Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 29, 2016, 12:57:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94955 Posts in 2312 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 159
201  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential - Nate Silver on: April 14, 2016, 05:41:05 PM
Nate Silver:  Trump finishes 82 delegates short.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-state-by-state-roadmap-for-the-rest-of-the-republican-primary/
202  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: April 14, 2016, 05:24:47 PM
If Zika virus causes permanent damage to the unborn, even death, shouldn't it be a constitutional right?
203  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: April 13, 2016, 12:07:18 PM
My assessment is that there is no hope until the reboot. This country, or what's left of it has to hit bottom before recovery.

Pessimism continued, I don't think we will be any smarter after hitting rock bottom.  We will learn all the wrong lessons.  The metaphor fails, but I think it's only downhill from there.

I would still like to see Cruz or someone steal this nomination and start running with a real vision.  Call out socialism for what it is and lay out in detail what needs to be done.
204  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Monetary Policy: Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in The Atlantic on: April 13, 2016, 11:44:57 AM
After 7 years we still haven't needed a positive thread for this administration; it all fits nicely into 'cognitive dissonance of his glibness'.  I was quite hard on Jack Lew earlier for his political lying and corruption, all part of the job I'm sure. http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2177.msg70291;topicseen#msg70291  The IRS targeting scandal non-follow up also falls under his jurisdiction.

Here is a current interview with Lew over a range of topics relating to his job as Treas Sec.  Some of what he says makes sense.  Still it is amazing that someone could be doing their job as Treasury Secretary and not be screaming warnings from the rooftops about how damaging our deficits and to the future of this country.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/jacob-lew-alexander-hamilton-clemons/477924/

Lew: The president and I tend to be very like-minded on the realist approach. If you look at something like Ukraine, in putting together support for [the government there following the country’s 2014 revolution]. The anchor was an IMF program [of $17 billion in urgent support]. It also needed to work with the Europeans [to] put in a significant amount, because [Europe] was right there. But then we went around the world, and we got countries that don’t have immediate exposure to Ukraine or Russia, [including] Canada and Japan. We put together a global effort so that with our loan guarantees, the IMF package, European support and contributions from other countries around the world, we actually helped Ukraine.

I think it gets harder and harder because everyone is feeling fiscal constraints. But I think we have a very powerful ability to cross that moral threshold, where countries know they should [contribute], and then it becomes a budget question of how much you can get them to do. Could we have put together a $25 billion package, or $20 billion [for Ukraine]? We couldn’t. But you put it all together, and it’s the world telling Russia that Ukraine will have a long enough runway to get back on its feet. That’s geopolitically of great significance.

   - A good policy wonk with no principles, vision or moral character.  My guess is that he will be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve.


On China:
Lew: I think that we have to recognize there are going to be areas where we have overlapping interests; there are areas where [we’re] going to have differences. We’re going to have to make progress in the space where we agree, but [we also have to] put down really hard markers, whether it’s over [the] South China Sea or cyber theft—we can’t just gloss over those issues.

One of the things I have found in my engagements with the Chinese is that they respect the directness of that. It’s not on its face offensive to say, “You do these things that we find unacceptable.” We shouldn’t kid ourselves that just by saying it they will change. We are pulling them along as a global community to a better place. [China’s current economic transition] is one of the hardest economic transitions that any country has ever undertaken; [it’s] one of the biggest economies in the history of the world shifting from a centrally controlled, non-market, top-down structure to something that is more market-driven.

The question is not whether they intellectually understand the importance of that transition. They all understand what they need to do. Are they prepared to live with the bumps that come with making that transition? They are not small bumps. You dislocate millions of people from their manufacturing jobs. You either reposition them in different jobs in different places or provide some support because they are no longer working. Those are huge things to do.

They say the right things, but the proof of pudding is in the eating, and it’s hard. I don’t say that in a condescending way at all. If you asked me to relocate 1.5 million American workers, that would be very hard. But they have no choice because of where their economy was, and where it has to go.

They value the relationship with us. You know this whole communication thing, it’s not natural to them. Being open and transparent is new to them. They don’t intuitively know when they need to communicate. When I get on the phone with some of my counterparts and say, “You can’t surprise the world by doing something like this,” they try actually to do better going forward. But you can see from the way they have moved in the last few months that the learning curve is steep.
205  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: April 13, 2016, 10:46:11 AM
Frankly, at this point the republican party needs to burn.

Already in process.  8 years of Obama and 8 years of Hillary-Castro because George Bush and John Boehner governed like Democrats.

We can replace the failing big tent party with a number of smaller, warring faction parties, the protectionist party, the government takings party, the RINO party, the big spending big government conservative party, the let the rest of the world burn party, and the anarchy party.

I like your earlier Ted Cruz or bust post better!

I was thinking this morning about past posts made on The Way Forward thread and how everything we were calling for didn't happen. 

We needed to get straight and clear and unified on issues, instead it is all chaos and confusion.  We needed to be able to communicate well and pull peole to our side of issues and instead it is moving in the other direction.  And we needed to pick someone to represent our views who will reach into the enemy camp and pull a few people over to our side, and instead we are choosing only those who are the most divisive.

Ted Cruz has all kinds of great views on issues and through all the noise I haven't heard a word of it in weeks if not months.

The next election is still 7 months out and yet we already feel helpless and hopeless.
206  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary running late is on "Colored People" time. on: April 13, 2016, 09:22:49 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/12/bill-de-blasio-hillary-clinton/

And then puts the blame for the joke back on deblahsio.
207  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, Drudge vs. Cruz on: April 13, 2016, 09:10:57 AM
I heard about the Drudge vs Cruz war so I went to the Drudge Report and picked up a couple of juicy headlines designed to make Cruz look bad.

Backtracking here, I know a little about Drudge's politics because he used to have a radio talk show that played here on Sunday nights.  Not heavily promoted or listened to but pretty good content.  I noticed he was from the anti-free trade wing of the Republican party or conservative movement, called protectionism, populism(?), he tended to like Pat Buchanan for example.  That particular stand doesn't make it with me though we probably agree on other issues.  I bring this up because it explains why an otherwise intelligent guy might support Trump.  (

Lead headlines on the Drudge Report last night (and this morning) were these:

VIDEO: COLORADO 'ELECTION DAY' REVEALED...
'Delegates were decided, 10 seconds at a time'...
WAIT! WHAT?
Trump calls process 'a disgrace'...
Cruz email asks for $35 to be 'top deputy delegate'...


