Fair enough...I haven't seen the whole clip.  I will view it.

Even if you believe that Issa handled it in a necessary manner...why would anyone be surprised with the way in Holder responded?  The title of the post was the "holder attacks issa", I think any high ranking government official would have attacked Issa in that situation.

No one doubts we are in a fight and we should act like it.  However, one doesn't need to behave like Issa in order to engage in that fight.  Throwing out accusations and appearing as if intentionally preventing the witness from responding is not the way to go about it.  If the public watches any of this, he does not come off well.

It makes no difference whether I think it is true or not but, I think it is generally true.  Look, if you think Issa's conduct is fine, more power to you but it is not helping he cause.

I think this is mostly beside the point.  Even if his behavior is unacceptable, does it further Issa's cause or progress on the issue at hand to make serious accusations and then attempt to prevent the witness from responding?  I don't think so.

It is not an issue of extending courtesy, it is a matter of Issa behaving professionally.  He mad a serious accusation against the witness and then tried to move on very quickly. 

Let's just assume all that is true.  That still doesn't excuse Issa from making an accusation in that forum and then trying to swiftly move on to other questions.  I have zero sympathy for Holder but he had a right and, frankly, a necessity to respond in kind.  Issa did himself or the cause no favors with that exchange.

Agree with this to some extent.  I am drawn to humor as well and feel like I can separate the message from the political leanings of the messenger.  The problem I have had the past 5-10 years is that too much politics has become a part of the program (also in a mean spirited way) and that the constant strawmen make the overall much less funny.   Embellishment and exaggeration is funny when the premise is true or at least has a general truth embedded in it.  These days it just seems more that jokes are the side show and the intent is to deliver a specific message, accurate or not.  It is much better when it is the opposite.

 I am in the 3/4 camp.  The actual measured warming over the past 150 years seems, by most accounts and several different pieces of evidence, to be legit.  I am TBD on the extent of man's cause and most policy responses seem mind numbingly stupid and driven by a religious-like belief and a desire for bigger government.  It is a dream for leftists and in many instances, a strong rent seeking motive by companies and venture capitalists. 

A thought experiment I like to use is to wonder if all the "believers" would be happy if we found definitive proof that climate change is nothing to worry about and we can go about a fossil-fuel burning lives.  I am certain the answer is no.  Kind of like Al Sharpton having no interest in happy race relations and a fully "color blind" society.

Also, I find that (as others have noted) that a lot of the people screaming "science" don't have the first clue what science actually is.  The method, falsifiability, etc.  As it pertains to climate change, climate science to me seems no different that many of the "social science" disciplines.

How about Naked Gun?  Leslie Nielsen was a genius the umpire scene is possibly the funniest 10 minutes in movie history.

"A bunch of bombs in the air..."

"Hey, its Enrico Pillazzo"

".......Strike?"

"Steeeeeriiiiiiiiike three!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"He was safe, he never tagged him with the ball.  It was a force out you idiot, he doesn't need to tag him.  Yeah?  You're outta here!!!"

"Give me a minute, I will slip into something more comfortable"

One thing that I always find amusing is that the per capital spending with worse outcomes (very debatable but let's assume it is true) is one of the first arguments those on the left use when deriding our health care system.  This very same fact seems to cause them no consternation when it comes to education.   Tells you a lot.

Exactly....the premise in the first commercial is simply false to any sort of objective observer.  If she doesn't think we have invested enough in education over the past 40 years, I shudder to think how much (in actual $ terms) she things we should spend.

It's my responsibility until I decide its yours.

It seems to me that there is an element missing from this analysis.  Which is does the permanent presence you propose result in a higher probability of hostilities against the US elsewhere in the world.  This is most certainly a "cost" of the your plan and that cost is not meaningless.

I can speak from experience.  It hasn't changed all that much.  My experience was in the 90's though.  My post was a bit tongue-in-cheek which is why I used the word "officially"...perhaps I should have italicized.

If everyone without a brain was not allowed to go to college as you suggest, then we would have to get ride of at least 50% of the existing student population.  They belong there no more than the scholarship athletes.  And, by the way, most football programs that provide scholarships, do make money.  The rest of the athletic departments, no so much.