Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 29, 2016, 02:44:52 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96164 Posts in 2316 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 163
101  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: June 21, 2016, 03:32:02 PM
"how politics trumped science in the early spread of AIDS in NYC back in the 1980s"

That was the story of Arthur Ashe.  At 36, he was in NYC working with inner city youth, suffered a heart attack that he survived.  He was given HIV through NYC's contaminated blood supply during a transfusion.  Dead at age 49.
102  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff ) Terror Watch List? on: June 20, 2016, 09:48:05 PM
Leftism and guns, the goal is restrict something, anything, just get restrictions passed on guns.  The latest is the terror watch list, ban the sale of guns to people on the "terror watch list", whatever that is.  1.1 million people.  Makes sense.  Unless you examine it.

A couple of points on that.  First is the trick question, which is your favorite right in the Bill of Rights?  Hopefully ALL of them!  In this case, not just the second amendment applies but also due process, the 5th (and 14th).

"[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

I am against selling weapons to terrorists.  Are the 1.1 million people on the terror watch list terrorists?

If you go back to the due process clause, the ones we know are terrorists aren't out buying guns; they are in prison or dead.

Was Omar dumbshit, the gay hating gay Muslim ISIS surrogate (don't want to know his name) on the terror watch list?  No.  He was taken off the list.  Why?  I don't know.  Bureaucrats make mistakes.  Law enforcement missed something.  He hadn't committed a crime. People who manage lists of a million people don't get everything right.  Maybe it was 4:00 in a government office when his name should have been re-entered.  Some didn't want to speak up against him because he was Muslim.  Whatever the reason, this wouldn't have stopped him.  Does that change the minds of liberals?  No.   Their goal is restrict something, anything, just get some restrictions passed on guns.  (I repeat myself.  So do they.)

I am for declaring war on Radical Islam in all its iterations.  If that were the case and if law enforcement and military  intelligence were on it, the man who was communicating with, visiting and training with the enemy would be in jail, so would all his mentors, all with due process, and they would not be out buying guns.

A person on the terror watch list can't fly but can't buy a gun.  Why?  One is an enumerated right.  One is not a recognized right.  In law we have all kinds of standards. preponderance of evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rational basis, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, etc. etc.  What standard goes into putting a person on the terror watch list?  No one knows.  All we know is they aren't right or dertain enough to arrest them and they miss people all the time.

Meanwhile our border is open and while you were reading this more terrorists and illegal guns came in.  I recommend keeping the right to defend yourself.

And for the areas where the constitution has it wrong or times have changed, I recommend the constitutional amendment process, not governing by the willy nilly whims of leftists.
103  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Nafta isn't what hit the middle class, NAFTA and the Angry Middle-Class Voter on: June 20, 2016, 07:10:10 PM
First this:
I could have swore we had a thread about this already, but I can't find it , , ,  angry

A pretty balanced look at the issue.  The conclusion IMHO is in the subject line.

NAFTA and the Angry Middle-Class Voter

Professor Mauro Guillen at the Wharton School—Donald Trump’s alma matter—believes that most of the lost jobs lost would have gone anyway, probably to China...
104  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Paul Ryan on: June 20, 2016, 06:55:14 PM
More conservative than his predecessors, isn't a high bar.

People here liked Newt.  His Contract with America contained poll tested issues, not hard line right issues.   When he took a hard line with Clinton, he lost with the American people.

More conservative than half of his elected Republican colleagues isn't a high bar either.  Still I think his economic views are more conservative than his voting record and he is more conservative than DT [and HRC!] and of the Senate no matter which side carries it. 

G M, We have not been winning the debate on issues nationally for a long time.  Now our side doesn't even try. 

Speaking of national issues and conservative ratngs, what would Trump's lifetime ACU rating be?  (Rhetorical, for another thread...)
105  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: June 20, 2016, 06:42:58 PM
Large arsenal of heavy military weapons found near mosque in Hamburg Germany.
..."suspected that secret arsenals were also built in other German cities."

shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked

Just a little over-used, but what could possibly go wrong?  And who knew?  [gallows humor is all I have fleft]

The connection between Hamburg and terror goes back at least to the 911 planning.  Now the Islamist terrorists in Germany have a million new recruiting prospects to work with.  Maybe they will find a "lone wolf" to train and arm...
106  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Paul Ryan, most conservative Speaker in our lifetime on: June 20, 2016, 06:28:37 PM
Some discussion, mostly negative, of Paul Ryan on the DT thread:

'Conservative Review rates him at 55%', not very good. 

The American Conservative Union rates Paul Ryan at 90%, lifetime score:

In the age of Obama elected twice and Bernie Sanders being possible, we might consider ourselves a little bit lucky to have the most conservative Speaker in our lifetime, even though his record is far from pure.

Heritage is more pure than ACU, rates him at 63%; that's not great either, but only one Democrat in the House scores over 30%, Obamacare dissenter, Collin Peterson, representing western MN at 34%.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, link below:
"Ryan has taken a pragmatic tack in voting to keep the government going and avert shutdowns and crippling standoffs over the vast policy gulf between the parties. That approach puts him at odds with some more militant Republicans."
Another point would be that Ryan represents divided district that voted for Obama 2008 by 4 points.  The alternative to a stay elected stance by a Republican is to have a leftist in that seat.  Also, no more conservative member either wanted the Speakership or had the votes.  We perhaps need to move the voters to the right first before expecting purists to win national elections.
---  (written just before Ryan became speaker)

"Despite his critics on the right, Paul Ryan would rank as most conservative speaker in decades"

By Craig Gilbert of the Journal Sentinel

Paul Ryan would be the most conservative House speaker in generations, as measured by a congressional rating system widely used by political scientists.

But he's not conservative enough for some activists on the right, who are voicing qualms about a Ryan speakership.

That development probably says less about Ryan's own politics — which have changed little over the years — than it does about the growing militancy of the GOP's right wing.

The Janesville Republican is being lobbied to succeed John Boehner as speaker in the midst of a party leadership crisis. Ryan says he doesn't want the job, but many colleagues are trying to change his mind.

The opposition to Ryan — or, at the very least, the tepid reception to him — isn't widespread and may not be powerful enough to derail a "draft Ryan" effort. But the fact that questions are being raised about his House conservatism is striking considering the nine-term congressman's longtime popularity with the right and his own political history.

Ryan's House budgets and his "road map" for the future (a controversial manifesto of conservative change) were hailed on the right as trailblazing blueprints for limited government.

Ryan's selection as Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012 was embraced by conservatives who wanted to draw a sharper ideological contrast with President Barack Obama.

And Ryan's voting record has consistently placed him in the right half of the Republican caucus in the House.

The number of policy issues on which Ryan parts company with the GOP's conservative base is quite small.

But the biggest fault lines in the party these days are over tone and tactics.

Ryan has taken a pragmatic tack in voting to keep the government going and avert shutdowns and crippling standoffs over the vast policy gulf between the parties. That approach puts him at odds with some more militant Republicans.

Nevertheless, his voting history in the U.S. House places him to the right of current Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and former Majority Leader Eric Cantor, according to the leading academic ratings of congressional voting pioneered by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal.

That history also puts Ryan to the right of the three previous GOP speakers of the postwar era: Dennis Hastert (speaker from 1999 to 2007), Newt Gingrich (1995-'99) and Joseph Martin (1953-'55).

The notion that Ryan isn't conservative is "absolutely insane," says Keith Poole, the University of Georgia professor and a creator of the rankings. His data suggests that if anything, Ryan has grown a bit more conservative during his 17 years in the House.

But because House Republicans have shifted so much to the right during his career, Ryan's conservative ranking in his caucus is a little lower than it used to be. In Ryan's first two years in office, he ranked as the 18th most conservative member of the House, according to the ratings. But he ranked as the 51st most conservative Republican in the last Congress (2013-'14).

Poole has a separate set of ratings that measure a lawmaker's entire career and are comparable across time periods.

Ryan's career score places him to right of 84% of the House Republicans he served with in his first term (1999-2000). It puts him to the right of only 65% of today's House Republicans, due to the changing political makeup of the GOP caucus.

The Poole-Rosenthal ratings are based on a broad cross-section of roll call votes.

Ryan's roll call ratings from conservative organizations are based on a much more selective pool of votes, and vary from group to group.

Ryan has a 90% lifetime rating from the 51-year-old American Conservative Union. But he has a much lower lifetime rating — 63% — from Heritage Action for America, a tea party-style group that takes a more purist and confrontational line on legislation.