Let's start with the video that I suppose at this point would show us cheating or Gestapo tactics at the GOP convention in Colorado.  Yes, 600+ people running for national delegate were given 10 seconds each on the stage.  Yes, that's kind of a joke but way more open than most; everyone getting an equal shot, winners of the real vote count take all.

The second headline is false.  If that 10 seconds is what you were using to make your decision or to run your 'campaign' for national delegate, you either are the joke or are missing the punchline.  Everyone had the same shot to organize and win.  The winners were the top vote getters; hte way they ran the headline you might think money was changing hands or something else nefarious.  Not so.

Serious campaigns organize AHEAD OF TIME.  And they have what they call a slate of candidates and a bullet ballot (can you still call it that?).  So if you are with Cruz and want to be a delegate and sweep the convention, you get on a slate of candidates where everyone on it and more agree to vote the whole ballot.  The CNN video didn't know that or show that and Trump got blindsided because he's never been to one of these and he hired someone to manage these conventions AFTER this happened in Colorado.

The rules were set last August.  How is this unfair or someone else's fault?

Moving on to the second story, 4th headline:

Cruz email asks for $35 to be 'top deputy delegate'...

It looks like a crime commmited, bribery exposed.  Turns out he has a donation solicitation naming the contributor level no worse than NPR would.  Maybe you can be at the "Patron" level or the "ambassador" level.  In this case $35 to Cruz, from your home, puts you at the "top deputy delegate" level.  Was there one person out there that thought this money would give them a seat in the convention hall in Cleveland closer to the stage than their living room?

Too bad.  Because of Trump and his desperate followers, the conservative side is dividing and imploding.

We saw it here first when we learned from Pat that people and places like National Review, Townhall, WSJ, Glenn Beck, Thomas Sowell, Hot Air, Powerline, and many more were all too liberal, the "establishment", and part of a conspiracy to keep Trump out.  He was always able to bring us a Trump source or Trump poll that uniquely told the truth where the others were all telling us wrong.

Does it ever happen in politics that someone else merely holds a different view than you?  Or got more votes than you, as Cruz did over Trump in Colorado?  Or does it always have to be a scandal when your guy gets his clock cleaned?  

I wasted my time following the Drudge leads above and where there was smoke, there was no fire.
208  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Presidential, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders Are Delusional on Trade Policy on: April 12, 2016, 04:58:32 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/11/donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-are-delusional-on-trade-policy.html

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Are Delusional on Trade Policy
We import so many parts—and parts of parts—that tariffs and protectionism will only kill jobs and hike prices.
---------------------------

This issue alone tells me Trump and obviously Sanders don't understand free market economics.

It also blows his analogy to Reagan who had a long held ambition to have a hemisphere wide free trade zone.
209  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: April 12, 2016, 01:48:39 PM
I was shocked when I read the headlines that Trump admitted the posting of Heidi Cruz's picture was a mistake and he shouldn't have done it.

As far as I am familiar with him that is a first.  One small step for man........ cheesy

Yet they won't admit that their guy acusing Cruz's delegate operation in Colo of "Gestapo tactics" was a mistake.

Gestapo, really?? it isn't Cruz who wants to combine the executive and judiciary into one, that favors a national police force, he doesn't support the power to imprison people without judicial proceedings. Thousands of political prisoners didn't 'disappear under his watch, Cruz hasn't sought to suppress any churches or religions, and he hasn't committed any arrests, torture or executions.

As usual, Trump has it exactly backwards.  Cruz supports all the freedoms that, if protected, would prevent us from ever having a national police force develop into a Gestapo like force.

Prescient were the Founders who in the 1700s saw the danger that emerged in 1930s Germany and vowed that the government would never become a stronger force than the people.

Meanwhile, what happened in Colorado.  They passed the rules, published the rules, followed the rules, elected delegates and sore loser lost.  Big deal.  Trump might have been involved earlier in the process if he hadn't been a Democrat when the rules were made or if he could even find Colorado on a map.

Interesting that his kids who are 100% behind him politically don't happen to be Republicans either, and can't vote for him in the NY primary.  That also tells me Trump might score 10 points lower in NY than the polls indicate.  Still a win but not a sweep.
210  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: April 12, 2016, 11:02:52 AM
ccp:  PS:  Trump "floats" Rubio for VP  ;   Marco back in the game?   shocked
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/11/trump-floats-rubio-kasich-walker-vice-president-picks/


Rubio holds a good number of delegates and some influence.  He was (supposedly) everyone's choice for VP last time and everyone's second choice earlier in this cycle.

Trump is trying to soften up the attacks he made on all the others.  Good luck with that - should have thought of that then during his burn bridges campaign. 

Not a great analogy, but I think of Dole and Kemp.  Kemp was a lousy VP candidate because Dole wouldn't have ever been his choice for President.  You have to believe in what you are selling.  I doubt Rubio would sign with Trump, but I've been wrong on everything else so far.

We'll see how this plays out.
211  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: April 12, 2016, 10:55:45 AM
ccp,  Too late for slavery, maybe we should pay reparations for the damage done by our 'war on poverty' spending spree that pulled millions of good and healthy people out of the productive economy.

Why don't we try to get the present right before we make reparations for the past.

Regarding slavery reparations from a northerner point of view, we fought a bloody war to free slaves and want nothing in return.  You would never get it right as to who should pay in and who should receive.  Besides the victims and the perpetrators are all dead now.  We have a statute of limitations.  This is all noise in the room that makes it harder to recognize when someone actually has a valid claim.

e pluribus unum.  We aren't a nation of warring factions in spite of what our leadership would have us believe. 

As you suggest, these groups dissatisfaction with Dems is not making them Rs.  But it's a start.
212  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left, BILL CLINTON v. BLACK LIVES MATTER on: April 12, 2016, 10:42:00 AM
I'm not enjoying the Republican race, might as well have some fun with the divide on the left...

This is the left calling out Bill Clinton and his co-President for being anti-crime.  The funniest part I suppose is to see their reaction is to apologize for instead of defend their anti-crime policy.

Both splits of the left miss the central error; we don't want our local police forces nationalized.  Bill Clinton was putting a hundred thousand more cops on the street with federal dollars because it sounded good in a State of the Union speech, like he cares, not because it is good policy or the federal government's responsibility.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Nation
PoliticsWorldEconomyCultureTake Action
ELECTION 2016 BILL CLINTON BLACK LIVES MATTER
Nothing About the 1994 Crime Bill Was Unintentional
In the ’90s, Bill Clinton exploited fears about crime in the same way that Donald Trump uses immigration today.
http://www.thenation.com/article/nothing-about-the-1994-crime-bill-was-unintentional/
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/the_politics_of_bill_clinton_s_crime_bill_were_messier_than_they_seem.html
213  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: April 11, 2016, 12:58:21 PM
"Blacks hate the results of both Clinton and Obama policies as well as the Dem governance of their own cities, Philadelphia in this case.  Yet these people including Hillary win because of black votes."

