Apparently so; now I get a “This loser user does not exist” error message.

Next time I have nachos I am definitely putting hollandaise sauce on them.

At first I read that as “…smoldering pile of dildoes”. Which seemed oddly appropriate, in a kind of non-linear way.

Be my guest!

What’s the problem? Pizza guy’s plan is just great for the upper crust.

The video is totally fake. Just look at it–the kerning is all wrong.

One suggestion? I think the debate would have shed more light than heat (I think that’s what you meant) if you hadn’t a) headlined your post with “White House starts a mini-war in Africa” and b) falsely claimed that the action in question wasn’t authorized by Congress.

As I said, just a suggestion.

Sadly, no. Check the date.

Sorry, but this is just completely fucking insane. The President taking action with explicit Congressional authorization* is not a precedent for presidents taking action without Congressional authorization. (Note the words “with” and “without”? Those are two different things.)

And if the President doesn’t have “constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy”, that’ll come as news to the State Department.

*Doesn’t matter what Feingold says or doesn’t say now about what he thought or didn’t think at the time; the authorization is explicit in the text of the bill. As has been pointed out to you.

28 Days Later is one of the rare sequels that’s infinitely better than the original, at least partly because it doesn’t have Sandra Bullock in it.

That’s not single-payer; that’s a description of the public option. The part about “…the new public plan or an approved private plan” is kind of a tip-off that there’s more than one payer.

My first year in college, a friend with a talent for devious drinks threw a party and whipped up a batch of Zombies. It’s a punch made with light rum, dark rum, benedictine, lime juice and grenadine–75% 80-proof liquor, and it tastes like Hawaiian Punch. There were many people in the bathroom stalls that night, and many walking dead the next morning.

I’m not assuming anything about any response from Feingold. I’m reading the text of the goddamn bill (quoted upthread for your convenience). How about addressing that text, instead of trying to create a diversion with some bullshit call to Feingold? How about explaining how that text could conceivably be construed as not authorizing combat-equipped troops?

Or better still, you could just stop digging. You got called out on some egregiously dishonest bullshit; do the right thing and admit it.

Um…no. Obama the candidate never, never, never promised single payer. This is just more ODS bullshit.

For god’s sake, Dave, it’s in the motherfucking text of the bill. Did you not read the damn thing?

The law he linked to is not a hard read. It’s short and sweet and pretty clear about what Congress has authorized the President to do.

Yes, exactly. Specifically, it authorizes

providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters

Seems pretty clear to me. I have to wonder what bill Dave Dayen read.

In my experience, a dog may go for several days before finally resorting to eating the owner’s body. A cat, on the other hand, will only wait a day or two.

See, now, that’s why I respect cats so much more than dogs.

By the way: best title ever (which, given Mr. Bogg’s outstanding body of work, is saying a lot).

I’d rather have de facto support than lip service. Yeah, I know you’d like to hear that from him. I’d like him to beat the snot out of Bohner and McConnell. That would FEEL really good. But it would only hurt his chances.

This. The preference some progs have for things that FEEL good (often couched in terms like “fighting for” or “moving the Overton Window” or “using the bully pulpit”) over the far more frustrating, messy, compromise-riden process of actually getting things done–well, that preference is half of the basis for the term “emoprog”.

Outside of litigation (which isn’t within the President’s control), is anyone actually pushing to federalize the issue? Is there a Marriage Equality Act under consideration in Congress? Are LGBT rights organizations pushing for the Federal government to take it away from the states?

Answer: no. Because right now, in practical terms (which are the only terms that matter), letting the states deal with it is the only way to advance the ball; any effort to legislate nationwide marriage equality would crash and burn and almost certainly result in something even worse than DOMA. Yes, leaving it to the states is sub-optimal, but it’s less bad than having it decided at the federal level.

In the ’50s-’60s, obviously, the reverse was true. Pursuing federal action on civil rights was at least as much pragmatism as ‘principle’.

Missing the point, which is that regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the President’s (inconsequential and fundamentally irrelevant) comments on gay marriage, it’s deeply silly (given his record) to say “he’s not big on teh gheys”.