Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

Billy Donovan is a top candidate for the OKC Thunder job. Very nervous bout this.

You can talk about actual things that actually matter here.

Open Thread.

< Monday Night TV: Senor de los Cielos Returns | DEA Chief Leonhart Resigns >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't blame ya... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 02:56:17 PM EST
    for thinking about college hoops for the next 7 months with the state the NY Wankees are in Brother;) Lucky to be .500 out the gate.

    Meanwhile, the Mets go for 10 in a row tonight.  Even the injury bug can't slow us down...see you this weekend.  Degrom & Harvey & Niese...oh my!  We'll be sure to bring our brooms to the Bronx.

    Youre mart to get your trash talking iin now (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    Won;t be able to in a month.

    Ha. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    Mets fans get giddy (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 04:08:19 PM EST
    if the first week or 2 go well ;)

    You deserve an answer... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:51:44 PM EST
    In the now full thread...Bankruptcy Reform is a perfect example of Hillary's troubling Senate record.  

    She supposedly talks Bill out of signing it in the 90's after a heart to heart with Liz Warren on the issue, then votes for it in 2001??? Then misses the vote when it becomes law in 2005.

    To be fair she does say she regrets the vote...amongst her regrets on Civil Liberties (Patriot Act) and war (Iraq Resolution). How many regrets she gonna have after 2 terms as Pres I wonder?

    Plus her full support for bailing out the Wall St. Mafia during the financial crisis.

    More troubling than the record is her cozy relationship with Goldman and other criminal enterprises. Their financial support also raises questions of quid pro quo...never mind the Foundation. Any horse of theirs is no horse of mine.


    I give her a pass on missing (none / 0) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    the 2005 vote. Bill was in the hospital having heart surgery on the day of the vote.

    She gets no such break for the 2001 vote.


    Her support for WS was coupled with a housing act (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:16:13 PM EST
    HOLC (?) for homeowners, which she was pushing hard for. Sadly, everyone was all in for O (it was just after the primaries if you remember) and it really didn't get much play (imo). She was out there telling anyone who would listen (again, the O effect was full steam) MS needed help at the same time as WS. I wish someone would have listened . . . also, remember, she was a NY Sen, so protecting some of the state benefits re:bailing out WS was also in play.

    You do realize she was the 11th most liberal Sen during her time there, right? I have to wonder how much the money does play vs all the speculation that she is bought lock, stock and barrel. She would have to throw a lot of her life long advocacy out the  window, if that were the case, imo. Do you see that happening?

    Thanks for answering :)


    Thanks for questioning! (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    I must admit, in my quick research session, it wasn't as horrible as I expected.

    It's not totally fair, but I hold her husband's appalling record on these issues against her. Though it may be somewhat reasonable to give Bill's record some credence as to what to expect...they're not a hive mind.

    And much like the judiciary imo, the mere appearance of conflict of interest is enough to give serious pause.

    You know me long enough now to know I'm impossible for any mainstream pol to please;)


    I'd rather see the money flowing into charity (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 07:11:02 PM EST
    that is actually doing something, vs what the Koch Bros are doing. Think on this, what if there never was a Clinton Foundation? And Bill/Hill did not do any charitable work to avoid the GOP's appearance problem? They've been doing a lot of work for many years now. They are also very public with their yearly shake down sessions, lol!~

    I don't expect to convert you to any pol (nor am I trying), but I would like to see you not just fall back on the assumed, but verify ;)

    Go Mets?


    The Foundation... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 07:33:44 PM EST
    is the least of my concerns...though I am baffled by  the belief that there couldn't possibly be something  untoward about a family so close to the levers of power fundraising like that, even for worthy causes.  There is an inherent shadiness in that.

    Coming from the guy who thinks checking accounts are shady;) Koch Brothers and their whores? I have no words to describe that level of shady.


    Why (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:44:30 AM EST
    in the name of Hades would the most famous, most investigated couple of all time risk everything by conducting "shady" deals using a foundation with their name on it? Say what you will about the Clintons they are not fools. However all the haters who always insist that they are always up to some nefarious deeds, right under our noses no less, always end up sounding foolish when no evidence ever appears.

    I'm thinking... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    shady but legal Joe.  Like our entire financial system....just because it's legal don't mean it ain't shady.

    I agree the Clintons are too savvy to leave any evidence or to think they can break the law with the scrutiny they are under by haters...unspoken quid pro quo is almost impossible to prove anyway.  


    Shadiness (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    is in the eye of the beholder and of course the haters are always chasing shadows when it comes to the Clintons. the haters can absolutely not accept anything the Clintons do at face value.

    Nice strawman argument comparing the CGI to the financial system, talk about apples and oranges.... Can you not accept the fact that just maybe the CGI is exactly what it purports to be, Occams Razor says it most probably is,  while the haters of course insist on chasing phantoms and shadows


    They do great charitable work... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    but to avoid the appearance of impropriety, maybe the Clintons should retire from politics and go into philanthropy full time? Or resign from the foundation until such time as Hillary holds no office.

    I just don't think it's appropriate to have the office of the president (or SOS or Senate for that matter) so closely tied to an organization asking for donations around the globe.  Even if it's 100% on the level, the potential for impropriety is too great, or the mere appearance of.  


    I do (none / 0) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    believe most of you haters would find some kind of impropriety even if Bill was sitting at home drinking Jack Daniels and painting self portraits.

