It says Wendy Davis for Gov, Inc. Which I guess is her campaign?
Yeah fuck free flow of money in political campaigns.
Public funding with pure transparency and no ability to accept donations of cash or in kind. And no PAC's or ads with the mention of the candidates from outside groups starting the January before the election.
the bar i went to spool, was a new orleans / paris -y place and had absinthe and absinthe cocktails
i had a hurricane and a pimms cup also and something else
it has a nice back garden
i spent a lot of money there...
poo
+1
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Chu has never watched a movie scene for the second time without being surprised.
the bar i went to spool, was a new orleans / paris -y place and had absinthe and absinthe cocktails
i had a hurricane and a pimms cup also and something else
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
edited August 2014
Just caught up on that governor thread
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
BeNarwhal on
0
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
the bar i went to spool, was a new orleans / paris -y place and had absinthe and absinthe cocktails
i had a hurricane and a pimms cup also and something else
it has a nice back garden
i spent a lot of money there...
I love Pims Cup.
0
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Ewww ... I went into a non-[chat] thread AND I sided with @spool32 while I was in it.
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
In that case, I'm super comfortable with it. In general, the governor has a line-item veto, so you don't need anything after the "if" in KP's question. He can veto things for whatever reason.
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
It's not 'taking away funding', it's 'applying economic sanctions as a domestic policy tool'.
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
In that case, I'm super comfortable with it. In general, the governor has a line-item veto, so you don't need anything after the "if" in KP's question. He can veto things for whatever reason.
He's in the government, he's not the owner of a corporation where they can fire employees for any reason, and even those know when to keep their mouth shut when it'd get them in hot water with the government or be a PR nightmare.
0
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
In that case, I'm super comfortable with it. In general, the governor has a line-item veto, so you don't need anything after the "if" in KP's question. He can veto things for whatever reason.
Sure, but the threat he made is the discussion then. And I certainly don't feel comfortable weighing in on that.
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
It's not 'taking away funding', it's 'applying economic sanctions as a domestic policy tool'.
Very true. Let's take it back to that thread, though - my most recent post touches on this, I think - it's my opinion that the governor should have a tool to deal with this sort of issue without having to resort to economic sanctions, if only because he is forced to apply it so imprecisely.
If a governor can veto things for any reason, this issue would have come up a lot more often in the past.
+1
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
So my facebook "lunch" group was on the local news yesterday about how social media such as ourselves effects businesses.
I expect several restaurants to join the group under fake accounts to try to give rave reviews for their establishments shortly.
The banhammer is hot and ready like a $5 little Ceasar's Pizza.
You will not survive.
Bless your heart.
+1
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Dammit @AManFromEarth that thread isn't at all appropriate for my only response to your latest post, which is a petulant (and joking!):
"Governors SHOULD be kings." :P
+2
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
In that case, I'm super comfortable with it. In general, the governor has a line-item veto, so you don't need anything after the "if" in KP's question. He can veto things for whatever reason.
Sure, but the threat he made is the discussion then. And I certainly don't feel comfortable weighing in on that.
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
It's not 'taking away funding', it's 'applying economic sanctions as a domestic policy tool'.
Very true. Let's take it back to that thread, though - my most recent post touches on this, I think - it's my opinion that the governor should have a tool to deal with this sort of issue without having to resort to economic sanctions, if only because he is forced to apply it so imprecisely.
He does have that tool.
It's called the court of public opinion.
Perry's got a big mouth and people like him. If he can't use that to get what he wants he has no business running for anything higher than dog catcher.
0
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
In that case, I'm super comfortable with it. In general, the governor has a line-item veto, so you don't need anything after the "if" in KP's question. He can veto things for whatever reason.
Sure, but the threat he made is the discussion then. And I certainly don't feel comfortable weighing in on that.
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
It's not 'taking away funding', it's 'applying economic sanctions as a domestic policy tool'.
Very true. Let's take it back to that thread, though - my most recent post touches on this, I think - it's my opinion that the governor should have a tool to deal with this sort of issue without having to resort to economic sanctions, if only because he is forced to apply it so imprecisely.
He does have that tool.
It's called the court of public opinion.
Perry's got a big mouth and people like him. If he can't use that to get what he wants he has no business running for anything higher than dog catcher.
My city's mayor is case-in-point that the court of public opinion is a fickle and enigmatic institution.
I'd like to see something more defined for situations like this.
I'm not comfortable for the only recourse for removing someone like this from office when they refuse your request that they resign is "request harder!".
+1
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
President Rick Perry, Commander in Chief
President Rick Perry, Number 45
President Rick Perry, the most powerful man in the free world
President Rick Perry, finger on the button
President Rick Perry, naming his cabinet
President Rick Perry, POTUS
President Rick Perry, taking the oath of office
President Rick Perry, Old Rough and Ready
President Rick Perry, winning re-election
+1
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
In that case, I'm super comfortable with it. In general, the governor has a line-item veto, so you don't need anything after the "if" in KP's question. He can veto things for whatever reason.