Complaints about Ryan from his critics on the right typically fall into a few categories:

■ Ryan's support for spending bills and legislative compromises designed to keep the government running and avert a crisis. One example: the deal Ryan cut with Senate Democrat Patty Murray in 2013, passed overwhelmingly by the House, to temporarily lift some spending caps to resolve a budget standoff.

■ Immigration. Ryan supports a lengthy "probation" for illegal immigrants and conditional path to legal status. He is among the more liberal House Republicans on this issue. But Ryan has also been careful not to drift too far from his caucus, agreeing with most Republicans that enforcement and security should come first. On arguably the biggest immigration vote in the House in the past decade, Ryan voted for the hard-line, conservative 2005 immigration bill authored by Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and decried by Latino groups and immigration advocates.

■ A series of votes that Ryan cast during George W. Bush's presidency for the No Child Left Behind education law, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the auto and bank bailouts in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis. These votes were in support of a GOP president, but have drawn sharp criticism from some on the right. Beyond these items, there aren't that many issues where Ryan has split from conservatives. He has opposed efforts to end Davis-Bacon, the prevailing wage requirement on federally funded public works projects. He has opposed efforts to end Trade Adjustment Assistance, the program that aids workers displaced by foreign trade. He supported renewal in 2013 of the Violence Against Women Act, opposed by a majority of Republicans, to cite a few examples.

On the vast majority of contested issues before Congress, however, Ryan has cast conservative votes. And he has spent much of his career pushing the GOP in a more conservative direction on the role of government and urging his party to be bolder in drawing contrasts with Democrats.

If Ryan ends up as House Speaker, the GOP will be getting a leader who has been more conservative over his career than the average Republican, and more conservative than his predecessors in party leadership.

   - Craig Gilbert is the Journal Sentinel's Washington Bureau Chief and writes the Wisconsin Voter blog about politics and elections.
107  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 20, 2016, 12:43:06 PM
I don't see Ryan as a RINO.  I agree (mostly) with him on policy, just not on how to conduct war with the left.  To be fair, he led the charge against Obamacare and has been the Speaker for about a minute - in an election year.  I expect his policy agenda to be the best available blueprint going forward (it just won't be implemented).

That said, he was soft on illegal immigration - the Trump opening, and soft on de-funding leftism - the Cruz opening.

On the current course, assuming Trump loses and R's lose the Senate and win the House, Ryan may all we have left.  I do not expect his long term approach in that situation to be the same as Boehner's.  If Trump can win, Ryan will be necessary for anything good to happen.

I have no problem with him presenting the House as a check and balance over a President within his own party.  The failure to stand up to Obama is a past mistake from which Republicans may never recover.  It divided the movement and empowered the opposition.

"So what do we do now?  I don't know."

We picked the wrong guy.  70% negatives.  Makes Hillary look popular.  Who could have seen this coming?  whatever...

The only guy who can solve it now is Trump.  If the delegates suddenly switched allegiances and installed Rubio, Kasich, Walker or anyone else as nominee right now we would divide and lose even worse.  God help us.

My thought is that I will support and help Trump make his journey to becoming a better candidate and President who will make America Great Again by openly criticizing him on every policy and statement that deserves it.  Same goes for Ryan his new role.
108  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The "lone wolf" terrorist is a myth on: June 20, 2016, 12:12:15 PM

That's right.  Lone wolf is an apologist concoction that cannot be accepted where it is not true.

You can't (falsely) holler "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because of the mayhem it could cause, but you can openly recruit for al Qaida and ISIS on the internet and disseminate bomb and terror info?

These psycho morons want to be part of something.  And they want their carnage to be super-broadcasted in false glory to themselves and as an example and inspiration for others to follow.  We strangely do everything we can to accommodate their wishes.

It was actually Bill O'Reilly who had one aspect of this right, declare war on ISIS and radical Islam and then these activities of training, even communicating, with the enemy would be criminal.
109  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 20, 2016, 11:24:40 AM
Has Ryan done anything of note to stand up to president pen-and-drone?

Not to my knowledge. 

The Obama leftist over-reach brought us the Republican House and eventually the Senate.  The failure of both to stand up to him brought us the Trump opening and Ted Cruz as the last reasonable alternative.  Neither were ready or positioned to win a general election.  The Trump nomination victory is bringing us more leftist over-reach. 

Full circle.  Stuck on stupid.

Republican-run House.  Republican majority Senate (not 60 votes).  31 Republican Governors to 18 for the Dems.  70% of the state houses are now Republican because of distaste for leftism out in the heartland.  And we are still ruled by Leftism everywhere.

Politically we were better off watching them run us into the ground than helping them do it.
110  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Loretta Lynch: We're not going to further proclaim this man's pledges to [ISIS] on: June 20, 2016, 10:44:43 AM
In an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that on Monday, the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage.

"What we're not going to do is further proclaim this man's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda," Lynch said. "We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State]."

Islam in America and Obama Dept of Truth Ministry:  Exposing his training and motives wouldn't further our goals of stomping on the rights of innocent people and calling this man a lone wolf.
111  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / War on the rule of law, "This is how I was treated by the IRS" on: June 20, 2016, 10:31:48 AM
This summarizes the Presidency of Barack Obama and the continuation of this national nightmare under the name of Hillary Clinton.  Obama has not answered to Fast and Furious or to the IRS scandal that helped him get fraudulently reelected in a way far worse than Richard Nixon.  No one has been fired, arrested or prosecuted.  Hillary Clinton worked on the Nixon impeachment and has not distanced herself from the Obama administration scandals.  Waiting for "the media" to pursue this is beyond foolish.  Trump's strength supposedly was to control the media coverage in his favor.  None of that is happening.  This treatment described here is obscene, unworthy of happening in the Soviet Union or PRC.  It is on a par with tanks rolling over protesters in Tiananmen Square.  Worse in a way because of how it is swept under the carpet where the PRC wanted all potential protesters to see their carnage.

Here it is, for all who read PJ Media or DBMA forum, to see:
(I better post the entire text in case the government censors take the story down.)

To save on accounting fees, I did much of the legwork. I mailed the heavy envelope with my $850 fee to the IRS on February 8, 2013. The IRS cashed my check -- but the three-month mark, by which we were told we could expect a response, passed.

Then the process became Kafkaesque -- not American.

We called as instructed. We were told we were not assigned an agent yet. We were told we could not be told when we would be assigned an agent. We were told to call back. We did. We were sent a form saying there were problems with the application.

We asked what kinds of problems. We were told that we could not be told. They would assign us an agent. When would we be assigned an agent? The IRS woman impatiently said she did not know.

We waited, long past the three-month mark. And past our opportunity to hold a 2013 year-end fundraiser. I continued to post and speak, and I published three educational guidebooks.

But over a year passed. I called my senator’s office. After several correspondences, we were told we had been assigned an agent.

On May 16, 2014, our – ahem -- Cincinnati-based agent sent an “Information Request” consisting of seven multi-part objections -- with a two-and-a-half week deadline to respond. I was floored. She ended up granting us several extra days.
To save on accounting fees, I did much of the legwork. I mailed the heavy envelope with my $850 fee to the IRS on February 8, 2013. The IRS cashed my check -- but the three-month mark, by which we were told we could expect a response, passed.

Then the process became Kafkaesque -- not American.

We called as instructed. We were told we were not assigned an agent yet. We were told we could not be told when we would be assigned an agent. We were told to call back. We did. We were sent a form saying there were problems with the application.

We asked what kinds of problems. We were told that we could not be told. They would assign us an agent. When would we be assigned an agent? The IRS woman impatiently said she did not know.

We waited, long past the three-month mark. And past our opportunity to hold a 2013 year-end fundraiser. I continued to post and speak, and I published three educational guidebooks.

But over a year passed. I called my senator’s office. After several correspondences, we were told we had been assigned an agent.

On May 16, 2014, our – ahem -- Cincinnati-based agent sent an “Information Request” consisting of seven multi-part objections -- with a two-and-a-half week deadline to respond. I was floored. She ended up granting us several extra days.

The IRS had three types of objections to our application: minor paperwork, a financial inquest, and ideological accusations.

The paperwork, involving a signature and a confusingly worded line on the application, could have been handled quickly by telephone.

The other categories were clearly intended to harass.

One amounted to an audit. An audit not on an existing organization, but on one still applying for status.

In the standard 501(c)(3) application, the IRS only asks for projected expenses, not exact amounts or names of vendors.

