OCinBuffalo

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." -Ronald Reagan Same old story. The irony: these are now the people who have to destroy the village in order to save it. That's essentially the D message. That's the only political platform that they have left now that 8 years of total failure at all stations has been "achieved". "We have to destroy the USA, everything about it, everything that made it great, and most especially the Constitution...in order to preserve it." And why? Because from 2006-today, they finally got to put in place ALL of their miracle policies and sliver bullets, and ALL of them failed. People want to know why Trump supporters are angry? Because the right stood by and watched them do it, even after gaining the House and Senate in historic landslides. Since none of the far-left panaceas, when applied in the real world, actually worked, and since most of them made things worse? What's left? The only place that is left for the left: Destroy it all. The new "solution" for the left is destruction, because they've already tried all their other "solutions". Thus, the first people they have to destroy are the rich. Meanwhile, Trump said tonight something along the lines of "and if we're going to fix these things we're going to need the rich to help us do it. Yes we are." It was his Atlas Shrugged moment, and I loved it. What if we had a real CEO/owner/thought leader/group leader strike? Just for one day. What if all the people who create the intellectual property in this country, and the people who do the real world, big thinking, and the people who perform the tasks that only the very few can perform, and get paid accordingly, all decided to say "F YOU! I'm not going to do what I do today, and the rest of you can see what life is like without us!" It would only take 1 day.

The very real potential outcome that keeps getting ignored/wished away by the left is that: Trump may very well not have to beat Hillary in the general election. Hillary's IT guy got immunity. You only get immunity for criminal proceedings. QED there is a criminal case being made, otherwise, why bother? Smokescreen? What? You give a guy immunity so that it looks like you're actually doing a criminal case, but not actually doing it, and that's the plan? Great plan, except there's a Federal Judge involved. Said judge isn't going to allow anyone to make a mockery of the court, and Justice Department lawyers/FBI Agents in Charge/and the AG herself will be heading to jail for contempt if smokescreen is the plan. So, I highly doubt the immunity thing is for apperances. Add to that the fact that FBI careers are on the line, and everbody knows this admin has been a lame duck since Obama lost on gun control 3 years ago? Yeah, there's a real criminal case here, that involves 30 sock puppet email accounts set up for a precise purpose. What we have seen over and over is that every time something looks bad for Trump...it isn't...and in the end he wins/gains even more support. So, I ask you: which would you rather have? Or better, which would do the most real damage to Hillary? 1. Hillary gets indicted for mishandling of classified material 2. Hillary doesn't get indicted for mishandling classifed material....which smells to high heaven of a coverup, especially since her mishandling of classified material is now a matter of public record. It's going to be one of the two. And, given the Hillary campaign's awful performance thus far, their response to either will make things worse in unimaginable ways. No, seriously, I know there's a way they will F it up worse, I just don't know how. You're the creative writer: you figure it out. In all cases, this kills her chances to win. I can't believe you don't see that. At the very least it removes all chance that she will "win big". Today she just said "we didn't lose any Americans in the Libyan war". I mean....some days it's like Wall Street paid her off to lose on purpose. That's where the $ for the speeches went. Her speech tonight was infinitely obtuse. She's bitching about the state of the USA...after it's been run by Democrats, and specifically an administration of which she was a central figure, for 8 years. As I said she's running against her own plan in the TPP. She's running against her own foreign policy. It's like she wants us to believe she's been in a coma for the last 8 years, just woke up, and now she wants to run her 2008 campaign all over again... ...and you think...that wins big? There are so many angles of attack on Hillary...it's hard to decide which is best. But, you know Trump is going to find ways to use them all, and, get lucky while he does it, as per the pattern. I'll say it again: Asaigo has a better chance of being in this election that Hillary does.

