Drinking Liberally — Seattle

DLBottle

Please join us tonight for another Tuesday evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Stop by earlier and join some of us for dinner.



Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 328 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

Comments

  1. 1

    righton spews:

    I’ll come by if you can defend the dipwick from NASA who said the agency’s #1 mission is to make Muslims feel better.

    What a disaster you all foisted upon this country. At least Jimmy Carter feels good…

  2. 2

    spews:

    Righton @1,

    Sure…then stop by. I’ll buy you a beer and explain that your claim is complete bullshit. Bolden has never said that “the agency’s #1 mission is to make Muslims feel better” or anything even remotely like that.

    (Pssss…seriously, dude, lay off the Wingding talk radio!)

  3. 4

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Hmmm… Didn’t some HA Libtardos parade this “gentleman’s” comments about the Palins on this blog?

    “”Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true,” Johnston told PEOPLE magazine. “I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize.””

    The arschloch has them archived. Puddy can Google it since the arschloch only uses it for his stupidity!

    Your Rabbit Moron gleefully farted this “I bet Levi Johnston’s book outsells hers — he’s gonna spill all the dirt on her scumsucking family.” Hmmm… looks like he admitted he lied and The Rabbit Moron ate those pellets.

  4. 5

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    It will be sweet to see PoliFact fact checking Adriana Huffington! Maybe some truths will finally be told!

  5. 6

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Darryl spews @2:

    I’ll buy you a beer and explain that your claim is complete bullshit. Bolden has never said that “the agency’s #1 mission is to make Muslims feel better” or anything even remotely like that.

    Here’s the quote from Bolden.

    When I became the NASA Administrator — before I became the NASA Administrator — [Obama] charged me with three things: One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

    (my emphasis)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e857ZcuIfnI

    The relevant quote starts at about 1:15 into the video.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foremost

    foremost – first in place, order, rank, etc.: the foremost surgeons.

    (my emphasis)

    Seems to me that righton’s comment is pretty accurate. Care to explain how Bolden’s comment isn’t remotely like righton’s?

  6. 7

    righton spews:

    thank you #6. I thought metal detecting 90 yr olds at the airport was the height of Muslim guilt; this tops even that. I guess next Obama will share targeting information w/ Iran.

  7. 9

    proud leftist spews:

    Hey, my wingnut friends,
    How many of you will step up and sing Sharon Angell’s praises? Are you enthused about what your Teabag compatriots in Nevada have done? Hey, Cynny, you keep talking about how even Obama should take Teabaggers seriously. Tell me, my goat-loving friend, should Sharon Angell really be in the Senate?

  8. 10

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    proud leftist spews @9:

    I’d say Sharon Angle is more “Senateworthy” than the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in South Carolina, Alvin Greene. Not a ringing endorsement, I realize.

  9. 11

    spews:

    ConservativeFirst,

    Ummm….”find[ing] a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim” is the same as defining the “agency’s #1 mission”?!?!

    Holy shit, are you an idiot!

  10. 12

    righton spews:

    darryl, sorry, all you are doing is cementing your place in the hall of shame

    foremost is aptly defined for you up in post #6, looks like you omitted that word, which was key to the stupid guys quote…

  11. 13

    Michael spews:

    @6

    Thanks for the link, if you continue to listen to the talk puts things further into context later on and you get to understand the full meaning behind what he’s talking about. It only takes another 30 seconds or so of listening. I’m sure you can do it!

  12. 14

    Michael spews:

    @6

    With all the things going on the world that one could be legitimately peeved about you have to go and take something out of context and twist its meaning around to have something to be peeved about?

  13. 15

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 12

    No, you’re an idiot. The relevant quote with a different emphasis:

    One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

    The head of an agency isn’t the agency. Now, for your homework, what, exactly, would President Obama have to do in order to change NASA’s primary focus and function?

  14. 17

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Darryl spews @11:

    Ummm….”find[ing] a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim” is the same as defining the “agency’s #1 mission”?!?!

    Nice attempt at cherry picking the quote. But, Bolden used the word “foremost” (which you purposefully left out). When taken in context, as shown in the quote above, it’s clear that Bolden was instructed by President Obama that NASA’s foremost mission was to reach out to Muslim countries to make them feel good their contribution to math and science.

    Don Joe spews @15:

    So basically you are saying that if the President tells the Administrator of NASA what his agency’s foremost mission is, then he’s just supposed to ignore the President and do something else. Interesting theory.

    Now, for your homework, what, exactly, would President Obama have to do in order to change NASA’s primary focus and function?

    Pretty much what he did by telling the Administrator of NASA what he felt the foremost mission of NASA is. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

    If Congress doesn’t agree with NASA’s mission they can cut the funding for NASA. Checks and balances, separation of powers. Gee, I guess those Framer guys, were pretty smart after all.

  15. 18

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Michael spews @6:

    With all the things going on the world that one could be legitimately peeved about you have to go and take something out of context and twist its meaning around to have something to be peeved about?

    I posted the whole quote, please explain what I’m taking out of context.

  16. 19

    spews:

    ConservativeFirst,

    “Nice attempt at cherry picking the quote. But, Bolden used the word “foremost” (which you purposefully left out).”

    So, then, given the first two “charges”, you must truly believe that Obama was also trying to change NASA’s #1 and #2 missions to (1) taking over U.S. science and engineering education and (2) taking over the State Department?!?

    Bwwwwaaaaaahaaaahaaa! Holy shit…are you fucking retarded!!!

  17. 20

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 17

    So basically you are saying that if the President tells the Administrator of NASA what his agency’s foremost mission is…

    No. I’m saying that telling the head of NASA what his foremost mission is doesn’t change NASA’s foremost mission. That you continue to ignore this rather important factual distinction despite having it pointed out to you is one of the reasons that the rest of us are laughing at you.

