Nickname, compliment, and fact.
I live it.

That absolutely was meant as a compliment; just letting you know it was. "Punk" was meant as a compliment! :)

I definitely see room for reasonable people to disagree though, so it's not like it's enough to keep me from turning down a ride in your tank if you offered one.

LOL. I knew what you meant. I think my "tank" is going to end up being a Jeep Wrangler... like you said, better gas mileage.

I will say this about Manning, I think his sentencing was harsh. However, they probably wanted to make an example out of him because he took an oath and then knowingly broke that oath with little regard to the documents he leaked. He wanted to please his chat room pals at WikiLeaks, and sent documents to his "friends," in some instances without even knowing what the documents contained. It's not whistle-blowing IMO to just hand over documents indiscriminately for publishing... so agree to disagree on Manning and Snowden. I just think some of their documents were whistle-blowing, but a whole lot of them weren't. My mother disagrees, my sister disagrees... they saw a movie. Hey... that's my problem; I should have watched the movie. :)

Actually, politically correct isn't even accurate in my opinion. Greedo deserved it.

The original script says it all; he was a "slimy alien." :)

Good story about Johnson.
I think you made a sufficient and perfectly valid statement with your crying.

One of my father's (RIP) favorite stories... how his baby wanted nothing to do with LBJ and cried for daddy. Still, I should have poked him in the eye with my little baby finger... missed opportunity. ;)

I think old threads close after two weeks here.
We may have to move the conversation soon.

I'll find you, Punk. I seriously do mean that as a compliment. :)

edit to 87

"I definitely see room for reasonable people to disagree though, so it's not like it's enough to keep me from turning down a ride in your tank if you offered one."

That should read... "keep me from accepting a ride".

Double negative brain fart.
What's a punk to do?

A

Nickname, compliment, and fact.
I live it.

I think your moniker is perfect.

"I think I was meaning that those like Manning and Snowden aren't heroes IMO"

You may be, or may have been privy to information that hasn't been publicly disclosed, but there were a lot of accusations about both of those guys, er, guy and gal, along the lines of endangering Americans.
When pressed, and few of them were pressed, none of them were able to back up their claims.

While plausible in theory, the stink seems to have been for deterrence and public opinion purposes... and to distract from the very real criminality that was exposed.

Snowden in particular turned over the documents to journalists, and left it to them to determine what was released in the name of the public interest.

Manning's release was more historical in nature rather than about ongoing programs.

I definitely see room for reasonable people to disagree though, so it's not like it's enough to keep me from turning down a ride in your tank if you offered one.

I still have an original version of the trilogy on VHS... before the politically correct revisionism.
Actually, politically correct isn't even accurate in my opinion. Greedo deserved it.

Good story about Johnson.
I think you made a sufficient and perfectly valid statement with your crying.
He has a few other black marks on his record, so the Nixon bit is hardly surprising.

I think old threads close after two weeks here.
We may have to move the conversation soon.

A

Good conversation is hard to come by... particularly when it is intentionally disrupted.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh... He insists he's doing a public service here... like he goes on Alex Jones, Breitbart, and Drudge and insists they trash talk his idol and like the way he trash talks Trump on here. {shakes head} *LOL*

The punk rock music scene in DC was my salvation and the source of my anti-establishment education.

Sounds intense. Just so you know, you have inadvertently given yourself a nickname... punk! :)

Generally speaking I favor transparency over secrecy, but I'd need an example to weigh in on what you are referring to there.

I think I was meaning that those like Manning and Snowden aren't heroes IMO because I feel they crossed a line beyond whistle-blowing. Manning confessed as much, while Snowden admitted he obtained his job at Booz with the specific intent to gain access to information that he did not otherwise have. Although part of what they disclosed was whistle-blowing, part of it definitely was not and could be used to aid an enemy and endanger Americans. Snowden wanted to be famous; he sure got his wish.

Han fired first!!!

I know, right... don't believe us, just read the script.

Han: Yes, I'll bet you have.

Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of light. Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the other patrons look on in bemused amazement. Han gets up and starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins as he leaves.

And scene. Han acted alone... probably why he's called "Solo." At least he didn't "stiff" the bartender. :)

Perhaps I am missing your point?

Oh, I was probably meaning something along the lines of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." Government is more than the IC.

I don't know if it was just recently revealed or if I just learned about it, but apparently President Johnson became aware of Nixon communicating with the South Vietnamese government encouraging them to scuttle a peace agreement to end the war in order to help his election chances.

Oh, yes. I believe that story broke around 2013/2014. Horrible. No question about it. There's so much history still being discovered with journalists putting notes together with taped telephone conversations. True fact: I was once held in a loving embrace by LBJ. He being much taller than I at the time, he had to lift me off the ground. He kissed me on the cheek, while I cried... like a baby... for my daddy. Should have poked his eyes out when I had the chance. :)

It's probably overkill for such a little weasel. I'm fairly confident that no jury would vote to convict though.

