90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Iraq Shakes, SCOTUS Rules, US Advances In World Cup

Iraq still slides. IRS scandal. The Supreme Court. America and the World Cup. NPR’s Deborah Amos, the New York Times’ Josh Barro and On Point’s own Jack Beatty work through the week’s headlines.

United States' Clint Dempsey argues with Germany's Bastian Schweinsteiger at the half during the group G World Cup soccer match between the United States and Germany at the Arena Pernambuco in Recife, Brazil, Thursday, June 26, 2014. Germany won the game 1-0, but both teams advance out of their competitive group into the next round of the tournament. (AP)

United States’ Clint Dempsey argues with Germany’s Bastian Schweinsteiger at the half during the group G World Cup soccer match between the United States and Germany at the Arena Pernambuco in Recife, Brazil, Thursday, June 26, 2014. Germany won the game 1-0, but both teams advance out of their competitive group into the next round of the tournament. (AP)

Iraq still crumbles this week.  No bottom yet to the crisis.  And President Obama now asking for half a billion dollars in aid to “moderate” rebels in next-door Syria.  Maybe too late.  Chaos.  In Washington, a gusher of Supreme Court decisions.  On cell phone searches.  On abortion protest.  On recess appointments.  John Boehner says he’ll sue the President for overreach.  That’s new.  And the IRS still hasn’t found its e-mails.  The Tea Party takes a loss in Mississippi.  The US takes a World Cup loss – and still wins!  This hour On Point:  our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Deborah Amos, NPR Middle East correspondent. Author of “Eclipse of the Sunnis” and “Lines in the Sand.” (@deborahamos)

Josh Barro, domestic correspondent for the New York Times‘ the Upshot politics and policy site. (@jbarro)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

NPR: At Iraq’s Largest Oil Refinery, Siege Nears A Complicated Conclusion — “For more than a week, ISIS militants and local Sunnis have surrounded the Baiji oil refinery. While they racked up swift victories all the way to Iraq’s western border, the strategy at Baiji was different. A truce allowed some 300 workers to leave the plant a few days after the evacuation of a German technical staff.”

New York Times: Why Government Pension Funds Became Addicted to Risk – “The volatility of stock returns is why pension funds invested in bonds in the first place. And it’s most likely a driver of the recent rush toward alternative investments, which went from 11 percent of pension portfolios in 2006 to 23 percent in 2012, according to Pew; nearly the entire shift has come at the expense of stocks.”

Washington Post: Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments — “While the court was unanimous that Obama’s actions were unlawful, it was badly split on other questions the case raised and narrowly favored an expansive view of the chief executive’s power. Breyer and the court’s liberals, joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, read the Constitution to give wide authority to the president to make recess appointments when the Senate was in recess — 10 days is the minimum, they decided. “

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Fredlinskip

    Watching the badgering of IRS Commissioner Kiskonen on C-span seemed reminiscent of McCarthy anti- comi hearings.
    Kiskonen, was not around at the time of Lerner’s computer crash.
    Even so, independent investigators have recovered some 24,000 e-mails from the missing 2 year period; plus 50,000+ e-mails since that time are all being turned over to Congress.

    But it seems that no one in GOP cares about that. You would think if Lerner was such an evil person, somewhere in those 74,000 e-mails she might implicate herself and GOP would be happy to get their gnarly hands on them.
    But that’s not what this is about. It’s a dog and pony political sideshow about a crashed computer, which apparently happens quite regularly at IRS, especially since their funding has been cut at regular intervals for years now.
    (Many apparently are still running Windows XP ).

    Amazing how these “hearings” are run:

    Some GOP members would hardly let Kiskonen get a word in for all their ranting.
    AT the end of each of GOP members question period they would finish with a statement that left Kiskonen no time to respond, along the lines of “you’re a jerk and a pox on your family”.

    After each Congressman spoke, GOP ‘chair’ Issa would inevitably submit some unbiased article “into the record”.
    “I would like to submit this article in the Forbes, WSJ, Fox, National Enquirer called ‘Lerner Beat her Computer with a Baseball Bat’ into the record”.
    “Without objection”.
    What a comedy!

    Kiskonen, who has had a stellar career in private and public service, held up admirably.
    Easy to say, but I in his position, might have been more inclined to get upand punch someone in the nose.

    Perhaps we need to go back to the days to when someone’s reputation was unfairly besmirched, they would challenge each other to a duel.
    Public interest in the affairs of Congress would certainly pick up.

    • HonestDebate1

      The emails are history, they have long sense been destroyed and wiped clean, That is why Lerner was so cocky. She knew they had got rid of the evidence. Kiskonin knew when he testified in March the computers had “crashed” (yea right) but did not tell Congress. Don’t defend the lying weasels.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        The truth will out.

        • HonestDebate1

          I hope you’re right but I’m dubious.

        • Fredlinskip

          Hope so.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
            ― Martin Luther King Jr.

            Have faith in Truth and Justice, commit yourself to that higher calling, and be not afraid.

          • Fredlinskip

            Good quote.
            Wish it was applied with zest to the affairs of previous admin.
            If so, we might be inclined to enter in to fewer unnecessary Wars and economic collapses.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            So it need not be applied with zest to this administration? I think it needs to be followed by all. But then I just a crazy Tea Party guy what do I know.

      • Fredlinskip

        Wiped clean?
        A hard drive crashed.
        15% of IRS hard drives crashed in same period.
        Still 24000 were recovered, as well as all mails since that time (50g)
        You “honestly” believe that if she were up to no good that somewhere in all those mails there would be no indication?

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Do you remember this testimony?

      http://youtu.be/UE4_MT8MkIA

      If there is anyone besmirching the reputations of citizens of our Republic because of their political beliefs it is some at the IRS and those that attempt to defend them.

      • Fredlinskip

        Well- although this represents only one sid e of the argument, it is a convincing one.
        If these IRS questionnaires were so irregular, I would think that that would be all the evidence GOP would need.
        Were progressive organizations also asked to fill out these questionnaires?

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          I have seen no testimony to that effect.

          • Fredlinskip

            If I wished to create a tax-exempt 501 (c) organization, say to be called “Patriotic Americans Who Love Apple Pie and Puppies” whose sole purpose was to pour money into low-life political attack ads and which would except generous contributions from gazillionaires, would my organization merit scrutiny from IRS?

            Just trying to understand the situation.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I take the point of your question. Could you define “low-life political attack ads” ? Would they be supporting the expansion of government? Would they harm the rent taking corporations that fund politicians? Would these ads seek to pit one group against another and deter people from taking interest in civics? Would these ads be critical of government programs? If you answered yes to any of theses question then the IRS will be very interested in the books of your organization.

          • Don_B1

            A question of action or intent: “If you answered yes to any of these questions then the IRS will [should] be interested in the books of your organization.

            But one of the core tenants of the radical right is “small government” largely independent of the requirements of government to provide a level playing field for all its citizens, not just the rich who have independent means to achieve a “level playing field” for themselves while it is steeply tilted against everyone else.

            As only one example, the wealthy can prevent, through law, the construction of a polluting plant that will affect their homes, but the poor almost always live in areas that have higher levels of pollution from sources that they do not create nor have control over. But to change that it has been necessary to “enlarge government” to regulate the emissions of various plants.

            Republicans campaign on removing all those little regulations but, in office, largely only work to deregulate the big polluters.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            But one of the core tenants of the radical left is “big government”
            largely independent of the requirements of government to provide a level
            playing field for all its citizens, not just the politically connected who have
            the means to achieve a “level playing field” for themselves while it is steeply tilted against everyone else.

            As only one example, the wealthy can avoid sending their children to failing public schools, but the
            poor almost always live in areas that have failing public schools that they do not create nor have control over. The left see only one solution and that is to
            to “enlarge government” to regulate all eduction with Common Core. Millions of dollars spent on unproven methods that serve nameless bureaucrats and not the needs of children families teachers or or nation. Even with Common Core there will still be a well served elite that thru wealth or political power will be able to secure education and opportunity for their children that the majority shall not have access to e.g. Chelsea Clinton.

          • Don_B1

            Do you really believe what you are saying about Common Core? When did you first hear about it? First, it is definitely Not a left-wing solution but a carefully crafted approach to improving the public schools, as pointed out here in this definitely NOT left-wing publication:

            http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-common-core-state-standards

            There well might be problems with this program, and the apparent rush (not so true) to implement it and get testing going immediately (probably too true) is probably one of them.

            While I am happy to see the draft into the Armed Services gone, I still regret the harmonizing of understanding and interest that having all citizens participate in a common endeavor together that has been lost with its expiration.

            You should/could benefit from a thorough digesting of this study:

            http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

            since you advocate for everyone making a contribution to his country. Basically, it points out flaws that prevent achieving that goal and I see nothing in the policies that you advocate that will improve that.

          • Don_B1

            Given that who testifies and what testimony is solicited is closely controlled by the Government Oversight Committee Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, I am not, and you and anyone else, should not be surprised if no actual testimony as to the pursuit of progressive organizations has been given.

            Democrats are basically not allowed to select people to give testimony.

            But there is a large body of statements that have appeared in the press that is listed here:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_controversy

            The full story gives a much more nuanced view of what went on.

            The bottom line: from the first paragraph of the Background section, Tax exemption & donor anonymity of the linked Wikipedia article:

            The statutory language of IRC 501(c)(4) generally requires civic organizations described in that section to be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare”. Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization “is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements”

            A particularly important part: donor anonymity: if you really are for transparency in government, then transparency in elections is probably the most important part of that issue. I believe that you have often called for transparency so why not advocate it here and urge that the I.R.S. rules should be rewritten to reflect the actual statutory language rather than the current lax and easily misused, by both sides, language which has led to this dispute and scandal?

            If you disagree, why should I not infer that you want the radical right to escape scrutiny while the left gets scrutinized out of existence? Just more “politics is not bean-bag” and there is no need for a level playing field?

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            You are deeply invested in the Democrat v Republican fight. You force that good-guys verses bad-guys game theory on to every issue. Because of that many of your core assumptions are wrong. The current state of civil society is over balanced to the side that advocates more if not total governmental control of our lives. I am on the other side of that debate. I am fighting for greater liberty for all. I am fighting for a truly level playing field.

          • Don_B1

            I am quit willing to “turn on Democrats” and actually have, from Senators Ben Nelson (D, NE) and Joseph Lieberman (I/D, CT) for their obstruction of a public option in the PPACA (not to mention single payer), as just one example.

            I would be happy to change some regulation to simpler regulation if that could be shown to accomplish a desired goal and eliminate the regulation if it could be shown unnecessary. But preventing regulation of derivatives did not work out too well as the financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated in spades.

            The country is growing in population and, due to the growth of the use of technology which requires oversight and regulation. From the beginnings of Capitalism, external costs were recognized as costs that had to be accounted for, whether they were positive or negative, but particularly when negative, as Adam Smith pointed out in The Wealth of Nations. And technology allows negative externalities to be passed to unsuspecting people, particularly poor people without the resources, of time and money, to determine how to avoid those costs. So it has to be a function of government to estimate and mitigate those costs.

            It is NOT the fault of liberals that technology is increasing the occurrence and size of negative externalities. To make some suffer while others enjoy freedom to inflict costs on others to increase their own gains is not providing a level playing field.

            And when those with money can “buy” their government (see Gilens) income and wealth inequality beyond a modest amount, which would not appreciably hinder the lifestyle of those like Warren Buffet who made more than most but is not leaving his offspring huge (though more than I would in his position, having done what he did in providing them excellent educations) inheritances. But then Mr. Buffett did not live an extravagant lifestyle, either.

    • pete18

      “Even so, independent investigators have recovered some 24,000 e-mails from the missing 2 year period; plus 50,000+ e-mails since that time are all being turned over to Congress.

      But it seems that no one in GOP cares about that. You would think if Lerner was such an evil person, somewhere in those 74,000 e-mails she
      might implicate herself and GOP would be happy to get their gnarly hands on
      them.”

      Even so, independent investigators have recovered over 10,500 hours of White House tapes. But no one in the Democratic Party seems to care about that, there worried about a measly 18 and ½ minutes that are missing. You would think that if Nixon was such evil person somewhere in those 10,500 hours he might implicate himself.

      “A year into congressional investigations of IRS targeting, we know two things beyond a doubt. We know from the public record that starting in 2010 the most powerful leaders of the Democratic Party—President Obama, Senate chairmen, House Democrats—ran a ceaseless campaign pressuring the IRS to silence conservative groups. We also know from internal IRS emails that Ms. Lerner, the former head of exempt organizations, was at the epicenter of an agency effort to silence those very groups, in the precise same time frame.

      What we don’t know is the interaction between the two. The IRS’s deliberate withholding for a year of Lerner emails allowed the press and
      liberals to crow that there was no “there” there—zero evidence of Lerner collusion with anybody in the Democratic Party. At the very worst, went
      the explanation, Ms. Lerner and her IRS pals were zealous bureaucrats, primed to crack down on campaign money, and therefore eager to interpret the
      Democratic campaign as an order to act.”

      As to Ms. Lerner’s behavior, consider that
      House Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp first sent a letter asking if the IRS was engaged in targeting in June, 2011. Ms. Lerner denied it. She engineered a
      plant in an audience at a tax conference in May 2013 to drop the bombshell news about targeting (maybe hoping nobody would notice?). She has subsequently asserted a Fifth Amendment right to silence in front of the only people actually investigating the affair, Congress. Now we learn that her hard drive supposedly defied modernity and suffered total annihilation about 10 days after
      the Camp letter arrived.”

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      http://online.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-about-those-missing-emails-1403220814

      • HonestDebate1

        Nixon could only dream of having this IRS.

      • Fredlinskip

        A WSJ quote? Couldn’t you find a Rush or a Fox quote.
        Never mind WSJ like Fox, is owned and run by Murdoch and Co, don’t you think that WSJ who represent dare we suggest- Wall St, might have less than honorable intentions in attempting to discredit IRS?
        Your Nixon example is a good point except that a hard drive crash is a bit more of a blunt instrument then splicing some tape.
        The crash occurred years before there was a whiff of an investigation.
        I would think that some 74, 000 e-mails would be enough to sort out a conspiracy-
        Biut GOP isn’t even interested in looking at these?

  • HonestDebate1

    Can we expect all the Democrats who voted for Thad Cochran in the primary to vote of him in the general? I get really sick of the Democrat playbook that has but one play, painting the opposition as racist. The horrendous and monumental effort to spread the message that McDaniel and the Tea Partiers want to keep blacks from voting is just nasty as hell. It also could not be more insulting to blacks. I don’t know how to address it. And it wasn’t just democrats, it was the establishment Republicans as well. I don’t really think the right should get down in the gutter but sometimes I wish they would. Maybe they should have made hay out of his doing indecent things with animals. Democrats surely would have in the same context.

    • MrNutso

      Perhaps Thad will take the lead on crafting a new voting rights act.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Maybe the Tea Party will split away from the Republicans and form a 3rd party and weaken both? Maybe, the Tea Party is going to guarantee that Democrats regain the House?

      • hennorama

        Neil Blanchard — that “third party” nonsense is trotted out periodically for fundraising and voter turnout purposes.

        If the TEA Shindiggers ever actually formed a political party, they would become even less important than they are at present.

        If the TEA Shindiggers backing Mr. McDaniel in Mississippi want to make a principled stand, they should simply sit out the upcoming election.

        That might actually send a message to “the RINOs.”

      • HonestDebate1

        Like Nader and the Green Party?

    • Don_B1

      “… the message that McDaniel and the Tea Partiers want to keep blacks from voting is just nasty as hell.”

      It is nasty as hell, but unfortunately true.

      • HonestDebate1

        The notion that blacks are to stupid to vote is sick sick sick. APOLOGIZE IMMEDIATELY!

        • keltcrusader

          It has nothing to do with their intelligence at all, as you well know, but ignore for your own inane purposes.

          • HonestDebate1

            Surely you don’t think black people are just as capable as whites to get an ID.

          • keltcrusader

            surely you don’t think I care about anything you say

          • HonestDebate1

            But I care about what you say, say it: “blacks are not as capable as whites at obtaining ID”. What else can I infer from your comment?

          • keltcrusader

            Say what??? Infer all you want, but as usual, you will be so incredibly wrong. As that was YOUR very first thought, I should wonder why that would be the case? Maybe some soul searching on your part is in order.

          • HonestDebate1

            Okay, I rephrase. Say it: blacks are just as capable of obtaining an ID as whites.

          • Don_B1

            Actually, Blacks are certainly as qualified to vote as anyone, but, as YOU well know, they often work jobs where they cannot get time off to travel to a place to get birth certificates, etc., and, when there are less voting booths in districts where a high percentage of Blacks live, so that lines form because of the higher ratio of voters to machines, they don’t have the time off from work to take to wait six to eight hours in line.

            Blacks often do not own cars to enable travel to government buildings to get documentation, etc.

            These are structural obstructions to Blacks being able to vote, that you are well aware of but chose to ignore, hoping that the reader here will not give the moment or two of time that it takes to recognize the deception you are trying to spin here. They have nothing to do with anyone’s intelligence.

          • HonestDebate1

            Dude, that comment is full of racists accusations. Blacks don’t have cars or birth certificates?! Unbelievable. Don’t even try to justify that sick sick view. How about we quit judging people by the color of their skin?

          • Don_B1

            So you are denying that throughout the South, in particular, but rural regions generally, there are a lot of births at home, many of which do not get “registered” as births in a hospital do? And that is independent of race?

            There are a lot of poor people without driver’s licenses or other documentation. You have to be a non-U.S. resident to not know this.

            But then you change what you “know” to fit the comment you are making.

  • HonestDebate1

    I am overwhelmed. How is it possible to synthesize all of the lies, corruption and lawlessness of this administration? There is a veritable alphabet soup of shame. Unbelievably scandalous things have happened at DOS, DOJ, HHS, IRS, NSA, BLS, DHS and others. The president’s lawlessness was just confirmed by a unanimous SCOTUS. This is awful.

    • Don_B1

      Interesting that the real scandals at NSA and DHS are the least pursued in favor of faux scandals at the other bodies. (The BLS?)

      How did you miss the VA where a long-running (decades worth, exacerbated by the Bush administration’s failure to prepare it for the Iraq War) scandal finally emerged?

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s funny, blame Bush… as always. I added he VA, thanks. I’m sure there are more too.

    • Fredlinskip

      How about the BS scandal- that seems to be the most prevalent.

  • HonestDebate1

    I am so relieved to learn our President’s excuse for recent foreign policy blunders, the World Cup schedule. That makes sense.

  • SteveTheTeacher

    I’d like to hear thoughts on whether the ruling baring anti-abortion protest buffer zones implies the elimination of the restrictions of demonstrators to remote, isolated, free speech pens during Democrat/Republican conventions, anti-war demonstrations, etc.

    • Don_B1

      Not to mention the huge, plaza size restricted area for the Supreme Court plus along it’s commutes, etc. and at every voting area. Even the heinous Church protesting funerals got restricted.

      One rule for Freedom of Speech restrictions except a different one when the subject is abortion. Hypocrisy reigns at the Supreme.

    • N G

      indeed. only been listening for 20 minutes but haven’t heard one mention of so-called free speech zones at WTO G7 and conventions or Nyc bank pickets during occupy

  • SteveTheTeacher

    “. . . the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to U.S. persons or interests, the use of lethal force would not violate the Fourth Amendment.” – David Barron, Memo Articulating Legal Justification for Targeted Killing

    Warning to those citizens who speak out or organize opposition to US military or economic policy/practices: Beware travel abroad.

  • SteveTheTeacher

    “From the perspective of many around the world, the United States currently appears to claim, in effect, the legal right to kill any person it determines is a member of al-Qaida or its associated forces, in any state on Earth, at any time, based on secret criteria and secret evidence, evaluated in a secret process by unknown and largely anonymous individuals — with no public disclosure of which organizations are considered “associated forces” (or how combatant status is determined, how the United States defines “participation in hostilities”), no means for anyone outside that secret process to raise questions about the criteria or validity of the evidence, and no means for anyone outside that process to identify or remedy mistakes or abuses. As we have noted, these rule of law concerns have led to significant international criticism of US targeted strikes. But US practices also set a dangerous precedent that may be seized upon by other states — not all of which are likely to behave as scrupulously as US officials.104 Imagine, for instance, if Russia began to use UAV strikes to kill individuals opposed to its annexation of Crimea and its growing influence in Eastern Ukraine. Even if the United States strongly believed those targeted by Russian were all nonviolent political activists lawfully expressing their opinions, Russia could easily take a page out of the United States’ book and assert that the targeted individuals were members of anti-Russian terrorist groups with which Russia is in an armed conflict. Pressed for evidence, Russia could simply repeat the words used by US officials defending US targeted killings, asserting that it could not provide any evidence without disclosing sources and methods and creating a risk that terrorists would go underground. In such circumstances, how could the United States credibly condemn Russian targeted killings?” Task Force on US Drone Policy, Stimson Center

  • SteveTheTeacher

    “Friends, family and fellow tribe members of those attacked or harmed in strikes may become hostile to the United States, and, over years, their hostility may cost the United States in terms of foreign cooperation, hostility to US travelers and foreign business and support for terrorism. UAV “hunter-killer” operations may also go against the larger counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategy of attempting to gain support of local populations to deter them from supporting al-Qaida and associated forces. Even where strikes kill only legitimate targets, the perceived insult to sovereignty — in places such as Pakistan and Yemen and among fellow tribe members of the dead — sparks bitterness, feelings of nationalism or other forms of identity politics violently hostile to US military operations or Americans.

    As retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander in Afghanistan, has noted, “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.” The unmanned strikes, McChrystal says, create a “perception of American arrogance that says, ‘Well we can fly where we want, we can shoot where we want, because we can.’ ” – Task Force on US Drone Policy, Stimson Center

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    The IRS is on NPRs side. There will be no discussion about the IRS or else you know what will happen.

    The fiction that NPR is a news organization is supported every day by the silence about the IRS.

    Jack Beatty will continue his misled support of the Obama Administration and their role at the IRS.

    • J__o__h__n

      It is mentioned second in the list of news stories from the week. Don’t let the facts interfere with your anti NPR rant.

  • NewtonWhale

    Trolls like HonestDebate1 need to stop hyperventilating about presidential lawlessness and read the Supreme Court’s opinion. They reached a different conclusion than Obama and every president including Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes did, nothing more:

    “The constitutional text is thus ambiguous. And we

    believe the Clause’s purpose demands the broader inter­

    pretation. The Clause gives the President authority to

    make appointments during “the recess of the Senate” so

    that the President can ensure the continued functioning of

    the Federal Government when the Senate is away. The

    Senate is equally away during both an inter-session and

    an intra-session recess, and its capacity to participate in

    the appointments process has nothing to do with the

    words it uses to signal its departure….rief for Petitioner 1a–11a.

