Agenda Free Friday

Resurrecting an old favorite, casual and free form Friday, as suggested by our trail friend Rebellious Renee. Have at it, Mixers, however the spirit moves you.

 

 

Share
23 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Blue Bronc
5 years ago

Friday’s used to come with the possibility of late afternoon indictments or even an early morning raid, but now those are gone.  SDNY is silent, states are silent and the DOJ seems to be a Russian agency.  I have not heard of a replacement for Friday entertainment and thrills.
 

Jamie44
5 years ago

After those entries, I couldn’t resist:

Pogo
5 years ago

Mrs. P told me it’s not appropriate for me to take my clothes off to post here from the office today.

I tried to build a post with quotes from NYT this morning but got distracted and it disappeared.  The short version is that the EPA is trying to poison the water supplies near sources of PFAS (toxic chemical used by the USAF at numerous airfields in fire suppression).  

What did I see on the chyron (is that the right term?) on MSNBC this morning?  Bernie launches offensive against Biden.  Bernie’s gonna fuck it up again if he isn’t the nominee.  Prick.

RebelliousRenee
5 years ago

patd…   thanks for putting this up.  I meant to send you a thread with a cartoon last night…  but I forgot.  I’m all wrapped up with the Bruins in the hockey playoffs.

I just ordered The Mueller Report on Amazon.  “They” say it reads like a book…  hope so.

Jamie44
5 years ago

XR from yesterday.  I have you on Tax

 

Katherine Graham Cracker
5 years ago

I don’t get it why is he still president.  People need to stand up and yell   toward DC   GETOUTYOUF—ingAsshole  no one likes you or wants you tobe president except for creepy liars like your self.
 
or whatever you would like to say to   him    I’m  sure your neighbors will want to join in
Bernie hmmm jeeze  Our most diehard Bernies are starting to talk more favorable about E Warren
She is doing a good job 
 

Katherine Graham Cracker
5 years ago

I think we should start referring to the economy as the Obama economy –that might drive him around the bend….and of course it’s true

Pogo
5 years ago

Max Boot’s column at WaPo today about SFB’s lawlessness is worth every minute it takes to read it (which is probably only 3 minutes) .  

 In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen,pleaded guiltyto secretly paying off — in violation of federal campaign finance laws — two women with whom Trump was alleged to have been involved. He did so, Cohen testified under oath, “in coordination with and at the direction of” the president.
 
At the beginning of April, another allegation of Trump trying to break the law arose when CNN and the New York Times reported that the president had told Kevin McAleenan, the Customs and Border Protection commissioner who is now acting secretary of homeland security, not to admit refugees who have a legal right to apply for asylum. Trump reportedly promised to pardon McAleenan if he were imprisoned.
 
Then came the release of the Mueller report, which documented at least six incidentsin which Trump’s conduct met all of the tests for obstruction of justice. Moreover, the report reveals that Trump on three occasionsordered the Justice Departmentto investigate his political rival Hillary Clinton. This may not be a violation of the law, but it is a perversion of justice that would certainly constitute an impeachable offense.
 
The House has responded to these and other revelations by stepping up its investigations. Trump and his administration have responded by showing their contempt for Congress and its lawful subpoena powers.
 
The Justice Department is refusing to share with Congress a fully unredacted version of the Mueller report along with the supporting evidence in defiance of a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee. (Attorney General William P. Barr says he will let some members of Congress see a version with fewer redactions.)
[… continues…]

Take the time – read it.  

xrepublican
5 years ago

Lock ’em ALL up !

Jamie44
5 years ago

Reading another Gary Hart book:  The Courage of Our Convictions.  The more I read his writings, the more I think the nation missed a real bet in that scandal.  I’ve decided that if a politician (male of female) has an affair, is discreet, and doesn’t brag or commit any crimes, they should be let off the hook.  This applies to virtually every office holder ever with SFB being one of the few obvious guilty parties.   

He opens with a quote by Yeats

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

That passionate intensity always so near the crusader’s soul, is a far different thing from genuine conviction rooted in principle, history, and moral purpose.  Though there is often a fine line between them, in that difference rests the integrity of a democratic republic.

