OCinBuffalo

Perhaps, but not as much as her utter lack of an economic vision and her obtuse embrace of the Obama legacy....which is failing on all fronts. Everybody wants to vote their wallet. It's the economy, stupid. Women voters want financial security and security security a lot more than anything Planned Parenthood has to offer. Men don't care what an old bag has to say about them. Hell, men don't even care what a hot POA has to say about them. Men care about winning. Look at this site, predominately male, and half of it wanted to fire Rex and Doug....for not winning. All the R has to do is say "I'm gonna make better deals with our friends and better deals with our acquaintences, which will increase the money coming into the US, and, I'm going to protect our(not your, very important key word when speaking to women) families from our enemies no matter where and who they are.", and that gets women. Then, all he has to say "I'm tired of losing. Who else is tired of this country losing at everything we do? It's far past time to start winning again, and voting for (the D) means more losing. We've done enough listening to them, now It's time to fire them." and that gets men. These two statements aren't mutually exclusive, or even contradictory. And yeah, this is Trump's message, and this is why he's up where he is. The best thing today: Trump has picked a fight with FOX news over the debate, but then shows up on O'Reilly the day before? Genius. Pure Genius. He can't los, and he still gets his insulation from the MSM at the same time.I wouldn't be surprised if he decided not to do the debate long ago, was just waiting for an opening exploit.

Suddenly this ass hat thing ain't looking as bad as I thought....

Yet another case/chapter for my "No Tears for the Etruscans?" book. (I changed the title to make it more derisive) And, yeah, I've done Yoga. Plenty. Like with anything else, before I spend more than a few hours on something, I do the reading. This is why I know that Yoga, of all things, is not some pure ethos developed by one people/culture, and therefore I know this story is a hilarious display of ignorance. Yoga is the perfect speciemen for total refutation of this "cultural appropriation" nonsense , since before it became formalized, it was a dumpter fire of different, often contradictory tenets and philosophical approaches. Its entire history is "appropriation". It comes from friggin India, of all places, which to this day, STILL has 22 official languages...but is a monolithic culture? How do these idiots think the British got/kept India? The British wouldn't have lasted a week without setting one tiny pricipality against the next. And, if it wasn't for the British, there would be no India or Pakistan, since they were also the only thing that cold unite India...against them. Even that wasn't enough, because: Pakistan. How much of Yoga comes from what is now Pakistan? None? Wrong. Yoga is an amalgamation of what works and common sense woven together by an underlying theme. But understand, the "what works" part came long before the theme. Nobody was ever going to buy into the words if the actions didn't produce results. Yoga has always been a solution to a problem first, a philosophy next. Ah, the howls of the ignorant. Such a funny sound. I wonder how much $ India's "Minister of Yoga" gets paid. What a job. What's he gonna do? Start suing women in Yoga pants? No. He's going to sit on his ass, make a few speeches and collect his check, just like every other top-level government d-bag, in every other social program, in every other government. (EDIT: OTOH, spanking non-observant women who wear Yoga pants and putting it on the internet is a sure $ money maker. )