I know that's right... particularly a jury of his peers!

Later... punk. :)

Good conversation is hard to come by... particularly when it is intentionally disrupted.

I spent a lot of time at both of those museums. It takes multiple visits just to see everything. But they cater to tourists, meaning they don't feel the need to change the exhibits often enough.
Well, Air and Space really can't do too much given the size and historical relevance of most of what they have. But the Smithsonian only displays something like 3% of their collection at any time, so it's frustrating when you see the same stuff still on display years later. I haven't been back in a long time though, so maybe that has changed.

The punk rock music scene in DC was my salvation and the source of my anti-establishment education. Direct exposure to the nitty gritty details and issues the media refused to report on accurately may have had the same impact that Hayden was complaining about in that article blaming Millennials. The internet gave them access to all the stuff I could see pre-internet.
Then again, as the article pointed out, leakers and whistleblowers aren't a new phenomenon.

"And if that exposure crosses a line beyond exposing constitutional violations... by their own admission... I am gobsmacked why people applaud that"

Generally speaking I favor transparency over secrecy, but I'd need an example to weigh in on what you are referring to there.

"So did George Lucas until he founded Lucasfilm and eventually became the very thing he despised."

Han fired first!!!
But to your point, I'm not saying there aren't dangers of falling into that trap, but, for example, I attended roughly 20 anti-Apartheid protests, and while the impact of that activism on the end of Apartheid in SA is debatable, I think the world is a better place.

Maybe it's just hard to predict, but I don't see the drawbacks in fighting for Single Payer or to end the War on Drugs or the corrupting influence of Big Money on politics.

Going back in time, I'm not aware of drawbacks from the 40 hour work week, workplace safety regulations, the Clean Air and Water Acts, etc.

Perhaps I am missing your point?

"Depends on your definition of "war criminal.""

Implementing torture as a policy, falsifying intelligence to launch a war of aggression, claiming humanitarian grounds for creating a humanitarian disaster. International law leaves a little wiggle room, but not that much.

I don't know if it was just recently revealed or if I just learned about it, but apparently President Johnson became aware of Nixon communicating with the South Vietnamese government encouraging them to scuttle a peace agreement to end the war in order to help his election chances.
And Johnson sat on the information "for the good of the country". Supposedly, he thought the information would undermine American's faith in our leaders and create instability.
I think it makes them both guilty of war crimes. One for prolonging the war by five years and the other for covering up the collusion to do so.

"LOL... Ce n'est pas le français"

It's a colloquialism that has evolved to have a double entendre. Didn't want you to think I was going there.

"Gunner... Load sabot... On the way! ;)"

Sounds like you're on the team, or I'm on yours.
It's probably overkill for such a little weasel. I'm fairly confident that no jury would vote to convict though.

A

Thanks for the responses.

De nada. Thanks for adult conversation.

Yeah, well, I grew up in DC, and I have friends in high places and high friends in low places.

Ah, recall! Nice to have all kinds of friends in DC... one of my favorite places. If I grew up in DC, my parents would have had to have me forcibly removed from the Smithsonian, The National Air and Space Museum, etc.

My father was an Army intelligence officer too. I'm not condemning everybody in the IC, but I think torture is wrong in all situations, that unnecessary wars endanger our country, and that the greed of a tiny minority shouldn't shape our policies.

Totally agree. :)

Some people take the "domestic" part of that oath seriously. And I applaud them when they expose clear violations of our Constitution.

And if that exposure crosses a line beyond exposing constitutional violations... by their own admission... I am gobsmacked why people applaud that. See Dante's Ninth Circle in Hell. :)

I'm not seeking Utopia, but I have no doubt we can do better.

So did George Lucas until he founded Lucasfilm and eventually became the very thing he despised.

And one man's patriot is another man's war criminal.
But only whistleblowers get prosecuted these days.

Depends on your definition of "war criminal." :)

On the Dem control thing, I wasn't just buttering your biscuit, pardon my French. Most people I've debated the issue with get the details wrong.

LOL... Ce n'est pas le français!

If it had been indexed to inflation from way back (which I support too, and which they also could have passed btw) it would be over $20 per hour now, so that is contextually relevant.

Vrai.

I've been pleasantly surprised by most Democrats recently... it took a little while... though sometimes most is only 50.1%.

Two steps forward, one step back... but keep moving forward.

If I ask to borrow your tank, it will probably be Lieberman related. And I'm not a violent guy.

Gunner... Load sabot... On the way! ;)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/amazing-us-debt-decreased-60-billion-since-trump-inauguration/

The hits just KEEP on coming!!! :D

https://youtu.be/HIjEdwoLOus

This one's for you! :D

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's what happens when elitist moron women in their vagina hats try to tell real working women what's what... :D

It's especially hilarious because International Women's Day is a socialist/communist holiday that is primarily celebrated in socialist/communist countries..

