Taro T

I thought that was 'Spaceballs 2.'

Well, he did stop the rising of the tides.

He was on Stephanopoulos on Sunday along with Gwen Ifill. She was rather incredulous at most of the items he was babbling about and was calling him out. At one point I was expecting her to ask him if he's nucking futs.

Barely any drizzle right now and winds aren't particularily excessive. I expect that to change later this evening.

MSM ignoring this will make they look extremely bad. Especially if what came out Friday ends up being close to reality. Unfortunately, this hurricane is giving them an opportunity to not cover Benghazi (at least for now). 'But, but, but, there's the biggest hurricane ever to hit the northeast; how can we not cover THAT 24/7?'

If the allegations are true, everything you wrote is understated. What also is embarrassing is none of the major networks (except Fox) covering this story at all. I missed the 1st few minutes of Stephanopolus yesterday but they didn't mention it at all in what I saw. If they talked about it in the 1st 7 minutes I missed, my bad, but if not that is shameful. Whether debunking it or reporting it, they shouldn't be ignoring it. Listening to the SEAL's dad, I felt awful. His version of events is truly sickening.

Also, along with that 'fun' comes the impression that the President is getting picked on by the right and that they'll criticize him for everything and anything regardless of how (ir)relevant or petty. The last thing the right should want to see right now is something relatively trivial drumming up sympathy for the President. Keep the narrative focused on the poor economy and what is looking more and more like a foolish coverup over what happened in Benghazi and also on the challenger's record of accomplishments at past jobs.

But, if that's as far as you're going with affirmative action, I don't have issues with it. It makes a lot of sense to go out and find the best available candidates and then choose the top ones from that pool. Not going back and reading all the details of how many women were interviewed, what %age of the revised applicant pool was now women, and what %age of the hirees were women; this looks, on the surface, an awful lot like women were provided equality of OPPORTUNITY but not equality of OUTCOMES. If one provides equality of opportunity then they'll end up a lot closer with the outcome that they should end up with - the top people getting the jobs. If there were, in fact, no women applicants then there was something wrong with the process. Regardless of who called attention to it, when it was brought to his attention, the Governor did something about it. I won't speak for any other conservatives, but I don't take issue with providing equal opportunity; I do take issue with providing equal outcomes.

Fixed it for you. You forgot one.

Yeah, it was strange seeing him go back to that again. I'd have thought he'd expect Romney to be ready for that tactic this time. Kind of reminded me of Wanny's non-existant halftime adjustments.

The bolded is what I'm curious about post-debate reaction. The President tried to frame it as 'I saved Detroit, you wanted to liquidate it,' but the challenger was ready with 'no, I wanted an ordered bankruptcy without government money but rather government guarantees.' The President essentially said 'you're a liar' and 'check the transcript' but the article shows that he did actually support what he said. If the R's can find a way to frame that into a 'there you go again moment,' I could see that exchange backfiring on the President. I also thought the challenger was smart to not frame it as violating standard bankruptcy law which the President probably would of pounced on as being 'anti-union and anti-middle class.'

I was a little surprised by Bob Schiefer. I thought he asked good questions and then got out of the way of the 2 candidates. I'd be expecting a bit of homerism towards the President but I didn't see that and I thought he was fair to both. I thought both seemed presidential and that on the surface it was either a draw or a slight win for President Obama. But if the latest polls are accurate and Mr. Romney is ahead, then he was the winner of this debate. He didn't sound like the scary war-monger the left has attempted to make him out to be and he looked presidential. Looks to me like Mr. Romney has a real chance, especially if he can parlay tonight's 'check the transcript' moment into something that blunts the lefts' attacks that he wanted to liquidate GM and turns OH to his column.

If there's credible evidence of mischief, then I'd expect your expectation of Romney hiring lawyers could play out. Whether he does or doesn't and regardless of who ends up winning, the electoral college is a good thing and should remain in place. We live in the United STATES of America, not the United Region of North America between Canada and Mexico. Much less chance of mischief when hypothetical cheating in Chicago could only turn IL or cheating in Dallas could only turn TX.

With as little time as there is until the election, it's gotta be around 3.5 days.

That would explain his "proceed" comment and smirk just before Romney launched into the attack that (I eat too much) Candy thwarted. EDIT: My take on the debate overall is that the President won but it definitely wasn't a knockout. It'll be interesting to see if independent women thought the 2 were 'too mean.' If so, then it was probably a draw.

Well, the lack of taking responsibility taking responsibility was straight out of Janet Reno's Branch Davidian mea culpa. It'll be interesting to see where this story takes its next turn. The Spanish train bombing cost Aznar an all but certain election win. How much of that electoral decision was due to his government initially blaming Basque separatists? And they only misidentified the true suspects for a day or so.

Except she didn't exactly fall on her sword. "I'm responsible for the State Department, for the more than 60,000 people around the world. Uh, the decisions about security assets are made by security professionals. " According to the testimony in the Congressional Hearing, the decisions about security WEREN'T made by security personnel. Nordstrom requested additional personnel and was denied. That doesn't sound like 'letting the security professionals make the decisions about security.' [EDITED to correct HC's quote.]

Agree with the bolded. But though they are trying to get each individual up to 'grade level,' reality is they aren't going to get everyone up to grade level and the aggregate goal shouldn't be 100%. Whatever that aggregate goal should be, should, in the LT, be for all the races.

NB seems to be getting where I was going w/ my brief posts above. It's unrealistic for the schools to expect 100%. (Apparently VERY unrealistic based on where their stated goals are and one could realistically say it's 'impossible' if we're not dealing with the purely theoretical.) How much buy-in would FLA get from schools by making 100% the goal? In lip service, probably some, in reality, not much. By setting 'realistic' goals, they're likely to get buy-in. I'd prefer to see them setting a goal (say 95%, 98% maybe) across the board for all the subjects over a set time period (10 years?), with milestones along the way which might be targeted to different socio-economic strata. The goals should be difficult to reach but not impossible. There's no way they are going to get to 100%, Nothing wrong with 'stretch-goals' but when setting up goals, especially those that one knows will get significant pushback from, impossible goals aren't 'stretch-goals,' they're simply impossible. EDIT: By 'across the board,' I mean for all the various races they are currently segregating goals for. Not 'across the board' of all subjects, though eventually getting each subject up to 95-98% student proficiency would be good as well.

And you AREN'T going to get to 100% whether you set out to reach it or not. If the goal is physically unattainable, then why strive for it? It would have been silly for Kennedy to challenge Americans to reach Saturn by the end of the decade. The moon, however, was a pretty friggin' cool goal to set and reach. EDIT: And no, I don't think that setting differing targets for differing ethic groups is particularily wise either.

True, But why stop at attaining 100% of the student body meeting the targets? If you're going to be unrealistic, why not shoot for something like 200% of the student body meeting the targets? (Where a 200% %age being defined roughly as having all 100% of the particular grade meeting that level plus all the kids 1 grade level lower meeting the targets.)

Never had that problem. When I've been there, they've always carved it to order. I've been with people who've ordered it from rare through medium-well and never seen anyone with a complaint. Though one probably couldn't get a dried out husk for 'well done' if they wanted it.

Sounded more 'The Nightfly' to me as well. Overall I liked the song, but wasn't overly impressed w/ the disco guitar.

Kucinich is an 'entertaining' piece of work. I'm not positive, but it appears according to him, that the Ambassador's death is Ronald Reagan's fault.

Yeah, but think how low the unemployment rate will go once everyone starts working only 20 hour weeks. FORWARD!