Yossarian

Those peoples' jobs must not require them to wait for hours with only a laptop or phone to keep them connected. It's hot out there running that shovel. I know. I used to be there. Actually, Obama supporters like to surf the net on their bosses' dime.

The Justice Department sent a letter to Senator Grassley in February 2011 stating that the allegations of gun walking in Fast and Furious were false. In December 2011, Justice "retracted" the letter, suggesting that the allegations were not false, after all. Those are two things that are known to be true - the issuing of the letter and its withdrawal. If this were simply a matter of a dysfunctional bureaucracy, the AG and the President have needlessly raised it to a critical level. This has an eerie resemblance to the way President Nixon was run out of office. The only thing missing now is for another "Deep Throat" to emerge. Grab the popcorn...this is going to get interesting.

Facinating is the word. Are you calling me a nutjob or are you simply incorrectly using a reflexive pronoun?

I guess if you can't attack the message you can always attack the messenger. Oh wait . . . that's a variation what you always say, right? Hmmm. Deflection is a fine art. You are an artist. Sullivan, on the other hand, is a nutjob.

I mostly agree with what you say, and I too was being a wiseguy by asking for explanation of the penalty when I knew that it was limited to a fine. I have heard of that "google" thingy that you speak of. Now, what I find somewhat amusing is your disappointment with our nation for not being informed and for our "incredible aversion to actually looking at legislation and formulating our own opinions." I am more astounded that our elected officials would vote on and pass a law like the ACA without reading it. I find that harder to understand than "the vigorous defense of the theoretical individuals who still wouldn't want to obtain health insurance if it was guaranteed to be issued and reasonably affordable." When John Q. Citizen doesn't read the full text of a law, it really doesn't affect me. When Nancy Pelosi doesn't read a bill like the ACA, votes it into law, and then jokes about it, that does affect me.

http://andrewsulliva...s-unhinged.html And there, in the last two sentences, is the most eloquent summation of why I switched my voter registration to independent. Is it just me or does anyone else find it hilarious that Andrew Sullivan, the first and the last of the "Trig Truthers" is lecturing anyone about the acceptance of empirical truths?

Is something missing here or maybe a typo? Word of advice - if you're going to be a wiseguy, read what you're saying before you hit "Post."

You're doubling down? Well . . . ok. I think you are tying to explain why the ACA is bad . . . but all you talk about is the federal deficit, China, lefties, and teats. Your argument will be more convincing if you actually discuss the law in question instead of your regurgitated talking points. The information is out there. You don't have to resort to this type of post. Then again, if you research the law you might not be able to make fantastic claims about people being thrown in jail for not submitting to tyranny. The reality of the law is far more mundane than the breathless criticism that is bandied about. Your response would be more convincing if you discussed the law instead of attacking the poster. So, please tell us, the unwashed masses, what the penalty is for not complying under the mundane ACA.

I need a ruling on this. Is this guy being "openly derisive" against someone's race? What about this? Derisive?

I'm simply stating when I believe the SCOTUS will announce its decision. carlfense usually tries this tactic on everyone, and eventually crosses into name-calling as he has done here - calling me stupid (obtuse) and calling my posts "gibberish." I try to address the post and not the poster.

I agree that the Summer Solstice is 20 June. What's not to agree with? But the beginning of summer has nothing to do with the SCOTUS. The Stonehenge Court? Yes. SCOTUS? No. The current SCOTUS session ends on 30 June, so the opinion on Obamacare will likely be released before then - probably on 25 June since that is a Monday and opinions are historically released on Monday.

Here is proof that there is a God. Lady Gaga gets hit by pole. Proof that Satan still has power - she survived. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P8n5rthes3U

If we're comparing the net gains/losses in the public sector to the private sector he has a point. Then again, I'm sure that you probably know that. I would have thought that if you didn't care about the golf that you wouldn't have raised the issue. Well, you would have been wrong. I didn't "raise the issue" so much as take an oblique shot at the lefties who claim that the President is always on the job worrying about American jobs even when he is on the golf course. Do like I do - address specific posts and not try to overanalyze the reasons for the post. Meanwhile, I support anything the Preezy does as long as it reveals his inability to cope with what he thought was a breezy job. He still believes that he can solve any problem simply by hold ing a press conference. Plus...I think he's lazy. I don't think I'll do like you do, Yos. Apologies. Regarding the bold: any evidence to back those up? It's not one of those "some people say" sort of beliefs is it? Dang, you did it again. As for the bold, it's something that I say. I got that feeling the other day when, in an attempt to cover his butt, he said something to the effect of: The economy is not doing fine and that's why I am holding this press conference. Finally, my handle is Yossarian, not Yos.

It was probably decided this week. We probably won't know until summer. I thought that they had to announce the decision this month since the current sessions ends 30 June. I think summer begins on the 20th, right? Not near my calendar at the moment. That's the Summer Solstice. June still ends on 30 June.

