No Biji, I’m not a coward,  I just don’t have time for a disingenuous shitheel such as yourself.

You’re confused. I didn’t say to be “bipartisan”. I was very clear about that. What I’m saying is that you stymie the agenda in a more productive way than passing 54 entirely symbolic votes that either outright repeal or defund a program of the Republicans you don’t like that will never go anywhere in the Senate.

No, I insert my opinion into a holistic observation.  Do you not agree that a choice where absolutely everyone makes the same choice may not in fact be a choice?

I’m all for campaign finance reform too, but I don’t think even very progressive campaign finance reform is going to attempt to control what parties say about who their candidates can work with. Would it even be legal to attempt to dictate that to a political party?

It’s almost like the DCCC is comprised of House Democrats for the benefit of other House Democrats or something. 

I mean, I’ve lived and worked with American Muslim women as well, both in a professional and a charitable capacity, and they all say they wear a Hijab out in public out of their own choice. But if every single person in a community is making the same choice, is it a choice, or a “choice”?

Rep. Omar is making an assertion on behalf of “Islam” broadly.  As for “speaking for women” I’d be happy to let the women of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and many other majority Muslim countries where the vast majority of all Muslims in the world reside speak for themselves.  Let me know when their…

“Implied” isn’t the same as proving that the statement is true either.

But it’s also an issue with Islam specifically that Rep. Omar is sort of glossing over here.

What I hate is that in public discourse our only options on Islam appear to be to be like either Trogdor or Brother Gumby in that thread.  You can be Islamophobic, or you can buy all of CAIR’s propaganda!  THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!

Could you imagine? Imagine the House passing bills without input from the other party and without intending them to become law, maybe even dozens of times?

*rolls eyes*

But if they’re in liberal-leaning states and just voting against it because they’d prefer to take a reasonable, centrist, bipartisan tack on climate action which has never once worked, then maybe their voters will finally see them for what they are, and perhaps even choose to primary

I don’t find that notion all that compelling.

And yet they designed a system of government that had checks and balances that have worked pretty well in terms of running a stable government for a few centuries.

I hate Islamophobia.

The Founders did not see the Federalist Society coming. They did not anticipate having one of two major parties devoted entirely to plutocratic plunder, and being able to do so because of the financial and institutional support of a mega-wealthy elite. They whiffed on that one.

We don’t seem to have a lot more actual investigative reporting than when the news was an hour at night and the morning paper the next day.

Getting dressed is a lot of work, and, like, I might accidentally slip and be so tied up in my clothes that I wind up choking to death. How do we know that David Carradine didn’t just have a really bizarre accident while getting dressed for the day!?!

I think the only criticism Splinter’s writers might have of their GMG compatriots’ kvetching in the 2016 general election run up and especially their post about how they would vote would be that they didn’t go far enough.