ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [429] -- On The Wrong Track And Headed For You

[ Posted Friday, March 24th, 2017 – 16:42 PDT ]

Never were the words of the Grateful Dead so fitting in the world of politics. "Trouble ahead, trouble behind" is indeed a perfect description of the spot Paul Ryan and Donald Trump found themselves in today. Because Casey Jones faced precisely the same no-win situation, and it didn't work out so good for him, either.

Switchman sleepin'
Train hundred-and-two
Is on the wrong track and
Headed for you

So you'll have to forgive the rather disjointed (and derailed) nature of today's column, since it was written in snatches, in between watching Ryancare explode into a million pieces throughout the day.

Because it's been such an extraordinary day, we're not even going to attempt writing a normal Friday Talking Points column this week. Instead, we've just got an extended rant on the first big failure of the Donald Trump administration (and the Paul Ryan speakership, to boot).

The following was written in fits and starts, which is about as cohesive as was possible today. Because even though legislative death and destruction were in the air, when the collision happened it was almost impossible to tear our eyes away from it. Call us legislative rubberneckers if you will, but we'd bet a fair amount of readers also couldn't tear themselves away from the news today. So with a few final apt lines from the Dead, we'll just get started, shall we?

Come 'round the bend
You know it's the end
The fireman screams and
The engine just gleams

 

Casey Jones you better watch your speed

A trainwreck is a spectacular thing to see, isn't it?

There's a reason for this, so I thought I'd open with a little physics, just to lighten the mood a bit. I've always thought it ironic that the one physics formula just about everyone recognizes is also one of the most impenetrable concepts, in terms of real-world application. Everyone knows that "E = mc(squared)," but how many understand what it means?

There's a formula that isn't nearly as well-known, however, which has all kinds of real-world applications. I speak of "F = ma," which is actually fairly easy to comprehend even by non-physicists. Written out in full, it becomes: "Force equals mass times acceleration." What this means is there are two basic ways (or some combination thereof) to create a massive amount of force. You can have a very tiny amount of mass (or "weight") with a very high amount of acceleration. Like a bullet, for instance. A very small weight, but it can be a deadly force because it's moving so fast. Or if you have a very large mass, it takes only a small amount of acceleration to create a powerful amount of force. Think of a glacier, which barely moves -- but because it's so massive, it can permanently change the landscape.

Trainwrecks are a combination of a very large mass and a decent amount of acceleration. When you have a lot of mass and a lot of acceleration, you get a whale of a lot of force. So the results of a trainwreck are pretty spectacular, and can be deadly for anyone unlucky enough to be caught in the wreckage.

Which brings us to the monstrous wreckage of the GOP's long-awaited replacement plan for Obamacare. The Ryancare train sped towards an immovable Tea Party object on the tracks all week long, while everyone held their breaths waiting for the inevitable disaster. Today, Ryancare hit this solid brick wall of obstruction within the Republican Party alone (no matter how Trump tried to spin it, after the fact).

Even if Ryan had pulled off a miracle and passed the Ryancare bill through the House, it still faced a brick wall of public opposition, which likely would have doomed it to failure in the Senate. Recent polling showed only 17 percent of the public approves of Ryancare. A whopping 56 percent oppose it. And that's after only three weeks. By comparison, this is far, far worse than Obamacare has ever polled -- before or after its implementation. It's stunning, in fact -- a ratio of over 3-to-1 against Ryancare.

And that poll was taken before Ryan was forced to tinker with it to make it even worse. The Congressional Budget Office put out a quick score on the first round of changes to the bill, and -- astonishingly -- it showed that Ryan was moving in the direction of making it cost more without covering any additional people. Meaning those 24 million will still be losing their insurance under Ryancare, while it costs almost $200 billion more. And that's Ryan trying to make it more acceptable to his fellow Republicans, mind you.

 

Boehner rails

Stepping back a bit, what's always amazing is the chutzpah Republicans are capable of, when doing exactly the same things they routinely denounce Democrats for doing -- whether those complaints had any validity or not. Remember the days when Republicans used to complain about Democrats not involving them in important legislation? Remember when they (inaccurately) complained that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had been "too hasty" and "jammed through Congress"?

Allow me to refresh your memory. John Boehner famously gave a very impassioned speech on the House floor right before the Obamacare bill House vote, seven years ago to the week. Here are excerpts from that speech (bonus points if you can spot why his own words give the lie to the "too hasty" GOP talking points):

Today we should be standing together reflecting on a year of bipartisanship and working to answer our country's call and their challenge to address the rising costs of health insurance in our country. Today, this body, this institution, enshrined in the first article of the Constitution by our Founding Fathers as a sign of the importance they placed on this House, should be looking with pride on this legislation and our work. But it is not so.

No, today we're standing here looking at a health care bill that no one in this body believes is satisfactory. Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. And we all know why it is so. We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will, we fail ourselves, and we fail our country.

Once again, recent polling puts Ryancare at a dismal 17 percent approval rate with the public. Boehner then got extremely worked up (video clips of this segment have been circulating all week, for obvious reasons) at the failures of the legislative process, railing at Democrats for their perfidy:

[L]ook at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals and struck behind closed doors hidden from the people? Hell, no, you can't!

Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager's amendment? Hell, no, you haven't!

Boehner was then admonished from the chair that everyone "would do well to remember the dignity of the House."

Boy, those were the days, eh? Republicans incensed because of backroom deals cut and not enough time to read and understand the bill. Takes you back, doesn't it?

Boehner builds to a rousing finish, while once again undercutting what would become a regular Republican anti-Obamacare talking point:

My colleagues, this is the People's House. When we came here, we each swore an oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution as representatives of the people. But the process here is broken. The institution is broken. And as a result, this bill is not what the American people need nor what our constituents want.

Americans are out there making sacrifices and struggling to make a better future for their kids, and over the last year as the damn-the-torpedoes outline of this legislation became more clear, millions of Americans lifted their voices and many, for the first time, asking us to slow down, not to try to cram through more than this system could handle, not to spend money that we didn't have. In this time of recession, they wanted us to focus on jobs, not more spending, not more government, and certainly not more taxes.

But what they see today frightens them. They're frightened because they don't know what comes next. They're disgusted because what they see is one political party closing out the other from what should be a national solution. And they're angry. They're angry that no matter how they engage in this debate, this body moves forward against their will.

Shame on us. Shame on this body. Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desires above those of your fellow countrymen.

Strong words indeed. Extraordinarily, though, except for one rather large detail, this same complaint could easily have been made today by just about any Democrat, since everything Boehner lists as being wrong with the Obamacare process was worse -- by several orders of magnitude -- in the Ryancare fiasco. But did you catch how Boehner actually admits the truth -- that large detail -- of what had previously taken place? Here are the two key quotes, with emphasis added:

Today we should be standing together reflecting on a year of bipartisanship and working to answer our country's call and their challenge to address the rising costs of health insurance in our country.

 

Americans are out there making sacrifices and struggling to make a better future for their kids, and over the last year as the damn-the-torpedoes outline of this legislation became more clear, millions of Americans lifted their voices and many, for the first time, asking us to slow down, not to try to cram through more than this system could handle, not to spend money that we didn't have.

Got that? "Cramming" the legislation through took over a year. Boehner even admits it.

Ryancare has existed for three weeks. Three freakin' weeks, from its public unveiling to the House vote.

No public hearings were held where stakeholders were allowed to offer their input. None. One-sixth of the American economy is being completely changed, and the insurance industry was not consulted. The hospital industry was not consulted. The drug industry was not consulted. Doctors were not consulted. Nurses were not consulted. Pharmacists were not consulted. To say nothing of the patients and other members of the public who would be directly affected. Paul Ryan didn't even bother to get the buy-in from his own membership. Three weeks doesn't leave a lot of time for all that sort of thing, does it?

It is more than enough time, however, to stage a rather spectacular trainwreck.

 

Dealmaker? Hardly. Wonky conciliator? Don't think so.

We're now left with the aftermath. The wreckage is strewn across the countryside, and the search and rescue teams are still looking for possible survivors, but without much hope. Most severely damaged by the Ryancare trainwreck are the political reputations of both Paul Ryan and Donald Trump.

President Trump has always sold himself as the king of the dealmakers, but he couldn't close this deal no matter how hard he tried. To his credit, he did indeed try. Barack Obama never really enjoyed the schmoozing-with-Congress part of the job of being president, but Trump took to it like a fish to water. He spent hours on the phone with over 100 Republican House members, he invited them up repeatedly to the White House, he even went down to the Capitol and appeared on their turf (a very big deal indeed, in Washington). Trump did everything he could to woo GOP members into giving him a big victory early on in his administration. Everything, that is (according to some Republicans), but actually learn what was in the bill so he could do some dealmaking on the specifics. Trump, according to people in these meetings, made a purely political argument and didn't seem interested at all in any of the concerns or complaints, or indeed interested in any policy details at all. In the end, Trump's politics-only appeal failed, because there are so many things wrong with Ryancare that it is a veritable cornucopia of reasons to oppose (no matter where you happen to fall on the Republican political spectrum). In the end, Mister Dealmaker couldn't close the deal. That's going to hurt his image with the public in the future, possibly in dramatic fashion.

There's also going to be a lot of re-examination of Paul Ryan's political persona as well. The inside-the-Beltway crowd (in both politics and the media) built up Ryan on two separate pedestals. The first was Ryan-as-uberwonk. Ryan was supposed to be the numbers guy who could successfully translate conservative ideology into actual legislation that would then go on to create the conservative dream world. Of course, anyone who ever examined the details of all the past Ryan budgets knows full well he's never been able to actually live up to his wonky-genius billing, and Ryancare just shined a big, bright spotlight on his own inability to deliver. When the numbers on Ryancare were added up, the sum total was precisely what Democrats have been saying all along -- that it was impossible to reach the goals of more people covered, cheaper costs for both the patient and the government, and better care by following nothing more than orthodox conservative ideology. Democrats all said it couldn't be done, and Ryancare proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Costs would skyrocket for patients, and tens of millions would not be able to afford health insurance -- a long way from the Utopia that Republicans have been promising their voters for seven straight years.

The proof of this fact was even more stark because Ryancare was the Republicans' only shot. There were no competing House bills. There was no competing Senate bill. Republicans have been terrified to write actual legislation up until this point because they knew the outcome would be worse than Obamacare. They knew the Congressional Budget Office was going to pour the cold water of reality all over their dream fantasies. It was Ryancare or nothing because after seven years, this is all they've got. Ryan was supposed to be the wonkiest guy in the party, and even he couldn't make the numbers add up.

The second part of the Ryan myth that now lies shattered on the ground is that he was going to be the great conciliator, the ultimate go-between for all the various Republican factions. He'd get the Tea Partiers to go along with the moderates, through sheer force of personality. He was going to make the House work again, after the Tea Partiers drove John Boehner crazy for so long. This wasn't supposed to happen under Ryan, but it just did. Once again, the Tea Partiers showed that saying "No!" is all they're capable of. Oh, you can add to that list above: "There was no Tea Party bill," because, as always, there is never a Tea Party bill. They don't create, their sole power is the power to destroy.

And now, they're going to be even more powerful. There's a cheerful thought. Ryancare didn't fail within the Republican caucus in the House because it was so awful -- it failed because it was not awful enough. Don't believe this? At the end, the Tea Partiers were trying to strip things like "hospitalization coverage" from health insurance plans. To state the obvious, health insurance that doesn't pay when you have to go to the hospital is not health insurance. And yet that's what the Tea Partiers were in there fighting for.

If the Tea Partiers didn't exist, Ryancare likely would have passed, with a few tweaks. We've been saying it for a few weeks now, but today others are starting to speculate about how much longer Ryan will hold the speaker's gavel. If Ryan can't get enough Republicans to agree on how much they hate Obamacare, then how is he going to get them to agree on much of anything? Ryancare's failure may be the harbinger of lots of government shutdowns to come, to put this slightly differently. Somewhere (in Ohio), John Boehner is sipping merlot, smoking a cigarette, and laughing. One can imagine a private text message from Boehner to Ryan, in fact: "Told you so."

Snark aside, though, if Paul Ryan and Donald Trump are the biggest losers of the death of Ryancare, then the Tea Party certainly has to be seen as the biggest winners by far (other than the obvious winners of "Obamacare and the American people," of course). The Tea Partiers are now the official tail that wags the Republican dog. Nothing will pass the House without their say-so. Not only have they proven they can stick together even under relentless pressure from a president popular among Republican voters, they've also proven they don't care one whit about his political threats. It's really tough to picture anyone trying to "primary" a Tea Partier from the right flank, after all. With that option off the table and with comfortably-gerrymandered districts, the Tea Partiers really have nothing to fear, at this point. As Trump and Ryan lose political capital, the Tea Party gains even more. This is going to make Ryan's already-tough job virtually impossible.

 

The new third rail

Healthcare reform is the new third rail of American politics. The old Washington saying needs updating (it used to be: "Social Security is the third rail... touch it, and you die").

Republicans were so all over the map on Ryancare that they were simultaneously worried about a voter backlash if they passed the bill and worried about a different type of backlash it they didn't pass it. More correctly, different factions were worried about different backlashes. Republicans from swing districts were terrified of voters reacting to throwing 24 million people back into the ranks of the uninsured and skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs (especially for seniors, who regularly turn out to vote). Republicans from Tea Party districts were worried that conservative talk radio (and powerful conservative donors such as the Koch brothers) were lining up to label Ryancare "Obamacare Lite," and that their voters might punish them for not repealing enough of Obamacare. Ryan was between this rock and a hard place, because any move he made towards either faction lost him votes with the other.

Even now, many House Republicans are worried that their voters may turn from them in disgust because they once again proved that House Republicans are completely incapable of delivering on their campaign promises. They've been swearing they'll repeal Obamacare for years now, while their voters lapped it up like candy. Now that they've failed to do so, how will their voters react?

Democrats already know the lethality of healthcare reform. When they passed Obamacare, they had (depending on how you count) either 59 or 60 seats in the Senate. They now have 48. Nancy Pelosi used to wield the speaker's gavel. Now she's merely minority leader. Republicans successfully demonized Obamacare in order to cause that sea change.

Healthcare reform is the new third rail of American politics. It may turn out to be deadly for the Republicans, because no matter what happens next, they've already massively disappointed a large segment of their own base.

 

A Democratic opportunity

Donald Trump's spin on the Ryancare trainwreck was downright laughable. "It's all the Democrats' fault" -- really? Is that all you've got? Wow. Good luck with that one. That and ten bucks will get you a cup of coffee down at Starbucks, Donny. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy this particular spin. Oh, sure, the Republicans can try to parrot Trump's knee-slapper, but it just ain't gonna fly. The public's a little smarter than that.

But Trump did open an interesting door for Democrats today. He threw down a gauntlet in the midst of all the finger-pointing attempts, and if Democrats are smart they'll call his bluff. More on that in a minute.

The first thing that Democrats really need to frame quickly is that the death of Ryancare should mean the death of the "repeal and replace" slogan from the GOP. Repeal just is not going to happen, because the new bar any replacement plan has to hit is that it must be as good as Obamacare. Period. Democrats are already making this plain, and they need to hammer it ceaselessly. Democrats are open to improving Obamacare, but they will stand as one against any suggestion that it has to be repealed. That should be their initial bargaining position -- "We'll work with Trump or the Republicans on fixing some problems, but we will not work on any bill that even hints at repealing Obamacare."