But now, still in the application process, we were asked to account -- down to the penny -- for such things as office supplies, honoraria to bloggers (ranging from $0 to $25), and professional fees. They wanted names of bloggers, contributors to guidebooks, and vendors -- how much each was paid, for which project, and what purpose. They wanted percentages of “time and resources” spent on named activities.

We then faced an ideological inquisition on … Common Core. Remember, the IRS granted non-profit status to the multi-million dollar agency that wrote the Common Core standards, namely the Bill Gates-funded Achieve.

They asked us to describe:

… the percentage of your total [Common Core] expenditures and total time spent on these activities during each of your past taxable years.
They also wanted future estimates. Then, they demanded:

Submit representative copies of the materials you prepare or distribute in furtherance of these activities.
Another demand they made was laughably harassing considering the information they already:

For purposes of calculating the percentage of expenditures, allocate salaries, administrative, overhead, and other general expenditures to these activities using a reasonable method. For purposes of calculating the percentage of time, include volunteer as well as employee hours.
Remember, it was pretty much me in the basement. I described my one-woman efforts in a recent post.

We finally received approval on September 2014. They forced me to waste money and time when we should have been building on the momentum of our launch and fundraising. Other groups also lost opportunities, namely in 2012.

That’s how this IRS, this administration, works.


112  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Germany on: June 20, 2016, 09:48:30 AM

Google translation

NRW: arsenal with "heavy weapons of war" near mosque excavated

Epoch Times, Sunday, June 19, 2016 20:27
An arsenal of radical Islamists was dug in NRW. The "top-secret mission" had taken place about a week ago and promoted heavy military weapons to days. This was reported by the Hessian MPs Ismail Tipi (CDU).

According to information of the Hesse CDU deputies Ismail Tipi there has been a "top secret use" of seks in England about a week ago. In the refrigerator of a greengrocer near a mosque it said to have been found and seized weapons. "According to my information, a weapons cache was excavated with heavy military weapons in this operation. The danger of arming the fundamentalist violent Salafists in Germany is very large. That makes this secret use more than clear, "said Tipi on Friday in a press release .
The extremism -expert suspected that secret arsenals were also built in other German cities. So the Hamburg domestic intelligence speak for example, of an increase of supporters of armed jihad.

Meanwhile these are in Hamburg more than 300 identified supporters. "The information here on multiply. The fear is great that Salafist sleeper, jihadists and IS-terrorists found in Germany support from foreign intelligence services, which are not minded us amicably. By arsenals the sleepers and militant jihadists can be equipped on the way to their possible attack with weapons. Just something I always feared, "the Turkish origin MPs.

"Politicians must speak plainly"
Tipi admonishes: "If substantiate the fears, we can assume that the secret arsenals for a major terrorist attack not only in Germany but in the whole of Europe are used. It would be grossly negligent if we do not recognize this danger and not uncover these arsenals. "One problem is that many battle-hardened young Salafists have returned from combat zones to Germany and the migration stream many endangerers were introduced, the press release continues.

"We have to see this threat and act as quickly as possible. Here our security authorities have been invited should take a close look to determine precisely and to report any indications of all security-related enforcement and intelligence agencies, "said Tipi.
He asks: "Politicians need to talk, to highlight the potential dangers and threats, to educate the population and to encourage you that you can be awake and must report any kind of police observation plaintext. The problem of Salafism and IS-terror is increasing, if we do not all react. Here is every single demand. "

Tipis political commitment against radical Salafists already led to death threats against his person.
113  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 20, 2016, 09:37:36 AM
Ryan is wrong here, very wrong on more than one level.

Legally he is wrong-- the president does have this power

On the merits he is wrong.

Politically he is wrong-- this elects Hillary.
   angry angry cry

People, especially Trump, put the wrong emphasis on his controversial, 'ban all Muslims' statement""

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"

We've been through this since Trump entered the race.  That statement was intended to inflame and divide.  He should have instantly switched the emphasis to THIS ADMINISTRATION NOT KNOWING OR ADMITTING WHAT IS GOING ON.

The time it takes for our country's representatives to figure out what is going on should be instantaneous.  On Day One of the Trump administration, we would figure out what is going on, right?  So there was no ban on "all Muslims" coming.  Yet Ryan and others are constantly being pressured to respond to whatever the apparent nominee of his own party is saying.

The refugee crisis was caused by this administration's failures in that region.  The refugees include some 10% who are jihadists coming here to potentially kill us and a much larger percentage who side with ISIS and the enemies of the US.

e pluribus unem - out of many, one.  That is what we are and who we are.  It is not what those coming in now seek.

Fine to blame Ryan on the details of his statement, the legal aspects of one branch challenging another (as if Obama appointed judges would side with the law), but his need to distance himself and House Republicans from this assault on all Muslims was Donald Trump's creation.

In fact, we will only solve this global security crisis when all peaceful Muslims (yes, there is such a thing and there needs to be!) are able to separate themselves from the radical jihadists.

G M wrote, "I can remember when I used to like Ryan".   Paul Ryan was a protege of Jack Kemp, one of the biggest proponents of opportunity economics and leader of the Reagan reforms that led to a quarter century of greatly increased prosperity.  That is my wing of the party.  Now, because of the recklessness of Donald Trump, Paul Ryan is reduced to chasing Donald Trump's shiny objects and siding with Democrats over Republicans on key points.  WHY AREN'T THEY TALKING ABOUT LOWERING THE HIGHEST BUSINESS TAX RATES IN THE WORLD?

Donald Trump wasn't going to ban all Muslims from entering the country.  He isn't going to impose 40% or 45% tariffs on Mexico or China.  He isn't going to evaluate female cabinet members by breast size.  But he is going to say things that require others to distance themselves from him.  That benefits Democrats, costs us the Senate and perhaps the House, in addition to installing Hillary Rodham Clinton in the White House.

This is Paul Ryan's fault?  Sorry, I don't see it that way.
114  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: European matters, Brexit, British exit vote from UN on: June 20, 2016, 08:53:14 AM
I wonder what our view here would be if we were British.  The Spectator UK seems to sum up my view at the moment (below).  All that is good with European affiliation is possible without taking with it all that is bad.  The UK can negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU.  Worst case if they don't out of retaliation is the 4% WTO tariff limit.   Not enough to give up sovereignty over.   Otherwise, what else do they receive with EU membership, loss of sovereignty, a failing currency, handcuffed national security, economic guarantees to failed states, and an invasion of people they are unable to control or assimilate.  The vote is this Thursday.

This article refers to the 1975 vote.  I traveled to the capitals in Europe in December 1991 in advance of the Europe '92 initiative, Maastricht Treaty that opened up European telecom networks to outside suppliers.  The free trade aspects of the European initiative have been amazingly positive.  The immigration and defense aspects have not.
"The question... is not whether Britain should co-operate with our European allies; the question is how."

"As the world’s fifth-largest economy, Britain has a reasonable chance (to put it mildly) of being able to cut trade deals with countries keen to access our consumers."

Out – and into the world: why The Spectator is for Leave

...when Britain last held a referendum...only two national titles backed what is now called Brexit: the Morning Star and The Spectator.

Our concern then was simple: we did not believe that the Common Market was just about trade. We felt it would be followed by an attempted common government, which would have disastrous effects on a continent distinguished by its glorious diversity. The whole project seemed to be a protectionist scam, an attempt to try to build a wall around the continent rather than embrace world trade. Such European parochialism, we argued, did not suit a globally minded country such as Britain. On the week of the 1975 referendum, The Spectator’s cover line was: ‘Out – and into the world.’ We repeat that line today.

Since 1975 the EU has mutated in exactly the way we then feared and now resembles nothing so much as the Habsburg Empire in its dying days. A bloated bureaucracy that has outgrown all usefulness. A parliament that represents many nations, but with no democratic legitimacy. Countries on its periphery pitched into poverty, or agitating for secession. The EU’s hunger for power has been matched only by its incompetence. The European Union is making the people of our continent poorer, and less free.

This goes far beyond frustration at diktats on banana curvature. The EU has started to deform our government. Michael Gove revealed how, as a cabinet member, he regularly finds himself having to process edicts, rules and regulations that have been framed at European level. Laws that no one in Britain had asked for, and which no one elected to the House of Commons has the power to change. What we refer to as British government is increasingly no such thing. It involves the passing of laws written by people whom no one in Britain elected, no one can name and no one can remove.