Oh yeah, hardware guys have an opinion? Here's what I tell all hardware guys about everything: STFU, get back in your hole, and instead of talking about things you don't understand, go try fixing just one of the 60 open tickets you have today. Dudes that review hardware for a living, and basically sell positive articles for ad space, aren't worth my time. I cancelled my Wired subscription in 2000, for Pete's sake. It was right after they told us all that that WI-FI was dead, and that the wireless web was a bridge too far. EDIT: No I am not shitting you. I read that flying to the valley, only to have the usual turds at my portal company come tell me the same thing. There actually was a 6 month window where the same idiots that are now spouting "convention over configuration" were spouting "wifi is dead". You know who those turds always are? Hardware guys that have somehow escaped their hole, and are pretending to be technical architects and enterprise designers. They think because they touch machines, they understand systems. EDIT2: Ask a hardware guy how many psychology classes they've taken. Ask them how many organizational theory classes. Hell, ask them how many accounting classes. The answer is always: none. So, no, they will never understand systems, because they don't even know what they don't know: people, and more importantly, how people perceive and act to organize...which...is how accounting became accounting, or in your case, how nursing became nursing. These guys aren't computer scientists. They are technicians. Thus, the chances of them understanding the science involved here is 0. EDIT2(con't): Initially I didn't even read the article beacuse it came from Wired. However, after skimming it, I will note that the expert scientist they brought in to talk about population shifts...actually brought up the need to have "Nostradumus working for you" in order to get it right. Now, I ask you: when the expert scientist you brought in specifically for this article says he doesn't know what's going to happen...does that mean your headline should be "Sea Level Rise Is Predictable. It Will Be Anything From Bad to Awful"? Or, should you go for something a little less definitive? This is why Wired gets no respect amongst legit IT people. You might as well listen to Kim F'ing Kommando on Saturday radio. That is a hilarous show...for me, and those like me. These people are hacks that simply aren't capable of creating or processing raw techincal data. No. They have to have somebody do the thinking for them, turn the data into information for them, dumb it down to their level, and then they take it from there.

Did you miss the SCOTUS strking down Obama's Global Warming executive order? The country will simply revolt if she does that. By that, I mean we will have a new Marshall Court: she will get sued for everything she does, by everybody. The Roberts Court will run the country. The scope and scale of the Roberts Court will make the Marshall Court a footnote. And, in that, the left will be sorry. If every single policy is reviewed for Constitutionality? They are going to lose a lot more often than they win. And, don't forget that Roberts has the final say on what is heard by the full court and what isn't. No matter who supposed President Hillary nominates for the open seat, they will be a moderate, and likely to follow Roberts. Perhaps this is not entirely a bad thing? Perhaps after almost 200 years it's once again time for the SCOTUS to step up and get everybody back in line.

You do understand that Donald Trump personifies the argument against "big money always wins", right? Trump counters and ultimately defeats $25 million ad buys...with twitter. Trump is the living emobodiment of a refutation of everything you just wrote. He is also a refutation of everything Bernie Sanders says. Also, I wonder if Bernie includes George Soros in his rants? He's a billionaire. Of the billionaires, he is only rivaled by the Koch's in terms of meddling with our government. Oh, and you are crazy if you think TPP has a chance in this environment. Hillary is now running against it She's running against her own department's plan. Yeah..."win big". Every Friday they do winners/losers of the week on Special Report on Fox(best news program today bar none). My running winner as long as Trump has been running is: the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision, and the loser has been the people who told us it would ruin the country. Reagan proved you simply needed a message people could understand and get behind...and he won with a completely biased media, with no alternative media, actively attacking him every day, all the time. Reagan won by taking on the establishment. All Trump is doing is modulating his tone for our nasty times, but then running Reagan's plays. Nasty Times: Where is Bernie's apology for his supporters in Chicago? Never gonna happen. So spare me the "Trump is the bad guy". Bernie, and the left in general, has lost all credibility on this topic, and what's worse? Just like in 1968, they may be chiefly responsible for electing Trump. Your assertion that Hillary is going to win big? Laughable. If this was 2012? Sure. But that seems to be everybody's problem: they have been re-fighting the last war, and not seeing this one for what it is. Donald Trump is going to take huge swaths of voters from Hillary, or convince others not to show up for her, and he's already proven that he's making non-voters into voters. How? So simple nobody sees it: for 10 years white working class HUMAN BEINGS have been "Durka Durka"ed by both parties.(South Park, look it up) Worse, they've been basically told to just get it over with and die, because nobody wants them around. And, they've responded with higher suicide rates and self-destructive behavior. They have nothing to lose. What we are seeing is merely the Grapes of Wrath, 2016 style: these people will support Trump no matter what because he is the ONLY person who speaks to their #1 issue. Their dehumanization. Frankly, given this environment, I truly believe that Andrew Basiago has a better chance of winning the general than Hillary. And, even if she does win? She'll be a lame duck with no mandate day 1. Trump will do far too much damage to her for her to be considered a legitmate president.