Luckily, Republicans seem to already be pivoting away from the phrase "repeal and replace." They think they've got a brilliant sequel to this: "collapse and replace." They are so absolutely convinced that Obamacare must (as Trump put it) "explode" soon that their Plan B is to just sit back and wait for it to happen. This is a logical flaw technically known as "starting to believe your own P.R." What happens to their wonderful slogan when Obamacare fails to explode? Well, they haven't thought that far ahead -- or they refuse to, since they are so confident of Obamacare's inevitable demise. Whatever -- Democrats can use the fact that the GOP "repeal" slogan seems to be dead to their advantage.

There was another shift in rhetoric during the debate over Ryancare that was interesting. Both sides started using new metrics to measure what they considered to be acceptable outcomes. Well, that isn't totally true, both had been around long before Ryancare existed, but these two did seem to be the ones that got the most focus in the past few weeks.

Democrats concentrated on the number of people insured. Obamacare has been wildly successful at bringing people into the insurance market, with 20 million more Americans insured today than when Obamacare passed into law. That impressive statistic is the easiest way to measure the success of Obamacare, especially when the C.B.O. so starkly showed how awful Ryancare was in this regard. Ryancare not only would have booted 24 million off insurance, it would actually have resulted in one million people more not being insured than if Obamacare had never existed. That's stunning incompetence -- to reach a worse result than if no healthcare reform had ever happened. Obamacare's obvious success in getting tens of millions more insured coupled with Ryancare's utter failure in this regard put this metric front and center for Democrats during the debate.

Even more interesting, on the Republican side their biggest complaint was a fairly new one (for them). After all, they couldn't very well complain about "death panels," since they never actually existed in the first place. All the rest of their complaints had the same stale flavor, because they were always nothing more than scaremongering which had no basis in reality in the actual Obamacare legislation. Remember, Republicans were predicting that Obamacare would already be dead by now, so it's a little hard for them to make that argument again. Instead, they focused on the number of places in America which only have one provider on the Obamacare exchanges. People who live in (according to them) "one-third of American counties" only have one choice on the exchanges -- which, in a capitalist marketplace, is really no choice at all. You take it or you leave it, that's your only choice.

This also leaves an interesting opportunity for Democrats to make a move, at this point.

 

The public option to the rescue

Donald Trump just threw down a gauntlet in front of the Democrats (in the midst of laughably trying to pin all the blame for Ryancare's defeat on them). Trump clearly stated that he was open to any ideas from either party, since Ryancare is no longer viable. So Democrats should immediately put together a plan to bring back the public option, and present it to the White House (in a very public way). They could entice Trump by telling him that their plan would go a long way to allowing all those unrealistic promises Trump made during the campaign actually come true. It could "cover everybody." Costs could come down. People would have more choices. Health insurance would improve, through competition. If Trump is being serious about considering anyone's plan, he may actually be tempted by such an offer (especially if Democrats graciously offered to start calling it "Trumpcare" on television).

While the Obamacare bill was being debated, Democrats had their own factions to deal with. Where Republicans now have Tea Partiers, Democrats had Blue Dogs. Their intransigence meant Obamacare was nowhere near as good as it could have been. In particular, Senators Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman forced the entire rest of the Democratic Party to abandon the public option before they'd vote for the bill. To be completely accurate, Baucus and Lieberman should be called ex-senators, since (thankfully) neither one of them holds public office anymore.

The public option was a compromise to begin with, which is why these Blue Dogs are indeed comparable to the Tea Party. Even this compromise was too much for them to agree to. The real progressives were pushing for single-payer, which would have removed the insurance companies from the equation altogether, as most Western democracies have done. But single-payer has always been the Democrats' bridge too far. They can't get agreement even among themselves over such a radical redesign, so it is probably not going to be the next step now, either.

Instead of obliterating the private insurance market, though, if the choice of buying in to Medicare was made available to all it would be a lot more politically feasible. Every American, whether insured through their employer or through the Obamacare exchanges (in every county in the country) should have the choice of buying into the Medicare system, no matter what age they happen to be. This could solve multiple problems all at once.

Baucus and Lieberman balked at even the public option because they had accepted so many large donations from the health insurance industry that they did what they were told to do. The insurance industry hated the concept, because it would have meant they would have had to compete with the government to sign people up. They swore that the exchanges would be truly competitive through just the free market alone.

Well, they had their chance. Democrats could even just propose a Medicare buy-in option in places with only one remaining insurer, for starters. If more than one insurance company isn't interested in the market, then the government will step in to provide a guaranteed level of choice. This would also undermine the biggest talking point Republicans now have, it's worth pointing out.

Democrats could even be magnanimous and offer Republicans a few of their favored ideas in the mix as well. If you have the safety net of both Medicaid (with the expansion intact) and the Medicare public option, then letting the GOP tinker on the edges wouldn't be as bad, in other words.

If some Democrats in the Senate sat down with some moderate Republicans (Susan Collins, perhaps), some sort of workable compromise could probably be hashed out. Once you take the inflammatory "repeal and replace" rhetoric out of the equation, then both sides could take a long hard look at Obamacare and try to fix the problems which have arisen now that it has been fully implemented. These problems are not insurmountable, as long as the new ideas don't kick millions off their health insurance and as long as the individual states don't get billions less from the federal government. Both were fatal flaws in Ryancare, but both can easily be avoided if "repeal" isn't the watchword from the Republican side.

Democrats seriously care about outcomes. Most Democrats are willing to make sane and sensible adjustments to Obamacare. While the Tea Party got most of the attention in the Ryancare trainwreck in the House, it might have been even more interesting if it had passed, because most of the pushback from Republicans in the Senate was from the moderate faction, not the hotheads. Some Senate Republicans wanted to see something that worked -- not just some ideological conservative fantasy that didn't add up to a better outcome.

Pushing any compromise bill will be hard to do, since Democrats are in the minority and don't control congressional schedules or committees. But they could do an end-run around all of that if they put together a decent plan with a few sensible Republicans and then got Trump on board. Trump could use the power of his Twitter audience to force Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to allow such a plan to move forward -- even if many Republicans are against it. Trump's really the key to all of that, because it'd certainly be an "only Nixon could go to China" moment.

Democrats now have the opportunity to call Trump's bluff. If they start off with only one dealbreaking demand and a set of core principles, perhaps truly bipartisan agreement could actually be reached, at least in the Senate. The dealbreaking demand would be: "Don't ever call it a repeal of Obamacare." The core principles would be: "We have to have at least as many people insured as under the current law, and we must work for a better outcome, not a worse one -- but we'll consider any suggestion that achieves that."

In other words: "No more trainwrecks."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

212 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [429] -- On The Wrong Track And Headed For You”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The score is: GOP 1, The Orange One 0

    Donald really doesn't like to be a humiliated, bad deal-making loser, so he'll probably want to settle the score with the back-stabbing, duplicitous Republican party. He should get together with the (D)s and make improvements to Obamacare. It would make him much more popular and they'd surely let him call it Trumpcare. That's what it'll be called anyway if he destroys it via sabotage or incompetent administration. He's apparently quite a dimwit, so he'll probably do whatever Putin recommends instead.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I just knew this was going to be an awesome FTP! What a day! The Entrepreneur is stark naked.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trainwreckcare couldn't make it through the house.

    As I said in the last thread, I agree CW, this is the time for Democrats to put together improvements to Obamacare.

    Mind you, on the plus side for 45, it got his collusions with Russia off the headlines for a few more days.

    The economy is starting to show signs of weaknesses hidden by exuberance - often a warning sign that the next hiccup is coming - it has been nine years since the last crash, which is about three years longer than average.

    Many of my friends are starting to take profits from the market and dump them into short-to-mid term bonds to rebalance their portfolios. They are probably wise to do so.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    So Democrats should immediately put together a plan to bring back the public option, and present it to the White House (in a very public way). They could entice Trump by telling him that their plan would go a long way to allowing all those unrealistic promises Trump made during the campaign actually come true. It could "cover everybody." Costs could come down. People would have more choices.

    I emphasized that last part because therein lies the problem and great opportunity for Democrats in their long-term effort to persuade themselves and Republicans and the American people who don't yet see the beauty of a single-payer system for healthcare insurance that such a system offers the best way forward.

    Republicans and their voters seem to the think that the end all and be all of healthcare should be freedom of choice.

    The Democrats should take the stand questioning why people must choose. Why can't people have it all, in other words? Universal healthcare doesn't mean limiting or taking away peoples' choice. It means that people don't have to choose at all because universal healthcare insurance means that EVERYONE is covered for, essentially, EVERYTHING at a cost that is much lower than it would be if there was complete freedom of choice.

    The best freedom of choice is not having to make a choice at all!!

    The public option was a compromise to begin with, which is why these Blue Dogs are indeed comparable to the Tea Party. Even this compromise was too much for them to agree to. The real progressives were pushing for single-payer, which would have removed the insurance companies from the equation altogether, as most Western democracies have done. But single-payer has always been the Democrats' bridge too far. They can't get agreement even among themselves over such a radical redesign, so it is probably not going to be the next step now, either.

    It may not be the next step but, that doesn't mean that Democrats who believe in a single-payer, government-provided healthcare and insurance system shouldn't making a good case for it in an ongoing effort to persuade Americans.

    Simultaneous with this long-term effort of persuasion, should be a concerted effort to put forth a detailed plan to reform the problematic areas of the ACA and take that plan on the road - hopefully with some Republican support - to gain the support of the American people.

    I think that Democrats who have a progressive vision and the courage to carry it out in the face of opposition from powerful special interests will be rewarded and supported by a majority of voters. At the very least, it should be worth the effort to try.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    More happy news for 45 - his favorability is tanking and is now at the lowest level of his pointless and inane Presidency:

    Realclear has him at -9.2 (51.9 disapprove vs. 42.7 approve).

    The barb that really must hurt is the latest Rasmussen poll - these are usually the most favorable for 45 because they skew to his support:

    Rasmussen: 3/21-3/23 - 56 disapprove vs. 44 approve for a -12 rating.

    Looks like even his base is starting to collapse.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Republicans are showing that they can only obstruct when in opposition and that they can't govern when in power.

    I don't suspect that this is going to change in the near to medium term. Voters should have all the evidence they need to be ready to do something about this sad state of affairs by the time of the 2018 midterms, if not before.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [4] -

    Wait, there's a quote from your fellow Canadians which sums up your argument:

    If you choose not to decide,
    You still have made a choice!

    - Rush, "Freewill"

    :-)

    As for single-payer, the best way to introduce Americans (or "USA-ians") to the concept is to allow them to make a comparison with what's already out there, and then allow them to choose it freely. Give it a decade, and it'll morph into single-payer all on its own...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [2] -

    Nice one, with that "Enterpreneur has no clothes" twist!

    Just had to say that...

    :-)

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, two general comments (or program notes, really) -

    First, thanks to Michale for providing me with a handy "Trainwreckcare" metaphor to use. Just had to wait until it actually applied to reality, that's all!

    Heh (snark snark snark...)

    Second -

    A general apology for totally blowing off last Friday. I was working on a cute little leprechaun/pot o' gold story, and had it about half written, when all of a sudden for some reason it became rather hard to type. I mean, it was as if I was staggering around on the keyboard or something.

    Moral of this story is: don't drink and type.

    Hope everyone had a happy Paddy's day! I may eventually finish up this story, but then I won't be able to use it until next year. Such is life...

    Anyway, wanted to send out a big mea culpa for not even managing to post a program note last week. I was... ahem... "under the weather," as it were...

    But if you look back two weeks, at least I did warn everyone a week in advance that there'd be no FTP on Paddy's Day...

    :-)

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Well, I have to say I'm pretty happy with the comments so far.

    Nobody's complained yet about either quoting the Grateful Dead or my "F=ma" bit. I threw both in just because it was such a happy day for me, but I fully expected at least a few annoyed complaints....

    Heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Nice Rush reference but, my argument was that the ultimate freedom of choice is not having to make a choice because you have it all. That's how single-payer needs to be sold and it may not take a decade. :)

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm used to Dead quotes. Heh.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In fact, I dare say that I'm qualified to be an honourary Californian. Though I can't seem to drop the 'u's ...

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [13] -

    That's OK, here in sunny CA, we put up with all kinds of accents and spelling life-style choices. I've still got my "mid-Atlantic" accent, never todally got used to the CA slant on things...

    Heh.

    Oh, and I already checked with everyone else. Congratulations! You've been accepted as an honorary Californian. Just repeat after me, three times in front of a mirror:

    Al-u-min-um. Al-u-min-um. Al-OOO-min-um.

    (Inside joke... Kaiser is big out here... look it up... heh).

    :-)

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Donald Trump's spin on the Ryancare trainwreck was downright laughable. "It's all the Democrats' fault" -- really? Is that all you've got?

    It's all the Democrats have when they blame the GOP for everything...

    Why act so surprised???

    So Democrats should immediately put together a plan to bring back the public option, and present it to the White House (in a very public way).

    And why won't the Democrats do that??

    Because their hysterical base won't let them work with President Trump...

    Democrats seriously care about outcomes.

    Despite all the facts of CrapCare to the contrary...

    You are dead on right that this is a great opportunity for Democrats..

    Will they take it??

    Nope..

    Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity... :D

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    CW

    First, thanks to Michale for providing me with a handy "Trainwreckcare" metaphor to use.

    What can I say except you're welcome
    For the tides, the sun, the sky
    Hey, it's okay, it's okay
    You're welcome
    I'm just an ordinary demi-guy

    -DWAYNE JOHNSON, Moana

    :D

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Seriously though..

    I am glad ya'all got a win..

    After the utter decimation of the Left Wingery and everyone here that was the election of President Trump, I am glad ya'all can finally get a win...

    Ya'all deserve it.. :D

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Looks like even his base is starting to collapse.

    Trump is toast??

    Where have we heard THAT one before!??? :D

    heh

  19. [19] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [17] -

    I accept that sentiment in the spirit it was given.

    Heh.

    Just don't get too upset if the Trump/Ryan era becomes a solid string of missed opportunities for the GOP agenda...

    Heh. I mean, this bunch makes the "gang who couldn't shoot straight" look good...

    :-)

    -CW

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    I accept that sentiment in the spirit it was given.

    Heh.

    :D

    Just don't get too upset if the Trump/Ryan era becomes a solid string of missed opportunities for the GOP agenda...

    I won't.. Keep in mind, I was this euphoric when Obama was first elected too...

    It's entirely possible that President Trump will be as big a disappointment as Obama was...

    But I intend to give President Trump MORE than 60 days in which to make that determination...

    And if I do turn, it will be because of FACTS, not Party ideology...

    Heh. I mean, this bunch makes the "gang who couldn't shoot straight" look good...

    With this *ONE* issue, I would be inclined to agree... But it's only ONE issue and it's not an issue I have a lot of passion invested in...

    So.....

  21. [21] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Michale:

    You sound a little down in the mouth. You're making a brave effort, but you lack your usual bounce and zing, your all-American gung-ho up-front let's-give-the-world-a-pep-talk oomph.

    I just want to say that my thoughts and prayers are with you in your time of great sorrow. Try a few affirmations like "Yes we can!" IIRC, this was a phrase much used by one of your great country's Presidents!

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Interesting to note.

    Ya'all reacted with "horror" that the GOP plan was going to leave 24 million Americans uninsured...

    When CrapCare implodes, it will likely leave ONE HUNDRED and 24 million Americans without health insurance..