    Since 1929, and particularly since the end of World War

    II, Congress has shortened its inter-session breaks as it

    has taken longer and more frequent intra-session breaks;

    Presidents have correspondingly made more intra-session

    recess appointments. Indeed, if we include military ap­

    pointments, Presidents have made thousands of intra­

    session recess appointments. Id., at 11a–64a. President

    Franklin Roosevelt, for example, commissioned Dwight

    Eisenhower as a permanent Major General during an

    intra-session recess; President Truman made Dean Ache­

    son Under Secretary of State; and President George H. W.

    Bush reappointed Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the

    Federal Reserve Board. Id., at 11a, 12a, 40a….Not surprisingly, the publicly available opinions of

    Presidential legal advisers that we have found are nearly

    unanimous in determining that the Clause authorizes

    these appointments. In 1921, for example, Attorney Gen­

    eral Daugherty advised President Harding that he could

    make intra-session recess appointments. He reasoned:

    “If the President’s power of appointment is to be de­

    feated because the Senate takes an adjournment to a

    specified date, the painful and inevitable result will be

    measurably to prevent the exercise of governmental

    functions. I can not bring myself to believe that the

    framers of the Constitution ever intended such a ca­

    tastrophe to happen.” 33 Op. Atty. Gen. 20, 23.

    We have found memoranda offering similar advice to

    President Eisenhower and to every President from Carter

    to the present.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdf

    • http://www.google.com Big Brother

      So, you are saying that the President is above the law. He used the IRSto stop his political opponents from legally organizing.

      But, you are unwilling to be critical because if you are successful, you might have a drone bomb your house or you will have to flee to Russia.

      You use the same logic to defend your unwillingness to be critical of radical Islamists. They are crazy and “they might kill me if I make myself a target by speaking out. I’ll just wait for Obama to send them a drone instead of me.”

      • Don_B1

        The granting or not granting a tax status to a political group pretending to work for the general welfare of all the citizens of the country in NO WAY prevents them from organizing and only an ideologue with blinders determined to allow big money people to contribute anonymously would think differently.

        This shows that you are not for democracy; you are for the rule by the wealthy and only the wealthy in the interests of only the wealthy.

    • HonestDebate1

      What Obama did was different. He doesn’t get to determine when Congress is in recess. The decision was unanimous and this court has some very left of center justices who would like to support his nominees. Even they can’t condone this so they slapped him down. The ol’ “everybody does it” routine is stupid.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      So you agree with President Nixon?

      http://youtu.be/ejvyDn1TPr8

  • Ed75

    The Lois Lerner plot thickens … flight 370 might have landed somewhere? … today is the Feast of the Sacred Heart, for Catholics please have a picture of the Sacred Heart in your home, especially in view of what is going on in the Middle East.

  • nj_v2

    More evidence that the climate isn’t changing:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/heat-repeat-globe-breaks-temperature-record-24262911

    Heat & Repeat: Globe Breaks May Temperature Record

    WASHINGTON — Jun 23, 2014, 11:40 AM ET

    By BY SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday said May’s average temperature on Earth of 59.93 degrees Fahrenheit (15.54 degrees Celsius) beat the old record set four years ago. In April, the globe tied the 2010 record for that month. Records go back to 1880.

    May was especially hot in parts of Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Spain, South Korea and Australia, while the United States was not close to a record, just 1 degree warmer than the 20th century average. However, California is having a record hot first five months of the year, a full 5 degrees above normal.

    Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb and other experts say there’s a good chance global heat records will keep falling, especially next year because an El Nino weather event is brewing on top of man-made global warming. An El Nino is a warming of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that alters climate worldwide and usually spikes global temperatures.

    Ocean temperatures in May also set a record for the month. But an El Nino isn’t considered in effect till the warm water changes the air and that hasn’t happened yet, NOAA said.…

    (snipped)

    • Coastghost

      Our commercial and public broadcasters can trim their 24/7/365(366) broadcast schedules by fully one-third (cutting out eight hours of production glop each day) any day they so choose, and immediately significant cuts to power consumption and power generation needed for endlessly repeating their dire warnings would ensue.
      Their example might even begin to suggest to the bleating public that Technogenic Climate Change is serious business after all.
      But until then . . . .

      • nj_v2

        Bogus argument dressed up in typically pedantic style so it looks smarter than it is.

        We can’t take climate change seriously because it’s reported by an agency that uses energy.

        Got it.

        • jefe68

          Well it is Friday, and means it’s time for Friday Morning Right Wing Coffee Kvetchers club. Complete with hats…
          Kind of like the Mickey Mouse club,
          The Kvetcherteers…

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
          • HonestDebate1

            Do you ever even attempt to refute anything?

          • jefe68

            To fools, no need as you are wont to prove over and over again.

          • HonestDebate1

            Do you realize what you just wrote? I’d recast if I were you.

        • Coastghost

          Unfortunately, your laser-like precision in “bogus argument detection” fails both to supply you with compelling counter-argument and arguably inhibits your ability to analyze a sound argument being made.
          Look again closely and you might find I’m NOT arguing “we can’t take climate change seriously . . .”: I’m arguing WE DO NOT take Technogenic Climate Change seriously, none of us, because to date, we are only being TOLD about it: NO ONE in power is SHOWING us that they take the threat seriously, so our caring and concerned broadcasters keep spewing their blather about it 24/7/365(366) and keep contributing directly and substantively to the advent of TCC right on and on and on . . . .

          • SteveTheTeacher

            “I’m arguing WE DO NOT take Technogenic Climate Change seriously. . .”

            Who are the WE?

            “We” would do much better to follow the scientific consensus rather than the spin of the mainstream media.

          • Coastghost

            “We”: the ones who are being told without being shown.

          • SteveTheTeacher

            “‘We’: the ones who are being told without being shown.”

            These ones should check out the research presented by climate scientists whose work is assembled by the IPCC at:

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

            Or, for those who suggest a political agenda on the part of the IPCC, review the body of scientific literature that can be found at Science Direct:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/

            In this research, you will find a lot of raw data as well. Those who call into question the findings of climate scientists can do the analysis on their own.

          • Coastghost

            In other words: “we” should trust implicitly the very body of scientists and technologists whose body of institutional science BOTH spawned the advent of Technogenic Climate Change AND signally failed to predict the advent of Technogenic Climate Change.

          • SteveTheTeacher

            I will ignore the great deal of misinformation and straw man argument you make and repeat:

            In this research, you will find a lot of raw data as well. Those who call into question the findings of climate scientists can do the analysis on their own.

            Check out the work of mathematicians such as Kolmogorov, Markov, Gosset, Fisher, Durrett, or more contemporary artificial intelligent algorithms (Artificial Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithms, Harmonic Algorithms, etc.) in order to perform the analysis yourself.

          • Don_B1

            “body of institutional science … spawned the advent …”

            So James Watt, the inventor of the continuous output steam engine that is considered the tipping point to the Industrial Age, did signally fail to predict the consequences to the earth’s climate.

            But Joseph Fourier worked to determine the physics of why the earth was warmer than a simple input/output model of radiant energy would account for, discovering, in 1824, the “greenhouse effect” which was then further elaborated on by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, well before 1900. See:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

            President Obama is showing what is necessary in his automotive efficiency agreement with the auto industry, his pushing the E.P.A. to regulate power plant emissions of CO2.

            But of course, he must stop using Air Force One to demonstrate the need to cut emissions no matter the cost to his ability to do his job in a timely manner, but the development of sustainable fuels for the military, notably airplanes and ships, as well as insulated tents to reduce the fuel that must be transported through enemy territory, do not seem to count.

          • Don_B1

            You are being shown if you will only look. But you will have to actually LOOK, not just retreat to some fantasy of how the “market” will solve everything.

            Try reading:

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/26/3453548/cooperating-with-future-climate-change-study/

            to see what it takes to bring people (like you?) to understand the need to prevent disasters in the (not that distant) future.

          • Coastghost

            Thanks, but I think I’m pretty clear on the threats already being posed by the advent of Technogenic Climate Change. My understanding is: the damage has already been done, and we are in no credible position of forestalling the more pernicious aspects of what we can clearly now anticipate.
            Id est: we are LONG past being able to “mitigate” Technogenic Climate Change. The ONLY issue is how much we continue to contribute to it, blithely or no. Our commercial and public broadcasters and entertainment media do blithely contribute to the growth in the intensity of TCC every day they continue to insist on their 24/7/365 (366) broadcast and transmission and production schedules.

          • Don_B1

            Yes, the earth has entered a realm where climate change is having some effects, and there are increased effects that cannot be prevented in the pipeline because the fossil fuel industry has been successful in delaying action.

            But the peak of what can happen is an order of magnitude or more beyond what is currently in effect, or in the pipeline. That pipeline is being enlarged with each delay of action.

      • Don_B1

        You could shut down your computer and TV and radio and make a proportional contribution to reducing CO2 emissions and slow the heating of the earth!

        So why don’t you?

        Note that the correct way to mitigate CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is to build sustainable energy sources and then the world will not suffer the increasing heat and the droughts and floods as are currently in the news from the Southwest and Midwest, respectively.

        • Coastghost

          I don’t watch TV, and I’m listening to NPR less and less year by year. In the past 16 months I’ve put less than 5000 miles on my car with its 4-cylinder engine. My utility bills are routinely less than $100/month.
          What are YOU doing to combat Technogenic Climate Change?

          • Don_B1

            I said it all with my point on the correct way to mitigate CO2 emissions.

            But in my lifestyle, I drive a 13-yr-old Prius, have LED lights on dimmers, have a 96+% efficient boiler for radiant hydronic heat and equivalent HVAC in the summer. The house has 39R walls and 45R ceiling.

            But just a few people doing this will not get the country to the required goal. That is why a government solution is needed.

    • Charles

      I think we all should stop ‘debating’ global warming, technogenic climate change, or what have you.

      As you pointed out, we have records since 1880.

      1880!
      That’s such a small sample! It’s a #2 pencil dot on a geologic time scale.

      Do I think that the rapid acceleration of oxide emissions is without effect? No, I do not.
      But as a man of statistical conscience, I can’t look at 120 years of data about a planet that’s 4.5 bn years old and draw conclusions.

      Both sides of this ‘debate’ present skewed numbers to bolster their opinion, and it’ just devolves into common politically-charged bickering. What we really need here is common sense and cooperation.

      • nj_v2

        You think there’s no data or evidence prior to 1880? You make yourself easy to dismiss.

        You’re right about one thing, though, there is no “debate.” There’s established consensus, and there’s untenable denial.

        • Charles

          I’m sure there’s some, but even if there is, we have perhaps another 100 years of less-reliable data?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Look up the definition of proxy. We know the climate temperature for millions of years.

      • SteveTheTeacher

        “But as a man of statistical conscience, I can’t look at 120 years of data about a planet that’s 4.5 bn years old and draw conclusions.”

        Some processes occur over a short time span, others occur over a long time span. It may be that the 120 trend is just statistical “noise” when taken in the contest of earth’s 4.5 billion year age, but that does not negate the fact that there can be quantifiable trends in this “noise” that have significant impact for humanity now.

        • Charles

          I agree. This is why I advocate common sense and cooperation.
          I was trying to demonstrate that we don’t know, absolutely and factually, anything. Statistical inference is fine, and useful, but we can’t walk around acting like we have all the answers.
          Common sense!

          • SteveTheTeacher

            “I was trying to demonstrate that we don’t know, absolutely and factually, anything. ”

            We don’t know everything, but that does not imply that we do not know some things.

            In engineering, it is a common practice to do “sampling.” We gather some data and use the tools of Kolmogorov, Gosset, et al. to predict outcomes with the caveat that of these predictions are not guaranteed, but just likely within specified confidence intervals. In the climate research that I have read, this is the manner in which results and predictions are presented.

          • nj_v2

            We don’t know “absolutely and factually” that if one blindfolds oneself and walks across a crowded highway, one would be hit and killed.

            98+% of scientists whose specialty is climate science agree on the basics of anthropogenic climate change: the mechanism, the extent, the trend, the consequences, the causes.

            Failure to recognize and act on what is nearly universally agreed upon is just stupid.

            You’re just making little squeaky noises.

          • HonestDebate1

            98+% of scientists whose specialty is climate science agree on the basics of anthropogenic climate change: the mechanism, the extent, the trend, the consequences, the causes.

            Total and utter BS on many levels.

            And BTW, that accusation in no way contradicts the notion we all agree upon: that man can have some affect on climate.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            How *honest* of you.

            You can disagree with science – and it only proves that you are wrong.

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree with the science.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Then you accept anthropogenic climate change as a fact.

          • HonestDebate1

            As I said above: My “accusation in no way contradicts the notion we all agree upon: that man can have some affect on climate.”

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We know through science that we humans *are* largely causing the climate to change. Not “can” – ARE.

          • jefe68

            He plays the fool well…

          • keltcrusader

            plays?

          • Don_B1

            What [Dis]HonestDebate1 calls science is his own perverted form, which doesn’t depend on observed measurements, at least until they become so universally observed that he would be laughed off the earth by nearly everyone to maintain his position.

            But [Dis]HonestDebate1 makes a mockery of himself on each appearance he makes here. Just look at his profile and read the sequence of his posts as he zig-zags from one side of ridiculous speculation to the other side of outright disinformation.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t think you know what the science says. And not that they’re all scientists or represent the scientific community at large, but do you believe the fourth or fifth IPCC assessment?

          • nj_v2

            As with most of your posts, nothing worth a response here.

          • HonestDebate1

            Then why did you respond?

          • jefe68

            Nope. It is to you because you want the narrative to be what you get from the right wing meme-sphere.

          • Don_B1

            Charles

            Now here is [Dis]HonestDebate1 weighing in on the side of obfuscation, distraction and BS in the extreme!

            Charles:

            Climate scientists have atmospheric CO2 levels back for millions of years through ice samples:

            http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

            A fun animation of 800,000 years of global CO2 concentration is presented here:

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

            Don’t think that just because initially it shows the CO2 density spatially distributed from pole to pole that it won’t get around to showing 800,000 years of CO2 concentration. It does.

            What makes the current change in CO2 so alarming to climate scientists is the speed at which CO2 is increasing, which means that the momentum of change in a really inertially constrained earth system is building and will be extremely hard to stop, impossible really, for thousands of years.

            Yes, the actual temperatures and other indices of the earth’s climate over its history are calculated through statistics, but the trends are visible through that fog and they are real. The atmospheric physics is known, and adding CO2 can be shown to capture more of the sun’s energy, heating the atmosphere, and the measurements fit the physical law predictions of the actions from increased CO2.

            See Skeptical Science for greater detail, by searching for the myth that you think is not a myth here:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/

            Stop trying to “hide” behind “statistical uncertainty” as it is not a valid shield. Do some real reading of the real scientists and do not fall into the denier’s trap of claiming that nothing needs to be done now. Waiting for what you will agree is “certainty” will mean that there is no longer a remedy available.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      I will take climate change seriously when those that complain about it the most start to act like it is a crisis.

      FTA:
      One of Greenpeace’s most senior executives commutes 250 miles to work by plane, despite the environmental group’s campaign to curb air travel, it has emerged.

      Pascal Husting, Greenpeace International’s international programme director, said he began “commuting between Luxembourg and Amsterdam” when he took the job in 2012 and currently made the round trip about twice a month.

      The flights, at 250 euros for a round trip, are funded by Greenpeace, despite its campaign to curb “the growth in aviation”, which it says “is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change”.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10920198/Greenpeace-executive-flies-250-miles-to-work.html

      • Don_B1

        I am sure that an equally “hypocritical” action on your part could be found in your life. But Greenpeace has been satisfactorily humbled and the executive is now traveling by train as he admits should have been the case from the start of his employment:

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/greenpeace-executive-to-commute-by-train-instead-of-plane

        I would like to think you would reverse your direction when the error of your ways was pointed out, but I haven’t seen much in that type of action from your posts here.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          First, let me thank you for your ad hominem attack. It affords me the opportunity to admit that I am not perfect and that I struggle everyday to be the kind of man that my children can respect.

          Second, I must point out that your post proves my point. This person was content to fly until it became noticed by others and he and his group were shamed into promising to change their actions. If there was no story in the Telegraph there would be no story in the Guardian. In this case and in many others those that are leaders of the climate change panic do not behave as if they believe it is a crisis.

          • Don_B1

            Let me be clear, there is no justification for the use of air travel in this case, but, for whatever reason, the initial agreement was apparently for a short period of time and maybe the air schedules were more timely or otherwise convenient that it was chosen.

            In Europe generally the train travel is much more available than in the U.S., where just about all travel between, say Boston and NYC, or even Washington, D.C., should be by train, but the condition and layout of the tracks does not allow the high speeds that would make trains competitive, and there is no political will to change that.

            I do not consider saying that you could be found guilty of hypocrisy to be an ad hominem attack as all of us, including me, are guilty; it is a fact of the human condition.

            But it was your actions that I criticized, not your person. I have not seen you change your opinion on anything in your posting here. I’m sorry if I missed it, but I cannot read every post on every day; there just is not time.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I do not see any reason to change my opinion one the issues here. That I have not changed is not evidence that I seen here. I see that as a feature not a bug.

            I would hope that you are secure in your beliefs and skilled in your defense and advocacy of them here. Here I seek to better understand why people that believe as you do advocate the polices that you do. That is the second reason why I post here. The first is that I believe that few people here ever speak with anyone in the Tea Party Movement and that our movement benefits from being represented here. Even if I am the one to do it.

          • Don_B1

            I am secure in some foundational beliefs that are derived from the belief that government should protect and benefit everyone, which basically comes from the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

            Currently, children growing up in poor areas do not get anywhere near equal opportunity to succeed in life, and unfortunately they recognize that fact, which contributes to at least a few of them acting in self-destructive ways. They are properly not excused from such actions, but neither should those in the society be excused who condone such conditions that induce that behavior. But the solution to that problem is not simple, which is what solutions that I have seen you advocate are. And I see no recognition from you that that might be the case.

            Most of your posts indicate shallow positions that are not solutions but are extensions or amplifications of the policies that put the country in its current predicament.

            Take the current slow economic recovery, which with the horribly imperfect understanding of macroeconomics that you and others (I do not keep a running list of the particulars of each of the Tea Party or other radical right groups advocate) push here, but they are, while not totally responsible, major causes of the current growth in inequality.

            Perfect equality is not even desirable, but at a point, increasing inequality actually slows economic growth particularly in an economy driven by consumer spending.

            If you can take more than a few seconds to just dismiss this argument, please respond to this:

            The biggest falacy that conservatives push is that the country’s fiscal budget should be run like a household’s budget. This this is a terribly FALSE analogy/metaphor!

            The reason is that a household is not a closed system, like a country with trade to the world less than 10% of its GDP and thus the difference in imports over exports is less than 5% of GDP and can be ignored as a significant source of income for this discussion.

            A household’s GDP does not come from financial interactions between its members, but from interactions (trade) with outside (foreign) parties.

            In the economy of a country, my spending is your income and your spending is my income. In a household, one member’s spending is not another’s income.

            Thus in a country, when both you and I represent a significant part of the population that sees a strong imperative to cut our individual spending, without a government to make up the lost spending, both of our incomes will decrease.

            And the failure of the government to increase spending enough (the stimulus — ARRA — was just under $800 billion spread over two years when the economy had lost some $2 trillion in one year and continues to lose almost $1 trillion compared to potential GDP which could be achieved with full employment) and for a long enough period.

            Every time the economy showed indications of recovery, the Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, managed to insert some cut in government spending that took the wind out of the economy’s sails.

            If you can bring yourself to answer each sentence separately, thinking out why it might be true or false and actually write down reasons for each possibility, not just the reasons your ideology says it must be one or the other, whether it is or not, you might just come to at least meet your stated second objective, learn something, and learn why liberals believe as they do.

            When I receive new information in my reading, and occasionally even here, I try to go to the source, or at least test it against fixed laws of physics (in the case of climate change) or against my knowledge of how the policy could help or hinder people to live better lives.

            Just providing “freedom” to someone who has no money or prospects of earning much does not really improve their lives. But it does give someone with a lot of money the ability to get a lot more at the expense of those without money.

  • Coastghost

    Exactly how prone to capture (OR: how adept at escape) will converging forces find the ISIS/ISIL insurgents, whose numbers seem to remain in the thousands? If the Turks maintain border security along their Syria/Iraq border, if Assad’s Syria remains no more hospitable than recent airstrikes into Iraq suggest, if the Jordanians and Saudis are keen to maintain border security to the south, and as long as the Kurds and Shi’s Iraq are not welcoming, what chances exist for sweeping up the ISIS/ISIL remnants more or less in their entirety, thereby forestalling Iraq’s serving as a launching pad for terror exports into Western Europe, the US, et cetera? (Even the Russians might be keen to keep numerous Chechen fighters from returning to the Caucasus.)

  • nj_v2

    Selected, right-wing/Rethuglicon/regressive jacka**sery of the week: (Been a busy week for the whack nuts)

    Georgia seems to be a hotbed:

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_06/a_low_sanity_threshold050912.php#comments

    A Low Sanity Threshold
    By Ed Kilgore

    Being back in Georgia always reminds me of the very different norms governing politics in Deep Red country. Yesterday I mentioned that in Georgia’s 11th district GOP runoff, Barry Loudermilk and Bob Barr were in disagreement about what, if anything, the U.S. should be doing in Iraq. I didn’t mention they both favored the impeachment of the president (Bob Barr touts his experience as a Clinton impeachment manager as a plus), though Loudermilk thinks maybe it’s a waste of time to pursue it so long as Senate action to finish it is unlikely.

    In another GOP runoff in north Georgia, in the 10th congressional district, the Rev. Jody Hice, who finished first on May 20, is an aggressive supporter of the point of view that only Christians should benefit from First Amendment protection of religious liberties,…

    (snipped)

    http://splcenter.org/blog/2014/06/24/birther-leader-joseph-farah-caught-with-loaded-gun-at-dulles-tsa-checkpoint-faces-weapon-charge/

    Birther Leader Joseph Farah Caught with Loaded Gun at Dulles TSA Checkpoint, Faces Weapon Charge

    By Josh Glasstetter on June 24, 2014

    http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2014/06/25/why-u.s.-is-not-embracing-inherently-safer-chemical-plants/

    WHY U.S. IS NOT EMBRACING INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PLANTS
    Chevron Richmond Refinery Explosion Ignored in GOP Red Herring Oversight

    Washington, DC — Republican lawmakers are using phony whistleblower claims to serve a corporate agenda of blocking critical steps to prevent future chemical plant explosions, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Nearly two years after a massive oil refinery fire sickened 15,000 California residents, the official federal safety report urging adoption of inherently safer technologies still languishes due to both internal and external opposition.