We were supposed to build a Great Society. That's what the last 50 years of "activist government" and "social engineering" promised us. They pointed at Columbia, Maryland and said "See? You can build it all from the top down". But they never understood Columbia, and they still don't to this day, because while it was planned from the top down, it was never "centrally planned". The entire design approach and execution begins at the lowest level and then proceeds to build syngeries between the pieces until they fit with the next group of pieces. These pieces are flexible enough to change over time, because while they have all been fitted together, they are still pieces: they retain the autonomy of their internal systems. All the Great Society people see in Columbia is "Rich and Poor Living Together"; they get lost in the euphoria of the outcome. They completely miss the actual design, and thus have no chance of ever replicating it elsewhere. They've been promising they can replicate Columbia's design since 1964. They have failed miserably, because again, all they can see is the outcome, they don't care to get themselves qualified to understand the material or how to design, and while they say they care about problems, they don't care to do the work that TRULY solving them requires. In 2016, this is what confronts us. Everyone is going to hate government to a degree(it's called govern...ment) no matter what. That however is no excuse for the current state of the government, or the problems it creates, and the solutions it fails to provide, for ALL Americans. These "social engineers" aren't engineers of any kind: just the opposite in fact. Look. At. Obamacare. They can't build a house with Lincoln Logs, and if you hold them to account for why the house they promised isn't built? They scream they need more $. More $ is not an excuse for sucking at designing systems, or for refusing to fix schitty designs...not when you've had 50 years to get it right. (EDIT: $, time, and quality are all intrinsically linked...in a triangle. The closer to you move to one point, the more is taken from one of the other points, or both. Depending on how much quality you want, or you promise, you can spend your time, or your $, or both to get it. QED 50 years is more than enough time spent to get quality, no matter how much $ has been spent, thus the only reasons for failure are incompetence and/or corruption.) They know this. People who have screwed up always know it before, better, and how badly than anyone else. That's why we've gone from "social engineering"...to now..."social justice". NOBODY takes them seriously as engineers, so, now they are going to try to hold their positions of power, $ and influence...by claiming that they have a right to it all, and that taking it away is... ...injustice. Worse? At least when one is "engineering" they are puporting to solve problems. What does a social justice...person?...purport?

Here's a little something to begin the celebrations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7EIbQ3J_Ds&feature=youtu.be <Al Gore Day Program> <Polar Bear Face Palm>That was the best </Polar Bear Face Palm> <CountDownToDoomsday val=0>This is ALGORE's Countdown, began on Jan. 27th 2006, and it has {val} days left. </CountDownToDoomsday> </Al Gore Day Program> Error: this code does not compute for Democrats and Environtologists. Actually, this code works perfectly fine, provided that your computer isn't corrupt, doesn't have any memory faults, isn't error prone, or doesn't have trouble with logic. In the end, solid software always exposes the errors in flawed hardware. If you can't process the code above, it's time to get your computer fixed.

Does somebody want to explain: 1. What a subsidy of a commodity is 2. Why governments use them 3. What would happen in this global economy if we had no supply protection for vital commodities at all to ...lybob. I don't have the time today. EDIT: Please Make sure to define the obvious, direct relationship between how much electricity is being produced by each source, and the amount of subsidy each source gets.

I thought this was a good read about polls, and why they are becoming less reliable. Now, yes I am aware of the standard liberal spin in this article. And, I am also aware that the main premise for this artilce is to diminish the "Hillary Clinton's tailspin" story...which requires the Times to attack the vehicle for that tailspin: the very polls that define it. I love how the Times was once Nate Silver's biggest fan, and now attacks the raw data Silver uses. And of course, the most telling thing: Hillary's poll #s are so bad on the fundamentals polls(trustworthy, honest, etc.) that the leftist media's usual tactic of messing with the horserace polls...cannot produce the resutls they need this time...so now they attack the concept of polling itself. However, all disclaimers aside, there were a few good points, like: Now, again, this is written by a guy who found a way to lose against an awful candidate, but still, he's right. If a national poll is meaningless for this reason, doesn't that call into question most of the analytics created that are based on national polls? There's more interesting stuff like that in the article, provided you can prevent yourself from being distracted by its premise. There's also the silly and hilarious like this: Yes, David, now which other kettles do you want to call black? As if Obama didn't do that every time, and as if you didn't write it and teleprompt it every time. Just in case you want evidence for my claim about the main premise of the article...there's this: which, after you get done laughing, exposes the premise in black and white. Oh, and btw, here we have Obama's campaign manager describing in detail the effect polling has on "people['s] view" of the race. So, yeah, messing with a poll clearly has an effect...and David Axelrod, not I, said so. In any event, there are some valuable points and pieces of data that you can pick out of this train wreck attempt at deflecting the "Hillary Dead" narrative. But, I will note that Axlerod said desperation. Freudian slip?

