithering.


Someone (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by yetimonk on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:41:25 AM EST

gets their head on a pike or this is truely pointless.


It is difficult to fathom what Reid . (none / 0) (#94)
by oculus on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:51:50 AM EST

or Pelosi could have perceived as their direction from the netroots when the netroots encompasses so many divergent opinions. Talk Left is probably the most cohesive point of view but even here, aginners abound.


nah (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by yetimonk on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:22:57 AM EST

They betrayed us on every major issue that swept them in to office. A catastrophic failure.

There is no reason for them to take the netroots seriously. We have no leverage and this proves it.

Tell me that at least in general terms I am wrong.


yetimonk..... (none / 0) (#100)
by kdog on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:18:22 AM EST

The people against the occupation who tried to lobby congress for withdrawal, the netroots and activists in general...I hope they've all realized how pointless that was.

Better to put all that effort towards starting a new political party...as much of a longshot that is to suceed, its better than the zero chance lobbying Democrats gives ya.

Or there is always the more dangerous and life-threatening option of mass civil disobedience.

Democrats, just like Republicans, are hustlers. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."


: I disagree (none / 0) (#101)
by yetimonk on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:00:14 AM EST

we are in a double bind. They know, that we know, that there is no where else for us to go. Under the two party system, especially as it is now, it is suicide to vote Rethug or 3rd party. THAT is why we have no power with the dems - because they know this.
The only way a 3rd party is feasable and not just sabotage is if we have run off election - something like France has maybe.

When (1.00 / 2) (#18)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:04:02 PM EST

all you bashers want to leave the party let me know.

I'll buy you a ticket.

McGovern vote proves (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:07:42 PM EST

that it's more our party than yours. It's a big tent though, so you can feel free to stay.


Really? (1.00 / 3) (#26)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:23:33 PM EST

I match my tangible party activity against yours anytime. Answer this - where were you on April 29th?

And at least I understand the process that congress is going through and what obstacles they face. You don't seem to.

I also only blame the people on our side who actually hold us up not the party wholesale like you do.

My God you guys are even beating on Obey and Murtha!

And as for those Dems who do not stand with us 100% - it is not like their support would have changed things anyway. But you wouldn't understand that and how the minority Repubs in the Senate can shape things just as we did when we were the minority. Maybe next year you will get it.


No substance, as usual. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:24:57 PM EST

Ha ha (1.00 / 3) (#30)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:33:00 PM EST

That response is older than the internet. But still overused by those who have no other response.

You don't even have a clue what happened across this country on April 29th do you?

And you say this is more your party than mine? What a pretender! If you really were part of the 'real' party then you would have known what April 29th was. Thousands of other real supporters did.


What a maroon you are (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:37:58 PM EST

Please go back to daily kos where your idiocy is appreciated.


"maroon "??? (none / 0) (#39)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:46:25 PM EST

Maroon is a color. But the shades of maroon that have a lot of blue in them I like a lot. :)

So another party genius who does not know the significance of April 29th. Pretender. Get off you back side and do something instead of bashing and thinking you are actually doing something worthwhile.

To read a lot of what you write one would have to deduct that you are chasing votes away not attracting them. And you say I am not helpful?

Better pull your head - - - never mind. ;)


I have just beeen informed (5.00 / 6) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:51:42 PM EST

that you lied when you said you were getting a lot of positive attention at daily kos.

I see now that you come here for attention.

Well, I am done giving it to you.

I am asking others to ignore you as well.

I urge you to go to your favorite haunts and bless them with your wisdom.


: nope (none / 0) (#54)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:12:31 PM EST

that you lied when you said you were getting a lot of positive attention at daily kos

never said that!

I thought talex was a Moran (none / 0) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:53:58 PM EST

Heh (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:26:03 PM EST

Where were you when the Capitulation Buill you support was passed?

Please go back to daily kos.


Tsk Tsk (none / 0) (#33)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:38:35 PM EST

I supported it no more than Pelosi did. And she didn't. As don't many other Dem's. You really should go read Kerry's diary at dkos.

Oh and for Markos' coining of Capitulation Bill...