    The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents in fixed facilities. It does not issue fines or citations, but makes recommendations to plants, regulatory agencies, industry organizations and labor. In a House hearing last week, Government Reform & Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa released an 84-page staff report making no mention of a critical February 10, 2014 memo from CSB investigative staff defending their Chair Rafael Moure-Eraso and decrying delay of their report on the Chevron refinery.…

    (snipped)

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/tea-party-chris-mcdaniel-voter-fraud-democrats-black-voters-thad-cochran

    Conservative Freakout Blames ‘Uncle Tom’ And Voter Fraud For McDaniel Loss

    Some conservatives aren’t happy that their preferred candidate, state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R) lost to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff of the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Mississippi. Many tea party types are openly speculating foul play and that Democrats and black voters were involved. Take Rush Limbaugh who wondered if Cochran’s campaign slogan in Mississippi over the last few days was “Uncle Toms for Thad.”

    “I wonder what the campaign slogan was in Mississippi the past few days, ‘Uncle Toms for Thad’? Because I thought it was the worst thing you could do as an African American, vote for a Republican. The worst thing you could do,” Limbaugh said on Wednesday. “But somehow they were made to believe that voting for old Thad would be fine and dandy. And why? Because they were told Thad’s done a lot for black people in Mississippi. Must be the first time they were told that.”…

    (snipped)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/25/1309370/-Another-Texas-WTF-Open-Carry-Gun-Extremists-To-Prance-Through-Black-Neighborhood?detail=facebook

    Another Texas WTF – Open Carry Gun Extremists Plan March Through ‘Black Neighborhood’

    by Leslie Salzillo

    This one’s a doozy. Even some of my friends and family in Texas are squinting their eyes, twisting their arms and saying, “WTF?”

    The ‘Open Carry Texas’ group out of Houston has decided to march through a predominantly black neighborhood to ‘educate’ people of their rights. The first thing that comes to most of our minds? What if armed black men decided to march through a predominantly white neighborhood to educate… Wait, let’s go one deeper. What if armed black men decided to march through a white ‘Stand Your Ground’ neighborhood to educate them… Let that one roll around in the brain for a minute.…

    (snipped)

    http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/karl-rove-pointing-out-bush-administration

    Karl Rove: Pointing Out Bush Administration WMD Lies Is An ‘Old Argument’ We Waste Time On
    Bill-O and Bush’s brain do their best to dismiss the fact that they lied about WMD’s in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

    You can add chickenhawk Karl Rove’s name to the list of Bush neocon cronies who are out there giving advice on how to clean up the mess they made in Iraq and trying to blame the problems with the violence there now squarely on the Obama administration.

    Rove decided to throw in a new twist on Bill O’Reilly’s show this Monday and be completely dismissive of the fact that they lied to us about whether Saddam had WMD’s. Here he is arguing against a giant straw man on the left that only exists in Turdblossom’s mind.…

    (snsipped)

    • HonestDebate1

      I think it’s hilarious that people dance on Rush’s cue so predictably. “Uncle Tom” is what blacks who vote for Republicans are called by the left…. over and over and over again. And Donna Brazile touting Thad as the savior during Katrina is bizarre. At the time she was saying Bush was the one who came through. She will not vote for Cochran.

  • X Y & Z

    1 in 5 Children Live in Poverty in U.S.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/1-5-children-live-poverty-us

    Obamanomics at work

    • hennorama

      1 in 1 [X Y & Z]s live in robodronery.

      • X Y & Z

        Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “feeding the trolls”, I precluded from responding to you.

        Adios troll.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Please define “blogger”.

        • hennorama

          X Y & Z — and yet you feel the need to respond, and to once again prove your complete lack of reasoning ability.

          Well done.

          • X Y & Z

            Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “feeding the trolls”, I precluded from responding to you.

            Hasta la vista troll.

          • nj_v2

            And yet you responded. At least we now know you don’t know what a blog is.

          • X Y & Z

            Obamacare ‘Bailout’ For One Insurer Will Cost Up To $450 Million In 2014

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/02/06/obamacare-bailout-for-one-insurer-450-million-in-2014/

            Since you had blogged the other day that Obamacare would pay for itself, I thought I’d give you the facts.

          • nj_v2

            I “blogged” no such thing. Your trolling is tiresome.

          • X Y & Z

            I remember, but it’s so much easier for you to deny.

            Adios troll.

      • HonestDebate1

        Please explain how your comment is not an attempt to sow discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotionalresponse[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

        • jefe68

          Funny you should bring that up…
          Not so funny is the self righteous tone.

          • HonestDebate1

            Can you answer the question? Is the comment by XYZ incorrect of irrelevant?

          • jefe68

            Quite irrelevant, and there it ends.

          • HonestDebate1

            When have I ever said I’m against the SNAP program? Never, that’s when.

            And what difference does it make what XYZ’s intentions were? How would you know either way? What is the proper way to react to a President who is over-reaching, obfuscating, killing the economy, lowering America’s regard around the globe and making the world more dangerous by refusing o acknowledge America’s exceptionalism?

            But that’s all beside my point. The schoolmarm’s reply is the definition of trolling.

          • jefe68

            Are you for or against government programs that help the poor.
            Yes or no, to use one of your tactics.
            I also seem to remember that you have supported Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
            Hmmm…. a little problem there for yah.

            Ryan Budget Would Slash SNAP by $137 Billion Over Ten Years
            Low-Income Households in All States Would Feel Sharp Effects

            http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4118

          • keltcrusader

            He is only for the one he benefits from, like the horse riding clinic for children with disabilities he is so proud of, getting paid for that one is a-ok in his book. How else could he spend every single day posting his tripe without a paying job. Oh yeah, almost forgot, his hard working wife supports his lazy azz too. Does she know what you do all day?

          • HonestDebate1

            Where do you get this stuff?

          • HonestDebate1

            I am all for helping the poor with government programs. How does supporting cutting the budget equate to being against it? That’s nuts.

            I want smaller government but that doesn’t mean I want to fill my own potholes. I want to transform the Middle East but that doesn’t mean I want war. I oppose gay marriage but that doesn’t mean I am anti-gay. I don’t judge people by the color of their skin but that doesn’t make me a racist. You are nuance impaired.

          • jefe68

            “How does supporting cutting the budget equate to being against it?” quote HD…

            Really? You can’t see that cutting budgets of social programs such as SNAP can hurt the people who need it?

            Ryan’s budget was an abomination, period.

          • HonestDebate1

            You are nuance impaired.

            Between the House and the Senate, Ryan’s budget got 292 affirmative votes. Obama’s budget got zero. Would you call Obama’s budget a joke?

          • J__o__h__n

            Opposing gay marriage makes you anti-gay.

          • HonestDebate1

            Tell that to my gay friends who oppose it.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            That is like saying you oppose interracial marriage – but you really do like black people.

          • HonestDebate1

            No it’s not, only racists oppose interracial marriage. I do oppose a black man marrying a white man though but it’s not a major concern of mine.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Racism is bigotry, as is denying equal right to gays – which is also bigotry.

          • John Cedar

            My girlfriend, who is fairly liberal, complained to me last week, after witnessing the chubby women in front of her, buy 8 cases of Coke with her SNAP card. I just laughed at her and told her she was the one who wouldn’t vote for McCain because his head was weird or Romney because he moved like a cyborg…so that is the way it is nowadays, thanks to voters like you.

            Anywayzzzzz…you SHOULD be against the SNAP program.

          • HonestDebate1

            Nah, some people really need it and I think a bit of limited relief is alright. I’m for drug testing them though. And fat people don’t need them. I hate the cards and think there should be actually monopoly money like there used to be. There is way too much abuse, I agree but I wouldn’t do away with the program altogether.

          • John Cedar

            You’re sounding like an Obamacare supporter with your logic. If you “mend it don’t end it” but the mending gets rid of 99% of the original….then you essentially ended it.

            You are correct that there is way too much abuse. With our state run media telling us the sky is green, and abuse is rare, the only way to know the abuse is rule not the exception, is to go to the checkout counters and watch.

          • HonestDebate1

            I deny the charge.

          • jefe68

            Wow, one person with a weight problem buying 8 cases of coke… the system is truly broken and your girlfriend’s antidote is proof. I guess the 45 million other people who depend on SNAP should just find another way to feed their families.

            By the way, the majority of people benefiting from SNAP are children and the elderly.

          • Don_B1

            President Obama has acknowledged America’s “exceptionalism” many times, but it doesn’t suit your “tear any and all Democratic Party Presidents down” agenda.

            The slow recovery of the economy is totally due to the obstruction of Republicans (mostly driven by Tea Party ignorance) and a few Democrats who unfortunately bought into “the government should act like a household in a recession,” acting contrarily to what had been accepted policy since the Great Depression, when the government was acknowledged to be the stimulus of last resort in a depressed economy.

            As I have explained before:

            This this is a terribly FALSE analogy/metaphor! The reason is that a household is not a closed system, like a country with trade to the world less than 10% of its GDP and thus the difference in imports over exports is less than 5% of GDP and can be ignored as a significant source of income for this discussion.

            A household’s GDP does not come from financial interactions between its members, but from interactions (trade) with outside (foreign) parties.

            In the economy of a country, my spending is your income and your spending is my income. In a household, one member’s spending is not another’s income.

            Thus in a country, when both you and I represent a significant part of the population that sees a strong imperative to cut our individual spending, without a government to make up the lost spending, both of our incomes will decrease.

            And the failure of the government to increase spending enough (the stimulus — ARRA — was just under $800 billion spread over two years when the economy had lost some $2 trillion in one year and continues to lose almost $1 trillion compared to potential GDP which could be achieved with full employment) and for a long enough period.

            Every time the economy showed indications of recovery, the Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, managed to insert some cut in government spending that took the wind out of the economy’s sails.

            But you persist with your dishonest debate and never actually show this analysis wrong, because you cannot in any way do that, but you just repeat your false statements in the hope that repetition will convince some of those who don’t stop to think about it.

            But I don’t expect much of an old reprobate like you seem to want to portray yourself as.

          • HonestDebate1

            Every President has to cut a deal. Bill Clinton got the principals in a room and hashed it out and Boehner is a pussycat compared to Newt. Obama just whines, threatens, throws tantrums and says he has a phone and a pen. Every President has opposition. The Republicans are feckless and should be no match. Obama can’t even get a vote for his budgets from democrats. This is on him, quit making silly excuses.

          • Don_B1

            It is the Republicans that have not been willing to cut any deal. Beginning in 2011, Speaker John Boehner conducted several rounds of talks with President Obama and every time they thought they had an agreement, when the Speaker went back to his members, they refused to agree and killed the “deal.”

            President Obama has indicated a willingness to go well beyond what Democrats in Congress would support, from changing the basis of cost of living adjustments in Social Security to various tax measures. No deal with the “Left” has been found acceptable, short of abject surrender, by the radical Republicans in the House.

          • HonestDebate1

            Alrighty then.

          • hennorama

            jefe68 — also not so funny: an entity such as [DebateSnotHe] complaining about its perceived lack of coverage of certain issues, who doesn’t also complain about the repetitive robodronery of the entity [X Y & Z].

            The repetitive robodrone crowds out attention and coverage of other topics, but must be ignored, as the robodrone is on an anti-administration tear.

          • HonestDebate1

            Sorry, i’m not the commenter’s schoolmarm.

            I find it odd that you would say the lack of coverage is perceived when there has been none until after my complaint (not that i had anything to do with it). I also find it amazing you weren’t astonished at the blackout as well. We all should be.

    • jimino

      Based on what I constantly read from H Debate, J Cedar and many others, it’s their own damn fault or the fault of their parents. They just need to get off their butts and try harder.

    • StilllHere

      Obama’s economy is not good for anyone.

      • Don_B1

        The current economy is driven by the failure of the government to spend a little money to repair failing infrastructure, hire back some teachers and first responders.

        The evidence is there for all who will look: every time the economy started an uptick, some austerity feature forced into law by Republicans to “cut the deficit” killed the uptick and increased the deficit further.

        Bottom Line: This is a Republican Austerity-driven economy.

  • NewtonWhale

    The IRS story is a red herring. Both liberal and conservative groups were selected for scrutiny. However, the only 3 that were actually denied tax exemptions as a result were liberal:

    “Three nonprofit advocacy groups that were denied tax exemption by the Internal Revenue Service were all units of Emerge America, an organization devoted to cultivating female political leaders for local, state and federal government.

    The I.R.S. denied tax exemption to the groups — Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts — because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates. Their Web sites ask for evidence that participants in their training programs are Democrats.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/business/advocacy-groups-denied-tax-exempt-status-are-named.html?_r=0

    Moreover, there was absolutely no White House involvement:

    IRS targeting linked to Republican staffer

    WASHINGTON — A self-described conservative Republican who is a manager in the Internal Revenue Service office that targeted Tea Party groups, told investigators that he, not the White House, set the review in motion, the top Democrat on the House watchdog committee said Sunday.

    Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) released a partial transcript of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform interview with the unnamed manager in the IRS’ Cincinnati office.

    In the transcript, the manager said he and an underling set aside “Tea Party” and “patriot” groups that had applied for tax-exempt status because the organizations appeared to pose a new precedent that could affect future IRS filings.

    The employee said the extra scrutiny for Tea Party groups’ tax-exempt status was an effort to be consistent in reviewing applications and not driven by politics.

    http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2013/06/10/IRS-targeting-linked-to-Republican-staffer.html#W3MxpxfDhOUqmSz4.99

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    The VA scandal gives us a good look at the future of Government Healthcare in America.

    Obamacare can’t be fixed it must be repealed.

    FTA:
    One of the neglected patients at the Brockton Community Living Center who had been admitted for “significant and chronic mental health issues” was living in the 106-bed facility for eight years before he received his first psychiatric evaluation, investigators reported.
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/06/23/veterans-affairs-facility-brockton-neglected-psychiatric-patients-federal-investigators-say/5RdEC3kXfEBmTpwV9kKSBN/story.html

    • Don_B1

      Here you are trading on the underlying false meme that the PPACA (“Obamacare”) is a “takeover of the healthcare system,” removing it from the vaunted private sector.

      But the failing here is not so much the VA, which is a government-run health system, but with the oversight, or regulation, of that system. Do you think that there are no mental-care facilities in the private healthcare system that has existed for decades and continues today, that have not been inspected for long periods?

      When I see you call for better regulations and enforcement I will be pleased, but here you are mixing oranges and apples in your attempt to say one thing cannot work because it might be subject to some failing that comes from a completely different source.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB
  • Coastghost

    Certainly and without doubt, it is distinctly odd that former Constitutional Law lecturer and former US Senator Barack Obama received his rebuke from SCOTUS on Presidential overreach.
    Did Obama’s professors at Harvard Law School fail him so miserably?

    • J__o__h__n

      Congress was blocking his appointments through procedural games that technically kept them from being in recess. It was politics not overreach.

      • Coastghost

        OR, it suggests Obama’s galling failure to appreciate or understand “separation of powers”.

        • John_in_Amherst

          or not.

          • Coastghost

            I do not share your confidence in Obama’s unilateral ability, that is.

        • John Cedar

          Exactly.
          He reads that advice and consent means rubber stamp.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Every president since George Washington has used these recess appointments.

      • Coastghost

        Yet Obama remains our only President to have HIS “recess appointments” deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Hmmm … I wonder why that is?

          • Coastghost

            I am willing to let Harvard share credit for Obama’s administrative failures: as a matter of fact, I’m even willing to insist upon it.

          • J__o__h__n

            Most of the Court is Harvard educated.

          • Coastghost

            –which is its own entire revelation.

          • John Cedar

            Indoctrinated and/or recruited.

          • Don_B1

            After all, Harvard granted George W. Bush an MBA and even Tea Party Republicans are disgusted by his lack of administration capability.

        • John_in_Amherst

          not all, just the ones made while the Grand Opposition Party was perpetrating a partisan stunt which they passed off as “keeping the congress in session”.

    • John_in_Amherst

      Obama has made fewer recess appointments than most presidents

      • Coastghost

        I wonder just what Spurious Partisan Maneuvering Quotient score Obama himself may’ve earned over his time in office.

      • John Cedar

        Because Obama has tried more than any previous president, to appoint the highest number of left wing hyper partisans jesters. All of Obama’s predecessors sent moderates and slight left judges to the house for their advice and consent.

        • John_in_Amherst

          “left wing hyperpartisan jesters”? Maybe from the perspective of right wing hyperpartisan trolls… Of course I am sure you find Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts “centrists”, correct?

          • John Cedar

            Incorrect… they are left of center.

          • John_in_Amherst

            oh, that’s enlightening.
            The wonder of the web: it brings the libraries of the world into our homes, connects us to the globe, and we end up using it to have arguments with insane strangers and watching cat videos.

    • jimino

      Your ignorance of constitutional law and how it is determined is showing. While it’s true that Obama pushed the envelope, with the clear intent to get a ruling from the high court on the matter, all of his predecessors were similarly legally advised, but never had to act on it since they did not face the seamless opposition and bald-faced hyper-technical legal maneuvering he has.

      And when faced with deciding the issue, the Court said form trumps substance, which is often the case in legal maneuvering.

  • John_in_Amherst

    Quick: How old are you?
    Even if you are the Pope, you probably answered based on the date of your birth, not on the date of your conception.
    With the abolition of exclusion zones outside reproductive clinics, it is time for those of us who believe human life begins with the first breath (as opposed to conception) to act. Counter-demonstrations, perhaps guiding patients past gauntlets of screaming anti-choice advocates should become commonplace.

    • nj_v2

      http://www.rawstory.com/

      /2010/09/26/fertilized-egg-like-using-nword/

      Pro-life campaigner: Term ‘fertilized egg’ is like using ‘N-word’
      By Daniel Tencer

      ‘Personhood amendment’ campaigners had previously compared embryos to slaves

      Using the term “fertilized egg” is “the same thing as using the N-word,” says the pro-life minister behind a Colorado campaign to have fertilized eggs declared legal persons.

      Colorado’s Amendment 62, which will appear on the ballot this November, is the second attempt by pro-life groups in the state to have fertilized eggs declared legal persons. The campaign is seen as a direct challenge to pro-choice rights, as a declaration that fertilized eggs are persons would potentially make any case of abortion a homicide.…

      (snipped)

  • JGC

    Here is my take on (one of ?) the original motivation(s) behind the IRS scandal, as a dual citizen ex-pat:

    When the financial/housing system imploded in 2007/2008 and the economy tanked, the US started to more strictly enforce existing laws on the books for tax recovery, and began to write some new ones as well. My first introduction to this was a five or so years ago with the FBAR for reporting on foreign accounts. FBAR holds a double whammy: 1.) an extremely low threshold for reporting, just $10,000 aggregate in all accounts (this amount has not been raised to take account of inflation since the 1970s when it was first enacted) and 2.) extremely high criminal fines. I think the original intent of the law was to be able to recover taxes from investments held in secret overseas, but in reality, it has swept up many “US persons” abroad, some of whom did not even realize they were beholden to the US and the IRS.

    Congress also authored a new law during the Great Recession, tucked within the HIRE act, for FATCA (sounds a bit like Fatcat, doesn’t it?) – which also greatly expanded the collection and confiscation powers of the IRS outside the US border, but with many unintended consequences to “US persons” living abroad. It is only going into effect now. (I’ll add some links here later to show how FATCA is being viewed outside the US.)

    In this atmosphere of trying to hunt down and squeeze every dollar they could to add to US coffers, the IRS also had to deal with a sudden explosion of various 501 (c) applications, following the 2010 Supreme Court ruling expanding the definition of social welfare organizations. The fuzzy language for the cutoff in the percentage of funds that could go to social versus political works to maintain status, along with numerous budget cuts to the IRS itself by Congress restricting hiring and resources, and on top of this the IRS scramble to rake in as many dollars as possible from all sources to shore up the US budget deficit: all combined to force errors within the IRS. The Exempt department of the IRS was under some pressure to scrutinize new applicants for tax-favored status, because every new 501 (c) group meant less money in the government bank.

    • hennorama

      JGC — that’s a rather broad connection you’ve made there.

      The increased FBAR requirements came in the aftermath of the Swiss bank UBS investigation, which showed significant amounts of rather blatant attempts at tax evasion on the part of some US taxpayers, many of whom were recruited by UBS.

      Subsequently, the IRS initiated an amnesty program allowing those who have not reported their foreign accounts to fess up. To date, more than 40,000 taxpayers have done so, netting something in excess of $5 or 6 Billion for the US Treasury.

      While it is nearly always true that the IRS is, as you wrote, “trying to hunt down and squeeze every dollar they could to add to US coffers,” any connection between the FBAR and the Exempt Organizations issues is rather a tenuous one at best.

      Nevertheless, thank you for bringing up the FBAR and FATCA issues, as well as adding some international perspective to the forum.

      • JGC

        It’s all within the long, long arm of the IRS, henna! Actually, FBAR started to get ratchited up in the Bush admin, as they were trying to track down terrorist organization funding.

        • hennorama

          JGC — TYFYR.

          If “It’s all within the long, long arm of the IRS,” then we should also connect the Exempt Organizations issues with changes to how the IRS is dealing with employee tax withholding compliance, for example.

          Regardless, the FBAR and FATCA issues are interesting, and are an addition to the knowledge base of the forum. Well done.

    • pete18

      Doesn’t make it any less illegal, nor should it be excused or tolerated by people in either party.

      • JGC

        It is not illegal to scrutinize the applications of organizations wanting to claim tax-exempt status, and ask for proof of their plans. There has to be a mechanism to sort out the claims for applicants, including to monitor them later to see if they continue to justify their non-profit status.

        • pete18

          But it is illegal to target them based on their politics, which is what the accusation is, for which their seems to be a fair amount of evidence. Maybe if Louis Learner stopped evoking the 5th we could conclusively get to the bottom of things.

          Aren’t you even a little suspicious of subpoenaed evidence disappearing
          in a way that stretches credulity, 10 days after it was requested? Or it’s author evoking the 5th?

