New Bush counselor has extensive lobbying ties.
New Bush counselor has extensive lobbying ties.
“The line between lobbying the federal government and running it just got blurrier.” New Bush counselor Ed Gillespie “will enter the White House with recent lobbying ties to dozens of companies seeking the federal government’s help on everything from proposed acquisitions to patent disputes.”
Gillespie…is a partner in Quinn Gillespie & Associates LLC, a lobbying firm whose clients include: Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI), which needs antitrust approval to acquire a rival; Qualcomm (QCOM), which wants Bush to veto a federal agency’s ban on imported cell phones made with its chips; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group trying to limit drug industry regulation. [...]
Despite the potential for conflicts of interest, Gillespie won’t be forced in his new role to recuse himself from all matters related to the companies he has lobbied for, said Ken Gross, a Washington-based attorney and former associate general counsel with the Federal Election Commission.
Instead, Gillespie will have to decide on a case-by-case basis if his activities could violate federal ethics standards.
UPDATE: Gillespie had a tough time explaining himself to reporters today:
What he hoped would be an informal chat with a few journalists on hand quickly became an initiation into life as an official part of the White House — and in this case, an unpopular one. …
“It’s going to be fun. I can’t wait. It’s exciting,” he assured everyone, including, it almost seemed, himself. [...]
Suddenly, a digital recorder appeared. The jocularity evaporated, and Gillespie immediately found himself trying not to say who his lobbying clients were.
“We have about 45 clients at the firm, and 29 people there, and I work on all kinds … it’s hard to say …” he said, before finally admitting to having some telecommunications and financial service companies in the firm’s docket.
“I wasn’t actually here to do an interview — I just wanted to say hi,” he pleaded. And so, back to generalities.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Gillespie is a Bush butt kisser and a lobbyist whore as well.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pm“Gillespie will have to decide on a case-by-case basis if his activities could violate federal ethics standards.”
Yeah, I can see that happening.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:00 pmYeah, I can see that happening.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — June 13, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
What?
Give the guy a chance.
Don’t you see that when you base your character judgments on whether or not the man has Bush’s endorsement, that you are nonetheless being controlled by Bush.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm“Gillespie will have to decide on a case-by-case basis if his activities could violate federal ethics standards.â€
Yeah, I can see that happening.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
Right, cuz these people do such a good job policing themselves.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:08 pm*eyes rolling*
Don’t you see that when you base your character judgments on whether or not the man has Bush’s endorsement, that you are nonetheless being controlled by Bush.
Comment by Mr. President
You don’t care — remember?
June 13th, 2007 at 11:08 pm…and your point is?
June 13th, 2007 at 11:12 pm.
Well, it makes perfect sense to bring Gillespie back on board Duhhbya’s team – he knows exactly which papers to shred.
.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:13 pmYeah, I can see that happening.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
Right, cuz these people do such a good job policing themselves.
*eyes rolling*
Comment by Zooey
Whatever happened to the good old days when Presidents wouldn’t appoint somebody who appeared to have a conflict?
June 13th, 2007 at 11:13 pmYou don’t care — remember?
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
I don’t care about Dems and Reps and all that nonsense.
But I do care about m’ peeps (you guys, that is, not the politicians), and I don’t think that it is healthy for any of us to go assuming things (that’s just not logical).
June 13th, 2007 at 11:13 pmBut I do care about m’ peeps (you guys, that is, not the politicians), and I don’t think that it is healthy for any of us to go assuming things (that’s just not logical).
Comment by Mr. President
That’s nice, Mr P, we’re your peeps. Heh.
Anyhoo, you really can’t decide for someone else what is healthy or not. It’s up to us. I’m sure if we discover some assumption has been unhealthy for us, we tell you right away.
Jane’s assumption seems pretty safe, but if I’m wrong, I’ll apologize.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pmTP,
Subscription required for your update link. Geez….
June 13th, 2007 at 11:25 pmJane’s assumption seems pretty safe, but if I’m wrong, I’ll apologize.
