Patterico's Pontifications

7/26/2017

John McCain’s Sanctimonious and Disgraceful Speech

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am

I wanted to like John McCain’s speech. I really did.

No matter what you think of John McCain’s political positions (I despise many of them), most decent Americans are pulling for him to beat cancer. It was inspiring to see him return to the Senate to cast a critical vote to allow debate on ObamaCare repeal.

And then he gave the speech.

It started out with some high-flown phrases about the importance of the Senate as a deliberative body. Sure, it all sounded a little self-important, but there were some good sentiments in there. The first time I heard the speech, I was impressed with the first few minutes.

Then it got to the part where we have to do the right thing and cooperate with Democrats who never cooperated with us.

To paraphrase McCain: to hell with that.

The text of the speech can be read in its entirety here. Here’s the part that really bugged me:

The [Obama] administration and congressional Democrats shouldn’t have forced through Congress without any opposition support a social and economic change as massive as Obamacare. And we shouldn’t do the same with ours.

Why don’t we try the old way of legislating in the Senate, the way our rules and customs encourage us to act? If this process ends in failure, which seems likely, then let’s return to regular order.

Let the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray hold hearings, try to report a bill out of committee with contributions from both sides. [Applause] Something that my dear friends on the other side of the aisle didn’t didn’t allow to happen nine years ago. Let’s see if we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side, but that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today.

I realize this brands me as one of the “bombastic loudmouths” whom McCain decried in his remarks . . . but what sanctimonious garbage.

McCain starts off this passage correctly: “The Obama administration and congressional Democrats shouldn’t have forced through Congress without any opposition support a social and economic change as massive as Obamacare.” Absolutely right. Well said, Senator.

So, as any idiot can see, the correct solution is to undo what the Democrats did. They never should have done it — but they did. So it must be undone.

Then, and only then, if you want to go through your “regular order” and your committees and all those procedures that you have fallen in love with over the last 30 years, go nuts.

But instead, McCain wants to have one set of rules for the left, and another for conservatives. He wants to let Democrats run roughshod over Republicans, and suffer nothing for it but a tsk-tsking — while Republicans, once in power, have to hold hands with the opposition and compromise, compromise, compromise.

There is nothing inherently immoral about passing legislation without votes from the opposition. You could say it shouldn’t happen that way. But it’s not immoral. So if the other side does that to you, and you can put things back to the status quo by doing the same thing back to them, you should do it.

Let’s take an analogy. Say Mitch and Nancy move into a furnished apartment where the couch is in the center of the room. Mitch wants the couch on the right side of the room. Nancy wants it on the left side. If Nancy simply moves the couch to the left without consulting Mitch, then as soon as Mitch is able, Mitch should move the couch back to at least the center of the room.

There’s nothing wrong with saying: look. I am moving everything back the way it was. Then, if you want to talk to me about it, we can talk.

If instead, Mitch praises the virtues of compromise and incrementalism, and talks about leaving the couch on the left side of the room but perhaps changing its position a little bit, then Mitch is a giant loser. Mitch, not to put too fine a point on it, is a word that rhymes with his name.

The analogy breaks down in a couple of places, of course. If the couch really does belong on the right side of the room, Mitch should simply move it there. To hell with compromise. Arranging furniture is a matter of taste, while using central planning to arrange huge swaths of the economy is known to be insane and disastrous.

The analogy also breaks down because in real life, Mitch isn’t the one to suffer. The people are. In my example, Mitch will get run over by Nancy his whole life — and if he allows it to happen, he deserves it. But the people of the United States don’t deserve to be stuck with socialized, government-controlled medicine, just because Republicans are a pack of lying hypocrites.

So, as much as I wanted to like McCain’s speech, I loathed it. I absolutely despised it. It is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with Washington.

I want both McCain’s brain tumor and his weak incrementalism to disappear, far, far away.

Senator McCain, please beat brain cancer. But as long as you’re serving in the Senate, you need to understand that compromise and collaboration, if not met halfway, are just surrender. Nothing more.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

236 Responses to “John McCain’s Sanctimonious and Disgraceful Speech”

  1. his little dog lindsey’s mewling about “regular order” now too

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. The speech wasn’t so bad except for the fact that it is entirely the fault of the Democrats for the party line votes. They are holding together as a party, and things can’t work that way. McCain’s precedents, which he didn’t specify, don’t mean anything. This bill is not like other bills that did not become extremely important campaign issue.

    In the end Senator Schumer is looking for some kind of bill written behind closed doors that has some provisions that cannot withstand close scrutiny. I mean, what else??

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  3. They need regular order. Nothing even half good will pass now. But they need Democrats not to hang together as a party. What they really need is to get a break-away faction of approximately 10 to 15 Democratic Senators.

    The best place to start is with the kind of campaign finance reform that will enable candidates to ignore their party committees. The best is Dollar for dollar advance refundable tax credits for campaign contributions. (irregardless of anything else owed if possible)

    It might tempt some.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  4. You expecting a,scorpion not to sting you, this is maverick were talking about here.

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. McCain is right about the fact that you don’t get good legislation with party line votes. Too much unanimity is needed. But it is not the Republicans’ fault, and they can’t remedy it unless they split the Democrats.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  6. When I heard him say “We must do something,” I thought…that’s the problem. Stop “doing something” and repeal it and get the hell out of our private lives!

    Patricia (5fc097)

  7. Where is the Billy madison clip, jd was so fond of:

    narciso (d1f714)

  8. He was the one who said we had nothing to fear from obama.

    narciso (d1f714)

  9. Harsh but true. Nothing will change until there is a return to regular order, but McCain isn’t call for regular order as a way to get democrats to compromise – he wants US to compromise with democrats.

    crazy (11d38b)

  10. You don’t need contributions from both parties – you need divisions in both parties.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  11. Thanks for reminding me why we lost the first Obama election that brought us to where we are.

    Bunkerville (d142fb)

  12. Spot on and absolutely correct. “Sanctimonious” fits him to a tee.

    Though I”m not sure which one of us should be more worried – – this is the second post in a row that I’ve agreed with you !….:>)

    Bill Saracino (ad0096)

  13. So in other words, McCain would have the Republicans figure out how to pay for Democrat social legislation, with the GOP naturally taking all of the heat for any program trims that are proposed. That is a losing proposition, and it’s why all of us have grown tired of the John McCains of the U.S. Senate. God bless him, but he really should step down and tend to his health. It’s someone else’s turn.

    JVW (42615e)

  14. “disgraceful” isn’t too shabby either

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. They did something to his brain, you know.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. :)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  17. nothing a cheery pick-me-up bouquet can’t fix i’d wager

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  18. Maybe happy’s nasty comments about McCain in a previous post weren’t so far off the mark, though I, too, flinched at this ingratiousness.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  19. Is that your way of joining in those remarks while simultaneously pretending to be above them? Subtle.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  20. here’s a nice round-up of the florid support the cnn jake tapper fake news propaganda slut media is giving to all this ooey gooey mavericky deliciousness

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  21. *ingraciousness*

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  22. That archetypal common man, jake tapper.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  23. totes wanna have a beer with that dude

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  24. That’s what I get for checking the spelling with funkyjunk(dot)com.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  25. I’m no ingrate: thanks happy!

    ThOR (c9324e)

  26. you’re welcome and thank you Mr. ThOR for the constructive criticize

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  27. Ah, Patterico, you have found consensus here. 😉

    SPQR (a3a747)

  28. Maybe happy’s nasty comments about McCain in a previous post weren’t so far off the mark, though I, too, flinched at this ingratiousness.

    False. They were 100% off the mark, and embarrassing.

    I left them up as a testament to his character.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  29. This is a great post. Thank you, Pat.

    There are few pols I’ve wanted to like more than McCain. He makes it impossible.

    And I’m always left wondering how many of his congressional peers are every bit as nasty as he is, but simply better at hiding it. Most, I’d guess.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  30. 15. nk (dbc370) — 7/26/2017 @ 9:25 am

    They did something to his brain, you know.

    It’s better now than it was at the Comey hearing.

    This is the old McCain.

    A lot of what he says is true, but he omits something else that is also is true, that means that some of what he says is not true or fair.

    He argues that just passing something that is better than the status quo is not what you should expect from Congress.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  31. So, as any idiot can see, the correct solution is to undo what the Democrats did. They never should have done it — but they did. So it must be undone.

    Then, and only then, if you want to go through your “regular order” and your committees and all those procedures that you have fallen in love with over the last 30 years, go nuts.

    The problem with what you suggest, as I see it, is that the two steps are not necessarily separable.

    Your first step (“undo what the Democrats did”), a full repeal of Obamacare, tabula rasa, requires 60 votes. That self-evidently requires bipartisan agreement, and will (equally self-evidently, since no Dem – much less eight of them – will ever agree to full repeal) never happen. Requiring that as a pre-requisite for bipartisan discussion is a poison pill.

    Failing that, you are talking amending Obamacare in some manner and the result becoming the new health-care law. It may happen in multiple bills (e.g. “skinny repeal” now followed by further changes later) but still, it is crafting new/revised system, not “undoing what the Democrats did” and then starting over from scratch.

    I think McCain is right that if (and it’s a very big if) it is possible to put together something better than the current system with Democrat support, it should be attempted.

    Dave (445e97)

  32. If I understand Patterico, it would have been better if his speech had said something like this:

    So, what I am going to do, and I invite my fellow Republicans to do the same, is vote for repeal. But repeal with a transition period — which will be the end of 2018. If we need to pay money to keep the insurers in the marketplace to 2018, we do that. And we keep all of Obamacare until then. Yes, my friends, that includes the mandate, because what we don’t need in these times is more chaos, which the incremental proposals of my friends would give us.

    The goal I have is to force that negotiation that should have happened before. What I propose will do that, and give us the same amount of time as Obama had to put this together. The President can put together a Plan. The Congress can put together a Plan. We can all think how best to (insert flowery language here)

    The problem thus far is that the GOP has refused to engage healthcare as an issue, and chosen instead to address it as a slogan, and then a box to check off, and finally as third rail they can’t seem to handle.

    Appalled (96665e)

  33. The situation in the Middle East stands like this now:

    1. The Israeli Embassy in Jordan is closed.

    2. The Palestianian Authority is refusing any kind of acknowledgemes co-operation with Israel on security until any change whatsoever from the situation before the killing of the two policemen is reversed.

    3. Russian troops are to be stationed in southern Syria.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  34. McCain’s statement that the Democrats shouldn’t have “forced” Obamacare through “without any opposition support” is a BS way of framing the issue. Republicans in 2009-10 were never going to vote for any health-care bill – they made it clear right from the start that their goal was to deny Obama any “wins” and thereby limit him to a one-term President.

