Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary After Objecting To Scaramucci Hire (cnbc.com) 543
CNBC reports: White House press secretary Sean Spicer abruptly resigned Friday after opposing President Donald Trump's appointment of Anthony Scaramucci as communications director. The president asked Spicer to stay in his role, but Spicer said appointing Scaramucci was a major mistake, The New York Times, citing a person with direct knowledge of the conversation. NBC News confirmed the resignation with two people familiar with the matter. Spicer tweeted later that he will continue to serve through August. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus was said to have advocated naming Spicer as press secretary. The two worked at the Republican National Committee before joining the administration. Following Spicer's resignation, Priebus said he supports Scaramucci "100 percent," according to news reports.
Checked... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
I got the impression that it was a matter of when, not if. I'm assuming Priebus won't be far behind. At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions, I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
Re:Checked... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He's not going to like what Scaramucci said about him in 2015
“a hack anti-American bullies association don’t like the way he talks about women”
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy... [twitter.com]
Re:ho hum (Score:5, Funny)
Thunderbolts and lightening, very very frightening ME!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Political political political political political?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry more than half that number will still available when Trump is voted out of office. Who want's to work for such a dickhead?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly?
Do you mean voting someone else in? It's gonna be a while before you even have the chance.
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly?
There is no mechanism for that in the Constitution.
Sure there is - it's right in the constitution under impeachment. A simple majority of the house and a 2/3 majority of the senate can vote him out of office. If he becomes toxic enough to the incumbents, they'll vote to impeach to keep their own seats in a future election. Nothing personal, just business (or self-interest, which politicians are really good at when it comes to voting on legislation, etc.)
Re: Checked... (Score:4, Informative)
What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly? There is no mechanism for that in the Constitution.
he has to commit a crime. ping!
Whether he has committed a crime is irrelevant to the quote I replied to, which claimed that the was no mechanism for voting him out of office in the constitution, when the simple fact is that the constitution specifies that a simple majority vote of the house and a 2/3 majority vote in the senate is exactly that mechanism the poster said doesn't exist.
Re: Checked... (Score:4, Informative)
But the constitution doesn't go into detail on what those impeachable offenses are, just "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors". High crimes are crimes against the state by a person in a position of power, like bribery or corruption. If 1/2 House decides that firing Comey was obstruction of justice (another "high crime") and 2/3 of the Senate agrees, then what he did is an impeachable offense whether or not it rises to the level of a criminal offense.
Re: (Score:3)
The only "cause" required is that enough representatives want them gone. It makes perfect sense and avoid loopholes.
You seem to think this is about the rule of law, it's not, it's just politics. An "innocent" President who has almost no support in Congress and Senate can be removed just as easily as a guilty one with the same lack of suppo
Re: (Score:3)
Again, read the original statement, which was the claim that there was no provision in the constitution to vote out the president. I pointed out that this was simply not true, that the constitution in fact allows for it. If you're too lazy to look a few posts up, here's the link [slashdot.org].
I was addressing ONLY the question of the constitution, not about whether Trump has actually done anything to be voted out. Learn to read before you call other people morons, moron. Why are you continuing to criticize me for somet
Re: Checked... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Checked... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect the court gets to step in and decide if the crime really rises to the level necessary for impeachement. The constitution does not say "for any reason" and so any legal dispute here goes to the supreme court. This is not at all the same thing as a recall election.
One would hope of course that any honest and sane representatives would refuse to vote to have the impeachment proceedings in the first place, and then vote against impeachment during the hearings, if there was no actual crime. Assuming that there are honest and sane representatives to be found.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, that's the one.
It's definitely an interesting legal question I think. It was clearly put there to handle cases of the President becoming incapacitated somehow (sickness usually, injury that doesn't kill him, like a coma), but "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" could also be argued to apply in cases in sheer incompetence or total lack of support (i.e., the President can't get anyone to work for him), which is what we're seeing now. But doing so can also be argued to be a method
Re: (Score:2)
Who want's to work for such a dickhead?
A whore.
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.
Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.
Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.
So goes liberal influence. Be progressive or be left behind.
