SarasotaSabre

Hope you don't mind my inserts.... very enjoyable and funny read, well-done. N.B. there are no separate classes of service on Trump's private jet.....that's how you roll, Neo.

on a Costanza's roll ?

how? in what context? please elaborate Fully agreed, and thank you for the empathy. When I remember now what my Dad did to sacrifice himself to provide by putting himself in danger, it makes me appreciate my upbringing all the more. And he shielded us from all the bad stuff by not bringing it home and discussing it. Much respect.

cheers, agreed

My Dad was a Buffalo city cop and whilst I was growing up, I vividly remember how safe he was with his piece while stored at home. That stuck with me. My Dad was also almost killed in a shootout and a garbage can literally saved his life. He lost his partner in that gunfight. I say all this b/c I never thought I would have any inkling to get a permit for any reason. Now I am, for 2 reasons: safety against home invasion, and, way more importantly, is the lawful exercise of my 2nd Amendment rights. I don't want to lose that. Along with the right to vote and free speech, it's the most important protected right TO ME. Immediately after yesterday's tragedy we were bombarded with calls for "addressing gun violence." Why don't we hear the same calls of outrage after a weekend of carnage in Chicago from black on black gun murders? Why does it take a staged event by a disgruntled, disturbed, failed news reporter who thought the world was out to get him? If he could not have gotten a Glock, he could have just as easily rammed his speeding car into that interview site.

What blew me away in that article was the description that humans have 3 functioning segments of the brain which serve different functions; I would agree with your take about a visceral attraction to Trump, which largely seems to be driven by his tapping into peoples' fears and disgust with the DC establishment. What's also interesting as cited in the article is the visceral connection & command Trump achieves with his audience through his physical presence, straight talk in common language, and uber-confidence. (....I'm not suggesting, by the way, that Trump is full of concrete policy solutions, as he continues to speak in generalities.)

N.B.: What I am linking below is by no means an endorsement by me of Trump. Along the lines of Neo's post per his interest in the mindsets of those who support him, I found the following article to be extremely interesting. From the standpoint of how Trump is wired, what drives him, and the study of human paleopsychology, an area I had no previous knowledge of. For those here who are as intellectually curious as I am, I found this content very compelling. http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/donald-trump-warrior-male-extraordinaire/

and prayers for their families & loved ones, I might add

you and I may need to take this offline, and I'm afraid I saw this coming. I have a lot of respect for all posters on this board, even when I don't share the same POV. I have learned a lot from those opinions from whom I differ, but only in the context of logic and mutual respect. In fact, I have come to embrace those who I sometimes disagree the strongest with, especially when I can learn something I didn't know or have experience with. But what you did by bolding my low-information comment and turn into a barb was beyond a reasoned point of view, it was a personal attack which was uncalled for. Yes I can agree that Neo's take on HRC "either dumb or lying" was a suggestion, and therefore an opinion. I can admit when I'm wrong. And I'll expand on my comment about our exchange that Republicans are out to trash her; instead of going back and forth about which or how many are doing this, it's becoming clear that she is losing support within her own party; hence Bernie's surge & calls for Biden to jump in the pool. Your last comment which I bolded is a garden-variety attempt at a closing snub which just went over like a lead balloon. It's obvious you are taking things way too personally for someone you're trying to defend. If you want to keep doing so, please go ahead b/c it just seems par for the course. For the record, I feel we need another Clinton as much as we need another Bush. Have a great day Joe, I'm going to have a great one watching the PGA Championship despite the time I've wasted replying to your belligerent post.

thanks for the heads up LGR, much appreciated !

sounds like a man with great balance in his upbringing

Not sure how you can so vehemently ignore facts, in sequence no less, and claim Neo's crafting an opinion piece. But if you want to continue the denial and claim he's writing an op-ed, go ahead; it just really makes you look like you're reaching, and reaching big-time. The investigation by the DOJ/Inspectors General is underway and we'll see if she broke the law. How about that instead of "many Republicans" are saying she broke the law w/out proof. For you to suggest it's just Fiorina & Trump is pretty weak. Check the poll numbers; low information voters don't like her, and high information voters don't trust her. Sounds like a winning formula to me ......and her supposed policy ideas are worthless from someone who is untrustworthy and, as stated many times already, has shown incredibly poor judgment and unparalleled arrogance. no, is it a NY microbrew? I have not seen/heard of it - thanks for the tip !

you sir just made my Friday morning even more enjoyable .....