    Please help me understand how it’s the Democrats’ fault that no Republicans voted for Obamacare, and how the Democrats were in any way “wrong” to have voted for a bill that incorporated many principles previously espoused by “conservatives” as an alternative to “single payer” healthcare.

    Jonny Scrum-half (96300c)

  35. it’s interesting that while McCain’s sanctimoniously calling for a heaping plate of scrumptious regular order, his two favorite senate moo cows wouldn’t even agree to proceed to a debate

    how are we can do regular order if the moo cows won’t even let us have a debate

    A motion to proceed is what it sounds like — a measure to allow debate to begin. There will be 20 hours of debate, which will expire Wednesday, NPR’s Susan Davis reports.

    Republicans could only lose two votes for a majority without any Democratic support. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, both voted no.

    Hmmm… The internet says this Collins person’s part of McCain’s execrable soros-funded Republican Main Street club.

    Maybe pickle-pooper needs to clean up his own house first before lecturing other people huh

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  36. But repeal with a transition period — which will be the end of 2018.

    First of all, if you are going to do that, you need to make it at least the end of 2020.The 2018 election could then be fought over that.

    2021 would be better but you’ve got to prevent people just waiting for the next president. But I don’t think that’s too good. That’s brinkmanship.

    If the deadline is 2018 it’s hopeless brinksmanship.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  37. Dave:

    Ah, the 60 vote thing. You know, the filibuster can be removed, and this might be the place to do it. That will probably rebound on the GOP someday, but, currently, it is a cause of much of the dysfunction.

    Appalled (96665e)

  38. could only lose two votes for a majority without any Democratic support.

    Actually a lot of possible legislation can be objected to on the grounds that it violates the reconciliation rules (must affect the deficit and effect cannot be incidental) and if the Senate Parliamentarian agrees it needs 60 votes to override him.

    So not too much can be done although they maybe could get rid of the individual mandate and replace it with tax credits and a high risk pool paid for by the Federal government,.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  39. At one point Trump tweeted that McConnell should get rid of the filibuster rule. The Senate doesn’t want to do that, really.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  40. I wish we could pay the Vietnamese to take back McCain, but, sad to say, they don’t want him either.

    MarkJ (3386d9)

  41. They never should have done it — but they did. So it must be undone.

    That’s like saying no one should have taken their helmet off on that movie planet.
    I see a lot of bad franchise entries with plot holes in our future.

    Oops, here comes an engineer in a cartwheeling spaceship BRB.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  42. Sammy:

    I understand your point, but you make it longer that 12/31/2018, action would get punted to the next Congress, which would punt it to the next Congress, etc, etc, sort of like with the budgets during the second Obama term. This congress needs to take responsibility for the issue. These guys were elected on repeal and replace. They need to be responsible for both.

    Appalled (96665e)

  43. But they want to prevent him from recess appointing anyone, they have their priorities on straight.

    narciso (d1f714)

  44. Speaking of brain cancer and double standards, I see Bernie mewling about how radical and extremist a straight Obamacare repeal would be. He’s the one who complained Obamacare was too modest – how can it be radical and extreme to undo a modest change? Except in that sense that a 5% tax increase is a modest tax increase but a 5% tax cut is a whopping slashing of taxes.

    Jerryskids (cfad51)

  45. So in other words, McCain would have the Republicans figure out how to pay for Democrat social legislation…

    JVW (42615e) — 7/26/2017 @ 9:13 am

    Yes, but that’s been the Republican way for as long as I’ve been alive. They’re the bean counters for the welfare state. I can’t really describe how angry I get at Republicans when they praise democrats for having their heart in the right place, and in a perfect world we would always get whatever we want for free, but we just don’t have the money.

    We have two parties who believe in government action. This is not just wrong but wrongheaded. The Democrats make constant demands, and the only reason Republicans can come up with to oppose them is that while it’s a really, really good idea it’s going to cost too much.

    Note the cognitive dissonance.

    We all know that Social Security is one of this country’s greatest success stories in the 20th century. Mitch McConnell
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mitch_mcconnell.html

    More young people believe they’ll see a U.F.O. than that they’ll see their own Social Security benefits. Mitch McConnell
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mitchmccon168724.html

    It’s a freaking Ponzi scheme. It would be illegal for you or me to do this. It’s not just expensive, it’s immoral. We are robbing future generations.

    But it’s not in Mitch McConnell’s vocabulary. Surveys show that the majority of college students favor socialism. And why wouldn’t they? Nobody has ever made the argument against it. Nobody has ever made the argument for free markets. Or freedom in general. Both political parties agree we need more government.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  46. 43. I can see Trump canning Sessions, then Rosenstein, then Mueller in August, and appointing good little loyal robots in their stead. (Well, maybe on the second part — it could be that nobody in our stripped down administration knows who to appoint).

    Thing is, a recess appointment will cause a court fight, and a ruling that will likely go against Trump.

    Appalled (96665e)

  47. Agree with the Post 100%. I believe we all owe John McCain a debt of gratitude for his life-long service to his country, but his policy positions as a US Senator over the past 2 decades, and his seeming desire to always play the contrarian within his party and with conservatives, makes him difficult to support on a policy basis.

    The method used by the Dems to pass Obamacare was a slap in the face.

    McCain is always too willing to turn the other cheek rather than slap back.

    Until you slap back, you will continually be on the receiving end of the slap.

    shipwreckedcrew (8356bd)

  48. This has been a problem for a long, long time. The Republicans are willing to compromise and cooperate, so they eventually settle on something between what they want and what the Democrats want.
    OK, nice compromise.

    Then the Democrats raise the issue again. But the Republicans negotiate from the compromise position and the Democrats negotiate from their original position. So the Republicans eventually reach a compromise position, which is closer to the original Democrat position than the previous compromise.
    Rinse and repeat, until the compromise position is precisely what the Democrats wanted in the first place.

    We need Republicans who at least remember what the original Republican position was, and insist on that as the position that has to be compromised with.

    Karl Lembke (e37f42)

  49. Good post.

    These career politicians who consider their friendships with political adversaries and comity more important than serving the American people disgust me.

    NJRob (2cc735)

  50. Karl Lembke @49 – Enlighten me to this “long, long” history of Republican compromise. I haven’t seen it.

    Does it ever occur to you and the others excoriating Republicans for failing to repeal Obamacare that perhaps some people have realized that Obamacare actually made things better, and repealing it would be a step in the wrong direction?

    Jonny Scrum-half (96300c)

  51. Doc brown is their Corbyn, the one may almost delivered with house of conquistador aplumb.

    narciso (d1f714)

  52. yes yes Mr. narciso

    it’s odd being lectured to about “regular order” by someone who colluded with a Russian misinformation operation and helped plant a bogus pee pee dossier with a corrupt FBI who used it to justify illegal spying on their political opponents

    sounds a tad irregular to me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  53. I guess it’s fine around these parts I suppose, just like mavericks part on helping bel hadj (libyan aq) takeover and the other operation with Liwa al ummah,

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. If I were married to a gorgeous blonde who owned a beer distributorship, I would feel that I owed it to the Universe to be the best person I could be. Maybe poor McCain feels the same but this is the best he can do?

    nk (dbc370)

  55. Welp, it looks like 60% of Americans would disagree with you on healthcare Patterico. To the extent that our representative government should uphold laws that we the people want, you as a person, are a loser on this one.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americans-say-government-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/

    Go ahead and destroy it, but know that it will destroy what’s left of your party your ex-party with it.

    Tillman (a95660)

  56. There is no post on this topic, but i want to weigh in just briefly on the Trump-Sessions flap.

    I disagree with the manner Trump has employed to display his unhappiness with Sessions. IMO these are disputes that can and should be settled in the Oval Office face-to-face — air your grievances, hear out the other side, recognize there is important work left to be done that is not in any way related to the grievances, and agree to go about your business.

    There are several things that Session has underway that have nothing to do with Russia, and they are all important to the success of the Trump Administration’s first term: immigration, intelligence leaks, getting DOJ out of creating social policy through the courts; etc.

    But, in defense of Trump’s substantive complaints about the Russia investigation and Mueller, I am sympathetic to his POV.

    Sessions’ recusal set off a chain of events that led to the appointment of a special counsel with a mandate so broad it appears to lack any meaningful limits, and Mueller has not been any any way reticent to push those limits. Now dozens of folks in the WH and with previous ties to the campaign have had to retain attorneys, and its costing them hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of dollars collectively to deal with this issue.

    And the Special Counsel seems to have no barriers to funding his efforts, staffing his efforts, or any timeline on wrapping up his efforts.

    The impact on policy is that you now have an independent government actor in a position to do much mischief in policy areas that are supposed to be in the control of the Executive. Foreign relations, with friendly regimes or unfriendly regimes, are the operating turf of the Executive. Mueller now stands astride any and all policy issues that involve Russia. Any actions taken by any part of the Executive Branch, originating the WH or elsewhere, are now subject to Mueller scrutiny under the terms of his near limitless mandate. The WH, State Dept, Commerce Dept, and Defense Dept, among others, may all have policy initiatives of one kind or another than depend on interaction with Russia — friendly and unfriendly. Cabinet Agencies are supposed to work together to formulate and execute policy. How do they do that with Mueller’s group hovering above them, looking over their shoulder? Everyone involved is subject to becoming an unwittingly involved in Mueller’s drama.

    This is why I have supported the view from the beginning that Trump can and should fire Mueller, announce that the Russia “interference with the election” investigation will continue within DOJ with the National Security Section since that’s what they do, overseen by the Assistant AG in charge of that section, all supervised by Rosenstein and Sessions. This allows the Russia investigation to proceed, but at the same time have it proceed in a manner that takes into consideration other policy priorities of the Admin as determined by the WH and all the involved Cabinet Officials.

    The President should unilaterally rescind Sessions’ recusal with the explanation that he needs his Cabinet Secretary at Justice involved in formulating national security policy, and the grounds for Sessions’ recusal are too insignificant based on what is now known — i.e., that he did or did not meet with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — when compared to the need to have him play the role he was confirmed by the Senate to play as one of the 5 or 6 most important officials in the Exec. Branch. Its a matter of balance.

    Let Congress go about what ever investigation they want into the campaign as well. That’s their prerogative. But the Executive Branch has much more important issues to grapple with that require unified and coordinated work among the Cabinet level agencies.

    All the fallout can be addressed in due course at the ballot box in 2020.

    But there are 40 months remaining in the first term, and it cannot continue in the manner of the last 3 months since Mueller’s appointment.

    Further, I think Trump’s tweet storm yesterday directed at Sessions wasn’t a call to investigate Ukraine’s involvement with the Clinton campaign. IMO, it was more of a rhetorical question directed at Session — i.e., if the non-evidence of Russian collusion is so important as to warrant a Special Counsel, why isn’t the actual evidence of Ukranian involvement with the Clinton campaign the subject of any inquiry at all?? Even if you accept the proposition that Hillary wasn’t personally involved — maybe didn’t know anything about it — what about the foreign actors involved? Or DNC/Hillary Campaign officials? Shouldn’t their conduct at least be examined even if ultimately nothing ever comes from it. That’s exactly what Mueller is doing.

