?

Yes, the ad campaign almost seems like a parody of an ad, it's so full of lies, innuendo and fear mongering. However, Mitt has spent the past five months trying to claim credit for the auto industry bail-out. Doesn't that mean that Mitt is now attacking himself in his own ads?

From last night's debate - "You shouldn't have to hire a lawyer, just to figure out how to get into this country illegally."

I'm watching the HBO best of 2011 series, and I'm amazed that someone who has seen as many top fights as this guy can be so consistently wrong. Any time there's an exchange, Lampley is calling the wrong person as connecting with significant shots. During Paquiao/Marquez III, he does the same, and in the sixth round, in a non-exchange moment, Paquiao fires a punch that Marquez catches on his glove and bats away three inches, at least, in front of his face, while Lampley screams about Paquiao landing a great powerful shot.

I remember back in the early 80s watching Hagler/Hearns, and listening to Lampley screaming about Hagler being hurt and in deep trouble as Hearns is staggering off to the side with Hagler closing in on him.

The guy hasn't gotten better with an additional quarter century plus of watching the best fights. I think someone tasked with the play-by-play should be able to call what's going on with at least a very small degree of accuracy.

Is there anyone worse? Or do you think he's okay?

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals court threw out two challenges to what conservatives like to call "Obamacare."

Now, this is not the first, and I don't think it's definitive until the Supreme Court weighs in, but conservatives on this site are quick to declare that the laws are either "dead" or proven to be Unconstitutional every time they get a single ruling against.

If only the most recent ruling exists, and all others can be ignored, just as when conservatives made their declarations, shouldn't they be posting questions lamenting the defeat of their cause?

To be fair and balanced, of course.....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/08/virginia-app...

I've seen the argument that we should be expending our security screening efforts on those who "look" like terrorists, instead of old white grandmas. The reasoning being that you have a specific subset of the population that, based on their beliefs and behaviors, that you should be looking closer at, even if the vast majority of people who "look like a terrorist" aren't terrorists.

So now he have a massive terrorist bombing in Norway, where the bomber also went on a shooting spree. We know that the terrorist -

Was a fair-skinned, blonde, white male, probably Protestant Christian (80% of Norwegians are members of the Church of Norway).

He was a conservative in his political beliefs.

He was against immigration and Muslims, in particular.

He like to call liberals and anything non-conservative "Marxist."

Now, I'm against profiling, personally, because it is an ineffective time-waster, just like torture is, in terms of law-enforcement utility. But for those who think that's the answer, given this guy in Norway and Tim McVeigh, it's pretty clear that, by your own standards, we should be doing invasive body cavity searches and having people perform stupid human tricks if they "look like" they MIGHT be white adult conservative men. Don't you think?

Remember when Beck tried to defend the many insane and stupid things he said? His claim was that if the crap he was spewing was so factually wrong, and so completely idiotic, there's no way he'd be able to stay on the air with a TV show. So, now we find he wasn't able to stay on the air with his show.....

Beck quotes:

"You do your own homework. All the footnotes are there. You check us. I could not stay on the air if I were making these things up."

"If I were making up lies about you, I couldn't stay on the air. First of all, you wouldn't have to pressure. Rupert Murdoch wouldn't put me on the air. He would fire me."

"If I get out of control and start leveling baseless charges ... guess what happens? I'm fired."

Conservatives seem eager to rail against mandated health insurance, even though those who don't get insurance wind up passing on the costs to those insured. The current system, working that way, is not sustainable. So, if mandated coverage is ruled illegal, won't the natural way around that, in fixing our broken system, be federalizing the health care altogether, like in European countries and Canada?

Think about it, the government can levy taxes for government operations. So if they take over health care altogether, and "give" away health care to everyone while boosting taxes to cover it, then they've gotten it done without "forcing" anyone to buy insurance.

Maybe the conservatives should have been happy with the weak, tepid insurance company giveaway that passed instead of trying to kill it off. It would have staved off the inevitable move to socialized health care for at least a decade or two longer.

He tested positive for clenbuterol. He claims he got it from bad meat. Sounds a lot like the kind of lame excuses Landis made, or the idiotic excuses made by last year's NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year, Brian Cushing.

