Rex Kickass

After reading about this and its associated Twitter feed.... I can honestly say... Oney represents the first four letters of twitter quite well. And twitter is the worst thing to happen to spelling in a long long time.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) Of course it's not. I'm glad you agree with me.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 08:39 AM) FYI Astroturfing an internet poll is not an accurate reflection of anything.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 07:21 PM) It must've been to save face at that point because he was getting increasingly irrelevant. Ish. Stupak was the difference between 214 and 220. If he stopped the bill, he loses a primary - that was very very very clear.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) I really don't know why this would be necessary either. That's been settled law for decades and I haven't seen any current legislation that's going to change it. To get Stupak and the four or five votes he has left in his bloc to flip to Yes, Obama promised an Executive Order that affirmed that federal funding for abortions in this act will not be possible due to the Hyde amendment. Stupak got nothing other than the President saying this won't change settled law on federally funded abortions.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2010 -> 08:29 PM) Well even right now, November looks so bad for the Democrats right now is because of the economy, not because of healthcare, like conservatives like to think right now. People's opinions on healthcare haven't really changed that much except for maybe some conservatives that were open to the idea a year ago aren't anymore and some liberals that wanted more don't like that the bill doesn't have a public option. It's not as bad as people think. It really isn't. I have a really hard time seeing how the Dems keep less than 54 seats in the Senate at the end of this year, and more than 20 seats in the House. It may seem like a tidal wave, but thats not really any seismic shift. A 54 seat majority can do about the same in the Senate as a 59 seat majority.

Prediction: It's going to be hard to view Health Care Reform act as a negative in six months. A lot of small benefits will have taken place immediately, anything viewed as a negative won't have taken place yet, and it'll all be about the economy in November, not health care. And that's probably going to be better for the Democrats than most people realize right now.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 08:14 PM) This is a copy of a lawsuit that's going to be filed about 10 minutes after they Slaughter this. I'm sure it will get attacked because of its source, but whatever. Again, AGAIN, for the reading impaired, it doesn't matter what the house has done in the past. Republican, Democrat, Camels, Bulls***, whatever party has ever been in charge makes no difference. You all want to go back to "past political occurances" of this, and I say again, AGAIN, it doesn't matter. That's not the point. It's pretty interesting to me the defenses you all keep saying. Oh, those obstructionist f***s, they won't vote for my bill! Please - you can't even get enough Democrats to vote for this so you have to shove this up our ass. There's never been a bill that mandates the purchase of a service from an exchange of the federal government, either. But, poor poor people who just need health care. STRAWMAN. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution The Article says that the House and Senate must concur on a bill. The House also, according to the Constitution, has the ability to set its own rules. Part of that includes the ability to do something like a deem and pass. By voting on the sidecar measure, they approve the Senate bill. If the Senate approves the same sidecar reconciliation measure, both Houses will have approved the Senate bill and the House amendments, creating a full bill that has been approved by both houses of Congress. It's not ideal, but its likely to meet the guidelines of Constitutional passage, especially since the 2005 act that Public Citizen sued over actually had two different versions pass in two different houses, but was signed into law and deemed valid under a court of law. It's very unlikely that a federal judge will rule on the internal workings of the Congressional process and throw out a law in doing so. To do so would be the very definition of judicial activism. Something else that Conservatives and the GOP seem to hate, until it benefits them.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 09:50 PM) Says who? It's not the same court case. I was answering someone else's question, and not responding to your post.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 08:41 PM) The Democrats spent eight years saying they weren't going to run the country like the Republicans, yet here you are digging up all of the ways that they are acting just like them. Congrats. You now are the party of Karl Rove style governance. I'm pretty sure that they haven't run the country like the Republicans. In fact when organizing the Senate in 2009, they went so far as to say that reestablishing the rules of the chamber would take a 67 vote supermajority, to prevent something like the "Nuclear Option" that the GOP proposed doing in 2005 from actually happening. Playing hardball with existing rules and using them in specific, extraordinary circumstances to pass a bill and not to change the way government is run, is not Karl Rove style governance. It's the way Congress works. And its the way its worked for centuries. It's not pretty, its not pie in the sky, but its how it works. What I think is most precious about this argument is that you argue that if the Democrats don't immediately fold into Republican obstructionism, they are clearly as bad as the people you identify with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 06:26 PM) Well, they were party to a lawsuit over it, right? They were actually, and the process was deemed constitutional in a court of law.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) Great post, but... I'd have voted NO on that congratulatory motion as well, because I find it obscene that Congress is wasting time on s*** like that. I'm sure that there were a few people who voted against this on that purpose alone. But I'm willing to wager that when the majority of a caucus votes against a nonbinding resolution of congratulations, it has nothing to do with wasting time on s*** like that.

