he shouldn't be in jail for buying the 8-ball, neither should anybody
he should not have voted for the drug testing for public assitance either
guy likes to party, is rightwing asshole, idk, seems like a matter for florida voters to mull over in their widsom, not the courts (which have been hilariously lenient as it happens, compared to those similarly charged [also not pictured here])
― goole, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 19:45 (twelve years ago)
was he actually leniently charged for a first offense w personal use qualities, doesnt seem like it, like im sure people have gotten worse but it seems pretty normal that you wouldnt get locked up or anything for a first possession offense
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 19:47 (twelve years ago)
that part i don't know, but i doubt he had his door kicked in. as i read it he was not even cuffed.
― goole, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 19:49 (twelve years ago)
One reason I never did cocaine was the firm belief that, if I ever got caught, I would get thrown up underneath a jail. Many of my white friends did not have this same concern, including 2 who were dealing pills out of their dorm room (which was within 100 yards of an elementary school, oops). That story didn't end happily.
― deX! (DJP), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:09 (twelve years ago)
How did it end?
― Multiple Miggs (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:10 (twelve years ago)
They threw up in jail
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:11 (twelve years ago)
Which is even worse than throwing u0p anywhere else, b/c ur in jail
DJP, was that around '96? I think I know the two people you mention.
― Ornate Coleman (Moodles), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:15 (twelve years ago)
arcane Beltway bullshit no one outside...talk show green rooms cares about
board descrip
One reason I never did cocaine (cept til way too late, twice) was Fleetwood Mac
― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:20 (twelve years ago)
you guys there is still time
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:21 (twelve years ago)
hahaha yes it was
hello world, you are tiny
― deX! (DJP), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:22 (twelve years ago)
I would rather chew coca leaves than snort cocaine.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:22 (twelve years ago)
thats ridiculous, someone put a lot of work in to turn those leaves into powder
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:23 (twelve years ago)
(the story ended with them getting busted, threatened with a huge prison sentence due to their proximity to said elementary school unless they gave up their suppliers, and I believe them getting kicked out of school for a year, if not expelled)
― deX! (DJP), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:24 (twelve years ago)
if we are thinking of the same guys, they were suspended and returned the next year
― Ornate Coleman (Moodles), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:26 (twelve years ago)
kicked out of harvard for a year, ruff stuff
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:27 (twelve years ago)
punishment was a year at yale
― iatee, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:28 (twelve years ago)
18 months in the hole (cornell)
― goole, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:28 (twelve years ago)
That sounds likely to me; I graduated in '95 and heard about a good chunk of this stuff secondhand
most interesting reaction was my wife's (then girlfriend) who used to borrow sinus medication from one of them and was freaking about what it was she'd actually been taking
― deX! (DJP), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:29 (twelve years ago)
drug buddies always seem to shrink the size of the world
― Multiple Miggs (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:29 (twelve years ago)
"wow, my sinuses feel reeealllyy gooood!"
― Ornate Coleman (Moodles), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:31 (twelve years ago)
wow this is the best sinus medication ive ever takencleared them all up huhno
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:31 (twelve years ago)
wow i'm a bleeding dpcuhebag suddenly cool
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:32 (twelve years ago)
If you get expelled from Yale or Harvard don't you end up in Princeton
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:33 (twelve years ago)
this dances music sounds god
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:33 (twelve years ago)
Senate Democrats Poised to Block Filibusters of Presidential Picks
“We’re not bluffing,” said one senior aide who has spoken with Mr. Reid directly and expects a vote on Thursday, barring any unforeseen breakthrough on blocked judges.
...
Mr. Reid has said he supports keeping intact the minority party’s ability to filibuster controversial Supreme Court nominees.
Let the good times roll!
― Multiple Miggs (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 21 November 2013 11:40 (twelve years ago)
Dumb question: if the rules can be changed, what's to stop anyone from changing the rules back?
Senator on the radio had a good point. Right now, the 67 needed to break a filibuster is arbitrary. He pointed out how there's nothing stopping a majority party from making that number an equally arbitrary and even harder to break 80 or 90 (for hyperbole's sake). So he said that for better or for worse, 51 - a simple majority - would at least be consistent and fair. When asked by the interviewer how he would feel if Republicans used the same power to override a filibuster and push through a Supreme Court justice who would upset the court's relative balance, he basically called it tough medicine, a lesson to be learned that elections have consequences, and that anyone voting for Republicans shouldn't be surprised to see them voting like Republicans. There's something to that.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 21 November 2013 12:58 (twelve years ago)
They can change the rules back, but there doesn't seem to be much of a reason for the majority to empower the minority.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans will further change the rules to include filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. I really don't know why Reid would shy away for that now while he has the chance.
