Oh, brother.

Most important vote in Congress, that is.

If not, what do you think was more important?

I'm utterly flummoxed as to why we'd pin our hopes on those who've led us in a losing battle during that time - or even worse, have led the enemy's attacks on occasion.

It makes no sense, sorry.

German authorities announced today that they have asked the US Ambassador in Berlin to return to "answer some questions", just days after he was summoned to discuss the arrest of a German intelligence officer accused of spying for the US.

"Very late last night, a guard noticed a small bag in flames by the front door of Chancellor Merkel's residence. The guard used his foot to extinguish the flames, and found his foot covered with a fetid, dark substance - it appears to be some sort of animal excreta, perhaps from a dog. We are sincerely hoping, for the sake of what's left of our relationship with Washington, that forensic analysis does not indicate it is from a Portuguese Water Dog"

The American Ambassador was not directly available for comment, but a spokesman reported that "Hey, you know, things happen, it's a rough world out there. Maybe some people, I have no idea who, got a little irritated about all of the German whining about US spying. Maybe a little less whining, and Chancelor Merkel wouldn't have these problems, who knows?"

When asked about the incident at today's press briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated "Of course, it would be inappropriate to discuss this mucky situation at this time. Certainly, Germany is a very close ally, and the President has made it clear to CIA Director Brennan that the war actually ended 69 years ago, and we didn't even waterboard them then, so don't even think about it."

Is like measuring a person's health by the size of their doctor's bank account.

Just as docs usually make more when their patients do worse (more procedures are needed), the stock market usually does better when corporate earnings are boosted by squeezing the 99%. As is happening today.

It's just nuts. Amazing how people can be so buffaloed by numbers.

Seems like 90+% of DUers (at least in this poll) don't primarily blame Nader:

Gore not becoming President: whose fault?

Why does a small group of folks find it so critical to attack Nader for this disaster?

A couple of years ago, the conversation was something like this:

Republicans: "We need super-duper austerity! Cut everything!"
Democrats: "Well, that's a very serious proposal that we'll consider, and no doubt we need lots of austerity. But how about just super austerity, banker bailouts and free trade? And cutting - not slashing - Social Security?"
Competent Economists: "We need the opposite of austerity, you scheisskopfs!!!"

It's now more like:
Republicans: "We need super-duper austerity! Cut everything!"
Democrats: "You suck, except for that Christie fellow, we like the cut of his jib. Of course the bankers need more bailouts, but we'll start reducing them. And of course we still need more free trade."
Elizabeth Warren et al: "Put bankers who break the law in jail. No more bull#%^* free trade agreements, or cutting Social Security. Attacking the 99% must stop."
Hillary: "No need to hate on bankers, Liz."

The conversation has shifted. This is good.

Our country is still a disaster from thirty years of lies, corruption, and stupidity. But every recovery needs to begin with a change in direction, and I think we have that.

Now if we can just replace one of the Inquisition crowd at SCOTUS with a person who's cool owitj math, science, and facts...

Who do *you* think is most responsible for Gore not becoming President on 1/20/2001?