<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The VRWC, ODS, And Now CDS?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 07:43:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48584</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 21:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48584</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;M-Speaking to mortality, a women of Clinton&#039;s age, 66, has about a 1.1% chance of dying over a one year period and can expect to live a bit over 19 years more.&lt;/I&gt;

Does that stat take into account the uber-stressful life that Hillary leads??

I doubt it...  :D

You can quote actuarial tables til the cows come home..

&lt;B&gt;&quot;Some people live and die by the actuarial tables but I say &#039;What the hey, it&#039;s all just one big crapshoot anyhoo!&#039; &quot;&lt;/B&gt;
-NED!! RYERSON!!  Needle Nose Ned, Ned The Head
GROUND HOG DAY

:D

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>M-Speaking to mortality, a women of Clinton's age, 66, has about a 1.1% chance of dying over a one year period and can expect to live a bit over 19 years more.</i></p>
<p>Does that stat take into account the uber-stressful life that Hillary leads??</p>
<p>I doubt it...  :D</p>
<p>You can quote actuarial tables til the cows come home..</p>
<p><b>"Some people live and die by the actuarial tables but I say 'What the hey, it's all just one big crapshoot anyhoo!' "</b><br />
-NED!! RYERSON!!  Needle Nose Ned, Ned The Head<br />
GROUND HOG DAY</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheStig</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48579</link>
		<dc:creator>TheStig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 18:16:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48579</guid>
		<description>M-Speaking to mortality, a women of Clinton&#039;s age, 66, has about a 1.1% chance of dying over a one year period and can expect to live a bit over 19 years more.

Carl Rove&#039;s metrics, at age 63 are 1.4% and 22 years.

Bottom line, this epic cage fight between 1990&#039;s era &quot;young wonders&quot; is likely to go on in some form or the other for many more years. 

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>M-Speaking to mortality, a women of Clinton's age, 66, has about a 1.1% chance of dying over a one year period and can expect to live a bit over 19 years more.</p>
<p>Carl Rove's metrics, at age 63 are 1.4% and 22 years.</p>
<p>Bottom line, this epic cage fight between 1990's era "young wonders" is likely to go on in some form or the other for many more years. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48577</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 17:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48577</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;She&#039;s mortal and subject to insurance actuarial tables typical of her age. But, Hillary covets the Presidency, and if she can walk and talk it&#039;s going to take AT LEAST one primary loss to convince her she&#039;s not viable. Probably several losses, early on.&lt;/I&gt;

I disagree...

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/93/28/932886d294dc92f14d9ff7abbbe3c91d.jpeg?itok=i8G_LKV_

THAT Hillary won&#039;t run...

If Hillary comes to the realization that she doesn&#039;t stand a chance of winning, she won&#039;t run and tarnish her legacy..

More than the Presidency, Hillary wants a legacy...

A legacy without a Presidency is infinitely better than an attempt at a Presidency but a destroyed legacy..

&lt;I&gt;They don&#039;t roll over from a smear campaign, not to mention a genuine scandal. &lt;/I&gt;

Yes, *A* scandal.. 

But scandal on top of scandal on top of scandal...

I don&#039;t think she will be able to weather that...

Time will tell..

But assuming that Hillary DOES win the Presidency..

What&#039;s Bill going to be called??

First Rapist???

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>She's mortal and subject to insurance actuarial tables typical of her age. But, Hillary covets the Presidency, and if she can walk and talk it's going to take AT LEAST one primary loss to convince her she's not viable. Probably several losses, early on.</i></p>
<p>I disagree...</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/93/28/932886d294dc92f14d9ff7abbbe3c91d.jpeg?itok=i8G_LKV_" rel="nofollow">http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/93/28/932886d294dc92f14d9ff7abbbe3c91d.jpeg?itok=i8G_LKV_</a></p>
<p>THAT Hillary won't run...</p>
<p>If Hillary comes to the realization that she doesn't stand a chance of winning, she won't run and tarnish her legacy..</p>
<p>More than the Presidency, Hillary wants a legacy...</p>
<p>A legacy without a Presidency is infinitely better than an attempt at a Presidency but a destroyed legacy..</p>
<p><i>They don't roll over from a smear campaign, not to mention a genuine scandal. </i></p>
<p>Yes, *A* scandal.. </p>
<p>But scandal on top of scandal on top of scandal...</p>
<p>I don't think she will be able to weather that...</p>
<p>Time will tell..</p>
<p>But assuming that Hillary DOES win the Presidency..</p>
<p>What's Bill going to be called??</p>
<p>First Rapist???</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheStig</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48574</link>
		<dc:creator>TheStig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 17:19:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48574</guid>
		<description>M-

I don&#039;t think it&#039;s a done deal that Hillary will be on even one Democratic Primary ballot.  But,  my belief that you will be wrong is somewhere in the 90%-99% range.  Maybe 85%-95% on a really rainy day, it&#039;s still early in the election cycle.

