Magox

Three things 1) We've already reduced our carbon foot print more so than any other country in the world. 2) There won't be a world-wide tax on carbon for at least another 30 years, simply because India and China have the justified authority to continue growing/polluting mainly because the rest of the advanced world did so previously. For advanced countries to dictate their growth and future path is hypocritically preposterous. 3) Without #2 happening, it's all a waste and won't happen. In conclusion, the best thing the US can do is continue attempting to be more energy efficient while not harming the economy.

But did you expect anything different?

I am certainly no constitutional expert, so I will refrain from opining any further in regards to the central issue of Bundy. But as you know, Bundy's original cause has now been hijacked by two things, one of which is his own undoing (the racism remark) and the other which is the attraction of the anti-government types to his ranch who have brought on plenty of negative press. It's unfortunate that this happened, because it essentially discredited in the public eye anything related to Bundy and his original cause. Now his cause isn't so much about the property, but now it's morphed into an anti-government movement. I don't think we disagree on all that much in regards to this topic. I understand 3rd, but there are way too many unknowns and the details surrounding this issue that are awfully murky. There is very little doubt that many of those individuals that are supporters of the Bundy Ranch hold some pretty radical views that are well out of the mainstream. I mean seriously, the difference between these two nut job murderers and some of the people that are on this ranch is most likely just a higher stratum of extremism. That's not to say that they shared the same sick thoughts, just that they were operating on a wildly variant view of how to deal with the government.

I agree to an extent that the accusation of overreach is a valid discussion to be had. The federal government could have handled this issue with more tact, but let's not forget, that under current law, and we are a country of laws, he was willfully disobeying them. But that's not what is being discussed now, and I'm speaking more of the optics of the matter. It's clear that this Bundy is a racist, he's a social pariah and it is also clear that a number of wacko extremist right-wing anti-government kooks have been drawn to his ranch. So in regards to optics, anything dealing with anything that can be construed or misconstrued as a defense for anything related to Bundy is a political loser. So, in regards to substance, I'm sure there are some valid points, but that isn't really so much as to what I was referring to. Also as a side note, I read tons of articles from various sites and below they have the posts from the readers. It's funny watching these mouth-breathing lefty lemmings deflect and obfuscate what the articles pertain to, which often has to do with some level of incompetence with how all Tea party members are now part of the Bundy Ranch and these two extremist nutjobs from Nevada.

If you find yourself on the defending end of anything related to Bundy, it's not where you want to be. Sorta like the Obama loyalists that are on the defending end of the deserter, disparaging the credibility of the truly honorable soldiers that served along side Bergdahl and dismissing concerns that the Taliban dudes that were released weren't really that bad. It's a losing hand. It's time to fold and forget about Bundy.

This administration has a funny way of handling fires. Usually people use water to try to put them out, this administration believes creating more fires to combat the last fire is the way to handle it.

Ron Fournier, who I consider to be an honest broker in the field of journalism, who relentlessly went after Bush in his days with the AP and happens to be a supporter of the ACA, at least the goal that it was intended to achieve, has been a constant critic of the president. Fournier is one of those guys that simply has no patience of deception, half-truths and lies along with incompetence. So you can imagine he's had tons of material to work with when covering this administration. http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/i-ve-had-enough-when-democrats-quit-on-obama-20140609 And this right HERE, is exactly the sort of outright lies that makes his blood boil.

There is a reason why Lois Lerner pleaded the 5th. Also, there are so many fires/scandals and stories it's a bit overwhelming. Right now, the IRS scandal is at the bottom of the totem pole. But something like this is worth further investigation, and I'm guessing it will reappear back into the public eye, unless of course the Obama administration flubs yet again, and at this rate, it's just a matter of time, we're talking probably days.

I read it, the real problem has always been where do house these bad actors, The legality of their classification and lefts incessant desire to close Guantanamo. We know that some of those 5 members that were released have had direct ties to Al Qaeda and the Haqqani Network, classifying them as enemy combatants should give the US authority to keep them indefinitely detained. So I believe the real issue is where do you house them? In my view keeping Guantanamo was the most sensible solution. I never bought into this idea that Guantanamo was a driving force behind recruiting terrorists. What? Because they water boarded a few of these guys? Please. Obviously Israel and it's dispute with the Palestines over the territories, the presence of US forces in their countries and Drones being dropped out of the sky are the main ingredients that continue to spawn these actors.

At least you acknowledge that cost should be a consideration. Good, most of the lemmings I talk to simply either mindlessly repeat the mantra "leave no man behind" whatever the cost, or skirt the issue by deflecting and creating manufactured straw man's. Since you do acknowledge that there is a cost to be considered, will you now also acknowledge that these Taliban/Al Haqqani men are very bad people? Assuming you do recognize this fact, then shouldn't this at the very least have been discussed with the Senate Intelligence community? The idea that they would have leaked this to the press is ridiculous, so please don't respond with that one, considering they were briefed moments before going after Bin Laden. You should see the lemmings I smack around on a daily basis on the political blogs?

