TampaYankee

Wonderfully creative, clever and insightful. Beautifully expressed. I doubt that conservatives who seem to rail against science, including the laws of physics, would appreciate, much less understand, how beautifully this sums Mittney up. Two thumbs up for Krugman. :thumbsup: Certainly this is deserving of some prestigious award. Unfortunately, I fear it goes over the head of much of the audience.

Ditto. Thanks for your participation and many contributions.

These gratuitous awards always remind me of a gaggle of bitter old maids who felt they were left at the alter when in acutality not only did they not make it to the church, they never got a proposal. Those who can't do, bitch. That is not to say there are no bad movies. There are plenty and it is fair to share. It's just pathetic to see someone trying to make a success of themselves out of someone else's failure.

Sure, he was a slimebag in the 80s and 90s. I mentioned my distaste and refusal to vote for him. As for his carbon tax history, have it your way. Some say he does good overall others have your opinion. None of that forms the basis for my present day my opinion. I have a tech background and I believe in global warming. He's done a lot to educate many about it. If he makes money off of that I don't care. Lots of people make money off of ideas and speaking about them and getting into new tech areas. It sounds like something a environmentally concerned Republican might do, if that hasn't become an oxymoron by now. More importantly, I do not believe he would have gotten us into a unnecessary terrible war that was unpaid for and totally mishandled after the first 100 days or so when it changed from a miliatry operation to a political operation. I do not believe that Gore would have taken an economy in surplus and driven it into deficit in a few short years. I do not believe that Gore would have given the SEC orders to back off on oversight and regulation of the banking industry. He did not sew the seeds of disaster but he sure fed and watered the hell out of em. I do not believe that Gore business policies would have brought the country to the edge of depression giving us the deepest recession in modern history and the largest deficit in history. So yeah, there is lots I didn't like about Gore but compared to 'Wanted Dead or Alive' , 'Mission Accomplished' , and 'Asleep at the Oversight Wheel' Bush and his cronies I think he a real peach. That is the conclusion I come to when I compare him not to the Almighty but to the alternative. You are free to differ.

Well, I have to disagree with you on some counts. True, he didn't grow up in TN but then most children grow up with their parents. I do not fault him for that -- and his family roots were in TN. Moreover, TN had the opportunity to disown him several times and chose not to do that. But this is no biggie either way. Few people had a lower opinion of Gore than me in the 80s and 90s. So much so that I refused to vote for him for President. A choice I regret deeply based on history. The first presidential election I took a pass on, and last one ever. Gore played nasty politics with NASA over the Challenger incident for his own benefit. He was a stuffed shirt that practiced overblowing his own horn. I could go on but no need. He left a sour taste in my mouth. Yet, based on some of his achievements after that election and standing next to W through the hindsight of history I sure feel better about Gore now. My vote wouldn't have changed history but I'd feel a whole lot better about myself if I had cast it, and if he had won then the country would have been a whole lot better off now -- a whole lot.

I think that IS the point. Olberman apparently was more of a noshow than VP and Managing Editor of the news opeation or whatever he was called. He seems too tempermental to work for anyone. Once canned at ESPN I can dismiss. Second time at MSNBC leaves one to wonder. The third time at Current, which seemed perfect for him except it was too small for his oversized ego, cements a pattern. I think it likely that Keith's tantrum has made him unemplyable in the business, understandably so. I look for him to pull a Tucker Carlson and start his own internet blog. Who else would hire him? I used to watch Keith on MSNBC and liked him. He was great a third of the time, fair to middlin' a third and went overboard a third. Never paid much attention at Current as I think Lawrence O'Donnel was much more insightful about the politics and congressional workings. Now that he has been moved to ten I don't see him too often anymore.

Happy to see you have perservered. Not sure what is going on. Best to give OS when reporting problems and trying obvious things like system restart. Also, make sure no recent changes to firewall or browser software. Try multiple browsers. I know one shouldn't have to do these but it helps isolate the problem (if all goes well.).