Steve Hilton, David Cameron’s chief strategist for many years, gave an example of this institutional decay. A few months into his job in No. 10, he was dismayed to find his colleagues making slow progress because they were all bogged down by paperwork that he didn’t recognise. He asked for an audit, and was shocked by the results: only a third of what the government was doing was related to its agenda. Just over half was processing orders from Brussels. To him, this was more than just a headache: it was an insidious and accelerating bureaucratic takeover.

With the EU’s fundamental lack of democracy comes complacency on the part of its leaders and the corruption of those around them — which has led us to the present situation. Voters are naturally concerned about the extraordinary rise of immigration, and their governments’ inability to control it. Free movement of people might have been a laudable goal before the turn of the century, when the current global wave of migration started. But today, with the world on the move, the system strikes a great many Europeans as madness. The EU’s failure to handle immigration has encouraged the people trafficking industry, a global evil that has led to almost 3,000 deaths in the Mediterranean so far this year.

In theory, the EU is supposed to protect its member states by insisting that refugees claim asylum in the first country they enter. In practice, this law — the so-called Dublin Convention — was torn up by Angela Merkel when she recklessly said that all Syrians could settle in Germany if they somehow managed to get there. Blame lies not with the tens of thousands who subsequently arrived but with a system hopelessly unequal to such a complex and intensifying challenge.

The Spectator was, again, alone in the British press in opposing Britain’s entry to the Exchange Rate Mechanism from the beginning. Why, we asked, should the Bundesbank control another country’s interest rates? When the single currency came along, the risks became greater: what if a country’s economy crashed, but it was denied the stimulus of a devaluing currency?

The answer can now be seen across Europe. Sado–austerity in Italy. Youth unemployment of about 50 per cent in Greece and Spain. The evisceration of these economies, in the name of a project supposed to bring people together, has been a tragedy.

Last week, a Pew poll showed how far dismay about the EU extends across the continent. In Greece, 71 per cent now view the EU unfavourably; in France, it’s 61 per cent. In Britain, it was 48 per cent — about the same as Spain, Germany and the Netherlands. This was why David Cameron had a strong case for renegotiation: the demand for change was widespread, and growing. A recent poll has suggested that Swedes will vote to leave the EU if Britain does. The absence of a deal worth the name was final proof that the EU is structurally incapable of reform.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, sees intransigence as a great strength. His priority is the survival of the EU and the single currency: the welfare of Europeans and even the notion of democratic consent seem distant concerns. When he dismisses the ever-louder voices of protest as the shriek of ‘populism’, he echoes the Bertolt Brecht poem: ‘Would it not be easier… to dissolve the people/ and elect another?’ When Britain asked for reform, he took a gamble: that we were bluffing and would not dare vote to leave.

All this has placed the Prime Minister in an impossible position. Unable to make a positive case for staying in the EU, he instead tells us that Britain is trapped within it and that the penalties for leaving are too severe. His scare stories, peppered with made-up statistics, have served only to underline the emptiness of the case for remaining. It also represents a style of politics that many find repugnant. The warnings from the IMF and OECD and other acronyms have served only to reinforce the caricature of a globalised elite telling the governed what to think.

Talk of anyone being made ‘worse off’ by Brexit is deeply misleading. Of the many economists who have made projections for 2030, none have suggested that we’d be poorer. The question is whether we’d be, say, 36 per cent better off or 41 per cent better off by then. Not that anyone knows, given the monstrously large margin of error in 15-year predictions. So these studies offer no real reasons to be fearful. This is perhaps why George Osborne had to resort to concocting figures, such as his now notorious claim that households would be £4,300 worse off. If the economic case against Brexit were so strong, why would the Chancellor have to resort to fabrications?

As the world’s fifth-largest economy, Britain has a reasonable chance (to put it mildly) of being able to cut trade deals with countries keen to access our consumers. The worst-case scenario is to use World Trade Organisation rules, tariffs of about 4 per cent. That’s a relatively small mark-up, and the effect would be more than offset by a welcome drop in the pound. And if house prices fall, as the Chancellor predicts, then so much the better. A great many would-be homeowners have been praying for just that.

There would certainly be turbulence, which would be the price of our leaving the EU. This would affect City financiers more than the skilled working class (two thirds of whom support Brexit). This week, we’re being invited to panic at the prospect of a falling pound. But why? A weaker currency would give our exporters the stimulus they need.

The question at this referendum is not whether Britain should co-operate with our European allies; the question is how. Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6, has explained how our intelligence alliances are bilateral. Our closest is with the ‘five eyes’ of the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The Lancaster House agreements with France over military co-operation is another example. Alliances work when they are between nations with a shared agenda, with the ability and (crucially) the will to act.

The EU is an alliance of the unwilling, which is why it is useless on security — as we saw with Bosnia and Libya. Even the migrant crisis has to be handled by Nato, which has been the true guarantor of western security. It’s sometimes claimed that Vladimir Putin would want Britain to vote for Brexit. This is unlikely: what could suit the Kremlin more than European security being entrusted to the most dysfunctional organisation in the West?

EU campaign 520x100

As David Cameron rightly says, the British way is to fight rather than quit. Given that the EU has proved that it is structurally incapable of reform, we now have a choice. Do we cave in, because we’re too scared to leave? Or do we vote to retrieve our sovereignty, walk away from the whole racket and engage with the world on our own terms? A vote to leave would represent an extraordinary vote of confidence in the project of the United Kingdom and the principle of national self-determination. It would also show reform-minded Europeans that theirs is not a lost cause. And that we stand willing to help forge a Europe based on freedom, co–operation and respect for sovereignty.

The value of sovereignty cannot be measured by any economist’s formula. Adam Smith, the father of economics, first observed that the prosperity of a country is decided by whether it keeps its ‘laws and institutions’ healthy. This basic insight explains why nations thrive or fail, and has been the great secret of British success: intellectual, artistic, scientific and industrial. The principles of the Magna Carta and achievements of the Glorious Revolution led to our emergence as a world power. To pass up the chance to stop our laws being overridden by Luxembourg and our democracy eroded by Brussels would be a derogation of duty to this generation and the next.

No one — economist, politician or mystic — knows what tumult we can expect in the next 15 years. But we do know that whatever happens, Britain will be better able to respond and adapt as a sovereign country living under its own laws. The history of the last two centuries can be summed up in two words: democracy matters. Let’s vote to defend it on 23 June.
115  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Ben Stein : Trump is right! on: June 16, 2016, 05:48:42 PM
Ben Stein:
"Mr. Trump may have been crude in his application, but he hit it right into the grandstands with his legal analysis."

ccp:  But Ben, that IS the problem.  Not what he says but how he says it,  IMHO.

As we say in tennis, this should have been game, set and match for Trump.  

The left wants to talk gun control laws, take away self defense right while we are under attack.  Meanwhile they want to leave the borders open for not only the illegal persons invasion but for gun running, drug running, cartel running, human trafficking, and for ISIS, al Qaida, Boko Harem and the rest  to enter.

Trump ran on this issue, right from the first day.

Fast and Furious proves the case that the border under Obama not only allows guns and smugglers to cross but that our own DOJ were illegal participants in it.  Facts are still breaking; this is not old news or something already addressed.  This is just as illegal and twice as dangerous as Hillary giving the world our national security secrets and Hillary is one of the people who knew, nodded her head and looked the other way.  Remember them praising eachother about what a great job they both did.

Hillary is running for more of the same, can't barely utter the words radical Islam and wants the border open even worse.  Obama and HRC are going to let in the terrorists and let them bring their weapons and let them kill us.  Trump is going to stop all that.  Choose.
116  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gun sales surge among gays and lesbians after Orlando shooting on: June 16, 2016, 10:24:29 AM

Separate from politics and talk, this kind of thing indicates people get it.  If someone is shooting at you or at your loved ones, you would wish that you or someone with you could shoot back and end the carnage.

It is war, a 'gun law' does't stop a criminal or enemy combatant.  Mass beheading are just as gruesome as mass shootings.

(Unless the count has changed) there were 49 victims killed.  The shooter was not a victim.

117  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff ) on: June 16, 2016, 08:54:59 AM
More on O'Reilly here, debate with Jon Stewart.  I have to listen more closely but he seems to defend gun rights, crack down on crimes committed with guns, asks Congress to declare war on radical jihad. 

It was Stewart conflating the issue, gun control when the violence is radical Islam declaring and executing a war against the US and we fail to take steps to fight back.