    And ya'all are GLEEFUL at the prospect!!!

    Just one more bit o fact that proves how ya'all are ruled by Party ideology..

    Ya'all apparently don't give a rip about how many Americans die because CrapCare imploded and left them without..

    Ya'all just want to stick it to the GOP, no matter how many Americans die...

    Sad....

  23. [23] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Plucky boy! That's the spirit, Michale, old chap. Chin up! Stiff upper lip!

  24. [24] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Plucky boy! That's the spirit, Michale, old chap. Chin up! Stiff upper lip!

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    You sound a little down in the mouth. You're making a brave effort, but you lack your usual bounce and zing, your all-American gung-ho up-front let's-give-the-world-a-pep-talk oomph.

    Hardly... :D

    Like I said, I don't really have much passion for CrapCare or health insurance in general..

    It's ya'all that are acting like Trump has been impeached and is on his way to jail.. :D

    I just want to say that my thoughts and prayers are with you in your time of great sorrow.

    Shit, if THIS is "sorrow" I would have to see what I would be like if I was ecstatic!! :D

    My demeanor now is really no different than it was on 9 Nov 2016.. :D

    ry a few affirmations like "Yes we can!" IIRC, this was a phrase much used by one of your great country's Presidents!

    Would that be the "great" President who is going to be indicted?? :D

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Plucky boy! That's the spirit, Michale, old chap. Chin up! Stiff upper lip!

    "I'm just a glorified extra, Fred. I'm a dead man anyway. If I'm gonna die, I'd rather go out a hero than a coward."
    "Guy, Guy, maybe you're the plucky comic relief. You ever think about that?"
    "Plucky?"

    -GALAXY QUEST

    :D

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Plucky?"

    trumpcare go down the hole...

    https://youtu.be/eMUd42n0jXc

    ...trumpcare came back?

    JL

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nobody's complained yet about either quoting the Grateful Dead or my "F=ma" bit.

    OK, well, I hate to be picky ... but:

    F=ma: I think you really wanted to highlight kinetic energy, i.e. the energy a body has that is measured in joules (J).

    The equation for Kinetic Energy is:

    K(energy) = 1/2 mv^2

    The energy a body has in motion is 1/2 times its mass times its velocity (speed) squared

    Your examples are correct. The velocity squared term is what gives a bullet its impact. The sheer mass of a glacier gives it a lot of kinetic energy at low speeds.

    Kinetic energy is measured in Joules, whereas Force is measures in Newtons. A Joule is the action of a force of one Newton acting on a body for a distance of one meter. Power is the energy expended in one second, i.e. one Watt = one Joule per second.

    So we have:

    Force (N=Newton)
    Energy/Work (J=Joule) = Nm (where m=meter)
    Power (W=Watt) = J/s = Nm/s

    Who knew physics was so complicated?

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Grateful Dead part is spot on to the best of my non-deadhead knowledge. I'll leave that part of the real experts on the board.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    So 45 is trying to blame the Democrats for the fragmented Republican Party and the Friday Fiasco.

    I say own it!

    The Democrats whipped his plus side ass!

    He tried to come into the Democrat's house and they booted him all the way down Penn Ave and when he got home he was squealing like a little pig to the press about how BAD they are!

    He ran into the big boys and learned a lesson he won't forget!

    He learned "bigly" that he is a high school rookie and the Dems play in the Big Leagues!

    Yeah, it was all the fault of the Dems!

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    ...trumpcare came back?

    Nope.. Ya'all are stuck with CrapCare AND the responsibility for it's implosion.. :D

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    The Democrats whipped his plus side ass!

    I wonder if you can comprehend how much damage you do to your argument when you get personal like that...

    Just curious...

  33. [33] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Michale [26]:

    Your Galaxy Quest quote reveals that you're Smarter than the Average Troll. Which immediately prompts the question: why are you wasting your valuable time fart-arsing about on Chris's illustrious board making yourself looking a complete twerp and totally failing to add value, when it is in you to have twice as much fun doing one of the thousand and one better things you are capable of?

    NB, English majors among you all: my last sentence was a classical Periodic Sentence; indeed, a Screaming Yellow Zonker of a periodic sentence! Gold star for DOBL!

  34. [34] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    LizM:

    In a previous thread you asked what my real name was. I didn't reply, partly because I can't post very frequently here, but mainly because I was ashamed. But I suppose I can't keep it from you any longer.

    It's Donald.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Democrats whipped his plus side ass!

    I wonder if you can comprehend how much damage you do to your argument when you get personal like that...

    Just curious...

    Just having some fun Michale :) You've been gloating for five months, let the rest of us have a turn.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Should have read "plus size" of course

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Your Galaxy Quest quote reveals that you're Smarter than the Average Troll.

    Your mis-application of the word "TROLL" reveals you are clueless as to the definition of "troll"...

    You are, apparently, following the Weigantian definition which is, towhit, anyone who posts stuff I don't like

    If that ISN'T your definition, by all means.. Elucidate.. :D

    why are you wasting your valuable time fart-arsing about on Chris's illustrious board making yourself looking a complete twerp and totally failing to add value, when it is in you to have twice as much fun doing one of the thousand and one better things you are capable of?

    My reasons are really none of your business..

    As for "totally failing to add value", I'll let THAT piece of total bullshit stand on it's own merit..

    Or in this case, lack thereof...

    But, once again, we see the standard Weigantian effort to make everything about me personally...

    Gold star for DOBL!

    Yep. Yer a legend in your own mind... :D

    It's Donald.

    hehehehehehehehehehehe

  38. [38] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Oh, and one other thing: the pussy grabber has not, nor has he ever been, The Donald. He's merely a Donald, and not even the best example; it is I who am the One and Only.

    Michale: take note!

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Just having some fun Michale :) You've been gloating for five months, let the rest of us have a turn.

    Fair enough.. :D

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm-30 etc

    "plus size ass"

    Speaking to the above, I have to mention the latest batch of ill conceived photo op pix from the Trump camp.

    https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_12/1942826/170323-trump-truck-white-house-636p_0010a810c277423f29fba2c33b773261.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg

    He's jumping up and down in that tractor cab like a 6 year old on a supermarket ride!

    Casey Jones, you'd better watch your speed!

    The only thing missing is the coin box where his mom put in the dime. I'm betting that driver's seat has an awesome plus size ass groove in it. I hope somebody thinks to save that priceless artifact for the Smithsonian.

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...it must be as good as Obamacare."
    That is like saying that Trump was not as good as Hillary.
    It should be "..it must be less bad than Obamacare."
    And neither side really wants to fix the problem by offering a public option.
    While this does not meet the level of the Dead, Rush or ELP (Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends), the following version of the old Ken-l-Ration jingle pretty much covers the current debate.

    My dog's better than your dog,
    My dog's better than yours.
    My dog's better and he gives us both donations,
    My dog's better than yours.

    Of course, the reality is there is only one dog. And the Democrats and Republicans do not own the dog- the dog owns them and by extension anyone that supports them.

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Nope.. Ya'all are stuck with CrapCare AND the responsibility for it's implosion.. :D"

    THANK GOD! Since Obamacare IS going to be around for at LEAST the next TEN years, unless it is replaced by the public option or single payer. I will remind you that the CBO estimates it will be STABLE for at least that length of time even if NOTHING else is done.

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    THANK GOD! Since Obamacare IS going to be around for at LEAST the next TEN years,

    Whatever ya have to tell yerself to make it thru the day.. :D

    . I will remind you that the CBO estimates it will be STABLE for at least that length of time even if NOTHING else is done.

    And I will remind YOU that, to date, CBO estimates have been WILDLY inaccurate regarding CrapCare..

    Of course, ya'all believe the ones you want to believe and ignore the ones ya'all don't like...

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, the reality is there is only one dog. And the Democrats and Republicans do not own the dog- the dog owns them and by extension anyone that supports them.

    A-frakin'-men to THAT!!! :D

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Oh, and one other thing: the pussy grabber has not, nor has he ever been, The Donald. He's merely a Donald, and not even the best example; it is I who am the One and Only.

    Sorry, but "The Donald" has always been and will always be Donald Duck! Unless you can walk down Main Street wearing just a sailor's shirt and no pants without getting arrested, you don't deserve the title.

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Unless you can walk down Main Street wearing just a sailor's shirt and no pants without getting arrested

    Maybe he's from San Francisco.

  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [28] -

    Good points! Although I still use the foot/pounds (or inch/pounds) calibration on my torque wrench... never did get used to Nm.

    :-)

    -CW

  48. [48] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [41] -

    To which I reply:

    Meow meow meow meow,
    Meow meow meow meow,
    Meow meow meow meow MEOW meow meow meow!

    It's so good, cats ask for it by name!

    Heh... couldn't resist, since we're doing favorite pet food jingles...

    :-)

    -CW

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Donald! I appreciate that. Nice to be on a first name basis, no matter how often you post here.

  51. [51] 
    dsws wrote:

    Nobody's complained yet about either quoting the Grateful Dead or my "F=ma" bit.

    Sorry to be so slow in responding.

    F=MA applies directly to bullet impacts: the bullet's velocity is changing, while no other forces (large enough to matter) act on it. It doesn't apply directly to a glacier. There's a huge force acting on a glacier: its weight, pulling it downward. There's another similarly-huge force also acting on the glacier: the ground beneath, supporting it. The F in the equation is the difference between them. If the glacier were flowing steadily, it would be exactly zero. The force that tears up the landscape under a glacier is the first one, not the second.

    Still, it's cool that you're using F=MA at all.

    We're now left with the aftermath.

    No we aren't. We're looking at the half-made sausage. It will get finished, and people will eat it up, even though it looks really disgusting now.

    There was never any chance, even if Trump seems to have sort-of believed his own hype, that the Obamacare repeal would be done quickly and easily. There's a lot of money on the table, so people are going to haggle. But at the end of the day, there's no way in Heaven or Earth that they're ever going to just leave that money on the table.

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We're looking at the half-made sausage.

    A meatless sausage, if the insurance companies and tea party get their way. Yuck.

    I agree with Chris. This would be a great time for the Bernie folks to present a workable single-payer bill as an alternative. Just put it on the table. It would be a political three-point-shot.

  53. [53] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Since our resident NPAINO is spouting the same crap as from yesterday.I thought this should be brought forward to the free for all known as http://FTP...

    Italics represent M-'s oh so studious and fact filled reality based answers to my questions... in green are my rebuttal..

    M-

    For the moment let's ignore the CBO...Let's also ignore all of the people against this bill...and of course the basic math...

    You mean the CBO that was so dead (no pun intended) wrong about CrapCare??

    Yea, by all means. Let's ignore it.. :D

    Actually, I was thinking more about how the CBO scored the republican proposal...the ACA is not the subject of the questions asked, it is once again about the proposal you support...

    Your answer is less than satisfactory in general since you do not bring any kind of facts to the table to support your disdain for a agency that is non-partisan, unless of course they are using dynamic scoring...

    Please oh wise one inform, those of us wandering about in ignorance, how this GOP legislation was going to make life better for us.

    It would have prevented CrapCare from exploding and leaving EVERYONE without health insurance...

    So again I have to ask how it would do that...It really is not that hard of a question to answer, all you can do is argle and bargle on about how flawed our view of reality is, yet, you have yet to provide a cogent, reality, fact based counter as to why conservatism is so much better.

    Links to real facts always welcome...

    Yea.. Like anyone else does... Why hold me to a standard ya'all ignore??

    Ummm. Yeahhh. I'm gonna need you to come in to the office to do the FOS reports...

    Most of us around here actually do provide real facts from non-news based agencies around here...

    When will you do the same? Oh, thats right....never-mind I forgot CW keeps hiding the declaration that you are the sole arbiter of facts and the chief arbiter of what is OK and what is not in the comments section... under the cat.

  54. [54] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    dohhh...in preview the font command worked....in posting it striped it out :(

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's strange.

  56. [56] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Here lets bring this little gem forward. It is just easier that way...

    I must not be on the inside track...Please list what exactly trump has done to date to benefit and look out for the middle class.

    How about hundreds of thousands of new and saved jobs??

    Not that the Left Whinery gives a crap about jobs. They just want to make sure that guys can use girl's bathrooms..

    So again completely unsatisfactory and completely devoid of fact based analysis.

    I find it amusing that you are accepting the exact same numbers from the exact same agency as I and others have presented, and yet our numbers are cherry picked and yours are TRUMP IS LORD GOD AND SAVIOR OF ALL THAT IS AMERICAN. The simple fact is that one month of a jobs report does not a savior make. If Trump can keep growth going for the next 6 to 9 months i might consider giving him some credit. He did in fact inherit a healthy economy, and therein lies the problem given the historical trend of the GOP to take those gains and hand them over to the wealthy, thus making the velocity of currency equal to 1.5 thus crashing the economy for the rest of us while the rich get bailed out...

    Again I ask, name oh, lets say 5 to 10 things that Trump has done to so far that directly benefit the middle class...

  57. [57] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Now onto the subject at hand.

    I agree that eventually that single payer is where we will end up.

    I have lived in Italy,Canada and England. I have paid my taxes into the systems and have used the health care in Italy and Canada and I found both to be quite functional and the level of treatment to be on par with the US for the issues I was having treated. Most of my friends have nothing but good to say about the systems and they are very much off of the chopping block (unlike in the US) for both parties.

    Personally, I think that single payer is to far of a bridge to jump at this stage of the discussion. If it was up to me I would put Sanders on the road with a sound road map for how we get to single payer and let him go to town.

    If the DEMS were smart they would immediately put forth a bill to allow for a public option for Medicare and at the same time make part of that a revision for medicare to move from a per service payment system to an outcomes based system thus helping to bring down costs in the healthcare system in general as everyone involved in treatment for a particular case does not get paid until there is a final, hopefully successful outcome. The incentive for tests after tests and the performing of botched procedures would be dis-incentivized.

    Once the public option gained enough members then we can start the discourse single payer.

    When the ACA rolled out I did not like it because it made the policy I was carrying ineligible and the resulting policy I needed was too expensive for me to afford on my own, it pissed me off, not because I was required to carry insurance but more that I was required to purchase it from a private company in a marketplace that is not at all competitive due to market changes and mergers.

    To be blunt the DEMS let down the middle class that they were supposed to be sticking up for and wasted political capitol by catering to their corporate interest block (which funny enough also funds the GOP). They simply did not put enough thought into the actual actuarial scenarios before they passed the legislation, thus leaving some of us out in the cold...In my case it is because I spend 210-230 days out of the year on the road, in little poor places where medical care is poor ans if something goes wrong I need a very expensive ride home. Fortunately for me it is now a part of my contract that the company pays for the heath insurance I need. If it was not for the owners of the company I am contracting with wanting to do right, I would be like so many others just left out in the cold and paying the penalty which year over year is cheaper than the arm and a leg I would have to pay if I was on my own.

    Is the ACA the best product that it could have been? NO...It is more of a product of what happens when you take a GOP idea and involve the GOP in DC and industry and lobbyist groups in trying to take it national. That being said it certainly and undisputedly has helped the majority of Americans and has helped many get the treatment for serious health issues that otherwise would have led to their bankruptcy and ultimately death.

    It just seems common sense to me that we should be allowing and inviting the public to take part in Medicare for a reasonable monthly premium thereby giving the middle class leverage over insurance companies...afterall isn't it the TRUMP that said "Leverage: don’t make deals without it. "...

