Tuco

Hey, the dojo is the time for experimentation.

It's almost like he doesn't understand that the Zionist movement originated in the American Evangelical movement.

For some reason this dialogue from 13 Assassins is running through my head.

And..any good?

Which race? Iowa (Grassley)? It’s an off cycle for Nebraska Senators, unless at state level. The House race would be Bacon v Vargas.

Yeah, it’s something he and Newt have done n common.

The big attack on Barnes is about whether he supports cops, right?

I was thinking the same, but I was corrected upthread. He has stated he will not caucus with the GOP. I imagine could change over the course of six years.

You should ask him how he feels about Russian gun control laws.

A few years ago I had some folks over for a football game. The doorbell rang, my wife answered it and it was my neighbor - a lovely woman in her 60s who lived alone. I could tell my wife was confused by what the neighbor was saying. I went over and it was weird. The neighbor was frustrated and saying words, clearly, but that didn't relate to each other. "Sarah, what's the matter?" "Crane...cards...." some pointing..."tree blue acting...." "Do you think you are having a stroke?" "Cat!"...nodding head vigorously. We called 911 and gave her an aspirin. I don't know how severe -as in how many dead brain cells - the stroke was, but I think if it affected her ability to reason or move, instead of just her ability to find the right words, she would have died - maybe starved to death. It's all about location and timing. She got the stroke meds in time and that apparently is a major game changer, did therapy, and she was my lovely, older neighbor again, with some minor lingering effects in her speech. And she is still more qualified to be a Senator than Oz.

What are you basing that on? Did he say crazy shit in the interview? Did he forget stuff? Is he leading his campaign poorly? I think you have a concept what a stroke victim is and are unwilling to consider that not all stroke victims are the same. What was discussed in the interview is that processing audible language has its disconnects and jumbles the pronunciation of words. You have no evidence to the contrary. He has found a way to communicate effectively. It’s not how a completely normal person communicates, but it is still effective.

You sound like a 90s Democrat talking about gay marriage.

You seemed to concede my first point and ignored my second. Would you vote against someone for being deaf if they couldn’t read lips?

What specifically about Fetterman's condition is worse? There isn't a uniformed condition for people recovering from strokes.

1. Bullshit. Most people don't sign and lip readers get lost when there are multiple people speaking or when people turn their heads. I am sure your friend could follow conversations, but that is not the same as saying she never got lost in conversations. Do you think she could read the lips of a Senator 100 feet away who was looking at his notes? 2. So, your position is that you would only vote for a deaf person who could read lips?

I'd say yes to the second and partially to the first. Edit: Honestly, the Senate might be a better place if there was less talking and more reading.

I think you are getting lost in simple conversations. Tell me how this different than someone with hearing issues?

Where are you pulling that characterization from?

Would you vote against someone for being deaf?

Probably a good decision to have this interview. He's agree to a debate on 10/25 and he needs to start setting expectations around his speech and the need for closed-captioning. This shouldn't matter. But neither should race, gender, sexual orientation and a host of other shit that does affect voting.

I thought it was interesting that the story about the car bomb assassination story, that it was approved by some level in the Ukrainian government, got no traction. Frankly, we don’t give a shit. Assassination via car bomb or guided missile really is just a difference pushed by those with a lot of guided missile. I don’t care how they blew up a bridge. That doesn’t mean there are no holds barred. Similarly, if Al Queda had killed 3000+ civilians with targeted guided missiles, it would still be terrorism.

He's doing what he always does: saying something outrageous to change the subject. Rather than have it be about mishandling classified documents, he is spouting off bullshit about how other Presidents dealt with non-classified Presidential records. When the Democrats and media correct him on it, it will be on the basis of non-classified Presidential records, rather than the much more serious crime. For folks who are barely following the issue, that changes what they think it's all about. They will think it's a question of whether Trump is getting held to a different standard over non-classified Presidential records. And regardless of what they conclude is the answer to that question, it will seem like big fuss over paperwork.

Interesting strategy to not provide any chairs. Maybe it's a fundraiser. $100 a chair.

I didn’t see option pricing for lacing the roast beef with pcp and exlax.

Responding to Slacks from the Ukraine thread. A couple things: 1. I interpret your statement here is that CO2 pollution is the currently the most economic approach in our economy. In order for that to change, we need to figure out how change or system so being green is the more economic approach. Fair enough. The problem with pollution and the "free" market is that currently the system does not recognize the communal harm caused by the pollution. [I fully admit to learning this perspective on Shaggy/Surly...Bozo maybe...don't remember.] Polluters are not paying for the harm they are causing. The general public pays for it, and usually disproportionately those with lower means. Globally, the poor fucks from Bangladesh can't just buy a new condo on higher ground. They are just fucked. Their lives are ruined. They are paying the costs for the actions of the wealthy. The free market is clearly not working here. So how do you change that. The carbon tax is one approach. You assign a price for the damage carbon pollution is producing. If the costs are impacting the decisions makers (from corporate CEOs to middle age suburbanites buying massive trucks to little old ladies trying to heat their homes), then the free market will actually work to produce more economically efficient decisions, like it's suppose to. In the most talked-about version, the dividend from the tax is then distributed back to everyone evenly. If you consume less than your average schmuck, you get paid. If you consume more than your average schmuck, you do the paying. As with all things, there is the concern about unintended consequences. How do you handle imports and not fuck up current trade agreements? And it always seems like anytime something like this is enacted, corporations figure out ways to extract value without helping the planet, either through unintended loopholes or through intended ones that lobbyists get paid for. But, obstacles can be overcome and likely problems do not negate the overall advantages. Canada has implemented this. What's politically viable there can be here, although it may take us longer. 2. We never really had this criteria for stopping pollution before. When the rivers were fucking burning, people didn't say "well, gee, that's terrible, but we won't change it unless we can make sure the current polluters are compensated." Smog. DDT. Acid rain. We have a full history of just saying enough of this shit and stopping it at the source. Without compensation. I don't accept that the new criteria is that we have to compensate current polluters. 3. Can you imagine what the current price of gas would be without federally mandated efficiency requirements, without alternative fuel research on federal dollars, without credits for electric cars, etc.? The environmental movement saves people money. It just does a shit job of taking credit for it because it's not really the main goal.