We said that we wanted a rear-wheel drive four door sedan with a v8 & a manual transmission, too, but we already fumbled that ball.

I did not think that it could possibly be clearer that Holden’s threesome idea was a bad one, and that the movie was not endorsing it. I have never seen anyone interpret it any other way before now.

I cannot find it on YouTube right now, but if you can track down the outtakes where Affleck messes up his response, recovers, but cracks up Lee, it is worth its weight in gold.

Bitch, you almost made me smile.

I must have missed this in previous years. So with all of the infuriating coopting of MLK that goes on, we also have to deal with the even greater hypocrisy of the FBI itself joining in the fun?

“As the Times notes, without community rating, an insurance company can charge a sick patient as much as they want. They might not deny them coverage outright–something that used to happen before the Affordable Care Act–but they could put an astronomical price tag on it.”

“Listen, don’t mention white purity! I did a few minutes ago, but I think I got away with it.”

“The NYPD requires officers abide by a set of guidelines when they surveil protesters, regulations known as the Handschu Guidelines after the plaintiff in a 1970s case that resulted in their development. They require that the police can assert that ‘facts or circumstances reasonably indicate that unlawful act has…

Reading comprehension is difficult, is it not? “Political purity?” Where the hell do you get that? Political parties can rot, Democrats included. I am in favor of covering EVERYONE via some variety of single payer. I would rather have no one — not one single person — uninsured. Politics has sweet fuck all to do…

Yes. That was my point. Hence my lack of confidence that it would be any different next time.

You must be kidding me. How many times do I have to say that I was just giving the OP the benefit of the doubt? He is the one who said “three branches,” and I simply gave him the benefit of the doubt that he meant both houses plus the Presidency. Which is exactly what he did mean. I addressed his point without…

I was, thanks for asking. Were you? The 111th Congress had majorities in both the Senate & the House. The House flipped after the 2010 midterm election — which took place in November, eight months after President Obama signed the ACA into law. Further, the House did not REALLY flip until the 112th Congress was sworn…

This is a supremely silly argument. The original comment that I was replying to said that single payer could not happen until the Democrats had all three branches (by which he meant both houses of Congress & the Presidency.) My reply was that they could not pull it off the last time they had it. Whether you like it…

I believe that the intent of his “three branches” was to refer to the Presidency plus both houses of Congress, rather than the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial. It makes more sense in the context of passing laws.

1. No one needs a supermajority in both branches. And the only reason why you “need” one in the Senate is due to the rampant abuse of the filibuster — or rather, the rampant abuse of what is called a “filibuster” even though it actually is not. Virtually no one actually filibusters anymore. Regardless, do not get…

Fair enough. Hair splitting, but still fair enough!

“Single payer is dead and buried until the next time Democrats control all 3 branches.”

I wish that I could argue with a word of that, but I got nothing.

Thank you. That kind of sentiment is driving me batty. When the whole Lance Armstrong thing broke, my wife’s response was to sympathize with him for “doing what he had to do to compete.” Horse hockey. The reality is that she would never sympathize with anyone outside of the sphere of sports who used drugs to “stay…

My scars were mental, but those mental scars have never left me!