From what I understand about the court case is that any other contributors were of minor import and settlements have been reached with those parties. The Winkelvoss Bros hired him to code a Harvard only social site which Zuckerberg ignored to puruse a more expansive site. They sued and settled for 60 million although they tried to push their claim to higer courts which rejected their claim. His original partner who bankrolled the operation with $1000 had 30% of the original company but was eventually eased out with next to nothing. He later settled for a much larger payout. So it appears that others had some level of involvement but the real creative expanse and tech foundation is Zuckerberg, as I understand it.

Wish I could believe that but I don't. It is not that they didn't know vetting was important at the time. Rather it was a set of circumstances that dicatated rash action. McCain was a weak candidate with respect to his base. Simply put they didn't want him but circumstances and multiple conservative alterantives diluted the opposition. (Where else have we seen that?) McCain wanted as VP a democrat: Lieberman, stubbornly so. After putting off giving in on an alternative and finding himself in deep do-do with the base and the polls, he opted for a game changer that had not been vetted. SImply, he put his campaign above the country and that is how history will record it. Will there be desperate politicians with weak base support in the future who stubbornly refuse to face political facts about their position until late in the game and ultimately bet the ranch (and the country) on a game changer? I wound't bet against it. Desperate men take desperate measures. This almost sounds like it could be Romney. Let's hope Romney won't be as stubborn. I don't believe he will be, as his ego is subservient to his ambition. He seems willing to do anything at any time to win. He'll probably listen more attentively to his advisors than McCain did and get his ducks lined up sooner.

When it rains it pours. The guy must be easy on the eyes for so much attention. I give him an A+ for perserverence. As the submissive said to the dom "stop it some more!".

lookin, Send him my way when your done. I have some etchings I wish to show this hottie.

My philosophy of the forums has not varied from Day One. They are what the posters make of them, as long as policy is not violated.

As with any software upgrade there will be some bumps at start up. We are in the process of discovery of the unforseen. I'm sure the techs will get these issues resolved ASAP. Thanks for your patience, one and all.