    Can someone spot whats wrong with the graphic?

    http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_720_noupscale/58d647ae1d000027007d06e8.png

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Unless you can walk down Main Street wearing just a sailor's shirt and no pants without getting arrested

    Maybe he's from San Francisco.

    So you've been to Folsom, too? I did see a guy just like this...but I think his name was Christopher.

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Unless you can walk down Main Street wearing just a sailor's shirt and no pants without getting arrested

    Maybe he's from San Francisco.

    So you've been to Folsom, too? I did see a guy just like this...but I think his name was Christopher.

    I just spent this morning climbing the stairs of the Castro district in SF - followed by beers in Zeitgeist - if you are from SF you will know it as one of the great bars in town.

    My goal is to climb and descend every staircase in SF - there are hundreds. I'm about 15% of my way to my goal.

    I can assure you that for the two hours I spent hiking all over the Castro I did not see one person dressed only in a sailor's shirt (strangely, I'm now somewhat disappointed in that, c'mon The Castro, if it can't happen there, is there any hope?). I met some great people however - fun place and a great day.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW if anybody comes to SF and wants to spend 2-3 hours walking around the city, I'm always happy to show you some of the views no tour knows about. I love this city.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Expect a lot of climbing however. Watch Bullitt if you don't know what I'm talking about ;)

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    Since our resident NPAINO is spouting the same crap as from yesterday.I thought this should be brought forward to the free for all known as http://FTP...

    Awww how schweet... Yer gonna make everything about me again.. :D

    Actually, I was thinking more about how the CBO scored the republican proposal...the ACA is not the subject of the questions asked, it is once again about the proposal you support...

    And, of course, you miss my point because it points out the fallacy of your position..

    The CBO score on CrapCare was wildly inaccurate. As such, it's credibility is virtually nil in scoring the GOP plan...

    Your answer is less than satisfactory in general since you do not bring any kind of facts to the table

    I am just following ya'all's lead..

    No one here ever has cites for their BS claims..

    Why should I bother??

    Most of us around here actually do provide real facts from non-news based agencies around here...

    Cite?? :D

    I must not be on the inside track...Please list what exactly trump has done to date to benefit and look out for the middle class.

    Why?? Would it change your mind about President Trump??

    Let's postulate a scenario whereas EVERYTHING I have posted is 1000% factually accurate...

    Would it change your mind about President Trump?

    Of course not. Because your hysterical hatred of the president is ideologically based, which is to say, it's practically a religious fervor..

    As such, I don't see any reason why I should waste my time bringing documentation to the table, when it won't make an iota of difference as to your outlook...

    You are a slave to your ideology and, like religion, no amount of FACTS or REALITY will sway your devotion..

    So, this begs the question... Why bother??

    Now, if course you will try and make the same claim about me, but that argument is a non-starter.. I am on record as changing my position often when the facts warrant it...

    In short, I have a proven record of changing my mind when the facts warrant it. Ya'all do not..

    It's that simple...

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    The CBO score on CrapCare was wildly inaccurate. As such, it's credibility is virtually nil in scoring the GOP plan...

    Ya'all should know what that's like, eh? :D

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    In defeat, President Trump's business chops get an obvious boost...

    No one not enslaved by Party ideology and/or with more than 2 brain cells to rub together ever thought that President Trump would win every fight, make every deal..

    As I have mentioned several times recently, a good businessman knows when to walk away and move on to the next deal...

    A great businessman doesn't wallow in defeat, but sets the stage for the next victory...

    If there was EVER any doubt that President Trump is a great businessman, this has laid that doubt to rest...

    The facts are in, people.. :D

    Read 'em and weep.... :D

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay Brit Guy??

    You wonder why I stick around??

    Awww how schweet... Yer gonna make everything about me again.. :D

    Where else am I gonna find such unremitting and undying attention and adulation?? :D

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    Schumer Stance on Gorsuch Heightens Threat of 'Nuclear Option'
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/24/schumer_stance_on_gorsuch_heightens_threat_of_nuclear_option_133428.html

    Ya just HAVE to wonder what is going thru the minds of Schumer...

    He knows he can't prevent Judge Gorsuch being appointed to the Supreme Court..

    He KNOWS that President Trump will likely have 1 more and maybe even TWO more appointments to the SCOTUS...

    So, why is Schumer simply throwing away the filibuster card???

    What possible logic is in play here???

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What possible logic is in play here???

    considering the reckless abandon with which the republicans wielded the filibuster when they were in the minority, maybe it's in the country's long-term interests to have it nuked anyway.

    JL

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    considering the reckless abandon with which the republicans wielded the filibuster when they were in the minority, maybe it's in the country's long-term interests to have it nuked anyway.

    Accepted..

    But you would think that the Democrats would want to preserve the possibility over a more meaningful battle..

    Judge Gorsuch's appointment to the SCOTUS won't change the balance and/or make-up of the court...

    President Trump's next (two??) appointment(s) will.. DRAMATICALLY...

    I am all for taking a principled stand.. I just would have thought that Democrats would have wanted to take one with at least a MODICUM chance of it being meaningful...

    Further, if the Democrats DO keep their powder dry, it's entirely possible that circumstances will allow a future filibuster against a future nominee will have a much better chance of success...

    No matter how ya slice it, the filibuster threat against Gorsuch makes absolutely NO SENSE..

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [64]

    No one not enslaved by Party ideology and/or with more than 2 brain cells to rub together ever thought that President Trump would win every fight, make every deal..

    I know, right? At long last we finally agree on something. Listen to this mindless moron prattling on and on about how Trump was going to "win every fight."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOH-pTd_nk

    MINDLESS MORON: You’re going to be so proud of your president and I don’t care about that, but you are going to be so proud of your country because we’re going to turn it around and we’re going to start winning again. We’re going to win so much. We’re going to win at every level. We’re going to win economically. We’re going to win with the economy. We’re going to win with military. We’re going to win with health care and for our veterans. We’re going to win with every single facet. We’re going to win so much you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, "Please, please, it’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore, Mr. President; it’s too much!" And I’ll say, "No, it isn’t; we have to keep winning! We have to win more! We’re going to win more! We're going to win so much."

    A great businessman doesn't wallow in defeat, but sets the stage for the next victory...

    Seriously! Why wallow in your own defeat when you can show everyone exactly what kind of man you are by playing the blame game?

    If there was EVER any doubt that President Trump is a great businessman, this has laid that doubt to rest...

    I never doubted for a second... more like 40 years.

    The facts are in, people.. :D

    Read 'em and weep.... :D

    Ana Navarro ? @ananavarro
    Stalled travel ban. Wire-tap lie revealed. Investigation on Russia ties. Health-care debacle. Trump must be getting really tired of winning.Ana Navaro: Stalled travel ban. Wire-tap lie revealed. Investigation on Russia ties. Health-care debacle. Trump must be getting really tired of winning.

    I don't know about everybody else, but I'm laughing so hard that I'm weeping.

    Trump, who tells his followers that the Washington Post is fake news, calls the Washington Post to tell them his health care bill is dead. Trump/Ryan had +44 Republicans and still couldn't get health care passed. Just goes to show what happens when you give a man a woman's job!

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    I know, right? At long last we finally agree on something. Listen to this mindless moron prattling on and on about how Trump was going to "win every fight."

    Campaign hyperbole..

    Much like Obama's "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

    You see, that is EXACTLY ya'all's problem here..

    You hold President Trump to a different standard than you held Obama...

    Seriously! Why wallow in your own defeat when you can show everyone exactly what kind of man you are by playing the blame game?

    Another perfect example of the power of the all-important -D after a person's name..

    Democrats played to blame game perfectly.. Ya'all never said a word..

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Seriously! Why wallow in your own defeat when you can show everyone exactly what kind of man you are by playing the blame game?

    Obama and the Democrats blamed the GOP incessantly for the fact they couldn't close GITMO...

    You see the point?

    Democrats are guilty of everything you accuse the Right of...

    But Democrats get a pass...

    That's why it's impossible to think that ANYTHING you say against the GOP is borne of NOTHING but ideological slavery...

    Ergo, it can't be taken seriously...

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    Biden: I regret not being president
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/325789-biden-i-regret-not-running-for-president

    I have to admit.. It would have been a WHOLE different race if Biden had been the Democrat nominee..

    While there still would have been the whole ESTABLISHMENT v ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT aspect of the race, it's clear that Joe Biden would not have had the whole MOST CORRUPT CANDIDATE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD label that NOT-45 sported....

    It would have been a REAL interesting race...

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Just goes to show what happens when you give a man a woman's job!

    Yea.. THAT's not sexist.. :^/

    You mean, the woman's job to actually WIN the election??

    Looks like the woman failed..

    Utterly..... Completely..... Unequivocally...

    FAILED

    Maybe the woman should have stuck to baking cookies.. :D

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [68]

    President Trump's next (two??) appointment(s) will.. DRAMATICALLY...

    Am I correct to assume that you know what it means when people ass-u-me?

    I am all for taking a principled stand.. I just would have thought that Democrats would have wanted to take one with at least a MODICUM chance of it being meaningful...

    I am all for taking a principled stand also, but I happen to think the filibuster would absolutely be a principled stand.

    No matter how ya slice it, the filibuster threat against Gorsuch makes absolutely NO SENSE..

    Democrats responding to the obstruction of Garland by obstructing Gorsuch would be a principled stand. I believe in the long run, tit for tat will produce more cooperation and show Republicans that Democrats won't tolerate their brand of obstruction.

    Who knows what tomorrow brings? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. :)

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm with Kick on this one. After watching the horrific childishness Gorsuch displayed at the hearings I can see why he is a favorite of 45 - the two both act like spoiled brats.

    Gorsuch's fake pandering to his wife was nauseating, his "golly gosh" attempt at "being one of the good guys" charade was plastic and pitiful, and the fact he used these artificial characteristics to avoid any questions on his positions or thinking was despicable.

    I can't think of a better example of a Supreme Court justice to force Republicans to throw away all pretense that they are a responsible ruling party on.

    You know that are going to get rid of the filibuster anyway - the Democrats should at least go out with some balls. And you never know, there might be just enough anti-45 resistance in the Republican Senate body to refuse to get rid of the filibuster - and with 45's administration lurching on its last legs, this is a good time to put more pressure on the clown.

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [71]

    Obama and the Democrats blamed the GOP incessantly for the fact they couldn't close GITMO...

    You see the point?

    Of course I see the point; it's your same old lame old BS.

    1. You deflect.

    Democrats are guilty of everything you accuse the Right of...

    But Democrats get a pass...

    2. You make up a lie about a poster. Now, instead of discussing the political issue, you discuss the poster.

    That's why it's impossible to think that ANYTHING you say against the GOP is borne of NOTHING but ideological slavery...

    3. You call the poster a name.

    Ergo, it can't be taken seriously...

    Ergo, you rarely have to discuss political issues... you just get on your moral high horse and prattle on and on about other posters. :)

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    Loses from the World's Greatest Businessman (just 65 days in):

    1. National Security Advisor - fired
    2. Muslim Ban I - thrown out of court
    3. Subsequent threat to "See you in court" - laughed at by everybody
    4. "Obama wire tapp" - ridicule from his own party and FBI
    5. Muslim Ban II - thrown out of court again
    6. Repeal and Replace Obamacare - nosedived into the side of the mountain

    And I'm missing some good ones too, like the "Inauguration Crowd" falsehood, and the "millions of illegal voters" lie.

    What a complete loser.

  78. [78] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Unless you can walk down Main Street wearing just a sailor's shirt and no pants without getting arrested

    Maybe he's from San Francisco.

    I think you would only see that at Pride parade or Folsom street fair, but you would definitely see that or the equivalent at either. Though my co-worker said some old hag was exposing herself to passerbys on Market last week as he came back from Lunch, so you never know...

    Neilm,

    Have you been up the staircase at the upper end of Moraga st. that goes to Grand View Park? Amazing tile work.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [70]

    Campaign hyperbole..

    Really? I don't think so. I think that mindless moron actually believe his own BS. Come on, now! Can't you think of someone else that buys into their own made up bullshit? I will give you a hint: You know him well.

    Much like Obama's "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

    1. You deflect.

    You see, that is EXACTLY ya'all's problem here..

    You hold President Trump to a different standard than you held Obama...

    2. You make up a lie about a poster. Now, instead of discussing the political issue, you discuss the poster.

    Another perfect example of the power of the all-important -D after a person's name..

    Democrats played to blame game perfectly.. Ya'all never said a word..

    3. You disparage the poster(s).

    Ergo, you rarely have to discuss political issues... you just get on your moral high horse and prattle on and on about other posters. :)

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Am I correct to assume that you know what it means when people ass-u-me?

    Yes, I know what happens when one makes an assumption..

    It makes an ass out of YOU and Umption...

    I am all for taking a principled stand also, but I happen to think the filibuster would absolutely be a principled stand.

    Then we are in agreement.. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Democrats, it's a "principled" stand..

    It's also completely and utterly futile...

    Who knows what tomorrow brings? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. :)

    But the Democrats are throwing away their bird...

    Better to keep the bird in reserve because, as I said and you agree with..

    Who knows what tomorrow brings??

    It might bring circumstances that would have made a filibuster successful for President Trump's 2nd (or third) nominee...

    Democrats are like the Palestinians. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity..

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    2. You make up a lie about a poster. Now, instead of discussing the political issue, you discuss the poster.

    I am pointing out the FACT that the poster has no moral leg to stand on and, as such, their opinion is worthless and unworthy of addressing..

    Quit being such an ideological slave and a hypocrite and then maybe I can address your points...

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Really? I don't think so.

    That's factual.. You don't THINK so..

    But, as I have proven beyond ANY doubt, what you THINK is totally based on your ideological slavery...

    As such, it is not worth addressing...

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    1. You deflect.

    And you have no moral foundation to attack President Trump...

  84. [84] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The interesting thing about the Republican healthcare plan was how philosophically dysfunctional the party is. The plan was basically states rights. The Federal Government should not be imposing these policies on the people but the states can. The problem is most republicans have the same mentality about government regardless whether it is local, state or federal, and have to have that to get votes to advance up the GOP ladder. For their idea to work, you kind of have to have democratic controlled state and local government. California was already purposing fixes should the bill have passed but I bet most red states would have done little to make the repeal/replace work as expected and just screwed over the poor as usual.

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [80]

    Right off the top, I would like to sincerely thank you for discussing the actual issue.

    Then we are in agreement.. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Democrats, it's a "principled" stand..

    Yep.

    It's also completely and utterly futile...

    I disagree.

    But the Democrats are throwing away their bird...

    I disagree. The Democrats are throwing their middle fingers and shooting the bird... and taking a stand, saying if you're going to ignore the Constitution and refuse to do your jobs, that kind of bullshittery needs to be met with the same obstruction... tit for tat... and live with the consequences. Screw the damn filibuster. Nuke it!

    Better to keep the bird in reserve because, as I said and you agree with..

    Who knows what tomorrow brings??

    Anyone that says they do is full of it, but we all know what yesterday brought, and that kind of obstruction needs to be met with the exact same obstruction. Make them nuke it and move on. Now is not the time to speculate about the future but to take a principled stand against Gorsuch and let the chips fall where they may.

    It might bring circumstances that would have made a filibuster successful for President Trump's 2nd (or third) nominee...

    No one's gonna die.
    FBI's got the spy.
    Flynn will comply.
    The end is nigh.
    Trump will fry.

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [81]

    I am pointing out the FACT that the poster has no moral leg to stand on and, as such, their opinion is worthless and unworthy of addressing..