I wonder....were you one of the people who was pissing and moaning at me because I refused to vote for: 1. Bill(Total Scumbag) Clinton/Bob(I couldn't be more ineffective) Dole 2. Al(I now have 10 employees left on my crazy train) Gore/George(I'm here because of my dad) Bush 3. Johnny(Iran Deal, now, isn't even close to the worst thing I would have done, then, as POTUS) Kerry/George(I'm here because of the war I started) Bush 4. Prepare the Path for Prince Obama!/John (Keating 5, another total scumbag) McCain 5. All hail Emporer Obama's new clothes! Marvel at the glory of the man(and um ignore that he has failed at everything, but, the path has been prepared!) /Mitt(Hi, I'm your phony, passive aggressive boss, vote for me!) Romney. Btw, Romney is now trying to run a hostile takeover of the nomination. And don't be fooled: he's doing it for him, not Kasich. Spots/don't change. If you were: how much wisdom was there in demanding that I vote? Not much. ----------- When it has come down to it, I simply cannot pull the level for any of these men. Not then, not now. It's not like I haven't registered and all that. Well, in some cases I wasn't a resident long enough or I was on a hell project and couldn't get back to register(or even pay my F'ing bills for that matter). But in general, when the time has come: I have said, NO! Dammit! I'm not flying back to Philly from Dallas so I can vote for Bush or Gore. WTF is that? Who does that, when they are running a project that they've gotten to 2 months behind instead of 6? My client deserved my vote in that instance. In all cases: I would have voted for Reagan, both times. I would not have voted for Ford or Carter. Although, I might have voted for Ford due to the balls he had: doing the right thing for the nation even though it was going to end him. Nixon vs far left loons in the late 60s/early 70s? No. Here's the thing: I'm considering voting for Trump! Depends on whether I move again though. But, I think there is a slight chance that Trump could be another Reagan. People forget how Reagan was treated by the media before he won. Reagan was a "demagogue" too. They forget how his policies were completely panned...until they worked. People make fun of the Laffer Curve because of its name...but they refuse to argue its substance, since doing so means arguing against history. And here's the thing: Reagan wouldn't have signed NAFTA. I'm an IT guy, and the schit people are pulling in my business with visas? Hell, I used to do it. But then, it was about getting bodies we didn't have. Now? It's about firing Americans so you can hire people you have total control over, and can pay nothing, because if they F up/want more, it's back to (3rd world country). That ain't how it's done. Look: I know there are risks. The last thing I want to be is the guy who helped elect an even more petulant child than the one we already have. However, there's this little voice that says "do it". I've found that ingoring that little voice completely always ends in trouble for me.

I have no idea why anybody missed this, but, I did not. In essence they have proven that the ocean is not the excuse for where the missing warming from the last 18 years has gone. Specifically, if the ocean were the hiding place for the heat, at best, it would act as such over centuries, not in 18 years. Moreover, the study shows that there is no simplistic formula for the heat to have been transferred to the ocean(uptake). That's what "non-linearlly" means. It means that no one can say that X amount of heat can be sunk in the ocean over Y time, and be right. It also shows that you can't get a repeatable pattern from one forcing scenario to the next, and that different parts of the ocean act differently. Taken together, these 2 things mean that the speculation that the ocean is hiding the missing heat: is not capable of being called "science". And if there was any doubt, they put it down by explaining that short term modeling has 0 chance of reflecting long term results, largely because the long term mechanism for the ocean responding to "preturbed" surface temperature is NOT understood. That basically vacates any definitive claim that anyone makes about the short term hiding of heat in the ocean. The ocean would need centuries to hide the heat, and its only been 18 years. There ends this speculation. But of course, my personal favorite: this paper presents a serious, and most likely unanswerable, challenge to the simplistic estimations of sea level rise. That means: "the seas are rising!" is bunk. For all anyone knows the seas are receeding. There is no SCIENTIFIC proof either way. We are all constantly told to respect science by the left. OK, the left, here's peer-reviewed science...now let's see you respect it.