    Trump’s point is to highlight the double-standard, not to actually call for an investigation of Hillary

    Finally, CIA Director Pompeo gave a very loud hint last weekend at the Aspen Institute that DOJ is going to open GJ investigations of leaks, and will subpoena reporters before grand juries and ask them to reveal their sources. He referenced a comment attributed to a Supreme Court decision in the 1970’s that stated “The law is entitled to every man’s evidence”. That comment came out of the decision which held that the First Amendment provides no shield for reporters to protect confidentiality of their sources. Reporters are citizens like anyone else, and they have the same legal duties and responsibilities to provide information in criminal investigations as every other citizen, and that includes Grand Jury testimony. When a government official with a security clearance provides the reporter with classified information the reporter is not authorize by law to know about, the government official makes the reporter a witness to a crime. So, like all such witnesses, the reporters are going to be called to testify. If they refuse — like Judith Miller did — they are going to jail for contempt.

    Leak investigations begin with a referral to DOJ from the intelligence agency involved. Its clear from Pompeo’s statement that the CIA has sent such referrals over, and the press reporting from this week seems to suggest that Sessions is preparing to announce the existence of the investigations. Reporters are likely to begin receiving GJ subpoenas in the near future. They should bring their toothbrushes with them to the GJ session.

    shipwreckedcrew (8356bd)

  57. Does it ever occur to you and the others excoriating Republicans for failing to repeal Obamacare that perhaps some people have realized that Obamacare actually made things better, and repealing it would be a step in the wrong direction?
    Jonny Scrum-half

    That’s okay Johnny Scrum-half, if you like your Obamacare you can keep your Obamacare. Fair enough?

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  58. Stop the presses! Tillman has uncovered the news that 60% of Americans want government to pay for something that they might otherwise might have to purchase themselves! Shocking.

    Next up, Tillman will discover that 75% of Americans want to pay a low tax rate but receive lots of generous government services and benefits.

    JVW (42615e)

  59. Putting political distance between Sessions and Trump now strengthens Sessions’ position in the leak war and DOJ overhaul if it’s about to be made public as shipwreckedcrew @58 suggests. I guess we’ll know soon if this was strategery or just impatience with getting it started or making it public.

    crazy (11d38b)

  60. This is emblematic. I just heard Trump has banned “transgenders” from the military. I put transgender in scare quotes because it is biologically impossible to change your sex.

    As an aside, I’m amused when I interact with a global warmist and they bring up consensus and how the science is settled. I’ve been told the science was settled since before “An Inconvenient Truth” came out in 2006.

    But the people talking down to me rely on models that don’t work. I’m not going to look up the article but a supposed scientist from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (a major source of so-called date for the IPCC’s panic stricken reports) told I believe the UK Telegraph that in ten years British children wouldn’t know what snow is. That was back in 2000. Guess what; British children in 2017 know what snow is. James Hanson said that in 20 or 30 years Manhattan would be under water. That was in 1988. Does anyone believe Manhattan will be under water next year?

    If the science is settled, why are actual scientists still making major discoveries? For instance in 2015 scientists from climate research units at the universities of Lyon and Leipzig published a peer-reviewed report about isoprene. Isoprene is an atmospheric gas that aids in cloud formation, so it has a cooling effect. Previously scientist thought it was produced biologically by land plants and phytoplankton. But they discovered that it is also produced abiotically due to the sun’s interaction with the surface microlayer of the ocean. So the ocean may produce twice as much isoprene as previously thought, which will be one factor for why there has been no measurable rise in atmospheric temperatures for nearly 20 years.

    So the science is not settled when it comes to climate but the one place it almost certainly is is human sexuality. If you have X and Y chromosomes you’re a boy, and if you have two X chromosomes you’re a girl.

    You are not actually a boy trapped in a girl’s body or a girl trapped in a boy’s body. If you think you are you have a mental disorder. You deserve compassion and treatment. If you don’t want treatment that’s your right, too. But I’m as libertarian as it gets. That means you get to do what you want. But you don’t have the right to drag me into your delusion.

    We can’t have delusional people in the armed forces. Trump is now catching heat for doing the right thing for the country (no matter what you think about anything else he does). And I don’t believe the majority of Republicans will be able to stand the heat.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  61. I’m completely down with your assessment, Patterico. Sanctimonious garbage from a sanctimonious garbageman.

    Was at one time an admirer of the Senator (one of mine, as it happens) but that admiration faded a number of years ago, starting with the Keating business, then his bromance with his ‘good friend’ the ‘Lion of the Senate’ and capped off by the ‘Build the Dang Fence!’ charade. Although I wish him a full recovery and good health, he’s as good an example of Swamp Thing as you’ll find.

    Daiwa (bbfc08)

  62. Agree with the Post 100%. I believe we all owe John McCain a debt of gratitude for his life-long service to his country…

    shipwreckedcrew (8356bd) — 7/26/2017 @ 10:29 am

    I agree we should all be grateful for John McCain’s naval service. His political career.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  63. And the dems used the two hour rule to provide browser, the man behind the magnitsky law from testifying about fusion gps

    narciso (a58517)

  64. “and it cannot continue in the manner of the last 3 months since Mueller’s appointment.”

    It can and will continue to be a WWE event until Trump gains the ability to discern probable second and third order effects arising from hasty, ill-thought decisions prior to publicly ramming both feet in his mouth. IOW – it will continue indefinitely.

    Rick Ballard (264a24)

  65. Preclude so any actual evidence is whatever the russia word for forbidden is;

    narciso (a58517)

  66. Hiw did w’s badminton match go again, ballard?

    narciso (a58517)

  67. I know cover it with a pillow:

    https://www.steynonline.com/7997/flight-and-fancy

    narciso (a58517)

  68. We can’t have delusional people in the armed forces.

    what if they’re not deluded maybe sometimes they just like to feel pretty

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  69. Next up, Tillman will discover that 75% of Americans want to pay a low tax rate but receive lots of generous government services and benefits.

    JVW (42615e) — 7/26/2017 @ 11:26 am

    I resent the use of the word “generous” when it comes to voting for somebody else to provide you with something. That’s a perversion of the English language. It’s not generous; it’s greedy.

    Now I’m told by people like Tillman that health care is a right. Excuse me but what pharmacist, doctor, or nurse must provide this right? Stop me if I’m wrong but didn’t this nation fight a civil war back in the 19th century because it’s inhuman to claim a right to someone else’s labor?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  70. “There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity,” McCain said in a released statement. “We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so — and should be treated as the patriots they are.”

    #notmysenator

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  71. Given a choice between trannies in a place far away from America where they can be shot and blown up and an orange-skinned wannabe tranny in the Oval Office ….

    nk (dbc370)

  72. President Trump is not a wannabe tranny you just made that up

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  73. I wonder what shipwreckedcrew thought about Ken Starr and his “mandate so broad it appear[ed] to lack any meaningful limits.” No doubt he would have been fully in favor of Clinton firing Ken Starr for interfering with the smooth functioning of the Executive Branch.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  74. Leviticus, to be fair, the law was different at that time. Clinton could not *legally* fire Starr, under the statute governing Starr’s office, but Trump can apparently legally fire Mueller.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  75. ken starr was an independent counsel

    the idiot congress *thought* they’d done away with independent counsels

    but sleazy Rod “The Rod” Rosenstein brought em back by ignoring the laws and such

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  76. Orrin Hatch says we should do trannies all up in that military

    tranny it up!

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/26/2017 @ 11:54 am

    Yeah. I predict that three months into a six month 75% of the men will claim to be trannies.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/05/new-army-training-tells-female-soldiers-put-naked-men-showers/

    New Army Training Tells Female Soldiers To ‘Accept’ Naked Men In Their Showers

    I recently received a copy of the new ‘Tier Three Transgender Training’ materials that the U.S. Army is now using in mandatory training for all soldiers.

    Back when I was in, which was shortly after the crust of the earth cooled, after six straight weeks of drilling holes in the Indian Ocean they’d go to the JAG and claim they were gay. He’d ask them to show them their wallets. Sure enough they had pictures of their girlfriends. No dice, Sailor. You’re stuck here.

    Now that we’re giving them the option of showering with the women, I’m guessing the desire to get off the boat won’t be as strong. If only we sold beer without checking IDs it would be an 18 year old’s paradise.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  77. “Leviticus, to be fair, the law was different at that time.”

    – aphrael

    I think he’s taken the conversation beyond a mechanical discussion of what CAN be done into a substantive discussion of what SHOULD be done, which are (of course) two different things.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  78. I wonder what shipwreckedcrew thought about Ken Starr and his “mandate so broad it appear[ed] to lack any meaningful limits.”

    I know that in retrospect I regret Ken Starr looking into the Paula Jones thing, because it gave Janet Reno the perfect pretext to avoid appointing a special investigator for the Clinton/Gore 1996 campaign fundraising scandals, which were almost certainly far worse than Clinton’s dalliances with interns and subsequent perjury about it (foreign meddling in our election: where else have I been hearing about that?).

    JVW (42615e)

  79. “Flake couldn’t see any of this from backstage, but he knew that a hostile crowd likely awaited him. The early months of the Trump presidency had inflamed the grassroots left, and Republican lawmakers across the country had lately found themselves standing awkwardly in rooms like this one while liberal voters berated them. Flake is up for reelection next year, and some of his campaign advisers—wanting to avoid the kind of contentious scene that might end up in an attack ad—had suggested that he skip public forums for a while, as many of his colleagues were doing. But he insisted on going ahead.

    “People here have legitimate concerns and are afraid,” Flake told me as he waited in the wings. Still, he hoped the audience would be able to distinguish him from the president, whom he spent last year’s election season steadfastly refusing to endorse—making him one of the few Never Trump Republicans in Congress who never caved.

    But when it came time for Flake to take the stage, he was met with a fierce swell of hisses and boos. “Thank you!” he said over and over again, without irony. “Thank you!” When the crowd quieted, he took a stab at self-deprecation. “Senators are great at filibustering, but I don’t want to do that. I want to get right to questions.” With that, the flogging began.”

    Tuning up the pitchforks. But they live the times with spittle.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  80. Lube the tines with spittle..sheesh.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  81. “I know that in retrospect I regret Ken Starr looking into the Paula Jones thing, ”

    Somehow I think you forgot some of the negatives facing us now.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  82. Thing is, a recess appointment will cause a court fight, and a ruling that will likely go against Trump..

    Appalled, did you expect the cave to 50 yes votes?