The FBI investigates but finds a guy who hasn't committed a crime.  I am traveling and don't have the facts but wouldn't or shouldn't two trips to Saudi to meet with or train with enemies of the US constitute a crime, if that is what happened and if we had any way of knowing that?

I don't want China's censorship of internet where opposition to the state even in words is banned.  But isn't recruitment of radical Islam, on the internet or in the Mosques, to take up arms against the US and against innocent US civilians a form of speech that is NOT protected by the first amendment?  Isn't a denial of gun sales to people siding with those who have declared war against the US a reasonable restriction not in conflict at all with the second amendment?  Isn't the monitoring of some of these groups and tracking of movements and activities a normal and necessary part of national security not in violation of our privacy rights?  Doesn't a person give up some expectation of privacy and being free of surveillance when they make association with sworn, violent, mass shooting, mass beheading enemies of the United States? 

Slippery slope stuff perhaps and some of the answers need to go in the other threads, but I would pose this question here on the well armed people thread:

What stopped this shooter?  Someone with a gun shot him.

What do you wish would happen if you were trapped in this massacre while it was happening?  You wish someone would pull out a gun and shoot him.

When would be the best time to stop the shooter?  Before he entered the club ideally, but more realistically the need to shoot him was clear as soon as he first shot at innocent people.

Would the strictest gun laws possible stop radical Islam from killing us?  Couldn't he have also used a bomb or a poison gas?  Didn't the 911 hijackers use box cutters?  you won't convice the left, but the gun is not the enemy, the enemy is.

We are at war, in the sense that the enemy has declared it.  Why not identify the enemy and fight back?

The enemy isn't our own right of self defense.  The enemy in the current fight is radical Islam, wherever it rears its ugly head.  If the immediate threat came from Timothy McVeigh types, then that is where our focus should be, but our immediate threat is coming from radical Islam.  The need for law abiding citizens to take up arms and defend themselves only grows when those elected to protect us don't take the most obvious steps to protect us.
118  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: June 12, 2016, 01:45:06 PM
"Trump seems to only know attacks and slogans.
It is looking worse every day he keeps doing the same thing."

George Will said (paraphrasing), changing Trump would be like telling Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to get off of rock and roll; people want to hear chamber music.
119  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude) on: June 12, 2016, 01:40:36 PM
Shooter pledged allegiance to Islamic State and Islamic State took responsibility.

Aversion to gayness by some conservatives and some Christians is expressed quite differently than acts from Islamists.

A freedom loving, religious conservative might choose to not go to that club - and be accused of hate for  making that choice. 
120  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rest in Peace on: June 12, 2016, 11:51:46 AM
Prayers for the victims, families and friends of today's horrible massacre.
121  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the left, Shooter was a registered Democrat on: June 12, 2016, 11:45:40 AM
The shooter was a registered Democrat.  He voted in 2008 and 2012 during Obama's election and reelection.  Will that come up in the President's unavoidable talk to us.

Is that one sign of being vulnerable to becoming radicalized? The President's pastor: "God DAMN America!"

Will the President apologize - or blame Republican policies?  Tacky either way.

There is something dissonant about radical Muslims, gays (and Jews) all being constituent groups in the same political party.
122  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Texas man avaided Flood damage with plastic dam on: June 12, 2016, 11:22:21 AM

He filled 400-foot tube with water to act as giant sandbag around his house Despite odd looks from neighbors, it kept his house dry as families in the county faced mandatory evacuations He paid $8300 for dam
123  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Clinton University dollars - Laureate Education, 55 million for 16.5 million on: June 12, 2016, 11:18:03 AM
Fox News had Clinton surrogate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on, (auditioning for VP).

She turned all Hillary questions back to Trump as gracefully as she could.

Brett Baier asked her about the Hillary University dollars scandal.  She said, "well I don't know anything about that."

But she did.  They laid out all the facts on the screen, amounts of payments, timing of payments, etc.  16.5 million from the University to the Clintons.  55 million from the US taxpayer to the University, a good part of it from the State Department UNDER HER WATCH.

What she meant was, no one could have an answer for that except to say Donald Trump is worse.  But Donald Trump didn't do anything like THAT and he isn't under FBI inquiry.
124  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude) on: June 12, 2016, 11:04:00 AM
The LEFT will ignore the obvious "Islam" terror angle and probably turn this into a gun control issue.

Most underlying facts still unknown or untold.  There is an Islam angle, terror angle, gun angle, crazy person angle, political angle, disbelief, shock, grief and just human caused tragedy.

I don't know any way around it, but what these shooters want is publicity, and what we give them is all of that.

The shooting is over, almost no helpful facts are breaking and yet all networks have gone to wall to wall coverage to continue until some ratings expert tells them to go back to regular programming.

The shooter was "radicalized", they think.  Radicalized to what?  He was looked at by law enforcement a few years ago for his associations.  Associations with what?  It's Ramadan and this happened.  Did he wait for Ramadan?  Does that matter?  If you aren't radicalized, Ramadan doesn't mean shoot people.

The shooter had guns, redundancy noted.  The defenseless people being shot didn't, I assume.  Which is the significant point?  Both?

Our response is state of emergency (right after there isn't one anymore). 

Medical crews are doing everything they can, grief counselors, people coming forward to give blood and help in any way they can.  We are good at that. 

Perspectives differ.  50 senseless deaths are unthinkable.  We had 50 beheadings in an ISIS incident.  Murder toll in Chicago is 275 so far this year.  That is not a mass shooting.(?)  38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads last year, and 4.4 million injured.  Accidental, not intentional.  50-80 million killed in WWII.

Violence at Trump events was caused by Trump offending protesters.  Violence at gay event was not caused by gays who offended this shooter.

Everyone is now waiting for President Obama to make a statement.  Why?
125  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: June 12, 2016, 09:28:18 AM

Could there be any other reason for this other than the easily persuadable group of voters looking at the 2 candidates running and concluding that Obama is not so bad after all?

Worst recovery in history with domestic ad world security spiraling out of control, 54% approval??!!  This is the failure of the Republican primary campaign. 

We had 17 reasonably strong candidates competing to best explain of how Obama governed wrong and how best for Republicans can set it right.  Trump single-handedly turned that into a circular firing squad.  Now he thinks he won.  Some winner, he trails Hillary by 10 points in his own favorite poll, Reuters.   He has now driven Obama's numbers up over 50.  We know everything wrong with everyone from Jeb Bush to Scott Walker but President Barack Obama got a pass.   Trump's more unpopular than the felon Hillary.  He is poised to lose the Senate.  He still doesn't know how the economy or the nuclear triad works, thinks Mexico is in Indiana and that Indiana's problems are in Mexico.  He doesn't care about balancing the budget, reforming entitlements or stopping Putin.

I said early on that his lack of understanding and appreciation for private property rights is an indication of flaws to come.

Trump makes Barack Obama look like an experienced and effective statesman.
126  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The War on Drugs on: June 11, 2016, 11:02:31 PM
It's now a matter of looking for a needle in a pile of needles. The sheer numbers overwhelm Colorado's law enforcement capacity at this point.

Very interesting.  And no turning back.
127  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Steelers coach to host Hillary fundraiser on: June 11, 2016, 10:53:41 PM
In Hillary's defense, without her, Bill would probably be the top used car salesman in Little Rock. And/or a registered sex offender.

True.  One helliva team.  Her political instincts have been wrong about almost everything.  Still the best the Dems have found since Bill and Barack. 

If she is the smartest woman in the world, that's no way to talk about the rest.
128  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Journal of Political Science, Epic Correction on: June 10, 2016, 08:22:05 AM
This is the journal that published a finding much beloved of liberals a few years back that purported to find scientific evidence that conservatives are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness, and that the supposed “authoritarian” personality of conservatives might even have a genetic basis (and therefore be treatable someday?).

The authors regret that there is an error in the published version of “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1), 34–51. The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed.
129  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / U.S. Taxpayers Are Funding Iran's Military Expansion on: June 10, 2016, 08:08:50 AM

U.S. Taxpayers Are Funding Iran's Military Expansion
JUNE 9, 2016 6:00 AM EDT
Eli Lake
One of the unexpected results of President Barack Obama's new opening to Iran is that U.S. taxpayers are now funding both sides of the Middle East's arms race. The U.S. is deliberately subsidizing defense spending for allies like Egypt and Israel. Now the U.S. is inadvertently paying for some of Iran's military expenditures as well.

