One of the questions posed by those who aren't satisfied with simplistic answers ala the banks-are-responsible-for-all-bad-things (as well as the increasingly phony labeling of good & bad based upon "establishment" or not) relates to the obvious consequences of indiscriminate, emotional bashing of the country's economic institutions and other forms of wherewithal.  To hear Sanders tell it anymore--to the NY Daily News & later interviews--it really isn't up to him to address consequences, including job loss of those employed in the banking structure (or the Wall Street structure or the corporate structure.  That brushing-it-off response tells me loud & clear that he has not given much thought to the very negative effects on regular, human employees that would roll & ripple throughout the system.  

The economic system that spawned the growing gap between rich & poor must be addressed.  That understanding is almost universal ... and Senator Sanders, as well as Senator Warren, deserve much credit for singularly identifying a principal ingredient of a growing economic dilemma.  It is especially important to deal with the full circumstances ... e.g., the whole lending & shadow-banking structure  AND the recognition that as people are dislocated (and they will be should the re-structuring be meaningfully large), we have a responsibility to deal with transitional consequences such as job loss.  It ain't just about rallies and exhortations.  

Like most everything Disney, its relationship with the diverse reality that defines California is somewhat tenuous at best -- but hey, it's Disney! It is what it is. Those who seek reality can go hang out at the Chevron station on the corner of Florence and Normandie in south-central L.A., bus tables at the Cheesecake Factory in Rancho Mirage, or spend a weekend up north picking tomatoes and strawberries in Salinas Valley.

So your entire suggested premise that this operation was somehow Hillary Clinton's baby from start to finish is fundamentally fact-free and categorically false. She and President Obama were merely supporting the publicly stated French position, that's all.

The French had been facing off against Khadafy for the better part of three decades, defending his sub-Saharan neighbors in Chad and Niger from his intrigues. When the opportunity presented itself to perhaps take him out, as it did with the popular uprising against his rule in Benghazi and Cyrenaica, then-French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe informed his U.S. and NATO counterparts in February 2011 that his country was prepared to act alone if necessary.

France is the fifth largest military power in the world. Its armed forces had more than enough firepower itself to take down Khadafy, and then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy made it perfectly clear that his government intended to intervene to protect the civilian population in Cyrenaica from Khadafy's murderous onslaught. And make no mistake, Khadafy was indeed about to slaughter his own people for having the temerity to openly oppose his rule, and in fact had already begun to do so.

France has a long history of unilateral military intervention in Africa. It did so just recently in Mali to prop up the local government in response to the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalist insurgents associated with al Qa'eda. Further, the French generally do not seek U.S. permission and prior concurrence before embarking on such operations.

Further, I already told you all this in great detail once before, and provided a lot of supporting documentation to that effect. But apparently you're not interested in listening to any facts that run counter to your preferred demagogic narrative, in which Hillary Clinton is the present source of all that's evil in this world.

Do we bear some responsibility for Libya's present failed state in the wake of Khadafy's downfall? Absolutely, we do -- but certainly not the the virtual exclusion of our NATO allies, whom you conveniently ignore in your all-too-apparent eagerness to lay this entire matter at the feet of Mrs. Clinton and President Obama.

Suffice to say that if you have a gripe about Moammar Khadafy being taken down, then you ought to take it up with Paris and London, who would've done so anyway -- with or without our support. Our own military's involvement in that particular intervention was negligible, and our government's role was restricted to that of good ally and supporting player.

Personally, I think that Lacob is making a big mistake in abandoning Oakland for a presently trendy and fashionable San Francisco address. There was a good reason why the former San Francisco Warriors eventually located across the bay in the first place.

After all, one mustn't assume that the Warriors are going to remain magnificent in perpetuity. The Chicago Bulls have only enjoyed seven winning seasons since Michael Jordan departed 18 years ago. As for the once-vaunted L.A. Lakers, well, can we say "16 and 64," boys and girls?

Although Gerald Ford had assumed the presidency in August 1974 having first refused to consider a pardon for Richard Nixon, he began to reassess his options when his very first press conference, which he had called to offer some economic proposals, was instead peppered with reporters' questions about his predecessor's legal disposition, and whether or not the Justice Dept. was going to seek his indictment.

As distasteful and regrettable as Ford's pardon of Nixon was, it nevertheless had the intended effect of forcing the country to move on from Watergate, given that it had left us effectively adrift in the respective realms of foreign and economic policy.

And let's also remember that Nixon could have refused the pardon, since its acceptance meant that he legally assumed personal responsibility for his likely criminal behavior during his time in office. He accepted the pardon.

President Ford was well aware of the enormous political risk such a pardon would pose to his standing as president. Indeed, his decision angered most everyone at the time, which was quite understandable given both what Nixon had just put this country through, and all the political turmoil which had remained in his turbulent wake. At that point, people wanted to see Nixon's head on a pike, and Ford's pardon had denied them that satisfaction. His own press secretary resigned in protest and disgust.

The Nixon pardon probably compromised fatally any chance on Ford's part to be elected president in his own right two years hence. But then, so did Ford's decision five months later to allow South Vietnam to fall to Communist forces, rather than authorize further military intervention on behalf of a cause that was already long lost. That profound change in U.S. Cold War policy wound up fueling Ronald Reagan's right-wing insurgent campaign to topple him in the subsequent 1976 Republican presidential primaries.

But to Ford's everlasting credit, he made two very tough but nevertheless decisive calls in both of these emotionally charged and highly controversial issues. And as even Sen. Edward Kennedy came to agree, Ford showed tremendous political courage by acting in what he considered to be in the nation's long-term best interests, even though those two decisions ultimately cost him his job.

When Kennedy presented former President Ford with the Profile in Courage Award in 2001, he predicted -- as have many historians -- that Ford would eventually be vindicated by the verdict of history. Because even though his decisions proved to be highly unpopular with many people at the time, hindsight and perspective now show us that they were likely the right things to do, given the choices that were on the table at the time.

As for the refusal of many Republicans to this day to recognize Richard Nixon's crimes for what they were, that wholesale and unreasonable denial of truth and reality is all on them, and not on Gerald Ford.

1. paid sick leave
   
2. paid holidays
   
3. health insurance.

"The argument for a union exemption for minimum wage is that workers represented by unions have the ability to bargain for a combination of wages, benefits and working conditions that works best for them," says Chris Tilly, an urban planning professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/30/la-union-wants-to-be-exempt-from-15-minimum-wage.html

He had a huge family, which included older siblings, so I was always hungover and that is one of those smells you don't want to smell first thing after a good bender.
--------------

I don't eat chicken, never have, and when the whole waffles and chicken thing came out, I thought for years the badder had chicken bits in it.  I hate the smell and taste of chicken and I thought that is absolutely the foulest sounding thing one could eat.  Then I saw a little kid order them and they brought out waffles w/ chicken wings on the side.  

Your silliness on all things Sanders is just getting old.  Last week it was he's not good with money, and that is bad, this week if he is good with it, that is bad.

pretty clear.
But just in case, here is my position
not good with money = bad
good with money = I am glad.
As far as I am concerned, if you want to be POTUS, you should at least be able to demonstrate that you can handle your own finances.