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
Oh, no need to apologize, Zooey.
Both of us were just lookin’ out for each other.
I pointed out that Jane’s comment might reflect a subconscious presupposition, and you merely informed me that her presupposition may, in fact, be correct anyway.
But that was not my point.
Regardless, *if* Jane’s comment was the product of a prejudice (even a subconscious prejudice) then it is still an unhealthy attitude.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:26 pmSame old, same old.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:26 pmMr P,
Shhhhhh…….
Thanks.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:28 pmMr P,
Shhhhhh…….
Thanks.
Comment by Zooey
Zooey, can’t you put him to bed earlier so he doesn’t get so hyperactive.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:32 pmGillespie is one of the Tom DeLay/Jack Abramoff/Bob Ney thugs…look closely and you will see his picture and if you click his picture it will indicate his ties.
http://www.dccc.org/gopauctionhouse/main.html
June 13th, 2007 at 11:35 pmZooey, can’t you put him to bed earlier so he doesn’t get so hyperactive.
Comment by shane
My bad….
June 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pmMr P,
Shhhhhh…….
Thanks.
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
What?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!1
All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t judge this guy before he has had a chance to prove himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
June 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pmI see Nihilism becoming valid quite rapidly.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pmYes Zooey, won’t you please come and put me to bed?
June 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pmAll I’m saying is that we shouldn’t judge this guy before he has had a chance to prove himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Comment by Mr. President
He’s proven himself already. See #16.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:39 pmAnyhoo, you really can’t decide for someone else what is healthy or not. It’s up to us
Like seatbelt laws ZING!!!!!!!
Got it in, Whoooot
June 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pmYes Zooey, won’t you please come and put me to bed?
Comment by Mr. President
Come here, Mr P, I’ll rock you to sleep…….with this great big rock. :D
June 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pmYes Zooey, won’t you please come and put me to bed?
Or vice versa
June 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pm“Gillespie will have to decide on a case-by-case basis if his activities could violate federal ethics standards.â€
LOL!! Funniest thing I’ve heard all day!
June 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pmHe’s proven himself already. See #16.
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
That wasn’t coming up a minute ago, let me check it out.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pmLOL!! That’s a good one.
As if this scumbag lobbyist can police himself.
LOL! That one just doesn’t get old!!
June 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pmPeople who fear public scrutiny should not hold public office. Period.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pmThat’s like expecting Jack Abramff to keep himself honest! LOL!!
June 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmGillespie is one of the Tom DeLay/Jack Abramoff/Bob Ney thugs…look closely and you will see his picture and if you click his picture it will indicate his ties.
http://www.dccc.org/gopauctionhouse/main.html
Comment by kasinca — June 13, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
Dude’s picture is not there.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmOr vice versa
Comment by Tundra
Hey! They have to be older than my kids — that’s the rule!
June 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmDude’s picture is not there.
Comment by Mr. President
It’s there. It’s not labeled with his name, it’s labeled “Republican National Committee.”
June 13th, 2007 at 11:48 pmCome here, Mr P, I’ll rock you to sleep…….with this great big rock. :D
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
I’m not into all that kinky stuff.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:48 pmIf there is (R) after their name, they are thugs and should be in prison…they have ties with the crime family.
http://www.dccc.org/gopauctionhouse/main.html
June 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pm“Gillespie will have to decide on a case-by-case basis if his activities could violate federal ethics standards.â€
LOL!! I can’t stop laughing!
Did that guy actually say this wit out cracking up?
How could he keep a straight face?!? LOL!!
June 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pmI’m not into all that kinky stuff.
Comment by Mr. President
It wouldn’t be for long. It’s a nice big rock, with jagged edges….
June 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pmComment by kasinca — June 13, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
The man is a lobbyist, just because he lobbys for causes that you don’t care for, does not mean that he should go to prison.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pmMr. Pee, in addition to the fact that Gillespie has been a lobbyist connected to the Duke Cunningham scandal, he was also the head of the RNC. Sorry if you think I’m being presumptuous, but I don’t trust anyone whose job description includes lying, smearing, etc. I’ve heard him lie enough times to form an opinion, cynical though that opinion may be.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pmIt wouldn’t be for long. It’s a nice big rock, with jagged edges….
