kgambit

Haven't we played this game before? Lets recap, list the issues and we can discuss them. I stand by mine and can produce links No because we've been done this road before multiple times. It's like riding a merry-go-around ..... And you seriously don't remember this? And I thought you had a photographic memory ........ http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/79124-road-to-the-white-house-2016/page-9?do=findComment&comment=1701567 And once again, Obama was not responsible for the troop withdrawal from Iraq. That was dictated by the existing SOFA agreement that expired in 2011 and put in place by George Bush. Without a negotiated extension, the troop withdrawal was going to happen anyway. Giving him credit for the troop withdrawal is a huge stretch; especially in light of the fact he actually attempted to negotiate a NEW SOFA which would have kept troops in place.* In fairness, I'll give him credit for the massive effort to stop the further spread of the Ebola outbreak, normalizing relations with Cuba and focusing more on relations in SE Asia. Beyond that, I can't think of many positives from his foreign policy. *Zoraptor would arguably point out that the Iraqi parliament wanted the troops gone so a SOFA extension was highly unlikely. While that's certainly got a lot of merit, it is immaterial. It doesn't matter whether it was the Iraqis or USA that were being intractable during negotiations. The point is that when the negotiations failed, the existing troop withdrawal deadline took effect and Obama had no hand in establishing that timeframe.

Haven't we played this game before?

Nowitzki should bail and join the Dubs. At least then he has a shot at another ring. If he stays in Dallas all he gets is another first round beat down.

slang for trailer trash or inbred white trash - derived from people wearing cheap adjustable baseball caps with a nylon webbed (i.e. mesh) back - often worn peak to back and the cap frequently carries a logo for a tractor company

There are time limits of exclusivity now, thise time limits would be radically expanded. I don't think that's entirely correct GD but it's close. The TPP imposes a 12 year exclusivity period for biologics which is exactly the same as the time exclusivity period passed by the FDA in 2014 (Section 351(k)(7)© of the PHS Act). For NCEs the TPP exclusivity time period is 5 years - again the same as current FDA limits. So on the face of it, the TPP exclusivity provisions don't have an increased impact on US Drug prices but they certainly would in developing countries. Exclusivity periods give the manufacturer exclusive rights to market a drug. The provision in the TPP that does affect prices is the clause that allows pharmaceutical companies to “evergreen” their product patents (which typically run for 20 years); in essence companies can establish small changes to a drug’s use to extend its protection from competition indefinitely. ODEs (orphan Drugs) are afforded 7 year exclusivity period by Hatchman Wax. ODEs are used in treating specific rare disorders and have much smaller target markets: http://www.fitzpatrickcella.com/DB6EDC/assets/files/News/Hatch-Waxman%20Act%20Overview%20lpensabene_dgregory.pdf Another problem is that existing time limits (both exclusivity and patent) are responsible for the exorbitantly high drug prices paid in the US because they generally stifle development of generic alternatives. The TPP provisions would prevent Congress from taking steps to lower those time limits and reduce domestic prices as the US markets would be bound by the provisions of the TPP making any change a treaty violation. In 2014 alone, prices for biologics rose 45%. FWIW, Obama's administration has proposed shortening the TPP exclusivity period for biologics to 7 years. That is still ridiculously long considering the average time to develop biologic similiars and NCE (chemical) generics is approximately one year. http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2014/08/04/19945/FDA-Sets-Policy-for-Granting-New-Biologic-Medicines-Extensive-Market-Exclusivity/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2015/07/30/118290/pharmaceutical-provisions-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-threaten-drug-access-and-affordability/ Here's a good read on the issue of patents on medical procedure: http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2012/09/08/is-the-ustr-trading-away-doctors-rights-to-freely-perform-medical-procedures/ FWIW, I agree with you in general about the TPP. The pharmaceutical provisions alone are reasons to kill it.

