192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
gungasnake
 
  -4  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 04:44 pm
layman
 
  -4  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 04:44 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Smile

Those bulldykes are always getting themselves in trouble with their own fat, intolerant mouths, eh?
layman
 
  -4  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 04:47 pm
@gungasnake,
Great video, Gunga.

America First, Baby!
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 04:59 pm
@layman,
More details at that site on her lesbofacist rant, eh?:

Quote:
Dettwyler blamed Warmbier’s parents for allowing their son to grow up “thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted.”

She also wrote that “young, white, rich, clueless white males routinely get away with raping women” in the United States.

'...they bluster and threaten their female professors.”


We get it, bitch, you hate men because, like Otto, they are all rapists.

Not likely that she'll ever find another job, eh? Maybe her femme "partner" can support her fat ass (not likely either).
revelette1
 
  6  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 05:50 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Latest on the Republican legislation overhauling the Obama health care law (all times local):
6:35 p.m.

The White House says the Congressional Budget Office's projection that 22 million more people will be uninsured in 2026 "must not be trusted blindly."

The White House is again trying to undermine the analysis of the CBO, questioning the office's predictions that millions of more Americans would be uninsured under a Senate health care proposal compared with President Barack Obama's health care law.

The White House says the CBO "has consistently proven it cannot accurately predict how health care legislation will impact insurance coverage."

It says the office has a "history of inaccuracy," and cites its "flawed report on coverage, premiums and predicted deficit arising out of Obamacare.

6:30 p.m.
Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono is decrying the Republican health care bill as "mean, ugly" a day ahead of her own surgery.

Speaking on the Senate floor Monday, Hirono says people typically figure health insurance is a concern for someone else until they get sick. Hirono announced in May that she was being treated for kidney cancer.

She says she will have surgery Tuesday to remove a lesion on her rib.
But first she joined several Democratic senators in criticizing the GOP health care bill, saying it was a "tax cut for the rich bill."

Hirono says health care is a right, not a privilege. And in light of the budget analysis that found 22 million more Americans would be uninsured, Hirono says, "it's as bad as we thought."

6 p.m.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is focusing on the tax cuts, deficit reduction and lower premiums cited in a nonpartisan analysis of the Senate's health care bill, and making no mention of the 22 million more Americans who would be uninsured.

McConnell put out a brief statement Monday after the release of the Congressional Budget Office report.

He says Americans need relief from the "failed Obamacare law," and says the Senate will soon act on a bill to give Americans better care.

The Kentucky Republican says the bill would lower premiums by 30 percent in 2020, cut taxes by $700 billion and reduce the deficit by $331 billion.

His statement omits any mention of the CBO prediction that 22 million more Americans would be uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law.


AP
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 06:02 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Like your truth covered in memes, Finn, get your dailycaller.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 07:01 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
Justice Thomas, the most conservative justice there now that Scalia is dead.

Thomas was the most conservative justice when Scalia was still alive.
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -4  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 07:27 pm
Gee whiz, whooda ever thunk, I ax ya?:

The Seattle Times wrote:
UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs

Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to lose hours, and it’s also costing jobs, according to the latest study on the measure passed by the City Council in 2014.

The report, by members of the University of Washington team studying the law’s impacts for the city of Seattle, is being published Monday as a working paper by a nonprofit think tank, the National Bureau of Economic Research.

That law raises Seattle’s minimum wage gradually until it reaches $15 for all by 2021. The second jump, in January 2016, raised the minimum wage to $10.50 to $13.

The team concluded that the second jump had a far greater impact, boosting pay in low-wage jobs by about 3 percent since 2014 but also resulting in a 9 percent reduction in hours worked in such jobs. That resulted in a 6 percent drop in what employers collectively pay — and what workers earn — for those low-wage jobs.

For an average low-wage worker in Seattle, that translates into a loss of about $125 per month per job.

The report also estimated that there are about 5,000 fewer low-wage jobs in the city than there would have been without the law.


http://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/

You might think that at least the employers are happy, because they're saving $125/month/job on employee wages, eh? Fraid not. That "savings" only results from fewer sales, which in return adversely affects the entire econcomy of Seattlle because less taxes are collected. Under the old law, businesses would continue to stay open (and pay their employees) during "slow" hours because there was still some (reduced) profit to be made.

