The NYC fire is very near where my son lived less than a year ago. He is busy checking with friends who lived in the neighborhood to find out if they have had to vacate their apartment.
I know, I know, no WMDs were found in Iraq. Bush lied, people died! But……funny thing we have veterans who have injuries from chemical weapons. But, I am sure that the argument will be, well there weren’t ALOT of them! Or maybe, the ultimate insult, you really weren’t hurt by chemical weapons.
^^I couldn’t make any sense of the link you posted. I assume CNN did a bad thing but what it was escaped me.
In 2013, CNN called Ted Cruz a hypocrite because he DIDN’T sign up for Obamacare.
In 2015, CNN called Ted Cruz a hypocrite because he DID sign up for Obamacare.
It’s almost as if they were already pre-determined to call him a hypocrite and were just fishing around for a reason, any reason, no matter if it made sense or directly contradicted something that flew out of their face holes less than 20 seconds ago.
The Mediaite website has become simply unreadable.
Not the comments sections; that’s still a joyful walk through the park. Sweetness and light. It’s the posts by the writers.
The subject matter is increasingly silly but the writing itself is dreadful.
Evan McMurry is awful. Matt Wilstein hasn’t improved much over the years. Joe Concha is a good writer but he’s too ideological and frankly comes across as the token conservative who has to take the rightwing view on every subject. Stelter as Olbermann? That’s silly.
Andrew Kirell really needs to be replaced.
Other than that, it’s doing fine.
“In 2013, CNN called Ted Cruz a hypocrite because he DIDN’T sign up for Obamacare.
In 2015, CNN called Ted Cruz a hypocrite because he DID sign up for Obamacare.
It’s almost as if they were already pre-determined to call him a hypocrite and were just fishing around for a reason, any reason, no matter if it made sense or directly contradicted something that flew out of their face holes less than 20 seconds ago.”
^^Ohh OK. Yeah hypocrite seems a bit harsh. Perhaps Cruz is just trying to show us how bad Obamacare really is by signing up for Obamacare.
Good analysis regarding Mediaite. I like Feldman and Concha. McMurry is Tommy Christopher 2.0. Kirell is the kid that always got beat up for being such a douche. He thinks he’s the coolest kid around when in reality he’s such a tool.
Fritz: he is being a good husband and father by signing up for Obamacare. His wife is taking a leave of absence from her job and she was the provider of healthcare for the family. Since she is leaving her job as a family they have 3 choices. COBRA through her work, Obamacare or pay the penalty for NOT having insurance. If you have ever priced out a group policy as COBRA you know it us super expensive. He has two small children so having no insurance and paying the penalty would not be appropriate. So, going the Obamacare route is the way for his family at this point in time.
But, I get where you are coming from: liberals have to bash him, because h*ll and be da*ned if the truth shows him to have thought out the option that is best for his family. But, I get you do not have the capability of just accepting that. It is more important to PARROT some talking points given to you by some liberal website.
As he has said: which of course will go over your head: Just because he hates Obamacare doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to follow THE LAW. Just as he hates the tax laws he still follows them until they can be changed.
Normally, if you’re a public employee and you delete emails, your a** is fired:
Farris: this Clinton thing is getting more and more disgusting every single day. And Elijah Cummings is giving her a pass again on the Benghazi committee. ALL liberals are giving HER a pass and polls say they will still vote for her even if she did this. ANYTHING FOR POWER.
We are all just supposed to believe her and her lawyer. Disgusting!
My favorite part is her defenders saying that they shouldn’t have to turn over the server because no one has presented evidence that there is anything incriminating on it.
DUH, BECAUSE YOU ERASED IT ALREADY!
Lets see….Hillary generated 30,000 PERSONAL email….that were >50% of her total email….so what did she do for a job exactly?
Nixons 18 minute tape gap generated months of front page coverage….today Hillarys 30,000 missing mail landed on the NYT A14. heh on us all.
“My favorite part is her defenders saying that they shouldn’t have to turn over the server because no one has presented evidence that there is anything incriminating on it.”
^^I find this whole email outrage somewhat funny. What is it you expect to find in these emails? Is there some email from Hillary to Obama saying ‘Can you help me cover-up that I knew the Benghazi attack was coming ahead of time and did noting about it’? Or is it just some fishing expedition where you hope she emailed someone making fun of Ted Cruz?
I’d love to see the Chris Christie emails about Bridgegate, but he was a US prosecutor, and I know there’s nothing there that says he had anything to do with the scandal. Christie is a smart politician and knows enough to not say incriminating things in an email. There may be some embarrassing emails but that’s it.
It’s the same with Clinton. She’s a lawyer and a very experienced politician. I don’t think there’s a smoking gun in her emails – or even mildly damaging gun, for that matter. Those apoplectic about her deleting them, like you and Bricko, aren’t voting for her and the majority of other voters just don’t care all that much.