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  83. So, Stevo and JVW, you can look me straight in the face and tell me that although we’e one of the richest countries in the world, we can’t afford it although most, if not all well-developed countries can? As I mentioned before, that includes our beloved Israel and our mother country, England too. We’re not as good as either of them?

    Either way, we’re paying for it at the ER. You just want to take away their health insurance for spite, then?

    We can spend a billion dollars on a ship, but not provide health insurance? Right.

    Now I think it could and should be scaled back some. Unlimited health care, I hate to say, is ridiculous. (I think that came about because of the death panel scare.) There are ways that the costs should be cut I think. But not by wholesale pulling the rug out from under people.

    Tillman (a95660)

  84. John McCain:

    “The President’s tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter.

    “The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military—regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so—and should be treated as the patriots they are.

    “The Department of Defense is currently conducting a study on the medical obligations it would incur, the impact on military readiness, and related questions associated with the accession of transgender individuals who are not currently serving in uniform and wish to join the military. I do not believe that any new policy decision is appropriate until that study is complete and thoroughly reviewed by the Secretary of Defense, our military leadership, and the Congress.

    “The Senate Armed Services Committee will continue to follow closely and conduct oversight on the issue of transgender individuals serving in the military.”

    Attempts to re-establish separation of powers appear tumescent.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  85. So, Stevo and JVW, you can look me straight in the face and tell me that although we’e one of the richest countries in the world, we can’t afford it although most, if not all well-developed countries can?

    Oh for Heaven’s sake, Tillman: it’s not a question of whether we can afford “it,” it’s a question of what exactly can we afford. Your side keeps peddling the fiction that nationalized health care will be the sort of platinum-level care that people with great plans currently enjoy, and everyone will be able to see their primary care doctor and specialist when needed, we will all get every possible test run on us for free, we will qualify for any operation that we need, and we can have medicine cabinets full of “free” prescription drugs, all the latest and greatest from our unparalleled pharmaceutical labs. This is the horse excrement that you are insisting to the gullible socialist college kids and the angry lefties who believe that their very existence entitles them to governnment-paid goodies.

    How about you be honest and acknowledge what nationalized health care really means, what we see in all of those civilized countries that you drone on and on about: long waits to see a primary care physician, rationing of the time for specialists, less access to various medical tests that today are commonplace, waiting lists for operations (if the government bureaucrats approve you, that is), and generic drugs along with making it far more difficult for pharmaceutical companies to afford as much research & development.

    I can respect a lefty who has the guts to come out and say, “Look, we all have to accept a lower standard of health care in this country in order to ensure that everyone has access.” But there’s no way that modern progressives will be this honest, not the party who brazenly lied to us and told us we could keep our health plan if we liked it and that the ACA would expand coverage, lower costs, and reduce the government budget. My major argument in favor of repealing ObamaCare is that it would send a message to the big government advocates that they can’t just lie about legislation and then say “ooopsie, but there’s nothing that you can do about it now.”

    JVW (42615e)

  86. Ben (87):

    I guess you are talking about the healthcare vote to actually go consider a bill?

    The cave doesn’t happen until they actually pass something. And they haven’t.

    Appalled (96665e)

  87. A lot of voters see this as committing to whatever animal is lab created in spite of all the Senators who caved to the WH on ‘moving forward’

    Ben burn (a862b7)


  88. Oh for Heaven’s sake, Tillman: it’s not a question of whether we can afford “it,” it’s a question of what exactly can we afford. ”

    Yeah. The budget is clear as a bell and since gazillion in tax freebies and Pentagon swallowed the produce truck, we’ve got like $1.86 for the 99%.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  89. JVW, while there’s a lot to what you say in #91, the inverse is also true: very few conservatives will openly admit that they are fine with a system where some people get fantastic amazing care and other people get terrible borderline incompetent care — and that the determining factor is the social class of the person.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  90. Yeah. The budget is clear as a bell and since gazillion in tax freebies and Pentagon swallowed the produce truck, we’ve got like $1.86 for the 99%.

    Well let’s make a deal: We can kill all of the tax advantages that corporations have managed to convince Congress to write into law over the years if in turn we lower the corporate tax rate from the ridiculous 35+% down to a more reasonable 15% and we kill a lot of the bureaucratic regulations that have been enacted without Congressional approval.

    Unless of course your whole purpose is just to get more money for the federal government to redistribute to various voting blocs.

    JVW (42615e)

  91. JVW at 96: I’ll get behind a deal to eliminate the tax advantages that corporations have managed to convince Congress to write into law over the years and lower the corporate tax rate to one which is set at the level which makes the overall change revenue-neutral, rather than setting it to a predetermined ‘reasonable’ level.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  92. I know that in retrospect I regret Ken Starr looking into the Paula Jones thing, because it gave Janet Reno the perfect pretext to avoid appointing a special investigator for the Clinton/Gore 1996 campaign fundraising scandals, which were almost certainly far worse than Clinton’s dalliances with interns and subsequent perjury about it (foreign meddling in our election: where else have I been hearing about that?).

    JVW (42615e) — 7/26/2017 @ 12:14 pm

    To be fair, Clinton perjured himself and suborned perjury while in office. Moreover, he signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which specifically allows someone accused of sexual harassment to be questioned about their prior sexual conduct. He was hoist on his own petard.

    If you’re going to play a roll in passing a bill into law, you should be expected to obey that law.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  93. JVW, while there’s a lot to what you say in #91, the inverse is also true: very few conservatives will openly admit that they are fine with a system where some people get fantastic amazing care and other people get terrible borderline incompetent care — and that the determining factor is the social class of the person.

    I’ll admit it. In the same way that some people are going to live in beautiful estates in picturesque locations while other people will lay their head on a cot in a slum. I would like to see everyone have access to some sort of health care services, but not only do I not think that the federal government is a responsible agent for ensuring this, I also think that government trades benefits for votes which has a very negative effect on democracy as well as turning people into servile subjects of the state instead of being a people that is confident and responsible enough to provide for themselves. Lots of people need help from time to time, and it is the job of society (again, not necessarily the federal government) to help out, but far too many people live their entire lives as wards of the state and that is immoral as well as dangerous to the idea of a free people.

    JVW (42615e)

  94. Steve57 (0b1dac) — 7/26/2017 @ 1:15 pm (Edit)

    I think Paula Jones should have been allowed to pursue her lawsuit against him, even while he was President, and I supported the Supreme Court’s decision that a President can be deposed for a civil suit. But I don’t think in retrospect it was a good idea for Starr to go mucking around in that civil matter. Once it because clear that Clinton had potentially perjured himself then that was a whole other story, but Starr should not have done any investigation work of his own on the Jones allegations.

    JVW (42615e)

  95. Tell you what. Rand Paul wants to fund infrastructure with a sweetheart deal. Offshore tax cheats get reamed….lol.

    All is forgiven for 5%. Take the 5 then do A TRUMP Dreamer-style doublecross and hold the to 15%. All’s fair…

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  96. Leviticus, at 80: perhaps, but …. I think it’s entirely consistent to say “Everyone should obey the law and therefore Clinton should not have fired Starr, but that has no bearing on whether Trump should fire Mueller.”

    I think Trump shouldn’t fire Mueller, and I really liked Schiff’s comment the other day that if Trump does fire Mueller, his Congressional committee will immediately hire Mueller, AND I don’t think it’s a logical inconsistency to hold the position I described above — and I have enough respect for shipwreckedcrew to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he holds a position similar to what I’ve propounded, and not one of the bitter partisan positions I can posit (and would have no trouble ascribing to certain others).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  97. Vintage conservative whine: sour grapes; bitter dregs.

    You’ve been corked: Senate just rejected ‘Repeal Only.’ Seven Republicans voted w/t Dems.

    “This just isn’t your day, is it.” – James Bond, 007 [Sean Connery] ‘From Russia With Love’ 1963

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  98. Many blame Starr for mucking around in the Paula Jones matter but also forget it wasn’t his idea. The three-judge panel overseeing the Independent Counsel kept expanding his jurisdiction beyond his original appointment to continue the Whitewater investigation begun by Robert Fiske under Janet Reno.

    It was a bad idea for the three-judge panel to keep widening the IC’s investigation and it was a bad idea for DAG Comey and DAG Rosenstein to send Fitzgerald and Mueller on open-ended fishing expeditions when Ashcroft and Sessions were each pressured to recuse themselves from investigations into possible presidential misconduct.

    crazy (11d38b)

  99. I doubt there are billionaires or even millionaires on this blog and I often wonder why so many vote against own interests..

    LIVs?

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  100. So, Stevo and JVW, you can look me straight in the face and tell me that although we’e one of the richest countries in the world, we can’t afford it although most, if not all well-developed countries can?…

    Tillman (a95660) — 7/26/2017 @ 12:45 pm

    Oh, you mean how so affordable socialized medicine is for Greece? I hope you like dumpster diving. They can’t afford it either. It’s unsustainable. But Europeans, not just Greeks, keep voting themselves benefits at somebody else’s expense. As Margaret Thatcher observed, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. As a matter of fact, the Europeans have run out of other Europeans. So they’re importing a replacement population.

    They were so busy voting to have their ATMs dispense more and more cash they couldn’t even be bothered to breed. So now they expect 10 grandchildren to support 50 oldsters. Or, and the jokes on them, imported Muslims with no job or language skills to pay their pensions.

    We’re no better. The average retired city worker in San Francisco makes more in pension than the average private sector worker. That’s insane. That can’t continue. And anything that can’t continue, won’t. Illinois is going bankrupt because of crazy ideas like yours. Most NATO members aren’t meeting their minimal defense spending commitments. They cant afford it.

    Another thing that goes mostly unmentioned is that we, the United States, does the lion’s share of medical R&D among the nations of the “developed world.” They can’t afford that either.

    Sorry that common sense, logic, and basic math skills are beyond you, Tillman. People like you are ruining the country.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  101. Isn’t it funny when formerly anarchic oppos suddenly develop a need for bipartisanship..

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  102. JVW at 96: I’ll get behind a deal to eliminate the tax advantages that corporations have managed to convince Congress to write into law over the years and lower the corporate tax rate to one which is set at the level which makes the overall change revenue-neutral, rather than setting it to a predetermined ‘reasonable’ level.

    That’s fair enough. As long as there is some regulatory reform too.

    In the same vein, I would consider cap-and-trade legislation, if every cent raised by it were offset by a similar reduction in the overall corporate tax rate.

    JVW (42615e)

  103. JVW, at 108: that would work for me (the cap-and-trade balanced by reduction in taxes). The goal to cap-and-trade is not to raise revenue, it’s to force the internalization of externalities; doing it in a revenue-neutral fashion is fine in terms of the reasons for doing it, and it’s probably better/more effective at the goal of forcing internalization of externalities, too.

