Recent comments

  • Will Democrats Filibuster Neil Gorsuch?   16 hours 4 min ago

    Hi Thom,

    Regarding the discussion of DNC chair of Tom Perez versus Keith Ellison, I would like to inform you and all viewers that I contacted Keith Ellison's office twice to ask him to go on record of refusing to accept money from Saudi Arabia under any circumstances. I could not get a simple commitment to rule out this HRC style outrageous corruption. I wasn't able to contact Tom Perez, but he supported HRC did he not? There can be no room for any Saudi money in the Democratic party, period, full stop.

    Why not consider Tulsi Gabbard for DNC chair? She had the guts to go to Syria and talk about ending years of stupid war in which HRC/Obama sided with Al Queda and Al Nusra...unforgivable and immoral. Not an apologist for the Assad regime, but if he had no legitimacy, his regime would have fallen long ago.

    I would like to add that this is what is wrong is 'identity politics.' The meaning is that it was HRC's turn according to some because she has a 'vagina' and many people including you, who should know better, went along.....being on the Saudi payroll while runing a 'pay for play' State Deparment should disqualify anyone.

    Why not look for genuine merit regardless of gender? That would have led to Tulsi Gabbard, a strong but pleasant person who is against war. Yes, she is a WOMAN also, but that is just a physical attribute. Tulsi Gabbard has MERIT, and it is high time to consider merit before identity politics. If we don't consider merit before gender or any identity, then we will miss women and people of merit, which is what we have been doing for quite some time.


    Irvin Watinsky

  • Will Democrats Filibuster Neil Gorsuch?   16 hours 36 min ago

    Gorsuch went on and on about the value of precedent in Supreme Court decisions. However, precedent doesn't seem to mean much to him when it comes to honoring precedent. If so, he would have declined the nomination to honor the precedent ignored by Republicans when they declined to acknowledge Obama's constitutional duty to nominate a candidate to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Scalia's death. In this case, he seems down right happy to ignore precedent.

    I don't believe a word Gorsuch did or didn't say. Can you imagine hiring anyone to fill a job position that gave you such vague and inconclusive answers?

    We can only hope that the Dem's will filibuster. But, I'm not counting on it!

  • Will Democrats Filibuster Neil Gorsuch?   16 hours 50 min ago

    i don't want trump to get away with anything, but forcing McConnell to "blow up" the fillibuster will have the affect of making it clear that the man is only being confirmed using extreme measures on the part of the republicans.

    As they have said about the ACA....paraphrased...: "the republicans will totally own this". And if he votes against their agenda, it will be no more than they deserve.

  • Will Democrats Filibuster Neil Gorsuch?   16 hours 51 min ago

    Obama's " Merrick Garland was right of center and they STILL turned him down! Now all of a sudden, with the new regime we have to vote in their guy RIGHT NOW!! Even though he is far right.. Don't the Democrats get more than one choice?? Maybe a human that stands on the middle of Justice? The Democrats lost a turn at nominating and deserve at least that!

  • Inspection- Trump Was Right   16 hours 59 min ago

    Actually I think the "deplorable" comment may have had far less negative effect than you do. In fact there are many of us who agree. The media, of course, rarely completed the statement where she said half deplorable and the rest concerned about their country. It was actually quite respectful. I do disagree with the stat, which was probably arbitrary. (How does one take that stat, one must ask?) Maybe 30% deplorable? Just a guess.

    I wouldn't doubt if the statement got her more votes than it lost. We all know Klansman Duke, Nazis and others who DEFINE "deplorable" supported him. It took nerve to say what many of us were thinking.

    Yes, Trump said whatever he wanted, and these deplorables loved it. Other Trump voters were going to vote Trump for many reasons, one of them a well funded 30 plus year jihad against the Clintons, doing everything possible, tell any lie, so as to inspire hate.

    BTW, I'm certainly not claiming either of them didn't help that along in some ways. I voted Bernie in the TN primary for many reasons, including the amount immense negatives she had: whether worthy of them, or not. As I said in the 90s about the Monica gunk, "REALLY? You KNOW you're being hunted and you do THIS???"

    But Trump? I disliked him long before he ran for anything.

    I firmly believe the main reason she lost was election fraud tactics, covered in my next edition.

  • Inspection- The Checkmate Equation   17 hours 27 sec ago

    And he knows

  • Will Democrats Filibuster Neil Gorsuch?   17 hours 33 min ago

    Batshit crazy!

  • 10,000 Scientists VS. The Bible   18 hours 30 min ago

    That's all he/she\its got.

