HorsesAss.Org

Drinking Liberally

by — ,

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Stop on by for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.

I’m starting my evening at Chocolate for Choice, I won’t be stopping by until a little later. Maybe a nice stout to wash down all that chocolate?

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

Comments

  2. 2

    Googel this ..

    The Clark County nazi GOP site has the effin thing back up.

    Google this:

    clark country republicans obama

  4. 4

    We’re in the last year of the Chimpanzee reign and the end can’t get here fast enough:

    Only a few months ago, senior officials predicted that before their exit, they could deliver the Middle East peace deal that had eluded so many predecessors. But this month, as President Bush toured Israel and the West Bank, officials made it clear that the deal he’s now talking about is not a long-awaited final agreement, but a preliminary pact to set the terms for talks.

    In addition, the administration’s efforts to get North Korea and Iran to end their nuclear programs have suffered deflating setbacks in recent weeks. And although the administration’s greatest foreign policy undertaking, Iraq, has seen encouraging security improvements, the goal of Iraqi political reconciliation remains distant.

    The upshot is that the Bush administration is going to be spending the next year managing crises and tidying up messes until the next president takes over, rather than reaching legacy milestones, as officials recently had hoped.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/ywhkuf

    YLB Comment: Well, eight years in the fish bowl of the White House is enough for any Chimpanzee. Who’s gonna care if he dogs it the last year? To the Chimpanzee’s mind, his Presidency has been a smashing success – he’s greased more corrupt right wing palms than anyone else before him. His cronies are so loaded with loot, it’ll tide them over just fine over the coming depression, oops, recession.

  6. 6

    Ahhhhhh.. Poor Huck Norris.

    After Huckabee’s gracious concession speech — in which he had nothing but kind words for John McCain who he said showed great “civility” — former SC Gov. David Beasley, a Huckabee surrogate, railed against Thompson.

    “Fred hurt us in South Carolina,” Beasley began. “He had one goal and one goal only — to distort Mike Huckabee’s record so John McCain could pull it out. No ifs, ands or buts about it….

    “Thompson came here and just went to the areas where he could gut Huckabee. I have no doubt in my mind, it was Washington politics at its worst.

    But the other shoe drops:

    The question has to be raised: Should Huckabee have campaigned at all in Michigan and spent more time here in the run up to today?

    Beasley sure thinks so. “Michigan split us up, cut us down,” he said.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com.....92725.aspx

    YLB Comment: LMAO!!! Huck Norris and his people are as dumb as posts. This guy doesn’t have a prayer and he’s broke. Being stupid doesn’t help either. IMHO, this R nomination is McCain’s to lose.

  7. 7

    Clueless the way you LYAO, what do you sit on? Your brain? Ohhhh… that’s right it’s estimated to be only one to three cells.

    Waaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa

  8. 8

    Where’s the silly wingnuts tonight? Crying over the meltdown and bankruptcy of your ideology?

    Two more Fed rate cuts should chop things down to what? Zero percent? Will that perk you up?

    Pushin’ on a string is what it amounts to IMHO.

  10. 10

    Clueless I am so glad you are so concerned about the Republicans. The democrat race is getting very contentious.

  14. 14

    Once again, the Cheap Labor liberal hypocrites continue to keep the union wages low by supporting a nonunion house and ensuring that Goldy continues to work in a nonunion shop. Hey Goldy, when are you gonna organize your radio station?

    http://www.aftraseattle.com/aboutaftra.htm

    How about supporting your local union waiter and waitresses by going to a UNION establishment?

    http://www.unitehere8.org/

    Can’t put your cations where your mouths are?

  17. 17

    Wasn’t Tiger Woods magnanimous in his comments over the “lynch” word from Golf Channel’s Kelly Tilghman?

    Of course that word seems to appear in the American lexicon.