For the life of me I just cannot comprehend why Republicans cannot make any in roads with Blacks.
I wish our candidates would speak to them much more.  It was like some big event when Rand Paul made one speech to a group of skeptical Blacks. 

We aren't going to change minds with one lousy speech.
...

Yes and it goes both ways.  Blacks should be trying to make inroads into the Republican party, as should other groups that the Democrats are leaving behind.  Rand Paul did that.  Paul Ryan has reached out.  Jack Kemp always did.  We haven't found a way to reach the black community with black conservatives.  The latest was Ben Carson.  I think his support came from the usual Republican demographics.  Probably the same for the readership of people like Thomas Sowell.  Maybe if Carson ends up on the ticket he can be in a position to reach people where that message is otherwise not heard. 

Our candidates talk to them by including them, not by singling them out.  The Reagan economic expansion was for everyone and benefited everyone.  But we don't get credit for that because we don't have a separate but unequal program for groups.

Law enforcement in your neighborhood is a good thing.  If your race is under-represented, get more people, your sons and daughters, into those professions - law enforement.  Democratic opposition to school choice is keeping your kids in bad schools and it is a case of Dems, they are putting their special interest, teachers' unions, ahead of your kids' best interests.  It's crazy that inner city blacks support the anti-school choice party.  Republicans aren't going to put an end to the safety net, so quit saying things that sound like we will.  We don't want you to starve, but we need you to recognize that the over-dependence on these programs, on balance, is holding you back.  If and when a dynamic, entrepreneurial economy returns to this country, you will want to be a part of it.

At the end of slavery, the feeling was that we are black, set us free, we can compete, make a living, and own and run businesses etc.  Blacks were Republicans then.  150 years later, the winning (Democrat) message is that you are black, you are a victim, and you have no chance in this rigged world without a constant leg up from us and from a big government.  It isn't true.  It isn't working, and no one effectively points that out.

We need to be resolute in distancing ourselves from any support of a rigged, crony world.  That is the turf of the left; let them own it.  We need to repeal the unfair over-regulations that are designed to keep entrenched interests in and new entrants out.  We need economic growth for all.  A stagnant economy favors those who already have money and power.  Witness the Obama years.
214  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues - the double standard lives on on: April 11, 2016, 12:15:54 PM
Obama On Clinton Emails: "There's Classified & Then There's Classified"

Good catch on that.  That is the political answer for all this from the Clinton camp, not the Presidential view from a man sworn to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws of the land.

Out of 2079 classified emails after promising us there were none, let's say a hundred or a thousand of them were not that sensitive or could have been publicly sourced elsewhere.  SO WHAT?!  That has nothing to do with the alleged crime, and MANY of the others were sensitive, even TOP SECRET.

It is possible that the information that led to the disclosure or schedule, location, and operation of Ambassador Stevens enabled the attack and his murder.  Or other less famous disasters...

But to the President, WHEN DID YOU KNOW?  Why didn't you do anything about it?  Why are you shooting political diversion answers back on a law enforcement question?  wAs it legal, what she did, sending and receiving classified information over an unsecure private server?  Aren't YOU the chief law enforcement officer in the country?  Not the Attorney General. Was her reason for doing it true?   Is there a consequence?  WHEN?  Didn't this only come up because a Republican committee was digging into things while the official policy of your administration was, "4 Americans are dead, whether for one false reason or another, at this point WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!

When America got its chance to question its President and no one showed up.  Chris Wallace will retire and make millions off a book about how historic it was to sit down with the President and not do his job.

We can't drop this subject without pointing out the obvious double standard.  If a second term Republican President sat down with the lead person on the opposition network after 7 years of failure and scandal, he or she would not get kid gloves treatment or get away with political diversion answers to real questions.
215  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: speaks for itself, your basic Trump supporter victim didn't get his way... on: April 11, 2016, 10:24:49 AM

There is so much wrong there it's hard to know where to start.

I don't think you get a certificate for being a Republican, but burning it was impressive! (sarc.)
No mention of what he is for or against, all he supports is "Trump".
With that kind of contempt for "GOPe", I assume he sat out for Romney too, gave us Obama.
Trump is running for GOP establishment.  Rip GOPe for where they went wrong, not for existing.
If other than Trump (Cruz) is unacceptable, which of the "GOP" principles does he fall short on?
This process has been more open and fair that any, anywhere, you wimpy little helpless, crying victim.
Did he go to his caucus, run for delegate, build the party, etc, or leave the work to others to do that?
Where was he when they made the Colorado rules?  Fighting for a primary?  I doubt it.
They want the benefits of a strong national party, not the burdens of building or running one.
Trump is person, not a plan or a party.
The not-Trump vote has beaten the Trump vote in every state so far.
Trump built his own disapproval.  Assuming this supporter is paying attention, he watched that happen.
Saying f*ck you to every Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Fiorina supporter doesn't make them come back to you.
Your candidate never learned foreign policy.  FYI, it's part of the job.
Your candidate never learned the constitution.  FYI, it's part of the job.
The endorsement requires 1237, 50% + 1.  What part of that is complicated?
Trump loses in the general election.  Threatening to take down the party if it's not Trump is the same result.
Therefore your threat is empty.
Who didn't know from the start Trump would cry foul if and when he lost?
Trump hasn't lost yet.  Should the rest of us cry foul if he wins.  Doesn't matter.  He loses anyway.
For the same reason people oppose him now.
But he's only 69.  He can change!
Trump favored big government, Democrat policies in 2012.  Maybe he still can change. 
If we all get mad and go home when our candidate isn't the nominee, it isn't a political party anyway.
Break what pledge?  Let's all have regrets about not picking the guy who doesn't keep his word!
216  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media Issues, No follow up on "careless" handling of top secret information?! on: April 11, 2016, 09:50:29 AM
"NO ONE TRUSTS YOU"

Right.  And that is why his "guarantee" means virtually nothing.  Who can be even remotely confident politics will not enter into AG Lynch's decisions?

Without honesty we have nothing.

More points from that interview:  Obama said Hillary was "careless" with her email account.  But "carelessness" with "Top Secret" classified documents is the definition of Gross Negligence, which is a very serious felony in question that puts unconnected people in prison.