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Well… I’ll try anything once (no homo), I guess…
June 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pm#37. If you support the crime family, you belong in prison, asswipe.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:54 pmI’ve heard him lie enough times to form an opinion, cynical though that opinion may be.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — June 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
I hope that the cynicism doesn’t have negative effects on the rest of your life Jane.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:55 pm#37. If you support the crime family, you belong in prison, asswipe.
Comment by kasinca — June 13, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
No need to be rude.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pmI hope that the cynicism doesn’t have negative effects on the rest of your life Jane.
Comment by Mr. President
Jesus, you’re making me puke….
June 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pmJesus, you’re making me puke….
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
I’m not into that…
June 13th, 2007 at 11:57 pm#42. Tee it up. It is time to be rude to the thugs in the reichwing. You freaks have had your day and now it is time to pay. No more screwing with my country and our constitution, wacko.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pmErratum: post #44) should read -
“I’m not in ta that…”
June 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pmThank you for your concern for my welfare, Mr. Pee, but it is misplaced. Most of the time I trust people until they give me reason not to, thus my “healthy” mistrust of politicians in general – and that does include Democrats, too.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pmGillespie will decide for himself whether something violates ethics?
OMG
Give me a break.
Nothing seems inappropriate or unseemly to Bush&Co. They have no ethics. No integrity. They have a common goal of enriching themselves and their cronies. Period.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:59 pmComment by kasinca — June 13, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
I don’t think I like your tone.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:00 amNothing seems inappropriate or unseemly to Bush&Co. They have no ethics. No integrity. They have a common goal of enriching themselves and their cronies. Period.
Comment by Marie — June 13, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
Excuse me.
The RNC has a strict code of efficks.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:00 amDid you actually expect anything different from these guys?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:01 am#49. I never have liked your shit ass tone. Go screw yourself, alfie.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:02 amJane’s assumption seems pretty safe, but if I’m wrong, I’ll apologize.
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
Betcha 10 to 1 that you won’t have to apologize.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:02 am#49. I never have liked your shit ass tone. Go screw yourself, alfie.
Comment by kasinca — June 14, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Well, now you’re just acting childish.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:03 amZooey, can’t you put him to bed earlier so he doesn’t get so hyperactive.
Comment by shane
Too much sugar, Zooey…
June 14th, 2007 at 12:03 amCome here, Mr P, I’ll rock you to sleep…….with this great big rock. :D
Comment by Zooey
Psst, Zooey, tell him he’s won a door prize…
June 14th, 2007 at 12:05 ammy “healthy†mistrust of politicians in general – and that does include Democrats, too.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — June 13, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
Whooot Jane!!!!!!
I think I am in love. hey wanna see a neat statistic (Granted it’s kinda bogus but hey fun to look at)
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
If you do the quiz you will see that Libertarians and centrists make up over 60%
June 14th, 2007 at 12:05 am#54- Typical thug supporting asswipe. Accuse others of your own actions. Take a psychology course, shit for brains. You do nothing but show your ass on this board. You are a 28% moron, a knuckle dragging troglodyte, too ignorant to see outside your shell. Go to hell
June 14th, 2007 at 12:08 ama knuckle dragging troglodyte
I must inform you that that term is reserved expressly for us members of the Libertarian party thank you :)
June 14th, 2007 at 12:13 amToo much sugar, Zooey…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Yep, that’s what all the guys say….
June 14th, 2007 at 12:13 amTypical thug supporting asswipe. Accuse others of your own actions. Take a psychology course, shit for brains. You do nothing but show your ass on this board. You are a 28% moron, a knuckle dragging troglodyte, too ignorant to see outside your shell. Go to hell
Comment by kasinca
Mr. Pbrain takes philosophy instead of psychology. That’s why he has no clue that he’s acting out and annoying everybody around him. He is quite impressed with himself every time he can use last terms philosophy lesson to impress the poster her. If he took psychology he’d know how little we give a shit.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:14 amYou are a 28% moron, a knuckle dragging troglodyte, too ignorant to see outside your shell. Go to hell
Comment by kasinca
I thought that was the Mighty Venus…..?