It's about integrity, if you're a Trump appointee you're going to be put in a position where you have to publicly contradict your boss or lie your ass off. If you choose the first you'll have a really crappy job and you probably won't last long, if you choose the second you've destroyed your reputation and will have trouble finding reputable work afterwards.
Re: (Score:3)
People have withdrawn their names after Trump nominated them [washingtonpost.com].
Accepting a Trump position could turn out to be a career-ending move. Rejecting one could be seen as a positive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on, what qualified individual wouldn't jump at the chance to work for someone who is impossible to please and will blame you (in public, shouting to basically the entire English-speaking world and reaching well beyond that) for failing to do the impossible?
The pay must be great.
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just that, but to fail to illegally stomp out an investigation. He's angry as Sessions for not stopping the Russia investigation. He wants to reorganize the FBI and put them under direct control of the president so he can politicize law enforcement.
Just remember Trump supporters. The same things you let Trump do will be available to the next Democratic president.
Re:Checked... (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. +1. Demos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Bush did. Repos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Obama did...some of the very stuff that Bush did. And of course, Bush was also *mostly* following precedent. But each new precedent makes it easier for the next president.
sr
Not that Obama was perfect by any means, but he did try to get Congress to remove some of the crazy powers the President now has but the GOP wanted those powers if it won so they refused. Or maybe it was just because Obama was black. Honestly, I can't even tell anymore why the GOP hated him so much there is video of it's leaders publicly stating they will oppose anything Obama does, no matter what it is. They weren't banking on Trump winning, though, and now the most unstable, thin-skinned, easily manipulated, foolish, childish, moron on the planet has scary, relatively unchecked power.
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you Trumping? (Telling an easily falsified lie)
The meeting has been confirmed by the participants (with documentation), its legality is questionable enough it should end up a court case, and the Trump team has only revealed details one at a time as the press forced them to do so.
They conspired to violate American law by attempting to meet with agents of a foreign power to meddle in a domestic election. They covered their tracks. Now That they are exposed they're actually claiming it's OK because they failed at it.
If you're defending that with the official "nothingburger" line, you're so partisan as to be brain damaged.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh come on, what qualified individual wouldn't jump at the chance to work for someone who is impossible to please
It's more than impossible to please. Apparently Sessions should either have been clairvoyant or used a time machine to predict that he would have to recuse himself prior to the actions that caused the need for that recusal.
That's some wacky Trump level BS in just that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The pay is better if you are a guy...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd jump at the chance. I'd get a decent paycheck for the period I stuck it out, and I'd get 15 minutes of fame when I bailed. I'd also get $$$ for writing a book, giving an exclusive interview, whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are these posts open to people who aren't US citizens? The rate things are going he's going to run out before he makes it halfway through his term.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, fellowships and internships are open only to US citizens who do not hold dual citizenship with another nation. (I just checked the Whitehouse web site)
Also, Trump got elected on fear of immigrants and outsourcing so even if there's no written policy, I'd bet they're not hiring non-Americans (except at Trump family private businesses, of course).
As a Canadian I have to say... I'd probably seriously consider working for Trump just to work in the White House if the opportunity presented itself, though I
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions,
I'm not convinced that's a real thing. Sessions is part of Trump's core appeal to people who still think law and order are on the brink of breaking down, with drug-addled black lives matters activists plotting to murder us all.
The part of the right wing that hasn't completely abandoned reality recognizes crime is at a 50 year low. [nationalreview.com], but there's a big contingent that doesn't believe evidence is important when dealing with crime.
Without Sessions focusing the right wing's fear onto the usual target of black men who use drugs, it might be tough to keep them distracted from questions about crimes inside the white house. Trump could easily be dumb enough to not realize that, but I have to think whoever of his allies he listens to realize it. That line in the interview was just part of the usual stream of consciousness coming out of the POTUS' mouth. He likely forgot he said it a minute later.
Furthermore, I'm skeptical how much Sessions actually recused himself. I have no proof he was or is meddling with the investigation, but why would we just assume anyone in the administration has done behind closed doors what they said they would? For that matter, even a more respectable administration, why would we just take their word for it?
