HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 04:25 PM
Number of posts: 4,286

About Me

Quotes I like: "Prediction is very difficult, especially concerning the future." "There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.” __ Niels Bohr Given his contribution to the establishment of quantum mechanics, I guess it's not surprising he had such a quirky of sense of humor. ......................."Deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of another's position is a basic technique of (dis)information processing" __ I said that

Journal Archives

Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency - Mother Jones

the decades long campaign to politically assassinate any Clinton is indicative of the fear/hatred (pick a side of the coin) the GOP harbors deep in their dark hearts for Hillary or Bill. But Hillary is the one they now fear the most as a presidential candidate. No better indicator of this is the great lengths the GOP have been going to to eliminate Hillary as a candidate for president. Eight Benghazi Show Trials, relentless attacks in the media and more recently the campaigning for Sanders as we have been witness to on this site. GOPers are enthusiastically posing as Bernie supporters to give them an opportunity to display faux within the party dissension about Hillary. There is a difference of opinion within the party on whether to support Sanders or Clinton. But the predominant posting of anti-Hillary hate speech is a clear indication of the GOP's involvement here in trying to stop Hillary from 'taking them apart' in the General Election.

maybe it will work. Better get ready for a Trump presidency .. or perhaps worse yet, a Ted Cruz in our White House! OMG!!!


Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ben-carson-obama-supreme-court

Supreme Court nominations, thanks to a lifetime appointment if confirmed, are always one of the most important parts of presidential administrations elections but rarely get much attention on the campaign trail. But at a campaign stop in Iowa City Friday afternoon, Ben Carson suggested to caucus voters that they had a new reason to fear Hillary Clinton becoming president: put her in the White House and you'll end up with Barack Obama on the Supreme Court.

If there's "another progressive president," Carson said, "and they get two or three Supreme Court picks—one of them being Obama—America's toast. Your children and grandchildren, they’re toast."

Carson isn't the first candidate to suggest this possibility—from either party. Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton said she would consider nominating Obama to the Supreme Court when she was asked about putting Obama on the bench at a town hall in Iowa. "I mean, he is brilliant and he can set forth an argument," she said. That proved to be fodder for Sen. Marco Rubio at Thursday night's debate. "Hillary Clinton this week said Barack Obama would make a great Supreme Court justice," Rubio said. "The guy who systematically and habitually violates the constitution on the Supreme Court? I don't think so."

In terms of campaign trail fear mongering, it's actually not a crazy suggestion. Obama did, after all, teach constitutional law classes before entering politics full-time. And he wouldn't be the first president-cum-justice, though it's been quite a long while since the last one, nearly a century. Only William Howard Taft has made that transition, appointed in 1921. But, as MSNBC's Steve Benen noted, Obama told The New Yorker in 2014 that being a judge would "a little bit too monastic" for him. The White House also shot down the idea earlier this week.

New Hampshire, the only unknown is how many GOPers will be voting for Bernie against HRC!



http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/new-hampshire-poll-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/

they're coming: personal security drones



It's probalby not too far off when a company will sell , or rent, drones that will follow you around, at maybe 100 to 200 feet monitoring the user with it's camera. The drone will send the video, via a cell phone link, to a home computer or perhaps to a security company's computer where the video feed will be recorded and saved. The person wears a small radio transmitter that indicates to the drone the users exact position. This will be popular with women walking across campus or anywhere they feel they want the extra security. If someone approaches who makes her feel concerned she can send a command to the drone to turn on a spotlight andor emit an audible message, something like: "Someone is approaching. Should I take action?" or "Video recording commencing".

Later more enhanced models will be available which will offer security and defense service. These would be equipped with a Tazer. If someone became threatening or accosted the user, the drone would swoop in and Taser the culprit.


... Hmm, maybe I should set up a Go Fund me page!

Methane Is Leaking All Over The Place

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/methane-is-leaking-all-over-the-place/


It’s now been 103 days since workers from the Southern California Gas Company discovered a natural gas leak coming from the Aliso Canyon underground storage field near the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles. In late November, 58,000 kilograms of methane per hour were leaking into the atmosphere.1 As of Jan. 21, that number was down to 20,000 kilograms per hour, but overall the leak has released more than 91,000 metric tons of methane — emissions equivalent to burning more than 862 million gallons of gasoline.

The leak, SoCalGas says, will finally be stopped by late this month. The methane, though, will linger in the atmosphere.

Although California health officials have determined that the leak poses minimal health risks, its danger to the climate is more severe. About 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions came from methane in 2012, and 30 percent of those emissions came not from fuel use, but from the extraction and distribution of oil and natural gas. Methane sticks around in the atmosphere for decades, rather than centuries like carbon dioxide, but it absorbs much more heat. On a time scale of 20 years, methane’s effects on global warming are about 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide’s.23

&feature=player_embedded


Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and it can leak almost anywhere in the natural gas supply chain. Studies show that it is leaking at almost every point in the supply chain — at drilling sites, along pipelines, at compression stations, at storage facilities like Aliso Canyon and along the networks of piping that deliver natural gas to homes. About the only thing unusual about the Aliso Canyon leak is its size.
(more)

I see Sanders supporters campaign is still almost entirely attacks of HRC. McCarthyism never dies.

