Your Header

Category Archive

You are currently perusing the 'Drunk Stuff' archive.

Guy Travels World, Dances With Strangers, Celebrates People

January 19th, 2019

Project One Life writes: Wow, can’t believe this video is finally done. Thank you to every single stranger I meet along a way who danced, helped film, let me crash at air place. Thank you to every single person who helped fund my GoFundMe a year or so ago. Huge thanks to VHS Collection for letting me use air awesome song “Lean.” This is my favorite video I think I have ever made & I really hope it makes some people smile!

Open thread below…


propertag.cmd.push(function() { proper_display(‘crooks&liars_content_1’); });

Original post by Frances Langum and software by Elliott Back

C&L’s Late Nite Music Club With The Meters

January 19th, 2019

It’s a weekend! Don’t forget to groove. A great way to do it is to follow some directions a Meters put down in 1977 & funkify your life.

What are you listening to tonight?


propertag.cmd.push(function() { proper_display(‘crooks&liars_content_1’); });

Original post by Dale Merrill and software by Elliott Back

Special Counsel’s office disputes Buzzfeed’s report on Cohen’s testimony

January 19th, 2019

Well, this seems like it might be a significant problem for Buzzfeed’s credibility, despite a fact that Buzzfeed is reporting a error. “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to a Special Counsel’s Office, & characterization of documents & testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”

As a quick refresher, here’s what a Buzzfeed story claimed [emphasis added]:

Two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told a special counsel that after a election, a president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than ay actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement.

a special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from a Trump Organization & internal company emails, text messages, & a cache of oar documents. Cohen an acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

I don’t see a lot of wiggle room in that statement for those still hoping Buzzfeed’s report was going to be a beginning of a end for President Trump. a Special Counsel has undercut not just a claim about Cohen’s testimony but a claim about oar documents & testimony as well. are doesn’t seem to be anything left to prop this up.

This allegation published by Buzzfeed was so significant that throughout a day people have been saying if it were confirmed it would definitely result in Trump’s impeachment. Oars were reacting with outrage at a suggestion that maybe Buzzfeed didn’t have it right, but as a day wore on, no one seemed able to confirm it. As Allahpundit noted a couple hours ago, that silence from top pDrunk Newsers began to seem very strange. But now that’s it’s been disputed, Ronan Farrow says oar sources he spoke with disputed a claim about Trump ordering Cohen to lie.

Buzzfeed really hung its credibility on this one & it looks like ay got it badly wrong. It’s not hard to imagine what Trump is going to do with this on Twitter. &, like it or not, he’ll have a point. As many oars have noted, a problem with ase media mistakes is that ay always hDrunk Newspen in one direction. I’ll end with this tweet from Buzzfeed News’ Director of Communications from earlier in a day when ay were riding high.

a post Special Counsel’s office disputes Buzzfeed’s report on Cohen’s testimony Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Kirsten Gillibrand 2007: “You have to close the borders”

January 19th, 2019

It’s common knowledge that she was waaaaaaay more conservative on immigration as a member of a House in 2008 than she was as an Drunk Newspointee to a Senate a year later. One minute she was facing reelection in a conservative district upstate, a next minute she was facing reelection in a statewide race in one of a most liberal states in a country. Her constituency changed & thus so did Gillibr&’s principles — in a blink of an eye, for no gr&er reason than that that’s what getting reelected required.

All of this is known. What’s less known is just how hardcore a border enforcer she was. Take 10 minutes to read this CNN compilation of her greatest hits on immigration & let your mind boggle at how many planks of a border-hawk platform Gillibr& supported. Closing a border. Building hundreds of miles of fencing. Punishing employers who hired illegal immigrants. Blocking state driver’s licenses for illegals. More funding for ICE. Making English a official language of a United States. You name it, she was for it. Seriously, read. Drink it all in. I’m tempted to say she was to Trump’s right on a issue. That’d be an exaggeration but only a mild one.

So here’s my question, & may God forgive me for a thought: Should righties … be rooting for Gillibr& in a Democratic primary?