She&#039;s mortal and subject to insurance actuarial tables typical of her age.  But, Hillary covets the Presidency, and if she can walk and talk it&#039;s going to take AT LEAST one primary loss to convince her she&#039;s not viable. Probably several losses, early on. 

Like &#039;em or hate &#039;em, Clintons are politically tough and adept at damage control. They don&#039;t roll over from a smear campaign, not to mention a genuine scandal. Voters don&#039;t necessarily see serous medical conditions as a reason to reject a candidate.  See FDR, Ike, Reagan.  Frankly few middle aged people don&#039;t have some degree of brain damage.  Ever suffer a concussion?  If you can&#039;t face this fact, you probably shouldn&#039;t casually get a head MRI.  Got lesions? Yep.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>M-</p>
<p>I don't think it's a done deal that Hillary will be on even one Democratic Primary ballot.  But,  my belief that you will be wrong is somewhere in the 90%-99% range.  Maybe 85%-95% on a really rainy day, it's still early in the election cycle.</p>
<p>She's mortal and subject to insurance actuarial tables typical of her age.  But, Hillary covets the Presidency, and if she can walk and talk it's going to take AT LEAST one primary loss to convince her she's not viable. Probably several losses, early on. </p>
<p>Like 'em or hate 'em, Clintons are politically tough and adept at damage control. They don't roll over from a smear campaign, not to mention a genuine scandal. Voters don't necessarily see serous medical conditions as a reason to reject a candidate.  See FDR, Ike, Reagan.  Frankly few middle aged people don't have some degree of brain damage.  Ever suffer a concussion?  If you can't face this fact, you probably shouldn't casually get a head MRI.  Got lesions? Yep.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48572</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 16:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48572</guid>
		<description>I am also constrained to point out that &quot;derangement&quot; is not simply an opposition malady..  Someone can be in support of someone in a deranged state of mind.

We see that a LOT around here..  :D

I must also point out that Derangement Syndrome is not merely a malady of the Right..

MANY on the Left suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Even years after Bush left office.

We saw THAT a lot around here as well..  :D

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am also constrained to point out that "derangement" is not simply an opposition malady..  Someone can be in support of someone in a deranged state of mind.</p>
<p>We see that a LOT around here..  :D</p>
<p>I must also point out that Derangement Syndrome is not merely a malady of the Right..</p>
<p>MANY on the Left suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Even years after Bush left office.</p>
<p>We saw THAT a lot around here as well..  :D</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48571</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 16:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48571</guid>
		<description>According to Bill Clinton, it took Hillary 6 months to recover from her fall..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629288/Bill-Clinton-reveals-took-Hillary-six-months-work-accident.html

Nothing serious???

Surely you jest...

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Bill Clinton, it took Hillary 6 months to recover from her fall..</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629288/Bill-Clinton-reveals-took-Hillary-six-months-work-accident.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629288/Bill-Clinton-reveals-took-Hillary-six-months-work-accident.html</a></p>
<p>Nothing serious???</p>
<p>Surely you jest...</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48570</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 16:22:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48570</guid>
		<description>TS,

I mean, Hillary Clinton will decide NOT to seek the Democratic Nomination for POTUS..

Consider this..

ANY new we hear about Hillary leading up to the Dem Primary will, by default, ALWAYS BE BAD NEWS..

Hill is not in a leadership position.  She has absolutely NO chances of doing anything Presidential...

As the bad news (like we just saw with Lewinsky) continues to pile on and pile on this will put more and more stress on Hillary...  

That&#039;s why it&#039;s almost even money as to what does her in...

The incessant scandals...

or 

Her health..

But Hillary will not voluntarily be on the ballot for the Dem primary..