Again, no follow up.  Wallace didn't know that or was too star stuck to mention it?

I like Chris Wallace and he makes every effort to be a 'professional journalist' by today's lousy standards, but I have never thought of him as anything to the right or to the center of any other network even though his show appears on Fox.  This was a career making opportunity for the young journalist (of 68).  It looked more like a career ending interview.

Asked about his worst mistake, the President admitted he had absolutely no followup plan for the day after the Libya intervention, even though he accused Bush of exactly that in Iraq, and again, no follow up.  Was that his worst mistake or was it abandoning the gains we made in Iraq and handed this strategic country over to ISIS?  Again, no follow up.  Because those are the rules of the lightning round?  Is this a game show or a Presidential interview??

If a viewer doesn't know more than they're hearing on the screen or read between the lines, it looked like a humble and accomplished President handling tough, direct questions from a professional journalist.  No mention that he has run our country into the ground domestically in ways that can't be walked back and enabled crisis after crisis to spread across the globe over the last seven years. 

In the first Dem debate, other 'journalists' (John Dickerson?) did one follow up for each lie or evasion with the candidates, Hillary in particular.  So she effortlessly answered the followup with a second non-answer, knowing that's all there is and moved on.

That isn't tough treatment when everyone knows the question wasn't answered.

ccp:  "Without honesty we have nothing."

Right.  And because they are asked nothing and say nothing, they wasted my time and same for everyone else who watched.  The 99% who didn't watch made the right choice, learned more by ignoring him than I did by watching, listening and trying to learn something.
217  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues, Chris Wallace interviews President Obama on: April 10, 2016, 02:41:35 PM
Nice photo opp for both; weak on substance for both.  Wallace asked many good questions and then folded on follow up.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/04/10/exclusive-president-barack-obama-on-fox-news-sunday/

Stopping ISIS is his number one job.    - I thought Climate Change was our number one national security threat.  No one calls him out on his lunacy.

We obtained the President's "guarantee" that no political factors will influence the handling of the Hillary Clinton email case.    - No followup regarding Fast and Furious, IRS targeting or keeping our healthcare plan if we like it.  I understand giving deference to the President,  but then why even have the interview?

From my proposed questions:  [What are the] reasons why the American people gave you a no confidence vote in 2010, again in 2014... and why the US Senate is now giving you a no confidence vote on your Supreme Court pick?    [NO ONE TRUSTS YOU.]
218  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of Left, Bill Clinton, Black Lives Matter, Hillary, Obama on: April 10, 2016, 02:14:43 PM
Blacks hate the results of both Clinton and Obama policies as well as the Dem governance of their own cities, Philadelphia in this case.  Yet these people including Hillary win because of black votes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/us/politics/bill-clinton-apology-black-lives-matter-philadelphia.html

"... central to the 2016 campaign...the 1994 crime bill, which created tougher penalties for nonviolent drug offenders, erected dozens of new prisons, banned certain types of assault weapons and sent 100,000 more police officers to American cities.  Today, Black Lives Matter protesters have pointed to the effects of that legislation as contributing to the high rates of incarceration of black men and the current tensions between police officers and black communities."
219  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: April 10, 2016, 02:00:09 PM
Now it is pointed out that Reagan had 70% unfavorable ratings in early 1980.

There is no Reagan analogy with Trump or any of these people.

I wonder if the point above is true.  I'm sure he was seen as too conservative and he trailed Carter, but that level of unfavorability doesn't sound right to me.

His approval rating was likely upside down during much of the first two years of his administration.  1982 was a terrible economic year before the tax rate cuts that were passed went fully into effect on 1/1/83.  Then the economy started roaring.

Maybe Trump should be pushing his tax cut instead of hypothetically punishing women.

Quarterly GDP growth during Reagan's first term before his reelection.  Read this sequentially from the bottom or see the graph on page 2 here: http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Laffer_RevisitingReaganCuts_F.pdf

Sep 30, 1984   6.96%
Jun 30, 1984   7.99%
Mar 31, 1984   8.55%
Dec 31, 1983   7.83%
Sep 30, 1983   5.75%
Jun 30, 1983   3.35%
Mar 31, 1983   1.59%
Dec 31, 1982   -1.40%
Sep 30, 1982   -2.64%
Jun 30, 1982   -1.17%
Mar 31, 1982   -2.42%
Dec 31, 1981   1.29%
Sep 30, 1981   4.39%
Jun 30, 1981   3.05%
Mar 31, 1981   1.70%
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-quarter
220  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: April 10, 2016, 12:04:36 PM
"Many states, mine included consider an intoxicated person in possession of their keys in the car to be DUI."
Well in that case I understand it.
Thanks for clarification.
Just trouble shooting.  If one comes out of a bar and goes in the back seat to sleep it off till next morning then that person too is DUI?
What if they have a van and go in the back to sleep?  
Basically one cannot sleep in their car if under the influence even if she/he does not drive?
Well he was in parking lot on someone's else's property...........but if the owner of the property does not complain........ undecided

The best course of action in that scenario is to lock your keys in your trunk or another locked container before going to sleep.

My uncle was a D.A. here for 36 years.  He wouldn't prosecute a DUI where the intent and action of the person arrested was to be NOT driving the car.  Like ccp says, realize you shouldn't be driving, get off the road, sleep it off.  Unfortunately that isn't the law (here).  Do what GM says.  I was going to say throw the keys as far as you can away from the car where they won't be found and hope you have an extra set, or get away from the car which is also not the safest thing to do on a cold MN winter night away from home.  These days, it's Uber.  Load the app and register before the situation arises and have your username and password all known in your phone so it will come up easily when you need it.  (I should take my own advice; I signed up and don't know my password...)  You still need to get away from the car if you are even possibly over .08.  Cheaper than the alternative.
221  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics, Economic Recoveries compared on: April 08, 2016, 12:55:14 PM
Here is the graphic Chris Wallace needs to put up as he asks question number one to the President:



Reagan recovery above.  Obama recovery below.

Besides George Bush's fault (refuted in question number two), how do you explain your PATHETIC economic record, post recession?

Graph source:  Stanford Economics Professor John Taylor's blog, http://economicsone.com/

Prof. Taylor uses the terms: "7 years of so-called expansion", "Slow Crawl", "anemic productivity growth, anemic employment growth, anemic income growth",  not 'plowhorse' economy.  He has been "blaming government economic policy all the way".   "People’s exasperation and anger about the economy and Washington policy revealed in this presidential election proves the point better than any abstract statistic ever could. "
222  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Economics, Milton Friedman: Cause of the Great Depression on: April 08, 2016, 12:44:36 PM
This is important today.  9 out of 10 economists or news agencies getting this wrong doesn't make wrong right.  it wasn't caused by a failure of private businesses.  It was caused by a failure of the federal government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiIp8TKaLs

Who is the Milton Friedman today?  Besides being brilliant, he explained economic things in a way that everyone can understand and he openly debated anyone.