130  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the left - minimum wage Oregon on: June 10, 2016, 08:01:15 AM
Democrats, who control the state House, Senate and governor’s office, [passed the following minimum wage law"]
Wages will rise to $12.50 in rural Oregon, $13.50 in mid-size regions and $14.75 in greater Portland, all by the year 2022.

Are they saying there isn't one wage that works best for all no matter the age, industry of location?

Then there's  this: 

state analysts concluded in a prepared forecast the high wage will “result in approximately 40,000 fewer jobs in 2025 than would have been the case absent the legislation.”

The cost of "progress", fewer people working, more needing assistance.  Who knew?

131  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Steelers coach to host Hillary fundraiser on: June 10, 2016, 07:32:49 AM
EDC= Empress Dowager of Chappaqua

Dowager:  Power derived from her husband.

From Chappaqua, her hometown, lol.  She was in government housing so long she couldn't remember where she's from.  She didn't want to go back to Chicago or Little Rock and DC doesn't have Senators.

Trump hopes western PA is Trump country.  Meanwhile, Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin and his wife, Kiya, a fashion designer, will host a private fundraiser for Clinton at their home Tuesday afternoon. According to an invitation, attendees will donate $10,000 to $34,000 each to hear Clinton discuss her (indictments?) candidacy.

Sorry, I don't associate Steelers fans with Hillary supporters.
132  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cog Diss of the left, A Day Late to Nominate the First Woman President? on: June 08, 2016, 12:47:46 PM
What a bummer for the left to make this historic nomination, the first woman to win a major party nomination for President, the day after we abandoned the old gender distinctions of 'man' and 'woman'. 

Even if femininity was still a recognizable quality, she has no more of it than any President prior. 

133  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: June 08, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
Seconding Crafty's comments [deeply discouraged, f*ct], only worse.

"Unless we are saved by the FBI,..."

No, not even that.  On the Dem side, they couldn't be more crippled already.  No matter what happens on their side we are still stuck without a candidate and without a possibility of ever re-uniting the movement without just selling out to principle that at least for me are not my own.

I predicted, Hillary will not run, will not win the nomination if she runs and will not be elected if nominated.  Further I predicted that Trump would never win the Republican nomination and could never be the strongest candidate to run against Hillary or other leftist.

i was right on all the underlying facts.  Her scandals blew up in her face, her corruption has been fully exposed and her weaknesses as a candidate have been on full display.

On the other side, Trump was so bad people started to accept the Senate's most conservative member as the centrist compromise.  All of what we feared to be bad about Trump came true.

If Hillary were handcuffed, hauled off, locked up and held without bail, it wouldn't solve a single one of our problems.  She would still win or Bernie or Biden etc would in her place.  We are stuck without a leader and without an acceptable candidate to represent our interests with 5 months to go before the election.  That means we are screwed for more than 4 years, probably more than 8 years, for the rest of our lifetimes and likely forever - not to be overly negative about it.

On my bet with ccp, it is time for me to concede.  You were right.  You didn't want to be right but your were right.  I think I will send you my bank transfer codes and you can take what I owe before the big crony government ruling uni-party takes the rest.
134  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Economics on: June 08, 2016, 12:06:59 PM
Have a great trip and camp.  We aren't very far apart on this.

"Part of the answer has to do with what happens when a hostile fascist state e.g. China, targets certain sectors (e.g. rare earth minerals) for geo-political military considerations.  Russian control over Euro natural gas would be another example."

"Part of the answer has to do with the predatory pricing of fascist states.  Yes in the long run this is unsound, but in the long run we are all dead."

On the first part from my point of view, national security is always a valid reason to interrupt free trade.  Freeze assets, cancel purchases, block trade, all are legitimate if national security is the valid reason.  But that is the exception and it doesn't mean, from my point of view, that 'managed' trade in general is an acceptable alternative, economically or in terms of liberty, to free trade.

Each of those examples, China rare earth elements and Russia natural gas warfare, are great topics to dive into later when time permits.  How do we address those?

On the second part, dealing with fascist states, I guess the same applies.  How do we best address that?  If we are going to violate our own principles in our trade policies, then our express purpose in a range of policies should be to bring about the end of that fascism and those policies, not to move us in the permanent direction of government managed trade.

I don't buy the premise that China can gain on us by devaluing and under-pricing.  Anti-trust violations, copyright theft etc are obvious exceptions to that and should be aggressively dealt with .
135  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Pres, Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Libertarians blew a great opportunity on: June 08, 2016, 10:32:32 AM
Libertarians are running a ticket with two, two-term Republican Governors.  With Hillary and Trump at maximum, historic disapproval this should be the year and the opportunity to set up a real alternative.  But they refuse to offer any possibility of merging with conservatives to offer a real alternative.

i learned through Ron Paul and Rand Paul foreign policies that liberty is for people who already have it. Screw those who don't even though we received significant outside intervention to gain our own freedom.

How about the liberty of the unborn or the person who chooses to not participate in a gay wedding.  Oops, no liberty or 'pro-choice' for them.
Is This Where Libertarians Say Goodbye to Conservatives?
To right-wingers, Gary Johnson's embrace of "social liberalism" negates his pledge to "sign off on any reduction in the federal government."
Nick Gillespie|Jun. 7, 2016
136  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hill on inequality on: June 08, 2016, 10:11:49 AM

1. She is the world's worst possible choice for spokesperson of that cause.  Total hypocrisy.

2. She is doing it only to pander to Bernie-type voters.  It's not something that bother's her.  Obviously she's comfortable hanging with the 1%, guarding their interests, being one of them.

3. The substance and content of that position needs to be called out and soundly defeated regardless.  For example, please see Larry Elder, On Inequality,
The idea that we can 'defeat' inequality is nonsense.

4. Recognize this for what it is, one of those magical domestic issues like poverty, racism, homelessness, that the worse they can make it, the more we need them to 'do more'.  This is right out of whatever leftist playbook you may follow, Alinsky, Ayers, Carville, Reich.

5.  The math and facts behind the issue are worse than for climate change.  Everything from Census Data that excludes the income of the poor to Thomas Piketty's flawed studies are manufactured for deception and thoroughly debunked IMHO on these pages in the forum.

6.  If we has total and complete economic equality, as much as it is possible, we would all be poor and power would still be concentrated in the hands of less than the 1%.  See Chavez, Maduro, Castro, Breznev, Kim Jong-un.
137  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The War on Drugs on: June 07, 2016, 09:33:59 AM
"Oh. So it is a matter of scale.  Well then what is the point of drug cartels moving to Colorado then?"

I suppose that because it is only a matter of scale, neighbors getting a whiff of it might be less inclined to make a complaint of it.  G M might know better whether any collection of these anecdotal stories means there is more activity coming in than otherwise would.  One of his points is that 'legalization' did not make the illegal activities cease.  I think the perception of legalization is giving the state a friendlier perception attracting these types, cartels and young males not tied to the traditional responsibilities of job, marriage and mortgage.  But if law enforcement is up to the task, that lure becomes a trap.  Serving a federal felony time in Colo won't be much different or better than serving it in Florida or wherever else.
138  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 07, 2016, 09:22:28 AM
I read PP post about Trumps comments on the judge.   Sometimes it is not what you say but HOW you say it.  He [Trump] states things sometimes as clumsily and crudely as possible which rather than making his legitimate points does nothing but embolden his enemies.

Right.  There was a point to be made against this judge and his politics and Trump bungled it.  Trump thinks he is immune from the laws of political correctness, but his detractors already think he is a racist and he keeps giving more and more people reason to think that is true. 

The judge didn't come across the border yesterday.  His parents came, legally, in the 1940s and he was born in Indiana 1300 miles from the border.  If there is a case to be made, it is the judge's politics in question, not his heritage. 

In fact, what Trump was doing was trying to defeat his competition again by public, verbal bullying.  That appeals to some and not to others. 

Byron York has a good take on it today:

Trump spent 10 minutes on this in a San Diego speech bringing it back, unnecessarily, into the campaign.  More time than he spent on jobs, military issues or anything else.  York quotes the entire 10 minutes at the end of his column and it is rambling.  Forget what his point was, being able to speak well without notes or script is quite a skill.  Rambling on is not.  If I was there to find out how to make America Great Again, I would have been miserably disappointed.