  18. 18

    Last night at DL, Will and I had an unpleasant exchange .. well worse than that. Anyhow, Will .. for my part I apologize .. not need for anyone to get so uptight .. even if DL is proetected turf for politics as a topic for talk.

    That said, the issues is real. I like John Edwards .. his positions are well stated, generally I agreee with them. BUT, I have looked for evidence that he emasn what he says and I can not find any.

    So, in good spirits, I have posterd a challenge to you, in a thread you started and at my own Blog, SeattleJew.

    The essenc eof the challenge, in the Burr/Halmilton tradiotn, is this:

    I manitian that JE has done virtually nothng as a Seantor or as head of a foundation to combat poverty.

    Specifically, the best evidence I can find is that no more than a few 100,000 of money .. maybe more? has gome from his effort and the charity he created to fund poor people.

    Why I care? Because I like what he says but I do not trust people, esp people trained as courtroom lawyers who can not show me tracks on the ground they claim to tread. My impression is the JE is a big time attorney whose ca rear has been in poverty law. Ther eis nothing wrong with his making money, but t is equally so that making money on the backs of poor people … something Jesse jackson can tlak a lot about, is less impressive than walking than giving of ones own.

    more details

    So, in the tradition of Hamilton and Burr, I challenge you ,, my weapon of choice .. the blogs.

  19. 19

    @18 I don’t think it’s a requirement that Edwards (or any other politician) be sincere (after all, they’re all panderers to an extent), so long as they actually do what they said they would do. Edwards’ rhetoric appeals to my populist sentiments, but I see two problems with the idea of voting for him in the caucus. First, I think that would be throwing a vote away because he’s not getting traction in the early caucuses and primaries — you do not win your party’s nomination, let alone the presidency, by consistently scoring in the mid-teens when others are racking up 25% to 35%. Second, even if he were electable, I question how effective a leader he is. This is relevant because it doesn’t do any good to elect the politician whose positions align with your own if he can’t get anything enacted. It would be wrong to conclude I’m purely a cynical pragmatist; I do have ideals, and my ideals do factor into who I decide to support; and it’s not out of the question that I would support a quixotic campaign on principle. In fact, just being a liberal has felt that way for much of the last 7 years, and yet I remained a liberal through it all. But, as I stated in my endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the next president has a large agenda and much pressing work: Not only repairing the damage of the Bush years, and catching up on a lot of neglected needs, but also meeting the new challenges of a changing world. There is so much to be done in health care, energy policy, the environment, labor policy, righting a stalled economy full of misallocations, tax reform, protecting social security and medicare, education, transportation and infrastructure, and of course resolving the Iraq disaster, waging the war in Afghanistan and fighting off Al Qaeda, striving for peace in Palestine, and so on, that we simply can’t afford to place our chips on a president who can’t get a legislative agenda through Congress or wring agreements out of foreign leaders. So, this time around, I’m opting for the mechanic instead of the inspirational orator or the idealistic banner-carrier.

  20. 20

    Roger ,,

    GREAT POST

    Here is my brief take”

    Edwards .. I think his expertise is as a trial lawyer. Just as any great lawyer, when JE takes a case I am sure his a believer in that case.

    In this instance, the nation and poverty are his case. His ideas seem to me to vary form silly to sound. Silly .. his heath care proposal is dead at birth. NO reform is going to happen without lobbyists. I guess he knows this and will redfine the terms if elected. The plan itself is the best though tout of the three, but frankly they all have the same goal .. seeding a congressional debate.

    Obama … the more I see the more impressed I am, He was interviewed by Jack Welch this AM. Welch came >

  21. 21

    Repost .. something happend to truncate the message..

    Roger ,,

    GREAT POST

    Here is my brief take”

    Edwards .. I think his expertise is as a trial lawyer. Just as any great lawyer, when JE takes a case I am sure his a believer in that case.