    "You Haters"? (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    I think of myself as a disliker...not a hater.  More so Bill than Hillary...after all the financial deregulation of the 90's, the Crime Bill, the unprecedented ramp-up of the war on marijuana...I got no love for that guy.  

    And no love for the middle of the road corporate-fellating Dems in general.  


    I am (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:21:42 AM EST
    not a Clinton lover myself but I am enough of a realist to realize that a
    middle of the road corporate-fellating Dems
    is probably the best we can do at this time. I do question why so may people who "dislike" them always seem to resort to unfounded rumors and innuendo to attack them.

    Sticking to policy issues such as

    ...after all the financial deregulation of the 90's, the Crime Bill, the unprecedented ramp-up of the war on marijuana...
    is worthy of valid discussion, but we should at least let Hillary stake out her own positions on issues and leave the scandal mongering to the likes of Breitbart and Fox News and, alas, the NYT.

    To be clear... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    my interest in the CGI thing is mostly theoretical...what and what is not appropriate for heads of state.  It won't effect my vote one iota.

    Also of curiosity to me is the flip side of the haters who just wanna get the Clintons and could care less about issues...those who sanctify them as some kind of liberal saviors who could never possibly do wrong.  Both sides of that coin are wacky man...I don't get it.

    The old "lesser evil/best we can do" thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way...we ain't ever gonna do better than that until we demand better than that and vote for better than that.  I understand Republican policy is frightening, and Democrats are all too happy to play on that fear to succeed instead of fighting harder on the issues.


    That is exactly why (none / 0) (#87)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    we should avoid attacking any and all Democrats on a "theoretical" basis and constantly pound away at their policy positions. I actually do think that all the "love" shown to Warren and other true progressives is having an effect on Clinton.

    I'm so (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    tired of the Jesus as a candidate thing. They all have problems. They all have issues and if Warren ran she would be Jesus until she wasn't. The whole Obama is Jesus left nothing but disappointment.

    Be happy. Be positive. Encourage postiive behavior. People are sick of this bogus scandal crap. And the scandal crap makes the people talking about it sounding like a bunch of toddlers demanding to be given their candy.


    This may be bogus... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    business as usual...that's the scandal imo.

    What you call searching for Jesus, I call refusing to accept Judas.


    No one (2.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 12:22:06 PM EST
    is going to be Jesus. A lot of Republicans thought Bush was and that didn't end well. You could argue they're all Judas.

    Can't agree with that... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    we shouldn't pull any punches on issues large or small...I think we can learn from the tea partiers there, they pull no punches and actually get more representation than we do in congress and the local level.  Though it does cost them at the presidential level with their primaries by forcing their candidates to take stands on issues dear to them, while we let ours skate through and scrounge for issue-scraps.

    Brand R used to be the Stepford party...now I think Brand D is more Stepfordish.  We fall in line and shrug our shoulders and say "it's the best we can do".  Fear is our primary motivator instead of hope for substantial improvement.


    Wrong again (none / 0) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    K-dog, the tp's absolutely ignore any scandal or personal peccadillos or even outright corruption that their heroes may have engaged in as long as they faithfully toe the party line, while screaming bloody murder at any whiff of "scandal" involving Democrats. Unfortunately there is no analogous orthodoxy on the left so we are left to play small ball and fight for every scrap. However joining the scandal-mongers from the right can only be counter productive. I am not saying we should give up the fight but we need to accept the reality of the battle field and choose are battles wisely. Joining in all this sturm und drang over CGI and other faux scandals is just fighting a useless battle.

    If they hadn't been subjected (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 07:56:41 PM EST
    to constant investigation since the early 90's, I might agree with you wholeheartedly, but after Bill was done in the WH and she was in the Senate eyeing the WH, an actual primary run and the SoS position, the Foundation has been looked at more than many ever will. And they knew it would be an issue, so I think they are prob acting on the upside. I can't see Bill torpedoing her chances (nor her).  Basically, I think, yet again, the GOP is shooting blanks . . .

    Here's a good example (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    of why I don't think much of anything will be found. link They knew this was coming, yet again.

    The Clinton Foundation currently (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 07:10:15 AM EST
    has 34 jobs offered on Linked-In.  They are mostly administrative and marketing positions, and people whose job is writing pretty reports like this one.

    They're well on their way to being just another bureaucracy heavy charity.

    Several of the job openings are strange.  Line cooks, pastry cooks, on call daytime and nighttime chefs in Little Rock, Arkansas?  Gotta wonder how much money they burn flying people into Little Rock for banquets.


    Those (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 07:35:44 AM EST
    jobs in Little Rock are probably ones at the Clinton Presidential Library which is funded by the CGI IIRC.

    Thanks, Ga6th (none / 0) (#119)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:55:32 PM EST
    Well, Jonah Keri of Grantland.com ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 04:32:43 PM EST
    ... seems to agree with kdog. Personally, I have the same take that you do, which is that eventually, gravity will likely catch up with the Mets and pull them back to earth with a thud.

    While it's certainly been a wonderful start for the Mets, the season ends in the first week of October, not the last week of April. I look for the Nationals to assert themselves and win the division again, rather handily.


    Despite the fact (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:35:05 PM EST
    that they're not in the same National League division, and that the Nats won over the Cards yesterday 2-1, I'm hoping that the St. Louis Cardinals beat the Nats' brains in tonight.
    Go, Cards!
    And I would prefer the Mets over the Nats in the Eastern Division, too, for that matter.  Here's hoping that the Mets win the division, not the Nats.
    Although, here's also hoping that if it comes down to the Mets vs the Cards in the National League, the Cards win.  ;-)

    I hoping the Dodgers have woken up the Giants (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:21:14 PM EST
    and we can go two in a row, lol!~

    Rarified Air Man... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    Our pitching is too good not to be in the hunt all year though...especially with how weak the Marlins and Braves look.

