Tag Archives: canada

How Big a Dick Is Ted Cruz? A Quiz.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Against my better judgment sometimes, I have focused most of my campaign reporting energy on making the case against Donald Trump. But there are other candidates out there who are plenty loathsome in their own way, and when you say the word “loathsome” Ted Cruz comes immediately to mind.

Over at the mothership, Tim Murphy and David Corn make the case that Ted is really one of the all-time huge pricks. Take this quiz first to test your knowledge of Cruzology, and then go read it.

  1. Did one of Ted’s former pastors say that “he pretty much memorized the Bible, but I think he did it mostly so that he could humiliate kids who got quotes wrong”?
  2. Did a veteran of the 2000 George Bush campaign say that “the quickest way for a meeting to end would be for Ted to come in”?
  3. Did Ted’s wife once admit that Ted “can be a bit of a jackass sometimes, but at least you know where he’s coming from”?
  4. Did Bob Dole say that Ted “doesn’t have any friends in Congress”?
  5. Did Mitch McConnell respond that “I’m pretty sure Dole is wrong, but I can’t figure out who his one friend is”?
  6. Did a John McCain advisor say that his boss “fucking hates Cruz”?
  7. Did President Obama once get overheard asking Joe Biden “what in God’s name is that asshole’s problem, anyway”?
  8. Did Rep. Peter King say say about a possible Ted Cruz nomination, “I hope that day never comes; I will jump off that bridge when we come to it”?
  9. Did John Boehner quip that Ted was “a great American resource; when we threatened to deport him back to Canada, they suddenly agreed to drop their softwood lumber subsidies”?
  10. Did Lindsey Graham say the choice between Trump and Cruz was like having to choose between “death by being shot or poisoning”?
  11. Did a former high school teacher just shake his head and close his door when a reporter knocked and asked what he remembered about Ted?
  12. Did a former law school acquaintance say that when she agreed to carpool with Ted, “We hadn’t left Manhattan before he asked my IQ”?
  13. Did Ted’s torts professor remark that “I don’t think there was a single question I asked the entire year where Ted didn’t instantly raise his hand and practically wet his pants pleading to be called on”?
  14. Did his Princeton freshman roommate call Ted “a nightmare of a human being” and claim he would get invited to parties hosted by seniors because the upperclassmen pitied him?
  15. Did a college girlfriend of Ted’s say “he was pretty smart, but sex with him once was enough—if you can call it sex”?
  16. Is it true that in interviews with four of Ted’s college acquaintances, “four independently offered the word ‘creepy'”?

Answer: All statements whose ordinal number takes the integer form 2n+1 or 2n-1 have been invented. The rest are real

Read original article:

How Big a Dick Is Ted Cruz? A Quiz.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Big a Dick Is Ted Cruz? A Quiz.

National Review Is Against Trump, But it Probably Doesn’t Matter

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

National Review has finally released its big anti-Trump issue. A bevy of conservative stars contributed to the issue, and they complained about Trump’s boorishness, his ignorance, his bullying, his libertine personal life, his racism, his narcissism, his love of dictators, his vitriol, and the fact that he’d probably lose to Hillary Clinton. But the most common complaint was simple: Trump is no conservative. Here are a few snippets:

The Editors: Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy….Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.

Glenn Beck: While conservatives fought against the stimulus, Donald Trump said it was “what we need”….While conservatives fought against the auto bailouts, Donald Trump claimed “the government should stand behind the auto companies 100 percent”….While conservatives fought against the bank bailouts, Donald Trump called them “something that has to get done.”

Mona Charen: One thing about which there can be no debate is that Trump is no conservative—he’s simply playing one in the primaries. Call it unreality TV. Put aside for a moment Trump’s countless past departures from conservative principle on defense, racial quotas, abortion, taxes, single-payer health care, and immigration….Is Trump a liberal? Who knows? He played one for decades — donating to liberal causes and politicians (including Al Sharpton) and inviting Hillary Clinton to his (third) wedding. Maybe it was all a game, but voters who care about conservative ideas and principles must ask whether his recent impersonation of a conservative is just another role he’s playing.

David Boaz: Without even getting into his past support for a massive wealth tax and single-payer health care, his know-nothing protectionism, or his passionate defense of eminent domain, I think we can say that this is a Republican campaign that would have appalled Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan.

Brent Bozell: Until he decided to run for the GOP nomination a few months ago, Trump had done none of these things, perhaps because he was too distracted publicly raising money for liberals such as the Clintons; championing Planned Parenthood, tax increases, and single-payer health coverage; and demonstrating his allegiance to the Democratic party.