Disease spreaders. That is perhaps the one and only time I will make social conservative wisecrack, and it's done in jest.

I see many examples of what the Global Warming people will be muttering, to no one in particular, on public park benches 20 years from now...just like the aging and broken Communists were 10 years ago. The Commies are all dead now, and the Global Warming people will take their place. Imagine being the nurse aid who has to deal with them. Pooping themselves and yelling "Love is the only solution" at the same time.

Patently retarded. Consider the words Middle and East. Forget Oil for a second. How do you propose we, or anybody else, ship our goods to the east, wihout going through the middle of it? The F'ing Barbary Pirates understood this one, long before anybody cared about crude oil. Don't tell me you can't read a map. Free trade stops war and fixes poverty. Despite all the lies to the contrary, it does exactly those 2 things. And, even if it didn't, trade, period, brings $ into this country, because we have and can make more stuff than we can consume. Often we are the only ones who can make what we have. But, you're telling us that we should leave the Middle East to whomever? Guess what's next? We have to pay a toll to them. F that. That's like giving a weakling your lunch money, when you can just squish him instead. Jefferson tried the lunch money thing with the Barbary Pirates. It didn't work. In the end we had to squish them anyway. Aside: what we currently have with China is not free trade. We are subsidizing their standard of living improvments(ripping us off) by allowing them to get away with backhanded tariffs, the dumping of cheap goods, child labor, and environmental destruction...in the name of someday, somehow, becoming a free state. This is folly. However, the Middle East is the crossroads of the world, and, if we need to setup road blocks and check IDs, or worse, deploy weapons and build defenses at that crossroads...then that's what we have to do. You can't tell me you're worried about American jobs, but then tell me we don't have to ensure access to world markets, and/or, allow one of the most important markets, oil, to be constantly at risk. ALL American jobs depend on the stability of the oil MARKET. This is why the "No blood for oil" people were/are F'ing children.

The trouble is that most people aren't personally responsible for their firm's compliance with regulation. Ask a director of nursing about regulation. If she even dares to talk about it, because she's been so cowed by the state after years of beatings at the hands of regulators, she'll explain exactly how horrible it is. If she's really ballsy, she'll tell you how little regulations have done to improve quality of care, and how much they have done to distract from it. Every minute a nurse is filling out a compliance form, is a minute they aren't delivering care. ALL health care facilities have at least one RN, not LPN or aid, and often 4-5 who deliver no care whatsoever, and spend their entire day on compliance. Tell me that is good allocation of resources...in the midst of a nursing shortage. Um, why is there a nursing shortage? Why is it that the average lifespan of a nursing home administrator is only 3 years? Then tell me why the government created this situation and what the results are. (I already know the answers. But this will open your eyes.) Finally, tell me who really benefits from regulation. In order to answer this: you're going to have to study up on how the regulators get paid. I'm serious. Understanding these things WILL be life-changing for anyone. Last time I checked, a director of nursing doesn't work at a corporation...mostly. But that last part is revealing: why do you think so much consolidation has gone on in health care? Think about where you live. Didn't there use to be 2 or 3 separate hospitals? Now, aren't they all part of one big system? Getting bigger/pooling your resources means you can afford lobbyists and lawyers. So, once again, another industry is seeking protection from government, by consolidating itself into huge organizations. You can tell me they aren't corporations. I will laugh, because they are in every sense of the word. They want a seat at the table, and to get in on the protecting/getting racket the same as everybody else. We can talk about where it all started. But when we get done? The fact will remain that corporations do have to protect themselves from government. Once they establish that protection, why not see what they can get? The lawyers and lobbyists are on retainer already. Why not ask them to do more than protect? This...is how we got where we are. Do you honeslty believe that any small businessperson wouldn't jump at the chance to protect themselves from the government, or get something from it? The ONLY thing they lack is the resources. The choice is already made. Partisan politics isn't the creation of corporations, but they don't mind it, and they will use it. Bottom line: Of course coporations are in bed with politicians. What CEO wouldn't be looking to get whatever they can? That's their job. Thus it is simply solved: the less Washington, DC has to sell, and the less they are empowered to make decisions they have no business making, the less corporate involvement in the political process. Once again, this is about controlling the scope. I am NOT saying have no scope at all. I am saying: DC needs to be disciplined. The EPA needs to be disciplined. The DoD needs to be disciplined. They all need adult supervision, and corporal punishment if necessary.