    You are prattling on and on about the same shit every day. It's so much easier than actual political debate... intellectual laziness always is.

    Quit being such an ideological slave and a hypocrite and then maybe I can address your points...

    You are free to address my points or free to be intellectually lazy and:
    1. Deflect.
    2. Make up shit about a poster.
    3. Disparage the poster.

    Intellectual laziness really is so much easier than actual political debate, and you make that choice. :)

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [82]

    But, as I have proven beyond ANY doubt, what you THINK is totally based on your ideological slavery...

    You have proven nothing except that you are prone to:
    1. Deflect.
    2. Make up shit about a poster.
    3. Disparage a poster(s).

    Intellectual laziness is your choice. You do it so often you start to believe your own bullshit... not unlike your "godsend"... your Cheeto messiah. :)

  88. [88] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M- 62

    HAHAHAHAAHA nice excellent deflection! Way not to answer the question.

    How hard is it to answer these two very simple questions?

    Name what Donald Trump has done to help the American middle class- assigning credit for something the economy is already doing on it's own does not count....

    Why is the republican health care plan so much better than the ACA and how will it benefit everyone?

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [83]

    And you have no moral foundation to attack President Trump...

    I don't need a moral foundation to attack PT. This is a political chat board, and I don't need your permission, your blessing, or your judgment regarding my worthiness, all I need is a damn keyboard. :)

    You can debate the issues or you can prattle on and on about worthiness and sit in judgment of other posters on your moral highhorse named... let's name that horse... Intellectual Laziness. :)

  90. [90] 
    Paula wrote:

    Protests against corruption all over Russia.

    Corrupt Putin, corrupt Trump: best buddies.

  91. [91] 
    Paula wrote:

    [89] Kick:

    You can debate the issues or you can prattle on and on about worthiness and sit in judgment of other posters on your moral highhorse named... let's name that horse... Intellectual Laziness. :)

    The most damning thing that distinguishes Comrade Michale and Republicans like him is that they are willing to be lied to. And most of them, in addition, are willing to then spread lies.

    During this recent debacle Comrade Michale tossed out the variations on the lies about how the ACA was done in secret, done quickly, shoved down everyone's throats, etc.

    When the ACA was being put together I was following it every day. I commented here often about, as did Comrade Michale. He knows perfectly well the process was protracted. He knows it was debated and debated and debated and that all kinds of hearings were held. He knows no Repubs voted for it. He knows the CBO scored it. He knows, after passage, Repub Govs refused to set up state exchanges, refused Medicaid funds, etc. which created problems for the citizens in those states. He knows all this.

    But if some GOP mouthpiece goes out in public and makes a claim that is demonstrably untrue, and Comrade M. knows it, Comrade Michale will still repeat the lie.

  92. [92] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    He knows, after passage, Repub Govs refused to set up state exchanges, refused Medicaid funds, etc. which created problems for the citizens in those states.

    He also knows, Paula, that these things were done in a deliberate attempt to sabotage the bill. And the sabotage continues to this day.

    He knows, I assume, that a way to fix the so-called 'death spiral' caused by Republicans is to open KYnect-style exchanges in all those Red States that previously blocked implementation of Obamacare - the influx of new enrollees would stabilize the program, and spread risk pools, holding down costs.

    He also knows, however, that if Trump directs the IRS to stop enforcing the mandate, or directs the new HHS secretary Tom Price to collude with insurance companies to reduce benefits, that he'll irreparably harm the program, and probably cause people personal harm as a result. Small price for a political win, eh?

    He ought to know that the GOP has a two-year window of control before the backlash to their hubris sweeps one or both houses of Congress from their grasp. They've just wasted 60 days. Tick-tock.

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm still saying 'the bill': I mean 'the program'. The health care program nicknamed Obamacare.

  94. [94] 
    Paula wrote:

    [92] Balthasar:

    He knows, after passage, Repub Govs refused to set up state exchanges, refused Medicaid funds, etc. which created problems for the citizens in those states.

    Etc.

    Yep. As do those members of the GOP leadership with any knowledge of the actual events. And there's NO excuse for GOP leaders to lack knowledge of the events. They legislate and pontificate and oppose the ACA (and other things) -- they should know what they're actually talking about. So if they don't they are guilty of gross irresponsibility, and if they do they are guilty of gross dishonesty.

    I would say the same about idiot rank-and-file GOP/Trump voters, but you can forgive a degree of ignorance among non-professionals. A degree. But Comrade Michale was here following the passage of the ACA just like I was and he knows what took place. He is not ignorant, he is dishonest.

  95. [95] 
    Paula wrote:

    The GOP decided "truth" was expendable some years ago. Until they reacquaint themselves with the concept they will remain a danger to this country and utterly unworthy of trust or respect.

  96. [96] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [60] -

    Do you know where the little plaque is that commemorates a fictional character's death? That's my hardest-to-find SF landmark, personally.

    :-)

    -CW

  97. [97] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws [51] -

    Yeah, well, I didn't want to get into momentum and force diagrams and friction and all that.

    Actually, there are three forces at work upon a glacier, gravity (down) the ground (up) and the slope of the ground, which provides the resultant sideways force. Otherwise it wouldn't move at all, because it'd be on flat ground.

    Heh.

    But I'm heartened that I did get a few very vaild complaints about F=ma, kinda restores my faith in my readers...

    :-)

    -CW

  98. [98] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [64] -

    Aha! So a "great businessman" should be measured by his failures and bankruptcies. Hmmm... OK, by that metric, I actually agree with you -- when you define it like that, Trump is indeed a "great businessman."

    Of course, that's not what he promised his supporters. Google "You're going to get tired of winning" for a cite...

    :-)

    -CW

  99. [99] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [69] -

    I doff my hat in your general direction. I knew somebody'd be less lazy than I, and actually look that cite up.

    Bravo!

    :-)

    I always thought he sounded kinda like a coked-out Charlie Sheen in that rant, personally.

    -CW

  100. [100] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [72] -

    Check out my columns from the Dem convention last year -- I lost count of the times I heard delegates say "I wish Biden had run."

    -CW

  101. [101] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [77] -

    6. Repeal and Replace Obamacare - nosedived into the side of the mountain

    Reminds me of one of the most poignant quotes from Catch-22:

    "But Yossarian understood suddenly why McWatt wouldn't jump, and went running uncontrollably down the whole length of the squadron after McWatt's plane, waving his arms and shouting up at him imploringly to come down, McWatt, come down; but no one seemed to hear, certainly not McWatt, and a great, choking moan tore from Yossarian's throat as McWatt turned again, dipped his wings once in salute, decided oh, well, what the hell, and flew into a mountain."

    -CW

  102. [102] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [80] -

    Shouldn't that be "an ass out of U and Mption"?

    Or maybe he's a military guy... "an ass out of U and M.P. Tion"?

    Heh. Couldn't resist.

    -CW

  103. [103] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, and to DecayedOldBritishLiberal, RE: that quote in [101]...

    Don't know how that sentence would be technically identified by grammarians, but it's a doozy of a sentence, you've got to admit that.

    I remember diagramming sentences in school. I've forgotten all the rules now, but do remember picking a challenging Simon and Garfunkel lyric to diagram, just to impress the teacher:

    In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade, and he carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down or cut him 'til he cried out, in his anger and his shame: "I am leaving, I am leaving," but the fighter still remains.

    That's the same song as the immortal line (so often relevant in political discussions):

    "All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

    :-)

    Oh, and if memory serves, I got an "A" on that assignment... heh...

    -CW

  104. [104] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Final note before I get on with the rest of my weekend.

    Did anybody catch Schumer this Sun. morning (Meet The Press I think, but it could have been one of the other chatfests)?

    He could have been reading from my final paragraphs verbatim. "No 'repeal' anymore, and it has to improve the ACA."

    Nice performance, Chuck!

    :-)

    -CW

  105. [105] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-101

    Paul Ryan is the Republican Doc Daneeka. Ryan's name is on the Repeal and Replace flight list, Repeal and Replace crashed into the mountain, so Ryan is being ignored by all Republicans because he must be dead.

  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    [91] Paula

    He knows all this.

    Ah, sounds like a case of willful ignorance as well as intellectual laziness. :)

    PT is our president, and as long as he is, it is incumbent upon us to keep a modicum of normalcy about our country. It is not normal for a president to insist his anemic crowds are the biggest on record. It is not normal for a president to insist there are 3,000,000+ illegal voters and every single one of them voted for his opponent. It is not normal for a president to accuse his predecessor of committing a crime because he saw it on Fox News. It is not normal for a president to lavish praise on brutal dictators like Putin and Kim. We can't let this bullshit become normal... because it's NOT.

    But if some GOP mouthpiece goes out in public and makes a claim that is demonstrably untrue, and Comrade M. knows it, Comrade Michale will still repeat the lie.

    Insisting everyone else is an ideological slave while he himself is spewing the Trumpian alternative facts and right-wing talking points like a bleating sheep and policing the board and deeming us not worthy to comment... like that BS could stop us! :)

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    Aha! So a "great businessman" should be measured by his failures and bankruptcies. Hmmm... OK, by that metric, I actually agree with you -- when you define it like that, Trump is indeed a "great businessman."

    I love it when ya'all bring up the a person who has failed is not worth a damn, but only if they have a '-R' after their name meme...

    I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
    -Michael Jordan

    It gives me a chance to, once again, TOTALLY DECIMATE that argument.. :D

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    Protests against corruption all over Russia.

    Corrupt Putin, corrupt Trump: best buddies.

    Cite???

    You see, GT???

    Never a cite around at all....

  109. [109] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    m-

    You see, GT???

    Never a cite around at all....

    Dude...I think you used to use DYOFR...

    All you have to do is Google it. Now if you had seen my link for CW's little green men post you would have seen this coming. After all aren't you the be all end all of this kind of thing?

    Glad to see you are willfully ignoring the cites to the Trump EO's I have posted... Glad to see you are ignoring the cites from Neil and I on the jobs numbers...Glad to see that you ignore the cites from JL and I along with others, to the congressional record on the so called "Biden Rule", where in each and every circumstance you posted responses from right wing web sites that were from opinion pieces vs. actual data...or you just argled and bargled.

    The way I see it we have gone above and beyond to find FACTS that all of us can agree upon, while you have stuck with the bubble media...

    I may not like the results of the CBO or the CRS, but they are supposedly considered non-partisan and are something I will accept over a right or left wing news site. When will you up your game?

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW [96] - on my way next time I'm in the city - thanks for the tip!

  111. [111] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Speaking of SF-

    Much more to my interest is who has been to "the saloon"?
    or

    Who has visited the windjammer? equally as seedy as Zeitgeist, but a much better beer selection...

    Now as to the steps... please spit at the sandstone mansion at the base of the Lyon street steps. I messed up my ankle working in that place after Lucas moved on... Damn steps, but there is a Irish good pub right near by.

    Speaking of the Lyon steps it is a great place to go people watching...

    Then there was this time I was setting up for fleet week and a naked guy was running around a pier we were trying to set up on and tried to make a run for the bay bridge up the Bryant st. on-ramp, me and a co worker/friend ended up cornering the guy in an apartment building porch until the police came and arrested him ... he was wearing my hoodie (tied like an apron over his privates) from the GW. Does that count for being arrested with a sailor shirt on?

    Needless to say he kept the hoodie...

  112. [112] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who has visited the windjammer? equally as seedy as Zeitgeist, but a much better beer selection...

    The Windjammer closed in 1980 - I was looking for it and found it on an old website for sadly missed bars in SF.

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    All you have to do is Google it.

    Ahhhh.. So, when one of ya'all post garbage, it's up to *ME* to verify it..

    But when I post facts, it's again, up to *ME* to source it..

    Yea.. absolutely NO HYPOCRISY there, eh? :^/

    Once again, I wish ya'all could take a step back from ya'all ideological slavery and see how ridiculous ya'all sound..

    The way I see it we have gone above and beyond to find FACTS that all of us can agree upon, while you have stuck with the bubble media...

    OF COURSE that's the way you "see it".. Because you are stuck in your ideological bubble, so you "see" whatever the Party wants you to see..

    Ya'all's "proof" consists of nothing but HuffPoop, Daily Kook and other Left Whinery rags...

    It's easy to "prove" anything the Party wants when that's the source... :^/

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    Glad to see you are willfully ignoring the cites to the Trump EO's I have posted... Glad to see you are ignoring the cites from Neil and I on the jobs numbers...Glad to see that you ignore the cites from JL and I along with others, to the congressional record on the so called "Biden Rule", where in each and every circumstance you posted responses from right wing web sites that were from opinion pieces vs. actual data...or you just argled and bargled.

    When ya'all's cites include ALL the facts rather than just the facts that support your ideological case, I won't ignore them. That is a promise..

    Because when ya'all cherry pick yer facts, I know ya'all are doing but pushing an ideological agenda and no amount of debate is going to change your religion-esque devotion to Party...

    Bring ALL the facts or just stay home... :D

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Insisting everyone else is an ideological slave while he himself is spewing the Trumpian alternative facts and right-wing talking points like a bleating sheep and policing the board and deeming us not worthy to comment... like that BS could stop us! :)

    Well, I am sure glad you are not making everything about me.. ;D

    heh

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    The GOP decided "truth" was expendable some years ago.

    A perfect example of political bigotry...

    This is what passes for "facts" here in Weigantia...

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    Check out my columns from the Dem convention last year -- I lost count of the times I heard delegates say "I wish Biden had run."

    Democrats are rueing the day that they choose NOT-45 as their champion..

    A worse candidate could not possibly have been chosen...

  118. [118] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/female-athletes-crushed-by-women-who-were-once-men/

    When facts and reality collide with Party ideology and wishful thinking...

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [107]

    I love it when ya'all bring up the a person who has failed is not worth a damn, but only if they have a '-R' after their name meme...

    The only problem with the bullshit you wrote there is that CW was discussing your use of the descriptive term "great businessman" to describe Trump. It was, in fact, you who declared that Trump was proving to be a "great businessman" because of his handling of "failure." It also was, in fact, you who brought up the "a person who has failed is not worth a damn, but only if they have a '-R' after their name meme." As per usual and as if on cue, that monotonous nugget is all your handiwork.

    I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
    -Michael Jordan

    It gives me a chance to, once again, TOTALLY DECIMATE that argument.. :D

    OMG! You can't really be this obtuse, right? You throw out your SOP bullshit argument and then "totally decimate" your own bullshit, and that's supposed to mean something?

    All you've done there is to provide cover for every person on this board whom you frequently denigrate... for if you truly believe it doesn't matter whether a person has an "-R" or a "-D" after their name, then you have to concede that your Jordan quote applies equally to all us Weigantians. :p LOL

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [115]

    Well, I am sure glad you are not making everything about me.. ;D

    M-i-c-h-a-e-l

    Wait, what? You're not going to denigrate me personally for the entire paragraph I wrote in that comment about your Orange Crush?

    Here, let me spoon feed the comment:

    *****
    "PT is our president, and as long as he is, it is incumbent upon us to keep a modicum of normalcy about our country. It is not normal for a president to insist his anemic crowds are the biggest on record. It is not normal for a president to insist there are 3,000,000+ illegal voters and every single one of them voted for his opponent. It is not normal for a president to accuse his predecessor of committing a crime because he saw it on Fox News. It is not normal for a president to lavish praise on brutal dictators like Putin and Kim. We can't let this bullshit become normal... because it's NOT."
    *****

    You're so vain, you probably think that comment's about you. You're so vain, I'll bet you think that comment's about you, don't you? Don't you?