    In this instance, the nation and poverty are his case. His ideas seem to me to vary form silly to sound. Silly .. his heath care proposal is dead at birth. NO reform is going to happen without lobbyists. I guess he knows this and will redfine the terms if elected. The plan itself is the best though tout of the three, but frankly they all have the same goal .. seeding a congressional debate.

    Obama … the more I see the more impressed I am, He was interviewed by Jack Welch this AM. Welch came >

  22. 22

    hhmm moist be something in the file …

    here is the rest:

    Roger ,,

    GREAT POST

    Here is my brief take”

    Edwards .. I think his expertise is as a trial lawyer. Just as any great lawyer, when JE takes a case I am sure his a believer in that case.

    In this instance, the nation and poverty are his case. His ideas seem to me to vary form silly to sound. Silly .. his heath care proposal is dead at birth. NO reform is going to happen without lobbyists. I guess he knows this and will redfine the terms if elected. The plan itself is the best though tout of the three, but frankly they all have the same goal .. seeding a congressional debate.

    Obama … the more I see the more impressed I am, He was interviewed by Jack Welch this AM. Welch came .. this close to endorsing him later. To paraphrase Welch’s words, Obama and Romney are the only candidates the fomrer GE CEO sees as having CEO skills and he prefers Obama because Obama is doing much less pandering.

    I also believe BHO is the most electable of the three. My reasons are subjective but I read about a gathering storm of Reagan Dems, poorish Christian folks, looking for an alternative to the Mormon or the Reprobate. This guy, a voluntary convert who has lived an idealic Christian life looks very good to them.

    Hillary confuses me. Despite a great deal of hype and extraordinary opportunities I see very few specific accomplishments. She has been a good local poll and I understand that she has functioned well as a Senator but neither of these say a lot about potential to deal with the issues. If I can add to my challenge to Will .. what has she achieved on her own?

    In her favor I see on HUGE issue. The Bush version of the US government is rotten to a very, very low levels. I believe the next Prexy will have to literally replace perhaps 10,000 people whilr dealing with some 9/11 level challenge form one of the US opponents and possible delaing wiht a major economic issue as well. This all means that aside form getting healthcare through and the trivial issue of what to do In Iraq, the Prexy is going to need a top notch staff, very quickly. While HRC may not make the best choices (below) she probably comes closer to having an English style shadow government than anyone since Churchill.

    That said, I also see serius negatives with her:

    1. Bill ..I would not have beleived what we are seeing now. If he is doing her bidding, she is dangerous. If not she does not have her dog on a choke collar. This may be irritating in a campaign but it cold ruin a Presidency.

    2. Staff .. I am very unimpressd with most of the people she and he hire. Rubin, of course was awesome. But Aspin, Clinton’s first choice for SecDef, only looks good now that we have seen Rummy. Cohen was .. competent but not more than that. Albright is still an HRC adviser. Her mismagaement of US foreign policy has been rescued by comparison to what came after but the Clinton years do nto look very good. Janet Reno and Lani Guanier ..two appointments bordering on the bizar. AND “they” now employ Ira Magaziner, he who fucked Hillarycare I, as their chief of policy. These are NOT impressive people.

    3, The Obama factor Someone is responsible for the tone of her campaign. I hope it is her but if so there is no justification for the scummy way they have run. Someone last nght said she is not Rove. That si true, nor is Obama Mandella. Uisng the horrid, criminal example of Bush era politics ot justify this sort of campaigning is wrong.

    Worse, she and Bill risk losing much of the support they will need if she is to govern.

    4. Leadership This is so hard. The similarities between BHO and RR are apparent to many. The man has a golden tonghue and a wonderful presence. She comes across as .. the person in authority. The comparison to Thatcher seems to em to be shallow. Before MT got to her job she had fought her way to the top of her party, no mean feat. HRC has nt done that.

    The next Prexy is going to need to perscribe a lot of cod liver oil. I am skeptical that HRC, even without the baggage Bill brings aboard, can sell her programs now any better than she did when B was the boss. He/their mismanagement of the black issue is a good example. There has simply been to uch race baiting for this to be an accident and calming those waters will be very difficult if she is elected.