What gave that away? Of course he's not a conservative. Or a libertarian for that matter. An actual libertarian understands the difference between seflishness and self-interest, starting with the fact that that these two words do not mean the same thing. Acting in one's self-interest, properly understood, means getting out of bed in the morning and going to work, because: 1. nobody is going to do that for you, nor should they 2. this is what allows one to retain self-respect 3. it's your responsibility to yourself, first, and then society. That is the philosophy, and this guy doesn't understand it whatsoever. It's not immoral or amoral to have a complete lack of respect and 0 compassion for those who consistenly make bad choices, none of which are in their own, TRUE, self-interest, refuse to take responsibility for themselves, or refuse to put up a fight when they hit adversity. And, compassion is not mutually exclusive from libertarian thought. We can have compassion, we can even support safety nets. We cannot support safety hammocks. Fundamentally, the argument against socialism is that it does its best to disincentivize EVERYONE from both literally and figuratively getting out of bed in the morning and going to work, in lots of ways, and stay in their government-sponsored safety hammock instead. But perhaps the most important facet of the argument is that when government takes an active role in disincentivising work for an entire society, this curtails the nation's self-respect, which in turn replaces personal responsibility with entitlement. Sound familiar? Isn't that what we have right now? What is the far left talking about it if is not what they are entitled to, and who they are entitled to take it from? Remember the OWS clown who said he was entitled to an $80k a year...entry level job? See how the sense of entitlement isn't limited to poor people/the uneducated? Libertarians properly recognize that entitlement is a symptom that effects all classes, and socialism/crony capitalism is the disease that causes it. We, libertarians, aren't talking about poor-bashing, or unabashed greed being good, or any of the other misinterpretations/intentional distortions that the left characterizes our positions as. What we are talking about is real selfishness: expecting society to reward one for merely existing, with no consideration as to whether one has made a single good choice in their own self-interest in the last (insert timeframe), and then expecting the government to take that reward from somebody else every (insert timeframe), who actually earned what they have....by making good choices that are in their own self-interest. See? It's not that hard to understand: "be the hero in your own life". However, the left is seriously threatened by this...because its true. So, they go out of their way to distort it.

Um... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/168360-hillarys-campaign-kickoff/page-110?do=findComment&comment=3872865 followed a half an hour by me http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/168360-hillarys-campaign-kickoff/page-110?do=findComment&comment=3872899 and these are literally on the page just before this one. So, either you didn't search, or, you suck at it. Welcome to PPP.

Yeah...but the gander isn't any better. We're all hypocrites about something. We all lie about something. I think it's the false expectation of perfection, started by JFK using televison, that is the culprit here. Camelot, etc. The worst is when this false expectation leads to "perfect" policies, like Obamacare, or "perfect" narratives, based on "perfect" science, like Global Warming. I think if we all want to have a better experience with politicians and government, then we all need agree that while government can be optimistic, it's not allowed to be silly, and it has to control its scope. Silly begins and ends with scope. I know scope. Controlling scope, meaning, controlling what you are doing, what you aren't, and making sure everybody knows the difference, is the key. Government's scope has creeped. Actually, it has exploded. Government, at all levels, cannot possibly do all that is currently expected from it, nor should it. There is a myth that it can, and that myth comes directly from the "perfection" expectation above. Our government is simply not designed, correctly so, to fix things that citizens can and must fix for themselves. (EDIT: In other words, while government can put a man on the moon in 10 years, it cannot get every citizen to look for work, find it, show up and work hard, and then spend their wages wisely.) Yet here we are, with free Obamaphones. The scope is entirely out of hand. Corporations spend as much time protecting themselves from the government as getting things from it, , when none of that is "how it's supposed to be". Think about it: given the state of our government, you actually want a politician to tell you the truth about it? Or, better, if you were the politician, you'd actually tell the truth about it, and see your political career end on the spot? So what are your realistic expectations? Until we recognize the truth regarding just how bad government is today, for ourselves, it's of no use to expect a politician to tell us that. Until we set good expectations for government, and for ourselves? Nothing else matters. We get into trouble when we set silly expectations, rather than just optimistic. We also get into trouble when we expect that action hero of our lives, who is going to make everything better...isn't us.