The above takes about 7 minutes of your life for you to not be wrong about something that caused a decade or more of misery.  The wrong lessons learned from the Great Depression are central to the problems we face today.

Here is another, Friedman on wealth inequality and inheritance taxes, 4 minutes.  MUST SEE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiIp8TKaLs

Ted Cruz needs to watch this and speak this clearly and persuasively on economics.

Glenn Beck has been doing a series of Milton Friedman on radio.  These are two clips are heard there and found on youtube.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/04/04/milton-friedman-part-i-economics-101/

223  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the left, This is your brain on Climate Change on: April 08, 2016, 12:21:47 PM
Bored with the right, I was reading "The Nation" today.

This is your brain on Climate Change
http://www.thenation.com/article/your-brain-on-climate-change/

 “Mental health consequences of climate change range from minimal stress and distress symptoms to clinical disorders, such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and suicidal thoughts,” the report reads. It draws on a body of evidence linking the experience of extreme weather events, displacement, and other environmental degradation to mental illness. Even just hearing about climate change on the news, or reading reports like this one, can cause anxiety.

No, you're not reading a spoof in "The Onion".  This is the handbook of the left.
---------------------------------------------

Humans live healthfully from the Yukon to the equator, we enjoy everything from hot tubs to polar plunges, yet leftists are worried that we somehow can't adapt to 1 degree of warming.

Also covered is that while emissions have already peaked (good news), all coastal cities will likely be lost to ocean rise by 2100 (bad news).  http://www.thenation.com/article/good-news-on-climate-changeand-bad-news/

Not mentioned ever is that none of the climate models created so far have been the least bit accurate. 

Meanwhile we have a couple of inches of April snow here this morning and the east cost is faces record cold temps..

At least they are learning to push their predictions further out to where we can't stick around and prove them wrong.  If I make it to 2100, climate change will be the least of my problems.
224  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz is now fighting for delegates in New York on: April 08, 2016, 11:56:30 AM
Ted Cruz used the "New York Values' pejorative in Iowa against Trump.  Resenting the east coast power, urbanites and country club Republicans is something that resonated with the 27% furthest right of the furthest right that go to Iowa caucuses, enough to win by a smidgen in a very crowded field.  Not helpful now.

At the time I said that was a mistake.  Checking the record I see that bth Bret Stephens and ccp made that observation first:  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2408.msg93613#msg93613

My criticism has been that Cruz is running for first place in the most conservative lane (of which I am a member) instead of running for President.  Saying things like 'New York values', or just picturing Rubio with Dick Durbin or Chuck Schumer are red meat to conservatives but doesn't mean a thing to the middle who you also need to win. 

Reagan won the middle and united the party by defeating the left, not by attacking the RINOs.

Now Cruz desperately needs Republican votes in New York, and he needs to unite the center and the near right with the far right in order to win. 

The strategies he used to get this far worked, but some of his tactics were mistakes. 

His background coming into this was to argue strict constitutionalism to people who should be experts on that (Supreme Court Justices), and to win from the right in a state that is perhaps furthest to the right.  What he is trying to do now, taking his message to NY Republicans and to the public is something he has never attempted before.  I wish him the best.
225  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Krauthammer: Donald Trump and the coming GOP train wreck on: April 08, 2016, 11:17:06 AM
Krauthammer (paraphrasing) impressed not by Trump's loss in Wisconsin but by how 35% stuck with him even as he imploded and everything turned against him.  http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-trump-cruz-gop-train-wreck-article-1.2592506

If Trump wins the nomination, we lose.  If Trump loses the nomination, we lose.  Can anybody visualize a scenario where Cruz (or someone else) clinches later in the balloting after Trump falls and then Trump gets 100% behind that Republican nominee?

Actually I can.  He has made quicker turns than that in the very recent past.  Nothing about this guy, except his view of himself, is predictable.
226  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Abortion, Trump wasn't first Pres candidate to discuss punishing the woman on: April 08, 2016, 11:05:05 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jszkPtsFH-k

Candidate Obama March 2008, if his daughters made a "mistake" he would not want them "punished with a baby".
227  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness to appear on Fox News Sunday on: April 07, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/06/obama-to-sit-down-for-exclusive-fox-news-sunday-interview.html

What would we want to ask him if we had a limited amount of time to do so?

The President's agenda for the interview, they say, is to push his Supreme Court nominee - and expose Republicans for not doing their constitutional duty, advice and consent, which has come to mean to hold hearings and take an up or down vote.  How would we want that point answered?
----------------------------------

If it were me...

1) This is the slowest recovery in history coming out of one of the worst recessions in history.  Why?

2) In the early years of the administration, the economy was George Bush's fault, agreed, but what he did wrong causing the crash was to continue the policy of Democrats, funding GSEs and pushing banks to make bad loans.  Agreed?

3) Any regrets over the complete abandonment of Iraq for political reasons after the peace was won at such a great cost and your role in fostering the rise of ISIS?

4) Were any laws broken during Fast and Furious?  What department should investigate and prosecute the Department of Justice?

5) Was the IRS targeting scandal, shutting down all conservative groups and helping you get reelected, really any worse than anything Richard Nixon did?

6) Any regrets over saying you can keep your plan, keep your doctor, and save 2500 a year to enact a nearly impossible to repeal federal program that already has done exactly the opposite?

7) At what point were you aware that Hillary Clinton was sending and reeiving classified emails over her unsecure private server?  At what point were you aware that she was working through her husband to trade State Department favors for Foundation dollars.  

8 ) In ranking the results of different economic systems in terms of how the people benefited who lived under them in the course of human history, is it really communism, capitalism, whatever?

9) Is a world with the USA unilaterally disarmed safer than America having nuclear arms and a strong defense?

10) Can you name 5 to 10 reasons why the American people gave you a no confidence vote in 2010, again in 2014, why there has been a bigger shift from Democratic to Republican elected officials across the nation, up and down the ballot, under your terms, than at any other time in history, and perhaps from that why the US Senate is now giving you a no confidence vote on your Supreme Court pick?

11) Did the oceans' rise begin to fade and did the planet begin to heal under your watch?

12) Is Islam really the religion of peace?