    I think there’s room for discussion about the fact that a lot of cap+trade is premised on a shrinking quantity of emissions over time, which is hard to do in a revenue-neutral way, AND revenue neutrality as a goal seems reasonable.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  104. Note that between the two of us we’ve just demonstrated that there *is* space for liberals and conservatives to come together, if we listen to each other. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  105. “If you’re going to play a roll in passing a bill into law, you should be expected to obey that law.”

    – Steve57

    That would at least explain Trump’s aversion to participating in the passage of actual laws.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  106. “…there *is* space for liberals and conservatives to come together, if we listen to each other.”

    Well done Aphrael and JVW. Compromise is only a dirty word if you’re a radical.

    Tillman (a95660)

  107. I hope that Senator McCain’s recovery is proceeding apace.

    That said, he is wrong here. The “compromise” between right and wrong is a mixture of each, which is no compromise at all. It is, instead, a slower capitulation to wrong.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  108. JVW, my understanding about healthcare in England is that there is really a two-tier system. Poor people are on the lower tier, and get their health care covered, but there is also a higher tier that people with more money can buy into too. So they really haven’t given up anything in terms of having the type of insurance you’re talking about. It may not be equally fair to less well-off people, but at least it’s something. I don’t know why we can’t follow suit. It would make a lot of people happy. Middle-class to poor people could use public healthcare, but private insurance would still be available to those who can afford it and want it.

    Tillman (a95660)

  109. Tillman — and bearing in mind that I’m broadly on the left’s side in this debate — how would we ensure that the lower-tier government health care didn’t end up being as nonfunctional as the NYC public housing is?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  110. Tillman — and bearing in mind that I’m broadly on the left’s side in this debate — how would we ensure that the lower-tier government health care didn’t end up being as nonfunctional as the NYC public housing is?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  111. @107 Isn’t it funny when formerly anarchic oppos suddenly develop a need for bipartisanship.

    “Lets take an analogy…”

    Let’s take an analogy. Say the Nazis and Allies face each other across the English Channel where the French coastline is “in the center of the” map. Rommel wants a birthday dinner w/his wife at the Savoy in London; Von Runstedt is welcome, too. Ike wants breakfast mess w/his troops along the Champs-Elysees in Paris; Winnie is welcome, too. If Ike simply assaults the coastline without consulting Gerd von and Erwin R., then as soon as the Nazis are able, the Nazis should try to push the assault back to at least the shoreline if not into the sea.

    There’s nothing wrong with saying: look, vee ist moving everything back the way it was; Fortress Europe-Occupied France. Then, if you vant to talk mitt us about it, vee can talk. Let’s do dinner– at the Savoy. Ignore zee party ideologues heiling, ‘Nein! Deutschlund uber alles!’

    If instead, the Nazis praises the virtues of compromise and incrementalism, and talks about leaving the beachhead intact and fighting the Allies in the hedgerow country then the Nazis are giant losers. Gerd, not to put too fine a point on it, is a ‘t’ word that rhymes with his name.

    The analogy breaks down in a couple of places, of course. But if you’re one of the good guys, you want syrup on your French toast with Ike by the Arc de Tromphe. If Europe really does belong in Allied hands, Adolf should simply save millions in lives and treasure and surrender. To hell with compromise.

    The beachhead is behind us. We’re in hedgerow country now w/Paris on the horizon, a Bulge and Marketgarden to come in the near term, but reaching Berlin in victory is inevitable.

    Arranging “furniture” is a matter of taste. Healthcare is a matter of life and death. And as all the Allied nations know, using ‘central planning’ to arrange huge swaths of the economy is known to actually work sometimes- be it winning a world war, defending borders, moving the mail, maintaining a highway system, trafficking planes, procuring $13 billion aircraft carriers or establishing an affordable healthcare system to the citizenry in the 21st century.
    ______

    Today’s Beldar The Bitter ‘Watergate, Watergate, Watergate’ Words of Wonder:

    “I asked him [John Ehrlichman] what he meant by ‘deep six.’ He leaned back in his chair and said: ‘You drive across the [Potomac] river at night, don’t you? Well, when you cross over the river on your way home, just toss the briefcase into the river.’” – John Dean revealing Ehrlichman’s suggestion on how to dispose of bugging equipment found in the safe of implicated Watergate ‘plummer’ Howard Hunt, Senate Watergate Hearings, 1973

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. Senator McCain needs to get not merely the state of the art treatment, but beyond the state of the art.`If he does there is a lot of hope. If he is a`maverick enough he can save himself- but is he?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/health/gene-therapy-cancer.html

    The approval of gene therapy for leukemia, expected in the next few months, will open the door to a radically new class of cancer treatments.

    Companies and universities are racing to develop these new therapies, which re-engineer and turbocharge millions of a patient’s own immune cells, turning them into cancer killers that researchers call a “living drug.” One of the big goals now is to get them to work for many other cancers, including those of the breast, prostate, ovary, lung and pancreas…

    …But it will take time to find that out, he said, at least five years.

    This type of treatment is now also being studied in glioblastoma, the aggressive brain tumor that Senator John McCain was found to have this week. Results of a study at the University of Pennsylvania, published Wednesday, were mixed. In the first 10 patients treated there, one has lived more than 18 months with what the researchers called “stable disease.” Two other survivors have cancer that has progressed, and the rest have died.

    That’s probably because they don’t ,odify the treatment but stick to the protocol.

    Glioblastomaaparently is not one cancer, but multiple cancers and they would need to stimulate the immmmmune system against all of them. But they did remove most of the tumor.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  113. @ Tillman, #114:

    Three points —

    #1: That’s how England does a lot of things. People who are poor, either through their own misfortune or their lack of work ethic, get access to basic housing, basic education, basic medical care, etc. People who are better-off, either through their own good fortune or their own good work ethic, can afford something better…though not as much as they could, because they also have to subsidize the basics for those who can’t or won’t do better.

    #2: This system is, not to put too fine a point on it, a total disaster that is in the late stages of destroying an entire nation by infantilizing the lower class while simultaneously enabling their worst tendencies. The reason that England was once the greatest nation on earth is because its lower and lower-middle classes were steeped in traditional values, such as thriftiness, industry, and reverence for the Divine. (Many of those people came to these shores and formed the backbone of America.) But they no longer have those values, and so they are losing every great thing that is predicated on them. If you doubt me, here’s a recommended reading list: “Wasting Police Time” and its sequel by PC David Copperfield, “It’s Your Time You’re Wasting” and its sequel by Frank Chalk, and “Life at the Bottom,” “Our Culture, What’s Left of It,” and “Not With a Bang But a Whimper” by Theodore Dalymple. (Also, “Spoilt Rotten,” “Anything Goes,” and pretty much anything else by Dr. Dalrymple.)

    #3: By all means, thogh, go ahead and advocate for an NHS-style health system. I’m sure that in the aftermath of Charlie Gard, your idea will receive the reception it deserves.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  114. DSCSA — a surprisingly large number of people on both the left and the right have concluded that the other side are all contemptible people with no redeeming values, and are looking forward to a fight that will allow them to come out on top and punish the other side for their perfidy.

    THAT conclusion, that belief, that desire — THAT is what is destroying our country.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  115. I don’t know why we can’t follow suit. It would make a lot of people happy.

    Because there is no way the modern left would agree to a system that didn’t stick it to the rich. Recall that very early on in 1993 the Hillary Clinton Health Care Task Force was planning on a Canadian-style ban on people seeking private health consultations — everything would have to have been funneled through federally-regulated insurance pools. That idea died when the wealthy Democrat donor class balked. I’ll bet that the ACA authors would have gone for that same kind of restriction had they though the votes were there for it. Otherwise, you build the exact system that you are wondering about: one where we spend a great deal to give the poor substandard care, we expect the middle class to pay huge sums out of pocket to purchase additional care, and the rich go merrily along consuming as much health care as they would like. Which doctors are going to want to work at low-end community clinics under that scenario?

    JVW (42615e)

  116. Here’s part of the problem wth the health care “market”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/upshot/the-company-behind-many-surprise-emergency-room-bills.html

    Early last year, executives at a small hospital an hour north of Spokane, Wash., started using a company called EmCare to staff and run their emergency room. The hospital had been struggling to find doctors to work in its E.R., and turning to EmCare was something hundreds of other hospitals across the country had done.

    That’s when the trouble began.

    Before EmCare, about 6 percent of patient visits in the hospital’s emergency room were billed for the most complex, expensive level of care. After EmCare arrived, nearly 28 percent got the highest-level billing code.

    On top of that, the hospital, Newport Hospital and Health Services, was getting calls from confused patients who had received surprisingly large bills from the emergency room doctors. Although the hospital had negotiated rates for its fees with many major health insurers, the EmCare physicians were not part of those networks and were sending high bills directly to the patients. For a patient needing care with the highest-level billing code, the hospital’s previous physicians had been charging $467; EmCare’s charged $1,649.

    “The billing scenario, that was the real fiasco and caught us off guard,” said Tom Wilbur, the chief executive of Newport Hospital. “Hindsight being 20/20, we never would have done that.” Faced with angry patients, the hospital took back control of its coding and billing.

    If this isn’t fixed, we will wind up paying more and more for less and less. Right now it is, usually, more and more for something more than the same.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  117. Trust issues abound for all sides. Perhaps if we had a Leader who was not willing to to exploit our differences, and all the while LYING his assoc.

    There is no comity that will survive his onslaught.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  118. Cap and trade is a consumption tax which is agood kind of tax to have.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  119. Maybe it shouldn’t be marketed.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  120. 95. Rush Limbaugh is fine with that – or says that’s true about everything. But the prices now in the market have become unrealistic

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  121. I really don’t care what Limbaugh says or any other antidemocratic arsonist.

    I only concern myself with what’s good for the General Welfare.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  122. @ aphrael, #120:

    a surprisingly large number of people on both the left and the right have concluded that the other side are all contemptible people with no redeeming values, and are looking forward to a fight that will allow them to come out on top and punish the other side for their perfidy.

    THAT conclusion, that belief, that desire — THAT is what is destroying our country.

    I think this is a bit of an overstatement. In my opinion, the truth is probably closer to “a surprisingly large number of people on both the left and the right have concluded that THE LEADERS OF the other side,” etc. Almost everyone I know on both sides is perfectly willing to admit that many of their acquaintances are good people at heart, if (in their opinions) misguided in belief and action.

    As for me, I am in yet another camp. I have come to the conclusion that a surprisingly large number of people, on both the left and the right, are contemptible people with no redeeming values. And I am looking forward to a fight between them where neither side comes out on top, and where — hopefully — there is something left for me and those like me to build with after they have finished the process of letting their beliefs and desires destroy our country.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  123. John McCain’s Sanctimonious and Disgraceful Speech

    Don’t fume over it. It was quite forgettable. Life is short so why make it shorter by wasting time flying 2200 miles to give it, vote and fly 200 miles back. The VA hospitals in AZ musta had a long waiting list so he was bumped down to a clinic; the Mayo Clinic.