Ok let's try this again, I will repost what I've already written and explain it point by point(and for the rest of you...this is exactly how 1 long post turns into 20 small ones ): More on this later, but keep in mind each of the trends explained by the Neo-Jacksonian theory Where did I say my specific anger matters, or in any way refer to myself? Different voters are angry about different things. This is obvious. It's very easy for voters on both sides of the spectrum to be angry and failed government and Wall Street at the same time. It's also easy for some to be reasonaby angry at Obama, while others are reasonably angry at "the system", and some to be angry at both, while others vehemently defend one, and only blame the other. People are pissed off in general largely due to Obama's lack of RESULTS. He has failed to deliver anything he has promised. Don't confuse effort with results. He delivered Obamacare...but it sucks, and has failed to live up to the standards HE set, never mind the standards the rest of us have, or the minimum standard of "better than what we had". And do you really think that "Obama's Legacy" is reason alone to get lazy ass, low information voters to the polls? (Please say yes, please say yes.....) Do I really need to explain the difference between saying "Americans are angry" and "I am angry"? B-man's polls above are exactly what I am referring to, and are the basis for my claim. But again, all of this is obvious. African Americans know they've done worse than ever under Obama. Thus the worst thing the Democrats can do is come out an tell them how well they've done. ------ You can try to make this about me...and play the "Look at the angry guy , he's so angry nobody should listen to him, it's far better to listen to the smart people, like Obama!" game all you want. After all this is the game that the left has been playing since 2007. But, that game is over. You'd be wise to accept that simple truth now, before you get your hopes up that somehow it's going to work this time around. People are pissed, and they are pissed for a myriand of very good reasons. If the Democratic Party's approach is to make light of that, or ridicule people for being pissed, or lecture people...like you just did...on the various non-reasons why they shouldn't be pissed? The Rs will have a 45 state landslide, 60+ vote Senate, but perhaps more importantly Constitutional Amendment Ratifying Capability. That's exactly the fire you're playing with...but don't mind me. By all means keep F'ing with people while they're angry, be extra smug about it, insult people as "bitter clingers" some more, and see what happens.

No, but they were Democratically elected(people never believe this but it's true) socialists, who used extreme nationalism to get started, then extreme racism to gain control and terrorize, then mysticism to bring about their own downfall. The only real difference between a Nazi and a Communist is: the variance in the means and messages they used to create a leader-worshipping, totalitarian, socialist state. They both ended up in the same place: killing their own people, and making use of crony capitalism and/or socialism wherever it suited them, ad-hoc law, and terror to first survive, then thrive...sorta. The biggest lie in history is that Communists represent one end of the political spectrum, and Fascists/Nazis represent the other, such that an extreme Republican is basically a Nazi. No. An extreme Republican is Rand Paul...who wants very limited government and isolationist foreign policy. The Fascist wants totalitarian government and foreign conqest, which is the polar opposite. Also, the Nazi's weren't capitalist in any way shape or form. The lie that they were has been propogated by the far left, and Marxists ever since WW2. The extreme right, in any country, would never say things like: "It is the responsibility of the state to ensure everyone has a job". Read this, for a more definitive understanding.

Directed at me? What I wrote above has 0 to do with utilitarianism. You asked about a moral basis for a tax code. As I wrote above, that is bunk. While a tax code must be based on human principles, that alone doesn't do the job. This is where equity, and not utilitarianism, fills out the rest of the need. Of course, equity as a concept, and equity and morality in combination to form law, will escape more than a few here. Doesn't make anything I'm saying any less true.

I remember integration in WNY. Specifically the CIty of Buffalo. I lived it, and thus, once again you've proven yourself an unmitigated moron. Arguably, but probably a losing argument. Woodrow Wilson was far and away the most sinister racist we've ever had as a president. Read up. And, this is not putting a 2016 perspective on a historical figure. First of all we're talking 100 years ago and much better records kept, second, there can be no doubt of his views and actions based on the abundance of primary sources available...which all say the same thing: racist, with the means, power and methods to act accordingly. But, notice, there's very little serious talk about taking action against WIlson at Princeton or anywhere else. I wonder why? It's one thing to be a racist. It's quite another to be Woodrow Wilson.

