KevinG

The Writer's Room on the Sudance channel had the writers of Breaking Bad on (plus Bryan Cranston). It was a pretty neat thing to see what goes into the show. No spoiler information or anything, just fascinating. http://www.sundancechannel.com/series/the-writers-room/videos Speaking of spoilers Dean Norris spoils the end of Breaking Bad. Ok not really but it is super awesome: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/636264ec55/dean-norris-spoils-breaking-bad

You can listen to the new album Stiches (among other notable new albums coming out) right here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/arts/music/pressplay.html?_r=0 On my first listen right now. Edit: right after the first song the website went down, so right now it is unavailable, so boo on that one.

That is laughable. Though I am not too sure what you are trying to get at. Would it be that the left would be protesting an unjust war if a Republican would be in the White House. Or that "caring" is a euphemism for going into Syria kicking ass and getting shit done. I for one am glad we are taking a measured approach to this and gathering a collation rather than going in a guns blaring, and with a hell of lot more proof than we did in Iraq. But regardless of who is in the White House it looks like Syria is gonna be something we are going to deal with. I worry that this will turn into a

I say it is a little from column A and a little from column B. The initial confrontation (Zimmerman going up to Martin instead of listening to the 911 operator and staying in the car) was clearly motivate by race. If Martin was white I doubt the actions would have been the same. Zimmerman in my mind wanted to get this black guy out of his neighborhood. So a confrontation occurred and I fully believe Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman. So Zimmerman was in his rights to defend himself. I doubt that he just shot Martin for no reason. It is unknown what events transpired betwee

There are people shooting each other in Syria (with chemical weapons no less) and we soon will be shooting Syrians. But no one seems to care about that.

But by that admission trying to equate the Chris Lane case to the Travyon Martin case wrong and your original outrage over it was misguided. I am sure there were elements of race involved, but the cases are two entirely different. The Right and yourself jumped on it trying to make a point before learning all of the facts. It was calculous and off base. Not to say the left did not do the same thing with Travyon Martin, but just because one side did it doesn't give you the right to do so. I also contend that our need it now media culture does us more harm then good. Gone is days of r

All I am saying is that people seem to have a problem when George Zimmerman was referred to as white, but yet have no issues when one of the murders in the Chris Lane case is incorrectly referred to as African American.

You sir, are an idiot. But when you do figure it out remember that it is ok refer to a white murder as an African American, but you can't refer to a non-white Hispanic as White. Or at least that is what I learned today.

Hopefully as PBO.

I guess it kinda goes to context. What was the purpose of calling the murders African-American? Was it to describe them? Or was it to something else? It is the same thing you pointed out with Zimmerman. The press called him white. Which is not correct. They wanted to make a statement. Just as when some right-wing media types say Barack Hussein Obama (with extra emphases on Hussein). They are not doing because that is his name they do it because they want to make a statement about who he is (or what his scary middle eastern sounding name is.) However remember FoxNews called all thr

I always hate this tit for tat kinda thing, but I think it necessary to do it, cause it explains my point. The Chris Lane case that was initially referenced by Hixter that kinda reignited the Travyon Martin/Race has been shown to be a ginned up outrage by the right. The Right wanted so badly to fit their narrative and expose the left as frauds or something they simply made up the races of the assailants or left out the mug shots of one of the teenagers because he was white. On the left leaning Maddow Blog they had this post which is an interesting read. It sums up how the Right is ju

Are you f'ing serious man? Did you actually read what I posted or not? I am guess not, considering I linked to that exact same speech in the post you quoted and discussed it. If you are going to use my words in a quote please read it before you do so. Here is the problem with this board at times (and the internet as a whole), we all think posters think one way and never actually read what they post. We have become lazy and unfortunately that is too bad.

Maybe I should explain myself here. So I don't get POWNED as Tweedling so skillfully pointed out . Hixter you said this: which I assumed is how you felt PBO was putting himself in the middle of the case. Which as you can clearly see it was a t press conference. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/obama-trayvon-martin_n_1375083.html Since you referenced speech was after the verdict I am not sure how he injected himself in the case when it was actually over. Also everything PBO has said on this issue has been relatively measured. Now this case in OK is in its infancy as there h

This is what I was talking about and just shows how disingenuous you and others are on this. PBO only made his martin comments after he was asked a question about it. It is not like he came out on the rose garden and made a travyon Martin speech. You are using this man's death to make a political point. You are no better than jackson and Sharpton, whose behavior was abhorrent during the martin tragedy.

I wonder if you actually believe what you write or are just being purposely controversial to get a rise out of people. Both this case and the martin case are tragedies. What is shameful is that two sides are using these events for political purposes. However the right is more so disingenuous. I get the feeling that the outrage isn't about the death of the man in OK it is about how the media refuses to cover it. There are many murders a day, some get covered some do not.

I think Obamacare is more of a convenient scapegoat for employers to cut costs. According to the study (that UPS used) ACA will raise healthcare by 11% (the normal is 5%). But by cutting spouses UPS is prolly saving money on healthcare costs and something they planned to do regardless.

Braun is gonna find himself on the losing end of a big lawsuit soon. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ryan-braun-tried-to-discredit-urine-collector-in-calls-to-mlb-stars-021053235.html I love the fact how Braun tried to discredit the sample taker with the fact he was Anti-Semitic and a Cubs fan. Ha!

Yeah good for old Ryno! I would imagine he will get a nice ovation when he comes to Wrigley. Both teams aren't very good unfortunately.

It is my contention that ACA is a GOP plan.

As we discuss the pros/cons and the nature of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), there is an interesting political fight happening, namely the GOP's fervent opposition to ACA. They have voted to repeal the law some 40 off times and now many in the GOP are threatening a government shutdown if ACA is not defunded. So for those of you who don't like ACA, do think it is wise to shut down the US government over the fight on ACA? Would it be political suicide if they did?

That is an great quote. Ironic, but great.

I am so excited for this album.

There is a lot of misinformation out there. Some purposefully some just because of the shear complexity of the law and the issue around it.

I actually think that has been happening for many years now. In the company I work for if a spouse can get insurance where they work and chose to be on the companies plan there is an extra charge per month (I don't know what it is cause I use my wife's insurance). The same is for the company my mother works for as well. Yeah it remains to be seen what affect ACA will have on businesses, especially if they reduce employment etc. I agree with Mr. Heartbreak and feel single payer is the way to go.

From lamrod's original post: It talks about now and the fees now and the delay that is happening now. I think his thought was that there would be no provisions for the ACA but yet the government would be charging them this fee anyways, which is untrue. Yes in the future it will reach 1400, and like I said good and it is not enough if you want to make this thing work.