13) Can you think of a way we could make more people around the world US citizens and eligible to vote Democrat here in abstentia, saving them the hassle of having to cross our porous, unattended border to do that?
-----------------------------------------------

Posted previously, Iowahawk took a shot at this back in 2011:

An $8 billion high speed [federally funded] train leaves Chicago for Iowa City at 8:15am at 40mph. Why?

What's the biggest hardship you've ever dealt with in your life?  Have you ever had a menial job, changed your own oil, or fixed a toilet?

I let my Mexican drug lord license expire. Am I still eligible for the free machine gun program?

Are you smart enough to create a problem so big that even you could not solve it?

Why isn't your cabinet unionized?

Is there any job you'd be better at than president?

I understand you finally quit smoking. Do they make a patch for spending addicts too?  Is this question racist?

Are you in favor of gay marriage for Libyan bombing crews on Boeing planes made in South Carolina?

Would you get tougher with Iran if you knew they were working with Scott Walker?  [or Trump or Cruz?]

When your economic advisors hold policy meetings, do they stuff a towel at the bottom of the door?

If we reneg on the debt, where's the best place to hide our stuff from the repo men?

I just voted to increase my sobriety ceiling. Why won't the bartender give me another drink?

When you create jobs, why do always create them for Texas?

If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious, should he get a civilian trial?
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/07/questions-so-many-questions.html
228  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science, Climate forecasts may be flawed, says study on: April 07, 2016, 10:02:08 AM
I can't believe this, Climate forecasts may be flawed...

https://in.news.yahoo.com/climate-forecasts-may-flawed-says-170007812.html

Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends.

A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1,200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming.

This is problematic, said a study in the journal Nature, as the same data models used to anticipate that global warming would cause record rainfall extremes in the 1900s, are the basis for projections of things to come.

"It might be more difficult than often assumed to project into the future," the study's lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist of Stockholm University told AFP of the findings.
--------------

Who knew?
229  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Americans spend more on taxes than food, clothing, housing combined on: April 06, 2016, 01:04:36 PM
A point I have been making for my personal, low income situation for a long time is now true for everyone.  This is not a tax issue, but a burden of government programs issue.  We have to levy these taxes and more if we want the government to do EVERYTHING.

Americans spend more on taxes than food, clothing, housing combined

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-spend-more-on-taxes-than-food-clothing-housing-combined/article/2587799

http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax-freedom-day-2016-april-24

230  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media Issues, Paid TV, NCAA Championship game viewership down 37% on: April 06, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2016/04/05/record-low-ncaa-championship-tv-ratings/

I tend to hang out with affluent sports fans of tennis and hockey where all the coverage is on cable, so I am the only person I know who can't go home and watch the big game.  All my tenants in 'poverty' and on assistance have cable too.  That bill gets paid before rent.  Now even the debates are proprietary on cable.

I pay for the Twins stadium because the team is a 'public entity' but can't see a game televised.  Their loss, from my point of view.  Not caring frees up a lot of time for better things than spectator sports and commercials.

Even the finals of the events I would enjoy are now off broadcast.

Paid TV made sense to me as an alternative to commercials.  But that isn't the path they've taken.

I hope you-all are getting your money's worth out there, but if we all refused to pay their exorbitant prices, the big events would still be free and open to the public.
231  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Four Laws Could Put Hillary, Aides In Jail on: April 06, 2016, 12:43:51 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/06/any-one-of-these-four-laws-could-put-hillary-aides-in-jail/
232  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India/Indian Ocean (and India-afpakia and India-China) on: April 06, 2016, 12:28:52 PM
Excellent post YA!  Thank you for the insight.

Yes.  YA makes points we don't otherwise see from here.  The US flirts with Pakistan for influence, not friendship.  We gain very little for that and then we wonder why India is not with us on all matters.

(YA) "Indians still fondly remember the relationship with Russia/USSR, the Russians always stood by their friends. See the recent Russian support to Syria and compare how the US has treated its allies."

While I might question that characterization of Russia/USSR, it is important to know that is the perception elsewhere. 

China dabbles with expansionism, testing the resolve of others with its island and sea disputes.  But most of China's transgressions happen within its borders in terms of liberties denied and wrongful treatment of dissidents.  As we see China build up its navy in particular and military overall, we wonder why they are doing that and where it will lead. 

(From the article) "...to develop this point further, if China did go to war against Japan, the Philippines or Taiwan, it is obviously true that India would not send its warships straight in. But the US-India relationship could still make an important mark on any such conflict..."

If this is the threat, the world needs the full cooperation of countries like USA, India and Japan as the balance of power. 

Isn't it too late to build that coalition after such a move?
233  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: WSJ: The case for Kasich on: April 05, 2016, 12:32:34 PM
Being a two term governor of a major state is a great credential, so is his service in congress.  But this isn't a resume election; it is a change of direction election according to the votes cast so far.

Kasich, Like Jeb, chose to run against the delegates and conservatism.  I don't know when John Kasich changed or why, but he isn't the same guy that stood by Newt in 1994.

This isn't a federal budget of 1998 and this isn't what we thought was the world threat level of 1990s either.  He hasn't shown an interest in getting up to speed (MHO) and he didn't run a national campaign.  

Ohio ranks 46th in median household income growth.  
http://www.usa.com/rank/us--median-household-income-growth-rate--state-rank.htm

Kasich lacks charisma and the ability to attract voters outside of Ohio.

Big government conservative is an oxymoron.  Kasich doesn't express any regrets for embracing it.

Son of a mailman, Kasich made $1.1 million in 2008 working for Lehman Brothers...
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2010/04/02/kasich_made_11_m_in_2008_no_go.html/

What percent of those polled so far know that?  What percent will know that on election day?

Yes, he should be considered if Trump and Cruz fail.  No, he isn't the best choice.
234  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Housing/Mortgage, Obama administration pushes banks to make [bad loans] on: April 05, 2016, 12:04:30 PM
Previous post in this thread:  Maybe if Trump wins New Hampshire, Pat will come back...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard Dem economist Austan Goolsbee argue that CRAp did not factor in the crash and that banks don't make mortgages.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/29/listen-to-an-economist-shut-down-hannity-for-bl/209611

Now this:
Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
235  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Left, publicly funded campaigns on: April 05, 2016, 11:45:51 AM
Little guy, Bernie Sanders, is raising $44 million a month in small donations by speaking the truth from an Occupy Wall Street far left perspective, more than Hillary is getting from bi corporate interests, while he calls for taxpayer funding of all campaigns - because it is impossible otherwise for the little guy to compete with the big money interests.