So much for the economic genius of cheese-eaters, eh?
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 08:11 pm
@oralloy,
They were Attila the Hun and his Hunness.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 10:20 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
I think cheese-eaters might be innately incapable of that, Finn, but it's a nice thought.
I can read both ur our state's and federal constitutional court's rulings (something with was required when I studied law), but as siad a couple of times, I didn't study US-law and just got some basic knowledge of it (our law professors didn't have US-degrees in those days as much as do have nowadays).
[I'm quite sure, a few of you wouldn't understand rulings here, too.]
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 10:29 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
So you're BOTH a damn bottom-feeder AND a damn Kraut, that what you're sayin, Walt?

Your case is even worse than I suspected if that's true.
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 11:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Could well be a Pyrrhi victoria.


The pyrrhic victory has done gone down, eh, Walt? The cheese-eaters have lost, and will further lose, substantial ground in the pursuit of their treasonous goals by starting this fight in the first place.

Trump will end up with an authoritative ruling, which lower courts must obey, denouncing this attempt at "judical legislation." It will be a precedent which is binding on all cheese-eating judges who attempt to undermine national security in the future.

But, what the hell, eh? It was good for some moral posturing and fodder for some stern lecturing for a few months accompanied by "I told ya so's!" It was a "moral victory," dammit! They'll never admit they got outsmarted by Steve Bannon, of course.

https://able2know.org/topic/355218-1221
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 11:04 pm
@layman,
I am a (North Rhine-)Westphalian of German nationality.
I don't know why you think that I'm a "bottom-feeder" less a "damn bottom feeder".
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 11:10 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I am a (North Rhine-)Westphalian of German nationality.
I don't know why you think that I'm a "bottom-feeder" less a "damn bottom feeder".


Let me explain it by asking, then answering, this question, eh, Walt?:

Q: What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?

A: One is a slimy, scum-sucking bottom-feeder, and the other is a fish.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 11:18 pm
@layman,
To be honest: of course I knew what wanted to say.
(Studying law here doesn't mean at all that you're a lawyer or even want to become a lawyer. [And besides that: I never claimed to be a "fully qualified lawyer"])
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 26 Jun, 2017 11:20 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

To be honest: of course I knew what wanted to say.
(Studying law here doesn't mean at all that you're a lawyer or even want to become a lawyer. [And besides that: I never claimed to be a "fully qualified lawyer"])


And, besides that, you slyly avoided answering the damn question, eh?

Fess up, bottom-feeder!
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Tue 27 Jun, 2017 01:47 am
What's going on here? I figured these guys would get medals from CNN rather than getting their sorry asses fired:

Quote:
Three journalists "quit" CNN in fallout from retracted Russia story

Three CNN journalists who worked on a now-retracted story about Russia and a top Trump adviser are leaving the network.

CNN is casting their departure as resignations in the wake of the fiasco, but the network has come under substantial criticism since apologizing for the story. The move would also help CNN’s legal position in case of a lawsuit.

The story tried to draw a link between Scaramucci and the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Scaramucci was a Trump transition team member who has been nominated to an ambassadorial-level post based in Paris.

In the retraction, the network said the story “did not meet CNN’s editorial standards.” The network is now requiring approval from two top editors before any Russia-related story can be published.

Lex Harris, executive editor of CNN’s investigative unit, was the highest-ranking official to resign. Thomas Frank, who wrote the story, and Eric Lichtblau, who edited it, also turned in their resignations. Lichtblau is a highly regarded reporter who spent nearly a decade and a half at the New York Times.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/three-journalists-quit-cnn-in-fallout-from-retracted-russia-story.html

OK, I get it now: "The move would also help CNN’s legal position in case of a lawsuit."

There's some video commentary from Carlson Tucker and Howard Kurtz at that link.

It seems that even the Conspiracy News Network is starting to wise up to the fake news folly they have embraced up to this point. It's backfiring on them: "The network is now requiring approval from two top editors before any Russia-related story can be published."
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Tue 27 Jun, 2017 02:12 am
Here's the Tucker (with guest, a former CNN employee) commentary:

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 11:51:09