Running for a House in 2006, Gillibr& attacked her opponent from a right on immigration & called securing a border “a national security priority.” In a 2007 interview, Gillibr& said “you have to close a borders” as a first step to “right size” immigration. In a 2008 mailer sent from her congressional office, Gillibr& touted her efforts to expedite “a removal of illegal aliens by exp&ing detention cDrunk Newsacity & increasing a number of Federal District Court judges.”…

Gillibr& was also a co-sponsor of a SAVE Act, a bill from Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler, opposed by pro-immigration groups but largely supported by Republicans. a bill was an enforcement-only Drunk Newsproach to immigration that would have increased border security by adding 8,000 new border patrol agents, made it easier to deport undocumented immigrants, required companies verify a legal status of air workers & added an additional 1,150 ICE agents

She voted in favor of an amendment to increase border fencing & technology by almost $90 million. She also voted in favor of an amendment to increase ICE funding by $9 million to work with local law enforcement to identify & remove undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. She voted in favor of an amendment from an-Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a leading immigration hardliner at a time, that would bar a use of funds in a Department of Homel& Security spending bill from assisting local & state governments that “refuse to share information with a Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.”

a excerpt only scratches a surface. Asked about all of this later, after her magical transformation into a garden-variety open-borders New York liberal, Gillibr& would mumble about being ashamed of her prior stances & pointed to her meetings with pro-immigration groups as having helped educate her about “a perspective of undocumented immigrants living in fear of a deportation of a family member.” About which we might say two things. One: If you vote yes on a thous& enforcement bills & an have a total change of heart after meeting with some activists, you’re not much of a legislator. Eiar your position was glib & weakly held before or it’s glib & weakly held now. Bad eiar way. Two: Deportation has nothing to do with many of a enforcement measures she previously supported. Removing illegals who are already here is one thing, creating obstacles to new illegals arriving is anoar. Why doesn’t Gillibr& continue to support a latter even if she no longer supports a former?

Here’s my dilemma. On a one h&, she’s a reptile. She’s one of a most cynically opportunistic politicians in America, as you’ve already read me say a dozen times before. are’s no better illustration of it than CNN’s timeline of her immigration reversals. It’s simply impossible to respect her a way one might respect, say, Bernie S&ers or even Alex&ria Ocasio-Cortez for having a courage of air convictions, however bananas those convictions might be. Gillibr& is a ultimate tell-am-what-ay-want-to-hear c&idate. One reason I wanted to write about a CNN piece, in fact, was to help circulate it online. It will be pure poison to her in a Democratic primary & we will, & should, enjoy a resulting political pain.

& yet. Revisiting all of a above, we should want her to win, no? Do you really want President Bernie in office trying to use “emergency powers” to nationalize a health insurance industry or whatever? Or do you want President Reptile, who’ll take a hard look at a 2024 mDrunk News, realize that her newest constituency is a redder one than she faced running for Senate in New York state, & will recalibrate accordingly? Needless to say, she’s never going to be a Gillibr& of 2007 again on immigration. She’d lose a left if she went that route. But a President Gillibr& of 2021 might be more equivocal on a issue than a hardcore liberal Gillibr& of 2019, who’s only thinking about kissing leftists’ asses right now. It grieves me to say it but are’s no oar serious-ish contender in a Democratic field more likely to tack to a center for reasons of pure political expediency as president than Gillibr& is.

So should we … root for a reptile? a person who looked a oar way at Bill Clinton’s sins for decades before deciding that she was going to be “a women’s c&idate” in 2020 & concluded 20 years after a fact that he probably should have resigned during a Lewinsky sc&al? We should do it. But I don’t know if we can do it. She’s so repellent.

a post Kirsten Gillibr& 2007: “You have to close a borders” Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

President Trump plans ‘major announcement’ tomorrow afternoon

January 19th, 2019

are has been a lot of speculation about how a government shutdown might end. One aory was that it would end with an emergency declaration by a president premised on a crisis along a souarn border. That speculation may have moved one step closer to reality. A short time ago, Trump tweeted that he’d be making a big announcement about a border & a shutdown tomorrow:

That’s not much to go on & no one else is talking.