1) unless a former Sec of State considers DOJ/Inspectors General as "the enemy" instead of correctly considering them as nonpartisan gov't entities 2) your premise is an oversimplification and has nothing to do with "gotcha" emails. The reports are that not only were several emails found to be classified, which she has previously denied on multiple occasions, but the emails as of last night have been re-prioritized as top secret; hardly equivalent to the examples you used

despite your lame attempt with the Trump reference, here is the lie: she said - repeatedly - she never sent or received any classified information. Now DOJ has revealed not only was the info/emails on her personal server in her home was classified, it has been recognized as TOP SECRET. No encryption. Who else had access? No .gov security protocols. Potential breach and mishandling. No security certificate on her server - that means her emails went out unencrypted over the Internet where ANYONE could get it. (Read: foreign intelligence services) And she did not just voluntarily hand over the server. It was confiscated by DOJ. Again, Joe, if she's your candidate, that's great. Can you be intellectually honest and say you feel she is honest & trustworthy?

ruh - roh PastaJoe .... interesting indeed; is it still nothing too see here, move along? ..... or maybe not? Why didn't she hand over the server before now if she had nothing to hide? http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30714762.html http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-11-18-42-15 http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/index.html

Hey Joe, FEEL THE BERN !!!! I'll get back to you later

I was referring specifically to those participating on this Board. I cannot speak or represent for any of those who have made this argument elsewhere, as you say. Rather than what see as specious, and I can respect that, it would be helpful if you, likewise, could respect those who have a problem, per their conscience and moral/ethical beliefs, with the Federal Gov't supporting PP. And the irrelevance, as you say, that they perform more abortions than any other provider is nothing more than your opinion, and it should be stated as such and not as fact. For some people, I would surmise, this is a relevant reality. I would honestly be interested to learn why and which specific women's services are not always readily available @ local community health centers.

you're right, the code covers a very narrow swath of the costs incurred; transportation. But the elephant in the room (the side money being negotiated per type of organ and condition of said organ ((dictated by the method of abortion and how pristine the harvested organs are)) is not addressed by the code. That is plainly obvious to see unless people want to willfully ignore that fact. And does PP enforce the signing of consent forms? I don't have time to research that right now. PP may not be a criminal enterprise per se, but the scenarios captured on video would be considered illegal. And your claim that I disagree with abortion is mildly clever; I already said my position was not being based on going after Roe v. Wade. I do object to partial-birth and late late term abortions, along with PP's efforts to skirt parental consent for minors. Planned Parenthood also takes the position that laws requiring parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor are unconstitutional on privacy grounds I have already looked up the numbers; while it's true that "only" 3% of overall women's health services are represented by abortions, you fail to acknowledge that PP the largest single provider of abortions in the U.S. And the millions of low income women can obtain non-abortion services from community health centers other than PP. OK, if you don't believe in the shell game, and that this is strictly a NOT FOR PROFIT exercise, then who's paying for the Lamborghini? ..... oops, details details Nobody here (that I've seen) is making that argument. And I've stated for the record I believe their other activities are valuable, esp. for low income women.

so what this tells me is if the practitioners receive side money from the sale of organs as per the verbal negotiations captured on video, they should face criminal charges. One more reason I would not want Federal funding to support any criminal enterprise. I understand my statements contain "if/then" conditions.

well said, duly noted.....and the bolded, I agree, should be a requirement and I am very curious as to the express usage of the organ transfer; is it strictly for research purposes? I am posing this question not to you directly but as a rhetorical question.

just so I am clear; so you are saying you are OK with side deals negotiating for organ selling harvested from freshly aborted fetuses? By practitioners seeking funding to quell the desire for a Lamborghini? you are correct about the group posing as a research institution. I should have known that but I didn't. ...and as far as open books for auditing, all well and good. But a shell game is a shell game is a shell game. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Unfortunately it appears you have not seen, or may be ignoring, the viral videos showing medical directors/practitioners negotiating side deals for ORGANS (not fetal tissue) to be sold - not to research institutions. And the financial transfer to cover cost only is arguably a shell game. No profit allowed? My stance would be if you take taxpayer money, you must show the books. And just to be clear, this is not a Roe v Wade issue I am raising; it speaks to the depravity and descent this country appears to rapidly heading to.

Bravo, great article. For all those who have (...and will) question & attack her tenure as HP CEO, there is something to be said for failing, coming back stronger, and learning from past mistakes. I view it as someone with a strong foundation and lessons learned. I will think on this, do my research, and let you know my position. I am not one to dodge a question nor am I one to issue a quick answer to a tough ethical quandary. Question for you: are you making fetal tissue research the moral equivalent, or relative to, post-abortion organ trafficking and negotiation thereof?

I'd be glad to. I don't agree with public funding of Planned Parenthood but think as a provider of women's health services they are useful and serve a valuable function for the greater good, especially to serve women who may otherwise not have the financial means to receive said services. I do not believe, however, PP should receive Federal funding as an abortion provider, esp. late term and/or partial birth abortions, and for their continued position against parental consent. What drove my final decision was the revelation of organ/tissue brokering via side deals. Morally reprehensible.