Legal Experts See a Close Win for Health-Reform Law By Dennis Thompson HealthDay Reporter | HealthDay THURSDAY, March 22 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Supreme Court seems likely to uphold the sweeping health-reform legislation known as the Affordable Care Act when it takes up the case next week, according to a small survey of legal experts. ​ The experts base this prediction on a number of factors linked to the nine justices' legal history, political considerations and the constitutional questions raised by the case itself. "The folks [26 states] who are challenging the act have somewhat of an uphill battle," said Gregory Magarian, a professor at Washington University Law School in St. Louis. "It's been some time since the court has struck down a major piece of federal legislation on the theory that it exceeds Congress' constitutional authority." ​ The major argument over the constitutionality of the law -- passed by Congress and signed byPresident Barack Obama in March 2010 -- centers on the so-called individual mandate. That's the piece of the Affordable Care Act that requires most adults in the United States to have some sort ofhealth insurance or face a fine. ​ The individual mandate offers the law's opponents fodder for debate, Magarian said, because it requires people to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not. ​ "That's something the federal government has never exactly done before," he said. State governments have made related requirements of people -- auto insurance being the most prominent example. But even a requirement to purchase auto insurance isn't universal. "You can avoid buying auto insurance by not having a car," Magarian said. "Being alive is what triggers the requirement for health insurance." ​ But, many of the legal experts surveyed believe the justices will conclude that the individual mandate falls squarely within the confines of the Commerce Clause, the part of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the right to govern interstate economic activity. "There really is an interstate commercial effect of not having a federal health-care policy," said Leslie Meltzer Henry, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Law. "In the absence of federal intervention in this area, individuals who desperately need insurance can't get it." ​ The law professors said the individual mandate is needed to make many of the Affordable Care Act's provisions work. For example, insurance companies that will be required to cover everyone -- even people with preexisting health conditions -- can only survive financially if most adults are required to buy health coverage, whether they are healthy or sick. That will ensure there's enough money in the risk pool. ​ Neil Siegel, a professor of law and political science at Duke University School of Law, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has in recent years acted to limit some of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. But those cases involved social issues such as banning the carrying of firearms in public schools. Conversely, Congress' economic powers under the Commerce Clause have been upheld and protected by the high court, he added. ​ "The court has held that in issues of economic activity, Congress can act as if we have an integrated national economy," Siegel said. "Here you have economic conduct [health care] with massive interstate effects. Health care is an area of already pervasive federal regulation." There are other considerations at work that will affect the justices' decisions, the experts said. While the Supreme Court hasn't been shy about reversing some legislation, the experts said you have to go back to the Great Depression and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal to find an example of the High Court striking down a landmark piece of legislation as large and momentous as the Affordable Care Act. ​ "I think it's unlikely the court wants to create a major public or policy upheaval, which is what it would be doing if it overturned the law," said Robert Field, a professor of law in the department of health management and policy at Drexel University's School of Public Health in Philadelphia. He added that a rejection of the law could potentially have consequences for other major federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. ​ But Stephen Presser, professor of legal history at Northwestern University School of Law, believes the health-reform law will be ruled unconstitutional in a narrow 5-4 decision. ​ "I think [Justices Antonin] Scalia, [Clarence] Thomas, [samuel] Alito and [John] Roberts will all have to view this as Congress going much too far and virtually ignoring the 10th Amendment," Presser said. "Justices [stephen] Breyer and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg have always been strong voices for expanded Congressional power, and Justices [Elena] Kagan and [sonia] Sotomayor are not going to embarrass the man [Obama] who appointed them, so there are four sure votes to uphold the legislation as well. That leaves only [Anthony] Kennedy as the swing vote, as most commentators, I think, understand." ​ And Presser believes Kennedy will vote with the conservative justices, based on prior rulings that have argued for states' rights as the best way to preserve individual liberty. "If he follows that logic he will have to vote to overturn the ACA's individual mandate," Presser added. Political considerations will also be in the back of the justices' minds, the experts said. The challenge to the Affordable Care Act is taking place in a presidential election year, and could strongly affect President Obama's re-election chances. ​ "If the court strikes down the act," Magarian said, "all of a sudden, the left/center-left is going to be whipped into a frenzy. The path of least resistance would be to uphold the thing and let the status quo stand." ​ But, some of the experts believe there's also a good chance the Supreme Court will punt on the issue, declaring that the time isn't right for judicial review of the Affordable Care Act. "I think it's interesting they're going to spend a lot of time -- a third of oral arguments -- on whether the case is 'ripe' for judicial review," said Drexel's Field. "That could be a signal from the court that they're spending that much time on that part of the argument." ​ Added Allison Orr Larsen, an assistant professor of law at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va.: "My best guess would be they don't decide it on the merits." ​ The reason why: the individual mandate, which takes effect in 2014, is a form of tax, and federal law doesn't allow a legal challenge to a tax that has yet to be collected. ​ "You can't challenge a tax until after you've paid it, and then you can sue for a refund," Larsen said, noting that this legal argument has come up in some lower court rulings on the law. ​ Such a ruling would delay any challenge to the Affordable Care Act until 2015. This would give the Supreme Court the chance to take the issue off the table in an election year while not explicitly endorsing or scuttling the law. "That's why I think it would be an attractive option for them," Larsen said. ​ Field agreed. "There's a good chance that they'll do that," he said. "The public might be left very frustrated, from not having a definitive answer, but we should be prepared for that outcome." ​ All the legal observers believe that the court's reasoning will become much clearer during the three days of arguments that begin on Monday. ​ "Because the hearing is going to be so long, I think we're going to come out of it with a good idea of what the justices are thinking about," Magarian said. See the original article at: http://news.yahoo.co...-130207955.html

I must have been abroad in the 80s. The only ones I recognize are contributed by lurker. I didn't discover the Pet Shop Boys until the new millenium. How's that for dropping out?