Sure, but the threat he made is the discussion then. And I certainly don't feel comfortable weighing in on that.
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
Can the governor just threaten to take away any agency's funding for whatever reason he feels like if the head of that agency doesn't comply with his resignation demand?
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
It's not 'taking away funding', it's 'applying economic sanctions as a domestic policy tool'.
Very true. Let's take it back to that thread, though - my most recent post touches on this, I think - it's my opinion that the governor should have a tool to deal with this sort of issue without having to resort to economic sanctions, if only because he is forced to apply it so imprecisely.
He does have that tool.
It's called the court of public opinion.
Perry's got a big mouth and people like him. If he can't use that to get what he wants he has no business running for anything higher than dog catcher.
My city's mayor is case-in-point that the court of public opinion is a fickle and enigmatic institution.
I'd like to see something more defined for situations like this.
I'm not comfortable for the only recourse for removing someone like this from office when they refuse your request that they resign is "request harder!".
Posts
It says Wendy Davis for Gov, Inc. Which I guess is her campaign?
Yeah fuck free flow of money in political campaigns.
Public funding with pure transparency and no ability to accept donations of cash or in kind. And no PAC's or ads with the mention of the candidates from outside groups starting the January before the election.
i had a hurricane and a pimms cup also and something else
it has a nice back garden
i spent a lot of money there...
#trufax
where was this it sounds great
http://youtu.be/W7pmnIitgeI
I thought that was like, our thing
Man it's like I don't even know you anymore
one time i went and we got a massive oyster tower with lobster and crab and stuff o lawd
absinthe is tasty
I'm racist but only when there are no white people around.
I believe he is the master of the Tetris.
Nope, because it's a physical check, the bank will take 2 business days more to clear it!
WHAT FUN
I have the green version of that xbox.
I won't pretend to have an opinion, but Kid Presentable presented an interesting question right at the end there:
With the implication being: Regardless of the legality (which is best left to the courts to decide, I think that's apparent), would you be okay with this turn of events?
Spool I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine your response to this would be 'Under these circumstances (i.e. the abhorrent behavior of the agency head in question), absolutely. It's an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary action.'
Oh right, banks.
Well, is it at least comforting to be holding a physical copy of a thing that totally promises that money will be there once the check clears? :P
FYI buttsluts are my favourite type of sluts.
Dude. Pirates get scurvy.
Pirates are really tough.
Play otogi on it
I need new glasses.
I kept trying to figure out what this post meant until I realized you said "eatin" and not "satin"...
I love Pims Cup.
I'm not sure how to feel right now.
It was really awful to be a pirate in ye olden days. Don't let the movies and tv fool you.
Well, that's also true.
I mean, I assume.
In that case, I'm super comfortable with it. In general, the governor has a line-item veto, so you don't need anything after the "if" in KP's question. He can veto things for whatever reason.
It's not 'taking away funding', it's 'applying economic sanctions as a domestic policy tool'.
You know what? That's fine. That's just fine. I am REALLY not missing out on much...
He's in the government, he's not the owner of a corporation where they can fire employees for any reason, and even those know when to keep their mouth shut when it'd get them in hot water with the government or be a PR nightmare.
Sure, but the threat he made is the discussion then. And I certainly don't feel comfortable weighing in on that.
Very true. Let's take it back to that thread, though - my most recent post touches on this, I think - it's my opinion that the governor should have a tool to deal with this sort of issue without having to resort to economic sanctions, if only because he is forced to apply it so imprecisely.
I expect several restaurants to join the group under fake accounts to try to give rave reviews for their establishments shortly.
The banhammer is hot and ready like a $5 little Ceasar's Pizza.
You will not survive.
"Governors SHOULD be kings." :P
He does have that tool.
It's called the court of public opinion.
Perry's got a big mouth and people like him. If he can't use that to get what he wants he has no business running for anything higher than dog catcher.
My city's mayor is case-in-point that the court of public opinion is a fickle and enigmatic institution.
I'd like to see something more defined for situations like this.
I'm not comfortable for the only recourse for removing someone like this from office when they refuse your request that they resign is "request harder!".
The local governors will keep the cities in line
President Rick Perry, Number 45
President Rick Perry, the most powerful man in the free world
President Rick Perry, finger on the button
President Rick Perry, naming his cabinet
President Rick Perry, POTUS
President Rick Perry, taking the oath of office
President Rick Perry, Old Rough and Ready
President Rick Perry, winning re-election
Oh that while system is fucked up for sure.
What are ya gonna do? It's Texas