Isn't that the definition of this thread, Cognitive Dissonance of the Left!
236  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credi on: April 05, 2016, 10:54:44 AM
I just heard Dem economist Austan Goolsbee argue that CRAp did not factor in the crash and that banks don't make mortgages.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/29/listen-to-an-economist-shut-down-hannity-for-bl/209611

Now this:
Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
----------------------------------

I notice the story dateline April 2, 2016.  Any chance this was an April Fools' prank?  Today the President is addressing corporate inversions by making stricter rules instead of making tax rates competitive.

Republicans should spend every political dollar available this month on proving the case that this President is the April Fool.  Make Hillary or the nominee run away from these policies.
237  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Fire at IRS on: April 05, 2016, 10:42:00 AM
TOO BAD SOMEBODY DECIDED TO STORE GASOLINE AND OILY RAGS IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE SUBPOENAED HARD DRIVES. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN! IRS Building In Washington, D.C. Closed Today Due To Fire.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/04/irs-bulding-in-washington-dc-closed-today-due-to-fire.html
238  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion, life deniers, Hillary 'unborn person', 'mother carrying a child' on: April 05, 2016, 10:35:02 AM
Copying this over from Hillbillary thread.  I would add that 'person' is a legal term and Hillary is hinting that she would like to guarantee government healthcare to the unborn - if not for the abortion interest.  I think she hit her head pretty hard on the fall...

Let's see who else picks up on this.  HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life.  I can add the transcript later.

Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child".  She also referred to "the unborn person".
...
I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother".  It was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman".  Important distinction!

This changes everything.  You terminate tissue.  You don't terminate a child.  ...

Yes, this was noticed by others!  At least on the right...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/print/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3522101/Hillary-Clinton-says-unborn-person-doesn-t-constitutional-rights-explains-stance-abortion.html
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-doesnt-constitutional-rights/
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-on-abortion-the-unborn-person-doesnt-have-constitutional-rights/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/03/hillary-unborn-babies-do-not-have-rights-video/

Video Clip of the exchange:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/03/chuck_todd_to_hillary_clinton_when_or_if_does_an_unborn_child_have_constitutional_rights.html

Good for Chuck Todd for asking one tough, relevant question.  She usually doesn't go on shows that do that - I believe she has never appeared on Fox News Sunday.  Todd introduced the subject by ripping Trump for taking 5 positions in one week on abortion.  Hillary got her guard down, was ready to jump in and pile on, but instead he gave her an open ended opportunity to state her view on abortion.  She went right into Roe v Wade, that she agrees with it and so on, and it allows for some restrictions.  Then Todd bluntly asked her when and if an unborn child has constitutional rights.  And she stumbled badly.  

The left thrives off of owning the language of the issues.  Spending going up is a budget cut.  Temporary spending is permanent.  Affordable housing is not affordable but requires subsidy, hence a government policy.  Affordable healthcare, same thing, makes it unaffordable, requiring a massive federal program with mandates that all would not be needed if it was affordable as the term used to mean.  Eliminating racial differences means putting more focus on race.  Marriage is no longer husband-wife, and so on. The left owns the language when they are winning on issues, and they pull it off by having monopoly control of the messages around us, from k-12 curriculum, to teachers unions, colleges, elite universities and the media.

Nowhere is language more crucial than abortion.  Rachel meant well, especially on moral issues but would only post about abortion by starting a separate thread called 'reproductive issues'.  Abortion isn't reproduction; it's the opposite.  But you don't call it killing a baby and then ask people what they think about it.

Hillary has been so deeply entrenched in this kind of leftism that her blunder was outrageous.  ccp might know, but it could be a symptom of age or brain injury that such an expert on the topic would make such a beginner leftist type of error after all these years in the leftist bubble.  Otherwise she got sloppy after recently experiencing a real, grandmother-grandbaby love when she should have been reviewing Saul Alinsky manuals for her upcoming run.

You don't call 'it' a 'person' while talking about it having no rights, okay to kill.  You don't call the woman a mother and you don't call the fetus a child.  If you begin to admit, as Reagan put it, that it [a fetus] is 1) alive, 2) human, and 3) and has separate, distinct DNA from the mother (and father), then you are pro-life, not pro-choice.  Abortion becomes a killing of a child, not a procedure on a woman.

In the middle of the same sentence, she used proper leftist language, that it is the woman's "decision".  A sentence that ends without saying it is the woman's decision to do what, kill / end the life of the 'child', 'person', 'tissue mass', whatever you want to call what is alive and being killed and removed.

The science in this case is not on the side of the life deniers, so adhering to a very careful and strict choice of words is the only way to defend this barbaric, 21st century, 1st world practice that in 98% of the cases is done for convenience reasons.

Muslim genitalia mutilation at birth is abhorrent behavior to us, but killing the same baby one moment earlier isn't - only because of a strict choice of words and framing of the issue.
 
239  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: April 05, 2016, 10:31:04 AM
Thank you, will do.  I would add that 'person' is a legal term and Hillary is hinting that she would like to guarantee government healthcare to the unborn - if not for the abortion interest.  I think she hit her head pretty hard on the fall...
240  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: a lot of behind the scenes jockeying. Ryan, Presidential, Rule 40b on: April 05, 2016, 10:22:21 AM
I don't know what to think.  On one hand I am not happy with establishment Ryan but I cannot see how Trump could win a general election. (He is our of favor with me.  It is 100% clear he lacks the impulse control to be President.)   And I just do not seeing Cruz winning either:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charles-koch-paul-ryan-nomination_us_57029099e4b083f5c6082b95

One problem with Paul Ryan for President is that it puts the Republican House back in disarray.  Other than that he didn't run for President or win a delegate, I think he would be a fine President.  I don't see how he would have fared any better in the primaries than Rubio.  Strong on most issues, no executive experience, favored comprehensive immigration reform.  He already has a chance to make a place in history by taking over as Speaker of the House at 45.  

I was really hoping to never have to know the exact wording of RNC Rule 40b, just like I hate the tax code, but here goes...

Rule 40b

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8 ) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (Cool or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-[/b]pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf

In other words, if they keep this rule in the age of twitter and private and group messenging, anyone can place anyone in nomination at any time just by submitting a petition from a majority of delegates in 8 states to the convention secretary, an hour before the next ballot.  That kind of organization and support is way below what is necessary to win anyway.  A majority of delegates can vote that candidate down too.