If we're comparing the net gains/losses in the public sector to the private sector he has a point. Then again, I'm sure that you probably know that. I would have thought that if you didn't care about the golf that you wouldn't have raised the issue. Well, you would have been wrong. I didn't "raise the issue" so much as take an oblique shot at the lefties who claim that the President is always on the job worrying about American jobs even when he is on the golf course. Do like I do - address specific posts and not try to overanalyze the reasons for the post. Meanwhile, I support anything the Preezy does as long as it reveals his inability to cope with what he thought was a breezy job. He still believes that he can solve any problem simply by hold ing a press conference. Plus...I think he's lazy.

It was probably decided this week. We probably won't know until summer. I thought that they had to announce the decision this month since the current sessions ends 30 June.

2,753 innocent bystanders died on 9/11/01. They agree with you...as do I.. so innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 are worthless? Their lives don't matter? If they are killed, that means they were not innocent. Why? Because President Obama has no innocent bystanders on his kill list. That's the catch...Catch-22. That's why he labors over the kill list list every waking moment - except on the golf course...he's then thinking about jobs for the 23,000,000 Americans who are standing on corners begging because they have no money nor jobs...and now no "Big Gulps" or high salt foods. Do you support the drone strikes? Your feelings about Obama are obvious . . . but it looks like you're trying very hard to be critical of him even when you support his policies. I, for one, am simply aghast that he plays a round of golf every two weeks. Do I suuport the drone strikes? Why heck yes. I'm glad that the killing has continued. I think that it's always better tpo kill the enemy before he kills you. What I find amusing is the left-wng hysteria over GITMO, rendition, detainment, and military tribunals before 2008. Now the WH leaks info suggesting he is a killing machine, and people are concerned about the leaks but not about his kill list. I am in that camp, but I won't vote for him. I'd vote for PeeWee Herman before i'd vote for Barack Obama. As for the golf, I don't really care - but I do wish he held more press conferences. The media is no longer giving him a pass on every gaffe. The funny part about his statement that the prvate sector was doing just fine is that he and his crew of Keystone Kops believes it. They want to pour money into Government "shovel ready jobs" and not the private sector. He is too hidebound by leftist ideology to solve the current crisis.

2,753 innocent bystanders died on 9/11/01. They agree with you...as do I.. so innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 are worthless? Their lives don't matter? If they are killed, that means they were not innocent. Why? Because President Obama has no innocent bystanders on his kill list. That's the catch...Catch-22. That's why he labors over the kill list list every waking moment - except on the golf course...he's then thinking about jobs for the 23,000,000 Americans who are standing on corners begging because they have no money nor jobs...and now no "Big Gulps" or high salt foods.

It's tuff luv. Better to be hungry than have a salty, fatty, fiber free diet.

Where is that job, because I'm applying Monday! Which public workers get these cushy benefits? Certainly not all of them, right? In fiscal year 2011, the CBO estimates that the government paid 16% more in combined salary and benefits than it would have for a comparable workforce in the private sector. http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/31/news/economy/federal_worker_pay/index.htm There's an opening in Bellevue right now - chief of police. I would consider that a public worker position. The one leaving got over $200K in leave payout and retirement pay of almost $70K/year. Plus, the city will pay for you to rendez-vous with your girlfriend in faraway cities.

2,753 innocent bystanders died on 9/11/01. They agree with you...as do I..

This is a growing trend, and while I can't really think of many good reasons to prohibit non-profit agencies from doing, May Bloomberg has banned food donations to the homeless "because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content." With the huge increase in food stamp spending under the current administration, it seems reasonable to me to let private charities help with this problem. http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/09/bans-on-feeding-homeless-have-always-bee

My tax dollars do not pay for high UMW wages or retirement. Public sector workers get paid more than their private sector peers and retire at 25 years with 90 percent of their pay. And tax dollars pay for it. And the public sector union member numbers are the same as private sector? And they cannot be easily fired according to law, not union agreements. Ah, that's the rub.

Yeah, it is different. It's worse. A manager makes many more decisions that affect the game. I would argue a player has more power to alter a game than a manager. Shave a few points, tip off a few batters, drop a ball or 2. Even a broken play can go for a TD if the players make it happen, vice versa even the best designed play can be ruined by a few inept players. I'd prefer to limit this to basebal since that's what the OP was about. A baseball manager is responsible for: 1) The starting lineup 2) The batting order 3) Calling pitches, intentional walks, bunts, hit and run, hitting away, steals, pinch hitting, pinch running, pulling pitchers, pulling batters, moving the outfield/infield in, sacrifice flies.

and he never bet his team to lose. Why would anyone believe him after he lied for years swearing that he had never bet on his team to win or to lose? Now all of a sudden he tells the truth all of the time. He's a liar. Great baseball player, but a liar who broke the rules. But that's often the case with great athletes - they consider themselves above the rules. Now he's paying for it.