    GT is absolutely right: "When will you up your game?"

  121. [121] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    . I love it when ya'all bring up the a person who has failed is not worth a damn, but only if they have a '-R' after their name meme...

    This failure, as massive of a failure it truly was, really has nothing to do with why Trump isn't worth a ding-dang-damn!

    Screwing over all of those Trump University people, mocking a person with a disability, bragging about committing sexual assault, and selling the office of the president to the Russians showed us that about Trump already!

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Donald, This I Will Tell You

    Maureen Dowd
    MARCH 25, 2017

    WASHINGTON — Dear Donald,

    We’ve known each other a long time, so I think I can be blunt.

    You know how you said at campaign rallies that you did not like being identified as a politician?

    Don’t worry. No one will ever mistake you for a politician.

    After this past week, they won’t even mistake you for a top-notch negotiator.

    I was born here. The first image in my memory bank is the Capitol, all lit up at night. And my primary observation about Washington is this: Unless you’re careful, you end up turning into what you started out scorning.

    And you, Donald, are getting a reputation as a sucker. And worse, a sucker who is a tool of the D.C. establishment.

    Your whole campaign was mocking your rivals and the D.C. elite, jawing about how Americans had turned into losers, with our bad deals and open borders and the Obamacare “disaster.”

    And you were going to fly in on your gilded plane and fix all that in a snap.

    You mused that a good role model would be Ronald Reagan. As you saw it, Reagan was a big, good-looking guy with a famous pompadour; he had also been a Democrat and an entertainer. But Reagan had one key quality that you don’t have: He knew what he didn’t know.

    You both resembled Macy’s Thanksgiving Day balloons, floating above the nitty-gritty and focusing on a few big thoughts. But President Reagan was confident enough to accept that he needed experts below, deftly maneuvering the strings.

    You’re just careening around on your own, crashing into buildings and losing altitude, growling at the cameras and spewing nasty conspiracy theories, instead of offering a sunny smile, bipartisanship, optimism and professionalism.

    You promised to get the best people around you in the White House, the best of the best. In fact, “best” is one of your favorite words.

    Instead, you dragged that motley skeleton crew into the White House and let them create a feuding, leaking, belligerent, conspiratorial, sycophantic atmosphere. Instead of a smooth, classy operator like James Baker, you have a Manichaean anarchist in Steve Bannon.

    You knew the Republicans were full of hot air. They haven’t had to pass anything in a long time, and they have no aptitude for governing. To paraphrase an old Barney Frank line, asking the Republicans to govern is like asking Frank to judge the Miss America contest — “If your heart’s not in it, you don’t do a very good job.”

    You knew that Paul Ryan’s vaunted reputation as a policy wonk was fake news. Republicans have been running on repealing and replacing Obamacare for years and they never even bothered to come up with a valid alternative.

    And neither did you, despite all your promises to replace Obamacare with “something terrific” because you wanted everyone to be covered.

    Instead, you sold the D.O.A. bill the Irish undertaker gave you as though it were a luxury condo, ignoring the fact that it was a cruel flimflam, a huge tax cut for the rich disguised as a health care bill. You were so concerned with the “win” that you forgot your “forgotten” Americans, the older, poorer people in rural areas who would be hurt by the bill.

    As The Times’s chief Washington correspondent Carl Hulse put it, the G.O.P. falls into clover with a lock on the White House and both houses of Congress, and what’s the first thing it does? Slip on a banana peel. Incompetence Inc.

    “They tried to sweeten the deal at the end by offering a more expensive bill with fewer health benefits, but alas, it wasn’t enough!” former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau slyly tweeted.

    Despite the best efforts of Bannon to act as though the whole fiasco was a clever way to bury Ryan — a man he disdains as “the embodiment of the ‘globalist-corporatist’ Republican elite,” as Gabriel Sherman put it in New York magazine — it won’t work.

    And you can jump on the phone with The Times’s Maggie Haberman and The Washington Post’s Robert Costa — ignoring that you’ve labeled them the “fake media” — and act like you’re in control. You can say that people should have waited for “Phase 2” and “Phase 3” — whatever they would have been — and that Obamacare is going to explode and that the Democrats are going to get the blame. But it doesn’t work that way. You own it now.

    You’re all about flashy marketing so you didn’t notice that the bill was junk, so lame that even Republicans skittered away.

    You were humiliated right out of the chute by the establishment guys who hooked you into their agenda — a massive transfer of wealth to rich people — and drew you away from your own.

    You sold yourself as the businessman who could shake things up and make Washington work again. Instead, you got worked over by the Republican leadership and the business community, who set you up to do their bidding.

    That’s why they’re putting up with all your craziness about Russia and wiretapping and unending lies and rattling our allies.

    They’re counting on you being a delusional dupe who didn’t even know what was in the bill because you’re sitting around in a bathrobe getting your information from wackadoodles on Fox News and then, as The Post reported, peppering aides with the query, “Is this really a good bill?”

    You got played.

    It took W. years to smash everything. You’re way ahead of schedule.

    And I can say you’re doing badly, because I’m a columnist, and you’re not. Say hello to everybody, O.K.?

    Sincerely, Maureen

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/donald-this-i-will-tell-you.html

    Nailed it!

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    The only problem with the bullshit you wrote there is that CW was discussing your use of the descriptive term "great businessman" to describe Trump.

    That's because it is exactly what he is..

    And ya'all would have agreed with me when President Trump had a -D after his name..

    You and I both know this to be factual...

    You're so vain, you probably think that comment's about you. You're so vain, I'll bet you think that comment's about you, don't you? Don't you?

    Uh... Since you addressed it to me... uh.. yea..

    "DDDooooyyyyyyy"
    Vanillope, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Screwing over all of those Trump University people, mocking a person with a disability, bragging about committing sexual assault, and selling the office of the president to the Russians showed us that about Trump already!

    But Odumbo checking out a minor girl's ass?? NOT-45 oggling the tits of someone young enough to be her granddaughter..??? Bubba raping and sexually assaulting women???

    THAT doesn't bother you at all..

    Once again, it's ALL solely and completely based on Party slavery...

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean, what else explains the fact that ya'all (NEN) castigate and denigrate those with an '-R' after their name for this and that, but ya'all (NEN) ignore when those with a '-D' after their names do the EXACT same thing??

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    White House Opens Door to Democrats in Wake of Health-Bill Failure
    Move signals Trump administration is fed up with many factions in House Republican conference

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-opens-door-to-democrats-in-wake-of-health-bill-failure-1490547877

    OK.. So it looks like President Trump is going to do *EXACTLY* what some of ya'all have suggested..

    Extend the hand to Democrats and invite them to work with President Trump for the betterment of the American people..

    So....

    Will ya'all give President Trump any credit for this???

    I honestly doubt it...

    I can only think of one person, maybe two, who would....

    Time will tell...

    But my guess is ya'all (NEN) will laugh and ridicule President Trump for his outreach..

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [123]

    That's because it is exactly what he is..

    He's a con artist who has screwed over a lot of his contractors, employees, and customers and is taking his bullshit into the White House. He's a pathological liar who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and millions and millions of dollars from his father. He's spent his whole life promoting himself and his self-interests while leaving a trail of destruction in his wake.

    And ya'all would have agreed with me when President Trump had a -D after his name..

    It's a new day, right? Your brain is wiped, right?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/08/like-a-rug/#comment-94033

    Well, I have said incessantly and have typed ad nauseam that I think Donald Trump is a con artist whose primary concern is the pursuit of power and money. I called him "Benedict Donald" and said he was the most dangerous threat to our democracy. If you must label me a bigot, label me as one of those people who are biased against con artists who take advantage of people less fortunate in order to advance their own interests.

    If all things were equal and Donald Trump was a Democrat, it would not change my opinion of him in the least. In fact, I don't belong to any party, but if I actually was a member of either the Democratic or Republican Party and Donald Trump became my Party's nominee, I would be changing my Party affiliation so fast it would make Usain Bolt look as speedy as a turtle.

    Remember those facts? This has been covered ad nauseam. Try to let that sink in.

    I don't give a shit what letter is after that asshole's name. He is an opportunist who ran for president for a short time on the Reform Ticket in 2000 and sported an "I". He then switched back to a "D" after he dropped out of that race on Valentine's Day. Before he decided to run in 2016 as an "R" because he knew exactly what type voter would fall for his bullshit.

    Let that sink in because those are the facts. :)

    You and I both know this to be factual...

    No, I think you have reading comprehension problems if you haven't yet figured out that I don't care what letter that opportunist has after his name. If you haven't figured that out by now, then you need to have your head examined.

    Uh... Since you addressed it to me... uh.. yea..

    So you think a comment addressed to you can't be about someone else like that asshole Donald Trump? That explains a lot. :)

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [126]

    OK.. So it looks like President Trump is going to do *EXACTLY* what some of ya'all have suggested..

    Extend the hand to Democrats and invite them to work with President Trump for the betterment of the American people..

    So....

    Will ya'all give President Trump any credit for this???

    I honestly doubt it...

    I can only think of one person, maybe two, who would....

    When he replaced Flynn with McMaster, I believe many people here gave him credit where credit was due. Did you forget that?

    But my guess is ya'all (NEN) will laugh and ridicule President Trump for his outreach..

    That's because your memory is as short as Trump's little stubby fingers. :)

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    He's a con artist who has screwed over a lot of his contractors, employees, and customers and is taking his bullshit into the White House. He's a pathological liar who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and millions and millions of dollars from his father. He's spent his whole life promoting himself and his self-interests while leaving a trail of destruction in his wake.

    And yet, he has been enormously successful in business, he defeated 17 candidates and devastated biggest, meanest and most well-funded campaign in the history of the world..

    Until you can reconcile those FACTS with your hysterical hatred....

    Your argument doesn't hold water...

    When he replaced Flynn with McMaster, I believe many people here gave him credit where credit was due. Did you forget that?

    Two... Two people gave him credit.

    And that lasted barely to the next I HATE TRUMP comment.. :D

    That's because your memory is as short as Trump's little stubby fingers.

    And, once again, ridiculing someone for a physical attribute is something a 2nd grader does...

    You don't do your argument any favors by acting like a 2nd grader...

  130. [130] 
    michale wrote:

    If all things were equal and Donald Trump was a Democrat, it would not change my opinion of him in the least.

    Yea, that's what you CLAIM..

    Show me any comment you made against President Trump when he was a Democrat..

    You can't...

    Ergo, the facts are clear.. You only attack President Trump because he has an '-R' after his name..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  131. [131] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Idea: Run government like a business....

    Implementation: Hand over the day to day operations to your son-in-law.

    Sounds about right.

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/325444-party-of-nancy-pelosi-with-no-emerging-leaders-no

    They problem the Democrat Party faces..

    To deny this is to deny facts and deny reality...

  133. [133] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i read the article. if the article is accurate, at the moment donald is not offering to involve democrats - at least he's not making that offer to democrats. he's telling republicans that they have to fall in line or else he'll involve democrats. partisan healthcare 2.0 appears to be just like muslim ban 2.0 - same content in a different wrapper. maybe version 3 will involve some moderation.

    JL

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    dsws,

    From a previous commentary..

    The only way I would change it is in emphasis: "They will pass something called a "repeal of Obamacare."

    Apparently, you were wrong....

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    i read the article. if the article is accurate, at the moment donald is not offering to involve democrats -

    I cannot refute your claim as the article is now under a PayWall for me..

    I'll revisit the issue once I get access to the full article..

  136. [136] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    delayed response to comment 39 from "My take on Trump's taxes"

    You seem to be deliberately missing the points being made in that discussion with goode trickle by going off on unrelated issues in a manner that seems designed to whitewash the situation... while failing to offer your own opinions on the subject at hand.

    Do you defend the beating of the man who got on his knees and surrendered as the video clearly showed?

    If so, explain the justifications please.

    A

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    AG Sessions says he’ll punish sanctuaries, cities could lose billions of dollars
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/jeff-sessions-says-hell-punish-sanctuaries-cities/

    Once again, President Trump's administration steps up... :D

  138. [138] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so, citizens will be starved of needed services because a few local cops don't want to join in on a federal grouse hunt for immigrants. i cannot emphasize enough how evil i think that is.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    ~martin niemoller

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    so, citizens will be starved of needed services because a few local cops don't want to join in on a federal grouse hunt for immigrants.

    No...

    Citizens will be starved of needed services because a city government decided to ignore THE LAW in favor of their ill-advised agenda that HARMS and KILLS American citizens..

    i cannot emphasize enough how evil i think that is.

    I completely agree....

  140. [140] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Citizens will be starved of needed services because a city government decided to ignore THE LAW in favor of their ill-advised agenda that HARMS and KILLS American citizens..

    first of all, there is zero evidence that being a sanctuary harms citizens. and it certainly doesn't justify punishing them by an actual ill-advised agenda that actually does harm and kill american citizens.

    stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself
    ~bart simpson

  141. [141] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just to be clear michale, bart simpson's argument is essentially the same one you're making right now.

    JL

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    first of all, there is zero evidence that being a sanctuary harms citizens.

    Tell that to the parents of Kathleen Steinle or anyone else who has lost a friend or loved one to an illegal immigrant..

    You are talking stats and I am talking innocent American lives..

    One of the VERY few times where the emotional argument is the correct one..

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    First they came for the rapists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a rapist. Then they came for the murderers, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a murderer. Then they came for the drunk drivers, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a drunk driver. Then they came for liberals—and there was no one left that WANTED to speak for the liberals.

    There.. MUCH better.. :D

    stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself
    ~bart simpson

    I think that was Nelson Munz.. :D

  143. [143] 
    michale wrote:

    just to be clear michale, bart simpson's argument is essentially the same one you're making right now.

    If you say so.. :D

  144. [144] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You are talking stats and I am talking innocent American lives..

    you are talking an isolated anecdote, like the guy who smoked a pack a day and lived to ninety-five, and attempting to use it to justify a lie, like cigarettes don't cause cancer.

    JL

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    you are talking an isolated anecdote,

    No, I am talking tens of thousands of anecdotes that are not isolated but rather spread out all across the country..

    But the ideology says to minimize those American lives to push an ideological agenda, so that's what the Left does...

  146. [146] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    i realize you think these actions against muslims and immigrants are justified, but there are a large number of people here who strongly disagree, and won't be bullied no matter what the personal consequences to themselves.

    First they came for the Muslims - and we said "not this time, motherfucker."
    ~april daniels

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    Regardless, city government should follow the law..

    If they don't, there should be consequences..

    That's the beginning and end of the issue...

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    i realize you think these actions against muslims and immigrants are justified,

    if we were talking about muslims and immigrants, you would have a point..

    But we're talking about terrorists and criminals..

    So, you don't..

    and won't be bullied no matter what the personal consequences to themselves.

    And if they are willing to actually ACCEPT those consequences, fine..

    But they aren't.. They run and hide and expect a free ride...

    And THAT rhymes.. :D

  149. [149] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No, I am talking tens of thousands of anecdotes that are not isolated but rather spread out all across the country..

    there are thirty million smokers in the US, and a full ten million of them will be anecdotes of smokers living past 80. guess what, smoking still causes cancer, and illegal immigrants are still more likely to decrease violence in the country than to increase it. you are using your anecdotes to support a falsehood and harmful measures against entire cities full of innocent people whose authorities stand up to oppose that falsehood.