    ‘Poor judgment’ is a consistently long thread throughout the tapestry of McCain’s life. He’s never been high on my list of policymakers- save his support of NASA- but even I’m willing to cut him some slack in the twilight of his life– it’s a tough call, but let’s face it: he’s a dead man walking-and talking.

    If he had any sense, he’d retire, go to one of his many homes, take treatment and spend precious time w/his family. He’s earned that. But then, ‘poor judgment’ is the rule, not the exception.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  124. “hopefully — there is something left for me and those like me to build with after they have finished the process of letting their beliefs and desires destroy our country.”

    I agree both sides have a version of deplorables with click bait for stoking bonfires but I have to disagree on the Degree.

    The right wing has been returning political bile of inhuman proportions since the DAISY commercial. There are damned few Goldwater republicans remaining. It’s all Breitbart.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  125. I mean…do I have to say TRUMP!

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  126. Fewer still are the followers of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk. Unfortunately.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  127. Demosthenes – I talk to a lot of liberals who will tell me that every person who voted for Trump, EVERY ONE OF THEM, is an incurable racist and sexist who we should never bother talking to or trying to find common ground with because they’re irredeemable.

    Honestly, the biggest chunk of my online time since the election has been arguing with those people; they’re wrong, and they’re hurting both the country *and* liberal policy agendas.

    > And I am looking forward to a fight between them where neither side comes out on top, and where — hopefully — there is something left for me and those like me to build with after they have finished the process of letting their beliefs and desires destroy our country.

    I do not believe that. If this tribal fight destroys our country, we will not recover in my lifetime.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  128. Senators voted 55-45 against an amendment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would repeal the Affordable Care Act and give lawmakers two years to come up with a replacement.

    NOT because of public servitude…

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  129. Aphrael…

    NOT evil, just happy in their ignorance?

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  130. @130. The right wing has been returning political bile of inhuman proportions since the DAISY commercial. There are damned few Goldwater republicans remaining. It’s all Breitbart.

    ‘Oh we’re the bright, young men, who want to back to 1910…”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhXGo5Lj6r8

    “We’re the kids who agree, to be social without security, we’re Barry’s Boys…’ – ‘Barry’s Boys’ Chad Mitchel Trio, 1964

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  131. Rand just wants our healthcare to fail..

    He’s got Congressional premium healthcare..

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  132. I didn’t say Goldwater was good, just better than the injuns we inherited.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  133. The Senate on Wednesday rejected an amendment to gut Obamacare without a replacement ready to go, a bill identical to a 2015 measure that passed Congress.

    Senators voted 45-55 on the measure, with seven Republicans and all Democrats voting no. The Republicans voting no were Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Dick Heller of Nevada, John McCain of Arizona, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Only Collins voted against the measure in 2015.

    disgusting and sleazy all of these filthy disgraceful lying cowards, except i guess the haughty fat-shaming lobsterpot bimbo, who’s always loved her some stinky obamacare all up in it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  134. dick heller lol

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  135. Compromise is fine on some issues, but not on others. For example, when there is a budget deficit, some will say to cut spending, others to raise taxes. If the compromise every time is to cut spending somewhat, and raise taxes somewhat, then taxes will just go up and up over time, to a point that is ridiculous.

    norcal (2adf03)

  136. Am I using covafefe properly? Lol..

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  137. What is so conservative about cap-and-trade?

    The evidence just isn’t there. It’s one of the reasons why the “97% consensus” is so influential. Because it’s easy for the scientifically ignorant to grasp. If you’re claiming consensus you are not doing science, you’re doing politics.

    Moreover, the 97% figure has been thoroughly debunked. There is nothing like such a consensus. It was produced by junk research committed by activists.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/28/climate-change-and-truth-mr-obama-97-percent-experts-do-not-agree-with.html

    The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May, 2013. The paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

    The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted.

    …Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.

    Dr. Richard Tol had been involved with the IPCC since 1994. A few years ago he left and demanded his name be removed from the masthead of their reports because he was ashamed to be associated with their shoddy work. He’s one of several academics who has thoroughly debunked the Cook report. As noted above, Cook et al looked at papers. They didn’t survey scientists. Even worse, they also didn’t read the entire paper but just the abstract. More than a few scientists went public and said Cook and crew misrepresented their work.

    The data to support the AGW theory just isn’t there. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) operates the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN). The data they collect is ridiculously unreliable. There are nine weather monitoring stations in Texas. That’s one for every 29,869 square miles. Alaska is twice as large as Texas, and has by my count five weather stations. Or one for every 663 thousand square miles. There are entire countries in sub-Saharan Africa without a single weather monitoring station.

    And meanwhile China is going to increase its coal-fired power electrical generation capacity by about 19% over the next five years to 1,100 gigawatts, or three times the coal-fired capacity of the United States. And it gets better. Over 100 coal-powered generating plants are in various stages of planning or development in 11 African nations. About half are being financed by China, and will be built by the state-owned Power Construction Corporation of China. China is also funding 12 new coal-fired generating plants in Pakistan over the next 15 years. India is also doubling down on coal.

    There is nothing we can do to offset this, should it turn out to be true that global warming is going to be catastrophic and humans are primarily responsible for it.

    There are seven uniformed services. The two in addition to the five armed services are NOAA and the U.S. Public Health Service. They wear Navy uniforms although the insignia are different. It’s why the Surgeon General dresses up like an Admiral, although the Coasties get their medical personnel from the USPHS and then they wear USCG uniforms.

    Some of NOAA’s uniformed corps work on ships (hence the oceanographic part of their name). Some even drive ships. I can tell you for a fact that if you get a few beers into them far more than you suspect are skeptics. They know their data is not a representative sample. NOAA is a government entity. They don’t do real science. They do what they are told and if they want to keep their jobs they have to pretend to be true believers in AGW.

    One last point; scientists can not tell you what the best policy is to deal with global warming, should it turn out to be the threat the alarmists would have us believe. As a matter of fact, I can demonstrate from the IPCC’s own numbers that it will be 85% more expensive to try and fight global warming than to deal with it should it occur.

    So, again, what is the conservative argument for cap-and-trade? The worst thing we can do is to cripple our economy. Even if global warming is occurring and it is going to be catastrophic, and humans are the prime or even a significant cause, the worst possible thing we can do is legislate ourselves into poverty.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  138. Stev57.

    Are you arguing human AGW or dismissing the idea completely?

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  139. Because I’ve got sea rise in social and a trillion ton iceberg coming your way.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  140. 144.What is so conservative about cap-and-trade?

    There is nothing conservative about cap & trade. It’s a charade to get people used to basing their business on environmental impact instead of supply and demand. Just a back door to dictatorship.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  141. @ aphrael, #133:

    Demosthenes – I talk to a lot of liberals who will tell me that every person who voted for Trump, EVERY ONE OF THEM, is an incurable racist and sexist who we should never bother talking to or trying to find common ground with because they’re irredeemable.

    Yes, I know a few of those people too. I’m sure that they are only still talking to me because they know I didn’t vote for Trump. And I also know a few of their counterparts on the right, who believe that anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton is so corrupt as to be beyond saving, and those people are only talking to me because they know I didn’t vote for Hillary.

    My disagreement with you was not based on a belief that such people don’t exist, but on a belief that they are not as numerous as you propose. I allow that I could be wrong, but I can only go by my personal experience in these matters.

    If this tribal fight destroys our country, we will not recover in my lifetime.

    Again, I don’t disagree. It will be a long slog back to where we are now, and a still longer slog to where we could have been. But I can’t let that concern me; what other people do is beyond my control. All I ask for are a few tools and the remnants of a foundation, and I will do my best from there.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  142. Are you arguing human AGW or dismissing the idea completely?

    He’s doing neither, can’t you read? He’s saying regardless if AGW is or is not real C & T or any other economic limiting scheme is NOT the way to deal with it.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  143. Rev. Sammich

    I ask questions for a reason. Kindly butt out.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  144. Not to inflame, but rather enquire.

    Could many moderates here be of a Reagan- Democrat origin? Just trying to get the Zeitgeist.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  145. We can’t have delusional people in the armed forces.

    Apparently delusional people are only allowed to be Commander-in-Chief…

    Dave (445e97)

  146. @37

    Ah, the 60 vote thing. You know, the filibuster can be removed, and this might be the place to do it. That will probably rebound on the GOP someday, but, currently, it is a cause of much of the dysfunction.

    There are fewer votes for eliminating the filibuster on legislation than there are for even limited, reconciliation-friendly repeal (which today failed 45-55).

    Dave (445e97)

  147. “(McCain’s speech) is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with Washington.”

    No. It is what is wrong on the Republican side of the aisle – this isn’t a Democrat behavior, not by a longshot. Moreover, this is the longstanding ruse used by congressional Republicans to rationalize and morally validate their corrupt-o-cratic betrayals of the voters who put them in office.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  148. We can’t have delusional people in the armed forces.

    That’s what the draft board told Trump.

    Or do you really believe that crap about “bones in the heel”?

    nk (dbc370)

  149. Bone spurs?

    That’s his deferment?

    Surgically fixed.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  150. @153. ‘We can’t have delusional people in the armed forces…’

    All the more reason to purge the military of as many heterosexuals as it can.

    “Those words mean so much to a man who scrubs garbage cans. Look, if you don’t want me in your Army, kick me out, but get off my back.” – John Winger [Bill Murray] ‘Stripes’ 1981

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  151. It wasn’t the bone spurs that bothered the draft board, it was how Trump got them. Cruising on 42nd Street in six-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings and a mini skirt.

    nk (dbc370)

  152. Uhh, Ben, I’m not arguing for AGW or against it. I don’t know. The data isn’t there to support the theory that human activity will cause catastrophic climate change.

    I have not doubt that human activity will contribute to climate change. We do modify our environment. But no one can actually say with certainty just how much we are contributing to climate change and how much the climate will change. They can’t even say in which direction the climate will change. As I said earlier, in March 2000 the UK Independent published an article predicting that snow in England was largely a thing of the past. Because, Global Warming. Now global warming alarmists claim that we have more snow due to global warming. And they pretend like they knew this all along, as if I have the memory and attention span of a gnat.

    Is Manhattan underwater yet?

    http://granitegrok.com/blog/2016/04/manhattan-underwater-by-2018-not-so-much

    NASA Climate Expert Jim Hansen has been insisting for years that parts of Manhattan will be underwater sometime between 2008 and 2018, because of Global Warming. He’s been sounding the alarm(ism) on this since the late 80’s. In 2001 he doubled-down on his own climate fear-mongering.

    But nature is not cooperating with his models or his extremism, something even the IPCC began to grasp as early as 2007…

    Do you realize how many deadlines to save the planet from AGW or else we’re all going to burst into flames shortly before the fires are extinguished by the rising oceans? I’ve lost track myself. At a certain point any sane human being is going to have to conclude these people don’t know what they’re talking about.