Republicans hyperventilating over missing emails;that will never be found no matter what they said; is a waste of time. Hillary knows they can’t hurt her in the long run so her real unsaid message to Republicans is; fill your boots I just don’t care and neither do most of my potential voters.
“I’d love to see the Chris Christie emails about Bridgegate, but he was a US prosecutor, and I know there’s nothing there that says he had anything to do with the scandal. Christie is a smart politician and knows enough to not say incriminating things in an email. There may be some embarrassing emails but that’s it.”
The whole reason Bridgegate started was because a Christie staffer sent an email to anther staffer.
But the point of Hillary’s email scandal is that she considers herself above the law. She knew she was required to follow protocol and she said “F*** that: I’m gonna do what I want.” As president, which rules would she just automatically decide don’t apply to her? And what recourse would we have once she did?
I’ve never been a big fan of John King and found his middle of the road/split the baby stance on politics boring at best. So it’s a big surprise to me that I find his new show ‘Inside Politics’ really good.
The reason has little to do with King, who I still find boring, but rather the format; a rip-off of PBS’s ‘Washington Week’. Both shows rely on a moderator, either King or Gwen Ifill, and three or four MSM beltway reporters.
Political panel shows are everywhere on cable news so the format is well worn. The thing is by using only reporters and not pundits or politicians who are there to spout talking points you get, IMO, a more interesting discussion of politics.
I know most conservatives, and certainly most of those posting here, consider MSM beltway reporters little more than liberal hacks and so find my analysis flawed at best. To them I say don’t watch and continue to get your political news analysis from the source you trust most FNC.
“she considers herself above the law. She knew she was required to follow protocol and she said “F*** that: I’m gonna do what I want.”
^^A protocol is not a law. It’s a regulation or custom. You may be right and she didn’t follow protocol (for whatever reason) but she hasn’t been accused of breaking any real laws by credible non-partisan sources (meaning not some right wing blog or wing nut pol) that I’m aware of at the moment.
“The whole reason Bridgegate started was because a Christie staffer sent an email to anther staffer.
^^Straw man. I’m not talking about staffers.
“As president, which rules would she just automatically decide don’t apply to her?”
^^Like all President’s before her; she would think almost all rules don’t apply to her. Every POTUS breaks rules, protocols and sometimes even laws.
“And what recourse would we have once she did?”
^^Censure and/or Impeachment. Or, if that doesn’t work; wait and vote her out of office.
Compromise: Mike Pence should retract the RFRA and promise to grant same-sex couples all the rights they enjoy from our new bestest buddies the Iranians…
The simplest way I have heard the Indiana Law explained is this.
1. You are a baker.
2. A gay person comes to your store and asks you to bake a birthday cake. You may not deny that service. That would be discrimination.
3. A gay couple comes to your store and asks you to bake a wedding cake. You may deny them service if your denial is based on your religious beliefs.
The gay couple may take you to court and you MAY win, but there is no guarantee. You would use RFRA as a defense depending on your state and the language included in your state law/court precedence (if your state has a law or prior cases). You may win or you may lose as in any court case.
Here are examples of people using RFRA as a defense. Included in these examples are Native Americans, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Santeria practitioners and others. These laws DO NOT only apply to gays and lesbians.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who supports RFRA, either federally, or in the states is satan. If you support these laws you are a homophobe, pretty soon we will be called racists, too! (Because THAT always gets added at some point in time.)
To see the Gov. of Connecticut go on TV and bash Indiana when his states law is similar, maybe stronger, is pathetic! But, too many voters are just too stupid to even understand what is going on, they just love to yell, “You hate g*ys!)
And, oh yeah, when the dickens is spud going to get with the program and let us us actually use the word “ga*y” without having to do that stupid spelling crap?
My comment is awaiting moderation.
The trouble with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s water:
As I understand it, the law allows people to defend themselves from lawsuits and claim a religious exemption if the act that was required is a “substantial burden” on their religious beliefs.
Question: How is baking a wedding cake for a g*y couple a “substantial burden” on one’s religious beliefs? It’s a cake. You’re not having to endorse the wedding or be involved. Which beliefs are being compromised or hurt?
I think we need to find some middle ground here. But in order for a person to claim a religious exemption then his or her religious beliefs have to be severely injured. I don’t see how baking a cake is meeting that “substantial burden” standard.
“…then his or her religious beliefs have to be severely injured.”
Severely affected or compromised or threatened.
If a Christian baker makes a cake for a bar/bat Mitzvah he’s not endorsing Judaism.
Granted, it’s hard to draw lines but that’s what the courts and legislatures are for.
I say fight fire with fire: go to the g*yest bakery in town and demand they whip you up a giant Boy Scout cake.