  • Can We Trust Gorsuch On Women's Rights?   18 hours 35 min ago

    Kindly stop fighting

    "All that lives is born to die. And so I say to you that nothing really matters."

    (Jimmy Page / Robert Plant)

    Why are Americans obsessed by semantic legalese type dances?

  • Can We Trust Gorsuch On Women's Rights?   18 hours 44 min ago

    To me there is a huge difference between murdering someone and killing someone. To my knowledge, no one is prosecuted for murder, for performing an abortion. The decision not to prosecute is a legal one. A fetus may not be able to walk and talk, but if not aborted, in a few years it will be walking and talking, kill it then you will probably be prosecuted for murder. Will anyone be prosecuted for murder for killing a fetus, I doubt it.

    I'm never going to change your mind, it's a political issue for you and the washed up lefties. But, I believe that deep in your heart, you know killing a fetus is wrong.

  • Can We Trust Gorsuch On Women's Rights?   19 hours 23 min ago

    Haha, again, you are obfuscating and splitting hairs with an abstract, intellectual argument about the nuanced, dictionary definitions of words.

    Arguing the difference between murder and killing is tangential to the matter at hand. Obviously, the word "murder" as opposed to the word "killing," in this discussion about the rightness or wrongness of aborting an unviable fetus, is germane to the issue and was used specifically in the context of one's personal concepts or feelings to do with subjective morality, not in the context of interpreting the law in the strict language of legalese, which is off topic.

    "Murdering" a person is not on the same level as "Killing" a clump of tissue.

    Not that it's really any of my business, other than fleshing out a train of thought on a public forum where you are a willing paticipant. I was only trying to understand where you are coming from -- if you believe that a "person," or however you may define a sentient being with a soul (in the generic sense), is created at the moment of conception and therefore would be "murdered," not merely "killed," if aborted at ANY stage of pregnancy. If you go back through our last exchanges, it seems to be a quite simple inquiry.

    As I've stated many times, you are certainly free to believe whatever you want. I respect that, though I may disagree. I'm not trying to trap you or to be accusatory.

    There's a world of difference between "twisting the truth" (which, by the way, you have repeated incessantly ... mmm ... In poker, that would probably be considered a "tell") and trying to get at the truth beyond the mere words.

  • Daily Topics - Monday March 27th, 2017   19 hours 32 min ago


  • 10,000 Scientists VS. The Bible   20 hours 28 min ago

    You're not really going to carry on with that inane holier than thou "why do you hate people" bullshit argument are you dirty coal?

  • Inspection- The Checkmate Equation   20 hours 31 min ago

    ThomHartmannSuc...3 hours 1 min ago


  • When Retirement Comes With a Daily Dose of Cannabis   21 hours 54 min ago

    My pleasure....

  • Can We Trust Gorsuch On Women's Rights?   22 hours 39 min ago


    You are the one who attempted to twist the truth. You asked me if I considered a fetus "murdered" upon being aborted? I gave you my answer. Had you been honest, instead of trying to twist the truth, you would have asked do I consider a fetus killed upon being aborted? To which I would have answered yes.

    I agree, it would have been much simpler, had you not tried to twist the truth, by introducing murder, a legal topic that neither you nor I are qualified to address. Let me give you another example of the difference between killing and murder. It can be said, I think fairly safely, that everyone who has been murdered has been killed. You can't say everyone who has been killed has been murdered.

    I stand by my statement "truth and facts are often simple.....does it become complicated ". Washed up lefties like yourself are always trying to twist truth and facts to meet your agenda.

  • Can We Trust Gorsuch On Women's Rights?   23 hours 1 min ago

    Well, first, you are badly misrepresenting what I clearly meant. WWII was an immoral war of aggression on the part of the Axis powers, so their soldiers committed murder. Allied soldiers were defending, so they did not.

    Next, you are expanding the definition of "unviable" by making a nonsensical "slippery slope" argument outside the scope of the abortion issue.

    You obviously believe that when the sperm enters the egg at conception, it becomes a person and should not be murdered.

    So, there it is. Good for you. It is your personal right to believe whatever you want, whether or not it is at odds with the majority of people, especially women, and of the law.

    Now, wouldn't it have been a much simpler conversation had you just admitted that at the beginning instead of dancing around the central point?

    Ou812: "Truth and facts are often simple. Only when twisted to justify an agenda, such as when does life occur, does it become complicated."