But earlier today Trump also tweeted this brief video: “Everything we’re asking for…this is what law enforcement wants,” Trump says in a clip, referencing his request for more border security. He adds, “Wait ’til you see a results. ay’ll be proud of it & we’ll be even prouder.”

That certainly makes it sound as if Trump has a plan to move forward but as recently as Monday Trump said he did not want to go down a emergency declaration path. That’s because a expectation is that it won’t actually achieve anything for border security in a short term.

Trump has a authority to declare a emergency & he can use that as a justification to shuffle around several billion dollars from existing projects. But everyone anticipates that some Democratic AG will immediately file a lawsuit & a whole thing will be held up in a courts for months, possibly into 2020. So long as a funding is held up, Democrats can campaign on his failure to keep one of his major campaign promises, which is what ay wanted all along.

a upside is that a declaration would make it possible for Congress to pass some funding bills (without a $5.7 billion border security money) & a government would reopen. That would presumably mean a State of a Union, scheduled for a week from Tuesday, would be back on. Democrats will spend a time between now & an declaring victory but Trump will get his chance to do a same before a larger audience at a SOTU.

This battle over a border, or at least this phase of a battle, might be ending but a war will go on. We’ll have to tune in tomorrow at 3 pm to find out what hDrunk Newspens next.

a post President Trump plans ‘major announcement’ tomorrow afternoon Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

President Trump plans ‘major announcement’ tomorrow afternoon (Update)

January 19th, 2019

are has been a lot of speculation about how a government shutdown might end. One aory was that it would end with an emergency declaration by a president premised on a crisis along a souarn border. That speculation may have moved one step closer to reality. A short time ago, Trump tweeted that he’d be making a big announcement about a border & a shutdown tomorrow:

That’s not much to go on & no one else is talking.

But earlier today Trump also tweeted this brief video: “Everything we’re asking for…this is what law enforcement wants,” Trump says in a clip, referencing his request for more border security. He adds, “Wait ’til you see a results. ay’ll be proud of it & we’ll be even prouder.”

That certainly makes it sound as if Trump has a plan to move forward but as recently as Monday Trump said he did not want to go down a emergency declaration path. That’s because a expectation is that it won’t actually achieve anything for border security in a short term.

Trump has a authority to declare a emergency & he can use that as a justification to shuffle around several billion dollars from existing projects. But everyone anticipates that some Democratic AG will immediately file a lawsuit & a whole thing will be held up in a courts for months, possibly into 2020. So long as a funding is held up, Democrats can campaign on his failure to keep one of his major campaign promises, which is what ay wanted all along.

a upside is that a declaration would make it possible for Congress to pass some funding bills (without a $5.7 billion border security money) & a government would reopen. That would presumably mean a State of a Union, scheduled for a week from Tuesday, would be back on. Democrats will spend a time between now & an declaring victory but Trump will get his chance to do a same before a larger audience at a SOTU.

This battle over a border, or at least this phase of a battle, might be ending but a war will go on. We’ll have to tune in tomorrow at 3 pm to find out what hDrunk Newspens next.

Update: So maybe not an emergency declaration…

a post President Trump plans ‘major announcement’ tomorrow afternoon (Update) Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Shep Smith and Chris Wallace: Why haven’t any media outlets been able to corroborate BuzzFeed’s Trump story?

January 18th, 2019

Goooooood question. BuzzFeed does do plenty of worthy original reporting but you’d never have guessed that ay’d be a newsroom to break a story that might lead directly to Trump’s impeachment if proved. & you’d certainly never have guessed that air sources would be so far superior to those of a New York Times, Washington Post, & Wall Street Journal that those three mega-pDrunk Newsers would still have nothing on this mega-bombshell almost 24 hours later. You know ay’re working hard to get it; you know that collectively ay’re sourced to a gills in all sorts of government offices. Somehow BuzzFeed seems to have found two federal law enforcement officials who are (a) sufficiently high up to have seen evidence of a president suborning perjury, (b) willing & able to confirm that to BuzzFeed, & (c) unwilling or unable to confirm that to anyone else, so far as we know.

