Your video, How to ride a sidecar motorbike, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You may see an hilarious bear in a sidecar blowing a trumpet.

I see a wild animal conditioned by torture to perform acts that it cannot understand.

Your video, HOW TO corner a Sidecar!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You know what they call the guys on the sidecars? Monkeys.

Sidecar
1 part brandy/cognac
1 part triple sec
juice of one lemon
sugared rim
rocks or martini glass

I know that feel, bro.

I love my dog to pieces and I know he'd LOVE a ride, and now I have an idea to make that happen!>> ^Gunter:

I often wish I had a sidecar for my 4 legged friend to rock out in. When he barks @ me as i leave for a ride from the window. I feel like such a selfish asshole lol.

I often wish I had a sidecar for my 4 legged friend to rock out in. When he barks @ me as i leave for a ride from the window. I feel like such a selfish asshole lol.

>> ^My_design:
One other question, if the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, prior to Kennedy's death, then what kept them from getting this thing passed the first time around? I would think that it would have been better for them to pass the bill when they could and then make the changes later.

You and me both! Democrats seem to love to shoot themselves in the foot. They were bending over backwards and tying themselves into knots to make the bill appealing enough to conservatives to win Republican votes.

They also have members of their own party whose electoral strategy is to be "centrist", which often means "hold legislation hostage until Democrats water down their legislation." There also was a pretty drawn out argument between the Senate and the House about things like the public option, employer mandates, how to pay for it (liberals wanted to tax the rich, conservadems wanted to repeal the tax exemption on employer benefits), the overall level at which people would be subsidized, and even whether there would be a single, nationwide "exchange" set up, or if they would be done state-by-state. The conservadems in the Senate won every single one of those fights by holding their breath and refusing to vote for the bill until they got their way. After they lost the race in MA, there wasn't any way for the House to try to claw any of those back, except some of the tax & subsidy stuff (via the reconciliation "sidecar").

I also think losing the Senate race in Massachusetts itself was political malpractice. There was no way a Republican should have won that race, but Coakley went on vacation after the primary (literally and figuratively), and Brown went to everyone's front yard and asked for their vote. That's a recipe for success, no matter what the prevailing political environment looks like. Voters don't like to be taken for granted like that.

@burdturgler, gonna have to respond to that one in detail later, for some reason I can't get the clip to play more than the first few seconds while I'm at work. Looks like they're taking old clips of Obama drawing distinctions between himself and Bush & Hillary (they're polarizing 50-plus-one types, and I'm a big-majority bipartisan guy) and conflating that with commentary on the budget reconciliation process.

@My_design, it's true that Democrats passed one bill in the Senate, and a different bill in the House, and until the same bill passes both houses, Obama can't sign it into law. The House could just pass the Senate bill, and we'd be done. The House doesn't want to do that, because there are provisions of the Senate bill they want removed or adjusted. Normally you'd have a conference committee, and try to pass the conference report through both houses again, but with Republicans committed to voting against HCR no matter what, Democrats aren't going to do that.

Instead they're going to pass a separate bill that modifies the Senate bill under reconciliation. They're going to write it to meet the restrictions of reconciliation, which means not much will change, essentially just the tax & subsidy portions will be altered.

Once that smaller bill has passed both houses, the House will pass the Senate bill, and send both to the President, who will sign the original Senate bill into law first, then the reconciliation "sidecar" second.

All that is kosher under the Senate rules (and the Constitution). IMO, it's cool with me that the Senate passes everything by majority vote from here on out, even if the Republicans regain control (but that's the real "nuclear option").

Now, accusing Democrats as being hypocritical on reconciliation is a bit better grounds, but I think you're trying to draw an equivalence that isn't justified. Republicans have used reconciliation time and time again to pass their agenda. Democrats didn't like that, and certainly spoke out against it then.

Difference is in what they said about it. Republicans are saying that this has never been done before -- which isn't true. Republicans are saying that Democrats are trying to pass the whole bill under reconciliation -- which isn't true. Republicans are saying that the filibuster is some sort of Constitutionally-mandated thing -- it isn't, and just a few years ago they argued that the Constitution said the reverse.

Now, what you quoted Obama as saying was "I think we need a full debate", not "you shouldn't be allowed to pass this without approval from my party (which we'll never give, so stop trying already), and if you do it'll be the end of democracy itself!"

When Democrats opposed the Bush tax cuts, they said reconciliation was meant to balance the budget, not explode it. That, as opposed to what Republicans are saying, is actually factually accurate, and it's not inconsistent with what they're planning on doing with reconciliation now.

Hence, no real need for Rachel to trash Democrats for "lying", unless she was a) a right-wing ideologue creating political cover for Republicans or b) wants to try to be "neutral" and misrepresent things so Democrats and Republicans look equally guilty.

@Psychologic, you're pretty much on the mark about reconciliation. The main bill already passed the Senate under regular order with 60 votes (pre-Brown). They're going to pass a second, smaller bill that modifies the Senate bill under reconciliation. Then the House will vote on both bills, and send both to the President's desk where the Senate bill will be signed, then the reconciliation "sidecar" will be signed shortly thereafter.

The mandate is technically set up as an excise tax on the "luxury" of not carrying health insurance. That seems a bit weird to me, but your way would presumably work just as well. A straight 2% increase in income tax, with a 2% income tax break for people who have health insurance would work fine.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^eric3579:
Give the guy in the sidecar a crossbow or a spear to make it really exciting (Roman style).


Exactly what I was thinking- or just a big walloping stick.

I used to watch this stuff, it was really awesome. I think the guy in the sidecar is known as a "Monkey" because he's all over the place helping balance and such.

Give the guy in the sidecar a crossbow or a spear to make it really exciting (Roman style).

>> ^coolhund:
Arent some trucks in Russia named Ural?
How... ironic!


Actually there is an entire breed of motorcycles called Ural.

http://www.ural.com/

They have side-cars and the wheel on the axle of the sidecar also gets power which enables you to ride around in the snow.

Tags changed from "yeh dosti,motorcycle,sidecar,guy love" to "yeh dosti,motorcycle,sidecar,bollywood" by gold star member gwaan.