          • JGC

            Invoking the 5th is her right, of course. They will need to offer her immunity or limited immunity, the way they eventually did for Oliver North, if they want her to testify. And there are plenty of people who took their Fifth Amendment rights, but were still found guilty due to other evidence streams. (i.e. Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff). If there is strong evidence beyond a doubt of illegal political targeting, it will be found.

            The missing e-mails, I went into that a couple of weeks ago. It has not been shown yet to be illegal, mainly short-sited and again because of budgeting concerns. Bush’s folks also wrote over their e-mail tapes as people were beginning to question the origins of the Iraq war, the outing of Valerie Plame and the waterboarding/torture of detainees.

            The IRS needs to strike a deal with Amazon to store their information in the cloud, the way the CIA just did, and forget this hapless taping business which is just soooooo Watergate-era. Time for the government to enter the 21st century, IT-wise.

          • pete18

            I didn’t say that the missing e-mails were illegal, although they would be if
            they were destroyed because destruction of evidence IS illegal. Nor did I say Lerner doesn’t have the right to evoke the fifth, BUT don’t all these things taken together look more like people trying to cover up wrong doing rather than a transparent agency not guilty of anything illegal?

          • JGC

            Yes, in a word. Not so much the cycle of taping over the e-mails after 6 months, which seems to have been a well-known agency- wide policy through various administrations (in fact, I would be interested to find out how often other federal agencies downloaded excess e-mails and then erased those tapes X-months later to make room for the next batch. It is documentation on the cheap, and we can do better than that.)

            But the loss of the Lerner hard-drive is a bit more problematic. However, it is also documented that Lerner had recovery problems before the formal request for her e-mails, and she tried to get help from the tech department to recover her losses. There are also at least 24,000+ linked e-mails that were traced from other parties. It would be a huge swing for the fences for Lerner to think she could destroy her entire e-mail trail and not leave one single trace behind to reveal that she had possibly operated illegally within the Exempt branch of the IRS.

          • John Cedar

            What Obama and Lerner are personally guilty of, is much worse than simply scrutinizing the applicants.They asked the applicants to supply much more information than they should have and then asked for more information each time their request was met. These stone walling stalling harassment techniques were only used on conservative applicants.

            In addition, they supplied the confidential names of donors to political adversaries of those donors.

      • StilllHere

        Just wait for Democrat excuse-making.

    • jimino

      The right’s complaints about the IRS are analogous law enforcement knowing that a crime was being committed by people named Johnson, but not knowing exactly which ones, and people complaining about them using the word “Johnson” to investigate who is violating the law. To the contrary, it’s investigating 101.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      It is also illegal to use money for political purposes under the guise of “education”.

    • JGC

      Here are some of the sites that show how FATCA is affecting US persons:

      http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/17986-the-dark-road-the-worst-tax-law-you-ve-never-heard-about

      http://we-are-not-a-myth.tumblr.com/page/2

      http://maplesandbox.ca

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/uncle-sam-is-shaking-me-down/article19301124

      The way FATCA has affected me (a US/Canadian dual citizen with a Canadian spouse) is we have a Canadian registered education fund for our kids, similar to the US 529. But the IRS does not recognize it as an education fund; they see it as a trust and subject it to US tax. Another way it affected me was with my IRA, back from when I was still a US resident employed there – Vanguard will not let me make any changes to my account since I am not a US resident. I can only keep it in the holdings I have pre-FATCA, or close it and take the early withdrawal penalty.

      • hennorama

        JGC — that’s quite a pickle.

        I assume you’ve investigated other U.S. IRA custodians, with the idea of transferring your IRA to one that doesn’t read the SEC regs quite so literally as Vanguard.

        One other possible alternative, which avoids the 10% EWP but not normal Federal IRA taxation, and assuming Vanguard would allow periodic distributions, is to begin taking “Substantially Equal Periodic Payments.”

        See:
        http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-Substantially-Equal-Periodic-Payments

        And of course, “Consult your tax advisor.”

    • Don_B1

      I sympathize with your grievance, and I can see that adding requirements such as this adds to the overall I.R.S. workload, but the more immediate reason is the huge increase in the workload of the groups tasked with awarding tax-exempt status to the big jump in the number of political groups setting up “puppet” subsidiaries and applying for that status so as to be able to provide donor anonymity as well as tax-free status. See:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_controversy

      for that side of the issue.

      • JGC

        I have to agree with the assessment near the end “The FBI found no evidence of ‘enemy hunting’ of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand.” I will add to that, that the rules were written by a Congress that does not fully understand the scope of the rules they are writing.

        • Don_B1

          Thank you for posting that part of the Wikipedia article. Hopefully some will read the whole article, which is much too big to post here.

          Another report, this time from the Taxpayer Advocate documents how Congressional budget cutting is reducing services to taxpayers:

          http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/2013-Annual-Report/budget-cuts/

          One such service is providing tax treatment advice to taxpayers who run into a special problem, such as handling the estate of a relative, something that is outside many people’s normal experience. And clearly it has reduced the help that in the past the I.R.S. would have provided to you in your difficulty.

          What is really disturbing is that these budget cuts are actually reducing the amount of revenue the government collects, and it is mostly from the wealthy, not the little guy, who probably ends up paying more than he owes.

          • JGC

            Thanks for the IRS taxpayeradvocate link. It has been a couple of years since I went through their information- they do provide a truly valuable service! They really helped me parse the tax information when I was not clear on how to file as an American Abroad, especially with the loathesome OVDI/FBAR rules.

            One thing I noticed between when I looked at the IRS tax advocate site now, as compared to a couple of years ago:
            my sense was THEN that their site was essentially to forward taxpayer grievances only (meaning IRS solely as opponent/enemy). But the site today seems to highlight taxpayer grievances first, yes, but it also reminds us about the mission of the IRS and the negative impact of the budget cuts on the IRS against its collections to the Treasury. The Taxpayer Advocate has realized it has to not only advocate on behalf of the taxpayer, but also on the behalf of the IRS as well, because otherwise there is no champion for the agency that collects the funds to make our country funcion.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Here is a good recap of the Monday night IRS scandal hearings:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/three-key-moments-from-the-irs-hearing/article/2550101

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Away from the NPR echo chamber, the IRS scandal is a big issue.

    http://youtu.be/MaT84FqSasE

    • Red

      RWB: the more you troll, the less anyone pays attention to you.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Thanks for your opinion. Nice avatar.

    • jimino

      I can barely imagine the surreality of being called a liar by any Congressman, let alone bombastic blowhards like Issa and his ilk.

      • hennorama

        jimino — Rep. Issa is, paraphrasing the saying, “No hat, no cattle, all hair dye.”

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        I find it unbelievable that some on the panel actually apologized to this person. He should be sent to directly to jail he should not pass go he should not collect his pension.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      He didn’t hold up his right hand high enough?

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        And we have our first winner of the Godwin Prize.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          You didn’t watch the swearing in, apparently.

          Issa said “raise your right hand” and he did. Issa said “higher”.

          • Don_B1

            I think that correctly REVERSES the Godwin Prize.

            We will have to remind him every time he gets “frisky” in the future!

            It is what he gets for not checking out those notoriously accurate radical rightwing news sites or just making assumptions on his own.

    • HonestDebate1

      A little humility for the travesty would be appropriate but he’s a smug partisan who knows the records have been destroyed long ago.

    • StilllHere

      Government malfeasance is on display every day, and Democrat politicians and Obamapologists here ignore it and continue to believe the solution to every thing is more government funded by more tax dollars.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        The constant diet of class warfare seemingly has blinded them to the fact that they are serving the oligarchs the claim to dislike.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Thank you all for commenting.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    This week in review:
    SF Giants pitcher Lincecum NO-HITs Padres 2nd time this season.
    Hillary Clinton NO-HITs China.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/hillary-clinton-hard-choices-effective-ban-china

    Her Highness won’t be “fundraising for the foundation” in China for the foreseeable future.

    • Charles

      Lincecum was great, though.

      Every time I think he’s ready to drop off the map, he pulls out something like this, and then returns to mediocrity.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    ISIS = Islamic Slime In (the) Sand.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Why resort to name-calling?

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    Will the mayhem in Iraq drive up the cost of oil?

    Will the GOP continue to implode?

  • X Y & Z
    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Not to worry. Barack Obama is on the course. Sorry, I meant to say on the case. Hoober Doober

      • HonestDebate1

        Nice! The notion that Obama is doing all he can and that his policies have nothing to do with the terrible economy is actually believed by some. They blamed Bush for years but that is increasably laughable. At 0.1% they blamed the weather, they trained that again at -1%. Now at 2.9%. This is dramatic and there are no excuses left so they ignore it. There is no mention above.

        This is the course he has set. It’s going according to plan. I had hoped he would fail.

        • JGC

          “I had hoped he would fail.”

          That is one loaded line.

          • HonestDebate1

            Loaded with sincerity.

    • HonestDebate1

      What happens to the economy when Obamacare’s 38 decreed delays kick in?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Current: Too Little Too Late
    Former: E Pluribus Unum

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      I wish it still was E Pluribus Unum, instead of In God We Trust. Our founding fathers would agree with me, I think.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    $500M for Syrian “rebels.” Because America doesn’t have a need for that money. Maybe Obama should ask Detroit if they could use some assistance.

    • X Y & Z

      Syrian ‘rebels’ aka al-Qaeda in Syria.

  • X Y & Z

    State Dep’t Official:
    Don’t Take Kerry’s ‘Literally’ Comment on Russia/Ukraine Literally

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/state-dep-t-official-don-t-take-kerry-s-literally-comment

    That’s some good advice coming from the US State Department that John Kerry is in charge of.

  • MrNutso

    This is a political problem for all the middle east/gulf nations. We have government leaders who are only interested in their own/own group power. This has created a vacuum that has let non-state actors gain a foothold in an attempt to foster a revolution.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    How I spent my summer vacation:
    I stayed home and worked.
    My money went to the Middle East with American troops. Again.
    My president went to Wingfoot and Martha’s Vineyard.

    I hoped they all had a good time.

  • hennorama

    Iraq is like an explosive device with a super-long fuse. Over the decades, the fuse has at various times been extinguished and buried, but never detached from the explosive. The U.S. invasion and occupation during Iraq War II served only to shorten the fuse.

    Now the very short fuse is lit again.

    • MrNutso

      There used to be a game where you passed around a ball that had a random timer on it. The person holding the ball when the timer went off lost the round. This what Iraq is like.

  • HonestDebate1

    The Polish foreign minister says US relations are worthless. I feel certain the same sentiment is felt all over the globe.

    • MrNutso

      So lets stop wasting our time and money on foreign affairs.

      • J__o__h__n

        At least where it is unappreciated.

  • Eric Reagan

    It is reported by BBC that Maliki is announcing Russia is providing used fighter jets. What is the panel’s take on this?

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Panel is OK with it so long as US taxpayers foot the bill. HD

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    The delusion created by the BS: American Exceptionalism.

  • X Y & Z

    ‘There’s no amount of American fire power that’s gonna be able to hold the country together’ Obama

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665660/Kerry-confronts-threat-new-war-Iraq.html

    Obama is essentially telling al-Qaeda that they can have Iraq.

    • Coastghost

      In other words: because Obama is well aware of his own ineffectuality, he proposes to objectify his pusillanimous performance in his exercise and “oversight” of US foreign policy.

      • John_in_Amherst

        or he’s aware that the Suni-Shiite conflict dates from the first millennium, and the chances that a US president solving the dispute is nil.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Half a billion here; half a billion there. Pretty soon we’re talking about an economy in the crapper.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    ISIS, CRISIS, NEMESIS, LICEIS, BUTTKISS. Hey! We can’t fight them all.

  • Dab200

    Iraq is an artificially created country. Divide it. John Biden suggested it a long time ago and it should have been done then. Help the Kurds, protect them. Left the rest to sort it out by themselves.

    • CeCi Bar

      Yes I too wondered if this tactic would make more sense.

  • manganbr

    What explains Obama’s poll numbers on foreign policy when the majority of Americans seem to agree that we should not intervene more aggressively? As the guests have noted, Obama’s course is largely in line with the sentiment of most Americans, (since liberals and tea party Republicans agree on this one it seems–only neo-cons who are certainly less than 40 percent of the public these days advocate for getting in the middle of all this again), yet he has an unfavorable rating for taking this course. What is that about? Perhaps we need more nuanced polls that don’t just offer agree/disagree choices, but a spectrum of mostly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, etc. My sense is that while Obama’s policy is “unfavorable” most Americans “somewhat agree” with this course of action.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    The extremely wealthy and well connected can get away with murder. It’s only right and proper.
    –SCOTUS finding this week

  • MrNutso

    What are the imitations of abortion protesters on private property?

  • CeCi Bar

    Ditto last caller about how we’ve instantaneously changed power shifts in other countries where we’ve sent soldiers; and we’ve built a tenuous landscape likely to produce strife, instability, and civil war in that country. We leave weak leaders ( w ulterior motives ) and power vacuums.

    Involvement or not, war or not, I don’t know, but we can’t keep making the tactical mistakes as started by the Bush administration during Iraq war – whether or not you believed in war.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Another Bush wants to run for president. Everybody wins! HD

  • MrNutso

    Why is okay for abortion protesters to have free speech rights and those patronizing clinics to not have rights to be left alone?

    • MOFYC

      Designated “free speech zones” are okay to cocoon precious politicians but not for the rest of us.

  • MrNutso

    How does the buffer zone ruling apply to the Supreme Court’s own buffer zone?

  • CeCi Bar

    We limited what people do in a public space from day one of the making of this Constitution. It’s why we have a Constitution – to set limits on freedom so that we all have freedom – ironic in that way, but there it is.

    Harassing someone shouldn’t be a right in a public space — and getting too close to someone in the context of abortion clinics is harassment in my book.

    • Jack

      What is “too close”? Thirty-five feet? Ten Feet? Seven inches? Where do we draw the line? And how do we determine what is or is not harassment? The caller stated she felt harassed by protesters at 35 feet; should they have been 50 feet away when she arrived? What makes abortion clinics more sacrosanct than any other location? There was a pro-abortion rally at the Ohio state house in October; there may have been staffers who felt intimidated or harassed by the rally, so should the protesters be backed up 35 feet? Fifty feet? We can’t say that one type speech in one specific place is more harassing than speech in another place because if we do that, eventually we will wind up with tiny “protest zones” like they had during the Beijing Olympics.

      • CeCi Bar

        And what is too loud – heard of a sound ordinance. And why after 10pm or 9pm?

        “Reasonable” is a term defined in how many cases?

        I did not suggest abortion was sacrosanct, did I ? But I was speaking towards the specific topic of the show, in context of abortion.

        If someone followed you around every day to work and preached or protested right next to you, however reasonable their temperament (about anything — why you worked for a certain company) don’t you think you could get an ordinance against that person to leave you alone?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Videoing someone and showing their license plates is threatening, as well.

      Abortion is legal, and it is Constitutional.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    I just want to go back to my office and do some more hacking.
    –Rebekah Brooks

    Maybe that love affair with Andy Coulson will fire up again!

  • X Y & Z

    If Obama can avoid prosecution for ordering the assassinations of four American citizens, then illegally deleting two years worth of IRS emails is no sweat to these law breakers.

    Just look for the scandals and Constitutional violations coming out of this White House to increase and become more egregious.

    • MrNutso

      So you saw him fiddling with the computers?

      • X Y & Z

        Two years worth of IRS emails don’t get deleted accidentally. Not to mention the fact that it’s a federal crime.

        • StilllHere

          You’d think people would get this, but Obamapologists are generally idiots.

    • hennorama

      X Y & Z — please, tell us more about your ridiculous claim that President Obama “order[ed] the assassinations of four American citizens…”

      Please. I could use a good laugh.

      • X Y & Z

        Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “feeding the trolls”, I am precluded from responding to you.

        Sayonara troll.

        • hennorama

          X Y & Z — your inability to support your ridiculous claims is unsurprising.

          Run away, Cowardly Lyin’.

          • X Y & Z

            Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “feeding the trolls”, I am precluded from responding to you.

            Goodbye troll.

          • hennorama

            X Y & Z — drone on, dronebot.

            Your ridiculous claims stand unsupported, as usual.

          • brettearle

            Now, now Boys…

            Now, now.

            Rather than repeating the `OnPoint Rules of Engagement, over and over, why doesn’t he simply exercise a version of the 5th?

            “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might intend to incriminate my repulsive Bias.”

          • hennorama

            brettearle — TYFYR.

            What is more important is that the entity [X Y & Z] refuses to support its ridiculous claims. Its responses are distraction from that very basic point.

            In other words, it lies, then runs and hides, AKA Cowardly Lyin’.

          • brettearle

            Your use of the Pronoun, `Its’, conjuring up a certain character in a famous bit of folklore and combining it with, `Entity’–a term used by the most traditional Men of the Cloth–is enough for us to conjure your characterization.

            But your actual claim, alas–the proverbial Hit-and-Run–is, as you say, much more to the point.

            Nevertheless, I am more entertained by the Rhetorical Flourshes….being as How I am having a Bad Hair Day.

          • hennorama

            brettearle — TYFYR.

            The use of “Its” and “entity” are intended as:

            1. demonstrating no assumptions as to said entity being a living being.

            2. demonstrating no assumptions as to its sex/gender, if said entity is a living being

            Given the repetitive nature of its posts, there is a prima facie case to be made that the entity [X Y & Z] is not a living being.

          • X Y & Z

            Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “Feeding the Trolls”, I am precluded from responding to your incoherent rants.

            Heave ho Troll.

          • hennorama

            X Y & Z — your comment was directed to [hennorama], but it is inapplicable.

            Support your ridiculous claims, if you can, Cowardly Lyin’.

          • X Y & Z

            Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “Feeding the Trolls”, I am precluded from responding to your incoherent rants.

            Slither away Troll.

          • hennorama

            Automated, inapt and unreasoned replies, such as the above, indicate the post is from a robodrone.

          • JGC

            nudge nudge.

            I just realized it is again possible to give oneself an upvote, a “selfie” of a different sort. Specifically & currently a certain entity closely below this post has 3 upvotes for a comment beginning “Two years worth of IRS emails don’t get deleted accidentally…”: one of the upvotes is a selfie, one is a guest vote which I suspect is actually a hidden selfie, and the third is from a true supporter (which is honest and ok and StillHere).

            Yours for better sleuthing…

          • hennorama

            JGC — TYFYR.

            I noticed this as well, during a similarly spirited exchange with the entity I have dubbed HaterOfLargeYoungPoultry, as I was curious regarding the identity of anyone who might have clicked [Vote up] for its posts. [I actually thought "Is this cretin Voting for itself?"]

            Sure enough, virtually all of those Votes were “selfies.”

          • JGC

            Yikes! Too much… I live to fight the good fight another day…Til then…

          • 1Brett1

            A few of the more obnoxious newbies on this forum vote for their own comments; some only some of the time; some with almost all their comments.

            I noticed this because I hold several advanced degrees and my only reason for replying is to educated others. Oh, I almost forgot: Obama assassinated four Americans and has committed several hundred murders with his drone strikes! Oh, and, Hoober Doober!

          • HonestDebate1

            Who are the guest? I have posted comments and gotten up votes immediately after hitting the button. Way too quick of the comment to be read. Literally is less than a second. It;s always a guest. Maybe OP likes me so much they’ve assigned an algorithm for my comments. Ya’ think?

            I do sometimes mouse over the likes and nothing happens. If I click it (on my comment) I can see who liked the comment and then click it again to undo mu vote. Sometimes that is slow too and there have been occasions when I didn’t undo and did not know until later when I recognized the blue digit. It happens, so you never know. Disqus is temperamental.

          • JGC

            And now there is another upvote using the “Impeach Obama” avatar that was in his identity yesterday…All these selfies, shouldn’t this be the type of thing done in the bathroom behind a locked door?

          • HonestDebate1

            And what does it mean when there is a zero?

          • JGC

            Try harder to please your audience?

          • 1Brett1

            One can vote for one’s self, then sign out and vote again as a “guest.” I suppose one could even use different accounts w/ different emails, etc., and vote signed in for each account…you’d have to be pretty self-involved either way. Voting for one’s own comment openly is shameless; voting using stealthy approaches is just pathetic.

          • JGC

            And the 4th vote from “Impeach Obama” is now gone…

          • 1Brett1

            hmmm…maybe I am looking at a different comment that was “liked” by ‘Impeach Obama’ but the one by HD1 that ends “Disqus is temperamental” still attributes that person as having “liked” his comment…I did see another comment “liked” by the person with the aforementioned moniker. This person seems to drop by from time to time to “like” some conservative put down of liberals/the Obama Administration…it’s interesting the he (or she) would weigh in on this particular comment.

          • JGC

            I was referring to the one from XYZ that starts “Two years worth of emails don’t get deleted accidentally…” Yesterday, for a time, the “Impeach Obama” avatar was appearing next to XYZ’s name (instead of the gray shadow) for some of the comments, along with “Impeach Obama” in the profile line instead of the current “Refuting the lies and B.S. of Barry Soetoro” . I guess I am saying XYZ = Impeach Obama (identity change).

          • 1Brett1

            Ah. Thanks for clarifying, JGC.

          • JGC

            Maybe XYZ got deleted accidentally?

          • hennorama

            JGC — if [X Y & Z] has indeed morphed into another moniker, I doubt it would be accidental. The entity [X Y & Z] has already changed from multiple prior monikers, including [(Un)Informed American] and [Jay].

          • 1Brett1

            I’m just glad there isn’t a “victory is won” button!

          • JGC

            This is the Friday open forum. Everyone knows this segment magically becomes a 100% Troll-Free Zone. All topics welcome, all comments welcome. Even yours. Even mine. Even from an approach of less than 35 feet.

          • jefe68

            Or from under a bridge…

          • JGC

            That’s right! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Trolls! (Sorry… I am simultaneously watching The Sixties on CNN right now….)

          • X Y & Z

            Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “Feeding the Trolls”, I am precluded from responding to your incoherent rants.

            Good riddance Troll.

          • hennorama

            X Y & Z — while you replied to [hennorama], your words do not apply.

            As usual.

          • X Y & Z

            Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “Feeding the Trolls”, I am precluded from responding to your incoherent rants.

            Bye Bye Troll.

          • hennorama

            X Y & Z — clearly you meant your reply to go elsewhere, as it is completely inapplicable.

            Defend and support your ridiculous claims, or stop typing.

          • X Y & Z

            Due to the fact that On Point discourages bloggers on this site from “Feeding the Trolls”, I am precluded from responding to your incoherent rants.

            Hasta la vista Troll.