    We will help with your "Hillary problem" (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    once we get the reeducation centers set up it will all be good.  A little ole fashioned Clockwork Orange style aversion therapy and you will be good to go.

    Help is on the way man.  Hang in there.


    Alex was Alex again... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    in the end, droogie brother.

    But the Minister won (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    Alex wakes up in a hospital with broken bones. While being given a series of psychological tests, Alex finds that he no longer has an aversion to violence or to sex. The Minister of the Interior arrives and apologizes to Alex. He offers to take care of Alex and get him a job in return for cooperation with his election campaign and PR counter-offensive.

    Alex won too... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    I'm open to bribery and prostituting myself...do it every day in the cube.

    Make me an offer Hil! ;)


    Do I hear eleven? (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:27:44 AM EST
    Mets do it again in come from behind fashion...3-2.  Familia has been a revelation at closer, thank you Mejia for getting suspended.

    Lagares pulls a Willie Mays in center, and All the Lucas Duda Day comes through in the clutch again with the game winning rbi in the 8th.

    I'm sucked in hardcore...this could be bad;)


    Yes, I hear eleven... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 03:33:57 PM EST
    Do I hear twelve?

    Metropolitans sweep the 10 game homestand, 6-3 over Atlanta.  The ageless wonder Bartolo Colon gets his major league leading 4th win, Murph-Murph comes alive 2-3 4 rbis, Familia closes the door again for his major league leading 8th save.

    Mets Fever...catch it!


    And so it begins (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    The first false/already debunked claim of Peter Scweizer's hit-piece has already been disclosed.

    In another (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:33:42 PM EST
    week the comedians will be making jokes about it.

    The New York Times (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:39:31 PM EST
    "The Old Gray Lady"

    "You're known by the company you keep".....I know competition is fierce for news outlets these days, but what a price to pay for a few extra clicks!


    Barry Bonds' only conviction overturned (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:39:20 PM EST
    By a 10-1 vote of the Ninth Circuit, he did not "endeavor to obstruct justice" with a long-winded and rambling answer to a yes-or-no question before the grand jury in 2003. Hall of Fame, here we come?

    Piazza better get in first! (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:54:18 PM EST
    I'm kidding...Bonds should be in on his pre-roid years alone. But no Clemens...f#ck him;)

    So if someone (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    spends their first 10 years as an honest bank teller they should be forgiven for then embezzling??

    I agree that Bonds didn't obstruct but he did juice. I just can't figure out why any one would want Bond's name anywhere near Cooperstown.

    More than any other sport baseball is played by kids. Anyone who does anything that says "cheating is okay," and let's face it, juicing is cheating, should  be kicked out of the game.


    What of MLB... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:00:59 AM EST
    turning a blind eye to all the roids when all them home runs brought the fans back after the strike?  Is it not hyprocritical to punish the players alone?

    And what of all the great players of prior eras in the Hall who popped bennies like Tic Tacs? Should they be ousted from the HOF?

    In the case of Bonds, are you not sympathetic to why he started using?  Watching far inferior players like McGwire & Sosa hit roided dingers and break records and get the glory?  I don't blame him for leveling the playing field by doping.

    Like I say in the case of the great Pete Rose, you only sully the integrity of the HOF when you blackball some of the games greatest players. Anybody with eyes knows Bonds is a HOFer.  


    If you can find a way to (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:46:16 AM EST
    whip the owners I'll hold'em for you.

    I mean look what happened when they lowered the mound.

    That started the HR binge and the money and fame that followed.

    And while I can understand why he juiced that doesn't mean I approve.

    As in Rose's case, and I think Rose is arguably the greatest infielder ever, when you break the rules you pay the price.


    Many of the players in question... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    never failed a test...they're being blackballed on suspicion alone.  Sound suspicion perhaps, but unproven nonetheless.  That ain't right...but that's on the HOF voters.  MLB isn't the one forbidding entrance to the hall.  Sportswriters are a sour self-righteous bunch, and they do the national pastime no favors imo.

    As for Rose, I think he's paid a price...time to forgive and put the hit king in the Hall.  It's not a morality hall of fame.


    Guess I should put my Jersey on! (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    Record Warmth in Antarctica (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 10:27:54 AM EST

    Air temperatures reached record high levels at two Antarctic stations last week, setting a new mark for the warmest conditions ever measured anywhere on the continent. On March 23, at Argentina's base Marambio, a temperature of 17.4° Celsius (63.3° Fahrenheit) was reached, surpassing a previous record set in 1961 at a nearby base, Esperanza. The old record was 17.1° Celsius (62.8° Fahrenheit). However, Esperanza quickly reclaimed the record a few hours later on March 24, reaching a temperature of 17.5° Celsius (63.5° Fahrenheit).

    That's from my previous link.

    Here's the header from the LA Times article you quoted from:

    Does Antarctic Ice Growth Negate Climate Change?  Scientists Say No.

    the Antarctic, sea ice grows thicker when new snow falls on top of it, depressing it and flooding it with sea water, which eventually freezes. However, it's still unclear whether snowfall has increased in Antarctica, said Ron Kwok, a sea ice expert at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    It's even possible that the current growth spurt is just a short upward wiggle in a larger downward trend. "Thirty years isn't really that long," Stammerjohn said.

