Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Corrections Corporation of America Message Board

deepharbor 31 posts  |  Last Activity: 3 hours ago Member since: Dec 6, 2000
  • deepharbor by deepharbor Jul 6, 2015 3:36 PM Flag

    can't win the nomination without appealing to the racist tea billies and can't win the election with the tea party support, LOL

  • A family planning program in Colorado that offers low-price long-term contraception cut teen pregnancy and abortion rates dramatically in the last five years. Yet the program is in jeopardy since legislators rejected to funding for it in place.

    The Colorado Family Planning Initiative operated in the last five years with private grant funding supplied by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, according to The New York Times. The program allowed teenagers and low-income women to acquire intrauterine devices (IUDs) and other types of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for free or at reduced rates.

    Since 2009, more than 30,000 IUDs or other contraception devices were given out at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado, the state reported last year.

    The program proved to be a major success in that, from 2009 to 2013, the birthrate for teenagers fell by 40 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. In addition, the teen abortion rate dropped 35 percent from 2009 to 2012. Similar reductions occurred among single women under the age of 25 who did not have a high school degree, the NYT reported.

    Read more
    Indiana woman first in nation to be convicted of feticide

    The state estimated that it had saved more than $80 million in Medicaid expenditures thanks to the program, which ran out of funding on July 1. The state health department has also estimated that the initiative saved $5.85 in Medicaid costs for every dollar used to fund low-price contraception.

    Yet despite the evidence of unprecedented success, conservative legislators balked when asked to provide $5 million to continue the program as is. In April, the Republican-controlled state Senate killed a funding bill, putting the program in limbo.

  • Reply to

    WHY DOESN'T CALIFORNIA.....

    by walterbyrdman11 Jul 6, 2015 8:57 AM
    deepharbor deepharbor Jul 6, 2015 1:31 PM Flag

    Look up per capita income by State. The top 10 states are all blue states, the bottom 10 states are all the red conservative states, LOL yet the tea billies can't figure out why, LOL

  • Looks like the Hillary landslide could be bigger.

    Looking ahead to the general election, Clinton continues to hold significant leads over Bush (54% Clinton to 41% Bush) and Christie (56% Clinton to 37% Christie). She has also opened up wide leads over Rubio (56% Clinton to 39% Rubio) and Walker (57% Clinton to 38% Walker), as those two have slipped among independents. Clinton's clearest advantage, however, is over Donald Trump, 59% say they would vote for Clinton if the 2016 match-up were between her and Trump, 34% say they would back Trump.

  • posted all weekend using his many id's pooooooooooor loooooooooser shut in, LOL

    it's a little surprising how quickly the GOP is coming apart, the latest polls show Hillary leading all the potential GOP challengers by 15 points and gaining, election shaping up as the biggest landslide in history.

  • He is a nuclear bomb in the GOP nomination. LOL yup gonna pick up a lot of that Hispanic vote, LOL
    Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said fellow Republican presidential nominee Marco Rubio is "weak" on immigration, as the real estate mogul on Saturday continued to defend his controversial remarks on the subject in an interview on Fox News' "Fox and Friends."

    "There's tremendous crime and illegal immigration is just incredible. As far as Rubio, he's very weak on immigration," he said in the phone interview. "You know, I have great relations with Mexico and I love the Mexican people, and the spirit of the Mexican people. These are people just pouring across the border."

    In the past, Rubio, a Cuban-American, has said he supports a pathway to citizenship for the 10 million undocumented immigrants,

  • been pretty busy for me since getting back from Africa, you know with all the parties

  • Reply to

    PANDORA - Institutional Ownership 101.17%

    by jondeerecowboy Jun 3, 2015 10:30 AM
    deepharbor deepharbor Jun 3, 2015 2:17 PM Flag

    precisely because there are short positions it is possible to own more then 100% of outstanding shares

  • deepharbor deepharbor Jun 3, 2015 2:16 PM Flag

    I haven't looked at it but are you sure in the IPO and the secondary the company received all the cash and some of it didn't go to existing shareholders who sold some of their positions?

  • deepharbor deepharbor Jun 3, 2015 2:14 PM Flag

    I haven't looked at the stock valuation but I can tell you when I try and use the service it plays about 6 songs and then tries to stream me Italian baroque music. Even after I thumbs down it it comes back about 5 songs later. I'm guessing they don't have to pay royalties for this music so they default to it. I'm going to try some of the other services to see if they s*ck less.

  • deepharbor deepharbor May 12, 2015 2:45 PM Flag

    let's go with the basic answer maybe it isn't to complicated for you to understand.

    Science says: Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate, which has implications for sea level rise.

    Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

    In glaciology, and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is generally considered to be ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months.

    All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the most important ice mass is the land ice sitting on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (see above) range from losing 100 gigatons/year to over 300 gigatons/year. Because 360 gigatons/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.

CXW
33.84+0.26(+0.77%)Jul 7 4:01 PMEDT