    Speaking of rising sea water and not knowing what you’re talking about, that Antarctic iceberg is to going raise the ocean levels one bit. Here’s a little experiment all you kids can do at home.
    Fill a glass with ice then leave it on the kitchen counter. See if it overflows when the ice melts.

    Spoiler alert: it won’t.

    It was already floating on the water. It’s already displaced all the water it is going to displace. And it didn’t break off due to AGW. There are many factors at work as any glaciologist can tell you. Erosion likely played a big role. As you point out it weighs a trillion tons. Think of all those trillions of ice that form the ice sheets that surround the continent. They’ve been scraping their way along the seabed for millenia. Until they extend far enough from shore and start to float. For a while then they calf glaciers. And this isn’t even the largest one on record. It’s the size of Delaware. In 1956 a glacier the size of Connecticut and Massachusetts broke off.

    It’s perfectly natural and nothing to be alarmed about.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  153. He’s a Freudian can of worms with the pedophile pucker and IVANKA grope.

    Is it possible there is some transference to official duties?

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  154. *that Antarctic iceberg is NOT going to raise the ocean levels one bit.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  155. Thanks for your comprehensive reply but..everyone knows c02 increases the average temp and coal is a major offender. Are you arguing counterpoint? And please address original question in just a few words.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  156. @162.*that Antarctic iceberg is NOT going to raise the ocean levels one bit.

    =snorkel= Don’t know what planet you live on but we’re on Earth.

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/…/antarctica-sea-level-rise-climate-change/

    “For now, the best estimates suggest that Antarctica will sweat off enough ice to raise global sea levels by 1.5 to 3.5 feet by 2100, depending on how quickly humans continue to pump out greenhouse gases. Throw in Greenland and other rapidly melting glaciers around the world, and sea level could plausibly rise three to seven feet by 2100.

    But that’s not the worst case: Sea level won’t stop rising in 2100. Earth’s past offers worrisome clues to what the more distant future might bring. Geologists studying ancient shorelines have concluded that 125,000 years ago, when the Earth was only slightly warmer than today, sea levels were 20 to 30 feet higher. Some three million years ago, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was as high as it is today, and the temperature was about what it’s expected to be in 2050, sea levels were up to 70 feet higher than today. Yet a collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets would raise sea level only about 35 feet.

    To consider the worst case, then, scientists must turn their eyes toward East Antarctica, home to more than three-fourths of all the ice on Earth.” -NG, 7/2017

    “All rise!” – ‘A Few Good Men’ 1992

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  157. i love carbon dioxide

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  158. Let me get you a bottle..

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  159. Buzz feed

    The US Justice Department on Wednesday argued in a major federal lawsuit that a 1964 civil rights law doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination, thereby diverging from a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported the gay plaintiff’s case.

    The Trump administration’s filing is unusual in part because the Justice Department isn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits.”

    No comment…

    But in an amicus brief filed at the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, lawyers under Attorney General Jeff Sessions contend that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination, does not cover sexual orientation.

    “The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” says the Justice Department’s brief. “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.”

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  160. When ice (or anything else) falls into the sea from land, it raises sea levels.

    When ice already floating in the sea melts, sea levels don’t change.

    Dave (445e97)

  161. So according to Justice, the proper protocol for addressing legal grievance is to go to Congress first! Not the Courts…

    You can’t make these people up.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  162. You’re forgetting the ice MELT! Normal versus ABNORMAL!

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  163. I think the horse is dead.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  164. @120. THAT conclusion, that belief, that desire — THAT is what is destroying our country.

    Nah.

    Blame Canada… ‘and that b-tch Anne Murray, too.’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaXsWQAI2j4

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  165. I think losing Malibu is a small price to pay for milder winters and longer growing seasons. Actually, it would be a bonus, but it will take a long time for the Pacific Ocean to rise the 16 feet or so which is Malibu’s elevation.

    nk (dbc370)

  166. 169
    According to Justice, you want a law passed in your favor you go to the legislature. Quaint method, I know, but it says it right there in the Constitution.

    kishnevi (d7d2b1)

  167. A legal grievance is purposed to leap over the Lawgivers to have their unconstitutional laws overturned.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  168. @165. So you’re a commie and an alien. But are you here legally?

    ‘The atmosphere of Mars, the Red Planet, is about 100 times thinner than Earth’s, and it is 95 percent carbon dioxide.’

    https://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  169. I can hear your welcoming voice as refugees are placed in your driveway, nk

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  170. ugh there’s a nasty tranny with disgusting face nodules on Drudge

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  171. But then there’s KELO and CITIZENS UNITED!

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  172. See? That’s the problem.. you have to give to get. The pendulum swings both ways.

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  173. You mean the Navy Seal, hf?

    Ben burn (a862b7)

  174. looks like a job for tranny seal said nobody ever

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  175. Young Joe Kennedy nephew of the drunkard killer Ted Kennedy has started up a tranny demonstration group.

    mg (31009b)

  176. oh my goodness

    that’s scraping the bottom of the demonstration group barrel

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  177. OK, in a few words I am neither arguing that AGW is real nor am I dismissing it. I don’t know, and neither do climate scientists despite the fact that many of them appear to be certain. That’s the short answer.

    Now I’m going to go into more detail to illustrate just how many uncertainties there are although this won’t be a complete list. Evert time scientists make a major discovery about the variables that effect climate it produces more questions than answers.

    First of all CO2 is a minor atmospheric gas that only comprises .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Water vapor at 1.96% is the most abundant greenhouse gas. But despite being the most abundant greenhouse gas scientists are still debating how big of an impact it has.

    Also those figures are not certain. Anybody who pretends they are is conning you. The composition of the earth’s atmosphere is not fixed. In September 2015 researchers from the universities of Lyon and Leipzig published a paper following their discovery that isoprene can be produced abiotically due to the sun’s interaction with organic material in the sea surface microlayer (which is one millimeter thick). Previously scientists believed isoprene could only be produced through biological processes by phytoplankton and terrestrial plant life. Isoprene aids in cloud formation and therefore has a cooling effect. The oceans could produce twice as much isoprene as previously estimated. But no one knows.

    Speaking of things that no one knew, researchers published a paper in the 12 May 2017 edition of Science magazine. Due to improvements in satellite technology and plotting the imagery samples themselves instead of using an algorithm, they discovered that dryland forests (one of 26 types of forest categories) are at least 47% percent larger than previously estimated. Dryland forest covers approximately 40% of the earth’s surface. Which means total global forest cover (all types) is at least 9% larger than previously estimated.

    But nobody knows for sure. It isn’t possible to count every tree. Because of the vastness of the earth’s land mass all scientists can do is take photographs of forest areas and estimate.

    That’s at least 9% more CO2 scrubbers/isoprene producers than anybody thought existed just last year. What impact do forests have on the carbon cycle? Again nobody knows. The species of trees adapted to life in dry land are necessarily adapted to living without water for much of the year. So they spend much of year leafless to avoid what’s known as evapotranspiration.

    So, yes, you can do a high school-level experiment by filling a bottle with CO2 and use a thermometer to prove it is a greenhouse gas. But the earth’s climate system is far more complex than that and nobody has a good handle on how it works. Al Gore has been claiming that the science is settled and people like me belong in prison. The science isn’t settled. The dirty little secret is that climate science is still in its infancy. The fact is scientists don’t have any idea of what impact the variables that they’ve identified so far have on climate change. And it’s certain that they haven’t identified all the variables. Scientists are still making major discoveries that will have an impact on climate change.

    Perhaps the sun (duh!) plays the largest role. In 2012 researchers published a paper in Nature magazine detailing what they discovered by studying Antarctic ice cores. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is both an effect and an amplifier of global warming. Like climate, the earth’s orbit around the sun is constantly changing. This effects the amount of seasonal sunlight hitting the earth’s surface. As the temperature of oceans rise, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases. So the theory is you get a positive feedback loop. The more the temperature rises, the oceans give up more CO2. The more CO2 the oceans release, the more the earth warms, which in turn forces the oceans to release more CO2.

    If these researchers are right I am not convinced we can do much about the major drivers of climate change. Such as how far the earth is from the sun as it orbits.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  178. oh my goodness did legendary hero John McCain do a miscalculate?

    Dems don’t want to help GOP improve repeal bill

    “I’m not interested in doing anything to help this bill pass. We always have the opportunity to offer side-by-sides. We’ll have a lot of amendments. I’m sure they’ll have a lot of amendments,” he said.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  179. @114…my understanding about healthcare in England is that there is really a two-tier system. Poor people are on the lower tier, and get their health care covered, but there is also a higher tier that people with more money can buy into too. So they really haven’t given up anything in terms of having the type of insurance you’re talking about. It may not be equally fair to less well-off people, but at least it’s something. I don’t know why we can’t follow suit. It would make a lot of people happy. Middle-class to poor people could use public healthcare, but private insurance would still be available to those who can afford it and want it.

    Tillman– that’s about right. The objective of their system is to deliver healthcare, not make a profit. Lived in Britain for half a decade; family with wide age range- from grandparents to teens accessed NHC system when necessary; it works just fine — London Harley Street doctors… superb and timely care…and when, as American residents, we tried to pay for services, we were politely told no payment was necessary. Depends on the services, too- hospitalization was usually not offered w/private rooms under NHS and dental/vision care services varied but you could pay for upgrades to a private room and so forth… but for GP stuff and eyes, ears, throat visits/check-ups it was excellent w/affordable script and excellent care. What passes for a ‘system’ in the USA has been nothing but fiscal rape for its citizens for 35 years or more… and too many Americans have been propagandized by profiteers into believing it’s ‘the best in the world’ — when it’s not. But it’s a waste of electrons to argue w/right wing ideologues about it. When it’s finally in place in America in, they’ll use it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  180. songbird came through for the other side

    mg (31009b)

  181. 47. Isn’t the newspaper delivery person putting the newspaper in front of the wrong door?\

    Maybe Bernie Sanders thought he was getting complementary issues of the newspaper for free because he was a Senator.

    How long has this been going on?

    Sammy Finkelman (ae57b1)

  182. I don’t know what is more pathetic – tax dollars going to congress critters health care or tax dollars going for tranny wannabes health care

    mg (31009b)

  183. songbird is fraud personified along with the other 6 republican traitors.

    mg (31009b)

  184. @162.*that Antarctic iceberg is NOT going to raise the ocean levels one bit.