The second, although neither are really great. The 83 retro cap would be my first choice.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Mar 18, 2010 -> 05:11 PM) Did you fall over once for good measure? Happened about 20 minutes after you posted this actually. Stuck at a red light, in front of about 50 pedestrians riding through Princeton University. Fat guy tipping over on his bike = hilarity!

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 10:42 AM) An "A" for sarcasm, an"F" for answering the question. Was there TWO bills invovled with the House's passage in 2005? Actually, yes. The house bill contained different language than the Senate bill. So technically there are two completely different bills that were combined and signed into law. In fact, in this case, IMO, it was very clear that two separate bills were passed because the language was completely different. In this case, the House passes a sidecar measure that attaches itself to a Senate bill that the House deems passed with approval to the sidecar measure. Since the sidecar measure, by extension, modifies the bill before it comes to the President's desk, and the Senate then has to vote on a reconciliation measure that matches the House sidecar nearly word for word that it isn't actually two separate bills. It's actually just a conference committee vote done a different way. It isn't an optimal solution, but it is a solution, and the Senate parliamentarian has determined that this is a constitutional way to get this bill to the President's desk. Given that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 showed that the court's basis for its decision was ample clear evidence that the bill was passed by both Houses, I suspect that this current procedure would also pass constitutional muster, even if unorthodox and not optimal. Of course none of this would be needed if the Senate Republicans weren't forcing the use of reconciliation on the bill rather than the use of conference committee because they are making virtually every piece of business clear the Senate with a 60 vote supermajority. But, please, keep ignoring that obstructionism. I don't like that the Democrats have to find a way to end run around the Republicans to get business to the President's desk for a signature, but the rampant obstructionism has proved that the Republicans are not negotiating in good faith, especially when they go to pretty extraordinary measures to oppose initiatives that they, themselves, proposed years earlier. We all know that politics plays a role in doing the people's business. However, politics needs to, at some point, give way to common sense and a dedication to actually achieving something for the people they represent. I would love to say that I think that the GOP caucus has that intent at heart, and I do think there are some individual representatives who do have that intent at their core. But by and large, the caucus seems to have decided that doing the business of the American people isn't as important as winning votes by constantly saying NO. Case in point, the majority of the Republican caucus has voted against such controversial things as rape victims who work for the government being able to confront their attacker in a court of law, and most recently against symbolic resolutions of congratulations.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 18, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) Please cite an example where the GOP used the "Gephardt Rule" to pass two bills with one vote. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Public Citizen sued over it. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter actually joined in. The lawsuit determined that a deem and pass rule is constitutional and acceptable.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 07:41 PM) You people who want to defend the Slaughter rule as something that is "just part of the game" are f***ing nuts. Deem and pass is another way to vote on legislation. It represents a vote on the legislation. It's also been around for about 80 years. Between 1994 and 2007, when Republicans held majorities in the house and senate, the Republican speaker of the house used the rule 172 times to pass legislation. Funny, I didn't see you b**** pissing and moaning about it then. If the self-executing rule didn't mean a vote, why is Kucinich's flip to a Yes vote such a big deal? Why is the house and the President spending weeks trying to whip yes votes on the bill? If you don't support the bill, you would vote against the self-executing rule (the deem and pass, or the Slaughter rule - because clearly the current Congresswoman made up the 80 year old rule). Just like if you want to stop a bill in the Senate, you call for cloture. Except the difference is, majority rule applies in a self-executing rule vote as well as in a vote on the actual bill itself. So, yes I support the Self-Executing Rule, because it still requires a vote - its about how the vote is phrased and how quickly the vote is taken. It can be a useful legislative tool when used properly, like in the case of giving the final vote to pass a bill that has been debated for nearly 12 months. And the current Speaker of the House is using it properly, if they even choose that route to pass it. But it's bulls*** you'll claim, because that's what the Fox News talking points that you constantly parrot tell you to say.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 07:49 AM) And again you seem to forget that various versions of the bill DID have enough votes to pass, but were blocked by some OTHER political sleight of hand, namely the 60-vote block in the Senate. The Dems want to use this Slaughter solution, the GOP uses the procedural filibuster. Neither really make sense on their face, but they are both part of the game. Do you accept both, or neither? The "slaughter solution" or "deem and pass" which are "non-voting" measures in the Congress actually consist of a vote. The vote is to approve the reconciliation amendment to the Senate bill, and then the house would deem the Senate bill approved. So by voting no to the reconciliation amendment, you are voting no to the Senate bill as well. From what I understand of it, and granted my knowledge of Congressional parliamentary procedure is not the greatest, in either case the Senate bill is considered. It'll be awful hard to talk about the Congress not voting on the bill when they vote on the bill in the "deem and pass" procedure, if that happens. Kucinich announced he's flipping to a yes vote on the Senate bill with reconciliation fixes. Whip count is 208 - Yes. With the Eric Massa resignation, majority in the house is currently 216. 15 Democratic Representatives have yet to commit to voting on this package. Of those 15, 10 of them voted for the original House measure. Unless two of those people flip to no, this passes and health care reform happens.