Let me explain why you are wrong. The fact that you personally dislike Hogan's actions is immaterial. No matter what you may personally feel about Hogan or his morality, he is entitled to have his privacy respected in the same manner you expect Lawrence's privacy to be respected. The concept is simple Bruce, it's called equal protection under the law and it applies to everyone or it applies to no one. As a champion of equality I would have expected you of all people to understand and embrace that concept. That you don't is surprising. So you're dead wrong on this. As for the folks employed at Gawker.com, no one (except possibly the editor) has lost a job yet. If they do lose their jobs, you can blame Denton and his wanton disregard of privacy. Yes, you are technically correct as usual. I understand the concept of "equal protection under the law " But that has never been my issue, my point is you cannot possibly compare the personal embarrassment that Jennifer must have felt compared to Hogan. So lets not debate the law and rather look at this from a social perspective? I am still surprised you guys refuse to see a difference ?Its as clear as day to me? Oh I don't doubt you understand it. I just don't think you believe in it. If you did, this discussion would have ended some time ago. Social perspective? Sorry but no. Let's stick with the law because the social perspective varies based on who you are talking to. I get that you don't like Hogan or think he is amoral and that's fine, It's immaterial. And frankly I think you're being awful presumptuous trying to imagine what Hogan or Lawrence's feelings are. In any case, it just doesn't matter a bit. Gawker violated his privacy. Now they are paying the price. It's that simple. Yes I dont like Hogan, you right. He comes across as morally bankrupt ...I dont see Jennifer like that so that may make me bias but I still think Hogan is an attention seeker who after having sex with his wifes friend and the video being leaked now is " offended " But to be honest I am sure why I seem to be defending Gawker because they also lack morals and have embarrassed people purely for readership points...so maybe I should retract my original view because if this is about morals then Gawker is also lacking? Your personal dislike of Hogan Is coloring your judgment and the obvious bias reinforces what I said earlier: you don't truly believe in the concept of equal protection under the law. You seem to think that Hogan's actions provide sufficient reason to strip him of that right. That isn't the way it works Bruce and it still amazes me how you can so cavalierly disregard basic human rights when it suits you. Gawker's morality (or lack thereof) does not matter either. I've noticed that you are willing to give some people a pass for illegal activity based solely on their intentions. Gawker violated Hogan's right to privacy and the law. In this case, it's really that cut and dry. As for Cosby, if the tape in question is a tape of him having consensual sex with another woman and recorded secretly without his consent then again it's a violation of his privacy. I'm not entirely sure but if a video of him in the act of raping a woman is recorded in a location where Cosby would otherwise expect a certain degree of privacy, then that recording is illegal. I'll defer to the lawyers on the admissibility of such videos. But the following link provides some general guidelines. http://www.newmediarights.org/page/field_guide_audio_and_video_recordings#Offensive

Let me explain why you are wrong. The fact that you personally dislike Hogan's actions is immaterial. No matter what you may personally feel about Hogan or his morality, he is entitled to have his privacy respected in the same manner you expect Lawrence's privacy to be respected. The concept is simple Bruce, it's called equal protection under the law and it applies to everyone or it applies to no one. As a champion of equality I would have expected you of all people to understand and embrace that concept. That you don't is surprising. So you're dead wrong on this. As for the folks employed at Gawker.com, no one (except possibly the editor) has lost a job yet. If they do lose their jobs, you can blame Denton and his wanton disregard of privacy. Yes, you are technically correct as usual. I understand the concept of "equal protection under the law " But that has never been my issue, my point is you cannot possibly compare the personal embarrassment that Jennifer must have felt compared to Hogan. So lets not debate the law and rather look at this from a social perspective? I am still surprised you guys refuse to see a difference ?Its as clear as day to me? Oh I don't doubt you understand it. I just don't think you believe in it. If you did, this discussion would have ended some time ago. Social perspective? Sorry but no. Let's stick with the law because the social perspective varies based on who you are talking to. I get that you don't like Hogan or think he is amoral and that's fine, It's immaterial. And frankly I think you're being awful presumptuous trying to imagine what Hogan or Lawrence's feelings are. In any case, it just doesn't matter a bit. Gawker violated his privacy. Now they are paying the price. It's that simple.

Let me explain why you are wrong. The fact that you personally dislike Hogan's actions is immaterial. No matter what you may personally feel about Hogan or his morality, he is entitled to have his privacy respected in the same manner you expect Lawrence's privacy to be respected. The concept is simple Bruce, it's called equal protection under the law and it applies to everyone or it applies to no one. As a champion of equality I would have expected you of all people to understand and embrace that concept. That you don't is surprising. So you're dead wrong on this. As for the folks employed at Gawker.com, no one (except possibly the editor) has lost a job yet. If they do lose their jobs, you can blame Denton and his wanton disregard of privacy.