Me too. I take cinnamon for blood sugar, tumeric and ginger for pain and inflamation. Seems to help. I went off for a while and the chronic ache and pain in my knees really blossumed up. I got back on the wagon and it was much better. Doesn't replace ibuprofen or naproxin for acute pain bouts but works well on chronic ache.

Probably but I suspect that may be a mistake. Manning's age is an issue as well as his health, coming off a down year due to a broken body. That is a bad combination. If they do trade then they may find themselves with a broken star quaterback on permanent or long-term rehab in mid season. If it were me I'd hold on to him for at least a year to see how things go with Manning. I never like all my eggs in one basket.

This reflects my circumstances too. I do my own taxes and always have. I use one of the free sites through the IRS which my age and income level permit. The software these days is pretty much idiot-proof if one can read with a modicum of care. At least it seems so to me, but I have always done taxes so maybe I have familiarity with the terms that newbies might not have.

Natural Alternatives to the Top 5 Most Prescribed Drugs Interesting article with useful information. Due to multipage format see orginal article at: http://health.yahoo.net/articles/healthcare/photos/natural-alternatives-top-5-most-prescribed-drugs#0

Omar Sharif Jr. Comes Out as Gay, Half-Jewish: 'Am I Welcome in Egypt?' By Olivia Katrandjian | ABC News The grandson of two-time Golden Globe winning actor Omar Sharif "hesitantly confessed" in an article published Sunday that he is gay and half Jewish, and worried about being welcome in Egypt. Omar Sharif Jr. wrote in The Advocate, "I write this article in fear. Fear for my country, fear for my family, and fear for myself. My parents will be shocked to read it, surely preferring I stay in the shadows and keep silent, at least for the time being. But I can't." Sharif expressed his disappointment at the recent parliamentary elections, writing that the revolution gave him hope for a "more tolerant and equal society," but now he is not as hopeful. "The vision for a freer, more equal Egypt - a vision that many young patriots gave their lives to see realized in Tahrir Square - has been hijacked. The full spectrum of equal and human rights are now wedge issues used by both the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces and the Islamist parties, when they should be regarded as universal truths," Sharif wrote. "I write … for fear that Egypt's Arab Spring may be moving us backward, not forward," he wrote. The Jerusalem Post noted that Sharif's mother is Jewish, making him fully Jewish according to rabbinical tradition. Sharif wrote that admitting he has a Jewish mother is "no small disclosure" for an Egyptian. "With the victories of several Islamist parties in recent elections, a conversation needs to be had and certain questions need to be raised. I ask myself: Am I welcome in the new Egypt? Will being Egyptian, half Jewish, and gay forever remain mutually exclusive identities? Are they identities to be hidden?" Sharif, an actor like his grandfather, left Egypt in January 2011, just before the revolution. He now resides in the United States. See original article at: http://news.yahoo.com/omar-sharif-jr-comes-gay-half-jewish-am-220706262--abc-news.html

Zip, There are two ways: 1. hotlinking from an external website. Use the embed photo icon under the color palate next to the font sizes box at the top of the post window. Just copy the url in the box that opens when you click the embed photo icon. (It does the img code for you.) 2. upload from your computer. Use the full editor by clicking on the option in the lower post window near the preview option. Choose a photo on your computer, then press the ATTACH button. Repeat for each photo. When finished with all your photos click 'Post'. That should do it.

I happily add my congratulations and echo Lucky's sentiments. I thought a little cardio and cake would make for a memorable day so I was going to send over a cake with this delivery guy. Unfortunately he had just delivered the last cake today.

Looks like he found it.

Corned beef and cabbage. That's the long and the short of it.

