K-9

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.

I don't see the false equivalency nor did I make one. Nobody has confused misdemeanors with felonies, either. I understand fully what JJ's point is and I don't disagree. Again, I don't disagree with this point. There need not be any "gravitas of criminal charges" to pursue a civil case. I'm not sure where that even comes from. Has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Four charges of non-criminal harassment, adjudicated in a civil proceeding, has GREAT potential to harm E Kane. I disagree with anyone who would say because those charges aren't of the criminal variety, that they don't pose a threat to E Kane. I doubt Kane and Cambria are whistling past the graveyard, either.

In the initial post of yours that I responded to, you suggested the most serious charge against E Kane was misdemeanor trespass. I get that from a legal definition standpoint. My suggestion was that the other four charges have great potential for harm to E Kane and are very serious from that standpoint alone and I doubt Cambria is pooh-poohing them, either. What the city investigated, the seriousness of the charges, etc., and whether the city couldn't find evidence to file more serious charges does not change that fact and is immaterial at this point. The simple fact of the matter is, he has been charged with those four counts and will either settle or face a civil suit in court.

Not sure how you can argue "baseless claims" and "beside the point" when, regardless of the legal classification of the charges, they have great potential to inflict harm on E Kane in civil proceedings. And we didn't have to be cynical to think that civil courts and/or settlements before those civil court proceedings weren't a real possibility. I'm not following your argument about the city not supporting their claims after their investigation. The four complainants are pressing charges, regardless. I guess it's to E Kane's benefit that they aren't more serious in nature, but the charges have potential to harm him greatly. That's my only point. Any talk of them being baseless remains to be seen.

By all means. But those conversations with your feminist friends won't make Clinton's and Lewinsky's consensual relationship any more germane to their cause. Indeed, from where I sit, feminists who insist on making the Clinton/Lewinsky affair all about abuse of power by an employer, etc., have the potential to undermine real, legitimate cases. I have actually heard that opinion expressed by feminists, too. Good luck. I wonder why the GOP didn't try to exploit that aspect of it in the first place. I mean in terms of actual charges against Clinton. Consent means something, I guess. Better to let the media shills and lackeys suggest poor little Monica was an innocent fawn rather than face up to the fact that their witch hunt created other victims.

Still disagree, barrister. Those four charges and their potential to invite civil proceedings, have the potential to harm E Kane greatly.

Disagree. Trespassing and harassment charges often go hand in hand. To suggest the four charges of non criminal harassment are less serious is underestimating their potential to harm E Kane.

It took an organized legion of goose stepping lackeys in the GOP to orchestrate a 5 year, nearly $80m dollar investigation that yielded nothing but a lie about a an extra-marital affair between two consenting adults. I find the mention of "issues" like women in the work force, power leveraging CEOs and interns nothing more than obfuscation. More importantly, none of those "issues" apply to the consenting adults in the room. So no, that issue is not "real" in the least as it relates to Clinton and Lewinsky. Of course Bill Clinton should have used better judgement, imo. But that's only my opinion. I don't get to say what's right and wrong with somebody else's morality regarding extra-marital affairs or work place affairs between consenting adults. Watergate, Benghazi, IRS, and Iran Contra are nothing more than false equivalencies use to, again, obfuscate and somehow justify the actions of an out of control political party and a special prosecutor whose sole motive was to undermine the president. There was no other legitimate reason for the GOP to conflate BJs with the unsuccessful investigations of Whitewater and Paula Jones. They needed something, ANYTHING and, , they were gonna get it. Additionally, Watergate and Iran-Contra were legitimate investigations into FELONIOUS acts. As distasteful as it may be to some, extra-marital affairs just don't rise to that level. And I certainly don't recall any close friends of the suspects in those cases being made to wear hidden wires in order to record incriminating conversations. Perjury is illegal, plain and simple. And wrong. Bill Clinton should have simply told the truth. And early on, too. It would have avoided the mess and it would have made the GOP's witch hunt look even more ridiculous in the process. It's hard to justify the lengths they went to in order to entrap the president. There is no justification for Bill Clinton to lie under oath. None. But he never should have been trapped in that position in the first place. Bad judgement? Of course. Still, none of our business. Strictly between him and his wife. A private family matter that the GOP insisted on getting involved in. Then again, the GOP often likes to get involved in the privacy of people's bedrooms. Perhaps most importantly, and this is the only time I can recall agreeing with Dick Cheney when he alluded to similar opinions, it served to make impeachment a feckless tool of the Constitution. We've had idiots from both sides screaming for impeachments ever since. Ridiculous. Again, well done GOP. So much to be proud of here. LMAO! Just like the "death panels" the GOP couldn't stop talking about.

Point taken and EJ had as miserable a three series stretch as any QB in history. Literally could not have played worse. And I still put more blame for the loss on the defense. EJ left the field with the lead and our D couldn't make a stop when it counted. Phantom pass interference penalties didn't help matters, either.