Sesame street's big bird is actually a family of sixteen philipino refugees hiding inside a big yellow costume. They arrived in the US in 1979 and are still waiting to be left alone for long enough to undo the zipper up the back and run to the hills.

-------------------------------------------
We had one of those at our house but the wheels fell off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doublechocolate:
Sesame street's big bird is actually a family of sixteen philipino refugees hiding inside a big yellow costume. They arrived in the US in 1979 and are still waiting to be left alone for long enough to undo the zipper up the back and run to the hills.

---

Nawh, that doesn't count. It's factual.

My big ass family manage to escape by manipulating simple minded Grover to sucker punch Telly in the nose during a Sesame Street On Ice Preformance.

This creating the perfect diversion to skate to the boards and empty out of the bird suit.

0-8 year olds began a riot that even Mr. Ropper (God Bless his soul) was probably doing cartwheels in his grave.

SWAT was brought in to control the crowds before someone fell and scraped a knee.


If you want the real deal, you should check out the family in the Snuffulufagus suit. They're seriously screwed.



~cyn004
www.transference.org

I for one will welcome our new fly overlords...

(Insert witticism here)

The Bush White House has been playing 'don't throw me in the Briar patch!' with Condoleez Rice testifying before the 9/11 Commission to manage the expectations game.

Play it just right and get all this attention focused on Rice not testifying to counter Clarke's testimony so that when they finally relent and have her testify, it gets way more publicity.

Think about it, Colin Powel, Don Rumsfeld, Madeline Albright, William Cohen all testify, and who gets all the publicity? Clarke. How do you top all the publicity? Wait until everyone in the press is clamoring for it, then give them one of your best spokespeople.

Just a theory, but a conspiracy theory, nonetheless. Or, in other words, the strategery of misunderestimation.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

Actually - and some of you are going to be shocked - I don't think Condi should testify in public hearings. Private ones, yes, but not public. Her position, so to, um speak, is inherently too sensitive to allow it.

I think it sets a bad precident and could compromise some of the valuable operations that I hope to god none of the noecons actually understand.

This post brought to you by: Your Ad Here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by digitalprimate:
Actually - and some of you are going to be shocked - I don't think Condi should testify in public hearings. Private ones, yes, but not public. Her position, so to, um speak, is inherently too sensitive to allow it.

I think it sets a bad precident and could compromise some of the valuable operations that I hope to god none of the noecons actually understand.

---

Well, she's always free to testify in public and still follow all the rules regarding disclosure of classified information. Whenever the questioning hits something of that nature (which would be about every 15 seconds or so ), she simply says she is not at liberty to be specific. Such matters are already briefed to select committees and party leaders. Some of whom, like say, ORRIN FUCKIN' HATCH, already disclose whatever they feel like without facing any consequences.

Personally, I think Rumsfeld should be allowed to use his titanium claw to bust some Kung-Fu all over Orrin Hatch and his ilk. You know he'd do it, too, regardless of party affiliation.

Politics is a big whore. -Romanian proverb

This - from a man who's dabbled in double humbuckers?

This post brought to you by: Your Ad Here.

"I don't think Condi should testify in public hearings."

Oh, I agree that on the merits, presidential advisors should not be compelled to testify before Congress, the whole separation of powers argument, and I can recall times when both parties tried to cross the bounds on this kind of stuff purely for purposes of political posturing, and this is just one of those times.

I also don't think any of the testimony at all should be public, at least not at the time it's given. Let them testify, and then release transcripts later once they've been had any classified info redacted. Of course, that would only be newsworthy, not sensationalistic. This public stuff is just dog and pony show election year horseshit.

But having said that, it is only to say we're going to see a whole lot of it this year, and unless you wanna play Dukakis and decide you're above responding to that sort of thing, you gotta engage on the issue. And I don't think Condi is being held back because they're afraid of what she might say. So why?

Bush spent the summer of 2002 letting the Democrats demand a debate on Iraq (I credit them with being smart enough to want to get it out of the way before election season). But it didn't hurt him enough so that when came fall and the use of force (war) resolution on Iraq was introduced, the Democrats could complain it was an election year tactic, without it sounding hollow after they'd spent months demanding just such a debate.

Hence my theory that Bush is trying to do more or less the same thing on the 9/11 commission. Let the opposition work itself up into paroxysms of self-righteousness demanding a debate (whereby they must give up the right to claim Bush is using 9/11 to advance his re-election effort). Then give them the debate.

At that point, Bush (and his administration) gets point with undecided voters just for showing up, beating expectations, and acting like they have half a clue more than Bush's opponents give him credit for. If Democrats spent less time trying to convince everyone Bush is an idiot, people would be less likely to give him credit when he defies expectations. (Pick idiot or evil genius, but at least stick with the one you pick?)

What makes my theory a conspiracy theory is that I really don't have any real evidence to support it, other than a few examples of the 'strategery of getting your opponents to misunderestimate you' that are consistent with the theory. Thing is, if it's true, Democrats seem to be falling for it, and that makes me worried for Democrats.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

quote:

---

Originally posted by digitalprimate:
This - from a man who's dabbled in double humbuckers?

_ This post brought to you by: Your Ad Here._

---

Dabbled? Shoot, I currently have three guitars with dual humbuckers. Old tele with dual widerangers, newish LP Jr.Spec. with dual p-100's, and an Epi LP 12-string with dual PAF-clones.

But I figure Condi for a Red Lace Sensor kind of gal. Something quiet when not in use, but capable of being cold and sharp. Maybe EMG's.

Dick Cheney: Shadow pickup

Don Rumsfeld: Single, vintage dogear p-90 at the bridge with cracked wax potting. Dangerous microphonic feedback at high volume.

Colin Powell: Smooth, stacked-coil noiseless strat pups at neck and middle, with an open-coil Pearly Gates at the bridge. Look out!

Politics is a big whore. -Romanian proverb

As I just finished a venti 1/2 caf/decaf from Starbucks, I realize that the baristas have launched an insidious plot to turn yuppies into addicts. Mind altering drugs are also added to these concoctions resulting in mass confusion over whether over $3.00 had just been paid for a cup of coffee. These drugs are also added to the chai lattes...so tea drinkers are not safe either!

Ultimately, yuppies will be cash poor and the evil baristas will have accumulated enough wealth to monopolize world markets. Starbucks chai and coffee will become more valuable than oil due to the mass addictions.

"Starbucks chai and coffee will become more valuable than oil"

And with a Starbucks on every corner, you won't *need* a car to get your fix....

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

THAT post was the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Dr Prius' Chicken Fried Monkey - When Only The Top of the Food Chain Will Do.

Isn't there a rule for conspiracy theories that if one element of your theory proves true, you get to claim all of it's true? Damn, if only I'd gone and made some other predictions....

"Rice to testify in public, under oath"

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~