Or do you think that his claims have merit, and maybe I'm just too jaded by the rampant use of performance enhancers that has tainted the sport?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/09/30/cycling.albert...

On Larry King tonight, Justin Barrett said "I am not racist. I did not intend any racial bigotry, harm or prejudice in my words. I sincerely apologize that these words have been received as such."

That's the classic non-apology apology - "sorry you were so dense as to take what I said the wrong way." He previously claimed his statements were "taken out of context."

So, some please lay out for me the proper, non-racist context for referring to someone who is black as a "banana-eating jungle monkey."

Any of you "reverse racism" conservatives want to take a crack at it? You're usually pretty good at laying out scenarios that are the opposite of reality.

Mark Sanford wrote an op-ed that ran today, apologizing, again, for his misdeeds. He is supposedly "humbled" and "more contrite."

Does "humbled" and "more contrite" = your PR flunkies telling you that your poll numbers have gone way down after your first lame "apology?"

The conservatives hail the Supreme Courts recent ruling for the New Haven fire fighters as a blow against "reverse discrimination." An overblown, more mythical than real term, but we'll leave that for another day. Fair enough.

Now, to highlight that Sotomayor was on the panel that followed the previous precedent, in an effort to highlight their efforts to paint her as a prejudiced radical of some sort, they bring in the lead plaintiff, Ricci, to testify about what it feels like to be unfairly discriminated against when other who are less qualified, based on the test taken, are put ahead of those who did better.

How did Ricci get his start in firefighting? He failed the firefighters' test, and then sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he said he was unfairly excluded because of his learning disability.

That's right. He failed his first test, claimed victim status and sued to get himself put in ahead of those who scored better than him on the test. And now he's going to testify about what an affront it is to justice and common sense for those who do worse on the test to get in ahead of those who did better.

Fox News and conservatives will dutifully follow their talking points and paint him as a champion of meritocracy. Feel free to explain to me how this makes sense. Isn't this why the GOP is flailing for relevancy?

All along I've been saying that all their hype about Acorn, voter fraud, and even voter registration fraud has just been overheated nonsense. It turns out that, while they were pushing their ACORN stories so hard, there was an arrest of the head of a voter registration group who was accused of doctoring information on thousands of forms, and for not being eligible to register voters under California law.

That same guy recently pleaded GUILTY!! Holy crap, Fox News was right. That guy wasn't some worker gone off the plantation. He was the HEAD of the voter registration organization, which operated in three states. Top dog. I'm surprised that they didn't run this story prominently and demand that others eat crow..... wait a minute. Oh, it appears this guy was in charge of the GOP voter registration efforts.

Fair and balanced. After all that noise that continues to go on about ACORN, who has never had a case against them or any of their leaders go anywhere, you'd think that the so-called "liberal media" would be reporting this. What give? Right-wingers? Where's your righteous outrage?

Let's look at this carefully - the kneejerk talking-point reaction has been "they'll just make it up by raising prices more." However, the windfall profit tax isn't a tax on gasoline, or oil, it's on PROFITS. How do I "make up" those profits without having the "make up" taxed as well? It seems to me that any attempt to pass that along to consumers would be futile.

Let's talk about the actual mechanics of how a company could "make up" windfall profits taken away, not in generalities, talking-points or broad-brush ideological stereotypes.

I'm working with an external web-based application that schedules training sessions.

We want to improve integration with the Lotus Notes running on

employee desktops.

What I'd like to do is, when we create an automated email

confirmation with class signup, create a script or have the actual email document create an appointment entry for the time of that class.

I do quite a bit of programming, but am pretty new to Lotus Notes.

First of all, is this feasible, and, if so, can someone point me to

the best place to step me through how to do it?

Would the email document itself be the appointment document? Would it be some sort of attachment that would do this, or do I need to create some kind of executable script that would run off of a button on the HTML email document?

Thanks for any help or advice.

The setup:

At a dinner/photo op with newly elected Congresspeople, Bush asked Webb how his son (a soldier in Iraq) was doing.

Webb answered he would like to see his son home.

Bush retorted "I didn't ask you that, I asked how your son was."

Right-wing spin-meisters are accusing Webb of being "disrespectful."

How should Webb have answered?