Like pride, conviction is one of those rare qualities resisting excess.  It is possible to have either too much or too little of both.  In the mind of the dictator, too much conviction is the source of tyranny.  In the mind of the democrat, too little conviction is the source of drift and calculation.

Jamie44
5 years ago

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin:  “I regret my role” in Hillary Clinton’s false equivalence.  

So long as President Trump continues disgracing the Oval Office, thoughtful people will probe their own role in helping him get there.

Pogo
5 years ago

While most stuff in the news today is bullshitte – Trump said this or that, Barr says this or that, Bernie! says this or that … there  is a blockbuster ruling from the KANSAS Supreme Court that has to have the Kansas right to lifers going funking nutz.

Kansas Supreme Court rules state constitution protects abortion rights, a decision that could lead to challenges in other states
The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s constitution fundamentally protects abortion rights, blocking a state law that aimed to restrict a common abortion procedure and declaring that Kansans have a right to access abortion regardless of federal court decisions.
 
Judges ruled 6-1 on Friday morning that the Kansas constitution protects the “right of personal autonomy,” meaning state law cannot abridge the right “to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.”
 
[Read the Kansas Supreme Court decision]
 
Abortion rights advocates immediately seized on the ruling as a landmark decision that could have widespread implications, providing a pathway to override restrictive state laws elsewhere along with battling any potential federal court efforts to limit abortion rights protected by 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision. Those opposed to abortion said the ruling was extreme, and Kansas groups vowed to seek a state constitutional amendment — as other states have — to block certain abortion rights.
 
“This will make Kansas a haven state in the Midwest if federal laws protecting abortion are overturned or significantly limited or undercut in other states,” Scott said.
 
The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision potentially provides a bulwark against any decisions the U.S. Supreme Court might make in abortion cases, experts said, at a time when abortion rights activists fear it could reverse course on Roe with a clear conservative majority in place. Those who oppose abortion are working on several ways to limit abortion in the states and via Congress, and they are hopeful that a case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court so that abortion rights could be broadly restricted.
 
Congress still has the power to pass laws restricting abortion — such as late-term abortions, for example — and a federal ban would supersede any state law, said Michael I. Meyerson, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
 
[continues]

Unless repugns recapture the House I can’t imagine on what planet Meyerson believes a Federal ban would be passed by a congress with democratic control of either chamber.  And get the irony here, please.  The right to lifers, who have been pushing hard in the states to get restrictive laws passed are now talking about trying to get relief in Congress and the Supreme Court after saying  that the decision should be made in the states, until of course one of the states decides that its constitution protects right to choose.  

xrepublican
5 years ago

You may have seen this lately.
Study: Green New Deal would have ‘no effect’ on climate change https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/study-green-new-deal-would-have-no-effect-on-climate-change/

An effective response is, 
“So you finally accept global warming. You just don’t believe it’s reversible without massive tax breaks for the top 1% of the top 1%.”
 
 
 

xrepublican
5 years ago

Congress has the power to vote to end abortion. During six babybush years, both houses of Congress were under republicani rule. While rippers had the White House and a republicani majority in the Supreme Court, the rip up Congress couldn’t get its act together to end legal abortion. Obviously, with that issue out of the way, nearly half of republicans would have switched party. Anti-choicery is nothing more than a method for dishonest pols to squeeze money money and votes from actual conservatives through fraud. The republican Party will never ever end abortion.

Pogo
5 years ago

XR, with all due respect, such a vote would violate the constitutional framework outlined under the right of privacy (the penumbra of rights articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut in which the right of privacy that extends to reproductive decisions under Roe v. Wade falls).  Unless the Supreme Court were to reverse the holding of Roe – a distinct possibility with this Court – the statute that such a vote would enact would be unconstitutional.  It would be as void as a statute enacted by Congress banning religion or private ownership of guns.

And that AEI study – Bull shitte. A”new study from the American Enterprise Institute” says all you need to know about the study. I’d love to see the study methodology prospectus. I’m sure it would not conform to any statistical study norms and would put C before A & B.

xrepublican
5 years ago

Yes, Mr Pogo, the Supreme Court could flush Griswold and put a stop to abortion. But, that would ruin the chance that a republican would ever again enter the White House or be nominated for the Supremes.