There already has been extensive work done on this subject.The current tax code, but more importantly, the current methodology used to create the tax code is fundamentally flawed. It will ALWAYS serve the special interests and individuals who have access to the Congress. The more Congress has to sell, the more there is to buy, the more bills get passed, and corruption follows: as my sig clearly states. IF we are to talk about this the way you desire, WRT principles, I first must make a correction to your thinking: Principles are not values. In terms of principles, stealing is wrong. Sitting on one's ass, collecting, without honestly looking for work, is stealing $ from taxpayers. Period. There is no debate or discussion because principles are not values. Stealing is breaking a principle and thus morally wrong. (Principles :: 10 commandments, but everybody knows them, and religion doesn't really enter into it.) Values are not principles. IF my values tell me that we should help the poor as much as possible, AND, my belief is that 95% of the poor got that way through no fault of their own, then I'm never going to see the stealing of tax $ by those mentioned above...as stealing. Thus, I'm never going see reducing $ paid to the poor as anything other than wrong. But, I am wrong. Why? Because giving $ to the poor, or not, is not a principle. At best it is a subjective abstraction: Who is poor? How much should we give? When do the poor stop being poor? Is it based on how much we give? See? Abstraction, and subjective. Trouble always ensues when we confuse principles with values. Values are ALWAYS subjective. Principles are NEVER subjective. That is the fundamental problem here: when anyone attempts to assert their values as though they = morality/principles? Always wrong. Thus, if you do in fact want to base tax code on principles? Then we must start with principles, and not values. Get it? If you want to base the code on your values, fine, but since they are subjective, you're wasting your time. As I said above: values are personal. Morals, morality and principles are not. They are universal, and every human being is aware of them. There is nothing silly about stealing from Medicare via fraud. That is just as immoral as stealing from unemployment by not actually trying to get a job. There are no "personal morals" involved in either. What is happening is that in both cases, values are so out of whack, that the choice to violate a principle is being made. Princples being overridden by values almost always means crime, guilt, or both. Some may try to rationalize their choice, but it is still stealing, they know it, and there is no debate. Why? Because principles are absolute and universal. Thus, basing a tax code on principles, and not values, is the definition of morality and not silly at all. Defining any law, based on values, which are subjective, and not on principles(or equity when there is no guiding principle) is by definition, immoral. What the current tax code has done? Rationalize cheating and stealing under many different false pretenses. But the ultimate problem is: morality doesn't care about when/where/which/who/what/how roads get built, unless they aren't being built, because someone is stealing. Thus, a principles-based tax code is never going to be a complete answer. TYTT is asking for the morality behind a tax code. As we can now see, that's a hopeless exercise, as taxation is mostly amoral, and has a lot more to do with equity than with morality. The great thing about the FAIR Tax is it does not violate any principles, but, more importantly, it severly reduces the opportunity to violate principles.

The last comment at the time I read this was the best: Answer: because $. A high tide raises all ships. The more $ that gets pumped into the Gaia cult, the more the cancer people can ask their donors/development people "why can't we raise more than the Gaia cult?" Or instead of "There's a single light of science and to brighten it anywhere, is to brighten it everywhere", you get "There is a single budget of science, and to increase it anywhere opens the door for demands to increase it everywhere". Remember when Obama first took office, and told us that somehow, some way, sicence had been forsaken...for something(implied religion but never said it)? It was ridiculous, but ask yourself: how many new "smoking is bad" studies do you think have been funded since he took office? Just take a guess.