Assuming the judgment against GMG holds on appeal, I think it's simply just one more debt to add to the list. Chapter 11 doesn't require a liquidation of assets - it's basically just a reorganization. Any proceeds from the sale of GMG will be assigned on a prorated basis to creditors with fund allocated for the Hogan settlement going into escrow pending final appeals on the award. I've heard three widely varying reports on GMG's total debt. (1) (unsubstantiated) reports up to $500 million in debt and $100 million in assets; (2) reports 140+ million in debt (almost all of it from the Hogan judgment and (3) this which details GMG's assets and liabilities: http://www.politico.com/media/f/?id=00000155-3c0e-d8cf-a15f-3dce2f470002#page=2 The latter appears to not include the Hogan judgment which GMG disputes. Also not clear whether the May 2016 balance sheet includes a recent loan intended to fund operations during the chapter 11 filing.

That's because you've never attempted to understand the legal issues. There is no inconsistency whatsoever. Despite claims by some others that Free Speech is all inclusive, it is NOT. There are notable exceptions (including Libel and Slander for starters) to the "Free Speech" protections offered under the First Amendment. What Gawker did was not protected under the first amendment. You should read up on Invasion of Privacy and the concepts of Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Intrusion, False Light, and Appropriation although iirc the latter two are not pertinent to the Gawker Case but I'll defer on that to the lawyers. Anyway, some study material for you: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/privacy-newsgathering http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=lawreview http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2104&context=faculty_publications And two excerpts: The Public disclosure of Private Facts: and Intrusion: I'll hand off to Gromnir for any further discussion of the issues.

The Thunderbird Bar and Grill on Santa Fe plaza is a great place for dinner. http://www.thunderbirdsantafe.com/ And the bar has over 100 tequilas to choose from. You should consider taking a day trip to Taos. If you stay overnight I recommend the Hotel La Fonda de Taos right on the central square.

As an enthusiast of Jane Austen movies and mini-series, how hard am I going to fall for this? It's a campy blend of two totally different genres. Just go with it. My wife loves Jane Austen and thought this was silly but fun. Did they treat it like an apocalypse, or just treated zombies like part of everyday life like in the book? Part of the charm of the book was how the zombie apocalypse was kinda second fiddle to aristocratic affairs. More the latter.

As an enthusiast of Jane Austen movies and mini-series, how hard am I going to fall for this? It's a campy blend of two totally different genres. Just go with it. My wife loves Jane Austen and thought this was silly but fun.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - Jane Austen meets The Walking Dead. Actually a lot of fun.

Cavs by 40 over Raptors in the 4th. What a beat down.

I did check back a month and didn't see it - so the credit is still yours. Amazon just added it their upcoming releases so just consider this a reminder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh63Hc9R23w

That's too easy - a F-117 Nighthawk ... not even worth 1 pt. (The angular shape of the fuselage is a dead giveaway)

Strawberry smoothies and milkshakes to wash it all down.

F/A-18 and I think that's a Mig-29 in the HUD

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-candidates-donald-trump-vice-000000817.html Some of the reactions are hilarious. My favorite is this one: South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham “That’s like buying a ticket on the Titanic,” Graham said.

Those are fairly common sites, but your search criteria are pretty generic. Hurlshot can correct me if I don't get this right, but he has two kids so you probably need to redo the search criteria for 4bd+ and since his wife works add a two car garage. That drives the minimum price to ~600,000$ just at asking and depending on demand houses frequently go for more than asking price. Plus factor in real estate taxes and mortgage insurance and maybe figuring out how much Hurl is setting aside for his kids college and his own retirement. So it's not such a cut and dried situation. Or you could have searched in Cupertino. LOL Jesus Hurl those prices are freaking insane!

Bautista should get one as well. His slide was a cheap shot. He was so far off the bag they called interference on him. Edit: just saw these:

It started with Bautista thinking he got plunked on purpose by Matt Bush (just called up). Then Bautista supposedly went after Odor's legs on his slide to break up a double play. (I've seen the video and Bautista is targeting Odor's leg and not the bag.) Odor objected and invited Bautista's face to meet his fist with the best right hand I've seen in a MLB game ever. There's been bad blood simmering since the playoffs last year. Oh and the fracas didn't end with that punch either. On the very first pitch after Bautista and Odor were ejected, Jesse Chavez hit Fielder with the first pitch and got the heave ho as well. Odor's looking at a 10-14 day suspension

Blueberry Chipotle BBQ ribs from 12-Bones http://www.12bones.com/ Just YUM Or if ribs aren't your thing you can always opt for a Hogzilla (I'm not making that up) sandwich. (Sugar bacon, bratwurst, pulled pork, and pepperjack cheese on a hoagie).