          • hennorama

            X Y & Z — the unreasoned, inapt and repetitive nature of the above indicates the reply is from an automated dronebot.

    • StilllHere

      He’s killed Americans with drones.

  • Scott B

    The SCOTUS shots down the buffer zones, as if free speech were really the issue, while it cowers behind it’s own HUGE buffer zone and barred front doors. Hypocrites at best! So if your on the SCOTUS, or are a celebrity trying to get away from the paparazzi, Congress says you get your freedom from harassment. But, if you’re a poor and/or pregnant women making personal decisions about your heath care, you get a resounding F@%K you!

    How long before someone trying to enter a clinic is injured or killed?

    • keltcrusader

      Oh I don’t doubt it will take long – the reason these buffer zones were enacted in the 1st place was these “protesters” took their harassment too far and started killing people. Hypocrites all!

      • jefe68

        They also chained themselves to entryways of clinics, and harassed women to no end.
        Massachusetts is working on a work around on this. I’m sure they will find one.

        • keltcrusader

          I sure hope so!

          • jefe68

            Governor Patrick made a statement to that effect yesterday.

          • keltcrusader

            yes, I read that the decision was based on the size of the buffer, not the buffer itself, so maybe a shorter buffer, like in NH, would be acceptable. I will say no one has the right to harass anyone going into a bldg for legal medical care. These folks give any women entering these bldgs the once over and they don’t even know the reason why they are entering, they just assume. Pathetic!

            This makes me worried about the whole Hobby Lobby lawsuit about birth control. Like women aren’t capable of making our own decisions about our health care needs, which is total BS. I don’t see any lawsuits about ED medicines, why is that??? hmmmm :(

          • 1Brett1

            And the irony about Hobby Lobby is that the owner of the store invests the store’s profits into the very companies that manufacture the very contraception meds/devices Hobby Lobby is so against providing its employees (for “religious” reasons).

            I guess “morality” goes out the window when it comes to profits.

            The company also gets a tax break for offering health insurance, so they are fine with the ACA when it helps their bottom line…

            The whole thing is a political stunt. It’s a very interesting exercise in hypocrisy, not to mention a text-book example of political grandstanding.

            The owner is trying to paint himself as just an honest, Christian businessman whose only desire is to honor his faith and religious convictions. His history, behaviors and business practices say otherwise.

          • HonestDebate1

            It has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby’s morality. The owner can spend his (or Hobby Lobby’s) money anyway he chooses without contradiction. It’s about defining other’s morality for them. It’s about forcing others to spend their own money on things the Constitution protects them from being forced to spend it on. Religious freedoms shall not be infringed. It’s not complicated. What a completely shallow and misleading article. Who buys this stuff? It’s crazy and breaks my heart how easily distracted from the issue some people are.

          • 1Brett1

            Whatever “issues” you have or someone else might have or political forces would like this to be about with regard to “freedom,” Hobby Lobby’s “religious freedom” issues are fake. They do not in reality care about having to support contraception devices/meds that are in their view forms of abortion, and yet they have stated that this is their concern, specifically. So, that aspect of the thing is clearly a phony issue.

            Also, the profits devoted to manufacturing these forms of contraception are tied to employees retirement benefits. So, HE (the owner) is forcing his employees to participate in something they might not want to for religious reasons. He is doing the very same thing you say he is a victim of.

            I’ll not even mention the word “hypocrisy,” as you are fine with that as long as it is committed by those who have the same ideology as you.

            Also, there are half a dozen articles about this, at least…one would think you would know about this beyond reading it from my link, as you’ve stated you have your radio on all the time and listen to Right and Left wing radio in every environment you hang out all day and night. Judging by your comment, your opinion is very similar to some of the loftier coming from Right-wing media.

            P.S. -Your heart breaking is personal and irrelevant.

          • HonestDebate1

            The owner is not forcing anyone to participate in squat. Your premise is whacked. And my ideology is not at all the same as Hobby Lobby’s. I am a pro-choice non-Christian.

          • 1Brett1

            “The owner is not forcing anyone to participate in squat.”

            The company’s matching funds for employees’ benefits are tied to “abortion money.” Employees can not say, “I want you to match funds for my benefits, but don’t use money from profits gained by investments from certain contraception devices.” So, they don’t have a choice.

            If you say they can choose not to invest with the company, well the company can choose not to participate in the ACA, too. In fact, there were all sorts of things the company could have done not to comply with the ACA.

            Perhaps I lead you to either misunderstand or grab at a red herring (more likely the latter) when I used the word “ideology,” but your political belief that this is a case of “religious freedom” regarding the ACA is an ideological belief that is the same as theirs. Maybe your other beliefs are different from theirs and different beliefs lead to the same place, but, nevertheless.

            Calling my ideas “whacked” is just name calling.

          • 1Brett1

            Victory is victorious!!!

          • hennorama

            To the spoiled go the Victories!

          • HonestDebate1

            The premise that what you are describing (accepting it at face value for the sake of this argument) is the same as being forced to spend money that infringes on one’s religious freedoms whacked. Totally insane.

          • 1Brett1

            What about the religious freedoms of the Hobby Lobby workers? Maybe they want to participate in employee benefits without contributing to the manufacture of contraceptive devices/medications?

            Besides, Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to participate in “Obamacare.” They could have their business and their religious freedoms too.

            The owner said he was against having to participate because his conscience would not allow him to participate in offering certain contraceptive devices/meds. The very same contraceptives/meds he invests in manufacturing. Sorry, you don’t see that and think the connection is “totally insane.”

            So, his “religious freedom” is to support abortion and contraception when he wants to make money, but cry foul when he has to offer coverage of the same items because he thinks they are morally wrong. If anything is “whacked” or “totally insane” it is Hobby Lobby’s owner’s hypocrisy.

            Of course, all of this notwithstanding your nearly incoherent reply above.

          • HonestDebate1

            You cannot be serious. I think your head exploded.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    TOM ASHBROOK, would you consider having a show on the national debt clock, with some economists who can tease out what these numbers mean.

    It seems the unfunded medicare liability is three trillion dollars more than total household assets.

    http://www.usdebtclock.org

    • jimino

      Maybe they could couple it with the show about how the average U.S. household has NET (yes,free and clear) assets of over $700,000.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        ???

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    If American women want abortions they can get them at their summer homes. In Switzerland.
    –SCOTUS finding this week

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    If the police want to know what’s in your cell phone.. they can call the NSA.
    –SCOTUS finding this week

  • Dab200

    How come the law doesn’t apply to the steps of the Supreme Court? No one can protest there!

    • jimino

      Not to mention the Republican national convention and other instances of “free speech zones” being implemented.

      • tbphkm33

        Well, lets be fair when it comes to the Republican national convention. The attendees there are so brainwashed on right wing propaganda that anyone expressing reason, logic or common sense might as well be speaking Latin. The convention participants are not going to understand.

        If its not boiled down to simple phrases and repeated 100 times a day on FOX entertainment “News”, its over the heads of 99% of Republican convention attendees. Pictures from the floor of the GOP convention looks like its a gathering of individuals who did not make the cut for “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

  • MrNutso

    I think the Court ruling was correct, because I
    think the intent of the framers of the constitution was that the President needed to make appointments when the Senate was not in the Capital. I also think the framers also expected that 1)
    the Senate would defer to the President on appointees and a vote on their
    appointments and 2) the President would not try to end run the Senate, when the
    Senate rejected a nominee.

  • MrNutso

    So the ten day rule gives Senators more time than the 3 day fakery they are currently using.

  • anima mundi

    Why does a buffer zone of 35 feet affect a protesters first amendment right? The protester can still speak their mind and still be heard. Why is it necessary to be able to be in someone’s personal space to exercise your first amendment right? I genuinely don’t understand this unanimous ruling.

    • warryer

      why stop at 35 feet?

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      Because no one can stretch their arms out 35 feet… Required egress on the sidewalk is much less. After living in NYC, egress is maybe five feet.

      Allow an additional ten feet because of the sensitive nature of the conflicting morals.

      15 feet.

      Despite the moral and partisan aspects, this ruling is a good thing. Funneling protestors into a preset channel is unconstitutional.

      What if this was an issue you cared about, and you had to protest across the street?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The 1st Amendment allows you to say anything you want, but it does not guarantee an audience.

      • brettearle

        It does not allow you to say anything you want.

        There are actually certain things that you can’t say, publicly, without legal reprisal by government action.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Right, the 1st Amendment does not protect you from the results of what you say. You can say anything, but if you advocate something that is specifically a crime – you then have to live with the results.

          • brettearle

            Neil, at the risk of beating a dead horse, if you’re allowed to say anything you want, by direct implication, that implies that there are no consequences.

            And, so, to make the statement that many make about the 1st Amendment–that you can say anything you want
            –does not accurately define the 1st Amendment.

            Anybody can say anything they want, at anytime, regardless of whether the 1st amendment obtains or not.

            It is more accurate to claim it, that way.

            But if you are narrowing the claim of what you can say to include the 1st Amendment, you must qualify it, to be accurate.

            If it seems like I’m being petty, in order to be Right, that’s not exactly my intention…

  • levigirl

    It seems that all of these laws protect a “thing” – right to free speech vs right to privacy. The question really should be “Who do these laws and decisions protect?”

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      You can not separate a person from their Rights.

      Protecting Rights is protecting people.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    We’ve found anthrax* all over Capitol Hill. Accordingly I’m quarantining the place for 90 days. Oh, I may have to make some federal appointments so..
    –Barack H. Obama, President

    * Probably left there when Tom Delay was majority leader.

  • Chicken lady

    I’d be interested in knowing the number of women that are persuaded to change their mind and NOT have an abortion as a result of the pro-lifers who intercept them at the clinic/drs office. Of course, a person could leave and return later to go through the process. Does anyone know if this information/harrangement process actually changes things?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Thad Cochran re-nominated. Should he win in November, he’ll occupy the Strom Thurmond suite of rooms at Walter Read US Army hospital.

  • CeCi Bar

    Right, so if I wanted to “reasonably” address a governmental official while they were on their way to a “G7″ summit, I have a feeling my “rights” to protest in that context would be denied.

    Whether you agree or not about a “right”, government is the institution you should be able to protest against, rather than individuals making lawful, private, often difficult, decisions.

  • MrNutso

    The Mississippi election came down to the devil you know versus the devil you don’t.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      The Mississippi election is prima facie denotes evidence that at the upper levels there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. The same can be said for the election in NYC.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Biden went to Brazil and USA team went on to the Death Round.
    Clinton didn’t go to Benghazi and 4 Americans went on to the Death Round.

    Joe in ’16! Joe in ’16! Joe in ’16!

  • HonestDebate1

    The IRS emails are gone. Emails are missing at EPA as well. They had to be ordered to stop defecating in the hallways to boot. Does anyone think there are any VA records left unmolested?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      … and get off my lawn!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Has Eric Holder or the President ordered a criminal investigation?
      Has the President ordered all federal employees to cooperate with the investigation?
      Why hasn’t the press demanded this level of cooperation and transparency?

      • HonestDebate1

        Obviously rhetorical questions albeit good ones.

      • JONBOSTON

        When the Valerie Plame scandal broke President Bush ordered all members of his administration to cooperate with the special prosecutor and not hide behind executive privilege. Our staggeringly incompetent president has done no such thing. Rather just the opposite by declaring the numerous scandals as inside the beltway phony scandals not deserving the public’s attention. To me the only thing not deserving the public’s attention is anything that comes out of the mouth of this serial liar pretend president. He is a national embarrassment and as phony as a wooden nickel.

        • John Cedar

          And the irony is that the Valerie Plame scandal truly was a fake scandal.

          • HonestDebate1

            Bingo.

          • jefe68
          • HonestDebate1

            What credibility does Plame have? Or Corn for that matter.

          • jefe68

            Ah, so cute, another mindless meme.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ll take that as a “none”.

          • jefe68

            Don’t tell me what to think…

          • HonestDebate1

            I told you what I am forced to conclude.

          • JONBOSTON

            The only thing the Nation has going for it is that Katrina vanden heuvel is an attractive woman. Other than that , it’s a left wing rag that has lost any credibility ever since the Soviet Union collapsed. Much like the NYT editorial page, I would dismiss anything published on its pages…

          • jefe68

            What’s that smell? Why it’s the stench of mendacity.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            One would expect as much.

          • anamaria23

            Thanks. There are reports that support Plume’s creds and would make Mr. Cedar’s post false.

  • John Cedar

    I like the cell phone search warrant ruling.

    NYS tossed out the NYC soda ban.
    Too bad our SCOTUS was not honest enough to do that with the EPA and carbon.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      SCOTUS didn’t consult you on all their decisions? :-)

      I like the cellphone search ruling, too.

  • S David H de Lorge

    Oooo! Lots of comments!

  • marygrav

    Aren’t the T-Party/GOP always saying that the poor will vote their own self-interest and that they should vote Republican. In Mississippi the African Americans did so. That Carpetbagger, McDaniel, running against Cocran should understand this. The Civil War is over in everybodys’ mind except for the KKK and scalowags’ and tolitarianian dictators still hanging onto the past.

    What you see going on in the Middle East is because is because ISIS and the rest of the Jihadis including those in Central Europe understand that there is a civil war/class warfare going on here in the United States. The T-Party/GOP cannot accept that Obama is President. The House of Representatives is in direct conflict with President Obama. If he is for peace; they are for war. They are obstructionists that help to weaken the country as a whole.

    John Boehner and the rest of the GOP was silent when George W. Bush issued his Presidential Directive. Now he wants to lead the Lynch mop suing the President for trying to help the people without going to a recalcitrant Congress. He and the T-Party/GOP don’t seem to understand that when the power changes hands, they will be the victims of their own folly.
    What is scarry is that the T-Party/GOP don’t seem to understand or accept what Eric Cantor loss means, or why he really lost. He lost because the same people who hate Barack Obama also hated Eric Cantor. Examine the facts and who was out there voting.

    Assad was the only leader of a multi-ethnic nation in the Middle East. Syria was a model Middle Eastern state. If Americans had bothered to study its culture and the cultures of the Middle East then Assad would still be left in power. Saddam is gone; Gaddafi is gone; Marbarac is gone; we allowed coups in both Egypt and Ukraine of democratically elected presidents. Democracy is a farce, and the entire Third World knows it.
    Colonism is over and as soon as the US and the so-called International Community i.e. the old colonizers under a sanitized name, come to understand this the better. The old Union of South Africa where a small White minority rules million of black brown and yellow peoples is over. It is over because the Natives are too well armed, and ISIS is proof.
    The US is loosing ground abroad because WE are loosing ground at home. The Hegemon is tired; worn out by neoconservatism and war.

    The Shiits and Sunnis are fighting a Thousand year religious war, while the Syrians are fighting a Civil War; all messy and cannot be handled from the outside. The Pew Surrvey can tell you that the Unitied States has more in common with ISIS than is comfortagble.

    We have long forgotten the separation of Church and State! The Kurd are laying in the cut while the fools rush in. Christian Soldiers is a worn out colonizer song, but look out the T-Party/GOP will use them as an excuse to begin WW3.
    1914 to 2014 is an interesting 100 years. Sarojavo in the Middle East may be the second war to end all wars of the Colonizers.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      FTA:
      Meet what appears to be one of the keys to Thad Cochran’s black-turnout operation, Mitzi Bickers.

      She is, from all appearances, something of a renaissance woman: She is not only the pastor of Atlanta’s Emmanuel Baptist Church but also a former president of the Atlanta school board, a former construction-company executive, and a Democratic staffer and political strategist with a checkered past. Last year, she left her job as a senior adviser to Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed after news surfaced that she had filed a fraudulent financial-disclosure statement.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381365/meet-mitzi-bickers-eliana-johnson

  • StilllHere

    Obama said in Minnesota that he’s a bear. I think he meant bore.

  • davecm

    Mexican military helicopter crosses US border and fires on US border agents.
    Illegal kids crossing border by thousands, most have the swine flu virus, welcome to America!
    37 illegal kids shot at border, when asked why, border agents stated they all were wearing T-shirts with the following slogan, I will vote republican!
    That is a joke, yet the mess at the border will grow into a real problem.
    All a plan by Dems. to change the demographics of our nation, future Democratic voters. That is why most Dems. are not willing to do anything about our immigration train wreck.
    MOST Dems. are more concerned about loyalty to party than they are about our constitution.
    Case in point, do any of you Dems. agree with the SCOTUS decision that Obama did something unconstitutional???? Broke the law?????
    Is fundamentally transforming America to his belief system?
    Hey, while we are at it, our economy contracted in the first quarter, Obama blames the repubs. one more quarter and guess what that means????/

  • davecm

    News Flash
    Clinton’s net worth is a measly 200 MILLION!
    This makes Bill the richest Ex-president in history.
    Hillary makes $200,000+ per speech!
    So much for being dead broke when they left the white house!!!
    Please America, don’t make her the first female President just so we can make history again or a mistake again!

    • JGC

      Almost-President and Future King-maker Romney has almost that amount (200-million$) just in his Magical IRA holdings.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        “Your oligarch is worse than my oligarch!” is not a good argument. And a person could think you were casting a slur on his religious beliefs with your use of the word “Magical.”

        • 1Brett1

          Between this comment and your “little elves” reply, one might falsely believe you have suddenly become politically correct…irrespective of JGC’s comment, don’t you think wearing “special” tight-fitting underwear to suppress sexual feelings is even just a little bit funny/ridiculous?

          Also, the Mormons have used their considerable wealth to influence voting on specific political issues probably more than any other religion in recent US history. Do you have anything critical to say about that? Or are you just here to play “pelt the liberal,” like so many of the other neocons who regularly comment on here?

          I believe you’ve said you are a member of the Tea Party before…have you ever been critical of any of the racist/bigoted stuff some of them have displayed at rallies? I’ve not seen any comments by you expressing any outrage for any of the Tea Partiers. Or, are you going to maintain that this is just fantasy, that there never has been any racist/bigoted displays at Tea Party rallies?

          • HonestDebate1

            There are racist bigoted people in every walk of life. That is not what the Tea Partiers are about by any stretch of the imagination.

          • 1Brett1

            You do this a lot. You totally have missed my point. (Which is being kind because I think it is intentional just so you can build a straw man to knock down.)

            For one thing, I was directing a conversation toward RWB not you.

            But my point was about RWB being quick to pelt a criticism at JGC (for using a word that it turns out had nothing to do with being critical of Mormonism), as many conservatives on this forum do toward liberals. And, in essence, it was a defense of dacecm’s criticism of Clinton. So, davecm’s criticism: okely dokely, mums the word, no admonishment there; JGC’s: not so much.

            Yet, I never hear any unprompted criticism of conservatives by conservatives on this forum, whether it’s Romney using every clever tax loophole he can to pay only 9% in the year leading up to his run for president then reworking his taxes to pay 13% so he wouldn’t look as greedy to the general public, a conservative talking about women not getting pregnant when raped, or a congressional conservative calling for war every time anything happens in the world, etc.

            Sure, you, for example (since you are insinuating yourself into this) will say that it’s nonsense to say you are never critical of conservatives (which is a typical straw man tactic you use with your “never” and “always” stuff). But the fact remains that conservatives are hypercritical of liberals, even toward a single event or random behavior or comment, and tend to give a pass to someone should he or she be a conservative.

            RWB is a TP’er, so I used the Tea Party as an example. SOME (and I used the word “some”) TP’ers have displayed racist/bigoted behaviors at rallies, and yet I’ve never heard him condemn that. Are you saying some TP’ers haven’t displayed racist/bigoted behaviors at rallies? No, of course you are not, but you have never criticized it when it does happen. Saying there are bad apples in every bunch when pressed isn’t the same thing.

            And, it is not a “stretch of the imagination” that some TP’ers have shown up at rallies with truly racist or bigoted expressions of opinion. The group’s platform may not be formally about racism, but many TP’ers display racist and bigoted signs, language, or various forms of expressions indicating such mentalities/views.

            It would be more honest if you, for example, would post a condemnation of a TP’er behaving badly like you have a condemnation of a black person wanting free stuff, etc.; you just never have posted the former.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — you are on fire today.

            What is of most interest to me is the unfortunate failure to communicate, and the eagerness of some to infer negative intent on the part of others.

            [RWB] at least left some room for doubt about JGC’s intent, by using (emphasis added) “… a person could think you were casting a slur …,” in reply to [JGC].

            Of course, an alternative would be to ask a question about what [JGC] meant, or to use reflective communication such as “I infer that you were casting aspersions on Mr. Romney’s Mormon faith when you used the term ‘Magical.’ Please correct any misinference,” etc.

            If only we could all give each other a break, and the benefit of the doubt, and try to talk to each other rather than past and at each other.

            Your truly,

            Alonso Quijana

            Thanks for your attention.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I am not politically correct I just want to see people live up to their own standards.
            There to be many funny things in Mormonism that I find funny. There is a lot of humor to be found in sex as well.
            There is nothing critical to say about Mormons using their resources to express their beliefs and opinions. I see the final words write on that topic as:

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
            prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
            speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
            assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

          • 1Brett1

            Except that Mormons stick their noses in local politics. It was evident in California’s Prop. 8, as well as and in some of the local races in Alaska, using deep pockets to influence political races and candidates in places where the donations came from people in no way involved with living in those places.

            I find reason to be critical of those kinds of things.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Many are only critical because Mormons disagree with them. If Mormons support things they liked, they would welcome Mormon civic mindedness just like they welcome the Bishops’ civic mindedness when the publicly supported a recent gun control measure herein the Commonwealth. I do not seek to silence the bishops they must serve God as their conscience tells them to. I disagree with them. But the truly liberal belief is: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” which is why I feel comfortable saying I am a liberal.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I am the Chief Evangelist of the Worcester Tea Party. As such I have had to deal with issues of racism and racists. At the same time we have had to deal with baseless charges of racism used to silence us.

            We invited Clive Mcfarlane (a noted African American columnist from the Worcester T&G) to one of our rallies. In his report he was only able to cite one issue of racial disharmony. He didn’t like the music tapes we played before the event.

          • 1Brett1

            It’s funny, your comment is a combination of bureaucrat with blinders on (only concerned with some small responsibility; beyond which, it’s not your job) and propagandist.

            I suppose you’ve not heard otherwise of any overt racism or bigotry to criticize in the Tea Party? So, instead of having an opportunity to be critical of something within conservative circles, you use both of your replies as opportunities to be complimentary. You’ve proven my point.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I have been insulted here before but this is the first time I have been called a bureaucrat.