No, sorry, that’s troglodyke.
Nevermind.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:15 amYep, that’s what all the guys say….
Comment by Zooey — June 14, 2007 @ 12:13 am
Zooey, I swear… that’s never happened to me before.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:15 amYep, that’s what all the guys say….
Comment by Zooey
(Blush)… well, if ya got it, strut it….
June 14th, 2007 at 12:15 amMr. Pbrain takes philosophy instead of psychology. That’s why he has no clue that he’s acting out and annoying everybody around him. He is quite impressed with himself every time he can use last terms philosophy lesson to impress the poster her. If he took psychology he’d know how little we give a shit.
Comment by shane — June 14, 2007 @ 12:14 am
Yeah!!!
Thanx for stickin’ up 4 me shane.
Why don’t you go to hell, kASSinca!
(Oh, and I have taken psyc. as well, so there!)
June 14th, 2007 at 12:17 amThanks, Tundra! I took the quiz, and, of course, turned up Liberal. Have you been to http://www.politicalcompass.org? It’s similar, but you can compare yourself to some famous historical figures.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:17 amDon’t you see that when you base your character judgments on whether or not the man has Bush’s endorsement, that you are nonetheless being controlled by Bush.
Comment by Mr. President
You are really reaching there Pal. I thought you had more common sense. Lets take Annes book Godless liberals crap for instance. Is she controlled by the Godless Liberals because she is a group thinker who bases her entire ludicrous ideology on perceived character judgements?
Or is she the Godless liberal?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:26 amComment by Jane E. Schneider — June 14, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Basically I end up between Friedman and the Dalai lama heh,
I guess that’s a fair place to be for me, there are much worse on there (In my opinion of course)
June 14th, 2007 at 12:28 amBasically I end up between Friedman and the Dalai lama heh,
Comment by Tundra
I ended up more Liberal and Libertarian than Ghandi or Mandela.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:29 amComment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 12:26 am
More common-sense!!!
YOU should know that ANY political statement will be in concord AND discord with other political statements.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:33 amComment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 12:26 am
I call shenanigans!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a Stella imposter!!!!!!!!!!!
The REAL Stella does not read books!!!!!!!!
Especially by Ann Coulter!!!!!!!!!
June 14th, 2007 at 12:35 amYOU should know that ANY political statement will be in concord AND discord with other political statements.
Comment by Mr. President
I’d like to see you prove that bit of political horse plop.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:35 amI ended up more Liberal and Libertarian than Ghandi or Mandela.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Me too:
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56
Cool.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:36 am(Oh, and I have taken psyc. as well, so there!)
Comment by Mr. President
Next time try Abnormal Psychology.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:38 amThe REAL Stella does not read books!!!!!!!! Especially by Ann Coulter!!!!!!!!! Comment by Mr. President
You need to get your crystal ball checked for cracks MP. You are making an untrue statement (s) and are guessing, which BTW is not ‘common sense’
I could say Mr President uses a speak and spell but that wouldn’t be true now would it? But If use YOUR common sense it is
June 14th, 2007 at 12:39 amNext time try Abnormal Psychology.
Comment by shane — June 14, 2007 @ 12:38 am
Oh, I see.
Then maybe I’ll understand YOU better!!!!!
June 14th, 2007 at 12:40 amI could say Mr President uses a speak and spell but that wouldn’t be true now would it? But If use YOUR common sense it is
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Alright, alright.
But why ask about Ann Coulter?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:41 amThen maybe I’ll understand YOU better!!!!!
Comment by Mr. President
Ya know, I have been around the internet for quite some tiime, and it never fails to amuse me that people, for some odd reason, think they know someone from what is nothing more than text on a screen.