Until Trump gets impeached and Sessions carries out whatever role he is supposed to play in the process, I'm going to remain convinced this whole "Trump and sessions breakup!?!?" is just another plan to distract attention from Russia, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the health care repeal.
Re:Not true (Score:4, Informative)
But the fact is the majority of Americans _want_ the government to take a larger role in improving their lives. Trump played to that and the media played along and let him talk out of both sides of his mouth. Make no mistake, the Dems lost because they tried to have their cake (big money donations) and eat it to (populist left)
Those are good points, but I'd say you're missing the glue that holds it together is that the voters were stupid. Hillary came up with concrete, detailed plans that would help the populace. The voters ignored such boring things and voted for vague unrealistic one-line promises, first in the form of Obama, then almost in the form of Sanders, finally in the form of Trump.
I didn't hear much about big money donations, though maybe that was just because of the sheer volume of Trump related nonsense.
Re:Checked... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies? He's the brand name, the wrapper on the chocolate bar.
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies?
I bet he does.
Re: (Score:2)
Aw come on, with all the sugarcoating it must be delicious!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Excellent. We have excellent chocolate, the best. Trust me, I know chocolate. We'll have the top chocolate people in our administration and we're going to make chocolate great again.
Scaramucci's main qualifications (Score:3)
He's got well-developed shoulder and bicep muscles, which will be useful for shovelling the shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that sleeveless is an acceptable business attire...
Re:Checked... (Score:5, Informative)
You would think it would be fake with what Scaramucci has said about Trump in the past. Someone must not have shown Trump videos of what he's said about him. Trump isn't usually one to let go of past insults.
Scaramucci has called Trump a "big mouth", "anti-American", and a "hack." "You’re an inherited money dude from Queens County." That Trump should be "president of" "the Queens County Bullies Association." He said Trump should "cut it out now and stop all this crazy rhetoric spinning everybody’s heads around.”
https://thinkprogress.org/anth... [thinkprogress.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
SNL... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't post AC and I wouldn't be working in IT if I wasn't an asshole.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That Amazon link (when unshortened) contains an affiliate tag (&tag=cdr-slashdot), meaning creimer gets a cut if you buy that product within a certain amount of time of clicking the link, or if you buy some other product.
No thanks, creimer.
Perhaps he can recover some dignity... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that he doesn't have to spin (which is a really, really generous way to put it since it was more like bald-faced lying) to cover the outburst of five minutes ago knowing he'll be undermined by the ill-considered revelation of five minutes hence.
I also find it difficult to believe Spicer will find a less respectful, less loyal boss wherever he goes next, given how often he got thrown under the bus.
Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... (Score:4, Funny)
"Perhaps he can recovery some dignity..." ... but he'll never recover his integrity.
Why anyone reported on what he said baffles me; he has to rank up there with Baghdad Bob.
Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Integrity in communications is defined as reliably covering your boss or client's ass with 'spin'.
There are people out there who will respect Spicer for essentially shredding his own credibility and being willing to look like a fool in service to Trump.
It'd take a mix of balls and stupidity to put him in front of a camera again, but I can see him getting any number of good offers for work 'behind the curtain'.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, ideal fit for finance, oil and gas, telecommunications, social media, airlines sectors.
Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... (Score:4, Interesting)
Traditionally, the White House Press Secretary doesn't want to know the truth. So nothing he or she says can technically be called a lie.
Worst informed person in any whitehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... (Score:5, Informative)
All right, what were you trying to write and why are you too stupid to use the Preview button?
Exactly what I wrote: Nazgûl [wikipedia.org]. If there's an issue with special characters displaying fine in my browser but getting munged across browsers/platforms, that's hardly my fault, yeah?
Also, Slashdot doesn't let people post without previewing, but I suspect you knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot doesn't let people post without previewing
There's no Preview on mobile, and there's no CAPTCHA on mobile either.
Huh--I didn't [know|remember] that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM lawyers...
Re: (Score:3)
1. He'll simply slip into obscurity as that guy who was the first press secretary in a long line of press secretaries for Trump. Pitted by forgotten.