I want to try a little experiment here. Listen: Replace Sanders in what you posted above with Trump. Do it with intellectual honesty. Think: In what way isn't Trump being the very same gadfly? No. Don't talk yet. This is still the think part. Think about it. Trump has gone after every single R for all kinds of reasons. And, in doing so? He has innoculated every single R, against all the attacks the Ds might use against them. Why? Because it will be old news. Remember that Hillary started the birther thing...and its later use by the Rs, and Trump, produced nothing. Think. Trump is a businessman, not an idealogue, which means he keeps his options open. Trump could, just like Bernie, be merely doing his part as stalking horse, just like he so obviously did for the NFL when it came to buying the Bills. Trump ensured that the buying price of the team was over 1 billion, which ensured that other teams weren't devalued, which in Jerry Jones's case, keeps him solvent. Trump can do whatever he wants, but more importantly, he can do favors and make whatever deals he wants. Who is to say that Trump, in the end, doesn't bow out of the race, get behind one of the other guys, and get himself a job as Treasury Secretary? He might do that, he might not: options open. But, one thing is certain: he has exposed who/what he wanted to expose, and, EVERYBODY now has to speak to his issues, on his terms. How is any of this truly different than Bernie, in terms of the end result? Talk: Now you can talk. (EDIT: Here's an example of "Trump's Issues", the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That had a chance of passing before Trump. Now? Speaker Ryan just said it's DOA without major adjustments, not because of him, but because it doesn't have the votes from either party. Bernie is talking, and while you might find that admirable? Trump is doing: killing legislation that hurts American jobs/companies, by talking. That's what I mean when I say speak to his issues, on his terms.)

Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate. Wait...which is it? I've stolen DC_Tom's autoresponse, but I'll be damned if I know how the thing works.

The questions are all worth considering; for example: Somewhere, 100 pages ago in this thread, or perhaps 100 pages ago in another, I said that "CO2 sensitivity" was exaggerated. I also said that without exaggerating CO2, there is no cause for alarm...and the ass falls out of the entire political/economic scam. EDIT: I also said there were caught sticking thermometers on blacktopped roofs and near heat vents. I said it then, because in my study of the models vs. the raw data, it's the only way the raw data fits. It also explains why all of the models failed the same way, in the same places, in the same times. There were no outlier models(which I still says shows collusion) that had us cooling instead of warming, or showed an immediate catastrophe. No. Every model behaved the same way: because they were all based on the same variables, constants and factors. Now, beyond proper data analysis, we have physical evidence of the CO2 sensitivity being exaggerated in 2 different ways, from 2 different, highly respected sources. That's it. That's the ballgame. This is the last election where Global Warming will be attended. Now let's be real: the only thing left in the Global Warming Saga is the epilogue. Epilogue: People/posters like baskin, and the legion of others, who used to post about Global Warming here daily, but have run away and hid since ~2009, will always refuse to admit they were wrong and will be bitter about it. They are going to spend their golden years on park benches muttering "cap and trade" and "global warming is real"...just like the aging and broken Communists did after the Berlin Wall fell. 10 years from now, you'll be walking through your local park, and you'll see them. For my part, I will always hold a special place in my heart for a fellow patron of the local "political bar", who saw fit to print out 200 pages propaganda for me to read. Yeah, that guy? He will be muttering on a park bench for sure. Say hi to him and his kind. It's all you can do for these pathetic people.

Hilarious. Exactly what is needed. No political movement in history is in more dire need of getting their legs humped. They want to shame people? Meet that with withering ridicule. Best comment?