Then again, maybe I am your neighbor and you don’t know I’m messing with your head.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:43 amBut why ask about Ann Coulter?
Comment by Mr. Preside
I didn’t ask about her, I said use her book as an example, that is of how people try paint each other into their psyche. If it makes you feel better use Al Frankens name instead.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:46 amYa know, I have been around the internet for quite some tiime, and it never fails to amuse me that people, for some odd reason, think they know someone from what is nothing more than text on a screen.
Then again, maybe I am your neighbor and you don’t know I’m messing with your head.
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 12:43 am
So.
If they were talking in person, all they would really have to know someone is the empirical observations. Exactly like text on a screen.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:47 amThen again, maybe I am your neighbor and you don’t know I’m messing with your head.
Comment by Stella Octangula
Is that you, Trinary Suka?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:48 amI didn’t ask about her, I said use her book as an example, that is of how people try paint each other into their psyche. If it makes you feel better use Al Frankens name instead.
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 12:46 am
I say that they are all political reactions to other political actions (and those other “political actions” are themselves reactions, etc. etc. etc.)
June 14th, 2007 at 12:48 amIf they were talking in person, all they would really have to know someone is the empirical observations. Exactly like text on a screen.
Comment by Mr. President
Your talking opinions. Empirical observations would require someone to observe actions, not opinions.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:50 amYour talking opinions. Empirical observations would require someone to observe actions, not opinions.
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 12:50 am
But how would discover what those opinions were if not through communication of some sort?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:52 amI say that they are all political reactions to other political actions (and those other “political actions†are themselves reactions, etc. etc. etc.)
Comment by Mr. President
You say po tah toe
I say po tay toe.
I say mental masturbation
June 14th, 2007 at 12:52 amYou say political actions
#84 – But how would *one* discover what those opinions were if not through communication of some sort?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:54 amBut how would discover what those opinions were if not through communication of some sort?
Comment by Mr. President
Define communication. If i chased you with a baseball bat, and said nothing while doing, what would you think my opinion was?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:56 amI say mental masturbation
You say political actions
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am
I couldn’t give less of a shit about the politics, I was just saying that when someone takes a conscientious position (and this could be about anything) that is opposed to another position, then it has been shaped, in part, by the other.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:57 amDefine communication. If i chased you with a baseball bat, and said nothing while doing, what would you think my opinion was?
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Communication: A message, A transmission, A reception, An interpretation.
It would depend on the context.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:58 amCommunication: A message, A transmission, A reception, An interpretation. It would depend on the context.
Comment by Mr. President.
Your aren’t gonna wiggle out of this one. If a girl smiles at you isnt that a message of some sort?
What do you interpret a smile, or frown for that matter as?
June 14th, 2007 at 1:03 amCan you see me laughing right now?
I was just saying that when someone takes a conscientious position (and this could be about anything) that is opposed to another position, then it has been shaped, in part, by the other.
Comment by Mr. President
Really? Lets say you like pudding. I hate pudding.
Your like or dislike (position) does not influence the other.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:06 amComment by Zooey — June 14, 2007 @ 12:36 am
I just took the teast again and scored:
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
I must have misread a question somewhere (they have some double- and triple- negatives in there) because I normally score a -7.0 or more on the Economic scale.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:10 amWhat do you interpret a smile, or frown for that matter as?
Can you see me laughing right now?
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 1:03 am
I’m not trying to wiggle out of anything.
All empirical observations are subjective, especially if they are taken out of context.
If I see a smile or frown all I *really* know are my own impressions. If I interpret that smile or frown one way rather than another it is only because of the context of the situation.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:11 am=)
I am laughing now, or does this text prove I am not?
Yeh, some great communication device.
The true reason for the internet is to keep opinionated buffoons out of pummeling range of one another.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:12 am(kidding of course)
Really? Lets say you like pudding. I hate pudding.
Your like or dislike (position) does not influence the other.