            Have you spoken out against Rev. Barber?
            http://youtu.be/h9-wWHy_Py4

            Or have you criticized Martin Luther King III for his stand?
            http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/09/mlks-son-shocks-msnbcs-toure-important-for-blacks-to-be-engaged-with-the-tea-party/

            Just so I can better understand your point.

          • 1Brett1

            Ah, the old, “let me answer your question with a question” routine. In looking at your replies, you either answered with a platitude or evaded my point with some false comparison or sidestep.

            So, I guess your answer to my questions is: “no, I am not going to be critical of any specific conservative event/behavior”). Thanks for you replies, anyway, RWB.

          • 1Brett1

            I guess my other reply is below (I tried to ad this to that reply but couldn’t so I’ll do it here).

            Okay: 1) Barber’s comments there did not serve anyone well. They are to be criticized (although I’d have to really look at his comments in their entirety to fully criticize them, which I haven’t done so thoroughly). His remarks are accusatory and in an offensive tone, and the least he should have done was support them with some form of citation; but, again, I only heard about this in passing. Someone in Barber’s position should be holding public figures’ feet to the fire by being careful to stick to specific accusations without slinging characterizations and attacking from the hip. That approach is bad form, to say the least.

            2) Again, I read the piece but didn’t look at the video (and didn’t hear about this beyond what you’ve provided here), so I’ll have to take it at its face value. There is nothing wrong with the sentiments of wanting to engage all political voices (within reason), and King III’s notion of engaging Tea Partiers is fine with me. The question becomes, in what manner? Under what conditions? And so on. What specifically is he to be criticized for in your mind? That would help if you wish me to either agree or disagree with you. Was there something more in the videos? I am only saying what I’m saying from scanning the text.

            My point was pretty clear without my having to weigh in on these two people’s commentary. One might get the impression that you are furthering your avoidance by asking me to comment on something else.

            So, in the photo I provided of the TP’er, is he someone to take seriously or to make attempts to engage with? Are you critical of his position? (I don’t expect you to answer, directly, but I thought I’d ask anyway.)

        • JGC

          I actually didn’t mean to make a slur on religious beliefs (Mormons are Magical? Who knew?!); I was referring to the concept of “the Magic of Compounding Interest” you find when you save your money for a very long time. Except when I save my money in my IRA for a very long time, (and remember people are only able to put a very few thousand dollars in each year) the magic of my compounding investment only results in a balance of maybe around a $100,000 or $200,000 when I come to retirement age, With Romney, it is in the neighborhood of $100-to $200-million dollars (with the same restrictions on new money that can be contributed each year), Now, that is Magic! And it is also tax-sheltering hocus-pocus that is not available to average dull-normal American workers, who are the real people that need help in saving for their retirement years.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I believe you meant no offense to Mormons. Just offered a caution about a loaded word.

            IRA’s do present a raft of problems as does larger topic investing in the future and saving for a rainy day.
            But class warfare as an issue is a looser. No poor people become president. Neither party serves poor people.

          • JGC

            Thanks for that clarification.

            Some of these people made their wealth through their own speaking, writing, musical and athletic talents – If others are willing to pay for enjoyment and inspiration from these talents, it is hard to make a case they don’t deserve the money; that is whether the talents are the Clintons, Barack Obama, or Rush Limbaugh. It is impossible to make that case for the people who have increased and consolidated wealth through a reward and taxation system they have rigged.

  • nj_v2

    Been preachin’ it for almost 40 years:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LjrCV4Gnxw&feature=related

    Still hasn’t sunk in.

    • HonestDebate1

      40 years?1 You’d think it’d be gone by now.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Peak Oil? Really?

      • nj_v2

        No, there are little elves making more of it in little factories deep under the earth’s surface, right this very minute.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          They consider “little elves” a slur. No doubt you shall be receiving coal in your stocking for many Christmases to come.

    • jefe68

      Great band. It’s funked in though…
      Lenny Picket was my favorite sax player from the original lineup, he’s in the SNL band these days.

  • HonestDebate1

    All (literally) of the jobs added since 2000 have gone to immigrants. The American work ethic is dead.

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      Most Americans are immigrants or the kids and grandkids of immigrants.

      • DaynaGuiguipyt

        Josiah . although Jacqueline `s stori is surprising,
        last week I bought themselves a Chrysler from having made $5060 thiss month
        and-in excess of, 10/k last-month . it’s realy the easiest-work I have ever
        done . I started this 4 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringin in
        at least $78 per-hour . why not look here C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

        • HonestDebate1

          You sure are pretty, I wish I could make 10K a month.

          • jefe68

            You forgot shucks…

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s not my style. I use that word only in reference to corn and oysters.

          • 1Brett1

            Or, “I do declare,” or, “shut my mouth!” I wonder if he “always relies on the kindness of strangers”?

          • JGC

            Do these spam ads just appear randomly, or do they get pinged (for example) by the word “work” you wrote in your prior comment “The American work ethic is dead.” to offer their solution?

            This week I was researching handicapped bathroom solutions for my elderly mother, and now the ad space in the margin of my laptop is filled with ads for Depends. : (

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t know but that’s a great observation.

          • 1Brett1

            The phenomenon you mention in your second paragraph is definitely triggered by algorithms.

            As far as the so-called person who periodically spams this forum, the person’s profile reveals “comments” made on several sites, and ALL are spam ads, so to speak.

          • tbphkm33

            Reset your browser periodically – deleting cookies, etc. That way the advertisers cannot track you. Also, use several browsers. Restricting the most sensitive browsing to the most “secure” browser. Use the most insecure browser for things like OnPoint or FaceBook.

          • tbphkm33

            :) you could always try dancing at a local club, but there are no guarantees as to how much you would make – you might even have to pay the audience to stick around :)

          • HonestDebate1

            Nobody wants that, but I used to walk on my hands while I sang “Tossin’ and Turnin’”. The audience liked that.

          • HonestDebate1

            No one ever put money in my pants though.

        • hennorama

          Please flag the spambot above.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

          • HonestDebate1

            There is a little flag top right next to the little minus sign. Just click it like I did. There is no need to show everyone you are on the case.

          • 1Brett1

            You say you flagged it (although, you hadn’t but had replied to it five hours ago when I flagged it three hours ago)… anyway, there’s no need to show everyone you’ve attempted to admonish hennorama. Your hypocrisy negates your being self-righteous. No matter how much you are okay with hypocrisy, one can’t be legitimately both self-righteous and hypocritical.

          • HonestDebate1

            I flagged it seconds before I replied, what are you talking about? And I love admonishing the schoolmarm, don’t take that away from me. Who said I’m okay with hypocrisy? Hypocrisy bothers me a little.

            You seem to spend a lot of effort dissecting my id and concocting my mindset. Try to get me out of your head. You’ll feel better. It’s not about me.

          • 1Brett1

            You just imagine I spend a lot of time thinking about your machinations.

            All one needs to do is go back through your comments (through your profile and see that you have said hypocrisy doesn’t bother you, but whatever); I certainly am not going to waste time reading your old commentary.

            Anyway, it hadn’t been flagged when I flagged it (a good two hours after you commented).

          • 1Brett1

            Victory is won! I made you dance once again! Although, I did try to make you write “alrighty then” too with no luck…I’ll have to concentrate more when I cast the spell.

            When you make me dance do you use a voodoo doll?

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m sorry I hurt your feelings Brett. You make it easy to tell when I do.

          • 1Brett1

            Actually, people I like are the only ones who have the potential to hurt my feelings. Your reply is just more evidence of your egocentric views.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — were I so inclined, I would take credit for the spambot’s comment now being displayed as “This comment is awaiting moderation,” which only occurred after my post above.

            But the credit is due to the forum at large, and not to my slight contribution.

          • 1Brett1

            I’ve wondered if the “awaiting moderation” after something is flagged occurs after a certain number of flags?

            Anyway, I think we should all stand up and shout, “victory is won!”

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — it is my experience that it takes multiple “flags” to put a comment into purgatory, which is the reason behind my polite request.

          • tbphkm33

            I agree, it does seem to take a number of flags. I tend to write a request also, so that people will flag. The system relies upon the forum members helping to patrol.

          • 1Brett1

            That’s a good point; a request such as hennorama’s (or yours) may prompt others to flag the comment, increasing the number of flags.

          • HonestDebate1

            That doesn’t make sense at all. If a comment is clearly unacceptable and violates all sense of decorum then it will be removed with no flags at all. I don’t think you schoolmarming has a thing to do with it.

            I think Brett may be on to something though. The comment is “awaiting moderation” which means the moderator has not seen it. The flags may trigger that as a placeholder until Monday morning. To the best of my knowledge the moderators are not here other than business hours on weekdays. During those times they are reading all of the comments but if there is a flag it comes to them (as the subsequent dialog box suggests). For that reason, alerting them that way is more effective than your schoolmarming. If they are reading your comment they have also read the spam.

            They don’t give a damn about your (or anyone else’s) opinion of what is or isn’t acceptable on their blog. Mr. Anderson wouldn’t even delete my comment after I asked him too. He was very nice though and complementary as well. I think they do a good job.

          • HonestDebate1

            I am not taking credit even though I flagged it (incidental bold) hours before your comment or Brett’s. I kind of miss her pretty face now, and I’ll never know her plan to make 10K a month. I’m having regrets for what I caused…. not that I’m taking credit. I don’t want the credit. I feel terrible.

          • 1Brett1

            I think your perceptions based on your experiences seem to be correct. This was the first time I flagged something…I also did a little experiment after reading through this thread, flagging various comments, and none of my single flags prompted a “waiting for moderation” sign. (I guessing that it is three flags which get a notice, but that is just a guess).

          • hennorama

            Brett1 — TYFYR.

            Yep, I think “the third time’s the charm,” too. I flag these spambots whenever I see ‘em, then make my polite request, since a single flag is insufficient. Said requests usually get some [Votes up], and the spambot is almost always “awaiting moderation” upon later viewing.

            It makes perfect sense that multiple flags are needed to put a post into purgatory. Otherwise a single individual could wreak havoc with the forum.

            Best wishes.

          • 1Brett1

            I have never thought about it before, but accompanying a “flag” with a request makes sense, as it might encourage more up votes.

      • HonestDebate1

        No, most Americans are not immigrants or the kids and grandkids of immigrants.

        • Godzilla the Intellectual

          The country was built upon immigration. Hence, the original colonies. The Ellis island influx of European immigrants.

          39 million americans are naturalized immigrants today. That number rises exponentially with each parent generation.

          It doesn’t take many generations to get to 158 million, half the US population.

          • HonestDebate1

            Sure, I understand that.

      • hennorama

        Godzilla the Intellectual — according to PewSocialTrends.org, using a 2013 Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from 2012, more than 75 percent of US residents were “Third and higher generation” immigrants.* (233.1 million of total US population of 308.8 million)

        * refers to people born in the United States, including Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories with both parents born in the United States, including Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

        See:
        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/

        • Godzilla the Intellectual

          Thank you for proving my point.

          • hennorama

            G t I — YW.

    • anamaria23

      I have three well educated non-immigrant sons. All three have secured jobs, changed jobs, and prospered, all long since 2000, as have most of their peers who are non-immigrant as well.
      A Tea Party acquaintance recently informed me that all the jobs are going to blacks, even though the black unemployment rate is the highest.

      • HonestDebate1

        Obama’s policies have been horrible for blacks. Whoever told you that is not very smart.

      • hennorama

        anamaria23 – the entity to which you replied, [DebatesNotHe] has its own definitions of English words, as is apparent in its moniker, and in its use of the word “literally.”

        One might fairly view this as a conclusion in search of cherry-picked data.

        The “study” is from the nativist, anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

        (CIS is the source used by all the articles that use these false headlines, such as this one from nationalreview.com: “Study: All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants”)

        It’s worth noting that BLS data disagrees with the CIS data (surprise!), most likely due to the fact that the CIS restricted its “study” to those age 16 to 64, which excludes more than 7 million workers who are aged 65 and older.

        If you look at their cherry-picked data, CIS indicates the [primary] culprits are lazy-ass native white people, since 7,954,000 more “White” “Natives 16 to 65” were “Not Working” in Q1 of 2014 vs.Q1 2000.

        Sources:
        http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/CIS%20Report%20On%20Employment%20Gains%20And%20Losses.pdf

        http://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.t01.htm

        • HonestDebate1

          Yea, and everyone knows those 65 and older are the most sought after and hired first…. and none of them are immigrants. Your logic is impeccable.

    • jefe68

      I see you can add xenophobe to your many accomplishments.

      • HonestDebate1

        Just when I thought you were wising up you make a comment like this! How on earth do you read my comment and come to that conclusion? It’s the immigrants who are stepping up to the plate. I am criticizing the American work ethic.

  • Fredlinskip

    If I wished to create a tax-exempt 501 (c) organization, say to be called “Patriotic Americans Who Love Apple Pie and Puppies” whose sole purpose was to funnel $ money from gazillionaires into low-life local political attack ads, would my organization merit scrutiny from IRS?

    Or would this be considered an unjust attack on my “freedoms”?

    Just trying to better understand the Lerner, IRS, Kiskonen “controversey”.

    • JGC

      You can go to the IRS site for their weekly Bulletin archives, and in the Table of Contents for each week, right near the top, can (usually) be seen the latest actions from the Exempt branch of the IRS. It goes all the way back to 2004, so it is interesting to see the different names on the lists that have lost their non-profit status with the IRS. There has been near zero activity in Exempt of late since “The Troubles” began. Go further back, into the 2009 and 2010 archives to see what was being bounced at the beginning of the Obama administration; also the earlier 2004-2008 are interesting (which of course is while Bush was still President.)

      http://www.irs.gov/irb

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Doesn’t the VA have documents showing what a great job they are doing for our veterans too?

        • Fredlinskip

          Didn’t the Va have as many issues before current admin as after?
          Just like most workers at IRS, most of those at VA have served both administrations.

          I am implying here that much of the incompetence in these agencies may not be particularly political motivated.

          It’s just plain old dumb incompetence.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Agreed I know men that have been struggling with the VA since they returned from the City of Hue.

            The point I am making is that bureaucrats are very good at producing charts and figures that prove they are doing a great job. I see this as self serving bureaucrats who are adroit at advancing their career regardless of what any politicians says.

            FTA:

            In 1939, Bruno Rizzi, a largely forgotten Communist intellectual, wrote a hugely controversial book, The Bureaucratization of the World.
            Rizzi argued that the Soviet Union wasn’t Communist. Rather, it
            represented a new kind of system, what Rizzi called “bureaucratic
            collectivism.” What the Soviets had done was get rid of the capitalist
            and aristocratic ruling classes and replace them with a new, equally
            self-interested ruling class: bureaucrats.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380812/bureaucrats-bureaucrats-bureaucrats-jonah-goldberg

      • Fredlinskip

        Thanks much- will check it out.

      • JGC

        I’ll just add this on here: One thing I noticed in looking at so many of these groups that had there exempt status revoked during the period around 2006-2010 was many of them were debt-counselling organizations. It is a little window into the buildup of the mortgage and debt problems that eventually became the Great Recession. It also makes me realize that some (many?) of these debt counselling groups were probably not operating honestly, and how much we really do need the Consumer Protection Agency started by Elizabeth Warren to help provide transparency in personal financial transactions. And also that the IRS serves an important purpose in monitoring the authenticity of non-profit groups, so we do not donate to or become affiliated with organizations that are not serving their constituents honestly and well.

        However, just because a group had its status revoked, does not necessarily mean they were dishonest or illiegal – it could be because their periodic filing of information had lapsed, or they preferred to return to private status from a public non-profit.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      I take the point of your question. Could you define “low-life political attack ads” ? Would they be supporting the expansion of government? Would they harm the rent taking corporations that fund politicians? Would these ads seek to pit one group against another and deter people from taking interest in civics? Would these ads be critical of government programs? If you answered yes to any of theses question then the IRS will be very interested in the books of your organization.

      • Fredlinskip

        I guess part of the point of my question is that if some/many of these orgs serve the interests of gazillionaires, would it not be theoretically possible for these zillionaires to actively attempt to search out gullible (or not so) folks to start up these 501(c) groups and then start pouring $ into them?

        Does this deserve IRS scrutiny or since $ is speech, would this scrutiny infringe on peoples “liberties”?

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          No.
          The IRS should have no role controlling political speech.
          The alternative would be that we abandon free speech and much of our constitution. I agree with President Kennedy: “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts,
          foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation
          that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an
          open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

    • John Cedar

      You have no intention of better understanding the Obama Lerner IRS scandal. There is plenty of information out there if you tune your dial off dkos PMSNBC and HUFFing whip-its.

      There is scrutiny and then there is harassment and delay and then X10 and you have the Obama scandal.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_controversy#Examples_of_questions_from_the_IRS

      • Fredlinskip

        Okay- Very much appreciate the relatively unbiased source provided.

        “In January 2014 the FBI announced that it had found no evidence warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the scandal. The FBI stated it found no evidence of “enemy hunting” of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. The officials indicated, however, that the investigation is continuing”

        Stephen Miller, Joseph Grant, Lois Lerner were all major IRS “players” who were “retired” over this scandal.
        What more do you want?
        It seems likely that this is most likely a case of gross incompetence- not anything more sinister.

        Kiskonen certainly appears to have absolutely nothing to do with anything as he is guilty of nothing more than trying to operate IRS more efficiently and to provide Congress with all info possible- on an apparently very strapped budget.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Yes. If a person approaches you with a gun drawn while you are walking down the street you have the right to use deadly force

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    After the show in a classic “Summer Friday News Dump” …

    FTA:
    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmett G. Sullivan quickly granted a motion filed earlier today by attorneys for Judicial Watch seeking a courtroom status conference “as soon as possible to discuss the IRS’s failure to fulfill its duties to this court under the law, as well as other ramifications of this lawsuit.”
    In its motion, the non-profit watchdog noted that the IRS publicly acknowledged loss of Lerner emails to and from individuals outside of the agency early in February 2014.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-failed-to-tell-federal-court-of-lost-lois-lerner-emails/article/2550281

    • HonestDebate1

      My first reaction is to think they can’t even lie well. It’s like Hillary saying she was under sniper fire and the Secret Service just told her to make a run for it. At least tell a lie that is not so easy to disprove. But then I realize how far they have kicked the can down the road, how successful the strategery has been in the past and how many people are still defending them. By the time these lies are proven beyond the shadow of doubt it will be old news. “Dude, this was like years ago”.

  • anamaria23

    They may also choose to seek out a back alley practitioner resulting in the loss of both the mother and the unborn in some instances. This may be an unintended consequence of this ruling as well as is the shutting down of planned parenthood centers.

    • notafeminista

      Well they might, but I understand Dr. Gosnell’s clinic was finally closed.

      • anamaria23

        Well it should have been.

    • HonestDebate1

      Merits and criticisms of the law aside, I would posit that any woman who chooses a back alley abortion over the thought of seeing a protester is insane. That would not make any sense at all.

      • anamaria23

        That does not mean that it won’t happen sensible or not. What do you think happened before Roe vs Wade?

        • HonestDebate1

          Point taken, there are some stupid-assed people in the world.

          Before Roe v Wade there was no alternative other than bringing the baby to term. Roe v Wade is not going anywhere but assume the snowball’s chance in hell that it does. That would not mean the end to legalized abortion.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    Debra Anus?

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

  • Cacimo

    Baker asked “what did the President know and when did he know it” of a President from his own party – Republican. Shamefully Democrats are now doing the exact opposite in the IRS investigation. Rather than questioning the very suspicious loss of emails and trashing of hard drives, they are actually APOLOGIZING to IRS officials. The media, heavily democrat, seem uninterested.
    Barro misses the point on voter fraud. He repeatedly states there is not a “significant” problem. Well when Senators are elected by less than 800 votes (Franken) the problem does not have to be that “significant” to have very significant repercussions.

    • notafeminista

      Well. Significant is relative. Voter fraud and malfunctioning voting machines were rampant in 2000 and 2004.
      It’s almost like they think people don’t pay attention.

  • tbphkm33

    We may commiserate with the plight of women at abortion clinics, but we all have the ability to show up at clinics in support. Would these arrogant and self righteous anti-free choice lunatics inflict nearly as much damage on their victims if there were three times as many pro-choice advocates there to insure the safety of the women? Bullies tend to back down when confronted by peaceful resistance. We need not say a single word, we need only to provide a silent buffer between the lunatics and their victims.

    • notafeminista

      This is just anecdotal to be sure, but its mildly interesting that the pro free choicers and those dedicated to saving the Earth haven’t already made allies of each other.

  • HonestDebate1

    I don’t get this show until tomorrow, did they discuss the breathtakingly horrible GDP? It is not mentioned above.

    This is from October 2006 when GDP was a “lackluster” 2.6% and the LFPR was 66.2%:

    We’d suggest that this is because the statistics, like GDP, are not actually glowing; in fact, they’re barely emitting enough light to check your watch by. Even fantastic headline numbers, like 4.6% unemployment, disguise weak wage growth and sagging labour force participation.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/gdp_growth_slow.html

    Here is the same publication now with -2.9% GDP and a LFPR of 62.8%:

    The particularly bad winter weather played a role; both residential and commercial building were negative. Heavy inventory buildups in earlier quarters were reversed, which usually implies a positive bounce-back in coming quarters.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2014/06/that-big-negative-q1-gdp-revision.html

    Read both links and see if you think the tone reflects how much undeniably worse it is now.

    • tbphkm33

      ??? Don’t start off with a false premise – the show is available for download by early afternoon the day of airing. You can use any browser, like the browser you use to make comments via, to listen to On Point.

      • hennorama

        tbphkm33 — not to mention the super-easy to use livestream from WBUR, allowing anyone with a web connection to listen to the show during its regular broadcast hours.

        • HonestDebate1

          Super easy is hard for an idiot like me. Did you guys even read my comment?

          • tbphkm33

            WOW – well, we finally have it confirmed from the his own mouth… “an idiot like me.” :)

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ve been saying it for years but I can see why you want to talk about me instead of the horrible GDP and unvarnished evidence of media bias.

          • tbphkm33

            If you use a computer – plug some speakers into it.

            If you use a tablet – get a Bluetooth speaker to connect to.

            Either one will make listening to the show just like listening over the radio. Look around, you get either for $10-15.

          • HonestDebate1

            Seriously, I appreciate the advice. I really do but I’m just having fun with you. In my studio I have a Crown 150 powering a pair of Yamaha NS-10 monitors integrated into my Mac. I use the bluetooth for a wireless keyboard across the room sitting on my Hammond so I can work the computer from there. I also have a radio, and another in my barn, in my shop, in my house, in my car…. I’m on the move and my speakers are busy.