How apropos!! :D

Still in denial about the enthusiasm Bernie generated eh?
It's a process.

It cracks me up that you blame the people who never vote for Democrats for not voting for Democrats, while absolving 300.000 registered Democrats for voting for Bush in Florida in 2000.
You're almost as funny as Paula.
Nowhere near as original though.

A

BTW, believing that I got a DNC debate moderator to buy into my "conspiracy theory" and all but one of the candidates agreed (including Perez) gave me another good laugh.

I wonder on which "terminally resentful online outlet" he read my comments?

A

Wow.
You really are incapable of a simple Google search.
I thought I was just exaggerating for effect.
It's not an assertion, it's a fact.
Maybe somebody will take pity on you and help you lift a finger.

When the blow-up dolls on CNN are better informed than you, don't expect anybody to take your advice.

I am touched you are concerned for my health, but they say laughter is the best medicine, so you'll be hearing from me often.

A

Thanks for the responses.

Yeah, well, I grew up in DC, and I have friends in high places and high friends in low places. My father was an Army intelligence officer too. I'm not condemning everybody in the IC, but I think torture is wrong in all situations, that unnecessary wars endanger our country, and that the greed of a tiny minority shouldn't shape our policies.

"How can the IC arm of our government "protect their own secrets" when the world is peopled with those who might at any time choose to raise their right hand and swear an oath to protect from enemies foreign and domestic but then turn over millions of documents to a person like Assange?"

Some people take the "domestic" part of that oath seriously. And I applaud them when they expose clear violations of our Constitution.

I'm not seeking Utopia, but I have no doubt we can do better.

"One man's "whistle-blower" is another man's traitor. :)"

And one man's patriot is another man's war criminal.
But only whistleblowers get prosecuted these days.

I'm glad you agree on privatization. We're paying more for less, and putting our security into the hands of people I wouldn't trust to take care of my goldfish... if I had a goldfish.

comment 70

On the Dem control thing, I wasn't just buttering your biscuit, pardon my French. Most people I've debated the issue with get the details wrong.

My opinion on the minimum wage thing is harsh, but I thought $7.25 per hour in 2009 was a gift to their Big Money donors already.
If it had been indexed to inflation from way back(which I support too, and which they also could have passed btw) it would be over $20 per hour now, so that is contextually relevant.
And I suspect that the owners of the Obama's publisher saved a lot more than $60 million from his "failure".

No worries on the length of your posts.
I have a program that let's me pause for bathroom breaks.

comment 72

I've been pleasantly surprised by most Democrats recently... it took a little while... though sometimes most is only 50.1%.
Some progress indeed.
Dems in Congress are still lagging badly though.
And good recall btw.

comment 73

If I ask to borrow your tank, it will probably be Lieberman related. And I'm not a violent guy.

I fully agree that Kaine was horrible too. "The guy lost a personality contest to Mike Pence".
(that's a Jimmy Dore quote)

A

However, since you made the initial assertion (about someone saying Keith Ellison was anti-semitic) in an attempt to justify your Berniebro anger about the DNC selection, the burden of proof is on you.

You spend a good deal of time writing insults but you cannot copy and paste a single link.

While I'm aware the Berniacs were up in arms over Perez versus Ellison I don't hang out in Berniebro-land and therefore don't know everything that happened to enrage you all. If you are thinking "she doesn't care what we thought" throughout the process you would be 100% correct. Indeed, I avoided articles covering Bernie-Supporters' feelings about the DNC selection process because I have long since written you all off as whiners, whiners, whiners. (The problem with being enraged all the time is that after awhile the rest of us stop giving a damn.)

Based on your "clues" I think what you've actually done is conflate several things into a Berniebro conspiracy, or rather, sucked up a conspiracy served up on some online outlet for the terminally resentful. That makes it difficult to provide links because, darn it, it actually takes a whole bunch of them to draw the right picture and ensure the reader comes to the same conclusion you did!

Separately, I'm concerned about how your tone has deteriorated in your series of posts. The stress of perfection can be debilitating. My advice to you: abandon the disappointing-Dems and join a third party, one where people are more worthy and will appreciate your genius and wisdom. While we in corrupt-Democrat-land may suffer, I think its better for your health and well-being to let us figure things out without the benefit of your input. Some people just can't be helped.

The judgment of the ignorant and lazy really stings.

You aren't capable of a simple search to see which billionaire paid for the DNC office?
You aren't capable of a search using the keywords DNC chair, Ellison, donor and anti-Semitic?
You aren't capable of watching or reading the transcripts of the DNC debates to find the question the moderator asked all the candidates about the smear campaign (hint- he said "raise your hand if you condemn it" and all but one did)?
You aren't capable of a search for Hillary's biggest donor? Too many billionaires to sort through? OK. One more clue then. His initials are H.S. and Hillary wrote him a public letter vowing to fight BDS... y'know, criminalizing peaceful protest.