Erick Erickson: In October 2011, when many of the other Republican candidates were fighting Barack Obama, Donald Trump told Sean Hannity, “I was Obama’s biggest cheerleader.” Trump donated to both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign, as well to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and other Democrats. In 2011, according to the website OpenSecrets.org, “the largest recipient of Donald Trump’s political spending has been the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee with $116,000.”

Dana Loesch: I love conversion stories. I have my own, from when I became a conservative 15 years ago. But I’m not running for president. Donald Trump is. And his “conversion” raises serious questions. Trump wrote in his book The America We Deserve that he supported a ban on “assault weapons.” Not until last year did he apparently reverse his position. As recently as a couple of years ago, Trump favored the liberal use of eminent-domain laws.

David McIntosh: For decades, Trump has argued for big government. About health care he has said: “Everybody’s got to be covered” and “The government’s gonna pay for it.” He has called for boycotts of American companies he doesn’t like, told bureaucrats to use eminent domain to get him better deals on property he wanted to develop, and proudly proposed the largest tax increase in American history. Trump has also promised to use tariffs to punish companies that incur his disfavor. He offers grand plans for massive new spending but no serious proposals for spending cuts or entitlement reforms.

Whew! But will it do any good? Probably not. The kind of people who read National Review are already convinced that Trump is a menace. Trump’s fans, by contrast, are far more likely to have heard of Rush Limbaugh than William F. Buckley or Edmund Burke. And Rush thinks that Trump is great.

At the moment, everyone is eagerly awaiting “Trump’s reaction” to NR’s destruction derby. I sure hope they’ve never asked him for money in the past. In any case, I’m sure he’ll just write them off as establishment losers who are jealous of his success and afraid they won’t get invited to his inauguration. Still, at least the editors of National Review will always be able to say that their magazine has lasted a lot longer than the Trump magazine.

View this article – 

National Review Is Against Trump, But it Probably Doesn’t Matter

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on National Review Is Against Trump, But it Probably Doesn’t Matter

America’s Food System Could Be More Vulnerable to Climate Change Than We Thought

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For billions of people around the world, the most immediate threat posed by climate change is at the dinner table, as staple crops face a steadily worsening onslaught of drought, heat waves, and other extreme weather events. The United States certainly isn’t immune to these challenges; for proof, just look at California, where an unprecedented drought has cost the state’s agriculture industry billions.

Still, the conventional thinking among many scientists is that developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia—where people are typically hit harder by food price spikes and generally more reliant on agriculture as a primary source of income—are the most vulnerable to food-related climate impacts.

A paper published today in Nature may add a wrinkle to that assumption. Scientists often track the impact that an individual weather disaster has on crops (again, see California), but the new research takes it a step further.

A team of scientists from Canada and the United Kingdom compiled the first-ever global tally of how weather disasters over the past 50 years cut into production of staple cereals. After merging a database of global weather records with a UN record of country-level crop production, the researchers found that, as a rule of thumb, droughts and heat waves typically cut a country’s cereal production by 10 percent. That basically accords with predictions from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s predictions for agricultural vulnerability in the future.

But unexpectedly, the researchers also found that the impacts were 8 to 11 percent more severe in developed countries than in developing ones.

“That was a surprise to us,” said Navin Ramankutty, an agricultural geographer at the University of British Columbia.

Ramankutty said it’s not yet clear why droughts and heat waves tend to hit yields in the United States, Europe, and Australia harder than those in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But he suspects it relates to how farmers set their priorities. In developed countries, the emphasis is often on maximizing profit with big monoculture farms that work great in good climates but get trashed when the weather turns sour. Farmers in developing countries, by contrast, may prioritize minimizing their risk, taking a smaller yield in exchange for better resilience.

Of course, these findings don’t mean developing countries are out of harm’s way. They still face major challenges from climate change, since comparatively small yield losses can have an outsized impact on local economies and food security. But Ramankutty says the new research shows that even in the developed world, farmers may be more at risk from climate change than anyone previously realized.

