Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That said, he is absolutely going to fire Mueller as soon as Mueller makes any public move.

TM

This seems inevitable. In fact, Sebastian has already spent considerable time drafting his "Much ado about nothing" response to the predictable, liberal hysteria, hair-on-fire outrage that will erupt in this echo chamber when it happens. (Hint: Imagine ordering a burger. Now imagine the burger is not made of anything.)

Sorry about the funk drought. Here is a sweet little old school number. Sarah Simpson with "I Kicked The Habit (Of Loving you)":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFTUzycBxC8

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

This seems inevitable. In fact, Sebastian has already spent considerable time drafting his "Much ado about nothing" response to the predictable, liberal hysteria, hair-on-fire outrage that will erupt in this echo chamber when it happens. (Hint: Imagine ordering a burger. Now imagine the burger is not made of anything.)

Sorry about the funk drought. Here is a sweet little old school number. Sarah Simpson with "I Kicked The Habit (Of Loving you)":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFTUzycBxC8

Making fun of Sebastian is the new nothing burger.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Making fun of Sebastian is the new nothing burger.

But let's be clear. There is more to the average nothing burger than there is to Sebastian.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

This seems inevitable.

I wonder if Sessions has already refused to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. It can't be that Trump is all of a sudden furious about "beleaguered" Sessions' recusal such that he is undercutting him at every single turn (and most likely behind the release of the revelation that Sessions discussed the campaign-related matters with Russia--although, I'm not sure he's that savvy). In any case, he's clearly trying to push him out.

I fear we are about a week away from Attorney General Giuliani.* And I thought we couldn't do any worse than Sessions.

TM

*Annnnnnd here's the article: http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ns-as-attorney

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Is the Senate about to get rid of the filibuster? Overruling the parliamentarian to pass the health care bill with 50 votes would essentially be that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Is the Senate about to get rid of the filibuster? Overruling the parliamentarian to pass the health care bill with 50 votes would essentially be that.

I think they plan to argue that they have gotten rid of the filibuster only for Republican priorities....

This is the world Sebby wants.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think they plan to argue that they have gotten rid of the filibuster only for Republican priorities....

This is the world Sebby wants.

I guess the good news is that without the filibuster, a Democratic Senate could enact the job-training tax credits that Chuck Schumer dreams of. Just shoot me now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I wonder if Sessions has already refused to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. It can't be that Trump is all of a sudden furious about "beleaguered" Sessions' recusal such that he is undercutting him at every single turn (and most likely behind the release of the revelation that Sessions discussed the campaign-related matters with Russia--although, I'm not sure he's that savvy). In any case, he's clearly trying to push him out.

I fear we are about a week away from Attorney General Giuliani.* And I thought we couldn't do any worse than Sessions.

TM

*Annnnnnd here's the article: http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ns-as-attorney

https://twitter.com/NoceraBV/status/889516137960132609

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hi Hank!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hi Hank!

You continue to conflate what a consumer spends with what the insurers spend. All of which ignores why I spoke well of HSAs which is cost to the employer. I know you know this, but you refuse to frame arguments with "who is the cost to?"

[SEC_Chick]

Today in civil asset forfeiture:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You continue to conflate what a consumer spends with what the insurers spend.

I do? I thought I just posted a link to a tweet.

All of which ignores why I spoke well of HSAs which is cost to the employer. I know you know this, but you refuse to frame arguments with "who is the cost to?"

If they cost the employer less but are not good at controlling costs or providing care, are they a good idea?

P.S. I think I help run a smaller company than yours now. Crazy!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I do? I thought I just posted a link to a tweet.



If they cost the employer less but are not good at controlling costs or providing care, are they a good idea?

P.S. I think I help run a smaller company than yours now. Crazy!

They can, because by raising the deductible the insurance gets considerably less expensive, the tax benefit then helps subsidize the deductible, and someone who doesn't spend their deductible at all or spends it on things that otherwise might not be covered (say, contact lenses or, if Rs have their way, birth control) feels like they came out ahead. However, they can be a royal pain in the ass to administer.

But yeah, anyone who thinks HSAs will control the underlying healthcare costs has been smoking something that makes Jeff Sessions very very angry. Still, they are a flavor of the day on healthcare plans, and from what I see the plans are pricing things to encourage them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Today in civil asset forfeiture:

I'm conflicted. Seeing him exit a martyr trips my gag reflex... But through whatever means, Sessions' departure is an event warranting celebration!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Still, isn't there something more genuine about the old southern racists when compared to the new "America first" racists?

Yes. Not all "America First" people are racists. Genuine Southern racists are all, well... racists.

There is within the notion of "America First" a percentage of people who simply believe that, in deciding any policy, we should put our interests in front of those of other foreign nations. This is not some wild form of bigotry, but a simple, logical understanding that a sovereign nation's primary duty is to itself. I can't call those America Firsters racists. To do that, we would have to label all of the other nations in the world which follow this logic bigots, xenophobes, and racists as well. We'd also have to throw most of the definition of "State" out the window.

Sadly, I fear this is a very small percentage of the America First crowd, the majority of it being xenophobes, racists, history-illiterate nativists, and general, garden variety imbeciles.

Andrew Sullivan's done a good job of explaining how one can assert a proper, rational, non-bigoted America First position. Also sadly, and predictably, offering clear thinking on the matter, his columns and statements on the subject are barely considered and have minimal influence in the debate. It's much more fun and cathartic to generalize and demonize.