To his own admission he does not understand the legislative process. I doubt that you do either fom your response.


Just go away please (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:40:57 PM EST

Seriously. You do nothing but annoy.

You are viewed as one of the stupidest people alive and you insist on haunting us here.

Please just go away.


Will you do the rest of us (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:42:32 PM EST

the favor of enforcing that?


Nope (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:44:49 PM EST

We hope to make him leave by moral suasion.

In essence, we will see if he wants to be a troll.

I put it to him bluntly. No one respects nim, believes him or cares what he says.

If he wants to stay in the face of that, then he deserves all the scorn and ridicule he gets.

I simply do not understand why he wants to come here instead of enjoying his adoring audience at dailykos.


amusingly, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:46:22 PM EST

he seems to get more attention here.


That's our fault then (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:49:56 PM EST

I thought he waqsa getting positive attention at dailykos. I have smeared Dkos unfairly.

I suggest we ignore him then.

I'll start.


: Thanks (none / 0) (#52)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:10:46 PM EST

I'll write you read and don't respond.
That will save me a lot of time. Good idea!

: When he first showed (none / 0) (#65)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:15:39 PM EST

here I think he got some positive feedback at DK. The reality of the capitulation bill changed a lot of thinking at DK in a short time.

Attention (none / 0) (#46)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:59:20 PM EST

is not what I write for. If I wanted attention I could post a brainless "IMPEACH!!" and get 40 recommends.

I could post any number of 'Me Too's' and get attention.

But then like those who do I wouldn't really be saying anything.

What I say may not be popular but it is right and it makes thinking people think. And for people who are not thinking people - well there is just nothing you can do for them other than to accept the fact that they are an anchor on the party.

It is funny that your focus seems to be on attention though. Hummm?


Smile (none / 0) (#48)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:03:24 PM EST

Scorn and ridicule huh? Well given that I am a real Democrat and not a pretend one I am use to scorn and ridicule.

But knowing that scorn and ridicule is a tactic of the weak it has never bothered me. How about you?


Sorry (none / 0) (#41)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:50:01 PM EST

Free Speech Is Alive.

Beside 'Group Think' is boring and destrutive. This blog could use some new blood and new 'traffic' to help foster new ideas and expand the Big Tent. - LOL


The Think part (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:52:31 PM EST

has you stumped.


: Yes (none / 0) (#50)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:08:10 PM EST

It does!
I've never been able to figure out why Group Thinkers are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Well actually I have thanks to Psych 101 in my freshman year. And the answer is not pretty.

Who made you King of the Party (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:08:12 PM EST

I welcome your support for the Party.

What you do does not help imo.

But please keep voting Dem and contributing to Dem candidates.

But please go write your inanities for daily kos please. We have no patience for it.


Well thanks (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:28:45 PM EST

But what I do does help. More so than blogging.

As for what I write - think Free Speech.

That still is constitutional in your Bash Wing of the party isn't it?


Heh (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:36:51 PM EST

Man are you stupid.

I'm gonna put you in jail for idiocy.


: Really? (none / 0) (#42)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:51:00 PM EST

So your personal cell is big enough for two?

I have got to say: (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Eternal Hope on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:35:45 PM EST

That if I had wanted the perfect, I would have not supported Edwards, who voted for the IWR, who admitted that he was wrong, and showed his remorse by mobilizing thousands of Americans to call their Congressmen to stop the madness.

I suggest that if the Congress does not want people bashing them like this that they do what they were elected to do and accept the will of the people and bring about an end to the occupation of the war.


And now he's using Republican framing (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:31:21 PM EST

gah!

Obey knows better than to claim that Bush can write his own blank check.

He can write the check (none / 0) (#6)
by Ben Masel on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:42:27 PM EST

but not cash it.


: Summary of feed and forage? n/t (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:43:34 PM EST

And now Hoyer (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:41:13 PM EST

is making up nonsense about the first supplemental by claiming that it set a date certain.

The House Version (none / 0) (#16)
by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:02:10 PM EST

did have a date certain.