Ah...nothing like drunken free association threads from wawrow! The only response: Who is against reforming, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Obamacare, EPA, IRS, VA, DoED, DoE, CMS, ICE, ATF, Secret Service, State....and every other government organization that has been obviously incompetent, corrupt and/or had a major scandal or 3 in the last 7 years.... ...and who is for it? Doesn't keeping everything the same...no matter how bad it sucks...mean you are a Conservative...according to you, wawrow? Doesn't wanting to cast off the old in favor of better approaches, primarly dependent on innovations and technology, and fixing the stuff that is obviously broken...mean you are progressive? So, wawrow, answer your own questions about who stands for what, but keep in mind that the party/people of real progress? Not your party, and certainly not you. Nah, I'd say that by all rights, you're the Conservative now. No matter what is broken, no matter how poorly it serves the people, no matter how corrupt the institution, you don't want any change, and therefore, you offer no hope, to any class, poor, middle, or rich, either. Well, I suppose you could offer us more of the same old crap we've been hearing for the last 7 years, and another 10 trillion dollars of new debt. "Summer of Recovery!" Erm, no thanks. My how the might...ily foolish/arrogant...have fallen. By the way, January 27th is coming. Do we have 3 feet of water in NYC? Boy those waters that Obama said were rising, and that he was going to singlehandedly abate, better start rising quick, or, it's going to look like Al Gore was a complete idiot when he said we'd have those 3 feet of water 10 years ago, huh?

After reading through the rest of the thread since my last...finding some humor but mostly tedium, I have to say: GO BERNIE! I'm going back to my first post in this mess: I want Bernie to be the proud and true socialist he is. I want him to lead those elected Democrats that remain out of their socialist closet and into the light. Finally everyone will know exactly what they stand for. Then, we can shove them back into the closet and nail the door shut, because we aren't buying. After all, with a few exceptions, the only places where Democrats still hold House seats are the looney bins/crime dens/handout-ridden holes of this country, where the 29% which represent the far left, live. So, why not stand on their true platform? Handouts for all, open borders, mass irresponsibility underwritten by other people's money, cowardice in the face of the enemy, negotiation with evil, and as many scams and cons like Global Warming paid for by the loss of middle class jobs and taxpayer $ as possible! All this, plus Bernie looks like he's gonna win IA and NH, and Hillary's headed for an indictment! Seriously, what is not to like? When Laffer first said the Rs were gonna carry 45 states I thought he was crazy. Now? I still think he's crazy. But, every day, another tiny straw falls, and from where I sit the camel's face looks like "Oh F Me!". How many straws until 45 is the baseline? Stay tuned!

So this is what we've come to? Something might be hard, so we shouldn't even try to improve it? Last time I checked that is 180 degrees out from what Teddy Rosevelt defined as being a "progressive" attitude. If anything: keeping everything the same no matter how bad it sucks...used to be known, in other Western Democracies, as Conservativism. Especially in the first part of the last decade, you know, when Teddy Rosevelt invented the term "progressive". I find it hilariously ironic that the country that could mobilize from intentional isolation and weakness and win a war on 2 fronts, or rescue itself from the 1970s mess of stagflation...according to supposed progressives, can't do comparitively miniscule tasks such as: 1. Get the tax code reformed in a fair and honest way, and clean house at the IRS 2. SSI reform 3. Medicare/Medicaid reform 4. Build a common sense helth care solution based on things that work: like competition and markets, and clean house at CMS and especially the VA 5. Reform Education at all levels and/or throw out the entire system and start over 6. Defeat ISIS, and provide a national defense that is in line with our dangerous times 7. Secure the border, reform immigration, then force every single law enforcement entity to enforce those reforms, in that order. 8. Get a REAL energy policy...you know like the one Pelosi promised way back in 2006, and stil hasn't delivered...together so that we all know what's what 9. Get a REAL EPA policy and obviously clean house at the EPA. Investigate the Global Warming people for fraud, and hold their feet to the fire: either show us hard science or GTFO 10. Reform legislative policy and procedure such that lobbyist acitivity is exposed and transparent. (Simple: every meeting with a lobbyist can only be held if it is at a Congressional office, video taped, then placed on Youtube. ALL lobbyists must be licensed and regulated, and no Congress critter can receive unofficial communication from them, or just happen to meet them somewhere without risking their license) Our people are more educated, our natural resources are still available, our infrastructure is 10x better, we have the Internet, we have the capacity to be 100x more productive than we were in 1939 or 1979...yet somehow I'm supposed to believe we can't do things that take a lot less effort? Pfft. Pick any one of the 1-10 imporant and urgent MUST DOs above. All of us KNOW they can be done. Well, the serious people know we can do any of these any time we want. I read the quote above, and I ask myself: Who are today's Know Nothings? Who are the people standing in the way of reform, and won't even consider fixing that which is so obviously broken?