2. He'll come out strong as being a voice of reason in the white house who finally left in disgust when he realized Trump is surrounded by sycophants and ultimately Trump is a shitweasel. His reputation will be salvaged as the guy who left.
If option 2 becomes true maybe he becomes some kind of spokesman for/against the ad
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked that there are still people out there who think Trump is a conservative.
One word... (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally.
Seriously... Biggest crowd ever on day one? "It's not a travel ban" when Trump was calling it just that on Twitter? “Not even Hitler” employed the use of chemical weapons? Has there ever been a US press secretary so ill informed and/or prone to lying?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't respect him for lying - he should have resigned as soon as given orders about the mall crowd crap - but you can't lay the ultimate blame for the lies themselves at his feet.
Well, probably for the Hitler one, that sounds like a really, really stupid ad lib.
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the things Spicer said, that's the one where I really don't hold it against him. He was trying to be clever, and said something stupid. People say stupid things all the time, so really, if that were the extent of insanity of this administration, I'd give him a pass.
Re:One word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Press secretaries generally don't say stupid things all the time. They are chosen because they're eloquent, intelligent, well informed, and thoughtful. I.E. not the way Trump's are.
Re: (Score:3)
Press secretaries generally don't say stupid things all the time. They are chosen because they're eloquent, intelligent, well informed, and thoughtful. I.E. not the way Trump's are.
Spicer was between a rock and a hard place, though. The official message coming out of the White House was very often up against hard facts directly disputing the official line. In the face of clear contradictory evidence, the only option he had was to keep pounding out the line. They have to know most of the statements they make are pure bullshit, but it's their job. It's how Trump operates and how he expects his administration to operate. Look at Kelly Ann Conway for another example.
Personally, I t
Re:One word... (Score:5, Insightful)
I absolutely agree that he was fucked in his job. Press Secretaries are supposed to help drive the president's agenda, and when yours doesn't have one, that is really hard. Press Secretaries are supposed to work with the president to stay on message, and when the President can't do that, how can he? Super tough job, for sure. But Spicer wasn't anywhere near good enough to even make a half-assed attempt at it.
But just because you're between a rock and a hard place doesn't mean you have to stay stupid shit, or every press secretary ever would be getting the same level of treatment that Spicer got. Hell, he gets Baghdad Bob comparisons! If you're between a rock and a hard place, you don't have to say that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.
Plenty of competent press secretaries have done this job, and have turned "no comment" into an art form. It's notable when one is unable to do that. Notable enough that their antics get into pop culture. The average joe couldn't name more than 1 other former press secretary. The average joe knows this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of competent press secretaries have done this job, and have turned "no comment" into an art form. It's notable when one is unable to do that. Notable enough that their antics get into pop culture. The average joe couldn't name more than 1 other former press secretary. The average joe knows this one.
The problem is, if he went out there and said nothing but "No Comment", in Trump's mind that would come across at the very least as not defending him, if not outright criticism of Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
>I'd love to see Spicer get a job as a commentator on CNN so he can say what he really thinks of Trump.
His job was to cover for Trump, and he can't undermine his past work or nobody will ever trust him. Unless there's a massive change in the wind and the entire US population turns on Trump, he's got to keep his mouth shut unless compelled to testify under oath.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Spicer goes to CNN or MSNBC and gets to sound off on Trump.
That would be awesome, but Spicer would have to be a complete idiot to do it while Trump is still in office, and maybe even after. Trump has a vindictive streak a mile wide and the sort of "disloyalty" that would constitute in his eyes would provoke a really dangerous reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Has there ever been a US press secretary so ill informed and/or prone to lying?
Not yet. I'm guessing whomever they get to replace Spinny Spice will make him seem wise and reputable by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in warfare
The Germans did actually use chemical weapons in a handful of cases in combat. From Wikipedia:
The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[61] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[61] Victor Israelyan, a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[62] After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimuskai quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."[63] Thousands of those killed around Adzhimushk were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation from gas.[62]
Can't be trusted! (Score:4, Funny)
You can't trust anything Reince Priebus says when you don't even know his real identity! Reince Priebus is just an anagram for his secret luddite society: Beeps Incur Ire! ;)
Re:Can't be trusted! (Score:5, Funny)
The conspiracy is even deeper than you think, and yet it is there for all to see, when you know where to look.