    In January, scientists at New York University offered the most complete explanation yet for the surprising trends in Antarctic sea ice extent. Writing in the journal Nature, they suggested the sea ice distribution in the south could be controlled by ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean through large-scale changes in atmospheric pressure linked to global warming and natural variability. Other researchers like the idea but say verifying it will take more time.

    If you were being honest about this subject, you wouldn't try to misrepresent an article as coming to the conclusion you wished was true.

    Thanks for playing!

    You again misquote me (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:35:22 PM EST
    You write:

    If you were being honest about this subject, you wouldn't try to misrepresent an article as coming to the conclusion you wished was true

    I wrote:

    Of course like all good hoaxers some claim that this doesn't mean anything.....Kinda like them claom Dr Phil Jones didn't mean it when he said MMGW hadn't happened.

    I misrepresented nothing. In fact, I call attention to the conclusion of the hoaxers.

    Of course that is par for the course who for  person, YOU, who claims I am writing about the deficit when I wrote DEBT.


    This is the second time (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    You've tried to selectively quote from the LA Times article to make it sound the opposite from what it is really about.  

    Yes, you claimed that Obama was adding to the Debt, which is only possible by adding to, not eroding the Debt by increasing the Deficit.  Quit embarrassing yourself about this yet again.

    To quote the playwright, "Don't bullsh*t a bullsh*tter".


    Say what??? (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 07:16:00 AM EST
    The national debt when Obama became Prez was $10.6 trillion.

    The national debt today is $18.1 trillion.

    $18.1 trillion minus $10.6 trillion is $7.5 trillion.

    Third grade math says that the debt under Obama has increased $7.5 trillion, and counting.

    You don't even know third grade math.

    Wow. ;-)


    There is interest on the debt, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 07:41:17 AM EST
    which would have accumulated no matter who was in office.

    But, anyhow, according to the WaPo, you're incorrect:

    So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let's look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House's historical budget tables.

    Size of national debt when Reagan took office: $1 trillion
    Size after six years: $2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
    Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

    In other words, when the numbers are placed in context, the national debt grew faster under Reagan than it has under Obama. But even he was a piker compared with wartime presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

    Pinocchio Test

    Raw numbers, lacking context and not adjusted for inflation or the size of the economy, are inherently misleading. While there are ways to look at the increase in debt over time that might bolster Priebus's point, that is not how he chose to defend it. Instead, he was relying on raw dollar figures, which really do not tell you much. And just because Obama used this method in a campaign setting, that's not an excuse for Republicans to use it, too.

    Thus Priebus's statement has elements of fact but lacks important context. He earns Two Pinocchios.

    So, now that you know the truth, you have no excuse to buy into The a Republican Bullsh*t line.

    Glad I could clear that up for you.


    Did you ever take a math class??? (2.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 08:47:22 AM EST
    Obviously you did not.

    But then you are a far left person.

    Have a nice day. You can't subtract.

    I bet someone else does your check book.



    Actually, I got an A in statistics (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 09:02:53 AM EST
    And, there is the question of using bare figures.  By your own criterion, Reagan more than doubled the Debt after 6 years in office, but he remains a Republican hero, while if Obama did it he'd be the worse traitor in American history in the 20th Century.

    Review the concept of proportionality before you accuse anyone of innumeracy, Jim. And quit swallowing the Fox News political nostrums.  


    Nice try at reframing... (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    No matter what Bush did, and he did go from 5 to 10 in 8 years, during Obama's rule it has went from 10 to above 17 in 6 years.

    And you don't need a  degree in statistics to do third grade math.

    Of course some sense, common sense that is, would be helpful.

    Like I said, maybe Hillary can get rid of the debt... I mean she got around $145 million from a Canadian company....

    ...and then forgot to mention it to the IRS.



    Yeah, Jim (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:21:24 PM EST
    keep repeating the stuff you get from RW websites, you really have a bad case of HCDS.

    Yeah, those RW websites (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:48:14 AM EST
    are just soooooooooo busy attacking Bush.


    The information on the national debt when Bush was sworn in and when Obama was sworn in and what it is now is available and is not political. It is just numbers.

    That you don't like the facts and the numbers is your business, not mine.

    BTW, the CATO Institute, using CBO numbers, isn't impressed with the "deficit reduction" you are so proud of.

    Let's start with the good news. The annual budget deficit continues to decline. This year's deficit is expected to be just $492 billion. Of course "just" is a relative term -- a $492 billion deficit still means that we are borrowing 14 cents out of every dollar that we spend. Even so, this represents a marked improvement from the $1.4 trillion deficit that we ran as recently as 2009. And, next year's deficit is projected to be even lower, possibly as low as $469 billion.

    Unfortunately, this respite is expected to be very short-lived. As soon as 2016, the deficit will begin growing again. By 2023, it is likely to once again top $1 trillion.


    Remember too, this represents only part of our national debt. If one includes intragovernmental debt (debt owed to government trust funds such as Social Security and Medicare), our national debt today is more than 103 percent of GDP, and will reach roughly 118 percent of GDP by 2025. The future unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, beyond what is owed to the various trust funds, add another $66 trillion to that (in discounted present-value terms), bringing our real indebtedness to over 480 percent of GDP.


    I pray that they are wrong.


    Well, they are in favor (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 11:48:49 AM EST
    of slashing SS, and just because I quote them on one subject doesn't mean I agree with them on everything.