Do you remember what I wrote about projection?

Your ignorance is not my problem.
And don't think I didn't laugh hard when you insulted Hillary's Big Money schmo and blamed the people you've been defending for sowing division and helping the Republicans.
You shot yourself in the foot repeatedly there.
I laughed and laughed and laughed.

I'm all for going the extra mile helping and spending time convincing the people I want on my side.

A

Personally, I blame Lieberman... and Gore for choosing such a sniveling little weasel.

Personally, me too. I thought Gore made a very bad choice with Lieberman.

I also thought Hillary erred in her choice. I totally understood why she wanted to nail down Virginia, but she would have been much better served if she had made a choice that united the Party. If Hillary had taken the steps to unite the Party, it wouldn't have mattered what anybody leaked in order to pry it apart.

Ah, hindsight. :)

This is worth a read-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-voters_us_58c1ac90e4b054a0ea68fa17?

Good article, thank you.

Beware.
If you read the comments, about a third of them are from Paula types.

It's depressing how much ignorance there is.
It seems that it's still too soon for acceptance of reality and constructive criticism. They're still too busy pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

If I recall correctly, it was not long ago you mentioned using a knife and some twisting so... pointing fingers seems like at least some improvement. :)

Give me a credible link to this story -- you appear to consider it conclusive proof that the entirety of the Democratic establishment conspired, with malice aforethought, to deprive Keith Ellison of being selected to head the DNC and they succeeded by virtue of some "billionaire" saying something somewhere.

If you don't provide a link I will assume you can't find one, or that whatever you have found isn't something you want to share -- i.e. you're trading in fever-swamp nonsense.

I feel bad you spent so much time detailing things I am aware of... you did a great job of it though.
I'm sorry my comment made it seem I was unaware that Dems only had full control for 4 months in 2009.

Oh, a "great job" LOL... it was nothing! Certainly nothing to "feel sorry" for; I didn't spend all that much time. I have multiple programs available that actually do the majority of my typing for me. Ah, technology... such a time saver... such a job killer! One of my programs types as fast as I talk, and another one allows me to use shortcuts that expand to entire words and sentences when I invoke certain combinations of letters. There is both an upside and a downside to this technology. The upside is that I can spend 5 minutes and end up with several paragraphs with relative ease, and the downside is that I can spend 5 minutes and end up with several paragraphs... long posts! A short conversation with a poster on my end can become a very long post. {apologies} :)

Personally, I believe they intentionally failed in order to please their large donors, but that is impossible to prove unless we get some deathbed memoirs or as of yet unreleased insider info.

Maybe the Obamas will "sing" in their 60+ million dollar memoirs. Of course they intentionally fail on issues, but on the issue of minimum wage in 2009, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I understand why some people don't. I think they felt they had the minimum wage issue covered with the raises in mid 2007, 2008, and 2009, although for the life of me I don't understand why they don't index the minimum wage to inflation. Oh, wait... yes, I do understand why they don't. ;)

I know it's just an opinion from a cynic, but it pisses me off and I feel compelled to point it out.

I completely understand, but you kept saying in multiple posts that Democrats had control of the Senate and House in 2009 and did nothing to pass a minimum wage hike, and I kept seeing it and seeing it! But there was a minimum wage hike in 3 increments in 2007, 2008, and 2009, and House Democrats passed it with no help whatsoever from Republicans the minute they secured the HOR majority, and I wasn't trying to pat them on the back by any stretch, but I thought it deserved at the very least an honorable mention.

Passing a higher minimum wage and card check could have resulted in better results in 2010 and every election thereafter... not to mention actually helping a huge number of Americans.

Amen to that. :)

p.s. Damn, I feel like I'm being brief in my responses, but a few minutes of talking turns into long posts. Argh!

Whether Bernie 'brought' millions of new voters, or just diverted them is arguable. Democrats historically do well with younger voters anyway. But you make my point for me: what happened to that 10% of Bernie voters who didn't vote for Hillary? Did they fall for that curated Wikileaks dump that was designed by Russian intel/Trump advisors to drive a wedge between the Bernie people and the DNC? Alot did. Perhaps they ended up voting for an also-ran candidate as a result. They didn't think about the result of their mistake: Trump.

Like Hillary, Gore lost by an impossibly small margin in Florida. A relative handful of votes could have swung the state. The most likely helpful votes would have come from the left, but there again, they were looking the other way, and we all ended up with Bush the Junior.

Blaming Gore or Hillary for losing votes that should have been (at least) scared enough of the other party's candidate to vote for them or (at best) loyal enough to the causes they believe in to vote for a candidate that acknowledges them is like blaming Washington for Arnold's defection. It's not accurate, and amounts to a slur.