I'm sure somebody will exploit this, just not me, no time: https://youtu.be/i8kC6QeQ1CU?t=2153

Man. Just when you think things can't get worse for Hillary, or that she can't possibly find another way to self-immolate, she suprises you with her "creativity". First the in-context version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrodHEcK-6U Next, what you can expect the Internet, Republicans, and anyone with a sense of humor will do with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgCP9vOUd1o Christ all Friday, we NEED a facepalm emoticon. doesn't suffice. For now... Aside: For those of you who might complain about me not including the ENTIRE thing...rethink that. Her entire analogy, that begins with those wacky radio days in Arkansas, is a rambling mess. The longer vesion of the video is WORSE for Clinton than the in-context video I posted above. Politics, but especially campaigning is supposed to be about what you get for what you give. The things that are beneficial that cost nothing are the best. This? This is the diametric opposite of that notion. She's getting NOTHING out of this, while she gives up: Making herself into a punchline. EDIT: Bah, I see B-Man, the auto-content provider, beat me to it by a half hour...but...B-Man...you buried the leed. Can you blame me? This barking like a dog thing is bigger than a single link, I assure you!

It’s time to face up to the reality that the 19th Century notion of an apolitical professional civil service is dead. What we have now is a politicized monoculture in support of one party and one agenda. Can we start on the federal level next ? Yes...the media used to be known as the "4th estate". It has been supplanted by the Federal Bureaucracy...which has become the 4th branch of government above the other 3. This is not Imperial China. On one hand that's good, because unlike back then we know what we are supposed to be doing instead: following the Constitution, which means abolishment of all czars, a return of sole administrative power to the cabinet and POTUS, and Senate confirmation of the cabinet. On the other hand that's bad, because back then you could just do what various Chinese emporers did: execute all of the bureaucrats in a day, and start over. In all cases, taking the 4th branch on is not going to be easy. Any President or Congressperson attempting to reform government is up against people with EVERYTHING to lose. Contrary to Hollywood and bad crime novel writers everywhere: people with everything to lose are capable of much more evil than those with nothing. A person with nothing to lose doesn't value themselves that much, and thus their end doesn't mean that much, and doesn't effect anyone else. A person with everything to lose fights 5x as hard because their end means a lot to themselves and others, and they know it. There is one way to win, and it's the same way Reagan won: trust the American public, genuinely, then bring your ideas to them, convince them, and defeat the other side using their overwhelming support...that you've earned. If the next Potus can make it them vs. Lois Lerner? We have a genuine shot at reform.

Yes, because Obama got a seat at the adult's table for the first time in his life, and realized that the discussion there is very different from that of the kid's table. He learned that his Bush Bad campaign canards simply did not suffice as an actionable foreign policy, or domestic security policy. Another thing Obama learned that day: responsibility. For the first time in his life, Obama became responsible for something. Now, is it a little odd to go from nothing, to repsonsible for the US? Yeah...which is why he should never have been elected, and we've seen his results. But, Obama realized that with his authority, he also got responsibility. Obama learned being responsible means people blame you for things when they don't go right. But, the apparatus that existed BEFORE the day that Obama became a man, helped him learn, and protected him while he was learning. He still fails as a man, and a leader, but, the good news is that terror warriors that actually do the fighting are good on both counts.

Do I really need to slap down this nonsense argument again? Buddy, I've got more data and fact that proves this whole thing to be a giant lie than you can possibly imagine. Health care is one of my firm's interests, and we know our schit. I don't know that you know that, so rather than dropping the hammer on you now, I'll give you three choices: 1. You can move on 2. You can ask me why the argument is nonsense and I will explain it to you nicely 3. You can persist, and I will crush you. Ask anyone: they've all seen the crushing.

And whom do you think wins when 2 populists meet, one's answer is more government, the other's answer is reform government, and the people hate government now more than ever?

And in response to all this, fraternity/sorority membership has been rising: http://www.nj.com/education/2015/03/fraternity_and_sorority_membership_climbing_amid_c.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/09/a-decade-of-bad-media-attention-hasnt-hurt-fraternity-membership-numbers/ I'll direct your attention to the 2nd link's chart: hmmm....I wonder why the spiked increase began in 2008? What is so special about 2008? Could it be that the wingnnut college professors who attack white men and women daily, refuse to support due process on campus and cheer when their psychophant student star chamber courts, suspend/expel them...starting feeling "empowered" that year? Could it be, in response, that white males/females felt a need to join a group that by definition protects its members, rather than facing the wrath of the wingnuts alone? 2008. I wonder what happend that year? Notice also another spike in 2012. What a coincidence! These college professor buffoons are getting exactly the opposite of what they intend. (If you want something done right....)