You can't just pretend to read minds, and therefore "know" the intention of the program. You can point out logical flaws, such as "Why bulk collect, thus making the job of separating the intel from the noise orders of magnitude harder?" but, you can't sit here and tell me you know the entire intention of the program 100% accurately. Well, not until you've eliminated all the other possible intentions, again, logically, and are left with the only intention that fits. But, I seriously doubt you can do that with any certainty without being read into the program(never) or being allowed to personally interview all those responsible for defining the scope of the program, designing it, and/or charged with executing it(also never). Without that data, most of what you are doing is speculation, SWAGing, throwing half-assed assertions around...and a whole lot of projection: all you can do is project what you think these guys did/thought given what you've already determined to be their intention. Um, no chance of that being an objective exercise. And, the real problem is and remains: profiling, the most logical way to get this done, is forbidden by this president and his ilk. It would make infinitely more sense to target collect, not bulk collect, data on the people we know to be most likely to commit acts of terror, however they are defined. Instead of most likely? We get an as phony as it is ridiculous "==" placed between ISIS and the ghost of Timothy McVeigh. Ergo, we can't profile anyone who is a Muslim or looks Arab...because...some Michigan Militia white dudes are still playing paintball somewhere, and therefore they represent an equivalent threat? If you don't like bulk collection, then you better get on board with profiling...because the 3rd choice is to do nothing. That worked out great for France, didn't it? Like it or not we are at war. There are no nice wars. There are no easy wars. There has never been a war in which some ideals weren't compromised in favor of winning the war. As I say below: Ideals are peaceful. History is violent.

Hmm. There goes my pretense to smoke pot. I've often said life would be easier for me if I was a little dumber. For example, I wouldn't be so annoyed by unmitigated morons who say things like "Lincoln would be a Democrat today", or "The increase in consumer spending always justifies increased government spending(otherwise known as trickle-down government)". There'd be less jealousy and fear. Thus, up until now I had always considered taking up pot regularly as a way to dumb me down a bit, round my hard edges and of course reduce stress. I never did, because I was afraid of getting too dumb. Now I see that pot is as useless to me as it always has been.

Once upon a time, this board was dominated by clowns who loved to throw around, and parrot(of course), the term Neo-Con...but only about 15% of the posters here understood what the word actually meant. Now, it appears we have a new movement on the rise: the Neo-Jacksonian. It suffices to say that Andrew Jackson was not your average Democrat, and perhaps we'll improve on the 15%, and this time maybe 40% will understand what Neo-Jacksonian means. Why bother with this? Because this little gem of an article crossed my path at RCP today: Andrew Jackson, Revenant. Read first, damn you. I think this is absolutely the right metaphor/comparison for what is happening in politics today. In fact, this appears to be a universal theory that explains everything, from Trump's seeming invulnerability, to Hillary's rapid decent, to Cruz's appeal over Rubio, to Kasich's march up the ladder in NH, and even to Bernie's increased support. Ostensibly, different voters are angry about different things. In many cases these things overlap, in some they do not. But in all cases, as the article points out, there is lot more unifying Jacksonian anger than there is unifying the Obama legacy and/or agenda. Americans are angry . Yes, far left clowns, we are "angry" . The country is losing at home and on the road, and NONE of your policies have made things better for the MAJORITY of Americans. You wreck most of the country in one way or another(Obamacare! There it is again You will never live it down), and then feign surprise when you anger most people? Worse, you try to equate that anger with being backward or unstable? F you... ...is clearly, and exactly what these New Jacksonian values have to say about Obama's legacy and now Hillary's agenda. And notice: I didn't say white people. I said Americans are angry. There's plenty of agnst to go around for every demographic. This heterogenous anger most likely means that the micromessaging that marketed Obama into 2 terms in office(because he surely didn't win them), won't work this time around. Not when going up against a guy like Trump, whose been masterful and harnessing the various forms of anger and reasons for each, all into one giant ball of anger. So, what now Democrats? Going to start calling all of us angry again? Bitter? Clingers? I dare you to be that stupid.