    But thanks for flailing again in your response to me, or are you stalking/shadowing me now?


    More lies from Jim (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    Like I said, maybe Hillary can get rid of the debt... I mean she got around $145 million from a Canadian company...

    See if you can tell the difference between Hillary Clinton and CGI.  I bet if you try real hard, you can.

    Or not.


    i think Jim means she got to hold the check (none / 0) (#118)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:28:40 PM EST
    before it was deposited into the CGI bank account.

    Is Donovan actually a bona fide candidate ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    ... for the OKC job, or are these merely rumors that you're hearing? I'm only asking because (a) This is the first I've heard about this, and (b) the period for recruits to sign letters of intent began last Tuesday, and continues another four weeks through May 20.

    And sad to say, it's not unusual for unscrupulous coaches to disseminate such misleading information to potential recruits about another coach's supposedly imminent departure, as a means to discourage said recruits from signing with a particular school.


    P.S.: The Thunder's management ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    ... has to be friggin' insane to fire Scotty Brooks. What in the world are they thinking? Okay, so they missed the NBA playoffs for the first time in about six seasons. This year's team was really dogged by the injury bug, and they lost reigning MVP Kevin Durant for 55 games. That's certainly not Coach Brooks' fault.

    I think that this is an incredibly myopic move on OKC's part. Brooks has a .620 winning percentage, and led the Thunder to the NBA Western Conference finals in three of the past four years, and to the NBA Finals in 2012. Odds are better than even that he'll be unemployed for less than 96 hours, before the Denver Nuggets or Orlando Magic snap him up.



    P.P.S.: as of right now, ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 08:10:43 PM EST
    ... I'm going to consider all the current speculation regarding the OKC opening to be strictly that -- speculation.

    Likewise, UConn's Kevin Ollie has also been mentioned repeatedly by reporters and pundits alike as a candidate for the Thunders' job, but he's already issued a public statement that he's happy to remain as coach of the Huskies.

    That said, if we don't see a similar statement from Donovan by tomorrow, I think we can logically assume that something could indeed be amiss in Gainesville.



    Allz I Can Say... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    ...is that if someone had a middle name like Donovan, that person would be like the coolest dude eva.

    In Wisconsin, where Earth Day started (none / 0) (#15)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:43:41 PM EST
    . . .it is being celebrated in the Walker Way this year, with layoff notices to dozens of employees of the state environmental protection agency.  

    Very sad. (none / 0) (#17)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 05:53:26 PM EST
    If it were April 1st, your "news" would have a certain symmetry to it, Towanda.  Now ... the real news from Governor Automaton (or whatever Walker is) is merely ugly.  

    I don't generally care to disagree (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:05 PM EST
    with any of your historical knowledge, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that Earth Day first started in Wisconsin based on Senator Nelson, who hopped on board a month after it was first celebrated in San Francisco.

    I just trust the movement itself (none / 0) (#100)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 10:31:32 PM EST
    You are more than welcome to do that (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    except it was first brought up at a UN conference. But you can certainly take the American exceptionalism approach if you prefer.

    Nah, it's Sconnie exceptionalism (none / 0) (#121)
    by Towanda on Thu May 14, 2015 at 10:06:53 PM EST
    and Murrika could study up on how it's done.

    Troll bait (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:04:07 PM EST
    2014 was the hottest year in 135 years of record-keeping, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA announced on Friday.

    Previously, 2010 and 2005 held the record, but the 2014 temperature edged out both years by 0.07 F. The 10 warmest years on record have all been after 1998, and 2014 marked the 38th straight year with global average temperatures above the 20th-century average.

    Six months in 2014 also set monthly global heat records: May, June, August, September, October and December of last year were all the warmest such months on record.

    "Viewed in context, the record 2014 temperatures underscore the undeniable fact that we are witnessing, before our eyes, the effects of human-caused climate change," climate scientist Michael Mann told The Huffington Post. "It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be seeing a record year, during a record-warm decade, during a multidecadal period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled over at least the past millennium, if it were not for the rising levels of planet-warming gases produced by fossil fuel burning."

    Shh, not so loud. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 06:05:04 AM EST
    We wouldn't want (you know who) to hear this.

    Even the Republican candidates are talking about this (behind closed doors, of course)

    It seems that many of the leading candidates are worried, now that they're going to be operating on a national stage, and not just in front of their familiar, barely literate, winger/baggers.

    You knew it had to happen sooner or later. Major corporations, the military, and many of the very rich (up-to now silent) Republican donors, have had enough. These people are not stupid, they've milked the "climate hoax" crap for as long as they could. But, they all have top flight scholars and scientists on their staffs and payrolls, plus their grown children who've gone to the best universities, and know the truth. They all have been putting pressure on them to wake the f**k up.

    So, finally, they informed their Republican politicians that they couldn't keep supporting, let alone financing, their "hoax" hoax any longer. Needless to say, the presidential candidates, realizing their cash spigot may be turned off, have been having secret meetings among themselves as to how to break this to their sheep.

    Keep an eye out, and watch as it happens. I don't have a link at my fingertips just now; just Google: Republicans, secret global warming meetings, and you'll get lots & lots of sources.    


    Fantastic (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:08:57 AM EST
    another wedge issue for the clown show. Can't wait for the Kabuki dance if one or more of them flips. I am putting my money on  Lindsey Graham taking the dive if he runs.

    Ah you guys (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:58:21 AM EST

    But I gotta admit that some scientist do agree.