See the article here: 

America’s Food System Could Be More Vulnerable to Climate Change Than We Thought

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on America’s Food System Could Be More Vulnerable to Climate Change Than We Thought

French Government Nearing Decision About Whether to Ban Climate Protests

We’ll know Wednesday or Thursday whether or not the big climate march in Paris will go ahead. A memorial for the victims killed in Friday’s attacks in Paris in front of the French Embassy in Berlin. Markus Schreiber/AP We learned yesterday that even after Friday’s terrorist attacks that killed 129 people in Paris, global warming activists are pushing to go ahead with large protests and civil disobedience in the French capital two weeks from now. On Tuesday morning, Paris time, representatives of a coalition of 130 environmental groups met with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius to argue that the rallies should be allowed to take place alongside the upcoming UN climate summit—and to hear the government’s security concerns. The climate negotiations “cannot take place without the participation or without the mobilizations of civil society in France,” read a statement released yesterday by Coalition Climat 21, an umbrella group of activists. But even after the meeting this morning, there remains plenty of doubt about which events will be canceled and which will be permitted to take place. Paris remains under a state of emergency, and French President Francois Hollande has said parliament should extend that state of emergency for another three months. Jamie Henn, a spokesperson for the US-based environmental group 350.org, told me Tuesday morning that the French authorities are nearing a decision on the main climate march, which had been scheduled to take place in the streets of Paris on November 29, the evening before the summit opens. That permitting decision, he says, should come from the French government either Wednesday or Thursday. “The coalition is pushing hard for it to move forward if safety can be maintained,” Henn said. Organizers had expected to draw around 200,000 to the rally, according to Reuters. Coordinated climate rallies in cities around the world are expected to continue. “We’re still waiting for the French authorities to tell us if they think the march in Paris, and other mobilization moments around the climate talks, can be made safe and secure,” said Jean-François Julliard, Executive Director for Greenpeace in France, according to a statement. “Huge numbers are predicted for the Paris gathering. We at Greenpeace want it to happen.” But additional protests in Paris, such as plans to block roads and form human chains at the Place de la République, scheduled for December 12, “are still under negotiation,” Henn said. While security officials are still mulling the big November 29 March, activists say that French authorities have been pressuring them to cancel the more aggressive actions planned for the end of the summit. Those December 12 events were “always planned as civil disobedience and never had permission, so it’s not really a matter of the government banning it or not,” Henn said. “But the French authorities have made it clear they don’t want it to go forward.” Despite that, says Henn, “we’re committed to finding a way to make a strong call for climate justice at the end.” One thing we do know: The large exhibition pavilion set up by the UN at the site of the summit for environmental groups, observers, and the general public—called the Climate Generations space—will be maintained, “but maybe with new access rules,” Henn said. This post has been updated with more specific details about the December 12 protests. Excerpt from –  French Government Nearing Decision About Whether to Ban Climate Protests ; ; ;

Read the article: 

French Government Nearing Decision About Whether to Ban Climate Protests

Posted in alo, bamboo, Citadel, Create Space, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on French Government Nearing Decision About Whether to Ban Climate Protests

How Honest Is Your Favorite Candidate?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I was browsing through my Twitter feed a few minutes ago and a string of tweets inspired me to do a bit of original research about the honesty of our presidential candidates. I think we all have a gut feel for who’s fairly honest and who’s not, but I figured there might be a more rigorous way to measure this.

So I hopped over to PolitiFact. Not because they’re an infallible source of fact checking, but because they’re convenient and probably as good as anyone else. Then I looked up all the candidates. I gave them 5 points for each statement judged True, 4 for each statement judged Mostly True, etc., all the way to zero points for each statement judged Pants On Fire. Then I averaged the scores. Here are the results:

I have a few special awards to hand out, as well as a couple of comments:

Cheers to Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with not a single Pants On Fire rating.
Jeers to Donald Trump, who failed to earn a single True rating.
Double jeers to Ben Carson, who remarkably failed to get a single True rating or a single Mostly True rating.
The average Democratic rating is 3.34. The average Republican rating is 2.26.
Among Republicans, honesty is the exact inverse of popularity. Jeb Bush is the most honest, and he’s got the lowest poll numbers among the serious candidates. Donald Trump and Ben Carson are the least honest by quite a bit, and they’re also leading the field by quite a bit. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are in the middle on both honesty and popularity.

I especially draw your attention to the last bullet. It’s eerie. It’s almost as if the Republican electorate wants to be lied to, and the more you lie, the more they like you. I’ll hold off on guessing precisely what this means, but it might explain a lot about this year’s GOP primary race.

Visit link: 

How Honest Is Your Favorite Candidate?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Honest Is Your Favorite Candidate?

Obamacare Co-Op Closures: A Headache, Not a Catastrophe

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Six years ago the Obama administration backed away from offering a public option in Obamacare. In its place, we got nonprofit co-ops. Paul Krugman was not impressed:

Let’s be clear: the supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That’s not just my opinion; it’s what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers.