Allowed, failed to protect... Don had it right.

Oh, okay. The CIA "allowed, failed to protect." The intelligence community is an arm of our government, although I am convinced some people see this aspect of our government as being our whole government. How can the IC arm of our government "protect their own secrets" when the world is peopled with those who might at any time choose to raise their right hand and swear an oath to protect from enemies foreign and domestic but then turn over millions of documents to a person like Assange?

One could accomplish the wounding and death of our government as we currently know it and then set about constructing the most absolute perfect "Utopia," regardless their philosophy, but there'll still be a country full of "we the people" where not all of them are going to share the same political persuasion.

So the revolution is over and "President Perfect" has ascended to the top of the new chain, but sooner or later a "Snowden" is likely to find your "actions and capabilities troubling" and hatch a plan for crippling Utopia along with their "Greenwald." How would Utopia go about convincing "the people" that government could be trusted and that their IC arm could be depended on to "protect its own secrets" and hadn't just "allowed" it to happen?

Ah, humanity... it is what it is. There's always going to be someone who thinks they're saving democracy from an existential threat.

As I understand it, contractors had access and may be the source of the leak, but nobody knows for sure yet. It was a whistleblower who found the actions and capabilities troubling.

One man's "whistle-blower" is another man's traitor. :)

That brings us to the privatization of national security matters debate... to which I am opposed for security, privacy and financial reasons in case anybody cares.

Of course we care, and while there's still the potential of a "troubled Manning," I totally agree with you there.

Hillary is responsible for Hillary losing.

But, since you mentioned it, you should consider doing the math on this crazy basis-

Bernie brought MILLIONS of new voters into the Democratic party in the primaries, and over 90% of them ended up voting for Hillary because Bernie encouraged them to while he was campaigning for Hillary.

If you are mathematically challenged, the point is that Hillary would have lost by a larger margin if not for Bernie.

Berniecrats are not the enemy of the Democratic party, they are the future...

... literally... because Bernie decidedly won the "under 45" category.

-
-

And, since 300,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush in 2000, you still blaming Nader is a joke too.

Personally, I blame Lieberman... and Gore for choosing such a sniveling little weasel.

A

Well, that would be good from a national security standpoint I suppose, but since Apple and Google, etc. are scrambling to fix some of the problems that were exposed it is apparent that some of the vulnerabilities were still usable.

Assuming that the privacy violations can potentially still occur using as of yet undisclosed vulnerabilities shouldn't make anybody happy.

A

addition to comment 60

"Don't play their game"

On that we fully agree.

It is the point I've been making here from day 1.

The billionaires with undue influence over the Democratic party are indeed the problem... even if you didn't realize that's who you were blaming.

A

You still don't get it.

Do you see the Great Orange Ape that currently inhabits the Oval Office? If better than 4% of the progressive vote hadn't been wasted on third-party candidates, he wouldn't be there today. It's that simple.

Eh, Naderites never admitted their role in getting Bush elected either.

As I understand it, contractors had access and may be the source of the leak, but nobody knows for sure yet. It was a whistleblower who found the actions and capabilities troubling.

Or... is it like the discovery Carnivore/DCSNet, where the discovery of the systems happened as they were being phased out and newer more invasive programs where already in place?

This is worth a read-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-voters_us_58c1ac90e4b054a0ea68fa17?

Great article about a viable path forward.
Beware.
If you read the comments, about a third of them are from Paula types.

It's depressing how much ignorance there is.
It seems that it's still too soon for acceptance of reality and constructive criticism. They're still too busy pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

A

"It did occur to me"... though I did occur to me too.

A

"Give me links"

You go off spewing falsehoods despite being ignorant and too lazy to look into what your own party is up to, and expect me to spoonfeed you a link for the friggin DNC debate?

from comment 97 from "Ryancare"

you wrote-

"Did it ever occur to you that there are bad actors out there who deliberately sow dissension -- who encourage Dem infighting because it weakens the counter forces to the traitorous GOP?

Some schmo somewhere says something stupid about Ellison (in this case) -- and stands back to watch the fireworks. Trolls/moles, traitors -- all trying to divert attention from the real monsters in all this. Don't play their game."

I did occur to me.
In this case, that "bad actor" and "schmo" who "deliberately sowed dissension" and "weakened the Democratic party" and "helped the GOP" to which you are referring happens to be the billionaire who put up most of the money for the g*d dang building that houses the DNC...

... AND he was Hillary's single biggest donor too.

Is your ignorance starting to become apparent as a problem yet?

A

What, no link? Here, let me spoon feed you one.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/08/womens-strike-self-indulgent-day-privileged-females/

And the paragraph that follows your excerpt for which you fail to supply a link actually reads as follows:

They are right, of course, that strikes require a sacrifice and a risk, but such a risk needs to be worth it. The one-day disturbance of some women in a company striking is so non-threatening that it is unlikely to spur any company policy changes, but it will likely be annoying enough to get women fired from that same company. Remember, “it is possible.”