― Multiple Miggs (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 21 November 2013 13:15 (twelve years ago)
Reid is shying away on the Supreme Court nominee as part of typical Democrat "reasonable adult" standard. Invariably, just as the Republicans broke the Gang of 12 Rules, they will do whatever they want that is in their own best interests when/if they control the Senate
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:06 (twelve years ago)
Speaking of control of the Senate, the Dems's Senatorial Campaign Committe is getting worried. Here's part of an email they sent (obviously this to try to raise more funds but still...)
Nate Silver calls North Carolina the “tipping point state in the Senate battle” and says it is the GOP's “best option to…[win] a 51-49 Senate majority.” And this is alarming: a wave of attacks from the Koch brothers has shrunk North Carolina Democrat Kay Hagan’s polling lead from 15 points to just two.
Now, the Kochs are going for the kill by launching “one of their largest ad buys to date” to take the lead there and across the country. Early attacks of this size are unheard of -- they’re funneling $2 million into North Carolina ALONE.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:08 (twelve years ago)
vote with your dollars, people, it's all that counts
― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:10 (twelve years ago)
Reid should change the rules to make it illegal for the Republicans to control the senate. Problem: solved!
Honestly, if they just made filibuster-ers stand there and babble like they did in the good ol' days, I think we'd not only see fewer filibusters, we'd also weed out some of the weaker-hearted politicians, who'd keel over on the floor mid-babble. Wouldn't that be an easier rule to change? What is the argument against once again forcing people to stand up or shut up? Is the argument that that would be ... too hard? Too inconvenient? At the very least, we might get another cable channel out of it.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:12 (twelve years ago)
86 presidential nominees filibustered prior to 2009, 82 since? nice
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:13 (twelve years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQv_vgcvqiM
― lag∞n, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:14 (twelve years ago)
An alternative, uh, reading:
So is the Republican use of the filibuster today simply fair turn-around — with Democrats in no position to complain when Republicans use tactics they themselves introduced? If so, that would be enough to illustrate the hypocrisy of today’s Democratic protests. But that’s not what’s at issue here. In the D.C. Circuit matter, which has driven Senator Reid to the nuclear option, Republicans are not raising ideological objections to Obama’s nominees — as Democrats did when they filibustered Bush’s picks. Their objection, rather, is that these judges are not needed, because the workload of the court is so light. In fact, speaking of hypocrisy, Democrats, in the minority in the 109th Congress, used that very rationale to urge Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter in a July 2006 letter not to confirm any additional Bush nominees to the D.C. Circuit — and none was confirmed after that letter from Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin was sent, all of whom are still on the committee. Yet now, when the court’s workload is even lighter, Democrats cry foul when Republicans point that out.
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:33 (twelve years ago)
the courts workload is so light that they have to call in a bunch of ostensibly retired conservative judges to rule on stuff!
― lag∞n, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:35 (twelve years ago)
Plus the court's workload has been statistically analyzed by other folks who say it has not changed much: when the Republicans happily reached a deal to get nominees on that court.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:40 (twelve years ago)
im sure everyone is a total hypocrite who cares the filibuster is garbage nuke the senate
― lag∞n, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:43 (twelve years ago)
Nuking the senate leaves us only the house and its tea party yahoos making laws.
― Aimless, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:48 (twelve years ago)
nuke the house
― lag∞n, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:49 (twelve years ago)
also
http://24.media.tumblr.com/b7cd62f4c9fd440bc0b105dc7ba2275f/tumblr_mpfqkpmvvv1qm3ypqo1_500.gif
― lag∞n, Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:51 (twelve years ago)
so NPR had this story on the bill to 'fix' federal IT:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/21/246345010/how-healthcare-gov-is-giving-a-once-obscure-bill-a-boost
― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:55 (twelve years ago)
Nuking the legislative and executive branches leaves us with "state's rights" ascendant again. Jim Crow, anyone?
― Aimless, Thursday, 21 November 2013 17:06 (twelve years ago)
listen we can just keep nuking its really not a problem
― lag∞n, Thursday, 21 November 2013 17:08 (twelve years ago)
(**winks at lagoon & shoots him a finger gun**)
― Aimless, Thursday, 21 November 2013 17:09 (twelve years ago)
and.... it's done
― Ayn Rand Akbar (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 November 2013 18:09 (twelve years ago)
awesome
― lag∞n, Thursday, 21 November 2013 18:11 (twelve years ago)
who gives a shit
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 21 November 2013 18:16 (twelve years ago)
President Christie
― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 21 November 2013 18:16 (twelve years ago)
GIVE'EM HELL HARRY
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 21 November 2013 18:17 (twelve years ago)