Well, both Krugman and the market were right: co-ops never signed up all that many patients, and now they’re failing. By next year there could well be none left.

This has led to a round of breathless news reports. The failures have “handed Republicans a new weapon in their campaign against the health law.” Patients are “scrambling” to find new coverage. The closures have left behind a trail of “human wreckage.”

Fair enough, I suppose. Co-ops probably were never a good idea, and their bankruptcies really are causing a lot of grief for the people who had signed up with them. Still, in the midst of all this, it’s worth pointing out what we’re talking about:

Roughly 500,000 co-op customers will have to switch insurance plans.
That’s out of 30 million people who already switch insurance plans each year.1
And because of Obamacare, co-op customers can shop for a new plan pretty easily.

It’s not unfair to make political hay out of this, especially if you thought co-ops were a bad idea to begin with. But the bottom line is that instead of 30 million people switching plans, about 30.5 million will switch plans next year—and they’ll be able to do it more easily than they could in the past. It’s a headache, but hardly a catastrophe.

1Mostly against their will. About 68 percent are forced to switch because they changed jobs or their employer decided to change carriers. Another 16 percent switched because their plan was too expensive. Less than 10 percent switched because their new plan offered better service.

Continue at source: 

Obamacare Co-Op Closures: A Headache, Not a Catastrophe

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Co-Op Closures: A Headache, Not a Catastrophe

The state of carbon pricing is messier than we might like to think

The state of carbon pricing is messier than we might like to think

By on 29 Oct 2015commentsShare

These days, it’s common to hear a politician, an economist, or even an oil company profess that pricing carbon is the most efficient way to combat climate change. But real-life climate policy is often far from efficient; we’re left settling for second-best (or third- or fourth-best) solutions. In the run-up to the Paris climate talks at the end of this year, a fair question then is whether or not we can expect any kind of global carbon pricing mechanism to emerge from the negotiations.

Spoiler alert: probably not, but not for want of trying.

Over at The Christian Science Monitor, Cristina Maza takes a deep dive into the logic behind — and viability of — carbon pricing at the national and international levels. While the global approach has been piecemeal so far, she writes, a handful of countries have given the concept a shot in one way or another:

Currently, about 40 national and over 20 sub-national jurisdictions have implemented or scheduled carbon-pricing systems, according to a report by the World Bank and Ecofys, a renewable-energy consultancy. That represents nearly a doubling of such systems since 2012. All together, global carbon taxes and trading systems are estimated to value just under $50 billion, according to the World Bank and Ecofys.

But not all carbon-pricing systems are created equal. Critics of cap-and-trade systems, for example, often tout trading mechanisms as inequitable. If a polluting plant can still pay to pollute, the argument goes, the poorer communities where such plants are often located will continue to bear the brunt of poor air quality. Environmental justice groups often advocate on behalf of a flat carbon tax or, more simply, mandatory emissions cuts (and more recently, “revenue-neutral” policies like fee and dividend). Under the World Bank’s definition, all of the above (except mandatory emissions cuts) count as carbon pricing.

Cap-and-trade systems are also often criticized for their frequent inability to actually achieve anything. If the cap — which effectively sets the price — is set too high, the price will be too low. What’s more is that many international attempts at constructing carbon markets have been met with rampant corruption.

The thing is, when a proper carbon price works, it really works. Maza continues:

Launched in 2008, British Columbia’s carbon tax is lauded for its revenue-neutral design. A reduction in income taxes offsets a new levy on the carbon content of fuels. The result? Per-person consumption of fuels dropped by 16 percent from 2008 to 2013 while economic growth kept pace with the rest of Canada, according to Sustainable Prosperity, an Ottawa-based think tank. Income and corporate taxes, meanwhile, were slashed, and the program earned the praise of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. By 2012, the province’s emissions including carbon offsets had dropped 6 percent below 2007 levels, meeting an interim goal on the path to cutting emissions 80 percent by mid-century.

But British Columbia is a singular case. One of the problems with the numbers game here is that the global supply of carbon pollution is still ill-defined; and this fact, in turn, makes the environmental externalities exceptionally difficult to price. A flat carbon tax wouldn’t accurately reflect environmental degradation if we’re still burning enough carbon to cause self-amplifying, runaway climate effects.

Put another way: Without a global carbon budget — a final, set amount of fossil fuel reserves that the world agrees it will distribute and burn, such that projected atmospheric CO2 levels remain safe — any price still feels hand-wavy.