This is your so-called evidence that it's okay to demonize those women you lumped into neat little categories and vilified? This is your proof that those women "celebrating" (your word) were dismissing the less fortunate? The writer here describes the organizers as "self-indulgent and privileged," and the organizers acknowledged that it would take sacrifice. She agreed and had other issues, but nowhere does she say they dismissed the less fortunate who could not afford to "celebrate" alongside them.

You're trying so hard to defend your indefensible bullshit that you're posting what you would usually describe as "Left Whinery PC crap" in order to try. Epic fail and P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C... even for you.

You're deluding no one but yourself. There's simply no way you can spin that turd you wrote. You label and demonize those who don't share your worldview, and you succeed at nothing but exposing your own ideological shortcomings.

So assuming that the GOP gets this turd called health care "reform" pushed out, it will mean that a bunch of regulations will get repealed, BUT, it also means that new regulations will get implemented.

Considering that the incremental cost allowance for imposing new regulations is set at not greater than zero for this fiscal year,effectively making it so you do not get credit for any regulations you remove this year.

Thus begging the question of what else will get " De- Regulated" to allow for the implementation of this " landmark" legislation?

Thanks.
And no.

Allowed, failed to protect... Don had it right.

As I understand it, contractors had access and may be the source of the leak, but nobody knows for sure yet. It was a whistleblower who found the actions and capabilities troubling.

That brings us to the privatization of national security matters debate... to which I am opposed for security, privacy and financial reasons in case anybody cares.

BTW, I went back looking for a response from neil on something, and noticed a response from you I had missed on the minimum wage and Dem control of Congress.

I feel bad you spent so much time detailing things I am aware of... you did a great job of it though.
I'm sorry my comment made it seem I was unaware that Dems only had full control for 4 months in 2009.

That said, unlike the ACA or legislation tackling new issues, minimum wage legislation doesn't require much time or effort to produce... they can just cut and paste from the previous legislation... changing the dollar amounts, dates, crossing some i's and dotting some t's, and a quick review by legal.

Dems should have had it ready knowing a window of opportunity was possible. It's not like they were unaware that Repubs were planning on obstructing everything. I lived 3000 miles away and knew, so there's no excuse there.

They also should have had other legislation like union "card check" and a whole bunch of other things ready too.

Personally, I believe they intentionally failed in order to please their large donors, but that is impossible to prove unless we get some deathbed memoirs or as of yet unreleased insider info.

History is also replete with examples of political arm twisting to coerce or convince needed votes from the opposition party, and there is zero evidence Obama even attempted that approach.

Similarly, using the bully pulpit to generate public pressure to advance legislation was never attempted.

It seems to me both of those support my belief of intentional failure. If Dems really were so eager to pass legislation they claimed to care about, such tactics would have been used.

I know it's just an opinion from a cynic, but it pisses me off and I feel compelled to point it out.

Passing a higher minimum wage and card check could have resulted in better results in 2010 and every election thereafter... not to mention actually helping a huge number of Americans.

A

My theory, since you ask, is that the "talk radio" right has captured the GOP (which, having exorcised most of the moderates, didn't put up much of a fight), and that 45's uniquely media-centric worldview plays straight into that. He personifies the wingnut media bubble that folks have been complaining about for years, but that no reasonable politician would previously go near, for reasons that are becoming increasingly apparent now that they've got to put their policies where their big mouths have been for so long.

A perfect example is 45's confession that Health Care is "really hard". Didn't seem so when the talk jocks were using it as a truncheon to bash democrats with. The difference between their nonsense and our reality is the moat that divides and holds hostage our country now.

Well, we know for a FACT that the LEFT doesn't...

Why do you think we have President Trump...

DUH...... :D

Yeah, yeah, the right really cares about poor women, and really, really cares about ethnic minorities, right? All they ever fight about is justice for the downtrodden and helpless. Sure.

That's because they ARE spoiled brats and elitist snobs..

And those spoiled brats and elitist snobs ARE dismissing women less fortunate..

This is, I submit, one of the more objectionable parts about A Day Without A Woman: this event is tailor-made as a day of sanctimony for women with cushy jobs, no actual duties to others, flexible work schedules, and careers requiring relatively specific skill sets.

That the organizers so cavalierly say it’s “possible that some women may be fired” nauseates me. It’s galling. They should be ashamed of themselves. For tenured academic women who epitomize the ivory tower and quite seriously cannot be fired to so graciously acknowledge the possibility that women will lose their jobs incenses me.

Do try and keep up, eh??

Jeeesh...

Depends..

But I'll be happy to see you go stark-raving apeshit hysterical over it.. :D

Because when that happens, I'll wager you a thousand quatloos that such capabilities will concern you greatly... :D

Let me get this straight, you will be happy if 45 starts using the CIA to monitor Americans?