: Please go away (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:42:33 PM EST

You are an ignorant annoying person.
We have discussed these issues in depth and with knwoledge.
Your know nothing-ism and offensive annoying way are not appreciated here.
Please just go away,

Now Murtha (none / 0) (#12)
by troqua on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:55:50 PM EST

For all his tough talk, he's going to vote for it.

I hope they all appreciate how they've sullied Memorial Day with the capitulation. They could have truly honored the fallen by standing by their promises.

: An Ironic time for him to say (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:58:03 PM EST

that he's been "right in all of his predictions." It seems he's finally made one that's wrong.

Boehner: (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:15:58 PM EST

WMD "shipped somewhere else"

: Oh god, he's got the onions out. n/t (none / 0) (#22)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:18:37 PM EST

Capitulation Bill? (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:21:36 PM EST

Is Kos projecting now?

Pelosi to vote NO. n/t (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:22:33 PM EST

140 Democrats stood with us. n/t (none / 0) (#45)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:58:44 PM EST

I stand by my count (none / 0) (#47)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:03:15 PM EST

2 Republicans also voted no.


: Ron Paul votes against all spending bills (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Ben Masel on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:09:45 PM EST

The Roll Cal for Part II (none / 0) (#49)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:07:24 PM EST

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml


fwiw (none / 0) (#53)
by Stewieeeee on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:10:47 PM EST

you isolated the gloating to one diary and moved on.

the party will never unite behind defunding and you will continue to divide the party on that issue, but your ability to move on and provide a path forward for your solution is admirable.

: Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Donna Z on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:24:51 PM EST

The Democrats passed a funding bill with an exit strategy...or at least the framework for one.
bush vetoed the funding bill and he vetoed the will of the American people who want an exit strategy.
Now I have problems with what the Democrats have done, but it was always clear that the troops would be getting the money. Well, unless bush would veto the bill again.

Please add your thoughts to (none / 0) (#55)
by oculus on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:09:53 PM EST

this current DK diary:

DO NOTHING. The WAR will END.
by ormondotvos

Diarist has the right idea but not the detail one finds here not the ability to express him/herself.

Had to check back in (none / 0) (#59)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:55:51 PM EST

and see what had happened today as CNN now has the Senate beginning to vote :(

Dodd, Obama & Clinton vote no, Biden yes. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Molly Bloom on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:02:11 PM EST

On the bright side (such as it is) the 2 representatives we gave money to in 2006 voted no.

They did good, I'm sort of proud of (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:09:05 PM EST

Obama and Clinton sucking that gut in! Joe Biden, every time I have come close to wanting to listen to him I find that I can't get around Anita Hill before the bile starts to rise. Isn't it nice to know that the bile still works like a charm and always spots a scumbag.


I'm glad Biden's running for Prez (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by Ben Masel on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:12:34 PM EST

Every day he spends in Iowa, he's not holed up with Orrin Hatch dreaming up new ways to trash the Constitution in the name of his cockamamie War on Drugs.


: Don't get me started on the Senator from MBNA (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Molly Bloom on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:47:50 PM EST

My earliest take on 08 was anyone but Biden.

What an utterly disgusting (none / 0) (#70)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:12:09 PM EST

Failure of Leadership:

We are not getting out of Iraq because.................

...the longest single sentence I've ever seen follows those eight words.

Go read it.

Olbermann is right. Armando is right.

Welcome to a never ending occupation of Iraq.

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney is moving behind the scenes to 'deploy an "end run strategy" around the President' in a drive to engineer a cruise missile attack on Iran's Natanz Nuclear Facility, that 'could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger.'