And sure, the chances of adopting a global carbon budget in Paris are smaller than Bobby Jindal’s chances at the White House, but the most recent draft negotiating text saw the idea’s resurfacing (after briefly disappearing from the negotiating table in a previous, slimmed-down draft). If there’s any reason to cross your fingers, it’s for the resurgence of a budget. It’s one of the only ways to ensure the global economy will actually keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Of course, with any luck, both ideas — a global carbon budget and the endorsement of pricing mechanisms — will worm their way into the final Paris agreement. It’s exceptionally unlikely; but hey, a climate hawk can dream.

Source:

Everyone’s favorite climate change fix

, The Christian Science Monitor.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Original article:  

The state of carbon pricing is messier than we might like to think

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Oster, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The state of carbon pricing is messier than we might like to think

Bernie Sanders Wants DOJ to Investigate “Potential Fraud” by Exxon Over Climate Research

The presidential candidate argued the company’s actions could “qualify as a violation of federal law.” Albert H. Teich/Shutterstock Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday joined a push for the Department of Justice to investigate allegations that ExxonMobil hid research confirming fossil fuels contribute significantly to climate change. In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Sanders accused the oil giant of a ”potential instance of corporate fraud,” which he added could “ultimately qualify as a violation of federal law.” “Exxon Mobil knew the truth about fossil fuels and climate change and lied to protect their business model at the expense of the planet,” Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, wrote. Last week, two House Democrats sent Lynch a very similar letter, pressing her to launch an investigation into Exxon’s actions. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, another Democratic presidential candidate, has also indicated support for an official inquiry. The requests come after in-depth reports by the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News revealed that decades of research conducted by senior Exxon scientists warned burning fossil fuels could lead to increasing global temperatures. […] Last week, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said the company “unequivocally” rejects the allegations outlined in the articles and letters being sent to Lynch. “Suggestions that ExxonMobil suppressed its climate research are completely without merit,” Jeffers said. Read the rest at The Huffington Post. Jump to original –  Bernie Sanders Wants DOJ to Investigate “Potential Fraud” by Exxon Over Climate Research ; ; ;

Continue reading – 

Bernie Sanders Wants DOJ to Investigate “Potential Fraud” by Exxon Over Climate Research

Posted in FF, GE, OXO, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Wants DOJ to Investigate “Potential Fraud” by Exxon Over Climate Research

Science Just Proved That Donald Trump Is Totally Wrong

This September was the hottest on record. Donald Trump loves to tweet about how climate change is a hoax, especially when he personally feels cold. Because, you know, if global warming is really real, then it will never be cold anywhere ever again. (Just kidding. Winter is still a thing.) He was at it again on Monday, tweeting that since it was “really cold outside,” we “could use a big fat dose of global warming!” Sick burn, Donald! Indeed, it’s been kind of cold on the East Coast over the last week. But, Trump’s local weather report notwithstanding, 2015 is still on track to be the warmest year on record, globally. And today, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released data showing that this September was the hottest September on record (the records go back to 1880), following an August that also experienced record-breaking heat. Here’s NOAA’s latest map, showing that in September, much of the globe had record or above-average temperatures: NOAA The dark red blob off the US West Coast is El Niño, which is continuing to strengthen and is expected to produce above-average rain and snowfall in California this winter (although probably not enough to end the state’s epic drought). Sorry, Donald. I think we have a big enough dose of global warming already. Originally posted here:  Science Just Proved That Donald Trump Is Totally Wrong ; ; ;

Link:

Science Just Proved That Donald Trump Is Totally Wrong

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Science Just Proved That Donald Trump Is Totally Wrong

Benghazi Staffers Spent Their Days Designing Personalized "Tiffany Glocks"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Who said this?

He described to CNN an office environment in which employees spent their days Web surfing and sometimes drinking at work. He said staffers joined a “gun buying club” for “chrome-plated, monogrammed, Tiffany-style Glock 9-millimeters,” and some would spend hours at a time at work designing the personalized weapons.

Answer: Maj. Bradley Podliska, a former member of the House Benghazi committee, who claims he was fired for refusing to spend his time focused solely on Hillary Clinton instead of actually investigating Benghazi. I don’t know yet if I believe him, but the whole Tiffany Glock thing sounds way too weird to have been made up.

Original link: 

Benghazi Staffers Spent Their Days Designing Personalized "Tiffany Glocks"

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Benghazi Staffers Spent Their Days Designing Personalized "Tiffany Glocks"