Yes, the women who can easily dismiss those women who would get fired for taking a day off..

BS, Michale. You're mischaracterizing what you said. First you demonized the women "celebrating" International Women's Day as "spoiled brats" and "elitist snobs," and now you're inferring that they were dismissing women less fortunate and that makes it okay for you to demonize them.

Nice try... but there's no way you can spin that turd you wrote so don't even try.

Pathetic... even for you... but not whatsoever unexpected.

Yes, the women who can easily dismiss those women who would get fired for taking a day off..

Yes... I demonize AND dismiss those elitist morons..

Abso-frakin'-loutly...

I *ALWAYS* do when the facts warrant it..

This is well documented...

but the CIA allowed their hacking tools to become public and thus available to those entities more malicious than the CIA.

I have a question and just to qualify, I'm actually asking a question and not meaning to infer anything. So the question: Do you really think the CIA "allowed" their hacking tools to become public? I'm asking because it sounds like you're saying they intentionally wanted it to happen.

Pretty much nailed that down. Bravo!

Semantics....

No, it's not semantics. You said "establish" and inferred that today's women created a day that "shows their worth."

Ya just gotta wonder..

Strange...

Semantics 'cause we were supposed to know you meant "celebration," and then you go on to describe what sounds to me like a "protest" so there goes your "semantics" argument about you meant celebration.

You also assign them to the "elitist" category... that's demonization and makes it so much easier to dismiss them altogether, and your ideological shortcomings are showing again.

Don't forget to wear yer vaginas on yer heads.. That REALLY shows how classy today's women are!!!

Coming from a "lock her up" and "trump that bitch" type guy, this type of comment is not at all unexpected. Also too, I believe the hats they wear are inspired by the "grab them by the pussy" comment from that bastion of "class" who bragged about how he gets away with doing that... oh, and walking into the dressing room of teenage girls in various stages of undress because you're the pervert... I mean owner... or allowing Howard Stern to refer to your own daughter as "a piece of ass"... real "class."

Back to two wrongs making a right...

... not to mention hypocrisy and turning a blind eye.

At least you finally apologized to neil.

A

I thought you were reading the documents from Wikileaks so I'm not sure what article you are referring to, but the CIA allowed their hacking tools to become public and thus available to those entities more malicious than the CIA.
You trust them despite the proof they can't be trusted to protect their own secrets... or their history of abuse of power.

Your indifference to and acceptance of bipartisan supported Big Brother and his foreign friends (not to mention corporations) violating your privacy at will is downright heartwarming.

You and our resident trumpling have something in common with Trump and Obama.

Personally, I value the protections in our Constitution and think they are worth defending.

A

The Left Whinery should have NO PROBLEM accepting that excuse..

They did all the time when Obama used it..

New boots on the ground in Syria!
In addition to sending Marines to fight IS in Raqqa Syria...

... Trump just deployed Army Rangers to Manbij Syria to stop fighting between US backed Kurdish/Arab SDF forces and US/Turkish backed rebels (who fight alongside al Qaida).

In other words, Rangers were deployed as peacekeepers to stop fighting between OUR ALLIES...

... one of which we never should have supported because of those minor, easily forgettable incidents including 9/11.

And, just in case anybody has forgotten, Trump seems to be escalating US involvement on a path to implementing the policy Hillary supported... and which Obama opposed.

There's anti-establishment Trump serving the establishment warmongering wings of both parties for ya!

But don't worry.
A Pentagon spokesperson claims the deployments are "just temporary".

A

And 'is'.. Don't forget to argue what the definition of 'is' is!!! :D

hehehehehehehehehehehe

Semantics....

But, hay... I'll be yer huckleberry...

Ya just gotta wonder..

Strange...

Don't forget to wear yer vaginas on yer heads.. That REALLY shows how classy today's women are!!!

BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Feel better now, snowflake?? :D

Gods yer so easy... :D

By all means.. Educate me.. :D

I assume you have all sorts of references where mainstream Americans celebrated International Woman's Day.. :D

Thank you for the glimpse into how your "mind" works, but this is not exactly rocket science. Today's women didn't establish the day. Celebrating the day and establishing the day are two different things.

I'll look back thru the Weigantian archives and read all the celebrations. :D

Knock yourself out, snowflake; it still won't change the definition of "establish."

Yes, I DO wonder why ya'all spew bullshit.. Like AG Sessions lied...

Like Russians hacked the election, etc etc etc...

Junk bills to make it look like congresscritters are doing something, and the use of those bills by the other party for fundraising is not what I was hoping for from that link.

The real fleecing is in the bills that get passed after all.

Not surprised a former lobbyist didn't go there though.

