New Republican social networking site crashes

[Mike]

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/republican_site_crashes

[ktinkel]

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/republican_site_crashesGood grief! Must be a slow news day at The Onion!

[Judy G. Russell]

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/republican_site_crashesLOL!! I loved the comment about all those people typing in all caps.

[Mike]

LOL!! I loved the comment about all those people typing in all caps.
My favorite was the "It's kind of a shame, since they'd gone to the trouble of sending everyone a letter telling them what comments they should post."

[Mike]

WTF is wrong with these repugs, anyway?

From Mark Morford's latest OpEd (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/16/notes101609.DTL&feed=rss.mmorford),

The most repellant part is the 30 U.S. senators -- Republicans each and every one -- who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, ...

Let us repeat, for clarity. Franken's amendment passed with a vote of 68-30. Meaning 30 U.S. senators voted against the elimination of the rape/sue clause. Meghan McCain, call your dad. He's one of them.

[...]

P.S.; Would you like a complete list of these 30 senators' names? Right here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308#position).

Why look, there's grandpa McCain. There's disgraced man-child John Ensign. Hooker-lovin' David Vitter. Saxby Chambliss. Inhofe. It's a veritable welfare-state who's who of Dick Cheney's sanctum of oily fluffers, and many more who would love to be. Shall we write a nice letter to them? Or maybe their wives and daughters?

[Judy G. Russell]

WTF is wrong with these repugs, anyway?Is that a serious question??

[ktinkel]

WTF is wrong with these repugs, anyway?

From Mark Morford …Good grief!

I’m sure the Republicans are gambling that they are being clever, waiting for next year when Obama may have lost influence so they can take over Congress again, but their cynical speculation is truly appalling.

[Mike]

Is that a serious question??
If it had been regarding some other topic, maybe not. But when 30 men make it clear that they believe that an employer can treat its personnel so callously, I really am mystified.

[Judy G. Russell]

If it had been regarding some other topic, maybe not. But when 30 men make it clear that they believe that an employer can treat its personnel so callously, I really am mystified.There are a lot of people who genuinely believe that arbitration (which is the remedy the woman DID have) is an adequate substitute for litigation. I ain't one of 'em, and can't imagine that ANY personal injury case should ever be subject to mandatory binding arbitration.

[Mike]

There are a lot of people who genuinely believe that arbitration ... is an adequate substitute for litigation.
I disagree, too. I believe that arbitration should be an alternative to litigation, if chosen by both parties, but it never should be the sole remedy.

[Judy G. Russell]

I disagree, too. I believe that arbitration should be an alternative to litigation, if chosen by both parties, but it never should be the sole remedy.There are a lot of things I don't mind using arbitration for, even binding arbitration that's mandatory -- small claims, minor injuries, that sort of thing. But gang rape??? Uh uh. No way.

[Mike]

...small claims, minor injuries, that sort of thing. But gang rape??? Uh uh. No way.
I could live with a dollar limit on damages, similar to the limit for small claims court, but I don't think any sort of violent crime should be settled by that manner.

[Judy G. Russell]

I could live with a dollar limit on damages, similar to the limit for small claims court, but I don't think any sort of violent crime should be settled by that manner.Yep, we're in agreement there.