K-9

Seriously, in a world as scary and dangerous as Trump makes it out to be, how can reckless rhetoric like that help things? Answer: it can't. When did it become desirable for our president to sound like the drunk at a bar spouting off about what we should do "with em." 'Bombing the schit out of em" is barroom diplomacy at its finest. And it's pretty phuckin' stupid.

You and I both know that names don't mean much in terms of philosophies, which is where I'm coming from. Labels can, however, put people off or incite fear if one doesn't wish to learn further about what's behind that label. Thanks for the clarification, though.

Scratch fearful then. How about "against" it? Just an FYI, but McCarthy didn't appreciate nuance.

I already know what Bernie Sanders thinks it stands for, I'm more interested in the viewpoint from someone who is fearful of it. If the Democrats win, you said you will consider a centrist GOP candidate in the future. What is it about a Democratic victory that shapes that view? What are your concerns (i.e. worries), that inform that view?

What are you worried about, specifically?

Pray tell, what does it "stand for?"

A 45 year record of public service qualifies one for canonization? Does the Vatican know about this? For 23 years now republicans, at great expense to the taxpayers, have been trying to qualify her as "crooked" or worse. They are either flat out wrong or utterly incompetent. Take your pick. Haha. Got that right. The mere word "socialist" is enough to send shivers up the spines of people. Better to call themselves ISIS or something.

Can you spare a square? I'm a bit misty myself after that read. Thanks for linking that incredible tribute by a son to his mother.

Congrats to the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as they struck a blow for voter's rights today and overturned North Carolina's racist attempt to suppress black voters. I hope it has ripple effects on similar laws passed in other states.

You'd have to be missing the human DNA.

True that. He doesn't give a hashtag about anything.

Wow. Powerful words from the father of a fallen Muslim-American soldier fighting in Iraq. I hope Trump was watching.

That vast majority of that waste, fraud (especially fraud), and inefficiency is perpetrated by the private sector contractors we, the people, entrust to them. I am totally baffled by our lack of outrage at military contractors, especially. Our largest social program is rife with corruption.

Glad to hear it. But based on what you shared, age was the issue when it shouldn't have been. I hope you realize that the problem wasn't with the ACA per se, it was with a provider's inability to follow the law. The ACA had no impact on what was covered under medicare and medicare never imposed age limits or otherwise qualified coverage based on life expectancy. Private health insurers, on the other hand...well let's just say they are free to be a bit less scrupulous.

If your father was denied medicare benefits because of age as you said above, then whomever denied them broke the law. From an article: The language can't be clearer. And it sounds like your dad has a case.

Yes. There have been some bogus claims made regarding seniors and medicare and how the ACA might impact them. Is your father on medicare?

Jesus Phuckin' Christ! Are you totally incapable of taking a joke? Lighten the phuck up for crissakes.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Not of the actual ACA but of the insurance companies, Wall Street, FOX News, and other privateers and their ability to scare the crap out of you.

Did she look as silly as this, though:

Trump's appeal to a certain element of his base is set in stone. The onus is on Hillary Clinton to over come the negative perceptions people have of her personally. That starts tonight. He won't admit it, but Buff had to look it up, too. If not, he's got issues.

True. Rate of increases over the last four years is at a 20 year low if memory serves. ACA only plays a part in that as the recession and other factors contribute to the slower rate of increase. But BuffaninATL takes the grand prize with last night's offering of: opprobrious

Not out to prove anything. I only disputed your claim that the four non criminal charges aren't serious and tried to show how. And you certainly did make the point that the city would have pressed more serious charges if they found anything. Never mind then.

Again, LMAO! Are you not aware that a bunch of actuaries and bureaucrats are doing the exact same thing at every health insurance provider in the country. And that THOSE decisions are made outside those very same doctor/patient relationships? But I get it; healthcare was a panacea before the ACA because Obama bad, Insurance companies good.

Huge hurdles in civil cases are speed bumps most of the time. And that nexus you speak of may very well be what's on those videos. The plaintiffs and their attorneys have certainly viewed them and felt compelled to press charges. Now there is no shortage of shyster lawyers (apologies to our in house barristers) willing to take anything to court against a rich defendant, but if those videos are all exculpatory in nature, then why bother? And significant financial reward means different things to different people.

I never suggested otherwise. Harm is harm, financial or otherwise, and Kane stands exposed to the possibility. Again, what the city did or didn't find evidence for is immaterial at this point. For all anyone knows, they found nothing more serious than non criminal harassment as its defined legally, which is why the complainants felt emboldened to press charges. Just because they didn't find anything more serious, doesn't mean nothing less serious occurred. But again, I fail to see the relevance to a non criminal civil proceeding, anyway.