The Nightman Cometh wrote:Eh I don't know if I got an A on the paper but it definitely helped to get to the page requirements.

Monkeyboy wrote:Mind blown; Heart broken

A report Saturday by the Bergen Record newspaper said Wildstein purchased the domains buonosilva.org, and millysilva.com in July. Those sites could have been used by Christie's Democratic rival in the gubernatorial election, Barbara Buono, and her running mate, Milly Silva.

Wildstein also reportedly purchased patfoye.com, which bears the name of Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye, who criticized the lane closures in September.

Mike DuHaime, a close aide to Christie, told the newspaper the governor had no knowledge of Wildstein's web activity.

Monkeyboy wrote:Oh no.... It appears one of Christie's closest buddies has done a few other things. ...

Obama was a terrorist for attending a church service.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Eh I don't know if I got an A on the paper but it definitely helped to get to the page requirements.

Monkeyboy wrote:I'm not so sure I understand what you're getting at, dr. I agree that abnormal distributions are much more difficult to understand, but I'm not sure how this particular one is good in any way, unless you're one of the lucky few that ends up with all the money.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Oh no.... It appears one of Christie's closest buddies has done a few other things. ...

Obama was a terrorist for attending a church service.

drsmooth wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:I'm not so sure I understand what you're getting at, dr. I agree that abnormal distributions are much more difficult to understand, but I'm not sure how this particular one is good in any way, unless you're one of the lucky few that ends up with all the money.

One of my points is that you ("you" meaning anyone contemplating the subject) don't NEED to feel the existing distribution of wealth, or the distribution of health care costs, is "good", or "bad", or "just right" - merely that the existing distribution makes no particular sense to us mortals - that a distribution which is susceptible to human action, that intuitively is irrational, has been treated as if it were "the way things MUST be".

What we frequently pretend is that the consequences of the way things are is "natural", that any other arrangement could only be worse - which suggests that the existing order of things is not and has not been continually subject to human manipulation, or modes of human manipulation that can be improved upon. I don't believe we need to pretend that. I don't believe we can afford to continue pretending that.

Werthless wrote:I also know someone who purchased domain names. I should probably resign from my job in disgrace.

Werthless wrote:I also know someone who purchased domain names. I should probably resign from my job in disgrace.

Monkeyboy wrote:This is what you said about the appointments. People can judge for themselves if you were accepting the absolute fact that this has been driven by the GOP or if you were acting like the blocking of nominees is just some bipartisan artifact of how things have moved over the past 30 years. (bold is my emphasis)

I think it's a good idea for the Democrats. Frist should have done it back in 2005. It seems like there's been an ever increasing willingness of the party outside the White House to use more extreme tactics to prevent the president's nominees from getting through. It's all a bit partisan depending on where you sit on who deserves more of the blame, but I'm writing so we'll start it at Bork, which seemed to really ignite the idea that voting someone down for ideological reasons was something the Senate ought to consider. Then it increases under Clinton, with Republicans using their majority on the Judiciary Committee to keep nominees they didn't like from ever seeing the floor. Then another ratchet up under Bush, with Democrats using the filibuster to target more than a few nominees, but usually for specific reasons (too conservative or worse yet, conservative AND appealing/Supreme Court material). Now under Obama another step up, with Republicans filibustering lots of people they seemingly don't even have specific objections to, they just don't want Obama to be able to appoint them.

And here is one chart that can allow people to see if what you said is actually true in any way. You are too smart and too involved in this stuff to act like you didn't already know the basics of this chart.

The Senate Conservatives Fund, which was already targeting Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in his 2014 reelection bid, is now going after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) too.

In an e-mail to supporters, the group accuses Boehner of declaring "war on conservatives" by pushing for the budget compromise last week.

"What these leaders are doing to conservatives is no different from what the IRS got caught doing to them this summer," the group's executive director, Matt Hoskins, writes. "They're using their power to discriminate against people they see as a political threat."

Boehner last week criticized such groups in a way he hadn't before, saying they had lost "all credibility" for opposing the budget before it was officially introduced.

McConnell has also denounced these groups, accusing them of exploiting intra-party unrest for financial gain.

The Senate Conservatives Fund, which was once allied with ex-senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), does not say that it will target Boehner in a primary, as it is doing with McConnell, but it does urge its donors to contribute to five Senate candidates it has endorsed in order to fight back.

The House Republican who crafted the budget compromise, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has also found himself earning the opposition of these groups.

Despite the opposition, the budget passed in the House by an overwhelming margin. Republicans voted for it 169-62.

Continental Resources, one of the companies that has committed to ship crude on TransCanada Corp's proposed Keystone XL pipeline, now says the controversial pipeline is no longer needed.

Continental has signed on to ship some 35,000 barrels of its own oil from the Bakken field of North Dakota on the 1,179-mile, $5.4-billion Keystone XL line. But construction of the pipeline has been delayed for years as TransCanada has sought regulatory approvals, and Continental has since turned to railroads to get its crude to oil refineries.

Harold Hamm, chief executive of the independent oil producer, told Reuters that his company and the U.S. oil industry in general are no longer counting on Keystone XL.

Oil companies have been strong advocates of Keystone in order to help alleviate oil supply bottlenecks, but Hamm's remarks raise the question of whether regulatory delays have eroded the industry's enthusiasm for the line, which has faced aggressive resistance from environmentalists.

When asked whether Keystone XL is still needed, Hamm said "not for our Bakken (crude). And is it needed for the industry? I don't think so ... not in the U.S."

"Rail has been a big factor and, you know, proven to be a very effective way" (of getting Continental's crude to market), he said on the sidelines of the Platts Global Energy Outlook Forum in New York on Thursday.

In 2010, Continental and other companies persuaded TransCanada to add a $140 million extension spur to Keystone XL to pick up and transport U.S.-produced Bakken crude beginning in 2014.

Before TransCanada agreed to ship U.S. crude down Keystone XL, Hamm had lobbied in 2009 against the pipeline, arguing that it could flood the U.S. Midwest with a glut of cheap Canadian crude, hurting independent oil producers such as Continental.

Bakken producers have seen growing demand in recent years from U.S. refiners eager to lower their costs by buying the region's attractively priced light, sweet crude. That's made the opportunity cost of waiting for the pipeline even higher.

It isn't clear whether Continental will ship any crude on Keystone XL if it is eventually built. So far, Continental has not sought to back out of its contract as a shipper on the line, Hamm said.

Twenty-three states are currently not planning to move forward with the Medicaid expansion, which was meant to cover millions of low-income Americans. The population they leave behind is mostly young, minority, single adults, according to two new data briefs from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Their analysis is one of the most in-depth looks at the population that falls into this coverage gap, too poor to qualify for insurance subsidies (those are available only to those who earn above the poverty line, about $12,000 for an individual). They're also shut out of the traditional Medicaid program, which tends to cover low-income parents, children and those with disabilities.

Most of them have jobs. Of the 4.8 million people estimated to be in the coverage gap, 2.6 million are working either full- or part-time. Among those working, half are in the agriculture industry. Most work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees, which tend to be less likely to offer insurance coverage

They skew younger and healthier. Half are under 35; three-quarters describe themselves as being in good, very good or excellent health.

If there's any silver lining to this data set, it does suggest that those in the Medicaid gap are, from their self-reporting, in better health and potentially in less need of health care. That obviously doesn't protect against catastrophic events that have little to do with an individual's current health. The health-care law was supposed to offer such protection, but -- for these millions of Americans -- now it won't.