Porn titans not worried about Rick Santorum banning their business By Chris Moody | The Ticket – Fri, Mar 16, 2012 Rick Santorum has made a campaign promise to bar "hardcore pornography" from American websites, magazines and television, but industry giants who produce much of the nation's porn aren't worried that the crusading candidate will stop the multibillion dollar industry from churning out the next "Deep Throat." "I don't see a danger," Michael Lucas, New York's largest producer of gay adult films, told Yahoo News. "There's no danger that he will be the Republican Party nominee." Santorum's campaign posted a position paper on its website in February that vowed to "vigorously" enforce obscenity laws and restrict the distribution of hardcore pornography, which it says has reached "pandemic" levels. The former Pennsylvania senator said he will "prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier." A spokesman for Santorum's presidential campaign did not return a request for comment. [Related: Could you really get rid of porn on the Internet?] Lucas, who grew up in the former Soviet Union and immigrated to the United States in 1997 after working in Europe as a male prostitute, founded Lucas Entertainment in 1998, which flourished into a mega-enterprise that produces some of the most lavish gay porn films in the industry. His side company, Lucas Raunch, boasts a repertoire of hardcore fetish videos that are so explicit that Canadian officials banned copies from the country in 2009. "This is not what Ronald Reagan envisioned," Lucas said after reviewing Santorum's plan. "This is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned. This is what Rick Santorum envisions. And I think the guy is crazy." Lucas, by the way, considers himself a conservative, votes Republican and donates generously to several libertarian and right-wing causes. And when he casts a ballot in the November election, he hopes it will be for Mitt Romney. "I would support Romney of course," the director of "Men in Stockings" and "Hunt & Plunge" told Yahoo News. "There is nobody else to support." "I am not in love with him, but I like him," he added of Romney. "I don't see any danger coming from Romney when it comes to porn. It's just not there. And I think he will be much better than President Obama. Not that it will be difficult to be better than President Obama." On the West Coast, Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, who has spent decades battling obscenity laws and politicians who have tried to shut him down, said he's confident that Santorum won't get in his way either. "Whether it's Newt offering $2 gasoline or Santorum wanting to ban pornography or whatever else he's doing, they're making these promises and these threats, and they're really empty and meaningless," Flynt told Yahoo News. "I don't think he will be much of a contender if he gets the nomination, but at the same time I don't think he will." [Related: Rick Santorum's 'winning' war on porn] Flynt said that, of the Republican nominees this cycle, he preferred former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman because he "wasn't going off the deep end with the rest," but he plans to vote for Obama in November, calling him "the lesser of two evils." "Everybody wants to make promises and wants to keep our minds pure when they can't even keep the streets clean," Flynt said. "I don't listen to them anymore when they talk. It's just a lot of empty rhetoric." Steven Hirsch, the founder and co-chairman of Vivid Entertainment, an adult film company that boasts millions of viewers every month, had a more blunt message for Santorum: Bring it. "Thankfully we live in America and we have a justice system. Certainly he can put together a task force and he can go after the adult industry and begin prosecutions. Certainly that won't be cheap, but ultimately we'll prevail because people don't want to be told what they can watch in the privacy of their own home," he said. "It's sometimes easy to attack the adult industry, but ultimately it doesn't work." Like Lucas and Flynt, he's not worried. "People are more comfortable with hardcore pornography than ever before," he said. "I think it's going to be extremely difficult to get juries to see things his way." He added: "We'll stay out of his church if he stays out of our bedrooms." In the case that Santorum wins the election, his effort could struggle to hold up under scrutiny, said Allan B. Gelbard, an attorney who represents the adult industry. "From a purely legal prospective, there is a question as to whether applying local community standards to Internet speech is constitutional at all," Gelbard said in an e-mail. "Fortunately, we become a more tolerant society over time. We're increasingly accepting of others engaging in activities that we, ourselves, might not do because we don't want others telling us what we can and can't do." See original article at: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/porn-titans-not-worried-rick-santorum-banning-business-192050828.html