    =snorkel= Don’t know what planet you live on but we’re on Earth…

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 7/26/2017 @ 5:17 pm

    On planet earth a glacier no matter how large can raise sea level if it breaks free from a floating ice sheet. The Larsen C ice sheet which calved that glacier is holding back a great deal of what is known as grounded ice. If grounded ice were to break free then yes that would cause ocean levels to rise.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  185. The speech reminded me of when Rodney King said “can’t we all just get along?” And it was flavored with Jimmy Kimmel’s “my kid almost died, so we have to have single payer” monologue, but in this case it was McCain’s cancer.

    Denver (09d991)

  186. @192 – Water, water, everywhere– and not a drop to drink.

    “Melts in your mouth, not in your hand” – M&M’s ad slogan, Mars Candy Inc.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  187. 187. Thank you DCSCA. I think we’ve been sold a bill of goods and it’s time to call them out on it. If England can make it work, we should be able to just as well.

    Tillman (a95660)

  188. @115 “…[h]ow would we ensure that the lower-tier government health care didn’t end up being as nonfunctional as the NYC public housing is?” – Aphrael

    We can pay for people in the ER, and idly watch as people go bankrupt again left and right, which is cruel and dumb I think, or we can strive to have a system that works. Can we afford not to try it? We’re not talking about providing luxury hotels to people, just basic health care. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

    Tillman (a95660)

  189. Tillman– that’s about right. The objective of their system is to deliver healthcare, not make a profit. Lived in Britain for half a decade; family with wide age range- from grandparents to teens accessed NHC system when necessary; it works just fine — London Harley Street doctors… superb and timely care…and when, as American residents, we tried to pay for services, we were politely told no payment was necessary

    Ask Charlie Gard.

    Michael Ejercito (1933c9)

  190. Disco suck is,a very silly person.

    narciso (d1f714)

  191. @197- Why… people die of incurable diseases al the time. Ask Teddy, Beau— or Johnny-on-the-list. Then ask a doctor or ten– on either side of the pond; then a lawyer or twenty as well.

    @198. Wasting electrons Narco.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  192. That was a typo but frankly your chuck
    barris act is getting a little old.

    narciso (d1f714)

  193. @200. Everything old is new narco; The Gong Show, Thursdays on ABC Tee-Wee.

    “It’s Gene, Gene, the dancin’ machine!”- Chuck Barris, ‘The Gong Show,’ ABC TV, 1977

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  194. I enjoyed battle of the network stars now, now it’s a freak show like Phelps and the holographic shark

    narciso (d1f714)

  195. @88 Tillman

    We can spend a billion dollars on a ship, but not provide health insurance? Right.

    An ER in every port.

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  196. @202- It was amusing to see CNN airing their retro 70s TV special w/awful ‘Battle of the Network Stars’ clips and the old teevee people wincing at the idiocyof it all and the T&A saying it sorta sucked– literally as ABC was promoting the modern reboot. Sucked then; sucks now. But clips for CNN’s “The Twenty-Teens” to be aired in 2020 are being made to order.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  197. @117 DCSCA

    Maybe you can start by giving up your tinfoil hat and silk stockings.

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  198. @118 Sammy

    Maybe put McCain on ice next to Walt Disney.

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  199. @127 Ben Burn

    How about what’s good for the General Practitioner?

    Hey shouldn’t any doctor other than a dermatologist be considered an internist?

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  200. Restore the draft. Everyone has to serve two years in the United States Medical Corp.

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  201. @120 DCSCA

    I wouldn’t mind if McCain went hunting for Bigfoot.

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  202. @187 DCSCA

    The objective of the Post Office is to deliver mail, not make a profit. I’m maybe ok with a system that lets me choose alternatives like medical Fedex or UPS.

    Obamacare charges everybody for a mailbox even if they don’t want one.

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  203. Obama leaving office caused the seas to rise.

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  204. @198 DCSCA

    Why… people die of incurable diseases al the time. Ask Teddy, Beau— or Johnny-on-the-list. Then ask a doctor or ten– on either side of the pond; then a lawyer or twenty as well.

    Sure, but how much treatment did they receive? Did they get the pain pill Obama offered that lady’s grandma who had congestive heart failure-instead of a bypass? Because she was too old.

    Why are they aggressively treating McCain?

    Pinandpuller (b67e66)

  205. Trump Is Now Handing Out Made-Up Ambassador Gigs..

    Sam Brownback is your new Ambassador At Large For Religious Freedom.

    TRUMP truly is a man of substance.

    Ben burn (ed36d1)

  206. Still a near total blackout by the leftist media on the Awan’s having classified hard drives and trying to flee the country after sending hundreds of thousands of dollars overseas to avoid prosecution.

    When barely mentioned, the left claims it’s real estate fraud and never mentions the computer hard drives or classified information.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  207. The position of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom was created in 1998 under Monica Lewinsky’s boyfriend.

    nk (dbc370)

  208. Hillary’s emails…Seth Rich…Pizzapeds…Carter! Clinton! Obama!

    Dogs and LGBT cats living together!

    I’m so glad Donald is Born Again!

    Ben burn (ed36d1)

  209. My error. I thought a creative streak was showing on orange skunk.

    Ben burn (ed36d1)

  210. The difference from a real ambassador is that no nation is required to accept his credentials. Which will not be the case with Callista. Let’s see if the Vatican accepts her, or rejects her the way they rejected the French poofter Hollande sent them.

    nk (dbc370)

  211. Intercept

    “WHAT SORT OF PERSON takes a break from taxpayer-funded cancer treatment and flies 2,000 miles to cast a vote that could result in 22 million people losing their health insurance and tens of thousands of them also losing their lives, then makes a big speech about how messed up the whole process is?

    Perhaps the same sort of person who relentlessly agitated for an invasion and occupation of Iraq that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and led to millions of others being displaced from their homes?

    Or maybe the same sort of person who put personal and party interests ahead of the national interest when he picked the know-nothing, far-right demagogue Sarah Palin, the ur-Trump, as his running mate in 2008?”

    Ben burn (ed36d1)

  212. The one who predicted the invasion of the Ukraine

    narciso (d1f714)

  213. Shrump ain’t the only one..


    But it’s striking how much the heaping piles of bulls**t that surround the health care debate have nothing in particular to do with Trump. McConnell and his staff spent all of 2016 looking reporters in the eye and touting his commitment to “regular order” as a legislative approach. He sent a senior staffer to the Vox office who very seriously attributed 2015’s relatively productive legislative session to a return of regular order and promised that regular order would continue no matter who won the presidential election.

    McConnell and Paul Ryan then, entirely of their own volition, with no evident input from Trump, proceeded to enact the most fantastically irregular legislative process anyone has ever seen. And dozens of Republican senators proceeded to repeatedly bemoan the slipshod process even while continually voting to continue the process. Now they daily — hourly, even — express intense anxiety about the pressure they are under and profound eagerness to see their way clear of this mess. But at every turn, they resist the obvious alternative — a bipartisan process aimed at a bipartisan bill that would actually stabilize exchanges and fulfill both parties’ commitment to improve Americans’ health care.”

    Ben burn (ed36d1)

  214. @215 Ben Burn

    So ambassador is the new tsar?

    Pinandpuller (ea25a3)

  215. At large because,religious freedom is thriving in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention france and the uk.

    narciso (c99e1e)

  216. @222 Ben Burn

    The very same man who suspended his so called campaign to fly back to Washington to do nothing.

    Pinandpuller (ea25a3)

  217. Both parties committed to improving health care? Dude are you high?

    Abraham couldn’t find ten righteous men among both parties to save it.

    Pinandpuller (ea25a3)

  218. 215.Trump Is Now Handing Out Made-Up Ambassador Gigs..

    Ted Cruz: Ambassador to Antarctica? If offered… he’d accept.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  219. 144. Steve57 (0b1dac) — 7/26/2017 @ 3:30 pm

    There is nothing we can do to offset this, should it turn out to be true that global warming is going to be catastrophic and humans are primarily responsible for it.

    Oh there are things we could do to offset it, if they were right. But reducing carbon emissions isn’t one of them.

    You could:

    A. Spew sulfer dioxide over the Arctic

    B. Fertilize the Pacific ocean with iron.

    c. Explode a few nuclear bombs in the atmosphere.

    And if that was the wrong thing to do, you have the benefit that the effects of all of them are temporary.

    You can also prevent hurricanes more directly.

    One last point; scientists can not tell you what the best policy is to deal with global warming, should it turn out to be the threat the alarmists would have us believe. As a matter of fact, I can demonstrate from the IPCC’s own numbers that it will be 85% more expensive to try and fight global warming than to deal with it should it occur.

    That’s also true.

    So, again, what is the conservative argument for cap-and-trade?

    The government can make money off it, and it’s better than an income tax and maybe liberals will vote for it.

    For climate change, that’s just foolishness.

    Sammy Finkelman (339ffd)

  220. Vogue

    By now, though, empty words from Ivanka Trump are no longer noteworthy; they are the norm—as routine as the president’s cyberbullying (any day now with your First Lady initiative, Melania) and schmoozing from Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci. While Ivanka is repeatedly credited as “having her father’s ear,” the trans ban is just the latest in a string of defeats on what are believed to be Ivanka’s stated causes. On climate change: It was she who met with Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio during the transition, only to see her father make the U.S. one of the only developed nations on the planet to pull out of the Paris climate accord. While she fancies herself an “advocate for the education and empowerment of women and girls,” she’s been conspicuously (dead) silent as her father rolled back workplace protections that apply to the gender pay gap and continues to urge (to the point of public shaming) GOP congressmen to defund Planned Parenthood and pass health care bills that would strip coverage from millions of women—not quite a boon to women’s empowerment.

    Ben burn (ed36d1)

  221. The gender pay gap is nonsense (certainly as far as big companies are concerned maybe you could worry about employment discrimination or discrimination by factors that impact women adversely,

    As for Planned Parenthood, Ivanka Trump poposed that Planned Parentood split into two organization one that performed abortions and one that did not. They refused to even discuss it,

    Sammy Finkelman (748106)

  222. A carbon tax, of course would make more money even than cap and trade. The Califoria cap and trade law has a number of fail safes.

    Some companies that threaten to move somewhere else may gain exemptions or free permits. If the price rise too much, the California emissions board or whatever it is called can issue more of them

    Sammy Finkelman (748106)

  223. CARB

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  224. As for Planned Parenthood, Ivanka Trump poposed that Planned Parentood split into two organization one that performed abortions and one that did not. They refused to even discuss it,

    They called her naive. And she is. Planned Parenthood’s purpose is to keep down the population of the “dark races” in the United States. Asking them to separate abortion from their ancillary services is like asking the Washington Redskins to split the team into one that plays football and one that does not.

    nk (dbc370)

  225. Also – if Planned Parenthood split into two organizations, the top salaries at both of them would be lower than at the single organization now.

    The people running Planned Parenthood would have to take pay cuts. Even if not exactly legally required, they still would have trouble paying themselves the same amounts when running a smaller organization. Neither could they work for both.

    Sammy Finkelman (748106)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5880 secs.