Why can't the hunters use bows and arrows to kill Bambi?
Then it would be much more of a sport, and maybe a few hunters would reduce their girth by climbing up trees in the woods to get a better shot at Bambi.
One good thing about Donald is that his Twitter posts generally have a grain of truthiness in them. Unlike all 16 other R candidates.
Hubby and his cute blonde wife taking a lux vacation break with their kids from a hectic routine just before school starts and you spin the story to involve Donald and Roger Ailes? Next thing you will start spinning baseless rumors involving compelling evidence allegedly found in Hilary's emails!
I hope you understand Republican politicians are the absolute worst PC addicts. The word "equality" has been disappeared from their feeble vocabularies.
Jindal, Christie, Graham, Santorum and Pataki ought to be able to get the message very soon.
George Will resorted to silly calling on Faux News yesterday against Donald - the rightwingdings really are getting desperate with their anointed boys Jeb bush bush and Walker slumping so badly in the polls!
Operating Room Humor
5 surgeons from big cities are at an AMA Convention discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.
The first surgeon, from New York City, says, "I like accountants because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."
The second, from Chicago, responds, "Yeah but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded."
The third surgeon, from Dallas, say, "No, librarians are the best because everything inside them is in alphabetical order."
The fourth surgeon, from Los Angeles chimes in, "You know I like construction workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over."
But the fifth surgeon, from Washington DC, shut them all up when he observed, "You're all wrong. Republicans are the easiest to operate on. There are no guts, no heart, no brains, and no spine. Plus, the head and the butt are interchangeable!"
I agree that Rubio and Fiorina sufficiently demonstrated their chrisofascist warmonger cred in last week's debates to deserve a good shot at the 2016 R VP nomination.
Fiorina, Carson, and Cruz all convinced me they are sufficiently Christofascist warmongery to deserve a shot at the pubs' VP nomination. Christy couldn't even be elected to a city council seat in Jersey City after all the corruption his administration has spawned.
All of the Christofascist warmongers campaigning for the R nomination ought to be asked to explain why their ACA predictions were unanimously wrong, wrong, wrong on all counts - economic growth, job growth/unemployment, and deficits.
How many supply side economists does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: None. The free market economy does it all!
The Paul campaign will have a tough time beating this rap, with Sorensen copping a plea that is likely dependent upon cooperating with prosecution of Jesse Benton.
Texas will probably be forced amend its voter suppression statute to allow more types of id.
Whatever Texas Rethuglicans can do to throw sand into the gears of democracy.
Lindsay Graham lied about President Clinton in the debate. Graham said that President Clinton wants the word "is" to mean whatever he wants it to mean but the opposite is true. Here's the transcript of President Clinton's testimony, proving that Lindsay Graham is a liar:
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area,
briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman.
The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Paula Jones
deposition, "Counsel is fully aware" -- it's page 54, line 5 ?
"Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit
which they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex
of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton..
That statement is made by your attorney in front of Judge Susan Webber
A That's correct.
Q That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr.
Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement
that there was "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with
President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
A It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing.
If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
But, as I have testified, and I'd like to testify again, this is -- it
is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked about his lawyer's
statements, instead of the other way around. I was not paying a great
deal of attention to this exchange. I was focusing on my own
Like Republicans in Congress Ed's post also dismisses an enormous body of evidence contrary to his rants, offers no serious alternatives, substitutes vitriol for analysis, and misrepresents the facts. Trump won't save you, Ed - an overwhelming majority of Republican and Democratic voters understand Trump is a buffoon who lies and demonstrates no understanding of Government policies.
4. EMPs. In the July 23 Senate hearing, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin asked Moniz about a 2008 commission report on EMPs, electromagnetic pulses, which could be triggered by nuclear detonations and could knock out the U.S. power grid. Moniz, the former chairman of MIT’s physics department, has spent his career working in nuclear science. He told Johnson that he was unfamiliar with the report but that “if you look at our Quadrennial Energy Review published in April, we do identify EMP as a risk to transformers, and we are beginning to try to work up a response to that.”
In the hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas used this exchange:
Cruz: You told the United States Senate you hadn’t read the congressionally mandated commission on EMPs and that you didn’t know what an EMP was.
Moniz: That is incorrect. I said I did not know this 2008 report recommendations. I said I was quite familiar with the issue, and we all know about EMPs from airburst nuclear weapons.
Cruz: Secretary, let me read the testimony verbatim so that I don’t mischaracterize you. … “Senator Johnson: ‘Are you familiar with the EMPs commission 2008 report?’ ‘No, I am not, sir.’ ‘You’re not? Do you know—do you know what an EMP is?’ ‘You’ll have to explain it to me, please.’ ” I find that stunning. …
Moniz: That was about the report. If you read further in the testimony, you will see my explicit statement. Of course I know about the issue.
Cruz: Do you agree that an EMP detonated by Iran in the atmosphere could kill tens of millions of Americans?
Moniz: I said it is highly variable in its—
Cruz: OK. You’re refusing to answer the question.
The most disturbing thing about this exchange is Cruz's intellectual confidence in the face of his own ignorance. He doesn’t know the slightest fraction of what Moniz knows about EMPs. Either Cruz doesn’t understand this difference between himself and Moniz, or he doesn’t care. He hasn’t even read the full transcript!
3. The IAEA’s “secret deal.” Kerry and Moniz have repeatedly explained that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which enforces nuclear conduct agreements, publicly evaluates each country’s compliance but keeps some details about inspection logistics private. The IAEA briefs other governments about its procedures but doesn’t give them the logistical documents. Republicans, having shrugged at this policy for decades, are suddenly outraged. Many of them seem to think the Obama administration is colluding with Iran and the IAEA. They claim that Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, has seen the IAEA’s Iran documents but won’t show them to Congress. In the House hearing on Tuesday, Rep. Ted Poe of Texas asserted that Rice “said that she has seen this deal with the IAEA.” Kerry corrected him: “Susan Rice’s quote is, ‘We know their contents, and we’re satisfied with them. We will share the contents of those briefings in full and classified sessions with Congress.’ She has not seen them. She has been briefed on them.”
Kerry’s clarification should have settled the matter. But it didn’t.
If you didn’t have time to watch the 11 hours of hearings conducted on July 23, July 28, and July 29, consider yourself lucky. Here are the lowlights of what you missed.
1. North Korea. In all three hearings, Kerry explained how the inspection and verification measures in the Iran deal are designed to rectify flaws that led to the failure of the North Korean nuclear agreement. He spent much of his opening statement outlining these differences. This made no impression. When the Senate held its next hearing a week later, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presiding Republican, dismissed the Iran agreement with a quip: “How did that North Korean deal work out for you?”
2. Israel. As evidence that the Iran deal is bad, Republicans point to criticism from Israel. But they seem more interested in the rhetoric of Israeli politicians than in the judgments of Israeli security experts. At the July 23 hearing, Kerry read from an article that quoted supportive statements about the deal from the former leaders of two Israeli intelligence agencies. Republicans batted the quotes away. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming scoffed, “That wasn’t even in the newspaper. That was a blog post.” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina dismissed the statements as irrelevant because they didn’t come from elected officials. Why listen to experts when you can rely instead on quotes from politicians?