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 1:06 am
You’re right, I misspoke. But what I said in post #3 above still applies.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:12 am=)
I am laughing now, or does this text prove I am not?
Yeh, some great communication device.
The true reason for the internet is to keep opinionated buffoons out of pummeling range of one another.
(kidding of course)
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 1:12 am
Even if I could observe you laughing, I still would not know if you actually thought something was funny, or if you were acting.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:13 amIf I see a smile or frown all I *really* know are my own impressions. If I interpret that smile or frown one way rather than another it is only because of the context of the situation.
Comment by Mr. President
Yeh, it sucks when the toilet paper sticks to your shoe, and people are smiling at you, even though one may not realize it for hours.
But at least you realize that impressions don’t reqiure a verbal message.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:14 amEven if I could observe you laughing, I still would not know if you actually thought something was funny, or if you were acting.
Comment by Mr. President
But you said TEXT was an empircal observation of ones opinion…. yet you just admit that it isn’t. Ergo what Anne Coulter or Franken writes as some kind of truth cannot be validated as such. Besides people write BS all the time for money or fame.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:16 amYeh, it sucks when the toilet paper sticks to your shoe, and people are smiling at you, even though one may not realize it for hours.
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 1:14 am
I honestly am not fazed in the least by those situations. I could care less.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:17 amBut you said TEXT was an empircal observation of ones opinion…. yet you just admit that it isn’t. Ergo what Anne Coulter or Franken writes as some kind of truth cannot be validated as such. Besides people write BS all the time for money or fame.
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 1:16 am
No that is not what I said. I said that ALL we know is learned empirically, whether it be text, spoken word, touch, taste, smell, etc.
But no, I say that NOTHING, can be completely validated as such. Even if we think we have investigated the situation to the fullest.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:19 amI must have misread a question somewhere (they have some double- and triple- negatives in there) because I normally score a -7.0 or more on the Economic scale.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Oh no! You’re slipping to the right…..heh.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:19 amI honestly am not fazed in the least by those situations. I could care less. Comment by Mr. President
Such is why I don’t put any value on what pundits say or write.
Glad we got that cleared up =)
Cya later Mr President
June 14th, 2007 at 1:19 amCya later Mr President
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 1:19 am
Chu’ch
June 14th, 2007 at 1:21 amNo that is not what I said. I said that ALL we know is learned empirically, whether it be text, spoken word, touch, taste
S T R E T C H I N G
What did you learn from having toilet paper stuck to your shoe?
Check your feet before leaving the restroom or quit reading the crap on the stall wall?
June 14th, 2007 at 1:23 amNo that is not what I said. I said that ALL we know is learned empirically, whether it be text, spoken word, touch, taste
S T R E T C H I N G
What did you learn from having toilet paper stuck to your shoe?
Check your feet before leaving the restroom or quit reading the crap on the stall wall?
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 14, 2007 @ 1:23 am
This is not stretching anything. All of our senses are subjective.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:28 amThen again, maybe I am your neighbor and you don’t know I’m messing with your head.
Comment by Stella Octangula
I suspect all Mr. Ps neighbors have already moved. Too much noise.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:30 amEven if I could observe you laughing, I still would not know if you actually thought something was funny, or if you were acting.
Comment by Mr. President
Interesting, because a dog would be able to tell just by judging body language if you were acting or actually laughing. So would a person studying criminology with good instincts. Of course to somebody with no interpersonal experience, a typed blurb might say as much as any other contact.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:40 amI honestly am not fazed in the least by those situations. I could care less.
Comment by Mr. President
I believe just the fact that you would type this shows that it is not at all true.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:42 amComment by shane — June 14, 2007 @ 1:42 am
Oh, hey there shane.
Do you need someone to talk to?
June 14th, 2007 at 1:55 amInteresting, because a dog would be able to tell just by judging body language if you were acting or actually laughing. So would a person studying criminology with good instincts. Of course to somebody with no interpersonal experience, a typed blurb might say as much as any other contact.