Add to that his Reagan comparisons.  Reagan got three things done by doggedly keeping his focus on his short list of three things he wanted to get done.  And when he got them done, the US and the world were safer and more prosperous.  Trump's three things are get elected, insult others, and I don't know for sure what else.
139  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Foreign drug cartels come to Colorado on: June 07, 2016, 09:04:09 AM
"Local authorities in Pueblo, just 40 miles south of Colorado Springs, were recently alerted by a vigilant resident to a possible illegal marijuana grow operation. Within days, on March 31, sheriff’s deputies from the Special Investigations Narcotics Section raided a single-family home that was in the process of being converted into a "grow house." Authorities discovered 127 marijuana plants, over $100,000 in growing equipment, and two Cuban nationals.

At first, no one seemed to take particular note of the individuals, Adriel Trujillo Daniel, 28, and Leosbel Ledesma Quintana, 41, who had recently moved to Colorado from Florida. They were arrested on felony drug charges but local authorities initially believed it was an isolated event."

Kind of an obvious point, what they were doing is NOT legal in Colorado, keywords illegal and felony drug charges.

100k of equipment involves heavy electric usage that is detectable in a rapid leap on the utility bill.  If law enforcement doesn't know about it, Xcel Energy does.  Large grow houses are visible on infrared aerial photography.  (Freedom from Electric usage monitoring and aerial photography are two areas of liberty I assume we already lost!) 127 flowering plants have to breathe and 'exhale'.  With the right breeze, the neighbors know they live next to a large floral garden.

You are allowed 6 plants (in Colo), which if done widely and sold or shared in moderation with friends (illegally) would serve to take the wind out of the sails of the cartels at least on this one drug.  Beyond 6 plants, I would assume the electrical alterations required are all illegal and break residential zoning laws etc beyond the original violation.  Like the mafia, they are also breaking tax laws.

G M would know better than me, but I think it is a law enforcement choice of how hard to hunt down illegal grow operations and prosecute them.  My main point is that what is described here is no more legal in Colo than in a non-'legalized' state.

There is a contention between state and federal laws in Colo.  What the state should do in compromise to the dispute is hand over all the activity that goes beyond the limits of Colorado law to the Feds.  Use the personal level legalization as a trap for cartel activity, especially the inter-state and international types.  I don't think Colo wants to be safe haven for this.  The question that still remains is whether our open border Feds want to enforce or prosecute the laws either.
140  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Grannis on free trade on: June 06, 2016, 04:41:21 PM

"nearly all economists agree that free trade, by expanding the size of the market to enable greater specialization and economies of scale, generates more wealth than any system that restricts cross-border exchange."

   - I would like to hear your view on this.

"Consider Apple. By availing itself of lowskilled, low-wage labor in China to produce small plastic components and to assemble its products, Apple may have deprived U.S. workers of the opportunity to perform that low-end function in the supply chain..."

   - this is a great, current example.  I was going to cut it there and say, we could require US workers to build it and then the number built would be zero as the phones would need to be so expensive.  Same point, but they answered it better than I could:

"...But at the same time, that decision enabled iPods and then iPhones and then iPads to be priced within the budgets of a large swath of consumers. Had all of the components been produced and all of the assembly performed in the United States — as President Obama once requested of Steve Jobs — the higher prices would have prevented those devices from becoming quite so ubiquitous, and the incentives for the emergence of spin-off industries, such as apps, accessories, Uber, and AirBnb, would have been muted or absent."

What is the alternative to free trade that works better?  Government managed trade?  Government targeted trade?  We will get tougher on their products and services entering and they won't get tougher on ours?  Government will stay benevolent and not be corrupted by cronyism as it picks winners and losers?  I don't think so on all counts.  
Smoot Hawley data (Smoot Hawley was not the only factor, but telling IMO):  
Smoot Hawley raised tariffs on 20,000 items by 6.3% to 19.8%.
Imports fell 66%, exports fell 61%  
GDP fell over 25%.
141  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 06, 2016, 01:45:21 PM
Thanks for bringing Pat's piece to our attention.  Pretty impressive I thought!

I think he was linking/quoting another author's piece but he is also writing his own series on the case and the judge.
142  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Economics, Universal Basic Income on: June 06, 2016, 01:42:21 PM
"First, my big caveat: A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. If the guaranteed income is an add-on to the existing system, it will be as destructive as its critics fear."

Also, he begins: "Replacing the welfare state with ..."

I oppose a new gigantic program because it WON'T replace all other programs.  The politics of this isn't that simple.  For example, the left doesn't actually want to solve the problem and the right isn't going to embrace a new $2 trillion program either.   Still I like the thought process.  We need to find ways to help those in need and reform our basic safety net WITHOUT all the disincentives to produce that we currently put on both the payers and the recipients.

It is a sign of how bad our current system is to know that paying everyone, need it or not, 13k/year is better.

People on the edge of working more and not working for money often face real, marginal tax rates greater than 100%.  The Unaffordable Healthcare Act puts all our previous disincentive to work problems on steroids.
143  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, Stephens, Trump on: June 06, 2016, 12:24:11 PM
Bret Stephens analysis is profoundly flawed.  Losing 3-5 SCOTUS picks to Hillary would be a catastrophe from which this country would not recover.

That's right about Hillary, but what about Trump? 

Electing another big government Republican (in name only) is ALSO something from which we will never recover.  Trump already defeated and destroyed the movement of which I was a part.  Win or lose for Trump, limited government conservatism is gone.  And now what the opponents say is true, that Republicans are the party of the rich, support cronyism for the powerful, favor special treatment for their own, hate minorities, want to pick winners and losers, etc.  How do we come back from that and how long will it take?  We can't; it won't happen in our lifetimes. 

In words only and putting her record aside, Hillary has a better grasp of US foreign policy than Trump.  He is clearly running to her left on foreign policy , and trade policy! He may win on both, good for him, but we lose IMHO.

Trump issued a list of acceptable, conservative judges that fully support my principles (and yours most likely).  Great, but what if he appoints Justices that support HIS views, that government knows best in terms of (non-existent) property right, no limits on takings or picking economic winners and losers with preferences and targeted, punitive taxes and regulations?  Uphold all of that over protecting property rights and equal protection under the law and what have we gained?  Nothing I can see.

I moved just recently to where G M has.  It is too late to save the country.  We already upheld the idea forcing us to buy government mandated "insurance".  We already ruled that it is fine for the federal government to prohibit growing your own grain on your own property to feed your own animals.  No one still in the race thinks that went too far, is outrageous.  We already upheld the power of state and local governments to take private property for preferred private property interests.  We already re-defined marriage i the Courts.  We already allow the federal government to run roughshod over all formerly private industries, to set payroll rules for people at the top, middle and bottom of the pay scale - in the "private sector"!  Sorry but no one still in the race is running against any of this.  Our side is represented by the guy who will build the best and biggest government we have ever seen!

Meanwhile, we also blew off the idea of holding the Senate.  That has something to do with Supreme Court appointments too!  Which Justice on the Trump good list gets confirmed in a Shumer-Durbin Senate? 
144  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump and the Judge on: June 06, 2016, 11:47:17 AM
Hat tip, (our own) Pat Pulatie,

My view:
Trump University was a rip off.  Still, the lawsuit is most likely frivolous.  Anyone who bought Trump's book, which is no doubt all of them, (and had they read it objectively) knew they would learn nothing helpful from these programs.  Anyone who bought the first program and paid attention should know they would learn nothing.  Still I have no regrets if some judge or jury awards the fools their money back.  The whole product was a farce.  Yet many graduates of this type of program want the certificate for what its worth to go forth and BS others.  They learned as victims how to separate fools from their money.

The Judge's parents were Americans.  Before that they were Mexicans who came here legally and got citizenship long before the Judge was born.  No illegal status or anchor baby issue exists in his family that I can see.

The Judge honored illegal immigrants, he likely supports Obama, and he brags of his Mexican ties maybe more so than his American pride.  Had Trump jumped on his views instead of his heritage, then his attack might have been fair.  If that what he was doing, he bugled it.  Trump did attack him for bias, but allowed his comments to be taken as on his heritage instead of his views.

Trump's history that he can get away with saying anything is not always going to be helpful to his choice of future comments.  He needs a wider base to win 270 electoral votes than he needed when he started to win a plurality in a divided field in one party.

Trump appears to be putting the interests of winning his lawsuit ahead of winning the Presidency.  He is trying to influence the Judge's next decision by attacking him, but forgot he was running for President?  Just like the media and the electorate, Trump is easily distracted.

Meanwhile we head into summer talking about shiny objects instead of a focus on reigning in our runaway government. 

One more example of why Donald Trump is not Reagan and is not my choice for President.

