Slog - Comments on The Morning News

Comment by Historical Error

Historical Error — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:25:36 -0800

The viaduct...a historical landmark. We need an earthquake!!!

Comment by Spoogie

Spoogie — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:46:52 -0800

Only really sick homosexuals drive crappy four-door sedans with black sidewall tires. The really cools ones drive two-door hardtops with nifty whitewalls and vinyl upholstery. Beware the geek in the Belair!

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:49:53 -0800

God, that telecom thing is depressing. Oh, 'Bama . . .

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:04:16 -0800

Is that how you met Dan, Bradley?

Comment by elenchos

elenchos — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:07:24 -0800

It's adorable when little countries want to lie just like big countries.

Take care, Bradley.

Comment by kerri harrop

kerri harrop — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:11:26 -0800

Long ago, there was a much-loved tradition at Seattle Weekly. Departing employees would receive a full-size mock up of the paper's cover, all about them. The ad department would put it together in secret, and the final result would make its way through inter-office mail, gaining signatures and little notes of well-wishes.

It all came to a crashing end around the tenure of one Ms. Alicia Cromer, the Weekly editor responsible for all sorts of calamities, including that unfortunate logo that looked like an art fair reject.

I am almost positive I was the last Weekly employee to receive a cover upon my departure. I still have it, somewhere.

I bring this up today because you, Bradley Steinbacher, former Minister of Propaganda, were a shining light in those dark days. We became friends then, and now, ten years later, you have your own cover.

I am sure going to miss your voice at The Stranger. This is a week filled with nostalgia, and I can't help but feel a bit sappy about your departure.

Sorry for the lengthy comment. I am a sentimental old fool.

Comment by kinkos

kinkos — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:28:06 -0800

kinkos bids you a fond farewell mr steinbacher/steen

good luck out there!

Comment by Timothy Hicks

Timothy Hicks — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:42:36 -0800

We should name the new treatment plant in Woodinville after Dear Leader.

Comment by Trevor

Trevor — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:51:20 -0800

On Iran:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174953/why_cheney_won_t_take_down_iran

"It's a reasonable proposition today -- as it wasn't perhaps a year ago -- that, whatever their desires, they will not, in the end, be able to launch an attack on Iran; that, even where there's a will, there may not be a way."

Comment by chops

chops — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:52:29 -0800

this week in McCain:
_____
McCain surrogate and economic advisor Phil Gramm say the recession is really all in our heads because America is "a nation of whiners."
_____
at this week's denver town hall meeting, McCain takes credit for passing the new GI bill while attacking it's actual author and vietnam vet, jim webb, as "not doing enough."

McCain then lies as he touts his senate voting record as "perfect" with regards to veterans issues.

A vietnam vet in the audience begs to differ.
_____

i dunno. nuts are fun and all, but i just thought someone might want to point these things out once in a while.

Comment by heywhatsit

heywhatsit — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:53:36 -0800

I missed my chance to watch you eat a sandwich from the first Strangercrombie auction. I'm a damn fool. What did that tape go for? $5.00?

Comment by Non

Non — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:05:05 -0800

Why isn't it news that Carl Rove is ignoring his court order to testify today?

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:43:23 -0800

Because Karl Marx Rove has done that once before.

I'm waiting for the House Sergeant At Arms to issue a Dead or Alive Warrant for his arrest, with a bounty, for us armed militia members to enforce ...

Comment by inkweary

inkweary — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:04:57 -0800

In reference to the line item about the Bush Sewer Plant: I can't believe a press secretary would make such a blatantly ungrammatical statement as "this doesn't dignify a response". What the Hell does that mean? Isn't the phrase actually "I(We)won't dignify *that* with a response"? Perhaps he meant "this doesn't deserve the dignity of a response" but he didn't and thereby lost any dignity he may have had. He is a public spokesperson, he should be able to speak in a manner that makes sense. Perhaps his boss's manner is rubbing off on him.