I went clipless on Sunday and I immediately noticed a difference on my bike. It feels like I'm using a different set of muscles actually, but I feel stronger and more confident than I did previously despite riding in a nor'easter that felt like a hurricane.

David McCallum - The Edge Monkey - O Mi To Fu David Bowie - Superman MIA - Paper Planes Brian Wilson - Southern California The Clash - Ivan Meets G.I. Joe Clap Your Hands Say Yeah - Is This Love? Clap Your Hands Say Yeah - Heavy Metal Jurassic 5 - in The House REM - At My Most Beautiful Baker's 11th Daft Punk - Harder, Better, Stronger, Faster

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 9, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) Are they made of carbon fiber? Aluminum and Titanium actually, so its close!

Eric Massa is going on Glenn Beck today for a full hour to claim that he was forced out of Congress because he wouldn't support health care reform. (Never mind that the other 38 Democrats who chose not to vote for the measure weren't forced out of Congress.) Unfortunately, its coming out that the real reason isn't cancer, or politics. It's playing grabby with male intern's privates. Rather than face the investigation publicly. And now he's making all sorts of noise about another issue that he's trying to drown out the real story. It's like McGreevy all over again. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0030902157.html

QUOTE (The Critic @ Mar 9, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) I'm with you. Sweet old lady who swears. Not that big a deal. She's carrying Bea Arthur's torch these days. What's not to love!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2010 -> 11:35 AM) I did some research on calorie burn riding - lots of factors in play there, including your weight, the bike and tire type, and how hard you are riding. My 12 mile round trip commute, on an MTB, at my weight (~230 nowadays), on knobbies, running basically as hard as I can and still make it at the same speed (take sme about 25 minutes each way), it looks like I burn something like 600-900 calories per day, depending on what site you look at. At a slower pace but doing 50 miles, 2000 is probably a good range. RAGBRAI, I was doing 80 miles a day for 7 days straight. But that was on a nice lightweight road bike, and was keeping a more moderate pace. But still, I'd guess that was 3000-4000 calories a day added to the norm. I figure this stuff out now using mapmyride.com. Which is by the way an awesome site to track your progress and workout schedule, etc. You can even map out your rides and share them with your friends - or get an iPhone or Blackberry app which will map and post your ride online for you via GPS.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2010 -> 11:45 AM) Getting the bike fitted may indeed include some purchases. I had extenders added to my pedals, for example, but it was fairly cheap as I recall. If you want to do longer rides, fitting is a must, IMO. Other things to help your nether regions - really good biking shorts with good padding... a better seat than what your bike came with (Selle San Marco rocks, but there are other good ones too)... and the right biking shoes and gloves too (indirectly will both help keep you comfortable). And if you plan on riding the desert, invest in some nice riding sunglasses. Rudy Project is great, other brands are good too, but that glare and refelctive heat will be something fierce out there, so don't mess up your eyes. Desert also means rocks and dust. I can't imagine a place to ride where sunglasses are more important than the desert. Believe it or not, cheapie Nashbar sunglasses are actually really really good for eye protection. Too bad they aren't sturdy.