Could you please address the question I posed, I'd be interested in hearing your response.

I think the point that many are either willfully not wanting to acknowledge or simply just ignoring is, at what cost? Would you have traded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for this soldier? Would that mantra still apply if the bid was this high? Also, would any prisoner have the same value? I know this is an extreme hypothetical, but it applies, would a sitting US senator have the same value as a soldier who possibly deserted? So the question is Do we bring back any soldier at any cost? There are a lot of issues with the way this went down, but this isn't one of them. Reason being is simple, when you are held captive against a brutal force, the willingness of the prisoner to say anything in order from his possible perception to stay alive is quite understandable. So what he said during this time period, I'd certainly take that into consideration.

I always thought that the US team was at it's best playing in a compact form of defense, operating with a rapid counter attack. That is what we saw this last game vs Nigeria and if you guys remembered when we basically beat most of Spain's A team and nearly beat Brazil in the Confederation's cup of 2009. And don't forget, Spain was #1 in the world on an epic winning streak. That's the way to go, compact defense with a vicious counter. Oh, and that chest trap, cut in and finish from Jozy Altidore, was World Class! And Bradley, what a magnificent game, he indeed is our play making midfielder. Love that guy! And This never gets

It's like "Hey, lets piss off our folks in the military, come off as incompetent goobs, have people roundly mock us, so that Democrats can look good and we retain the senate. WINNING!"

I mean that would have to imply that the president had a well-thought coherent plan to execute this scheme. yeah, that gave me a chuckle too

No offense, but there is no way I'm buying into this. To believe that this administration would place the political lives of others over his legacy is something that I can not and will not buy into. There is waaay too much evidence of his past behavior to the contrary of this opinion. What it is, is simple. He has a team of a bunch of young, ideological eggheads that live in the Obama team bubble that advise him. They thought that: Hey, Obama , you are ending the war in Afghanistan, you just made the decision to wind it down further. We are going to announce in the Rose Garden that we are bringing back our boy with this swap... People will celebrate it, and it will symbolize that the war is ending. Plus, we get to begin the process of closing down Gitmo. WINNING!!!!!! That's what these neophytes thought, and they horrendously miscalculated.

True but as revelations come out that this douchebag did indeed desert, and possibly assist with intel, as soon as it is confirmed, none of them are gonna touch this with a ten foot pole.

You're an idiot

Yes we get it, you're an anti-semite

Have you been paying attention? The way this administration has handled the roll out of his signature legislation and our foreign policy is an insult to the Banana Republic.

No ya nitwit, that's not what I said... Why don't you re read what I wrote and then get back to me.

Yes, they were going up, but not nearly at the rate we saw with the ACA. So there goes that point. If you are a lower income family or someone with pre existings, the law benefits you, if you are middle class with out any serious pre existings, in most cases it doesn't. That's a fact

This idea of repealing the law is not gonna happen. Forget about it. It's embedded, and there many people receiving huge ass subsidies that in many cases are paying for just about the entirety of their policies. I mean we are talking about over $10k a year worth of assistance. Then of course there is Medicaid, the expansion of that has given millions of people coverage for the first time. So the idea that you are going to take away this substantially reduced or free health care from millions of people that in which many of these cases is the first time they have obtained coverage is simply a pipe dream. Sorry, but that's just reality. If they were smart, which they aren't, what they would do is look to repeal portions of the law. 1) Repealing a good portion of the minimum essential benefits portion of the law is a great start. The idea that a 60 year old male needs maternity along with children's pediatric coverage is liberal paternalistic douchebaggery at it's finest moment. This would substantially reduce premiums. 2) Repeal the individual mandate. 3) Repeal many of the surcharges and taxes that make up the price of insurance. I know for a fact that Anthem BC of Ohio lists all the taxes itemized on each policy, and it makes up over 6% of the overall price. 4) Repeal the employer mandate 5) Add some of the conservative ideas, You guys know which one's they are (selling across state borders, tort reform, HSA's) Just with this alone you'd lower premiums for everyone. I'm familiar with this. It's not as bad as it sounds. I've signed up tons of people on the exchanges, mostly Latinos, and if someone has a different income today than what they had for 2012 tax returns, then it will ask for you to provide proof of income verifying the stated income on the application. Same goes with someone who didn't have their Green Card number with them when filling out the application. It allows them to continue on with the application and then they have to provide a photo copy of the Green Card. I know my clients, probably 60% had to send in additional information, like what is being referenced in the article above. *fingers crossed* But so far, the first fifty or so have all sent in their required documentation.

The ACA doesn't !@#$ the rich, they can absorb the price increase, no problem. It's the middle class who gets screwed, because most middle to upper middle class folks don't qualify for a subsidy, and the vast majority of those that don't qualify for a subsidy through the exchanges pay considerably higher premiums than pre ACA.