  • Thom's Blog on 3/20/17   23 hours 14 min ago

    Dear Doc,

    I don't question your problem of fitting in your group practice to the health care system. I would question your way of connecting your problem to Thom Hartmann and by inference implying that the "government" is incompetent as a lazy way out.

    If you researched the problem in more detail perhaps you can find some culprits to blame besides blaming that late payment on the post office. In the case of the Affordable Care Act you can blame the Republicans who poisoned the orignal bill with downstream consequences. Single payer is the only way to go.

    Maybe you need to talk to your Canadian doctor neighbors and figure out how long they have been doing single payer for a start. I think they have OBGYN doctors, but don't take my word for that. And then there are the other major societies in Europe who have programs that don't make an illness terminal for your family's existence financially. I don't think that all of the European docs went out of business the last that I heard.

    Then along came Marco Rubio to help pull some lugs nuts off of the wheels by cutting out support for the system. This was intended to screw up the works more in hopes that it would break its back and cause discontent. You can tar the problem with the 'government bad' brush, but behind the legislation and administration there are politicians and lobbyists who work full time to mess up the works, rather than fix things incrementally. What if you had a nurse who went behind your back and contaminated your surgical instruments, or broke aseptic techique as a way of messing up your work? Or sneezing into you patients' wounds while they are out cold?

    Just like your patients need to realize that there is no magic pill for their maladies, the same is true for social programs. The bottom line is that many in power have not cared a hoot about health care for the majority of the population because they are too cheap to chip in to pay for it. They would prefer to save that dough for stupid material stuff and making some kind of wealth legacy to prove their worth. You need to focus your angst ["I feel that Heathcare is doomed to failure in this coutry as nobody really wants to look at what is needed for success"​].

    The bottom line is that not enough care and the people who want to screw things up are the favored candidates of corporate America, since they can be bought. They don't give a hoot about poor people's hooters, and you may suffer accordingly. If Republicans won't enter any discussions about how to fix the AFA, and merely want to kill it and put a piece of crap in its place, then I guess that is where things will remain until all three centers of power change over to more progressive and responsible actors.

  • Inspection- The Checkmate Equation   23 hours 36 min ago

    Thom Hartmann is a dickwad who loves it up the butt.

  • Medicare/Social Security   1 day 3 min ago

    If you work you get ALL your money taxed on Social Security. No give-aways. End of story..

  • Equality...   1 day 21 min ago


    Reports: U.S.-Led Coalition Airstrikes Killed 200+ in West Mosul
    HEADLINES MAR 27, 2017

    The U.S.-backed Iraqi military’s ground campaign to retake west Mosul from ISIS has been halted as details emerged over the weekend about U.S.-led coalition airstrikes that killed over 200 people in a single day. The U.S.-led coalition has admitted launching the March 17 airstrikes that targeted a crowded section of the Mosul al-Jadida neighborhood.

    Some reports say one of the strikes hit an explosive-filled truck, triggering a blast that destroyed nearby houses where hundreds of people were taking refuge amid the city’s heavy fighting. Up to 80 civilians, including women and children, may have died in one house’s basement alone. The March 17 strikes appear to be among the deadliest U.S. airstrikes in the region since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    Over the weekend, witnesses told The Guardian that some of their family members remain trapped under the rubble after days of U.S.-coalition airstrikes battered neighborhoods in and around west Mosul. This is a family member of some of the civilians killed in the March 17 strike.

    Witness: "I came to the house to stay with my family, but the owner of the house told me there was no place for me. More than 100 people were inside. Half an hour later, the house was hit in an airstrike. There were neither snipers nor ISIL militants on the street. At least 15 people from this street, that links into the alleyways, have been killed."

    The journalistic project Airwars reports as many as 1,000 civilians have died in U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in March alone. The high civilian death toll is leading many to question whether the U.S. military has loosened the rules of engagement that seek to limit civilian casualties. The Pentagon maintains the rules have not changed. We’ll have more on U.S.-led airstrikes, including the devastating strikes in Mosul al-Jadida, later in the broadcast.


    Iegend, I don't believe you watched all of that 18 minute clip you recommended.

    Another item from today's Democracy Now: The u.S. and its murderous friends ramp up the killing:


    Yemen: Tens of Thousands Protest U.S.-Backed, Saudi-Led Bombing
    HEADLINESMAR 27, 2017

    Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports Defense Secretary James Mattis is asking the Trump administration to lift Obama-era restrictions so the U.S. military can provide more support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. The U.S. already authorizes weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and provides other assistance, including midair refueling to Saudi warplanes, for the ongoing bombing campaign. On Sunday, tens of thousands of Yemenis rallied in the streets of Sana’a to protest the Saudi-led war, which has led to thousands of deaths and sparked a humanitarian crisis with the threat of widespread famine.