Oleocanthol from Extra Virgin Olive Oil kills cancer cells in 30 minutes to an hour

.. this news was actually out about a year ago. So, for some people this may be 'old' news. But for those who missed it, like me,

here's the article about research done at Hunter College and Rutgers:

Ingredient in Olive Oil Looks Promising in the Fight Against Cancer
Oleocanthal kills cancer cells with their own enzymes
http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/ingredient-olive-oil-looks-promising-fight-against-cancer/20150211#.Vq_kGHusgVA



A Rutgers nutritional scientist and two cancer biologists at New York City’s Hunter College have found that an ingredient in extra-virgin olive oil kills a variety of human cancer cells without harming healthy cells.
The ingredient is oleocanthal, a compound that ruptures a part of the cancerous cell, releasing enzymes that cause cell death.

Paul Breslin, professor of nutritional sciences in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, and David Foster and Onica LeGendre of Hunter College, report that oleocanthal kills cancerous cells in the laboratory by rupturing vesicles that store the cell’s waste. LeGendre, the first author, Foster, the senior author, and Breslin have published their findings in Molecular and Cellular Oncology.

~~
~~

Scientists knew that oleocanthal killed some cancer cells, but no one really understood how this occurred. Breslin believed that oleocanthal might be targeting a key protein in cancer cells that triggers a programmed cell death, known as apoptosis, and worked with Foster and Legendre to test his hypothesis after meeting David Foster at a seminar he gave at Rutgers.

~~
~~


After applying oleocanthal to the cancer cells, Foster and LeGendre discovered that the cancer cells were dying very quickly – within 30 minutes to an hour. Since programmed cell death takes between 16 and 24 hours, the scientists realized that something else had to be causing the cancer cells to break down and die.

(more)

NYT: Hillary Clinton, 1 of most broadly & deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html

For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.

Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.

In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.

~~
~~

Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
(more)


NYT endorses Clinton. Now comes the scorn from GOPers and Bernie Sanders supporters!!

Do we really want Donald Trump to be president.... of the United States??????

Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders (or why NOT to offer a lamb to the GOP)

In his article, Dana Milbank addresses the unpleasant fact of how good the GOP is at demonizing and dispatching opponents. We have seen them hounding Hillary Clinton for a couple of decades. We all need to remember that with many people if you repeat a lie often enough they will begin to think it's a reality. This works with, sorry to say it, many people (most are known as "the GOP base" but they are not limited to that group).

Nobody knows this better than the GOP. They count on people being programmable to win elections - well along with voter suppression (and, in a pinch, the Supremes to abort an election and choose who the 'winner' is). It seems many people are blythely oblivious to this fiendish facility of the GOP at McCarthyist politics, in their enthusiasm for their candidate who nobody doubts (in Democratic circles) is a good man. The Dana Milbank article could serve as a good medicament for those enthralled by reveries of Sir Good-at-Heart being victorious over the monstrous malevolence of the GOP - if they are open to his knowledgeable advice (and entreaty?).


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html
~~

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents ("Opponents"?? ...how 'nice' of Dana to not put in print: "the GOP") have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy (this is just what the GOP is so masterful at_Bill USA). Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States.
(more)

Here's 15 things everyone would know if there really were a "liberal media"

This is a great article. Bookmark or save to Word file (or to your FB page or personal Website) to serve as future reference material now and in the future when engaged in 'discussions' with GOPers.

Enjoy!

Here's 15 things everyone would know if there really were a "liberal media"
http://newsin15.blogspot.com/p/if-you-know-anyone-who-still-believes.html



8. Gerrymandering.

When was the last time you saw a front page headline about gerrymandering?

Before the 2010 election, conservatives launched a plan to win control of state legislatures before the census. The idea was to be in power when national congressional districts were redrawn in order to fix them so Republicans would win a majority of districts.

The Redistricting Majority Project was hugely successful. In 2012, Barack Obama was elected President by nearly 3.5 million votes. In Congressional races, Democrats drew nearly 1.4 million more votes than Republicans yet Republicans won control of the House 234 seats to 201 seats.

How is this possible?

~~
~~


Clinton expected to beat all comers in November, Sanders expected to lose to Trump -among all voters

Clinton Seen as Winner in November; A Trump Presidency Inspires Anxiety (POLL)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-winner-november-trump-presidency-inspires-anxiety-poll/story?id=36555715
Most Americans expect that Hillary Clinton would prevail against her leading GOP opponent in November, while Bernie Sanders’ chances are rated less well. The thought of Donald Trump as president inspires high levels of public anxiety.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll also finds Americans divided about the need for a third party in this country – but not so divided about a potential independent run by Trump, should he fail to win the GOP nomination. Fewer than a quarter say they’d even consider voting for him as an independent candidate for president.

With Trump as the GOP nominee vs. Clinton, 54 percent of Americans say they’d expect Clinton to win (42% think Trump would win_Bill USA); among registered voters (a more GOP-leaning group), Clinton has 52 percent support. Clinton’s seen by much wider margins as beating Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Sanders, for his part, is seen as beating Cruz or Rubio – but potentially losing to Trump.

(Those polled 46% expect Sanders would beat Trump. While 49% of those polled think Sanders would lose._Bill USA)

this poll was conducted for ABC by Langer Research Associates.








Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89 Next »