Huffy Flounce

REO Speedwagon lied?

They clearly resumed fighting the feeling before it was even the nineties.

So how did the debate go today?

Who cares. Star Wars, man!!

I recently ordered some video converter hardware and software. I'm going to start converting a lot of my VHS tapes to digital. Here's something I found on one of the tapes:



It's from a Saturday morning cartoon block on CBS. From 1984, obviously. The quality's not great, but the tape is over thirty years old and has been watched hundreds of times. The original file looked better, but YouTube optimized for the Web. I need to figure out if there's some way around that.

I met Mondale once. The late Mrs. Mondale as well. Very nice people. We had a 15-30 second conversation which was interrupted by some jackass spotting him from across the floor of the convention center and yelling "SENATOR! DO YOU REMEMBER ME? I WAVED AT YOU FROM ACROSS THE STREET AT THAT PARADE LAST YEAR!"

Walter gave me a look of "I'm very sorry, but I need to go before he gets over here," waved at the man and took off the other direction.

Probably the last chance I'll ever have to pick the brain of a Vice President of the United States. If I ever see that loudmouth guy who interrupted us again I'm going to punch him square in the nose.

That guy's a plant. Mondale uses these "interruptions" to excuse himself from conversations.

It's an old Hollywood trick. It's a variation on being ushered on down the red carpet by security. The star signs an autograph or two, reaches for a new pen to sign another autograph, and security flanks him and reminds him that he needs to get inside the theater in a timely fashion. The star smiles and shrugs at the fans and feigns disappointment. "Sorry," he mouths. He waves and walks away, and the fans who didn't get an autograph don't feel as bad about it as they otherwise might have. They go away thinking, He sure was a nice guy. Too bad security wouldn't let him hang around. Once he's inside the theater, he thanks security for pulling him away from the commoners.

See, I'd believe that to be true were it not for the fact that Bill Clinton was about twenty feet away and being mobbed by adoring fans while Sen. Mondale was being almost completely ignored. Hell, I almost missed him. I had rushed up to try to shake Clinton's hand, was unable to get through the six-deep crowd, turned back to leave and then boom. Walter Mondale.

Though I freely admit he may have been getting ready to mob Clinton as well and he could've used the plant to get me out of his way.

Clinton loves the mob. Mondale doesn't.

Good man that Mondale. Meeting him is pretty much a rite of passage for Minnesotans. Just like how everyone in England gets to meet Prince Charles at one point or another.

I had tea with him last week. And crumpets.

Was your top hat taller than his? I hope you didn't break decorum!

His hat is tallest of all.

*BREAKING NEWS*

UK Bans Pharrell for Life

His hat fu is weak.

So I kinda let this thread wither, but it looks like Hillary's taken the safe route with her choice of running mate. My guess is they will now make a concerted effort to woo as many of the disaffected white, working class male voters who currently lean towards Trump.

Adam54 wrote:Realistically, Sanders can't win a general election. I don' t see it possible when he's spent thirty years proclaiming himself a socialist. That's a dirty, dirty word to far too much of the country.

But if he's in the primary race against the other Democrats, his presence alone will be enough to change the debate. Look at Ross Perot in 92 for an example. Ideally, Sanders (or Warren) would pull Hillary to the left, and hopefully after she wins, she'd avoid Obama's mistakes and stay somewhere over there.

It's a tough thing for me to articulate even in my own brain, so I hope that makes more sense.

This might be the only bold proclamation of mine to turn out to be correct in this entire campaign.

Space Tycoon wrote:Lincoln Chafee: Hilary's Iraq vote "disqualifies" her: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... alify-her/

Well, I quite agree. Between him and Jim Webb, I don't think she's got this one as locked up as some might hope...

I heard an interesting take on this a couple of months ago which completely changed my opinion on her Iraq vote.

It was a year after 9/11, she was a freshman Senator from New York (you know, where 9/11 happened), and the vote was essentially to give Bush a badge and a gun based at least in small part on al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq and of course in large part due to Saddam's alleged WMDs.

Ultimately, of course it turned out to be a stupid vote, but at the time...politically? What else could she possibly do in that scenario?

Plenty of New Yorkers lived through 9/11 and opposed the Iraq War. Millions, I would guess.

At the time, politically it was the safe choice, sure. But the fact she has never repudiated it is really the issue. She owns it just as much as any Republican neocon.

My position is unchanged; Clinton is a militarist who stands for a dangerous, destructive foreign policy.

Unless I've missed something lately. Lord knows I don't stay abreast as much as I should. I haven't even touched a breast in months.

Clinton's choice for running mate is a Roman Catholic with a complicated history in abortion's regard. I'm sure some will be focusing on this. Some may take it as evidence of her moving back to the right now that she has the nomination. Some may take it as evidence of her willingness to compromise and work outside her comfort zone. Some may Fake Strider it.

Space Tycoon wrote:Plenty of New Yorkers lived through 9/11 and opposed the Iraq War. Millions, I would guess.

At the time, politically it was the safe choice, sure. But the fact she has never repudiated it is really the issue. She owns it just as much as any Republican neocon.

My position is unchanged; Clinton is a militarist who stands for a dangerous, destructive foreign policy.

Unless I've missed something lately. Lord knows I don't stay abreast as much as I should. I haven't even touched a breast in months.

I don't necessarily disagree, but after hearing that perspective I just have enough reasonable doubt now that I think it's well within the realm of possibility that she only made that vote for the politics of it, rather than her eagerness to go to war.

I'd be inclined to feel the same, if it weren't for the bloody legacy of her husband.

I can only go by precedent.

And really, if she took that position based on "the politics of it," as opposed to either her conscience or a genuine concern for national security... then I have even less reason to respect it.

Space Tycoon wrote:I can only go by precedent.

I feel like I'm being baited into making a pretty obvious pun.

Space Tycoon wrote:And really, if she took that position based on "the politics of it," as opposed to either her conscience or a genuine concern for national security... then I have even less reason to respect it.

I was going to say something along these lines. Well, what I was going to say was that it certainly didn't make it any *better*.

The Swollen Goiter of God wrote:

Space Tycoon wrote:I can only go by precedent.

I feel like I'm being baited into making a pretty obvious pun.

Huh. Good one. I had no idea at the time...

Alcohol. Frees the mind, locks up logic.

Whattaya gonna do.