            That’s not what my comment was abut.

          • 1Brett1

            ” Did you guys even read my comment?”

            People probably stopped reading your comments long ago; the contents of your comments are just repeated over and over, anyway…I hope that helps you. And, hey, you said you keep a laptop in your lap all the time, so this notion could free you up to “move around” more and listen to even more talk radio…

          • HonestDebate1

            Demonstrably untrue. Look at all the replies I get. You read every one, the schoolmarm keeps a file. I have followers like Ray who reads me every morning after he clocks in. I’m the belle of the ball.

            Now if you want to say that few dare to refute me on the merits of what I write then you might have a point.

          • 1Brett1

            If by “reading” you mean your comments are glanced at and one thinks, “yeah, that’s the same old distorted crap repeated over again,” then you are correct in that most of the folks “read” you.

            As far as you second paragraph?! This is a delusion on your part.

            And, no, I don’t “read every one.” I especially don’t read your stand alone comments. I mostly reply to your replies.

          • HonestDebate1

            How many times are you going to reply without refuting me on the merits?

            Which is worse 2.6% GDP or -2.9% GDP? Or 66.2% LFPR or 62.8% LFPR? What’s distorted other than the press accounts that I linked?

          • jefe68

            Wow, this guy is either bonkers or has some ego issues. Maybe both.

          • 1Brett1

            He acts like one is obsessed with him if one does reply to him; and, conversely, he acts like one can’t refute his “brilliant analysis” if one ignores him…that is about as egocentric as a mindset can be.

          • HonestDebate1

            Quit dissecting my id, your conclusions are absurd. I have no idea what you mean, look a all the replies!

          • 1Brett1

            I don’t think you know what the word “id” means. Freud divided up the mind into: id, ego, and superego. I’d say look up the difference between the three, but you have difficulties with doing such things.

          • HonestDebate1

            Who is Freud?

          • 1Brett1

            While the word “ego” has been part of the general public’s lexicon for so long and now has uses beyond Freud’s application. Both the concepts of “id” and “superego” really aren’t used outside of the Freudian uses. Therefore, if you do not know who Freud was, then using “id” is even more inappropriate to throw around willy nilly. If you don’t know who Freud was, this is further reason for you not to use the word at all.

            Notice how easy it is to make you reply to every one of my comments? I enjoy watching you obsess over each of my comments/replies this way. See, because of your “ego” which has the egocentricity of an adolescent male (often found in boys with low self-esteem), talking about you keeps you engaged, no matter how much you say you don’t want to talk about you. You actually love talking about you and view (in a distorted way) this as flattery, also an indication of poor self-esteem. Usually someone who seeks attention irrespective of whether it is good or bad (and this can certainly be said of you; you gravitate toward what wold be considered negative attention) has problems of…I’ll tell you later, when you are stronger to receive such information. Your condition could be helped, but you won’t seek help, so…your “ego” would never allow it. But, hey, think about all the attention you’d receive? And you could talk about you all you want!

          • HonestDebate1

            Try to get original dude. Your “I’m rubber you’re glue” thing is creepy.

          • 1Brett1

            Don’t get your reference; but, there you go, replying to every little comment still.

          • hennorama

            jefe68 — based on your comment, the psychological term “Delusion of Grandeur” comes to mind.

          • HonestDebate1

            Evidently, I think I’m nobler than everyone. Don’t ask me where that accusation came from. People love to tell me what I think. They make up the craziest things and then to beat all say I was the one who said them.

            Your’s is just another of the 14 replies, most about me in lieu of a rebuttal to my point. One commenter insists no one reads or replies to me! Such silliness.

          • 1Brett1

            “One commenter insists no one reads or replies to me!” Yeah, no, that’s an inaccurate characterization of what was said…but typical of your way of building straw men to knock down.

          • HonestDebate1

            From the guy who says I said I always have my laptop in my lap.

            Alrighty then.

          • 1Brett1

            You said something about keeping a laptop in your lap ALL of the time in one of your comments…if you go back and look at your commentary, you could probably find it; it was when you were talking about having the radio on constantly in ALL of your environments, from car to barn. I thought it might be difficult to clean up horse poo with a laptop in your lap, but, who knows, you seem as though you are resourceful as it pertains to enabling you to listen to talk radio around the clock and to type comments online…You know, maybe the misunderstanding pertains to your use of language, which seems to be the culprit a lot of the time. When you use words like ALL and LITERALLY, etc., you are not honoring their specific meaning. When I see ALL, for example, I think you are saying “in every case” or “without interruption” and so on…my mistake.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes I know what I said.

            When I’m home I usually have my laptop in my lap.”

            And you talk about my comprehension?!

          • 1Brett1

            One would think your definition of “usually” IS all, with the way you read other people’s comments and interpret them. And, “home” is everywhere where you have the radio blaring (except your car, but this may mean your car too, while you steal internet access). So this sounds like all the time in your speak.

          • HonestDebate1

            Wow, that was lame. I have an offer I’ll get to in a second but first here is the beloved comment you are referring to:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/06/25/hospice-care-business#comment-1456303115

            As you can see, I said I have the radio on all day, not the computer. You go on to conclude I sit in one spot with a computer in my lap all day and can’t move around… or something, brilliant! So you misremembered, big deal, but it doesn’t stop there. I reiterated my listening habits on this thread, that’s what was latched onto; that I could have listened on the internet. It was reinforced here, you still missed it. And then you doubled down with the typical rant writing “all” in caps over and over in reference to something I didn’t say. You tell me what “all” means. You get all wiggy about my use of the language and specific meanings. You question my comprehension as you miscomprehend. It must be embarrassing.

            Let this be a life lesson: when you dismiss my comments and reduce yourself to gratuitous nastiness, while letting your unbridled snark take over, you will always be the fool. I may be wrong but I won’t do that. That’s why I’m nice.

            And don’t bother apologizing as you have been forced to do when you’ve acted this way in the past. I don’t want no stinkin’ apology. As many times as you have trashed me in the most vulgar of terms it no longer matters. All I would like is for you to quit dissecting my id, aura and chi. That’s up to you.

            So here’s my offer: if you delete that astonishingly inaccurate comment then I will delete this one so that God, Allah, the NSA and everybody else won’t see it for eternity. I’m trying to help you here.

            And here’s a hint, you could have put me in my place by simply refuting me on the merits. Find a liberal source who is harder on Obama’s GDP now than they were on Bush when GDP was almost 6, yes six, points higher. It’s called honest debate.

          • 1Brett1

            I just saw this.

            Your funny…

            I was making fun of how you distort the comments of others, by distorting your comments in reply…Just to be clear, I don’t seriously read your comments just scan them enough for fodder (humor purposes), as I’ve said before.

            Victory is victorious!

          • HonestDebate1

            Lame. Are you proud of this? Alrighty then.

          • 1Brett1

            “People love to tell me what I think.”

            You forgot to start with “All” as in “All people…” That is what you meant (or at least you read others’ comments in such a way).

            Also, I see you didn’t use the word “probably” to mean “absolutely.” One might get the impression your definition of words is different when you write them than when someone else writes them?!

          • HonestDebate1

            Please don’t tell me why I think and quit dissecting my id. Get me out of your head,

          • 1Brett1

            Well, see, when I wrote that people probably have stopped reading you… you said you thought this meant that I had said nobody ever reads you. I’m just trying to help with your reading comprehension problems. And, you’re welcome!

            P.S.-you still aren’t using “id” properly. “Ego” would be the correct term, as you’re replying to what I wrote, and I was writing about your ego.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — as further demonstration of [Debates?NotHe]‘s ego, his reply to me (to which you replied) strongly implies that he believes I was making reference to him regarding “Delusion of Grandeur.”

            This is despite my careful wording, which mentioned no one at all, and which specified that it was “based on your (jefe68′s) comment” only.

            Fascinating, that.

          • HonestDebate1

            “I mostly reply to your replies.”

            Alrighty then.

          • 1Brett1

            “Look at all the replies!” -HD1

            If one replies to replies, are they not replying to replies?

          • HonestDebate1

            Not exclusively or even mostly.

          • 1Brett1

            ?

            As I said, I mostly reply to your replies. I generally don’t reply to your stand alone comments, and I don’t exclusively reply to your replies (and reply to neither replies nor stand alone comments ALL the time). I hope that helps with your comprehension.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — I know you know, but yanno …

            Poor [Debates?NotHe] … he sets out what he feels is a significant point, then when the replies don’t go the way he desires, he replies to the replies and non-replies, and complains about them.

            That seems to be not only “Telling Others What To Think,” but also “Telling Others What To Do.”

            As an aside (and again, I know you know, but yanno …), [Debates?NotHe] is a resident of North Carolina, so perhaps he feels he is an expert on ID.

      • HonestDebate1

        Whatever dude, I like to listen on the radio. Do you know if they discussed it? It’s really just an aside, do you have a comment on the substance of my post?

    • 1Brett1

      “Read both links and see if you think the tone reflects how much undeniably worse it is now.”

      I thought you didn’t like people giving others homework assignments?

      • HonestDebate1

        Look at this thread! Not a single person has acknowledged, or commented upon, the horrendous Obama economy and the glaring double standard in the press. It’s all about dissecting my id.

        And whose comment did I reply to with a list of irrelevant questions and stupid assignments in an effort to distract from the point made? You really should not try this on you’re own Brett, you’re head might explode. Next time I’ll cherry pick some quotes and not give any links, they’ll still complain. I can’t win for losing.

        This is a big deal, people are hurting and our kid’s future is bleak. The press is leading the lemmings who don’t seem to care. This is awful.

        • 1Brett1

          I think it is a misinterpretation on your part. You are mistaking non-replies with “effort[s] to distract” or with not caring, when it is more a matter of not wishing to reply to you, specifically. I hope that helps you.

          • HonestDebate1

            Non-replies?!

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — in addition, it’s not wishing to reply to replies from [Debates?NotHe], which [Debates?NotHe] made to comments that were pointedly directed to other forum members (e.g., my reply to [tbphkm33], below).

          • HonestDebate1

            I am not smart enough to figure out the above mish mash. Your proxy obsession with me in now going though multiple commenters. There is a little minus sign top right. I suggest you use it any time you see honest debate.

          • 1Brett1

            Oh, now, I think you’ve hurt DissshonestDebate’s feelings, or at least made him angry. I can tell whenever he is totally frustrated and at a loss…it’s when he suggests you hide his commentary.

            I am a little concerned, however, that he thinks everyone is obsessed with him (when he is clearly obsessed with them). This sort of delusion can become quite dangerous. I mean this sort of delusion in conjunction with his having talk radio blaring 24/7 in his car, all rooms of his house, his garage, his barn, etc., with computers set up everywhere, at the ready, so he can either “educate” people or “challenge” the world to save America. Without professional help, can one imagine these sorts of behaviors leading to anything good? He LITERALLY appears to be going mad. I hope not, poor guy.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — thank you for your response.

            You might very well think that, but of course, as I am not a health care professional, I couldn’t possibly comment.

            One imagines the fodder that some health care professionals might greedily chew on, however, given that this individual has written on several occasions, regarding [hennorama], “I don’t care what you think,” then frequently replies to [hennorama], completely unsolicited, and in the face of not a single reply from [hennorama] over these many months.

            To mention just one tiny aspect, from a layperson’s perspective.

            Thanks again for your response.

    • jefe68

      I did, and for some reason I’m not having the same sky is falling reaction as you. Did you read the last few sentences?
      I don’t believe today’s revisions really signal a decline in that trend rate and most analysts expect coming quarters to clock in at 2.5-3%. …

      • HonestDebate1

        First, credit where credit is due. Thank you for weighing in on the substance. You are the only one.

        Of course I read the last sentence, it makes my point. It should be pointed out that it’s a guess, it’s lipstick on a pig. It’s like your house being destroyed by a tornado and someone telling you not to worry because insurance will probably make things better. And what do they prognosticate? The first link says 2.6% is “lackluster”. It calls 2.6% GDP as “not actually glowing; in fact, they’re barely emitting enough light to check your watch by”. And now they say everything will be fine because next quarter might be 2.5% to 3%.

        • jefe68

          The point of my point, as is your’s and the authors, that one quarter of lackluster growth is not enough to judge is the economy is sliding back into a recession.
          You chose to interpret the stats with more dire consequences than the author or me.

          You do realize that Congress does play a role in this, that it’s Congress that holds the purse strings, not the president. Of course presidents get the blame for bad economies.

          With all that said, you wont get an argument from me that the economy has been struggling since the great recession. I put the blame on both sides of the parties, the level of the partisan divide is the root of the problem.

          • HonestDebate1

            If 2.6% is lackluster then -2.9% is a disaster.

            And I disagree, a disastrous quarter IS enough to conclude the economy is sliding back into recession. It only takes 2, we’re halfway down the sliding board.

            Yes I realize Congress plays a role but Obama doesn’t. It’s his way or the highway and he has made clear he will act without them. He made a disgusting speech the other day whining incessantly with complaints about the Congress having a say. Have you ever seen a President complain?

            “Great recession”?! It could and should have been a blip.

          • jefe68

            Your kidding? You really think that what happened in 07 and 08 was or should have been a blip? Do have any idea what went down in the investment banking world? How much money and equity was lost?

            Where do you get this stuff from?
            Clueless, really clueless.

  • hennorama

    Poor Uruguay. Their National Team is forced to play without one of its stars, Luis “El Incisivo” Suarez today, and it is now (at 8:27 PM GMT) down 0 -1 to Colombia.

    If their team loses, the Uruguay populace may have to wait until November or December to “chill.” That’s when they will able to buy the government ganja at about $1/gram (less than $30/ounce).

    See:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/uruguay-marijuana-regulat_n_5276097.html

  • HonestDebate1

    Obama taught Constitutional law for 10 years and claims to know about the Constitution. He then gets unanimously smacked down by the SCOTUS for over reaching. That’s quite a disconnect.

    http://newsninja2012.com/obama-taught-constitutional-law-10-years-take-constitution-seriously-video/

    • JONBOSTON

      And it wouldn’t surprise me if he loses the Hobby Lobby case that will be decided on Monday by a 6-3 or 7-2 vote (assuming no recusals).

      • HonestDebate1

        I really can’t understand why the case even got this far. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on the ruling) I would not be surprised at anything the SCOTUS rules.

    • John Cedar

      When did he teach Constitutional law? I guess EVERY law class is a Constitutional law class? Or if you lecture on one aspect of one article it counts.

      From 1992 until 2004, Obama taught three courses: “Current Issues in Racism and the Law,” “Voting Rights and the Democratic Process,” and “Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process.”
      Obama wasn’t a professor; he was a lecturer, a position that the Chicago Law School said in 2008 “signifies adjunct status.” He was elevated to a “senior lecturer” in 1996, the year he was first elected to the Illinois Senate in Springfield.

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/chapter-ii-the-myth-of-the-rock-star-professor/article/2508418

  • hennorama

    Amidst the recent distractions, some may have missed what might be Friday’s most significant event. From the Washington Post:

    Ukraine signs landmark agreement with E.U.

    KIEV, Ukraine — Shrugging off Russian threats and a burgeoning civil war, Ukraine signed a landmark trade deal Friday binding it to the European Union, a monumental step that came in defiance of months of Kremlin efforts to prevent the country from turning westward.

    The move prompted a top Russian diplomat to warn immediately of “serious consequences” for Ukraine. A cease-fire that has brought some measure of calm to the country’s roiling east was extended until Monday, and E.U. leaders hinted that they would slap more sanctions on Russia if it does not take steps to achieve peace by that deadline.

    The document signed Friday was the same one that was rejected in November by Ukraine’s then-president, Viktor Yanukovych. That decision sparked months of protests by pro-Western Ukrainians, a crackdown by Yanukovych and his eventual ouster in February, generating the highest tensions between the West and Russia since the Cold War.

    See:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ukraine-signs-landmark-agreement-with-eu/2014/06/27/8e6ca59a-fdd2-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html

    Should make for some interesting news in the days, weeks, months, and years to come.

  • HonestDebate1

    How long did it take for On Point to have a show on Chris Christie after bridge gate?

    • Fredlinskip

      And they haven’t reported on the Kardashians lately either.

      • HonestDebate1

        Why should they? The Kardashians are about as relevant as Christie.

        • HonestDebate1

          … on the other hand, Hillary…

  • Guest

    On Point is partisan Democrat party talking points pretending to be news.

    • Fredlinskip

      Yet, OP seems to allow their discussions to be informed by facts more then most any other “news” sources out there.

      NPR actually employs actual journalists- flesh and blood reporters who actually go to the source of stories in many parts of the world.
      This FACT separates them WAY above MANY “news” outlets that simply editorialize biased interpretations of “news” they find at a click of a button on their computers in an effort to provide sensationalized “infotainment”.

      And OP discusses issues of the day at much greater depth than most media outlets, going way beyond sound bites, and providing guests that seem to be competent and well-informed.

      • brettearle

        I agree with what you say, generally.

        But even though I rely on the reporting of, say, Deborah Amos, we cannot discount her own potential bias.

        If you, or I were trained journalists who knew how to report a story on the ground, as it happens, it still doesn’t mean that what we see, and what we hear, might not be filtered unconsciously through our own prism and agenda.

        However, it might mean that such training, and such access, would reduce the slant, noticeably– by comparison to “news outlets that simply editorialize biased interpretations of “news”.”

        • hennorama

          brettearle — there is also a sort of Journalistic Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, as one cannot know whether the journalist/observer’s mere presence has altered events.

          • brettearle

            Stop with your pithy insights, will ya?

            Do me a Favor:

            Go on special leave. I can help initiate the paper work….

            [THAT point, about one's mere presence in a kerfuffle, is one subtle and super point--and it has boundless implications for a storyteller's work....

            Ordinarily, at this point, I'd say, out of gratitude, What do I owe you? But I'm a Jew--so I refuse to pay you anything.]

          • hennorama

            brettearle — TYFYR, and your very kind words.

            My apologies.

            I was musing on HUP this morning, while on a walk with my dog Jack, so it was a bit top of mind. (Don’t ask — it’s bit of a long story completely unrelated to the topic.)

            Thanks again.

          • Guest

            Did anybody ask to hear your life story?

          • hennorama

            “Guest” — was anyone writing to you? Why the brave anonymity?

            Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.

            - Benjamin Franklin

            How long have you been here?

          • Guest

            Call the NSA, they can tell you since they’re spying on all of us.

          • hennorama

            “Guest” — thank you for your bravely unresponsive and deflective response.

            Unimpressive, that.

    • jefe68
      • HonestDebate1

        You say that a lot, why? Do you think OP is above criticism? It’s public radio, we pay for it.

        The obsession with Fox is soooooo stupid. For one thing that study has been thoroughly debunked. For another, no one mentioned Fox so you have to fantasize it. And even if we accept your implication, you have to assume if someone watches Fox they watch or listen to nothing else. That’s nuts. Guest is here on NPR. Most of us on the right are very in tune with leftist media. How often do you watch Fox (or listen to Rush) in addition to you life in the left-wing bubble?

        • brettearle

          Except that the Guest makes a simplistic sweeping statement.

          Without backing it up.

          What’s the Point?

          If you’re planning to speak for him, it wouldn’t eliminate the Guest’s vapid comment.

          • HonestDebate1

            If someone made a simplistic sweeping statement (without backing it up) like, “On Point is fair and Tom Ashbrook is one of the best”, would you have the same response?

          • brettearle

            Absolutely, I should and sometimes I have.

            And every time, we on the Left don’t, then either we should be called out or the Right should take up the case.

          • HonestDebate1

            I think you have made that very claim before. Do you deny it? I’ll take your word if you do but I don’t think I’m mistaken.

        • Don_B1

          I guess you do have to listen to accurate information sources so you can figure out how to twist it to make your ideology appear less ridiculous.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s where Rush comes in.

          • Guest

            Is Rush still popping pills?

          • Don_B1

            Wrong!

        • jefe68

          I say it to people how keep on compiling about the content of the show because it does not meet their right wing dogma, or some other issue. I turn it off often, it’s real easy.

          As to Fox, well it’s pretty clear you’re regurgitating a lot of right wing BS produced by them.

          As to Rush, well life’s to short to listen or pay attention to such garbage. What’s telling here is that somehow you think that by listening to that crap and the inane dribble content produced by Fox that somehow you are getting some kind of balanced overview. That in and of itself speaks to how the study I posted does have a lot of truth it.

          I watch and listen to the BBC, DW news, that’s a German/English news station, and Asia Today.

          Hey, it’s not about me…

      • Guest

        When I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you.

        • Don_B1

          When you feel free to spread your uninformed opinions around, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get a response.

        • jefe68

          Here’s an opinion. Grow up.

          • Guest

            That’s pretty rich coming from you.

  • HonestDebate1

    Obama was caught completely off guard by the collapse of Iraq after snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Part of that is due to his total withdrawal, he didn’t just pull the troops out, he ripped up every vestige of intelligence operations by the roots, destroyed all contacts and left no trace. I cannot put into words the idiocy of that decision even if you support a pulling out combat troops.

    This can only mean it’s another astonishing example of our president learning about crucial matters from press reports. He is playing fast and loose with our security. That is unacceptable.

    • Don_B1

      The necessity of President Obama having to accept total withdrawal was cast in stone by President Bush when he signed the SoPA in 2008 and when he selected Nouri al Maliki as the best contender to lead the new Iraqi government. Mr. Maliki’s whole career has been working with Iran and Iran did not want any U.S. forces to remain in Iraq.

      • HonestDebate1

        O please, Bush again? Maliki was elected by the Iraqis not Bush. Bush negotiated a SOFA not a SoPA and Obama told Maliki to pound sand when he wanted to negotiate another one. Maliki had little choice if America was going to stick it’s finger in his eye than to go rogue. And Obama had no idea until he read it in the papers.

        • Don_B1

          And just where do you get that President Obama was the one who rejected further negotiation? And after trying for how long when it became clear that PM Maliki was not going to accept any remaining American troops?

          • HonestDebate1

            That is not true at all. Maliki wanted, begged for, 20,000 troops. Obama offered 3000.

          • Don_B1

            Link?

      • hennorama

        Don_B1 — please don’t discuss facts, as the long list of them clearly doesn’t matter.

  • hennorama

    Thanks, Obama.

    Mostly lost in the noise and distractions this week (from NPR.org):

    Chemical Weapons Watchdog Ships Last Declared Chemicals Out Of Syria

    The mission to destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal reached a “major landmark” on Monday, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said in a statement.