If you take all the vowels out of his name, "Reince Priebus" becomes "RNC PR BS".
Re: (Score:2)
If this revelation isn't stolen by a late-night show, the world will be a sadder place.
Why not answer the real question? (Score:5, Funny)
Can Scaramucci do the fandango???
Re: (Score:2)
--ROFL, I brought this up and nobody got the reference... +1!
Scratching head here (Score:2)
Objecting To Scaramucci Hire (Score:2)
Well, of course; he was demoted to Aku's number three assassin, after all.
Damn... Not funny anymore... (Score:2)
(As seen from Bucharest) At least with Sean Spicer the Trump presidency was humorous. Dark humor, but humor nevertheless. Now it's just plain sad.
A little too far (Score:2, Insightful)
I was pretty happy when Trump was elected, because finally the press would be paying attention to things the president did...
However they have dialed it WAY TOO FAR towards over-coverage when on my technical news site I am getting stories about a press secretary resigning.
At this point any real news is going to get lost in the seas of mundanity, which rather defeats the point of covering actions.
Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, poor poor Donald Trump. What's a man to do?
Oh, that's right, try to find ways to fire the special prosecutor and indemnify himself and his close cohorts by pardoning the whole bloody lot.
Rather and the lack of skepticism (Score:5, Informative)
I think it's a little silly to think that Rather knew the Killian documents were fakes-- believing that the documents were real killed all respect for him in his chosen profession. and made the capstone to his long career in television the fact that he was a dupe. The exposure of fake documents very plausibly led to George W. Bush's election, so if he ran with the story because he "hated George W. Bush", he did exactly the opposite of what was intended.
A more real interpretation, however, is that since the faked documents confirmed the worst of exactly what he already believed, he failed to use his journalistic skepticism and just ran with it.
The take-away lesson is to continue to be skeptical even when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe-- in fact, to be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe.
Or, in the words of scam-busters: "if it's too good to be true... it probably isn't."
Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism (Score:4, Insightful)
be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe.
Oh yeah, that's a quote worth remembering.
Re: (Score:2)
That was their first story. Later they formed a finger pointing circle.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I know that the "lie is true" even though there's no evidence for it, 'cause I'm psychic!
Re: (Score:2)
He was the villain in a James Bond movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody has two rows of vestigial nipples. The first one looks like a tiny mole, the lower ones look like freckles.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But Fox News is permanently attached to it.
Re: why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Spicer's ego was hurt.
Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's the most serious thing happening in US politics going on right now.
If you don't like these kinds of stories, why do you bother to open them and comment? I think the answer is obvious; you do care, it makes you angry, and you feel compelled to open such stories, comment on how they don't matter and yet still try to throw out some red herring about the other team.
Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
There have been political stories on /. since I was started posting here (circa 2003). In other words, if you don't like the story in question, then don't open it up. It's really simple, and doesn't make you sound like an arse.
Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? (Score:4, Interesting)
Try to stop being butthurt that this is news that makes Dems happy instead of news that makes Republicans happy. Maybe if you hadn't elected Trump the news would go your way more frequently.
Anyway, continuing to stand solidly behind Trump as he constantly shows himself to be inept and corrupt is just going to hurt your party in the next election cycle. At some point, you're going to have to admit you were wrong.
Which, by the way, doesn't mean you're turning into a Democrat, or that you're calling for the destruction of the Republican party or its fundamental policies. It means you recognize you screwed up and put the wrong figurehead on your organization.
Kind of like the Democrats screwed up by trying to build a Clinton dynasty with Hillary and condescendingly brushed off the disenfranchised voters who ultimately flocked to Trump.
Every second you dig in your heels instead of correcting your mistake is hurting your party AND your country further.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind truly important non-tech news being here so I can keep away from regular news outlets and still learn everything I need to know about the world events from fellow nerds but this doesn't cross the threshold of importance for me either.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't stop me now!