145  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Boom time for Regulators, Investors Business Daily on: June 06, 2016, 10:59:17 AM
If private sector jobs grew at the same rate as regulator jobs under Obama, 3.7 million more people would be working.
146  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential - Dem nomination on: June 06, 2016, 10:50:19 AM
Prediction: Bernie will eek out a win in California but Hillary will clinch the nomination (In NJ) before the polls close in Calif.

Obama administration could make that more interesting by indicting Hillary on the same day hoping to help her 'get that behind her'.   Okay, that is 'not likely' but they are running out of time.  What are they going to do, announce the results of the investigation after the election?

Funny that Trump clinched first in a field of 17 than Hillary over Bernie, but after tomorrow that is a footnote in history.

The conventions are only about a month out.  Republicans go first.  Hillary sees Trump's running mate choice first before announcing hers.
147  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bureaucracy, Fourth Branch: EPA versus Colorado Town (Silverton) on: June 06, 2016, 10:29:05 AM
This is a sad and scary big government story.  Good for Daily Caller for not letting this drop.  As with all Obama scandals, why was no one arrested, fired, etc.?  Why do we not hold those even higher accountable?  A right wing, free market President might have been impeached over this, negligently releasing 880,000 pounds of toxic chemicals, a 3 million gallon release, into our rivers and streams polluting 3 states and the Navajo nation.

The EPA wanted complete control of this area by designating it against the will of the locals a Superfund cleanup site,.  Now they have won through their own deadly error.

The old saying that you don't fight city hall is so last century.  This is more like fighting the Chinese Communist Party backed by People's Liberation Army than it is like fighting your local city hall.  Not exactly the EPA that 1970s Republicans envisioned when they created it (and appointed my cousin to be the nation's first director of water quality).  

EPA Pollutes River, Uses Scare Tactics To Take Control Of A Colorado Town

9:55 PM 06/05/2016
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Gold King Mine. (Reuters)   EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Gold King Mine. (Reuters)

A decades-long battle between federal environmental officials and a small Colorado town is about to end in the government’s favor, thanks to the agency-caused Gold King Mine spill disaster, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation has found.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) representatives have focused intently on Silverton, Colorado since the mid-1990s, accumulating evidence — and sometimes using scare tactics — to persuade residents to drop their opposition to a Superfund designation for the surrounding region.

Residents surrendered to federal demands only after an EPA work-crew turned the nearby Animas River bright yellow for nearly a week by releasing a three-million-gallon flood of acidic mine waste under extremely questionable circumstances in August 2015.

Suspended in the flood was 880,000 pounds of toxic metals, including lead and arsenic, that poured into the river that supplies drinking water for people living in three states and the Navajo Nation. The mine is just upstream from Silverton.

“After more than two decades working in the region, they still couldn’t get it right,” said Rep. Rob Bishop told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA created a man-made disaster harming numerous states and tribes. The combination of a lack of due diligence and a half-baked plan directly led to the August 5 blowout.”

Bishop, a Utah Republican, condemned EPA for being “incompetent, evasive and deceitful,” adding that “if this wasn’t criminal negligence, it should be.”

The disaster was the last straw that convinced locals to reverse their decades-long opposition and allow the EPA to go forward in designating the region for Superfund listing – a designation the agency reserves only for the nation’s most polluted sites.

Once the designation becomes official, EPA will assume vast new powers throughout the region. But EPA has been encroaching on residents’ lives going back to at least 1994, with more than a few memorable episodes along the way.

In one such instance, EPA officials abruptly announced at a town meeting they needed to test soil for pollution at a local school.

“The Town Board was somewhat blindsided by your request,” San Juan County Commissioners and the Town of Silverton Board of Trustees told EPA in an April 2014 letter. “The County Commissioner [sic] were not even informed that the EPA would be addressing the Town.”

“However, the biggest flaw in the process was bringing the School District into the discussion without talking directly with the School Superintendent,” the local officials said in the letter, which was obtained by the House panel.

“The Superintendent spent the next day on damage control informing the community that an environmental review of the school grounds had been completed and nothing was found that would raise health concerns.”

Town and county officials also questioned the necessity of soil testing because previous samples “didn’t raise any significant red flags” and they were “unaware of any medical studies or individual cases where the soils have had an adverse impact on a child or adult’s health. We have generation after generation after generation that have lived most or all of their lives in Silverton without suffering any health-related issues from their long-term exposure to the mineralized soils.”

The officials claimed that “despite the minimum justification, EPA managed to maximize the fears in parents, as well as raise concerns for property owners.”

Local officials also wondered if EPA representatives who spoke with residents “were really listening to our concerns, if they were listening but they did not understand how critical those concerns are, or did they listen to our concerns but determined that the EPA knows what is better for Silverton and San Juan County than we do.”

Regardless, another letter obtained by TheDCNF, showed that less than a year later, EPA, joined by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Colorado Department of Health & Environment, compelled a nearby mine owner to conduct studies normally done only after a Superfund designation is received.

Numerous agencies “all have expended substantial efforts and resources in defining the problems” in the region around Silverton, said the January 2015 letter to Sunnyside Gold Corporation. “Furthermore, the agencies are continuing to commit resources to characterize the extent and magnitude of contamination in other parts of the Upper Animas River Watershed.”

The letter said EPA would use Superfund authority to work at the nearby Red and Bonita Mine. The agency has also used the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERLCA) – the Superfund law – to force other area mine owners to grant EPA officials access to their properties. (RELATED: Gold King Mine Owner Fears EPA’s ‘Limitless Legal Budget’)

How EPA has used Superfund authority against Silverton exemplifies the inability of local residents to resist the federal agency when it is determined to have its way.

The first goal of the Animas River Stakeholders Group that was formed in 1994 to protect the environment from abandoned mines was to “keep CERCLA out.” The EPA not only blocked accomplishment of that goal, it also thwarted local efforts to cleanup the region’s environment.

“It definitely has taken the wind out of our sails,” group official Peter Butler told The Denver Post in May. “It’s uncertain what the Animas River Stakeholder Group’s future will be.”
148  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump damage to Republicans, all is already lost on: June 06, 2016, 09:59:32 AM
From 2016 Presidential and WSJ Bret Stephens statement:
This is certainly a possibility that Trump could do so much damage that he would in the long game screw it up for good for Republicans.

With the nomination of Trump, I already see the permanent loss of my economic viewpoint of economic freedom and limited government.  We lost at least half of the so-called right and all of the center and left.  Not much of a reason left to pick up the pieces.

The right is divided and the misguided on economic issues won.  Go to a pro-Trump site and read the comments sections.  Trump voters HATE Cruz, Rubio and most of the others.  Where Reagan tolerated government protectionism is emergency exception situations, Trump big government advocates label those in favor of a dynamic economic based on economic freedom, "free traitors".  

Like Suzette Kelo's and Vera Coking's houses, Trump supporters are full force behind the new government knows best movement supposedly on the right.  This is not the exception to his view; it is the centerpiece.  I will not compare Trump to the German leader with the mustache, but his most enthusiastic supporters certainly remind me of zeal and false righteousness of those in the early days of that movement.

With Trump I am stuck with a) his message to Indiana, they lost their jobs due to free trade competition, not mismanagement at home, and b) the world would be more stable if we let Saddam Hussein continue his reign of tyranny and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Hillary Clinton knows we can't afford all her ideas and that Presidential popularity is tied to economic growth.  

How either one would govern is a complete mystery.

Trump may stumble into success in foreign policy even though his words have been nonsense.  HRC may realize that big government requires a big private sector to fund it.

Neither candidate remotely resembles my economic or foreign policy views.

Add to that Trump's temperament, the latest example slamming a judge from Indiana for his heritage.  If Trump stumbles because of that, the support for his misguided policies lives on.

Add in a Bill Kristol style third party candidate.  The most he or she could do is pick off a couple of so called red states, ensure a HRC victory and take all the blame.

All is already lost.
149  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: June 05, 2016, 11:14:45 PM
$5 TRILLION worth of goods per year go through the Taiwan to Sin gapore Sea every year while China is tryig to turn it into their own militarized lake.
150  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bret Stephens WSJ: Hillary more surivable than Trump on: June 05, 2016, 11:07:17 PM
Bret Stephens, WSJ Pulitzer Prize winner who I admire very much and agree with on almost everthig, maybe not this, says Hillary ight be more survivable than Trump:

The best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan. What isn’t survivable is a Republican president who is part Know Nothing, part Smoot-Hawley and part John Birch. The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 163
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!