A

By all means.. Educate me.. :D

I assume you have all sorts of references where mainstream Americans celebrated International Woman's Day.. :D

I'll look back thru the Weigantian archives and read all the celebrations. :D

"Ya just gotta wonder" why people with access to facts would rather spew bullshit than use their resources... 45 tweeting out lies about 44 comes to mind. :)

For example???

Ya just gotta wonder..

Are today's women soooo insecure that they need to establish a day that shows their worth???

I guess if "today's women" established International Women's Day you'd have a point, but they didn't so... educate yourself. It's over 100 years old.

"Ya just gotta wonder" why people with access to facts would rather spew bullshit than use their resources... 45 tweeting out lies about 44 comes to mind. :)

Patently and provably false..

If President Trump doesn't do right by the patriotic Americans who voted him into office, he will be gone..

He has no Party structure to save his ass if he pisses off the patriotic Americans.

It's that simple..

"Who smeared Ellison as an anti-semite?"

It is amazing you are ignorant of an issue reported widely and even raised in the DNC chair debates, and are at the same time attacking the victim, condemning his supporters with false allegations, and defending the establishment Dems who were involved and the policies that are at the center of the whole mess.

I will repeat what I wrote in comment 58 due to the obvious relevance-
The weird thing about projection is that you'd look even worse if you were aware you were doing it.

Insisting you are right when you aren't even paying attention explains everything.

A

No, it's bad cop/worse cop.....

That's why it's so awesome to have a POTUS that owes no allegiance to either...

http://www.chicagonow.com/politics-now/2017/03/democrats-and-republicans-are-being-fleeced-by-their-own-parties/

Speaking of Light Beer commercials...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfJb1E3fnHs

Hilarious!!! :D

What if I want a Rottweiler?? :D

Sorry, I am having WAY too much fun with this.. :D

Why?

Because when that happens, I'll wager you a thousand quatloos that such capabilities will concern you greatly... :D

Here is how to order one in an Irish pub:

"One bottle of 'put it back in the horse' please mate."

Heh :D

Why?

I'm definitely stealing that one. Thanks Don.

Here is how to order one in an Irish pub:

"One bottle of 'put it back in the horse' please mate."

Gender-swap experiment shows Hillary even less likable as a man

One female audience member even remarked that she found the male version of Clinton "very punchable" because he smiled so much.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8889

What part of NOT-45 was just a shitty candidate do a few of ya'all NOT understand???

"NEVER mix beer and wine, EVER!!! And, OH YEA!! DON'T DRIVE ON THE RAILROAD TRACKS!!!"

"Uh... Phil?? That's one I happen to agree with.."
-GROUNDHOG DAY

:D

"Oh yes, some women will be fired, but it WON'T be me so frak off"

My bust...

That the organizers so cavalierly say it’s “possible that some women may be fired” nauseates me. It’s galling. They should be ashamed of themselves. For tenured academic women who epitomize the ivory tower and quite seriously cannot be fired to so graciously acknowledge the possibility that women will lose their jobs incenses me.

That is ENTIRELY what is wrong with the Left Whinery...

"Oh yes, some women will be fired, but it would be me so frak off"

GREAT message from the Democrat Party..

No wonder they can't win any elections.. :^/

The Women’s Strike Is A Self-Indulgent Day For Privileged Females
http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/08/womens-strike-self-indulgent-day-privileged-females/

You mean, of course, HAPPY SPOILED BRAT WOMEN WHO CAN AFFORD TO SCHLUFF OFF THEIR WORK AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND RUMINATE WITH OTHER ELITIST WOMEN HOW UTTERLY ELITIST THEY ARE day...

Right??

Ya just gotta wonder..

Are today's women soooo insecure that they need to establish a day that shows their worth???

Strange...

For example....?????

HAPPY LOVE DAY!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh-UBaIktRo

heh :D

Can't I just ask for a Bud Light?? :D

I'll remind you of that when the Left Whinery starts screaming hysterically about police state tactics from the Trump Administration.. :D

I don't understand why you are adding fictional bits and downplaying the capabilities they have.

The article itself strayed ... no galloped ... into tin foil hat land - I was sending it up/

I find the idea that our phones and TV's can be turned against us disturbing.
I mean, it is Trump's CIA now, so this power is at his disposal. That doesn't concern you?

Not really, I always assumed that my electronic devices could be hacked, and by people far more malicious than the CIA.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2017/03/international-womens-day-in-two-new.html

I use TaxAct for myself and my four boys (or Bhoys - your wife will understand CW - God Bless Glasgow Celtic - and I'm an atheist, but if there is a God, just remember we need another 1967 mon diety and tout suite!).

Mixing anything and anything when it comes to beer and/or cider is a double mistake:

1. Everybody in the British Isles (All of the U.K. and Eire) is going to think you are a plonker (look it up)
2. You are really going to hate yourself the next morning

Thanks in advance for everyone's patience.

-CW