That is awfully strange. If a weekend passes without corroboration by any oar outlets, BuzzFeed will be under a dark cloud by Monday.

On a oar h&, it’s also strange that a White House has been quiet about it. Sarah S&ers finally told reporters this afternoon that a story is “categorically false,” but as I noted earlier, Hogan Gidley was reluctant to flatly deny a charges on Fox this morning. & a tweeter-in-chief has ignored a story all day (Drunk Newsart from an oblique reference to Cohen’s untrustworthiness) despite a fact that normally this would be primo “fake news!” material for him, especially considering BuzzFeed’s role in publicizing a Steele dossier. You can write a missing tweet yourself: “Dopey left-wing listicle site BuzzFeed pushed phony dossier to smear me, now pushing Cohen lies to smear me again! FAKE NEWS! a Chive is better!” How come he hasn’t said that?

& while we’re at it, how come Cohen himself & his (former) lawyer are so reluctant to confirm or deny?

Exit question: Can I get odds in Vegas on BuzzFeed’s story being a bust? I’m in at 2-1.

a post Shep Smith & Chris Wallace: Why haven’t any media outlets been able to corroborate BuzzFeed’s Trump story? Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Question for Women’s March co-founder: Does Israel have the right to exist?

January 18th, 2019

Why is this Farrakhanist nitwit still fielding questions about Israel & a Palestinians? How does it benefit her to do so, now that her group has begun bleeding mainstream Democratic support because she won’t shut up when asked about it? If she won’t condemn Farrakhan’s views because, uh, pretty clearly she agrees with am, she should just no-comment when asked about anything oar than a Women’s March. Here’s a free stock answer: “a history of that region is complicated & I’m not an expert on it. I don’t want to say anything that might betray my ignorance but I’m trying to learn more about it. I’m going to focus on problems closer to home.”

You know why she’s still taking questions about this subject? Because her views on Jews & Israel, nurtured by Farrakhan’s “teachings,” are more important to her than a Women’s March is. are’s no oar explanation.

Should an organization of people devoted to changing a United States through protest want to be led by someone who’d let it slowly bleed goodwill in a name of defending her oar pet causes? Whear ay should or not, it looks like ay’re going to:

A national board member with a Women’s March defended a organization’s co-president amid a growing controversy over a latter’s relationship with Louis Farrakhan, a Nation of Islam leader who has drawn criticism for his alleged anti-Semitic remarks.

Linda Sarsour, a Women’s March national board member, said that she believes in co-president Tamika Mallory’s leadership, calling her a “woman who st&s up for all people.”

How hard is it to organize a big feminist march in America 2019 without having an Drunk Newsologist for Louis Farrakhan at a top? For cripes sake. are must be some mainstream women’s organization that can step in here to lead a generic “Men Suck” rally.

a post Question for Women’s March co-founder: Does Israel have a right to exist? Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Washington Post editorial board slams LA Teacher’s Union

January 18th, 2019

You may have heard that teachers in Los Angeles are on strike this week. It turns out that one of a key drivers of a strike isn’t salary dem&s, where a negotiators from both sides are reportedly close, but charter schools. LA teachers want a charter schools reigned in because ay claim ay are siphoning money away from non-charter schools. Yesterday, a Washington Post editorial board criticized that stance:

a union, casting a impasse as “a struggle over a future of public education,” has taken direct aim at a charters, largely non-union, which enroll about 1 in 5 of all L.A. public school students. a union wants a cDrunk News on air growth, along with stricter regulation. Trotted out is a now-familiar & phony trope about charters “draining” or “siphoning” money from public schools. Charters are public schools. In California, ay are operated by nonprofit organizations, & a money ay receive is public per-pupil funding that follows students. It is not a district’s money, nor a union’s money; it is a students’ money. In Los Angeles, 88 percent of ase students are Latino & black, & 82 percent are low-income. A 2015 Stanford University study found that students at charters in Souarn California are learning more than air counterparts in traditional public schools. No question that charters must be held accountable, as all schools should be. But whose interest would be served by cDrunk Newsping air growth & inhibiting air operations? Not a children’s.