: This could get very, very ugly (none / 0) (#80)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:12:44 PM EST

...beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has previously suggested -- which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran.
The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.
According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.

talex (none / 0) (#71)
by orionATL on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:15:19 PM EST

i have not found talex's comments all that problematic.

but

i am VERY concerned about the contempt passed his/her way on this site.

i do not think it is necessary.

and i think it speaks VERY ill of this site.

i admit that i not only do not know about, but do not care a fig about, the seventh-grade clique politics of the internet that may be operating here.

i just don't see why this commenter is berated like he/she has been.

there is a righteous-mob quality to criticism of talex that is a real discredit to this site.

i'm surprised "mom" has not intervened.

talex (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:31:09 PM EST

as far as I can see, without question meets the definition of "chatterer" in Jeralyn's Comment Policy.


orionatl, i think if you look through talex' (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by conchita on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:45:33 PM EST

comment archive, you will see a trail of condescending and contentious remarks. s/he has insulted btd and the readers/commentators at talkleft. s/he generally does not seem to have read others' comments nor links. i would even venture to say that s/he at times seems to have an agenda to disrupt. i chose a couple of weeks ago to ignore his/her remarks and was glad to see btd advocate for the same today. i have also observed talex behaving similarly at dkos, insulting writers there as well. frankly, i am surprised that btd has had this much patience as it has appeared to me that talex has come to talkleft more to taunt than to contribute substantively to discussions. fwiw, this is how it has seemed to me.


orionatl (none / 0) (#75)
by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:40:11 PM EST

I don't find talex that interesting as some here do. I tend to get tied up with other trolls. It must be something that goes back to Armando at dkos

Do you know talex from another site?


squeaky - off topic (none / 0) (#77)
by conchita on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:56:19 PM EST

but can't resist. saw the new york ballet perform a program of balanchine last night: gounod, brahms, and stravinksy. his choreography for stravinsky's symphony in three movements was outstanding in its energetic austerity. brilliant. the transition from brahms to stravinsky reminded me of some things you said about modern classical.


darn, i wish i'd seen it n/t (none / 0) (#83)
by dutchfox on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:48:23 PM EST

: you might still have a chance (none / 0) (#87)
by conchita on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:03:49 AM EST

same program will be performed may 26 and june 10. disclaimer - i loved the symphony in three movements and the walpurgisnacht ballet was great fun, but i drifted off during brahm's liebeslieder walzer. the voices were wonderful, the costumes romantic, the dancers talented, but it went on and on and on... hope you get to see it. really enjoyed myself. also have to say i was also impressed by nicolette fraillon, the conductor of the orchestra.

Dance (none / 0) (#86)
by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:59:37 PM EST

I am really dance illiterate. Not that I haven't heard of Ballanchine et al, it is just that I don't get it. Ballet, Modern usually if not always leaves me squirming with boredom.

I am a big fan of Pina Bausch though. That is about it.

Of course Brahms to Stravinsky is another story. I love them both. Not so big on Gonoud.


i have a feeling you would have appreciated (none / 0) (#88)
by conchita on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:14:00 AM EST

how balanchine's interpretation of stravinsky's music made the symphony a fully dimensional piece. it was as if the dancers became manifestations of the motives and tones. on the train heading home i ended up talking with someone who had attended a performance at julliard but was familiar with the balanchine program. we talked about the stravinsky ballet and, not surprised by my enthusiasm, he spoke more technically about stravinsky. turns out he is a composer, and is working on an opera that will be part of the 2009 season at the met. having learned recently what is involved in bringing a new work to the met i am duly impressed and will watching for it that season.


I have seen (none / 0) (#89)
by squeaky on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:23:46 AM EST

A lot of dance including Balanchine and I never get it. Close friends of mine have been dancers and they would bring me to stuff all the time.

There are a lot of arts that I resonate with but the dance gene was left out of me. Italian Opera gene was left out as well.

Dancing on the other hand I do enjoy.


dance as a spectator sport (none / 0) (#90)
by conchita on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:31:56 AM EST

is not for everyone. i am happy to say that i do enjoy it.

as for dancing, i enjoy that too, but haven't found myself on a dancefloor since the frying pan stopped the parties. at the risk of spending too much time off topic... suggestions for venues for someone who is a few years past her 20s would be very welcome.