In response...it's now clear that the State Department isn't the only agency involved in determining what is classified and what is not. In fact, as part of the formal response to the FOIA request that started this whole thing, State is only allowed dominion over its, very small, amount of internally developed intelligence. As part of the response, the intelligence community has sent in their people to preside over all of the emails and determine what can be sent back via the FOIA. The bottome line is: IF those agencies' "elements" restrict/redact anything at all? Then, QED, Clinton had classifed material on her server, which is a direct violation of her NDA and the law. The Justice Department therefore will have no say over whether the law has been broken, as redaction proves it before they get that say. The Clinton camp statement on this clearly shows that they want Justice to be the sole investigator, but, tough schit. The Intelligence Community as a whole has already moved in, justifiably, to see what has been compromised. EDIT: The only exception I can think of is whether intel/time matters, or is reason to classify something now, that wasn't. I'm sure that will be the excuse, but, with 1300 individual emails that have been marked classified already, and 2 Top Secret(or containing Top Secret intel) emails known to have been on the server, you can't use that excuse for everything. Even if half of them were "upgraded"(nonsense) as the Clinton camp claims, that still leaves the other half, and it only takes one(1) to convict. Thus, this isn't a Justice/State run show. And, if Obama et al try to make it so, then we will see some big leaks to kick their asses back in line. Which intelligence agency is afraid of Obama at this point? None. Thus, no, Justice/State will not save her. The Intelligence Community routinely gets punished by politicians, especially over the last 7 years. They aren't going to miss their chance to return fire and make an example out Hillary. Having signed 2 of these type of NDAs myself, I can tell you: we're talking about Federal Pound Me in the Ass Prision for ANY violation of protocol. None of us had any doubt where the line was, and what would happen if you came within 10 ft of it, never mind crossed it. This is way over that line. Politically, if the legal implications don't kill her off first, I don't see how Hillary recovers from this. Debates? More like curbstomping. Not a single day will go by without the conflation of this intelligence...let's call it what it is: breach...and "what difference does it make?" We will all be sick of hearing it, but, does anyone think that the Rs are gonna run another McCain/Romney campaign this time? It was already going to be scorched earth; now it's rape, pillage, and pour salt on the scorched earth. That's also just what the doctor ordered for the modern Jacksonians whose values seem to be leading the way thus far(I'm also making this link a new thread).

This is also the city that thought putting 10k unarmed, volunteer civilians on the street was a good way to fight crime. It only took a few deaths to end the policy, and they never even approached 10k volunteers. I thought they would hold out for at least 20 deaths, but, clearly one of the myriad of professional leftists who live in Center City got to the mayor's office in time to make it stop. It's fascinating really. In Philly you have the makings of a formidable city...but their constant act of playing the little brother of NYC makes them fail much more often than they should. That's the real problem: Philly policy emanates from NYC, not City Hall. As I said above: the only time it didn't was when Rendell was mayor. Rendell would have called the attack on the police officer what it was.

