leh-nerd skin-erd

No, I don't think so. He's a hardscrabble politician who ran the ridiculous "mularkey" outburts on Ryan, who threatened Trump with violence behind the school gym, who's got a history of racially insensitive comments, a history of assuming the real estate on a woman between her navel and her collarbone was Biden Country, some sketchy deals involving his son and The Ukraine. He also has a tendency to stand for nothing. Punch him back, remind voters that he's been in politics since the Great Depression and his own party never thought enough of him to nominate him when he was still vibrant in the early 80s. Point out he's establishment, point out he's just another entrenched politician who has been fiddling while the southern border has been burning for DECADES, all the while getting wealthy (Wall Street) while folks on both sides of the border die. And don't be afraid to hang the Obama-Biden near decade-long economic malaise squarely at his feet. Playing it soft with a bare knuckled brawler is a mistake.

Thank you for the compliment. I enjoy visiting PPP and appreciate the hard work many of you do in searching out data/stories/nuggets of judicial interest and of particular interest to me. I also find some of the commentary pretty damn funny, so that's a plus. As for Tibs, it's a mixed bag. I want to be open-minded, and while I disagree with pretty much everything he says, he strikes me as a likable guy who doesn't always take himself too seriously. He's been on a bit of a tear lately, and seems sincere about his belief that Putin was Trump's campaign manager. Regardless of that particular insanity, it does beg the question and DR hit it on the head. If he really feels that way, why would he be ok with a campaign conspiring with British intelligence (or worse, a rogue British operative)? I really do wonder about that sort of intellectual dysmorphia. It seems...complicated to me, and at my core I'm a pretty simple guy. So, I ask. Or wonder. Sometimes both. As for the other poster, I see no redeeming value there so why bother?

I don't understand why he would not want to engage in that discussion. It implies he is extremely comfortable in a foreign power interfering in our election process, when in fact he is on record shouting from the trees, shouting from the shadows and yelling at people in a supermarket that he is not. Or put another way, he thinks interference is unacceptable unless it's acceptable interference. Thats plumb loco. It makes it very tough to take anything he offers seriously, even when you might want to.

I would prefer a question like this: "Mr. Mueller, it has recently come to our attention that in your role as director of the FBI and continuing as Special Counsel, you conspired with high-ranking intelligence officers from the People's Republic of China to defraud the American people, and that you benefited financially from the relationship. Can you elaborate on your personal ties with the Chinese, and explain how the average American citizen should trust you in spite of these serious allegations??" i think if he objects to the questioning, it's evidence of guilt. I think if he gets upset or angry, it's evidence of guilt. I think if he remains cool nad calm, well, that's evidence of guilt too.

But, if he's really interested in sending a message of tolerance and respect for the community at large, it would be a bold and courageous move if he did. I think I'm only half kidding here.

She's Glenn Close "Fatal Attraction" crazy, not Anthony Hopkins "Silence of the Lambs" crazy. Anderson might lose a bunny or a lap dog, but chances are he'll be fine.

I know cash is king. I know that for every infamous mafia Don hiding pallets of cash under Fido's doghouse, there are always boatloads of regular folks who look the other way, who figure the ends justify the means because they benefit directly from the schemes that are run. I think that's where you fall in this cautionary tale of the Obama admin, complicit in the cause. If I have misread you, and you just don't Do the Dew, we can run with Plan B.

I agree with you--but how much should we send over this time? And to keep it honest, would you at least concur we should send the payoff in a way that we can trace it? How about we cash em out in recyclable plastic bottles? We could send them 10,000,000 Mountain Dews, you cant mistake the green (symbolism) and all the Ayatollah would have to do was visit a 7-11 in Tehran or Tabriz. Heck, they would help us save the planet in the process. I'm just spitballing here, I'm sure you have ideas as well.

Step off George.

Aren't we all busting out to Atlanta every Sunday on a private jet, or is it just me and Cam?

All things being equal, if the guy was friendly and nice, and 6'4" and could use the leg room, I'd prob just give him the seat. That assumes I wasnt flying with family and/or his seat wasn't next to a couple big ole chunkers splitting a tuna sandwich and eating Ice Blue Doritos. The $1500 would be sweet though.

The imagery the headline implies notwithstanding, this article seems spot on to me. The president, on the receiving end of lies and innuendo for 50%+ of his presidency, authorizes the AG to get to the bottom of how this all went down. CIA operatives suggest they will comply, but only when they want to. Gee, that doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster in a free society. As far as I'm concerned, this moment in time allows the people to reset the rules for the good of the country. Where there was wrongdoing, publicize. Where there were dirty ops, let's detail them. If Brennan deserves jail time, no better way to send a message to all that follow that you cannot #%*# over the American people and get away with it. And, if he does not deserve jail time but was incompetent boob who :/-#ed over the American people because he followed bread crumbs that did not exist, well, let's get that out as well.

Another good idea would be to mind your business, and let others mind theirs. Stop being so judgemental! But it is nice to see you recognize the dangers of a lustfuly duplicitous media. Welcome to that club.

Trump better not nominate himself for the Supreme Court. We can't have a Russian mole be president and Supreme Court justice, even though he would be great at it and everyone wants him to do it.

Manafort texts that the SC is pressuring him to create a phony narrative on the prez and JK, the SC eventually comes up with nothing, and the story is about...a radio host? There's news here, but it isn't about Paul Manafort or Sean Hannity.

$#@×!! Cold. Ice cold.

I'd like to say I'm playing it cool, keeping it on the down low, but truth is I really had no idea how to add one. Once I figured it out, I was racked with anxiety over what to choose.