    JL

  150. [150] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if we were talking about muslims and immigrants, you would have a point... But we're talking about terrorists and criminals.. So, you don't..

    thank you for acknowledging my point, since we're absolutely not talking just about terrorists or criminals. donald didn't call for a ban on terrorists, he called it a ban on muslims. he isn't having people deported for crimes against people or property, he's having them deported for standing on the wrong side of a line.

    As I went walking I saw a sign there
    And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
    But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
    That side was made for you and me.
    ~woody guthrie

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    thank you for acknowledging my point, since we're absolutely not talking just about terrorists or criminals.

    You are not..

    I am...

    donald didn't call for a ban on terrorists, he called it a ban on muslims.

    And Obama and NOT-45 were against same-sex marriage and the Democrat Party was the Party of the KKK..

    But positions change..

    Apparently, you don't allow those people with '-R's after their name to, what's that word the Left Winery likes to use....

    evolve....

  152. [152] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, if President Trump is still all about a "muslim ban" then Obama and NOT-45 are STILL against same-sex marriage and the Democrat Party is STILL the Party of the KKK....

    Your own argument, not mine..

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    On the other hand, if Obama and NOT-45 can "evolve" on same sex marriage and the Democrat Party can "evolve" away from the Party of the KKK, then President Trump can "evolve" away from his muslim ban..

    At least, that's the way people who are not enslaved by Party ideology think...

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [129]

    And yet, he has been enormously successful in business, he defeated 17 candidates and devastated biggest, meanest and most well-funded campaign in the history of the world..

    That's what you claim. You ignore all the Trump University scam he perpetrated on 5,000 Americans and the multiple bankruptcies in Jersey where he actively screwed one set of his investors against another and broke a provision of his contract that practically guaranteed his casinos would fail. Americans being scammed into voting for Donald Trump makes him a great con artist... NOT a great businessman. If you'd honestly look back at how he campaigned as a populist yet he's governing (so far) as far-right conservative, it would serve you well.

    Until you can reconcile those FACTS with your hysterical hatred....

    Your argument doesn't hold water...

    I don't hate him, and for the hundredth time, this is NOT about me. You want to make it personal and then whine about it being personal. I just call them like I see them based on evidence. You police the board and claim that people need to "reconcile" utter nonsense before they can have an opinion or make a true point about anything. That's just monotonous bullshit. :)

    Two... Two people gave him credit.

    I remember me and Neil did, and no one criticized me and Neil for our opinion so that means they agreed with us by omission. <---- You deserved that. Maybe people didn't know McMaster enough to have an opinion about whether or not he was a good choice. It's not complicated.

    And that lasted barely to the next I HATE TRUMP comment.. :D

    Hate would require passion that I wouldn't waste on a con artist. I do think he's an asshole, but my passion is reserved for making sure the asshole doesn't turn our democracy into a fact-free fascist cesspool in order to further his obsession with fame and money. He ran as a populist who was going to help the people and be their voice, but so far he's governing like a far-right fascist by appointing millionaires and special interests and backing legislation that would hurt Americans, particularly seemed designed to stick it to the average Trump voter... older and lower income, covered under the Medicaid expansion of ACA... who put their trust in the con artist and voted for him.

    And, once again, ridiculing someone for a physical attribute is something a 2nd grader does...

    You don't do your argument any favors by acting like a 2nd grader...

    You voted for and regularly praise a guy who ridicules people for their physical attributes on twitter. He also regularly did this to his opponents and their wives... little Marco, what he said about Carly Fiorina's face, how he compared Cruz's wife to his on twitter. I could go on, but why bother? Please give me shit about it every chance you get because I enjoy how ridiculous you sound when you admonish a poster on a chat board for something you excuse in the President of the United States... whom you claim is "your voice" and "a godsend" and you worship like a messiah while taking issue with those of us who think he's a 70-year-old man-child who has been scamming and conning people his entire adult life. :)

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm just sayin'... :D

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [129]

    And, once again, ridiculing someone for a physical attribute is something a 2nd grader does...

    You don't do your argument any favors by acting like a 2nd grader...

    Why do you insist on taking me to task for something you worship in your Orange Crush? Little Marco. Who would vote for a face like Carly Fiorina? Grab them by the crotch? Any of this ringing a bell?

    Please hold a poster on a chat board to a higher standard than you hold the guy you voted to become President of the United States... whom you refer to as "a godsend" and consider to be your "voice." That'll show me. *LOL*

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22 [138]

    Exactly right and very well said. :)

  158. [158] 
    Kick wrote:

    Devin Nunes admits he viewed classified documents on White House grounds and then held a press conference the following day in order to inform the White House about what "he'd discovered."

    IGNORANT TOOL confesses to being a TOOL. :)

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    Why do you insist on taking me to task for something you worship in your Orange Crush?

    Deflection..

    We're talking about you, not President Trump..

    But, if you want to claim that you and President Trump are the same?

    By all means...

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    And, for the record, I HAVE taken President Trump to task on several occasions for his bone head remarks..

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:

    Why do you insist on taking me to task for something you worship in your Orange Crush?

    I will also point out that you have absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that I "worship" ANYTHING in President Trump, let alone his crass, poor-taste and locker-room antics...

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL [150]

    thank you for acknowledging my point, since we're absolutely not talking just about terrorists or criminals. donald didn't call for a ban on terrorists, he called it a ban on muslims. he isn't having people deported for crimes against people or property, he's having them deported for standing on the wrong side of a line.

    Nice posts. PT can't help his obvious biases, JL; they are built into his DNA. He's just following in his father and Roy Cohn's footsteps. ;)

    I suppose that Old Man Trump knows just how much racial hate
    He stirred up in that bloodpot of human hearts
    When he drawed that color line
    Here at his Beach Haven family project...
    ~Woody Guthrie

  163. [163] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [158]

    Deflection..

    No. I'm discussing political issues on a political chat board. Donald Trump is the president whom you worship like a messiah and personally disparage just about anyone here who doesn't agree with you. Deflection would be if I insisted you only said that because you were a party slave and a bigot.

    We're talking about you, not President Trump..

    No. You were talking about me, while I was trying to turn your personal insults back to a discussion about political issues. You want to devolve nearly every post into a personal discussion while others attempt to discuss political issues. You were talking about me... same shit, different day.

    But, if you want to claim that you and President Trump are the same?

    By all means...

    Nowhere do I claim that President Trump and I are the same, but thanks for that glimpse into your thought processes. It explains quite a lot. Please keep disparaging me for something you worship in your messiah. It says so much. :)

  164. [164] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [110] -

    For anyone else wondering what we're talking about:

    http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/place-where-miles-archer-died

    :-)

    -CW

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [160]

    I will also point out that you have absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that I "worship" ANYTHING in President Trump, let alone his crass, poor-taste and locker-room antics...

    Unlike Donald Trump, God and the messiah He sent are worshiped the world over. If you don't want people to think you worship PT, perhaps you should stop referring to the "crass" one with "poor taste" as "a godsend." :)

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW [163]

    For anyone else wondering what we're talking about:

    http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/place-where-miles-archer-died

    That is excellent! Very nice.

    San Francisco sounds like an awesome city. I need to get over there and stay a spell and see the sights. Note to bucket list: San Francisco. :)

  167. [167] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone,

    Perspective is everything. When you see the video that starts with the subject dropping to his knees in what appears to be in an effort to surrender himself peacefully to the police, and he is suddenly tackled and physically accosted by the police officer who seems extremely agitated, it looks like a clear case of police brutality! That is universally what I think most people would conclude from watching the video.

    But that video showed only a portion of the events that occurred, and there were important aspects that the video failed to capture. Our perspective changes when we learn to see things differently and are always asking "What prompted this to occur?"

    Case in point: The media reported that many witnesses they had interviewed claimed that Michael Brown was putting his hands up in surrender and was taking a knee when he was shot and killed by Officer Wilson. People were outraged because it was clear to these witnesses that Michael Brown posed no threat when he was killed.

    One important fact that got overlooked by most reporters, all of those who made these claims admitted that they only became aware of what was going on AFTER they heard the sound of gunfire. None of those witnesses that claimed he was putting his hands up in surrender had viewed the entire altercation between Brown and Wilson!

    Witnesses that viewed the altercation from before the first shot was fired all testified that they could see where Officer Wilson believed that Brown was charging to attack him, again. People watching the same movements by Brown just prior to his being shot and killed gave two very different interpretations of the event.

    Can I justify his actions based solely on what is shown in the video? No. But I also know that it is just as wrong to condemn the officer based only on what you see in the video. Do you not see how you might have predetermined the officer's guilt since you first learned of it after watching a video from a story that had the headline:

    POLICE BRUTALLY BEAT UNARMED TEENAGER ???

    When the police break the law, they must be held accountable. I am amazed at the way many "liberals" view the police in much the same way that "conservatives" view the black community -- as a monolith.

    As for my comments, I believe you had stated it was wrong for officers to say they thought it was appropriate for them to treat certain neighborhoods differently in how they approached their job. I was pointing out why that has to happen!

  168. [168] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Neil...

    Mea Culpa....I meant the Toranado not the Windjammer... that what happens when you have had a few doses of vitamin V in the departure lounge.

    You mix up the dens of iniquity from your youth with the ones of middle age...

    Kick....Check out SF in October it is personally one of my favorite times of the year...if you do it right you can check out our fleet week which is a pretty good time and also HSB...which is an awesome time ( perhaps that is because I helped start it and grow it.) RIP Warren Hellman. To boot it is totally free...

    http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/2016/

  169. [169] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Unlike Donald Trump, God and the messiah He sent are worshiped the world over.

    @kick,

    not everybody agrees about that whole messiah thing. i mean, he was a cool guy and all...

    So let's all sing out praises to
    That long-haired radical socialist Jew
    ~hugh blumenfeld

    http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-radical.html

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT [167]

    Wow, GT... I checked out your link, and that is really excellent, very nice. :)

    I am seriously moving San Francisco up near the top of my bucket list. I confess I've always wondered what it would be like to ride an M1 Abrams down Lombard Street. Maybe I could settle for a Jeep... maybe ;)

  171. [171] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL [168]

    not everybody agrees about that whole messiah thing. i mean, he was a cool guy and all...

    Don't I know it, JL. My father was one of them. He made me study religion as a condition for paying for my education. Which religion? All of them. Dad would say: "Yeshua was a 5-foot dark haired Middle Eastern prophet"... etc.

    Dad wouldn't let anyone buy him a Christmas present because he was not a believer. Lucky for the rest of us, Dad was born on Christmas Day. So while many people gathered to exchange gifts and celebrate the birth of Jesus, my family gathered to celebrate the birth of Jesus and Dad (not necessarily in that order), and Christmas wrapping paper was not allowed on Dad's gifts... not even snowmen. :)

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL [168]

    I also got in trouble in elementary school for telling the other kids that Santa Claus was a fictional character based on a Christian bishop of Myra who was known for helping the poor, in particular by paying the dowries of impoverished females of a pious father so that his daughters would not have to resort to a life of prostitution.

    Can you imagine having your parent pick you up from school and listen in to a discussion of whether or not you should be expelled for being honest and making the other kids cry?

    Some people just can't handle the truth. :)

  173. [173] 
    michale wrote:

    I also got in trouble in elementary school for telling the other kids that Santa Claus was a fictional character

    Why am I not surprised.. :D

    If you don't want people to think you worship PT, perhaps you should stop referring to the "crass" one with "poor taste" as "a godsend." :)

    Oh puullleeezzzee :^/

    No. You were talking about me, while I was trying to turn your personal insults back to a discussion about political issues.

    No, you have personally insulted me in this manner ad nasuem.. I was simply using your own arguments (lame though they are) when you did the exact same thing you accuse me of..

    Nowhere do I claim that President Trump and I are the same,

    Actually, you did...

    Why do you insist on taking me to task for something you worship in your Orange Crush?

    I know, I know.. Facts are such inconvenient things... :D

    But irregardless of all your deflections, the simple fact is, when you make fun of people's personal attributes, you are acting like a childish and immature 2nd grader and, as such, you render your argument impotent...

    This is fact....

    Deal with it... :D

  174. [174] 
    michale wrote:

    Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, lost his cool on Sunday night at Upper East Side restaurant Sette Mezzo, according to witnesses.

    Onlookers said Schumer was incensed that Hilary — the daughter of William S. Paley, the founder and chairman of CBS — had voted for Trump, even though her husband, Joseph, is a well-known Democrat.

    One witness said of the restaurant rant, “They are a highly respected couple, and Schumer made a scene, yelling, ‘She voted for Trump!’ The Califanos left the restaurant, but Schumer followed them outside.” On the sidewalk, Schumer carried on with his fantastical filibuster: “?‘How could you vote for Trump? He’s a liar!’ He kept repeating, ‘He’s a liar!’?”
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/27/schumer-goes-off-on-trump-supporter-at-nyc-restaurant-witness-says.html

    Democrats.. :^/

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:

    Some people just can't handle the truth. :)

    Or....

    Some people.. Some PARENTS prefer that their child be allowed to be children and enjoy the innocence of childhood without having some immature know-it-all insecure brat spoil and defile that innocence...

    "Who gave you permission to tell Charlie there was no Santa Claus? I think if we're going to destroy our son's delusions, I should be a part of it."
    -Tim Allen, THE SANTA CLAUSE

    :D

    It's a parent thing.. You wouldn't understand... :D

  176. [176] 
    michale wrote:

    without having some immature know-it-all insecure brat spoil and defile that innocence...

    Not saying that YOU were an immature know-it-all insecure brat....

    I was just speaking in general terms. :D

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [172]

    No, you have personally insulted me in this manner ad nasuem.. I was simply using your own arguments (lame though they are) when you did the exact same thing you accuse me of..

    Cite, please? Why in the world would I have insulted you "in this manner ad nasuem [sic]"? When did I call you a 2nd grader for talking about a politician's physical attributes when I do it myself? That doesn't sound like me. I think perhaps you've again gotten me confused with someone else.

    SEPARATED AT BIRTH
    Mitch McConnell = Toby Turtle
    John Kerry = Bomb Voyage, The Incredibles
    Price Charles = Dobby the House Elf
    Anthony Weiner = Beavis
    Jimmy Carter = Orville Redenbacher (peanuts, popcorn)

    I will bust politicians for doing this but not generally other posters. :)

    Actually, you did...

    Oh puullleeezzzee :^/

    I know, I know.. Facts are such inconvenient things... :D

    Not for me, they're not! :) Maybe facts are inconvenient for you?

    But irregardless of all your deflections, the simple fact is, when you make fun of people's personal attributes, you are acting like a childish and immature 2nd grader and, as such, you render your argument impotent...

    Then I guess me and Donald Trump are impotent.

    This is fact....

    Deal with it... :D

    I am dealing with it. People all over America are dealing with it. America has an impotent 2nd grader for a president!

    I think you've had a breakthrough here. I'm so proud! :D

  178. [178] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [174]

    Some people.. Some PARENTS prefer that their child be allowed to be children and enjoy the innocence of childhood without having some immature know-it-all insecure brat spoil and defile that innocence...

    I believe you have just rendered your argument impotent.

    Besides, I was the same age they were and kind of innocent myself. We were just discussing Santa and comparing notes and talking about whether or not he was real, and I wasn't the only kid saying he wasn't real... but I was the only one who got busted for it.