I laughed at that too. Once again we see the defiant delusions of the 29% of the US that still considers themselves Democrats. Unfortunately(or fortunately depending on perspective) the elected Ds that truly were centrist have all been culled from the herd. The idiot in this article likes to pretend that Obama addressed the pre-existing racial stife, rather than the truth: he incited it. In doing so, he has presided over utter disaster for the Democrats as a party. He required 1000s of centrist Demcrats to fall on their swords for Obamacare, or his continued presidency. Instead of stopping the bleeding there, he has presided over racial strife, riots, and chaos, as well as Islamic psychos running amok, and tried to blame everybody but himself and his weak, therefore failed, policies. It's embarassingly over for this president. He was never fit for the office, and now he's merely making a mockery of it. In fact, the Democrats have now become the "regional party" that they told us would be the fate of the Republicans back in 2008, if Rs didn't make sweeping ideological change. I warned them on this board that they were being stupid with this back then, and I also told them they would blow it, lose all they had gained, and end up right where they are today. All has come to pass. The only elected Ds that remain are those who are and represent the far left. As usual, this leftist tells just enough truth to appear credible: calling herself and hers leftists, but that's the only truth. The reality is that the socialist agenda in this country is F'ing done, Obama/Pelosi/Reid have seen fit to that. Thus, it doesn't matter who the Ds nominate: failure to recognize that the socialist agenda is done will merely lead to more defeats. They can yap about who is the most pure ideologically all they want. None of it matters. The only way they can win, and the only way they can get ANY of their ideas seriously considered, never mind passed, is capitulation/concession/huge tradeoffs. But without recognition/acceptance of the bolded above, they are doomed. Feminism alone is not enough to motivate anyone to do anything, on either side of the political spectrum, and certainly not something one builds a presidential candidacy upon. This is merely fact. What else needs to be said? Given the bolded above, this lady is obviously delusional. She still thinks it's 2006, and the D's don't have a 9-year track record of failing miserably since being given power in 2006. She still thinks they can bully and name-call people...because things like Global Warming, the Iraq War, Gay Marriage and Single Payer are still potent political weapons. Reality: all these are now political liabilities. IF this is the state of D thinking: defiant delusion? Laffer's prediction of a 45 state sweep in 2016...gains yet another small shred of credibility. At this point, it doesn't look like Hillary will win IA or NH. And if Bernie is he nominee? 45 states going to the Rs is the baseline, not the outlier.

You have never, ever, proven anyone wrong on this board, on anything, ever. All you have ever been successful at doing, is, just like a woman, changing the subject after YOU'VE been proven wrong. I suppose we're following the birdog treatise now: If monuments can't educate us about history, it's reasonable to assume that documents, such as the record of the assembly votes, and more importantly, the unprecedented referendums in many states, who voted to secede and have rarely if ever had a state-wide referendum since....also can't educate us about history. You know...because those docs actually refute gator's point so hard it gets sent to where it belongs: assinineville. F(throw my hands up). I guess nothing can teach us history...except of course the children's propaganda books the Clinton campaign is now hawking.

And their policies == a start chamber court, that has no accountability, no cross examination of witnesses, no due process, no judge who can throw out prejudicial evidence, no defense rights, no discovery of evidence...essentially nothing Constitutional or even close to be considered codified law. These policies are in every way: illegal. Law must hold both its subjects and its enforcers to a standard, or it is not law. Why anyone needs to explain such things to people who attend/work/administrate a university is...baffling. Yeah, like Obamacare. See? I told you guys in 2009 that Obamacare would be a generational joke/auto-rip on Democrats for the rest of our lives. Here it is 2016, and tell me, how is using Obamacare as the example of them "feeling they can better handle everything" anything other than appropriate? Obamacare will lose more elections for Demcrats than Reconstruction.

News. Truth. Unfiltered. . . . Bullschit. The first link is from an obvious propoganda site. How can I tell: read it again. It's rambling, all over the place, "Look, squirrel!" incoherence. None of the paragraphs link to an overal theme/no beginning/middle/end. Just as you are beginning to piece together their argument, wham, another inflammatory assertion gets dropped on you. You never get a chance to consider the argument in parts or as a whole...because they don't want you do. Thus, this isn't a hard news article, it's an assualt on one's train of thought, as it is desgined to be. Hence: obvious propoganda. And, how the hell does whatever is going on in the progressive, liberal, "more enlightened than the US" United Kingdom implicate the NSA, or any other US agency? Don't you think it's interesting that the same story is being repeated over and over in your links, nearly word for word? This is classic Saul Alinsky behavior/propaganda tactics. "Oh look they're conspiring against us, and doing terrible things to us...that makes us right, and them evil!" Moreover, apparently we are supposed to take it on faith that anti-fracking protestors cannot also be sympathetic to radical Islamist, or Communist, or Environtologist actions/beliefs, or any other undesirable, anti-social nonsense. That's like telling me that peanut butter never has, doesn't, and never will have anything to do with jelly. Come on. FInally, Environtologists have committed plenty of acts of terror. Or at least plenty of acts of property damage, such that spot checking a Enviro whack-job is not out of bounds.