  • Can We Trust Gorsuch On Women's Rights?   1 day 25 min ago


    Yes, I consider abortion morally wrong. Just because a fetus cannot live on it's own doesn't give anyone the right to kill it. New born babies cannot live on their own, does that mean we have the right to kill them? There are those who are much older, who cannot live on their own. Do we have the right to kill them?

    I find it amazing that you consider killing an enemy by a soldier murder, as long as it wasn't done in self defense. How do the defenseless defend themselves? Hitler, Stalin, Huesin etc. Etc killed millions of defenseless people. Is it not the responsibility of the strongest to defend the weakest, who aren't capable of defending themselves.

    Abortion in my opinion is the ending of a defenseless life, and it is wrong.

  • Thom's Blog on 3/20/17   1 day 43 min ago

    Don't say I didn't warn ya doc. The loonies are among us. I think the word bipolar may fit here.

    Quote zapdam.:

    "DianeReynolds you're one of those 'stupidest fucking electorate on the face of the planet' I keep talking about. The world, civilized Americans and myself are sick of moronic people like you, you're not worth the breath to try and sway you, so Piss off. So go f""k off and stick your phoney nationalism up your arse, you right wing troll."

    Quote zapdam:

    Dianereynolds , I think you've become one of my favorite people here on this site. I still think you're beliefs make you a 'wack job' , but you're sense of humor and smarts make you a delight to converse with. Either way ,like it or not, you're getting another big hug from your northern neighbor.

    DianeReynolds you know i kinda really like you and all your unreasoned wack job rants. Just to give that 'icky feeling', i'm sending you another 'big hug'.

  • Thom's Blog on 3/20/17   1 day 46 min ago

    obdoc54 guess you missed the Nixon WHITE HOUSE HMO healh care talks, that your whole US 'health care' system is based on.

    This is a transcript of the 1971 conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman that led to the HMO act of 1973:

    John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”

    President Nixon: “Yeah.”

    Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”

    President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”

    Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”

    President Nixon: “All right.”

    Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”

    President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.”

    Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”

    President Nixon: [Unclear.]

    Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”

    President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”

    Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”

    President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”

    Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

    President Nixon: [Unclear.]

    Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

    President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

    Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

    President Nixon: “Not bad.”

    [Source: University of Virginia Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.]

  • Thom's Blog on 3/20/17   1 day 50 min ago

    Quote obdoc54 " We were no longer able to provide the excellent care that we wanted to provide and remain financially viable. Is this the fault of Obamcare, the insurance companies, or both. I have a hard time determining"

    God help anyone who is a patient of yours. IF you are so poorly informed, so stupid not to realize that the US for profit health system is dead last of all first world health care systems, then i question your analytical abilities and if again you are even a doctor, not some bot subversive paid to come here and run off your mouth.

    IF the US had a single payer government run health care system , similiar to almost every first world country on the planet, then they wouldn't need a hodgepodge of psuedo fractionalized health care systems. Almost all based on profit first , taking care of the sick and dying second. Perhaps you are one of the gold digger doctors that were quite OK with 50 million Americans having no health care all during the last republican administration. Perhaps you were just fine with on average 45 thousand Americans dying each year of treatable illness or the fact almost a half a million fellow citizens died from lack of treatment under the last 8 years of Bush/Cheney regime. Perhaps republicans were just to busy organizing transport to black sites for kidnapping and torture victims or perhaps too busy manipulating the system so their fellow privileged few were able to fill their bank accounts profiting off right wing phony wars or spending all of Americas tax money so their is nothing left for social programs or infrastructure.

    You seem quite focused on the late payments of what little health care service the government actually runs, but refuse to address the daily hurdles , the 'approvals'. US doctors must face dealing with for profit HMO's bureaucrats, BEFORE you can begin treatment of sick or dying Americans, 'approvals' from non medical people, approvals from people, bureaucrats trained to put profit above all else.

    So i call bullshit on this post, because if you really are a doctor, you are one dumb ass poorly informed selfish SOB, i wouldn't trust you with my gold fish.

Will Democrats Filibuster Neil Gorsuch?

After months of talking about "resistance", Senate Democrats finally appear to be putting their money where their mouth is.

After days of testimony, Senate Democrats have seen enough of Neil Gorsuch - enough to know that they're going to try to filibuster him.

Chuck Schumer made that very clear during a speech yesterday on the senate floor.