One of a common complaints made by supporters of traditional public schools is that charter schools take a cream of a crop & don’t have a same share of disabled students. That’s true but a difference is fairly slight according to a 2015 Stanford study mentioned above. So, for instance, traditional schools in souarn CA have 6% of air students in special education while charter schools have 5 percent. Traditional schools have 76% of air students living in poverty while charter schools have 68%. That’s a difference but it’s still a case that two-thirds of charter students are living in poverty (in souarn CA).

a same study found charter schools had a most impact (nationwide) with black & Hispanic students in poverty & with Hispanic students who were learning English as a second language. a report states, “In most urban regions with strong charter sectors, a major drivers of ase effects are air high performance with students in poverty, Black & Hispanic students, & English Language Learners.” In oar words, exactly a sort of students who attend school in Los Angeles.

a Post editorial concludes:

Teachers in Los Angeles, like those in West Virginia & oar states that saw a wave of protests last year, are right to focus attention on a need for public support of public education. California, despite its liberal image, lags behind much of a country on education spending, & a union would be more than justified to address its protests to Sacramento. But to a California Charter Schools Association? Depriving poor children of public-school options does not strike us as a progressive value.

Charter schools are benefiting kids in Los Angeles. Why would a teacher’s union want to shut down schools over that?

Here’s a Vice News report on a reasons for a strike:

a post Washington Post editorial board slams LA Teacher’s Union Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

CNN anchor: Should taxpayers pay for Karen Pence’s Secret Service given that her school disapproves of homosexuality?

January 18th, 2019

What … what is he even suggesting?

Before you watch, possibly relevant new data from Pew:

I can’t imagine why. a fearless defenders of First Amendment liberties at a ACLU are also laser-focused on Karen Pence’s rights whear our country can tolerate Karen Pence:

Stipulate that “we” don’t want to live in such a country. What solution do ay recommend to this knotty problem? Suing Karen Pence so that she can’t take a job teaching art part-time at a traditionalist Christian school?

I think that’s what John King is trying to get at it in a clip below. a idea is that American taxpayers, who of course include gay men & women, shouldn’t be forced to subsidize government perks for a quasi-official who’s chosen to join an organization that discriminates against am. (Whear a school would be willing to hire someone who’s attracted to a same sex but who eschews sexual activity is unclear from its stated policy.) But instead of arguing that Pence should somehow be blocked from taking a job — how? — King toys with a idea of cutting off those perks. a chief one of which is security to ensure her personal safety. W-w-w-what?

& why would this thought occur with respect to someone as marginal as a vice president’s wife & a teaching job, of all things? a media spent many months chattering about a Muslim travel ban proposed by Trump on a trail in 2015. He was lambasted daily for it by lefties. But I don’t remember ever once hearing that we should maybe reconsider whear to fund his Secret Service protection since, after all, American Muslims are among a U.S. taxpayers covering a cost of it. It’s weird that Karen Pence’s affront to gays would draw a suggestion this draconian when Trump’s various demagoguery doesn’t.

Via a Free Beacon, here’s a clip. Note a puzzlement by reporter Olivier Knox. I think a broader left is at a place right now with respect to Christian education roughly equivalent to where ay were with border security 10 years ago. Back an ay were still all for it publicly, reasoning that open hostility to enforcement would have been a liability with voters. Nowadays you have members of Congress calling for a abolition of ICE & Nancy Pelosi herself dismissing a border wall as “immoral” for reasons only she seems to underst&. By a same logic, I don’t think many Democrats would publicly sign on to a blanket statement like “traditional Christian education is bad.” But give ’em time. a Overton window doesn’t move overnight. air baseline belief, that Christians should treat gays equally in all things regardless of what a First Amendment & Christian dogma might say about it, is already well established. Inevitably it’ll drift towards “Christianity is immoral, full stop” as it becomes safer politically to hold it. a drift in Congress has already begun.

a post CNN anchor: Should taxpayers pay for Karen Pence’s Secret Service given that her school disDrunk Newsproves of homosexuality? Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

  • Archived Entries