    The other reason is:

    Pretty much what he did by telling the Administrator of NASA what he felt the foremost mission of NASA is.

    Even if we accept the factual premise of your argument, your conclusion is wrong. The President cannot change NASA’s mission through informal instructions to NASA’s chief administrator.

    In other words, you flunked your homework assignment. To begin your remedial study, start here.

  18. 21

    correctnotright spews:

    @5 IdiotPuddy
    Um,, did you even read what Arianna wrote?

    By the way, it is not Adrianna – but I don’t expect accuracy from a person who copies stuff from right wingnut blogs.

    She is right – Politifact blew it and she documents HOW they blew it. And Lynn Cheney – well, either she is a complete idiot and fool or she is lying. She is one or the other to not know what Halliburton has done.

    Oh, and Puddy supports Halliburton and the “fraud” they committed while ripping off our tax dollars.

  19. 22

    correctnotright spews:

    @17: Conservative first, stupid second

    Actually the quote is “perhaps foremost”..which means maybe. So your attempt at demogoguery is “perhaps” totally wrong.

  20. 23

    Steve spews:

    “it’s clear that Bolden was instructed by President Obama that NASA’s foremost mission was to reach out to Muslim countries to make them feel good”

    Good fucking grief!

    “To begin your remedial study, start here.”

    He’ll likely pass. For these guys it’s all about reinforcing some whack reality construct.

  21. 24

    Michael spews:

    @18

    You posted about 15 seconds out of a 20 minute interview. Your little snippet takes what he’s talking about out of context.

  22. 25

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Michael spews @18

    You posted about 15 seconds out of a 20 minute interview. Your little snippet takes what he’s talking about out of context.

    I think you have a problem with what the term “out of context” means. If you want to see an example, look at Darryl’s post at 11.

  23. 26

    spews:

    Michael @ 24,
    The real problem with the way Righton and ConservativeFirst “read” the quote isn’t really that they “took” it out of context. Rather, they just choose to layer on their own “interpretation” that defies any kind of common sense.

  24. 27

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Don Joe spews @20:

    No. I’m saying that telling the head of NASA what his foremost mission is doesn’t change NASA’s foremost mission.

    So the President of the United States tells someone who works directly for him to do something, and you expect the person, in this case the Administrator of NASA, to ignore the request. Sounds like a good way to get fired to me. I sincerely doubt the President has time to sit around and make meaningless requests of his employees.

    The President cannot change NASA’s mission through informal instructions to NASA’s chief administrator.

    Constitutionally, there is nothing barring the President from changing NASA’s mission in this manner. If you want to argue that it would be bad policy to do so, and there are political consequences to making such a change, then I would agree with you.

    From your link:

    Under the supervision and direction of the President, the Administrator shall be responsible for the exercise of all powers and the discharge of all duties of the Administration, and shall have authority and control over all personnel and activities thereof.

    Seems like the Administrator can do pretty much whatever he wants, under the supervision of the President. Please feel free to show me in The National Aeronautics and Space Act where it says the President can change the #1 mission of NASA, and I’d be more than happy to look at it.

    Darryl spews @19:

    So, then, given the first two “charges”, you must truly believe that Obama was also trying to change NASA’s #1 and #2 missions to (1) taking over U.S. science and engineering education and (2) taking over the State Department?!?

    If that’s that end result, yes. And that’s why this request was so ridiculous for the President (any President) to make of the Administrator of NASA, as well as irrelevant to your original comment on the accuracy of righton’s claim, was in and of itself, inaccurate. Something you are unwilling to admit.

    Steve spews @23:

    Good f*cking grief!

    (expletive deleted)

    Nice refutation.

  25. 28

    Steve spews:

    “Nice refutation.”

    Laughing at your sorry ass is refutation enough and probably more than you deserve.

  26. 29

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 27

    So the President of the United States tells someone who works directly for him to do something, and you expect the person, in this case the Administrator of NASA, to ignore the request.

    Again, no. Why do you insist on completely misrepresenting what I’ve said? Being ignorant is one thing. Being completely dishonest is quite another vice.

    I had pointed out that:

    The President cannot change NASA’s mission through informal instructions to NASA’s chief administrator.

    To which you replied:

    Constitutionally, there is nothing barring the President from changing NASA’s mission in this manner.

    Again, you are quite wrong. Article II, Section 3 clearly states that the President shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” When an agency is established by an act of Congress, and the general scope of that agency’s activities are outlined in that act of Congress, then two things are true:

    1) The only way the President can change the priorities of that agency is through an Executive Order; and

    2) That Executive Order cannot contradict the scope of activities that’s outlined in said act of Congress.

    These are fundamental principles of administrative law.

    Seems like the Administrator can do pretty much whatever he wants, under the supervision of the President.

    Does that include completely disregarding what the law itself says about the functions of the agency? Why did you stop reading at section 202, and not continue on to section 203.

    Please feel free to show me in The National Aeronautics and Space Act where it says the President can change the #1 mission of NASA, and I’d be more than happy to look at it.

    I believe that’s my point. If there is no statutory authority for the President to alter the set and order of functions outlined in section 203, then your fundamental factual premise is false.

    Or are you simply unable to keep your own argument straight?

  27. 30

    Michael spews:

    @25

    Nope! your use of the snippet, but not the following minute or so of conversation where he talks about what that little snippet of conversation means robs it of its context.

    Viewed in the context of everything else that is being discussed, there isn’t a single controversial thing being said.

  28. 31

    righton spews:

    except the head of NASA should not waste 5 minutes worrying about religion.

    i thought you guys were the “gov’t stay out of establishing a religion” bunch. Cross at cemetary bad; outreach to muslims good?