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TS,</p>
<p>I mean, Hillary Clinton will decide NOT to seek the Democratic Nomination for POTUS..</p>
<p>Consider this..</p>
<p>ANY new we hear about Hillary leading up to the Dem Primary will, by default, ALWAYS BE BAD NEWS..</p>
<p>Hill is not in a leadership position.  She has absolutely NO chances of doing anything Presidential...</p>
<p>As the bad news (like we just saw with Lewinsky) continues to pile on and pile on this will put more and more stress on Hillary...  </p>
<p>That's why it's almost even money as to what does her in...</p>
<p>The incessant scandals...</p>
<p>or </p>
<p>Her health..</p>
<p>But Hillary will not voluntarily be on the ballot for the Dem primary..</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheStig</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48569</link>
		<dc:creator>TheStig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 16:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48569</guid>
		<description>ODS seems closely related to Over Acting Disease (OAD)which was the subject of a (very) short documentary film in the 1970s by Dr. Graham Chapman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbS2WJdav6c

Sorry &#039;bout the ad, but you can skip it with a click!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ODS seems closely related to Over Acting Disease (OAD)which was the subject of a (very) short documentary film in the 1970s by Dr. Graham Chapman.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbS2WJdav6c" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbS2WJdav6c</a></p>
<p>Sorry 'bout the ad, but you can skip it with a click!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheStig</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48568</link>
		<dc:creator>TheStig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 15:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48568</guid>
		<description>So Michael is turning Bayesian?  Granted, it&#039;s an odd way of framing the belief, since Bayesians tend to abhor prior probabilities of either 1 or zero.  60%-40% health - scandal means a 100% chance she doesn&#039;t run. 

OK, so what does &quot;not run&quot; mean? Some would say she is running right now, or has been running for some time. My guess is that &quot;some&quot; in either of these cases approximates &quot;most.&quot;

Does filling out the papers to form an &quot;exploratory committee&quot; in one or more states and/or DC count?

Is running in one of the many state primaries/caucuses the defining event?

Or, is it actually winning the nomination and running as the Democratic stand bearer, or failing that, running as a third party candidate?

Even for the highest bar(Democratic nominee), assuming a zero chance of success seems, to me, to be going way out on a very weak limb.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So Michael is turning Bayesian?  Granted, it's an odd way of framing the belief, since Bayesians tend to abhor prior probabilities of either 1 or zero.  60%-40% health - scandal means a 100% chance she doesn't run. </p>
<p>OK, so what does "not run" mean? Some would say she is running right now, or has been running for some time. My guess is that "some" in either of these cases approximates "most."</p>
<p>Does filling out the papers to form an "exploratory committee" in one or more states and/or DC count?</p>
<p>Is running in one of the many state primaries/caucuses the defining event?</p>
<p>Or, is it actually winning the nomination and running as the Democratic stand bearer, or failing that, running as a third party candidate?</p>
<p>Even for the highest bar(Democratic nominee), assuming a zero chance of success seems, to me, to be going way out on a very weak limb.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/14/the-vrwc-ods-and-now-cds/#comment-48562</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 12:23:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=9089#comment-48562</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt; In other words, this is not just about winning in 2014, it is about hounding Hillary for the next two years.&lt;/I&gt;

Or it could be about finding out the facts..

Obama and the Democrats could END the Benghazi discussion in a stone cold minute..

If they would just quit lying and stonewalling and be honest with the American people..

Yea.. Like THAT is going to happen..  Ergo, it&#039;s going to be a long investigation..

I am going to make a prediction here..

Hillary Clinton will NOT run for POTUS...

It&#039;s a toss up whether it&#039;s going to be health related or scandal related..

I estimate the odds at 60-40..  

60% chance she doesn&#039;t run for health reasons..

40% chance she doesn&#039;t run because of scandal..

Remember, you heard it here first...

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> In other words, this is not just about winning in 2014, it is about hounding Hillary for the next two years.</i></p>
<p>Or it could be about finding out the facts..</p>
<p>Obama and the Democrats could END the Benghazi discussion in a stone cold minute..</p>
<p>If they would just quit lying and stonewalling and be honest with the American people..</p>
<p>Yea.. Like THAT is going to happen..  Ergo, it's going to be a long investigation..</p>
<p>I am going to make a prediction here..</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton will NOT run for POTUS...</p>
<p>It's a toss up whether it's going to be health related or scandal related..</p>
<p>I estimate the odds at 60-40..  </p>
<p>60% chance she doesn't run for health reasons..</p>
<p>40% chance she doesn't run because of scandal..</p>
<p>Remember, you heard it here first...</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