    To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.

    And here the hoaxers have been telling us it is the trend that matters....


    You want a trend? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:41:17 AM EST

    Arctic sea ice extent for March 2015 averaged 14.39 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles). This is the lowest March ice extent in the satellite record. It is 1.13 million square kilometers (436,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.52 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles). It is also 60,000 square kilometers (23,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month observed in 2006.


    As for the Met link, do you ever try to find the other side of the story when you quote from denialist sources?

    The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions:

    What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period?

    What are the potential drivers of the current pause?

    How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate?

    The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works.

    The second suggests that it is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role.

    The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.

    Schumer says (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:08:05 PM EST
    the roadblock to TPP is a currency bill.  Mostly directed at China.  He makes some interestimg points.  

    Warren on Maddow (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 06:12:19 PM EST
    tonight to discuss it.

    Listening to her discuss this (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 08:52:26 PM EST
    her problem appears to be more with Fast Track than with this particular bill.  With giving not just or even necessarily this president but the next one this power.
    She had almost nothing to say about the actual bill.  It was all about "greasing the skids".
    She explained that members of congress are not allowed to discuss the specifics in a public setting made no effort to even discuss it broad or vague terms.  
    It left the impression her problem is not with the bill but the process.

    I missed it (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 07:56:28 AM EST
    I did hope Warren would reveal something about the agreement.

    I suggest watching it online (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 07:58:44 AM EST
    it bordered on odd.

    Don't tell me... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:24:17 AM EST
    Liz drank the kool-aid! If they break her, all hope is lost.

    No, not at all (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:13:36 AM EST
    First of all, her hands (or her lips) were tied. She said she, and other Congress folks had seen/read the report, but, they were sworn to secrecy. There was just no way she was going to violate that restriction. When you're invited to an advance, private, meeting with the President, and are told the ground rules, do you really think she was going to violate that rule? No way, she's way too smart and classy to try anything sneaky. But, what she did tell us was plenty.

    There are something like 18 committees formed, and each one deals with a different aspect of this mammoth trade agreement. Now, here's what she did tell us, and draw your own conclusions as to what she was saying. 87% of all the people making up the membership of those committees are either CEO's of our biggest corporations, and/or corporate Lobbyists!

    Also, while she couldn't say a thing now about what's  in the agreement, she was adamant that the American public should be able to see it, discuss it, and give their representatives feedback on it before Congress votes on it. As it stands now only Congress, the CEO's, and the Lobbyists will have any say on what's in this agreement.


    All true (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:23:09 AM EST
    still it would have been nice to hear just one thing that "might possibly" happen as a result of this.
    I totally understand the requirement to not discuss it.  Still, to me it seemed she was trying to leverage opposition to this particular bill to opposition to Fast Track in general.  When the comment period was mentioned, which would not fit with the behind closed doors thing, she quickly changed the subject to "greasing the skids" for fast tract before that happens.

    This is not a criticism.  Actually it seems politically smart.  Just a bit frustrating.


    Schumers short appearance (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:51:06 AM EST
    on Hardball contained more useful information on the actual bill.

    No (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:28:09 AM EST
    i wouldn't say that.  She is adamantly opposed.  To something.

    Senators are also politicians, kdog (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    All of them.  They may have different audiences ... but, remember that it is not the end of the world (aka doom & gloom with all hope lost) because people seek the agreement and/or votes of others.  

    Compromise can be either good or bad ... and often a mixture of both.  Whether friendships, partnerships, marriage or politics at all levels, I really can't think of how anyone can hope to progress in a world, country, state, or district without give & take and getting a bit roughed up with occasional non-pure dust and everyday dirt. And, lots of human laughter.

    In my shopworn way, I've never taken to pristine picture-perfect homes nor enjoyed any meals that left behind an untouched, spotless kitchen.  Some good, some bad ... but then, I'm almost middlin' mainstream.  As good politicians & leaders like Hillary Clinton (and, undoubtedly, Elizabeth Warren) understand, forging unity for a positive direction is key to real progress in a large & very diverse country. <Here ends my speech.>


    Yes, politicians... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    which means when they're not taking pictures with babies they're trying to steal their candy.

    Compromise is necessary...the rub is knowing when and what to compromise, and when and where to draw the line on what is non-negotiable.  


    I'm not sure she can - I think this is being (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    treated like it's classified information that only select members of the administration have access to - and I don't think she's one of those select few.

    From maplight:

    Aside from select members of the Administration, the only people with full access to the working documents on the TPP negotiations are the members of the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) trade advisory system, including the 18-member Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (ITAC-15). Members of ITAC-15 include representatives from businesses and industry groups like the Recording Industry Association of America, Verizon, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; no public-interest groups, academics, or other non-industry experts serve on the committee.

    The industry trade advisory system was created by Congress, and membership is partly based on recommendations made from senators and representatives. The organizations represented on ITAC-15 include several top political spenders, who combined have given millions of dollars to members of Congress in recent years.

    As far as I know, the only part of the draft agreement that is out in the public domain is the chapter on intellectual property that Wikileaks liberated and published.

    Here's a link to the International Trade Administration's Industry Trade Advisory committees, which may prove enlightening.