    Not an easy decision. To make it a bit better, very few successful Am. Prexies ahve come to office wiht great credentials. JFK was a playboy with Daddy-Bought-Him Seante seat. Roosevelt most impressive feat beofer becoming Prexified may have been learning to walk again. Lincoln did a good job sending slaves back home an d was more than just a fair country lawyer. OTOH, consider the damage done by such credentialled folks as Wilson and Bush I.

    So how did SJ determine the true path? My main concern about BHO is those first days. I worry about his ability to staff so many positions. That said, if he is the candidate there will be a lot of Hillaryists anxious to help. BUT, I can se ehim addressing the nation the evening before the bombs fall on Iran or the day we reinstitute the draft or after Yemen a bombs Miami.

  24. 24

    Someone else responded at SJ .. under the anonymous burkha, again calling me a liar. Fair enough, but is there no one out there form the Edwards side who can put some meat on the bones of his poverty credentials?

    It is ironinc that real mud gets slung all the time but an effort to find out the truth seems to elicit cries of “liar?”

  25. 25

    BTW … Edwards as well as the rest of this year’s crop of candydates has refuse to rlease his tax rey=urns. There is a 2003 return. Inteestingly it lists surprisingly little income, about `40K over his Senate salary BUT it ist deductions of about 150k!

    This seems odd.

    I STILL can find nbo evidence that he has nay significant role in antipoverty programs other than the talk-talk legal foundation he founded.

  26. 26

    SeattleJew: Ask Clueless Gooberfool, The Yelling Libbie Bozo of HorsesASS. He luuurrrves Edwards. He can “clue” you into his “positives” on poverty and his contributions. I am sure he’s thoroughly researched his positions.

    I like your take on Barack and Hilary. When I posted her:

    1) HilaryCare
    2) People Hirings
    3) Strange Political Positions
    4) Nasty Attitude
    5) Hanging on Bill’s Coattails
    6) Calling the women wronged by Bill liars
    7) Her Cheesy Stand by Her Man comment
    8) Supporters

    I was called every name in the book. Now seeing how you’ve reposted many of my original PuddyStudies on Hilary it’s refreshing to see someone be objective.

    When someone of the same political persuasion takes on the 16%ers and challenges them on their weak positions the din quiets. Welcome to the land of thinking men.

  27. 27

    Sorry Puddy, your list has very little to do with mine.

    The attacks on the Clintons by folks like you ought, in my opinion, to be illegal. I would call them unamerican except .. as a devotee of Jefferson .. I remkemebr all t well the very similar attacks on TJ.

    Let me flip the table for you. The only credible Republican NOT contaminated by Bushism is John McCain. People like you have attempted to gut this great man. Tell me this .. if Mr. McCain is elected President, which part will he turn to to get things done?

    I DO try to be objective and am closer to McCain on Irag then I am to the Dems, BUT I am a very proud American. I want us to fulfill the promise we have made to the world. If Hillary or BHO is President, they will have behind them a coalition of the loyal, patriotic core … people like Jim Webb and Olympia Snow, Arnold Schwartnegger, Colin Powell, Lawrence Tribe, Tom Daschle, Weseley Clark, Robert Rubin …

    If John McCain, a hero to me as well, is President, where is he to turn for support?

  28. 28

    SeattleJew:

    “Attacks by me should be illegal?”

    1) A policy proposal
    2) Personal decisions
    3) Personal policy choices
    4) Personal decisions
    5) Personal choices
    6) Her personal words
    7) Her personal appearance
    8) People choosing her

    Please tell me how these are illiegal? Just like the attacks her of Puddy? Give me a break!

    Regarding John McCain – Independents love him. The problem with him is he made choices that unendeared himself to many people. Sure he’s stop earmarks and I like that.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.