Comment by shane — June 14, 2007 @ 1:40 am
Actually, there is no way for you to know for sure what a dog does or does not think because not only are your sense-impressions subjective, but so are the dog’s.
BooYa!
I just blew your mind.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:57 amYOU
HAVE
TO
BE
KIDDING ME……………………
A FRIGGIN LOBBYIST JUST IN APRIL 2007 WITH QUALCOM,
RECENTLY GETTING PAID 3/4 OF A MILLION DOLLARS
THEN GOES THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOOR FROM
PRIVATE TO PUBLIC WITH ALL SORTS OF SNAKE OIL CONNECTIONS
THAT’S ABOUT AS CORRUPT AS YOU CAN GET
WHAT A FRIGGIN POLITICAL PARASITE
WHAT A FRIGGIN CROCK OF S**T DUDE
IT IS SO
S
0
FRIGGIN CORRUPT IT’S ENOUGH TO MAKE EVERYONE PUKE
AND THE SYSTEM IS TOTALLY RIGGED
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING
LITERALLY ONE HOODLUM AFTER THE NEXT IN THE HIGHEST CLASS
HOUSE IN THE COUNTRY.
LITERALLY A BUNCH OF SWINDLERS, OUTRIGHT BRIBERY DUDE
FRIGGIN
THROW
EVERYONE
OF THEM
IN THE FRIGGIN SLAMMER DUDE
HOODLUMS I SAY
COMPLETE POLITICAL PARASITES, LITERALLY CRIMINAL DUDE
FAST SHIFTY EYED, SMOOTH TALKING SMOOZIN CRUISIN
DRACULA DUDE
LITERALLY SWINDLERS DUDE SWINDLERS
LITERALLY FRIGGIN HOODLUMS, FRIGGIN POLITICAL LEECHES
June 14th, 2007 at 2:05 am“The line between lobbying the federal government and running it just got blurrier.†That’s got to be a joke.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, Fred Thompson is running for president. You can read about him at Home Spun Charm.
Please visit the Schapira blog, “What we know so far…”
… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!
June 14th, 2007 at 3:22 am“I honestly am not fazed in the least by those situations. I could care less.”
Mr. President, could you care less or COULDN’T you care less? Just want some verification.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:35 amjimbo dude,
June 14th, 2007 at 8:35 amYou’re caps key is locked on,in case you didn’t know!
This is where K Street meets 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:46 amGive the poor man some time to sit down with Frank Luntz, so he can come up with some sweet sounding bullsh*t before y’all jump him with pertinent questions.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:56 amGeez!
Actually, there is no way for you to know for sure what a dog does or does not think because not only are your sense-impressions subjective, but so are the dog’s.
BooYa!
I just blew your mind.
Comment by Mr. President
Good to know you know as much about dog behavior as you do human behavior. Maybe you should read a little something about dogs and police work and body language. Or you could just go back to your philosophy book and pull out some cliche.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:16 amMr. President, could you care less or COULDN’T you care less? Just want some verification.
Comment by JPark
You are sharp as a tack at 3:35 am JPark. MP will have to check his philosophy books before he gets back to you today, see what happens when he thinks himself.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:21 amMr. President, could you care less or COULDN’T you care less? Just want some verification.
Comment by JPark
You are sharp as a tack at 3:35 am JPark. MP will have to check his philosophy books before he gets back to you today, see what happens when he thinks himself.
Comment by shane — June 14, 2007 @ 10:21 am
JPark, I thought you were a tad smarter than that.
Discernment man, discernment.
It’s OK, I’ll help you out on this one.
In one post I say “I couldn’t give less of a shit about the politics.”
The other post refers to toilet paper stuck to a shoe.
But if you need more verification, just let me know.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:05 pm.
.
.
Shane, I’m sorry I missed your posts last night. I could tell that you really needed someone to talk to, I hope that you will be OK.
Oh no! You’re slipping to the right…..heh.
Comment by Zooey — June 14, 2007 @ 1:19 am
Only in the sense that I must be getting dumber or more illiterate! :)
June 14th, 2007 at 9:05 pm