On the flip side, the history of the league is littered with the carcasses of high performing collegiate QBs who did nothing, or worse, I'm the NFL. Personally, I'm not sure TB12 ever even becomes TB1 had he been drafted by the Bills, Browns or Jets. JA is our guy, the management of the team seems intent on building a team around him and as far as I'm concerned, that's ansolutely vital for the success of a rookie QB and enough for now. The rest takes care of itself one way or the other. The fact that he's so damn easy to cheer for is a bonus.

this sounds ominous, and you're in rhode island. we've been friends a long time--just tell me if the mob hit is on me.

The same model was used to investigate and report on the alleged collusion between a presidential candidate and the pinko commies. It's the latest rage.

Sounds an awful lot like a planned community you would see in Disney. Must cost some mad staxx to keep all that up for the elite-insider class. ?

So to be clear, you're not advocating bancruptcy protection for a majority of those with college debt, just the reaonably small percentage that, after consideration of realistic belt-tightening measures, and considering the assets of all parties to the transaction (student, families and co-signers), their unique personal situation (illness, disability etc) and potential refinancing options simply must default as a last resort? We may be in agreement. What I hear talked about is much broader than that, and the mantra seems to be people were victimzed by everyone in the mix except themselves. Bancruptcy is a necessary social safety net, but someone/some organization always pays the price for it. I don't understand your perspective on an endowment tax, especially as it relates to the problem we are discussing. If indeed there is a national crisis and the institutions are a big part of the problem, it seems logical to make them part of the solution. I'm not sure how that happens otherwise--raise tuition? Another fee? There is a boatload of money out there to help solve a problem largely created by the institution. As for public schools and choice, the system is broken and generally speaking the tail wags the dog. The cost is high, by most accounts the results poor, yet year in and year out we are told "it's not enough, we need more, it's for the children." Yet, an incredibly high percentage of the money flowing through goes to administrative costs, benefits that provide financial security to the very few. I agree with you on the problems faced by the poor, or in struggling school districts but part of the problem is inefficiency. The harsh reality is while the administrator in Clarence might well be concerned about the quality of education on the East Side, they likely are not so concerned that they would support sharing of resources that directly impacted them. The only answer then is "Someone has to do more, but it should not be me.". In a sense, it's the ultimate capitalist conundrum. The system is closed, choices are few, and the coat high. I don't see how choice and competition would hurt the average consumer, up to and including govt intervention in those impoverished areas. Anyway, as I said before, you'll likely be happier than I with the resolution. Too many people stand to benefit with the waving of the magic wand absolving the debt, and too few people will be hurt by the eventual decision to muster much of a fight. Peace out.

I think it's parental/custodial malpractice to advise/support a child willing to pursue a $500 per hour education with a projected $15-25 per hour outcome. I think when nature takes its course, as it invariably does, it should not become someone elses fiscal responsibility to solve a problem that was likely 100% avoidable. I don't disagree with the fundamental premise of your post. Government should not be in the loan business, but it is. People should not generally be in the "make dumb choices" business, but they are. The Warren plan simply finds the convenient boogieman to transfer blame from the bad decision maker (the student) to "ultra millionaires", gradually working backwards until you phase out any debt relief for families deemed too wealthy to need assistance. As for ability to discharge the debt through bankruptcy, I recognize the govt has its finger on the scale, but then again, it usually does. If we are going this way, why not this alternative...the govt applies a tax on the endowments at universities...private and public...across the country and pays off the debt? Hell, Harvard has $37 billion, Yale has $25 billion, and SUNY Buffalo nearly $800 million. According to many liberals, these institutions are complicit in the problem, should they feel no pinch? What about setting the vig at 20%? I agree that financial institutions should generally make sound financial decisions and underwriting loans should be based on much more stringent guidelines. However, these institutions follow the rules and guidelines set forth by a notoriously fickle government. "Everyone should have the ability to go to college and we're here to help" has morphed into "Holy Cow we offered to help and what the $#@@ just happened" to "You're a victim of THE WEALTHY if you followed the path we created to help you and you didn't do the math before taking the money!" to "The only way you cannot be victimized if we make everything--tuition, room and board, meal plan, transportation, all of it free". I'm certain I will be disappointed in the eventual resolution but as far as I'm concerned, bancruptcy in extreme cases, other than that, honor your debt. Then again, when I got sideways on my credit cards a decade plus ago, I didn't feel like it was a Mastercard problem. When my children attended college, it was my honor to help them through it. Just perspective, I guess. Btw..if, in your plan, we took a good hard look at creating similar competition. W/ the public school system by allowing folks to use a large percentage of their school tax dollars to apply to the cost of private school, I might be willing to support that. Increased competition likely drives down cost, yes?

There is a time and place for bankruptcy protection. People fall on hard times, become ill, lose a spouse and find themselves in a very precarious spot. On the other hand, for the vast majority of students who bypassed the countless options that community college, state institutions, online learning, trade schools etc offer, I'd simply say suck it up and pay your debt. It's on you. It was on you when you chose Penn State, or Tulane, or SUNY Stoney Brook, it was on you when you chose to go away to school, it was always on you. If you didn't know that, lacked the ability to forecast, or a parent or loved one failed to do the simple math that boild down to $52,000 × 4 = $208,000, well, life is about evolving and growing in spite of obstacles in your path.

Every player that ever played is exactly the same forever, and if they play the Jets that first year you can literally see the mistakes they will always make if you watch the game in slow motion frame by painful frame. You know that there were no broken plays, no misreads, no missed blocks or no receivers running the wrong route and the play call is telegraphed. In fact, look at rg3. Had a very good first year and was exactly the same QB with the same results leading to multiple playoff wins, 2 SB championships and all his wildest dreams came true. As for Peyton Manning, you're obviously making things up because of what I just said.