- “Senate majority leader Harry Reid and 51 of his Democratic colleagues on Thursday changed how the chamber considers Executive Branch and most Judicial Branch nominees. But the ramifications of the action go well beyond the Senate’s advice-and-consent powers…” [TIME]
- Senate’s filibuster rule change should help Obama achieve key second-term priorities [WashPost]
- Partisan fever in Senate is likely to rise [NYT]
- “The main reason for this odd, partial clawback of the filibuster is that President Obama has no real legislative agenda that can pass Congress.” [New York]
- JFK and the Hope that Lingers [Politico]
- Insurers Cut Doctors’ Fees in New Health-Care Plans [WSJ]
- Meet the Spies Doing the NSA’s Dirty Work [Foreign Policy]
- The Quest to Build an NSA-Proof Cloud [Atlantic]
- Sex in the Senate [Politico]
- There’s a Whole New Way of Killing Cancer: Stephanie Lee is the Test Case [Esquire]
- Staring down the Taliban in the Race to Eradicate Polio from Earth [Wired]
6Lw7d http://safe-med-store.de/ 6691210
N9kTCS http://safe-med-store.org/ 1306863
7seUZ6 http://ibi.mobi/ 1324758
MxhGA3 http://ebashu24health.com/ 4879788
tMDxlhx http://sosnihuyca24health.com/ 1933973
rX63X http://safe-store-md.com/ 839914
uUPDD http://safeinternet-shop.com 8719411
fzxBf http://safe-internetshopping.com 6731609
PH3NI http://safeinternetshoping.com 7704599
dRvhF http://safeinternetstore.com 7908124
xEI3a http://safe-helthy-store.com 9298914
hiDI1 http://realerection.com 7253727
C6agt http://nature-erect.com 3271259
I1wUhrW http://manstronglife.com 8466543
lFE7n http://strongerect.com 2219491
UIN1pq http://menserectlife.com 6261415
DumW85T http://longerect.com 3804450
URjQu http://bestmenserect.com 5462987
I'm curious to see how Curly explains this little inconsistency. On the one hand he blames Obama from not pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan fast enough, on the other he calls him incompetent for not leaving any troops behind in Iraq. What exactly is the difference between the two in his eyes?
If an inveterate "moron"* might speak, inconsistencies don't matter. If he reads a story saying the one thing, and another saying the other, he's going to believe them, regardless of the contradictions.
It's Teh Eggspurts problem, not his. He isn't paid to think!
*see what @collioure really means by this below
Iraq was fairly quiet after 2008, Al Qaeda having been defeated there. We did need to leave and let the Iraqis resolve their internal differences. A small stabilizing force for emergencies would have been helpful. In our complete absence, for example, I understand the Iranians are crossing Iraq to aid Assad.
Afghanistan, a far more primitive nation, could never have been put on a good path. We had way too many troops there. In fact, the faster we removed them, the sooner Karzai would have had to come to grips with reaching peace with the Taliban. We have little interest there other then a regional air base and preventing the return of AQ.
@collioure @mantisdragon91 Except of course the tribal differences and religious tension in Iraq is just as great if not greater than they are in Afghanistan. So you wanted us to leave a small force in Iraq to be sitting ducks in a rapidly escalating civil war. How would that make sense? And the Iranians are crossing the border with the full knowledge and approval of the Shiite government of Iraq. Or did you want us to dictate to them who can and can't use their sovereign territory?
It's a weak government that needs some support. A small US force might make it more possible to avoid sectional strife. It was part of our exit strategy.
We don't fight in civil wars.
@collioure And how is that any different from the weak government in Afghanistan? The only difference that I see is that Afghanistan still wants our help Iraq no longer does.
@collioure @mantisdragon91 It isn't hopeless, but our window to actually show the rural population that we were acting in their best interests probably has closed. This I blame GWB for. He put a corrupt Opium dealer in power, which made a large part of the population believe that they might be better off with the Taliban.
Kabul has 1 million people. Aside from them the population lives in small tribal villages, and their best interests are very close to home.These people just want to be left alone.
@collioure Not really. These people were happy with us, when we drove out the Taliban and helped them build new building, roads and irrigation. However when we left them at the mercy of the Taliban in our rush to invade Iraq, and then Karzai's Opium friends started extorting them for taxes and land, they realized that the Taliban wasn't so bad after all.
One has to have the patience of geological processes themselves to teach @collioure .
If it helps you, you can call me a moron again.
I've created a form that you can fill out and repost with your favorite expletive!
53 is a __________.
"53 has been acting like a moron since yesterday and is not letting up."
Now that is funny.
I refute your claim that restricting times one can vote doesn't affect waiting times with solid, unassailable mathematics (frequency theorem), and a fundamental IT axiom demonstrating the relationship between process and queuing when processing requests exceed capacity, and translate them into plain English step by step in teensy weensy bits, and you still don't get it.
I guess "acting like a moron" really means "bursting @collioure 's fact-less bubble".
Horse, meet water...
If only the author of the article had cited that, but he didn't.
Restricting times one can vote can affect waiting times, but the courts have stepped in to prevent such. That's only a few states any wyay and it's mostly early voting. Could never produce the national discrepancy observed, moron.
You're wrong on both counts. As a matter of fact, you stated, clearly, that restricting times one can vote doesn't affect waiting times - it's your post, down-thread, for everyone to read.
Second, the courts have not stepped in to prevent reductions in times voters can vote. Many states with early voting or after hours voting have banned the practices - and - your second sentence in the second paragraph contradicts your first sentence!
Third, a few states can affect the national outcome if their influence is strong enough.
Here's a quicke mathuhmatical sample, ruggles:
dataset [0, 0, 3, 0, 1, 2]: average 1
dataset [7, 0, 3, 0, 1, 2]: average 2
Horse, meet water...
Unless you consider hard mathematics and basic axioms speculation, I can't help you further.
The fact that that author didn't point these things out is not particularly relevant. I did - and they are as true in Peoria as they are in Texas.
And, I promise not to mention again that you contradicted yourself in that second paragraph, ok?
[Sigh]. Most horses usually realize they lower their heads to the water's surface before drinking. Oh, well...
Make the datasets hold 50 elements. Each element can represent a state. Hell, make each element a matrix of the three values for each state. Then, change a few. Have a party, change a dozen. Then, recalc the averages!
Stunningly, you should be able to figure it out for yourself!
Restricting times one can vote can affect waiting times [note reversal of yesterday's statement, but this isn't the contradiction I was pointing out], but the courts have stepped in to prevent such.(1) That's only a few states any wyay and it's mostly early voting.(2)(1) and (2) are contradictory. If the courts had stepped in to prevent such, there would be no states restricting voting times!
Of course I agree that it isn't widespread! My point was that a few states CAN influence the national average, and, my sense is that it is primarily restricted to the South and some red states in the north.But your statement was contradictory in that you were discussing restrictions on voting times which no court has struck down.
I think that the point is that it doesn't matter what data is used, the real thing, or the example I used, the national average would change!
This means that individual states CAN change the national average.
I don't know of anyone else on this planet besides you, of course, that can't see such an obvious observation.
I'm not going to break it down into the respective basic theorems. You're cum laude, you do it.
Very true as a strategy going forward but it appears that the really deep red states are doing it as a matter of principle. Note Sue's disaffection toward the state of affairs in Texas and NFL's with what they're doing in Floda. Good zamples of each: in the case of Texas, they're doing it to cement their position.
I agree that Floda is some sort of purply shade of color