    “The last of the remaining chemicals identified for removal from Syria were loaded this afternoon aboard the Danish ship Ark Futura,” OPCW’s Director-General Ahmet Üzümcü said. “The ship made its last call at the port of Latakia in what has been a long and patient campaign in support of this international endeavor.”

    Remember, this mission came together last fall, after the United States issued serious threats of military action against Syria. After Syria agreed to give OPCW access to the country and the United Nations approved the mission, the U.S. stepped off its war footing.

    See:
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/23/324849896/chemical-weapons-watchdog-says-last-batch-of-chemicals-out-of-syria

    • HonestDebate1

      If NPR says it then it must be true. But shouldn’t the credit go to our trusted ally Putin whom Obama ceded responsibility to?

      How many have been gassed since the agreement? You have an awful low bar for democrats.

    • HonestDebate1

      “It’s worth noting that earlier this spring, Human Rights Watch issued a report saying evidence “strongly suggests” the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against its own people in April.”

    • Guest

      Don’t forget to thank Obama for the rotten economy.

      • hennorama

        Hey, [Benghazi Cover-up] — why so shy?

        Please demonstrate the validity of your premise, that

        A. The US economy is “rotten.”
        B. President Obama deserves thanks, implying that he controls the US economy.

      • Don_B1

        The current economy is an austerity economy, demanded by Tea/Republicans and achieved by Presidential compromises to get the debt ceiling lifted and for the Republicans to get at least some of the Bush tax cuts made permanent.

        To see this, note how every time the economy showed an uptick, one or more of the austerity (such as the sequester) measures would kick in and the economic uptick died off.

        • Arkuy The Great

          An economy in which government spending stays abnormally high as a proportion of GDP (over 22%) is not an “austerity economy”. Bring back the Clinton years when the feds spent under 15% of GDP and we had several sequential years of 4% growth, sub 5% unemployment and the highest labor participation rate in US history.

          • Don_B1

            Just WHERE did I propose keeping government spending “abnormally high,” but when the economy has totally tanked, it is not hard for the previous level of spending to be higher than normal. Percentages are formed by taking a numerator and dividing by a denominator! When the denominator takes a plunge, the percentage number goes UP! But the denominator cannot regain its previous level without some additional government spending, which exaggerates the percentage further for a short while, even if that short while is a few years when the economy has taken a more significant hit, particularly when that hit is what is called a balance sheet recession.

            I would just send you out to look up the terms I have used here (which you will do anyway) but you will find economists, even a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics winner (Robert Lucas, Jr.) who will discount this, so you should start with a discussion of the war in economics between modern Keynesians and microfoundationalists like Mr. Lucas:

            http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/28/stagflation-and-the-fall-of-macroeconomics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

            Then come back and walk me through your trip on macroeconomics and I can give you pointers for where I see you going wrong, as I am sure you will, because your ideology predestines you to ignore real experience over that ideology.

            But here is the bottom line, which has to do with the belief, which I expect you have, that government fiscal policy should be like a household’s budget:

            This this is a terribly FALSE analogy/metaphor!

            The reason is that a household is not a closed system, like a country with trade to the world less than 10% of its GDP and thus the difference in imports over exports is less than 5% of GDP and can be ignored as a significant source of income for this discussion.

            A household’s GDP does not come from financial interactions between its members, but from interactions (trade) with outside (foreign) parties.

            In the economy of a country, my spending is your income and your spending is my income. In a household, one member’s spending is not another’s income.

            Thus in a country, when both you and I represent a significant part of the population that sees a strong imperative to cut our individual spending, without a government to make up the lost spending, both of our incomes will decrease.

            And the failure of the government to increase spending enough (the stimulus — ARRA — was just under $800 billion spread over two years when the economy had lost some $2 trillion in one year and continues to lose almost $1 trillion compared to potential GDP which could be achieved with full employment) and for a long enough period.

            Every time the economy showed indications of recovery, the Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, managed to insert some cut in government spending that took the wind out of the economy’s sails.

            If you can take the time and really concentrate on thinking about the truth or falsity of each sentence and actually write down reasons that each sentence is true and then why it is false, and compare the reasons for reasonableness, you might decide from seeing the words laid out where they are not so easily dismissed that you have some ideological predispositions that lead you to wrong results.

          • Arkuy The Great

            You did not propose anything. I merely stated what is currently happening against the context of historical averages and asserted that spending is already “abnormally high”. Therefore, the notion of “austerity” is silly, I think.

            As for the rest of that rather hefty strawman you constructed someone who actually posed the questions you are allegedly answering can comment. I will merely enjoy the nice pop in my hay futures tomorrow morning, thank you very much!

          • Don_B1

            I proposed that you read the passage in the block quote, and digest it.

            As for the effectiveness of “austerity,” look at what is going on in Kansas, where a real experiment is crashing the economy of all but the wealthiest Kansans:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-cranks-and-kansas.html?_r=0

            Please do read it through even as your stomach takes a roller-coaster ride with only one pitch-over that you will be experiencing.

          • Arkuy The Great

            I read it through. And, true to your normal form, you are raising yet another strawman to knock over. We are discussing “austerity” here, not “supply side” tax policy (PK’s favorite bête noire). In case you did not understand the difference the former has to do with reducing spending and the latter with reducing taxation. They are not the same thing, no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise.

            Keep them coming, Bubba. I am not selling those hay futures yet!

        • tbphkm33

          You are now several light years ahead of the intelligence level of “Guest”

        • JONBOSTON

          If only anything you have to say was true. If you believe this is an austerity budget then you’re delusional or a federal government employee. Or both.

          • Don_B1

            The U.S. economy is not as bad as it could have been, as Kansas is now proving:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-cranks-and-kansas.html?_r=0

            But that is what the full Tea Party/Republican agenda would have created country wide.

            Be thankful that your recommendations were not fully implemented. But the country is, repeat, IS, in a Lesser Depression because of the austerity measures Republicans have forced to happen. A growth rate of less than 1% when the population is growing even faster, is a depressed economy.

          • JONBOSTON

            The reason the economy improved was because of actions by the Fed , not the stimulus program . Due to TARP and QE3 , the Fed brought stability, liquidity, and low interest rates back into the system. All the stimulus did was delay the inevitable shrinking of state public sector payrolls and provide additional short term pocket cash for low and moderate taxpayers. In addition by ballooning the national debt , Obama has upset the capital markets and created concern about future inflation and higher taxes. Net result is that the private sector is hesitant to hire and invest in the country. Recall the original purpose promoted for the stimulus program was to stimulate the private sector to invest and hire.

  • tbphkm33

    Ironic, biggest news out Iraq today is the arrival from Russia of five old second hand MIG fighter jets. Going to be pressed into service within 3 to 4 days against ISIS.

    Sad for the United States really, after 12 years and trillions of dollars squandered to overthrow one government and install a colonial puppet government; disband and rebuild a military in the image of the “mightily” U.S. military; and being directly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 500,000 people – it has all boiled down to the American handpicked Iraqis in Baghdad, at the hour of their fall, hedging their bets on the arrival of five rusting Russian jets.

    Somehow, in the inscription under the official portrait of George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., the word “failure” is finally set in stone.

    • HonestDebate1

      Bush won Iraq then Obama lost it.

      • tbphkm33

        Ah, I see “Not-so-honest-debate” has been getting his Sunday morning dosage of FOX Entertainment “News” propaganda.

        • HonestDebate1

          Fox? It was Obama and Biden who said Iraq was a success.

        • hennorama

          tbphkm33 — you have to consider that this is the same entity that less than two months ago, wrote

          “Iraq is over … Bush is gone.”

          See:
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/05/02/tornado-la-clippers-us-unemployment-numbers#comment-1367879017

          [Debates?NotHe] first dismisses a mention of Pres. Bush II, then invokes him, all under the same topic, demonstrating once again just how hilariously inapt its moniker truly is.

          Enjoy your merry discourse.

      • jefe68

        Hmmm. You know what’s interesting about this comment? It’s so vacuous and reflects someone with a comic book mentality. This from the guy who want’s to be taken seriously. Seriously?

    • Guest

      You look just like Howdy Doodie.

      • tbphkm33

        Typical of the ignorance of Nopublican’s – have nothing intelligent to say, resort to a personal attack. Oh well.

        • StilllHere

          Pot meet kettle.

    • Arkuy The Great

      “…being directly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 500,000 people…”

      I will single out this whopper from your litany of silliness. Are you seriously suggesting that US forces lined up a half million people alongside a ditch and dispatched them to a mass grave? Because if you are referring to the internecine massacres of Arabs by Arabs and of Muslims by Muslims your assertion makes absolutely no sense at all. That is a fate that the people in the theater are responsible for themselves. That is, unless you actually believe that peoples of the Mideast are not responsible for their own actions, being an inferior race and needing us Westerners to make them see the light…

      • tbphkm33

        Was not the bloodshed in Iraq a direct result of the U.S. invasion and occupation? Absent GW Bush’s actions, would events have played out in such an order? The answer is no – so yes, the United States has moral responsibility for the bloodshed.

        • Arkuy The Great

          Because Saddam Hussein engaged in no such activities himself. Just ignore that pile of several million Kurds and Shia that piled up during the 80s and 90s. Those annihilistic struggles between Sunni and Shia that have existed for centuries would never have emerged with fury after Saddam’s passing (sons Uday and Qusay were hardly the steely types of their fater). Nope, without the US invasion Iraq would be a beacon of peace, freedom and prosperity in the region. I just know it…

          Ignorance and intentional obtuseness are very unbecoming.

          • tbphkm33

            … and what Saddam did or might have done somehow absolves the United State moral responsibility for its actions???

            Do we not count the killing done by puppet governments alined to the Nazi’s as part of the Nazi’s toll during World War Two? Forces unleashed by the Nazi’s.

            So then, why would history not count deaths resultant of forces unleashed by the Republican/Neo-Con/TeaBagger cabal through G.W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq as staining the moral fiber of the United States?

            Irrespective of what had been going on in Iraq before or may hypothetically have happened in the future, the United States intervened and changed history. In so doing, accepting the moral responsibility for its actions.

            Furthermore, G.W. Bush unleashed bloodshed on a scale never seen under Saddam, discrediting the assertion that the United States was somehow “saving” the Iraqi people.

          • Arkuy The Great

            “Do we not count the killing done by puppet governments alined to the Nazi’s”

            Godwin rule instantiated!

            “G.W. Bush unleashed bloodshed on a scale never seen under Saddam”

            Do some reading about the Halabja gas attacks or the Anfal campaign in the late ’80s or the war against the Kurds and Shiites in the aftermath of Desert Storm and then try making that statement. The aggregate death toll was well past a million. If you want to make Nazi comparisons there it is! OTOH it is pretty obvious that, in your world, if it cannot be pinned on G. W. Bush and the “Republican/Neo-Con/TeaBagger cabal” then it must not have happened.

    • pete18

      A little reminder for the absent mined among us:

      “Do we remember that Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that supported regime change in Iraq? He gave an eloquent speech on the dangers of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

      In 2002, both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass a resolution authorizing the removal of Saddam Hussein by force. Senators such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Harry Reid offered moving arguments on the Senate floor why we should depose Saddam in a post-9/11 climate.

      Democratic stalwarts such as Senator Jay Rockefeller and Representative Nancy Pelosi lectured us about the dangers of Saddam’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. They drew on the same classified domestic- and foreign-intelligence reports that had led Bush to call for Saddam’s forcible removal.

      The Bush administration, like members of Congress, underestimated the costs of the war and erred in focusing almost exclusively on Saddam’s supposed stockpiles of weapons. But otherwise, the war was legally authorized on 23 writs. Most of them had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were unaffected by the later mysterious absence of such weapons — which is all the more mysterious given that troves of WMD have turned up in nearby Syria and more recently in Iraqi bunkers overrun by Islamic militants.

      Legally, the U.S. went to war against Saddam because he had done things such as committing genocide against the Kurds, Shiites, and the Marsh Arabs, and attacking four of his neighbors. He had tried to arrange the assassination of a former U.S. president, George H. W. Bush. He had paid bounties for suicide bombers on the West Bank and was harboring the worst of global terrorists. Saddam also offered refuge to at least one of the architects of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and violated U.N.-authorized no-fly zones.”

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381242/looking-back-iraq-victor-davis-hanson

      • tbphkm33

        … and which president lied about and exaggerated realities to support his quest to invade a sovereign nation? … hint, it was not President Clinton nor President Obama…

        • pete18

          And the lies are……?

          • HonestDebate1

            They’ll just redefine the word lie. Presto!

        • JONBOSTON

          Funny , if Bush lied about the events in Iraq, don’t you think the Obama administration would have revealed the “lies” by now since they have access to everything Bush was exposed to when president? Obama hasn’t any qualms about blaming Bush for everything else . Do you ever stop to think about that?

        • Don_B1

          They should, but won’t, read Charles Lewis’ book, 935 Lies: The future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity, as discussed here:

          http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-truth-vs-dcs-propaganda-machine/

  • Coastghost

    How’s this for setting priorities?
    Last week, Obama asked Congress for $500 million to begin to help address the tumult that the ISIS/ISIL insurgency has brought to Iraq and which poses serious security threats to the immediate region and beyond. (By increasing numbers of accounts in both domestic and foreign media, Obama’s steadfast refusal to deal with the crisis that has only grown since the end of 2011 is largely responsible for his now having to deal with it belatedly [and his puny efforts now may yet prove utterly insufficient to the actual threats and challenges posed].)
    Today, Obama asks Congress for $2 billion to address the plight of unaccompanied Central American children thronging along our border with Mexico. (This too results from Obama’s prior serial failures in managing US immigration policy even according to existing law, his blubbering, whining inability to craft effective new immigration policy notwithstanding.)
    Sub-Messiah Obama thus shows himself not at all committed to defending the US Constitution, as required by his oath: he prefers vastly to defend the honor of his precious Nobel Peace laureateship.

    • Guest

      On average, 3,000 people in Detroit have their water turned off daily because they can’t pay their late water bills.
      Don’t blame President Barack Obama for that, it’s not his fault the economy is contracting.

      • tbphkm33

        Ah, here we have the highly dubious statement of the day – “3,000 people in Detroit have their water turned off daily” Lets do the math:
        Population of Detroit is 701,475
        Average size of US household is 2.58 people
        Hence 271,890 households in Detroit
        According to “Guest” 3,000 cut off per day

        Which means that half way through the 90th day, everyone in Detroit has had their water cut off. The water company in Detroit must have a whole army of staffers who’s sole duty is to turn off water connections.

        Maybe “Guest” read his “statistic” somewhere, so maybe a citation would be nice – something beyond the Conservative News Service.

      • hennorama

        “Guest” — COMPLETELY FALSE, not that one is surprised of course.

        Some reporting from the Detroit Free Press, contradicting your nonsense:

        Water service to 7,556 Detroit customers was cut off in April and May, according to the department. Now, the department officials said enough shutoff crews are in place to halt service to 3,000 delinquent accounts per week.

        See:
        http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014306260038

  • pete18

    Anyone disagree with this editorial from the Minnesota Tribune?

    Appoint a special prosecutor in IRS imbroglio

    “The old caution against ascribing to malice what can be explained by incompetence is worth keeping in mind when evaluating a high-profile blunder in either the private or public sector, such as the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

    But the latest twist in the long-running controversy — the eye-rollingly convenient loss of IRS e-mails — moves the needle from ineptitude and toward the other, more troubling end of the spectrum. While the lost e-mails aren’t definitive proof of an orchestrated effort by the IRS or the Obama administration, the recent news that thousands of e-mails were obliterated in a computer hard-drive crash in 2011 is tough to swallow, not only for technology professionals, but also for an increasingly tech-savvy public.

    Americans deserve better answers than the current bitterly partisan political process is likely to yield, especially when such a powerful agency has come under suspicion. Congressional Republicans including Minnesota Rep. Erik Paulsen, along with some Democrats, have called for a special prosecutor to investigate how the IRS handled petitions from conservative groups for tax-exempt status.”

    This would satisfy the democrats who claim it’s all trumped up nonsense by the Republicans, and possibly put the whole thing to bed, but also would be applauded by those of us who find the entire process troubling and suspicious and think the IRS would be forever viewed as a partisan tool without without having these lingering questions answered. A rare win-win for everybody.

    http://www.startribune.com/opinion/264985911.html?src=news-stmp#gle5MiqF4CjL394e.97

    • Don_B1

      I will give you that Darrell Issa is incompetent to lead any type of investigation that would lead to a just result, but special investigators were sort of proven a distorting and even corrupt overreaction back in the 1990s.

      • pete18

        So then what would you suggest?

        • Don_B1

          Leave it to the I.R.S.’s Inspector General and the DoJ.

          • pete18

            They are interested parties and couldn’t possibly do an objective job, nor will they (do anything).

  • Guest

    Is Barack Obama the antichrist? This video makes a strong argument that he is!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcbloBA2Lek

    • tbphkm33

      Please help FLAG the above troll post as inappropriate.

      “Guest” – even if you do not agree with the nation’s leadership, be adult enough to refrain from such dumb post.

      No need to prove that you are an idiot, most of us already realize that.

      • Arkuy The Great

        Meh! I say keep it. We can all use some theater-of-the-absurd entertainment. ;-)

    • JGC

      Dear ImpeachObama,

      What have you done with my good friend XY&Z?! I fear you have kidnapped him and are holding him for ransom. Return XY&Z to this forum immediately, and I may be able to guarantee the transfer of the rest of the Guantanamo detainees to your custody.

      • 1Brett1

        I see you’ve received a “guest” vote up! I was half-tempted to sign out and give you a “guest” vote just to get into the spirit of things…Years ago, when Obama was first elected, people were pretending to be each other and were also creating whole ensembles of alter-personas. Then, when he was elected a second time, there was an uptick in similar shenanigans.

        You may be on to something, there, with the true identities. Maybe he (or she) changes monikers — even becoming more masked — because he is fearful of governmental monitoring. We have one regular commentator on the forum who changed his screen name for that very reason.

        • JGC

          Thanks for a bit of the background. I was not here pre-Obama, so it is interesting to hear about the subterfuges people tried to avoid detection.

          • HonestDebate1

            I remember it well, it happened to me. I think it was only one person though and they were hard hard to the left. They would use my name (and others) and make comments that made it look like I was a liberal.

          • 1Brett1

            I’m not saying you had anything to do with it, but it started happening about the time you showed up…and, some of the fake people espoused political views from both left and right.

            As I recall, you were one of the victims. Actually, at the time I remember thinking that you were doing it to yourself (after it had become a problem for others) in obvious ways to look persecuted. Of course that was just my whacky thinking…

          • 1Brett1

            It doesn’t really make sense for a “hard, hard to the left” liberal to pretend to be a conservative being a liberal and saying stupid liberal things, as it were; that only would make liberals look bad. It makes more sense that a conservative would engage in such shenanigans (a conservative pretending to be liberal). A liberal would pretend to be conservative and then would say stupid conservative things, making conservatives look bad. A conservative sounding “hard, hard to the left” to make liberals sound stupid (or to make a known conservative sound liberal in an obvious way), sounds much more plausible in this scenario of online persona fakery.

          • JGC

            That must have been uniquely painful!

            Actually, now that I think back, I first posted under “Mrs. Thurston Howell IV” trying to think and post as if I were a fake 1percenter. It was really hard to continue in that sort of fake identity after a while. It makes me appreciate the way Stephen Colbert has been able to live his comedy show persona so fully for all these years.

          • HonestDebate1

            I remember that moniker! How have you been Lovie?

          • 1Brett1

            Who knows, maybe you are Mrs. Thurston Howell iV representing the rich and JGC is a fake persona? That whole “how does Stephen Colbert do it” routine is just to throw us all off!

        • hennorama

          1Brett1 — this particular “Guest” may also have the moniker [Benghazi Cover-up].

          As to [X Y & Z]: it has had multiple prior monikers, including [Jay] and the hilarious misnomer [InformedAmerican].

          They may also all be the same entity. There is also a prima facie case that [X Y & Z] is not a living being, based on the repetitive, unreasoning, and unresponsive nature of many comments under that moniker.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      What is “the antichrist”?

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      Bush was the only president to pilot an F-22 (or was it an F-16)? “Above the clouds”

      Mission Accomplished

      Every bible quote can be refuted with another bible quote.
      “Even the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose.” Shakespeare

    • brettearle

      All those in favor of flagging this guy, raise your hands….

      Thank you so much, Sir, for polluting the Forum.

  • eat_swim_read

    so the caller admits the protesters at her abortion clinic were polite – which is leads Jack Beatty to deplore “the things they say.”
    yawn.
    glad the woman who had an abortion was honest that the protest was polite. yep – they are indeed.
    in this era of video capacity in every phone – show us some protests that are not polite.
    {crickets…}

  • hennorama

    warren — thank you for your response.

    That you “believe” something is immaterial, especially given that your “belief” is false.

    Some groups in Detroit contacted the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, in an effort to assist residents in getting their water supplies restored. It had nothing whatsoever to do with “help in paying past due accounts.”

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    On the buffer zones “violating” free speech – people can say what they want to – but they are not guaranteed an audience. This ruling is wrong.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 27, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, shakes hands with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, right, as Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, center, looks at them, prior to their talks after after posing for a photo in Minsk, Belarus, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2014. (AP)

Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s leader meet. We’ll look at Russia and the high voltage chess game over Ukraine. Plus, we look at potential US military strikes in Syria and Iraq.

Aug 27, 2014
The cast of the new ABC comedy, "Black-ish." (Courtesy ABC)

This week the Emmys celebrate the best in television. We’ll look at what’s ahead for the Fall TV season.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 26, 2014
Matthew Triska, 13, center, helps Alex Fester, 10, to build code using an iPad at a youth workshop at the Apple store on Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2013, in Stanford, Calif.  (AP)

Educational apps are all over these days. How are they working for the education of our children? Plus: why our kids need more sleep.

 
Aug 26, 2014
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, right, speaks with Ady Barkan of the Center for Popular Democracy as she arrives for a dinner during the Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium at the Jackson Lake Lodge in Grand Teton National Park near Jackson, Wyo. Thursday, Aug. 21, 2014.  (AP)

Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer says he and his fellow super-rich are killing the goose–the American middle class — that lays the golden eggs.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
Comment
 
Why Facebook And Twitter Had Different Priorities This Week
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

There’s no hidden agenda to the difference between most people’s Facebook and Twitter feeds this week. Just a hidden type of emotional content and case use. Digiday’s John McDermott explains.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: August 22, 2014
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

On mixed media messaging, Spotify serendipity and a view of Earth from the International Space Station.

More »
Comment