    File this under the heading: Yes, I know we told you to always tell the truth, but here is when you should lie. Very confusing to a small child.

    It's a parent thing.. You wouldn't understand... :D

    Since when has having no idea what you're talking about stopped you from posting it anyway? :)

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    Besides, I was the same age they were and kind of innocent myself. We were just discussing Santa and comparing notes and talking about whether or not he was real, and I wasn't the only kid saying he wasn't real... but I was the only one who got busted for it.

    Ahhhhh Now the story changes.. :D

    File this under the heading: Yes, I know we told you to always tell the truth, but here is when you should lie. Very confusing to a small child.

    But, as an adult, you see the wisdom of it, right??

    Since when has having no idea what you're talking about stopped you from posting it anyway? :)

    And WHO called the 2016 President Election dead on ballz accurate, right down to the EXACT Electoral count???

    And WHO was so wildly off base as to be laughable?? :D

    So, APPARENTLY, the guy who was the former had EVERY idea what he was talking about and the girl who was the latter had absolutely NO IDEA what she was talking about.. :D

    Again... FACTS.... So inconvenient for your arguments.. :D

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [175]

    Not saying that YOU were an immature know-it-all insecure brat....

    Really? You wouldn't be lying, would you? Because you know you should ALWAYS tell the truth... unless you're talking about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny... etc................ Polygraph 101,

    I was just speaking in general terms. :D

    I was never an "insecure" anything. :)

  181. [181] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale

    Ahhhhh Now the story changes.. :D

    No, it didn't change... just more details. Details aren't a problem for me like they are for you and your short memory.

    And WHO called the 2016 President Election dead on ballz accurate, right down to the EXACT Electoral count???

    You transposed two states, remember? So no dead balls on that one. Short memory or lying?

    It also displays peevish neediness and you seem insecure to keep yearning for praise over a 50/50 proposition. Neil has actually been more accurate than you on so many things, and his predictions weren't of the 50/50 variety. :)

  182. [182] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    Some people.. Some PARENTS prefer that their child be allowed to be children and enjoy the innocence of childhood without having some immature know-it-all insecure brat spoil and defile that innocence...

    did you seriously just start an argument over whether or not it's okay for one kid to tell another kid there's no santa claus?

    c'mon man

    JL

  183. [183] 
    michale wrote:

    You transposed two states, remember? So no dead balls on that one. Short memory or lying?

    But I had the EXACT COUNT which is what I said..

    Face it, yer argument that I am clueless is wishful thinking and not based on ANY facts whatsoever..

    You called it wrong... Man up and admit it..

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    did you seriously just start an argument over whether or not it's okay for one kid to tell another kid there's no santa claus?

    Of course not.. That would be silly!

    There IS no argument..

    It's NOT OK for a kid to tell another kid there's no santa claus....

  185. [185] 
    michale wrote:

    Oklahoma home invasion shooting: Suspected getaway driver arrested
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/28/oklahoma-home-invasion-shooting-suspected-getaway-driver-arrested.html

    What do you call three scumbags shot and killed in the midst of a home invasion??

    A good start....

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    A rape inside a Maryland high school boys' bathroom, allegedly by two illegal immigrants, has become the latest high-profile case to drive the debate. That case has joined a grim roster of incidents in recent years:

    - In July of 2015, Kate Steinle was gunned down near San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf as she took in the sights with her family. The 32-year-old's killer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, previously had been deported five times.

    - Just days after Steinle was killed, Mirta Rivera, 41, a nurse and grandmother from Lawrence, Mass., was shot as she slept from an upstairs apartment where two illegal immigrants lived despite being under federal deportation orders, according to the Boston Herald.

    - The same month, Marilyn Pharis, a 64-year-old Air Force veteran, was raped and bludgeoned to death with a claw hammer on July 24, 2015, in her own home. Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, 29, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was arrested six times in the previous 15 months, was one of two men charged in the case.

    - In early 2015, 21-year-old Grant Ronnebeck was working the graveyard shift at a convenience store in Mesa, Ariz., when illegal immigrant Apolinar Altamirano, an admitted member of the Sinola drug cartel, killed him as he counted change for a pack of cigarettes.

    - And in one of the earliest cases to draw widespread publicity to sanctuary cities, in 2008, 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw was killed near his home in Los Angeles. A gang member and illegal immigrant, Pedro Espinoza, was later convicted of murdering the college football prospect.

    Experts say for every case that makes national news, there are hundreds more crimes committed by illegal immigrants whose deportation was blocked by local authorities' unwillingness to cooperate.

    There are currently approximately 2.1 million legal or illegal immigrants with criminal convictions living free or behind bars in the U.S., according to ICE's Secure Communities office. Each year, about 900,000 legal and illegal immigrants are arrested, and 700,000 are released from jail, prison, or probation. ICE estimates that there are more than 1.2 million criminal aliens at large in the U.S.

    In the most recent figures available, a Government Accountability Office report titled, "Criminal Alien Statistics," found there were 55,000 illegal immigrants in federal prison and 296,000 in state and local lockups in 2011. Experts agree those figures have almost certainly risen, although executive orders from the Obama administration may have changed the status of thousands who previously would have been counted as illegal immigrants.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/28/team-trump-cites-stats-anecdotes-to-show-dangers-sanctuary-cities.html

    Illegal immigrants.. Criminals, pure and simple....

    Get rid of them all....

  187. [187] 
    michale wrote:

    It's NOT OK for a kid to tell another kid there's no santa claus....

    And any adult who is a parent will tell you the same...

  188. [188] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's NOT OK for a kid to tell another kid there's no santa claus....

    And any adult who is a parent will tell you the same...

    how many parents do you know who are not christian? there are about six billion non-christians in the world, and once kids get talking, knowing that santa claus is imaginary is a hard thing for any child who knows different to keep bottled up.

    JL

  189. [189] 
    michale wrote:

    how many parents do you know who are not christian? there are about six billion non-christians in the world, and once kids get talking, knowing that santa claus is imaginary is a hard thing for any child who knows different to keep bottled up.

    I am not saying it's not understandable...

    I am simply saying it's not OK..

    Children must be taught to allow other children their own beliefs, even if it conflicts with their own beliefs..

    Isn't that the foundation of liberalism???

  190. [190] 
    michale wrote:

    I am really not understanding what you are trying to say here.

    Are you saying that it IS OK for children to totally decimate other children's beliefs, JUST because they are different???

    Seems to me that THAT is the anathema of what liberalism is..

    Anathema to tolerance and respect...

  191. [191] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Are you saying that it IS OK for children to totally decimate other children's beliefs, JUST because they are different???

    everyone is allowed to have and share all of their beliefs, including both the belief that santa claus is real and the belief that he is fictional.

    JL

  192. [192] 
    michale wrote:

    everyone is allowed to have and share all of their beliefs, including both the belief that santa claus is real and the belief that he is fictional.

    And to hell with tolerance and respect..

    OK...

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one...

  193. [193] 
    michale wrote:

    I was over at a friends house when I was 9 or 10. We were on the same Little League team..

    He asked me what religion I was. I had no idea, but I had heard my step mom say something about Protestant, so I said "Protestant". I guess he was Catholic and this was at the height of the "Troubles" with the IRA or something because he got all quiet and said that he simply can't "respect" my religion so we probably shouldn't be friends...

    I just looked at him like he had just grown a 3rd eye or something and said, "whatever"...

    Now, according to you and Victoria, that was perfectly OK....

    If that had been MY child, he would have gotten a VERY stern lecture on tolerance and respect....

    But.. Maybe that's just me..

  194. [194] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And to hell with tolerance and respect..

    tolerance and respect are both important, they just apply to everyone now, instead of being the sole province of white male christians.

    JL

  195. [195] 
    michale wrote:

    tolerance and respect are both important, they just apply to everyone now,

    Apparently they DON'T apply to liberal's children...

    instead of being the sole province of white male christians.

    The Left Whinery needs to keep in mind that tolerance and respect is a TWO WAY street..

    If one wants tolerance, one needs to be tolerant..

    If one wants respect, one needs to be respectful...

    Facts of life that are overlooked quite often around these here parts.. :D

  196. [196] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The Left Whinery needs to keep in mind that tolerance and respect is a TWO WAY street..

    there's the problem in a nutshell, michale. it's tough to take an argument seriously when it espouses values in the second half of the same sentence that it summarily ignored in the first half.

    JL

  197. [197] 
    michale wrote:

    “If these sanctuary cities are going to harbor and conceal criminal illegal aliens from ICE, which is in direct violation of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, federal arrest warrants should be issued for their elected officials. Our citizens would be safer if we never stopped enforcing immigration law and if we never formed or turned a blind eye toward sanctuary cities.”
    Massachusetts Sheriff Thomas Hodgson

    Yep....

  198. [198] 
    michale wrote:

    there's the problem in a nutshell, michale. it's tough to take an argument seriously when it espouses values in the second half of the same sentence that it summarily ignored in the first half.

    And yet, it's only noteworthy when *I* do it... :D

    Why is that?

    Why no comment when we read "The Orange One" or "Orange Fascist" or "little fingers" or "big ass"???

    That's why yours is a tough argument to take seriously, even though, if it were equally applied, it would be a valid argument...

  199. [199] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [170-171] -

    The biggest conspiracy of all!

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/12/23/the-biggest-conspiracy-of-all/

    Heh. Just in case you hadn't seen it...

    :-)

    -CW

  200. [200] 
    michale wrote:

    In all fairness, though..

    You are better at it than almost everyone else here.. :D

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump signs order sweeping away Obama-era climate policies
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-energy-idUSKBN16Z1L6

    A great start!!! :D

  202. [202] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [182]

    But I had the EXACT COUNT which is what I said..

    You're really not good on details are you? Let's review what you said:

    And WHO called the 2016 President Election dead on ballz accurate, right down to the EXACT Electoral count???

    So you said you called the 2016 election "dead on ballz accurate," and that is simply not true since you missed two states. Giving you credit on a state-by-state basis (with no disrespect to DC), you may claim credit for a 96% outcome...not a dead balls outcome. :)

    Face it, yer argument that I am clueless is wishful thinking and not based on ANY facts whatsoever..

    I do wish your memory weren't so sorely lacking and that you had a better grasp of details, but I do not believe I ever called you "clueless." :)

  203. [203] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [189]

    Are you saying that it IS OK for children to totally decimate other children's beliefs, JUST because they are different???

    Facts are facts. People of all ages are searching for truth. What you characterize as totally decimating other children's beliefs was a group of children sharing their beliefs. Kids do this all the time. After I was busted for telling the truth, I learned to lie. When an adult talked about Santa Claus, I would tell them that my parents taught me about the bishop who inspired Santa Claus. When a child or children talked about Santa Claus, I would keep my mouth shut and/or shrug my shoulders and feign ignorance. No problem.

    Seems to me that THAT is the anathema of what liberalism is..

    Anathema to tolerance and respect...

    You're preaching tolerance and respect? Interesting turn of events. So okay then: Pretend "Weigantia" is a bunch of kids sitting around and comparing beliefs. Being completely honest, now ask yourself, which are you:

    Are you the kid here trying to totally decimate the other kids' beliefs or are you the one who believes in Santa?....... Or both? :)

  204. [204] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [192]

    I was over at a friends house when I was 9 or 10. We were on the same Little League team..

    He asked me what religion I was. I had no idea, but I had heard my step mom say something about Protestant, so I said "Protestant". I guess he was Catholic and this was at the height of the "Troubles" with the IRA or something because he got all quiet and said that he simply can't "respect" my religion so we probably shouldn't be friends...

    I just looked at him like he had just grown a 3rd eye or something and said, "whatever"...

    Now, according to you and Victoria, that was perfectly OK....

    You do realize how full of shit you are to claim that anyone thinks something is "perfectly OK" that they've never heard before, right? So much for your tolerance and respect!

    So you didn't know what religion you were at the age of 9 or 10? Okay then, you didn't know. So all things being equal with one exception:

    Pretend like you had heard your parent say "Buddhism," and this is what you told your "friend" who reacted the exact same way.

    Pretend like you had heard your parent say "Atheism," and this is what you told your "friend" who reacted the exact same way.

    Pretend like you had heard your parent say "Islam," and this is what you told your "friend" who reacted the exact same way.

    If that had been MY child, he would have gotten a VERY stern lecture on tolerance and respect....

    Honestly? "VERY stern"? For a Protestant, Buddhist, Atheist, or Muslim?

  205. [205] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW [198]

    The biggest conspiracy of all!

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/12/23/the-biggest-conspiracy-of-all/

    I loved it! Most deliciously excellent and so true.

    So which is worse: Perpetrating the conspiracy on your children or telling them the facts?

    Either way, it seems like they're headed for an eventual come to Jesus moment about lying. Okay, maybe I should say an epiphany and leave it at that. ;)

  206. [206] 
    michale wrote:

    Honestly? "VERY stern"? For a Protestant, Buddhist, Atheist, or Muslim?

    And a Vulcan, an Andorian, a Tellarite and maybe even a Klingon...

    If you make tolerance and respect variable, as ya'all do, then it's no longer tolerance and respect..

    It's ideological bigotry...

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, I walk the walk..

    Ya'all (NEN) only talk the talk...

  208. [208] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.thewrap.com/bret-easton-ellis-streisand-dunham-streep-trump-neuroses/

    Yep, yep, yep, yep..

    While I don't agree with him on his opinions of the President, he is dead on ballz accurate about the Left Whinery....

  209. [209] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [205]

    If you make tolerance and respect variable, as ya'all do, then it's no longer tolerance and respect..

    It's ideological bigotry...

    Said the guy who lumps practically everyone into categories like "Left Whinery" and then dismisses them. You're without question the biggest bigot on the entire board, and it's a laugh riot the way you identify bigotry everywhere and in everyone except in your own incessant and monotonous drivel and whiny rhetoric. :) *LOL*

  210. [210] 
    michale wrote:

    Said the guy who lumps practically everyone into categories like "Left Whinery" and then dismisses them.

    Key word there is "practically"...

    I lump everyone who is part of the Left Whinery WITH the Left Whinery..

    I make exceptions where warranted...

    You're without question the biggest bigot on the entire board, and it's a laugh riot the way you identify bigotry everywhere and in everyone except in your own incessant and monotonous drivel and whiny rhetoric. :) *LOL*

    Once again, I respect your right to your opinion..

    But it's the opinion of a Party bigot and as such, it's not relevant..

  211. [211] 
    michale wrote:

    As long as ya'all let Paula get away with labeling ALL Trumpers and/or ALL Republicans as racist, deplorables or whatever, the evidence that supports the political bigotry is conclusive..

    You don't let me get away with labeling all of the Left...

    Yet you DO let her get away with labeling ALL of the Right or ALL of Trump supporters..

    Ergo, the *ONLY* conclusion that fits all the facts is that it's Party/Political bigotry at work...

    I am open to other suggestions.. But they need to be supported by FACTS... Verifiable and conclusive FACTS....

    Got any??

    No???

    Didna think so..

    The analysis stands...

  212. [212] 
    dsws wrote:

    Actually, there are three forces at work upon a glacier, gravity (down) the ground (up) and the slope of the ground, which provides the resultant sideways force.

    Essentially. To be precise, though, the slope of the ground isn't a force. It's a criterion by which one force can be split into two: the weight can be represented as a component pushing into the surface plus a component along the surface. Like x and y coordinates, with the axes drawn relative to the ground instead of relative to gravity.

Comments for this article are closed.