That's the quote.
If that's the full quote, then her retraction makes no sense.
That's the quote.
My major point.I think it's fine. She fucked up. The pressure will force her to react positively in positioning.
Although, reading threads on stuff like this leaves me thinking half the time that some people are just furiously Googling.
I looked at the Ohio school system website. There are 135,707 12th graders. Assume turnout is in line with averages and say 40% vote and half are democrats. That means there could be 30k more votes in the democratic primary.
While we're on the subject of reagan policies that not many people were aware of...did you know that researchers at the national academy of sciences and the school of public health in berkeley found in a study in 1992 that the deaths of 1470 children from Reye's syndrome could have been prevented if regulations mandating the labelling of aspirin medication that was linked to the illness was not obstructed by the reagan administration? And that by 1986, when the labelling was finally enacted, reported cases of reye's syndrome dropped from 556 in 1985 to 32?
The disregard for the aids epidemic was not ronald reagan's only domestic medical legacy
She should have said she misremembered!If that's the full quote, then her retraction makes no sense.
She should have said she misremembered!
I think she probably remembered that 87' Ronnie speech on the disease and at that time she was happy that the Rayguns finally spoke on the matter, thereby driving the national conversation.
But again, that's like thanking Bush for starting a national dialogue on FEMA preparedness.
Well maybe. Potus can drive a national conversation, and Reagan finally admitting the AIDS problem helped that, which was what she was getting at.In someways Bush did. It made us vow to never fuck up that bad again.
And, Ironically, the death of Nancy Reagan has led us to talk about AIDS again.
Ironically.
There is a "real unemployment rate." U6Those twitter responses. Jesus. "Real unemployment rate"
There are 6 measures of labour underutilization. One officially used. I'm not sure why the U6 is now considered the only "real" one, when the official one has been used forever and they track together anyway.There is a "real unemployment rate." U6
There are an insane amount of protestors at this Trump rally in Chicago. Some of them have signs that say bum rush Trump. I'm worried for the guy.
I'm not. He brings this shit on himself.
There are 6 measures of labour underutilization. One officially used. I'm not sure why the U6 is now considered the only "real" one, when the official one has been used forever and they track together anyway.
There are an insane amount of protestors at this Trump rally in Chicago. Some of them have signs that say bum rush Trump. I'm worried for the guy.
They only came around on stem cell research when Ron got Alzheimer's. The cold, hard truth is that a lot of people do not care about diseases until they are or a close friend/family member is affected. I'm not one to defend Reagan (I think there's few presidents worse) but that's human nature.https://twitter.com/lizzwinstead/status/708430651515609088
Lizz Winstead ‏@lizzwinstead 5m5 minutes ago
I misspoke. Turns out Nancy Reagan was the WORST on HIV/AIDS. Sorry for the confusion. Oh and Reagan Vetoed Stem cell research also. kbye
Guessing this was true? I remember hearing about her being an advocate about steam cells, mostly because he developed Alzheimer's. But I don't know the time like of it.
They only came around on stem cell research when Ron got Alzheimer's.
I know they don't move one-to-one...
Although similar, they don't exactly track together. Look at the 8% disparity in 2010 and the 3% difference in 2001.
In most discussions about real unemployment, there's always a comparison of U6 today to U1 or whatever in the Great Depression. When you compare numbers of the same kind, there's not much to get excited about.Although similar, they don't exactly track together. Look at the 8% disparity in 2010 and the 3% difference in 2001.
Right?The gaffe does reinforce something I read ages ago; Clinton is worst at campaigning when she's the frontrunner.
In most discussions about real unemployment, there's always a comparison of U6 today to U1 or whatever in the Great Depression. When you compare numbers of the same kind, there's not much to get excited about.
"Good God, if you look at real unemployment it's almost as bad as 1997! :U"
Such a weird statement from Sanders' campaign. It's not like Romania is some third world shithole or something.
The gaffe does reinforce something I read ages ago; Clinton is worst at campaigning when she's the frontrunner.
They only came around on stem cell research when Ron got Alzheimer's. The cold, hard truth is that a lot of people do not care about diseases until they are or a close friend/family member is affected. I'm not one to defend Reagan (I think there's few presidents worse) but that's human nature.
Just got my first local election online ad:
HOW DO I PUSH YES 7,000,000 TIMES
IN isnt till May.
Baron Hill will get the nomination too.
No, Republicans don't give a shit about diseases or social issues until it affects them or a loved one. It's well documented.
He lost in 1990 for the same seat. Maybe luck is on his side this year. You've only had Bayh and Coats in that seat.
The general trend follows the U3 number, sure, but let's speak in terms of comparison, U3(U6): We had a 4%(7%) unemployment rate in 2001, and we had a 9%(17%) in 2011. Clearly, there are more disparaged former workers and others who fell off the grid recently than before.Here's the spread between U6 and top-line.
It is certainly revealing to look at, and you can definitely see a bump in the spread during the recession, but, I mean, it looks a lot to me like the spread itself is tracking U3.
That only a few of them were willing to step up the funding for. Cool.Yep, like the 94 to 1 vote for opioid abuse yesterday.
http://nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/po...use-bill.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
The general trend follows the U3 number, sure, but let's speak in terms of comparison, U3(U6): We had a 4%(7%) unemployment rate in 2001, and we had a 9%(17%) in 2011. Clearly, there are more disparaged former workers and others who fell off the grid recently than before.
What does it mean? It means there is a sizeable amount that isn't accounted for in the current "official unemployment rate."
Governor Christies extensive travel last year in support of his presidential campaign cost taxpayers more than $600,000 to cover his required security detail, according to administration documents.
The bill for State Police protection in 2015 brings Christies total security costs to $1.769 million since 2010, his first year in office, records show. A large portion of those costs have come in Christies second term, as he traveled heavily as chairman of the Republican Governors Association and in preparation for his White House campaign.
Thanks Christie! It's good to know that I'll be paying for Christie to be shilling for Trump.Now that Christie is out of the race for the Republican Party nomination, the police protection costs borne by taxpayers is likely to be much less than previous years. But Christie said last week hell continue billing the state for his security, whether it is on trips stumping for Donald Trump or grocery shopping at his local supermarket, because round-the-clock security is a requirement of the State Police.
Thanks Christie! It's good to know that I'll be paying for Christie to be shilling for Trump.
Should he not be protected or allowed to run for office?
These complaints are eye rolling. That's a minuscule number.
Should he not be protected or allowed to run for office?
And I'm assuming you, as most on the left, want public funding?