    Watch the interview (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:33:57 AM EST


    Senator Warren cites 'rigged' process in concerns on trade deal
    Senator Elizabeth Warren explains to Rachel Maddow why she is reluctant to give fast track power to President Obama on a new trade deal, citing concerns that the crafting of the deal is 'rigged,' and insisting that the deal be made public first. Duration: 7:59

    From just a human, personal perception (none / 0) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:20:55 AM EST
    point of view: The reason this trade agreement is more hush, hush than our nuclear launce codes is because (and, this is just from the few examples I've been told, and what I've read) as a Democracy loving, independent minded citizen, it would curl your toes, starting at your neck. The ones I know about, when I was told, the only reaction I had was, "No phucking way!" "They can't be serious!" If the American public had access to this thing, it's stone-cold dead, instantly. A cadaver so frozen it would take light years to thaw. Think I'm kidding? Seriously, you don't have to be a lawyer, or an international trade expert, just a normal. average intellect, involved citizen. The wording is so brazen, so "in your face," and, most infuriating, absolutely rigid; no compromising, period.

    We've often talked (really joked) about our citizens reaching a tipping point, and taking to the streets. You know, pitchforks, blood in the streets, yadda, yadda. This trade bill, may just do it.

    Remember just this one fact. In America, you, as a citizen, if you feel you've been abused, or mistreated in some way, you, at least in theory, can petition the courts to try and redress those wrongs. This treaty, no way. If you've been damaged somehow by this treaty, just suck it up; there's no one to appeal to. We've relinquished the determination to foreign "courts." No Americans. The "court," or "trial," or, "arbitration,"  whatever "they" decide will be binding on you; no appeal. You'll be staring at a panel of members (judges) from Brunei, Malaysia, Peru, and Singapore. And, they'll be dispensing rulings to you, and your little flower shop in DesMoines will obey. (For clarification: America, of course, is a member, but, just one member. My point was that you won't have an American court to appeal to. And, whatever the representatives of those foreign countries decide will be binding on you here in America.)

    Just remember this: And, I challenge anyone who's informed on this topic to challenge me on this. After this agreement is signed, and becomes The Law of the Land, and enforced by our justice Department, and it's many affiliated partners, including the Whole Law Enforcement Apparatus, AND The Military......THEN, the language in the law will be available to be read by the citizenry.
    Then, and, only then, will you know why the contents today have to be so top secret.


    Actually no (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:26:02 AM EST
    she explained that any member of congress can read the entire thing but at not allowed to discuss it.

    How many of them do you think have (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    read it, any of it?  I would guess, very few.

    For heaven's sake - these are the people who will hold hearings on steroids in baseball, but they can't hold hearings or public discussions about a trade agreement that appears to contain some highly suspect and dangerous provisions?

    They can disseminate the agreement to industry leaders across a vast spectrum, but we can't read it?

    Why Fast Track? Because it's already been some 6 years since they started putting this monster together, and they're champing at the bit to get going on it?  Or because that's the only way to ram it through AND keep it secret AND free from real oversight AND prevent it from being either amended or filibustered, AND keep the American people from realizing that the TPP is, as Lambert dubbed it, an example of "absolutist capitalism?"

    Oh, and while we're on the subject, does anyone really understand what Fast Track is, or does?

    Take a gander at this, from naked capitalism.  And this, from wikipedia, which is maybe a little more easily digested.

    Is it ever really a good idea for the Congress to cede any of its authority over to the executive branch?  Because that's really what Fast Track does - and may be the reason Congress hasn't passed a Fast Track bill in a long time.


    Honestly (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    i certainly understand Warrens point.  That said it's also pretty easy to understand why the president, or anyone else might not want to allow congress, THIS congress, to get their hands on it so they can Christmas tree endless amendments concerning reproductive rights or gay wedding cakes or prayer in school or God only knows what in the process of voting no it.
    As I understand it that is largely what Fast Track is.  Once it's done all they can do is vote yes or know.

    But no I do not think many have or will read it.


    I guess it depends on your definition (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    of what "largely" is...

    Under this Fast Track bill, this president and the next one can sign any agreement she or he wishes with anyone she or he wishes, containing any provisions she or he wishes, regardless of what Congress declares as its "negotiating objectives." Then that trade bill would come before Congress for an up-or-down vote. The bill would also:

       Require votes in both the House and Senate within 90 days, forbidding any amendments and limiting debate to 20 hours, whether or not Congress' negotiating objectives were met.


        The Hatch bill includes several negotiating objectives not found in the 2002 Fast Track authority, most of which were also in the 2014 bill. However, the Fast Track process that the legislation would re-establish ensures that these negotiating objectives are entirely unenforceable. Whether or not Congress' negotiating objectives are met, the president could sign a pact before Congress approves it and obtain a yes or no vote in 90 days.

    Is the unenforceability of these "objectives" an accident or a feature? From Obama's point of view (and Hillary Clinton's?) it has to be a feature, since it enshrines executive power. One doesn't usually neuter your opponents in a knock-down drag-out fight by accident. That tends to be the goal.

    Keep this in mind -- nothing any progressive cares about will be allowed in a Fast-Tracked trade bill. When some corporate Democrat talks about how this Fast Track bill puts requirements on the administration in areas like environmental protection, labor practices (including union-busting and even -murdering), and currency manipulation, just say, "Read the language; isn't gonna happen." Those "requirements" do not have to be met under this law.

    Link and Link


    Look at it this way. The treaty is toxic in its language. Members of Congress can only read it in "reading rooms" without taking notes. If staff can see it at all, they have to have appropriate security clearances -- because the treaty is being classified as a national security document. When Obama lobbied members of Congress recently about passing Fast Track and TPP, he threatened them that if they talked about what they heard in the meeting, they'd be charged with a crime:

       As the Obama administration gives House Democrats a hard sell on a major controversial trade pact this week, it will be doing so under severe conditions: Any member of Congress who shares information with the public from a Wednesday briefing could be prosecuted for a crime.