: An ode to modern dance: (none / 0) (#95)
by oculus on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:02:56 AM EST

There are two essential ingredients: (1) a choreographer who has something to say worth saying, and (2) dancers who are committed to the choreography. Otherwise its just people repeating patterns often seen before. But excellent modern dance is a joy to watch.
Disclaimer: my daughter is a choreographer of modern dance. No, I am not a pd. marketer.

conchita (none / 0) (#72)
by orionATL on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:17:13 PM EST

thanks for a word of good sense.

squeaky (none / 0) (#78)
by orionATL on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:57:14 PM EST

no, i don't know talex except from this site, and only lately.

and, as i said, i am blissfully ignorant of internet politics.

my concern here is not with the content of what talex has said,

but with the TONE of the rebuttals he/she receives from regulars on this site.

those rebuttals just does not sound right to my ear.

i'm more troubled by this sites sounding like a gang of crows going after a hawk - lots of angry squawking.

this commenter just does not seem to have said anything all that unforgivable to me.

maybe there's something i'm missing.

that's all i have to contribute.

: gang of crows going after a hawk? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:00:21 PM EST

maybe there's something i'm missing
Heh. It's more like the other way round, IMO.

: Yes I Don't Get It (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:52:14 PM EST

Either. I also only know talex from this site. It must have started at dkos.
Although I could see that s/he is annoying on purpose just to rile BTD.

oh come party (none / 0) (#81)
by Miss Devore on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:26:39 PM EST

where we strip off affiliations to Dems:

http://missdevore.wordpress.com/

unless you prefer moribundtcake.

11 Senators voted no.

I am reminded that Ocean's Eleven bombed, too.

Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him? (none / 0) (#85)
by Sanity Clause on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:54:04 PM EST

I suppose this could be characterized as one strategic blunder in the overall media battle for the most blameworthy sound bite, but I didn't see any reason or explanation for why the Dems rolled over quite this fast. Maybe they can still recover some credibility and dignity in the media with a new hardline approach for the next funding cycle. As for how to defuse the President's sloganeering, I think one way to keep this issue foremost in the media and in the public's eye is to schedule hearing after hearing (Armed Services, Defense, Appropriations, Homeland Security, etc, etc, etc) and put the Administration's fall guys (and the increasingly worried Republican committee members) on the spot to identify and explain their contingency plans for implementing a 100% cut in the supplemental funding come September - it's a common question for every government agency at every level of government whenever legislators start feeling pressure to cut taxes. Instead of letting Bush and Co get away with labeling the Dems as the defunderizers and abandonerites, let's see someone like Gates or Patraes or Lute try to define the indefinite - I don't think they're likely to paint a picture like Garry Trudeau's strips from last week wherein the budget cuts leave the troops in place while gradually cutting off their ammunition, body armor, food, and vehicles. Instead, let's have them tell us exactly how much it's going to cost to bring the troops home and when we'll have to start the redeployment if funding is "suddenly" cut off 3 or 6 or 9 months from now - it would shift the burden of defining that "date certain" to the generals on the ground.

Bought, not bullied. Kohl spills the beans. (none / 0) (#91)
by Ben Masel on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:55:21 AM EST

here

Explains why Feingold didn't filibuster too, tho I figure Kohl, who sat on the Conference Committee, actually cut the deal.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Emergency Supplemental Spending bill that is expected to pass both the House and Senate today includes a two-and-a-half year extension of SeniorCare, allowing Wisconsin's popular senior drug coverage program to continue through December 31, 2009.
U.S. Senator Herb Kohl and U.S. Senator Russ Feingold negotiated for inclusion of the provision in the Senate bill, while Congressman Dave Obey (WI-07) served as the principal House negotiator for the final package that includes it. President Bush has indicated that he will sign the bill into law, which also includes funding for disaster aid, veterans' health, agricultural disasters, and other emergency funding.

Murtha Responds on Huffpo (none / 0) (#96)
by Stewieeeee on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:16:39 AM EST

Murtha Responds on Huffpo (as loathe I am to be sending them traffic), ....

There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president.

I wonder why all these military folks, who in every other way you could imagine appear to care about the troops with utmost devotion, keep repeating that right wing talking point that cutting off funds (date certain or otherwise) will hurt the troops?

is it possible, just even minutely so that it's not just a right wing talking point?

no. of course not.

now someone please give me a 1 before i actually start believing my own bullpoo!