    Heh...a "national security document" that all the many members of the trade advisory committees - high-level corporate executives and lobbyists, for the most part - can see...

    So much more to read at the links, and none of it likely to make you feel anything but vaguely-to-actively nauseated.

    Think about this: if it was a matter of the benign "largely," it seems like these FTA bills would be practically self-renewing; that passing one really means ceding their legislative power to the executive branch might be a clue as to why Congress has only authorized one - one! - fast-track trade authority bill in the last 21 years.


    I was ticked at Obama (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    Telling we the people that we need to adopt a wait and see attitude.  Even if his administration has done a great job, the next trade agreement produced by whoever will expect the same.  What could be more dangerous at this point?  And if it is crap, waiting to see will then require acts of God to reverse.

    His mild mannered demand though defies basic principles of democracy.  Is this the Putinish President that Fox News in the past sobbed for?


    Rand Pauls (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    son arrested for the third time link

    The interesting part at least to me is that he didn't have insurance since he's a student. I would think that is more of a reflection of his father than the arrests.

    I wonder if he is going to get caught up in the "three strikes laws".

    sounds like the kid needs help (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 06:59:46 AM EST
    hope his father helps him get it.

    Unless he makes the decision (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:53:28 AM EST
    to quit drinking, all the help in the world will be of little to no value to him.

    Yes (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:37:50 AM EST
    definitely a messed up kid and oddly enough one of his arrests was for assault and battery on a female.

    The insurance thing to me was interesting because I guess it means Rand Paul didn't pay the bill.


    at 22 (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:45:22 AM EST
    My parents didn't pay my car insurance bill either.

    He's still (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:58:21 AM EST
    in school though not out working at 22. Yeah, mine didn't pay my bill at 22 either but I was out of school and working.

    Even when I was in school (none / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 10:04:53 AM EST
    If I wanted a car I was paying for it.  And that in particular taught me a good/hard lesson about buying things I couldn't afford.

    Just saying, it's not unreasonable to expect a 22 year old (even one in college) to be somewhat responsible for their own finances.


    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 10:11:21 AM EST
    apparently as more is coming out he wasn't even driving his own car. Strange.

    More single payer news (none / 0) (#48)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:42:48 AM EST
    I hate to tell (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    you but this his how private insurance works. You are denied on your ability to pay but conservatives are a okay with that because it eliminates the "takers" from society.

    Jeebus! (none / 0) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:30:13 AM EST
    Just cut The Job Creator's taxes, slash the VA'S budget as the Conservatives have been demanding forever, and,

    Problem solved.


    Not at all (none / 0) (#120)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    You can pick which insurance provider has an acceptable policy. The insurer then has a contractual obligation to deliver. If they don't deliver the government can force them to meet their obligations. OTOH, if the single payer government decides to no longer cover knee reacements past age 60, then you are SOL.

    This is about the NHS and has (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    nothing to do with the VA.  

    What a shock - yet another dishonest comment from you.

    "Single Payer" doesn't mean that health care is supposed to be the equivalent of a free, all-you-can-eat buffet.


    This has nothing to do with the VA (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:50:35 AM EST
    But thanks for playing.

    President Obama to deliver a statement (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 08:49:50 AM EST
    In 10 minutes.  It also appears American and AL Qaeda member Adam Gadahn has been killed.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 09:39:57 PM EST
    "was beginning to emerge...."

    Is that like global cooling is (now) beginning to emerge??

    And why did they stop in 1979???????

    Hoaxers are hoaxers.

    And the Newsweek article and Dr Jones said what each said.

    Facts be facts,

    They did say what they said (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:44:00 AM EST
    That's about as good as the insight from Jim gets.

    OTOH - They didn't say what YOU said, which is why you resort to paraphrasing or clipped quotes - aka you're lying ... again.

    BTW - They stopped in 1979 because the LIE being pushed by you and your fellow wingnuts is that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 70s.  In reality, as the link shows, there was no scientific consensus on global cooling in the 70s.  In fact, only 10% of the studies were indicating possible cooling, while more than 50% were predicting warming.  Since then, there are thousands of studies that support the latter, and the consensus has grown to 97%+.

    Those facts, Jim.  So much harder to deal with than lies, huh?


    Actually Yman (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:25:12 PM EST
    Jones said this in a 7/5/2005 email:

    As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.

    Facts be facts, jack.

    And quoting Media Matters?? Heck, they make Fox News look Fair and Balanced.

    BTW - If you say you would like to see something happen that means it hasn't happened.

    You know, like "I would like to see yman be honest so I could give him some respect."

    Fat chance.


    Don't you even get the joke ? (none / 0) (#112)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:05:35 PM EST
    after being called up to capitol hill to be called a charlatan by some ignorant buffoons, I would surely hope DC would flood sooner rather then later just to get them to STFU. I am not even sure that scenario would convince you.

    Actually, Jim (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:02:29 PM EST
    Jones was discussing the climate change that was predicted to occur in the future based on the research and studies being discussed in his email.  He never said that climate change didn't happen or wasn't happening now, as you claimed/lied.

    Facts are facts.  Your lies are anything but ...


    But congrats (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    ... on caving entirely on your "global cooling" lie.

    It feels good to put that one to rest.