Trump has won 37% of the votes cast so far and is likely to fall short of 1237 before the convention.  Just like the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place finishers, he is not deserving of the nomination - unless that is what a majority of the seated delegates want.  If the 1st place candidate can't reach the magic number in the first couple of ballots, the delegates logically turn to the second place candidate and we will see if he can clinch it on the 3rd or 4th ballot.  Let's say Cruz also fails to clinch it.  I don't see why the 3rd and 4th place finishers don't have the same claim at that point to try to reach a majority that Cruz had when Trump fell short.

If this drags on, the feeling in the hall is that if we fail to endorse, this is not a major national party and Hillary will essentially run unopposed.  Time and patience run down and attention will keep turning to who might win and make the deadlock end.  At one point, Rubio was everyone's second choice.  No one knows who that is now; people are guessing its Cruz.  The other scenarios only come into play if both Trump and Cruz fall short.

The RNC's responsibility is to make sure ballots start very early in the week (Saturday 8am?) and keep happening on scheduled intervals until done.
241  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cognitive Dissonance of Hillary Clinton, abortion kills an "unborn person" on: April 04, 2016, 11:04:29 AM
Let's see who else picks up on this.  HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life.  I can add the transcript later.

Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child".  She also referred to "the unborn person".
...
I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother".  It was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman".  Important distinction!

This changes everything.  You terminate tissue.  You don't terminate a child.  ...

Yes, this was noticed by others!  At least on the right...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/print/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3522101/Hillary-Clinton-says-unborn-person-doesn-t-constitutional-rights-explains-stance-abortion.html
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-doesnt-constitutional-rights/
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-on-abortion-the-unborn-person-doesnt-have-constitutional-rights/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/03/hillary-unborn-babies-do-not-have-rights-video/

Video Clip of the exchange:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/03/chuck_todd_to_hillary_clinton_when_or_if_does_an_unborn_child_have_constitutional_rights.html

Good for Chuck Todd for asking one tough, relevant question.  She usually doesn't go on shows that do that - I believe she has never appeared on Fox News Sunday.  Todd introduced the subject by ripping Trump for taking 5 positions in one week on abortion.  Hillary got her guard down, was ready to jump in and pile on, but instead he gave her an open ended opportunity to state her view on abortion.  She went right into Roe v Wade, that she agrees with it and so on, and it allows for some restrictions.  Then Todd bluntly asked her when and if an unborn child has constitutional rights.  And she stumbled badly. 

The left thrives off of owning the language of the issues.  Spending going up is a budget cut.  Temporary spending is permanent.  Affordable housing is not affordable but requires subsidy, hence a government policy.  Affordable healthcare, same thing, makes it unaffordable, requiring a massive federal program with mandates that all would not be needed if it was affordable as the term used to mean.  Eliminating racial differences means putting more focus on race.  Marriage is no longer husband-wife, and so on. The left owns the language when they are winning on issues, and they pull it off by having monopoly control of the messages around us, from k-12 curriculum, to teachers unions, colleges, elite universities and the media.

Nowhere is language more crucial than abortion.  Rachel meant well, especially on moral issues but would only post about abortion by starting a separate thread called 'reproductive issues'.  Abortion isn't reproduction; it's the opposite.  But you don't call it killing a baby and then ask people what they think about it.

Hillary has been so deeply entrenched in this kind of leftism that her blunder was outrageous.  ccp might know, but it could be a symptom of age or brain injury that such an expert on the topic would make such a beginner leftist type of error after all these years in the leftist bubble.  Otherwise she got sloppy after recently experiencing a real, grandmother-grandbaby love when she should have been reviewing Saul Alinsky manuals for her upcoming run.

You don't call 'it' a 'person' while talking about it having no rights, okay to kill.  You don't call the woman a mother and you don't call the fetus a child.  If you begin to admit, as Reagan put it, that it [a fetus] is 1) alive, 2) human, and 3) and has separate, distinct DNA from the mother (and father), then you are pro-life, not pro-choice.  Abortion becomes a killing of a child, not a procedure on a woman.

In the middle of the same sentence, she used proper leftist language, that it is the woman's "decision".  A sentence that ends without saying it is the woman's decision to do what, kill / end the life of the 'child', 'person', 'tissue mass', whatever you want to call what is alive and being killed and removed.

The science in this case is not on the side of the life deniers, so adhering to a very careful and strict choice of words is the only way to defend this barbaric, 21st century, 1st world practice that in 98% of the cases is done for convenience reasons.

Muslim genitalia mutilation at birth is abhorrent behavior to us, but killing the same baby one moment earlier isn't - only because of a strict choice of words and framing of the issue.
 
242  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: FL Gov. Scott signs bill requiring charges before forfeiture on: April 04, 2016, 09:28:01 AM

An obvious reform in the pursuit of property rights, liberty, due process and fighting the abuse of government, hard to believe this isn't already the law, but it is an important ray of hope nonetheless.

Shouldn't a conviction rather than a charge be required to keep any property permanently?

From previous posts, the total value of government seizures now exceeds all private theft in this country.

243  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Stratfor: Detecting Bombmaking on: April 04, 2016, 09:14:09 AM
Quote:  Crafty's Post:
Awareness Can Short-Circuit a Bomb Attack
Security Weekly
March 31, 2016

Some missed opportunities to avert the bombing attacks that struck the Zaventem airport in Brussels included chemical odors outside the bombmakers' apartment and suspicious behavior on the part of the suicide attackers....
---------------------------------------------------

This post is quite informative.  This knowledge needs to be more widely known if that is one of ISIS' current modes of attack.  Not mentioned is what the taxi driver could have done, had he known.  Refuse to drive terrorist looking Muslims in Brussels-Molenbeek to where they request?  I own small quantities of strong cleaners and solvents among those mentioned, but as the articles, it would be odd and suspicious for a household to be buy chemicals like those in bulk or to have that smell coming out of a residence.
244  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of Hillary Clinton, abortion, not ready for prime time on: April 03, 2016, 02:48:43 PM
Let's see who else picks up on this.  HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life.  I can add the transcript later.

Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child".  She also referred to "the unborn person".

Justice Breyer has also made this awful Orwellian, pro-choice mis-speak.  Why is a woman carrying a "fetus" a mother?  Mother of what?  The facts (in that case) didn't say she had previous children.

I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother".  I was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman".  Important distinction!

This changes everything.  You terminate tissue.  You don't terminate a child.  Some might call that ......[murder].

Maybe Hillary had a Trump pro-life moment when a beautiful (to them) Clinton grandbaby popped out after 9 months of kicking inside the tummy of Hillary's loving (to her) daughter Chelsea.

Maybe Democrats are people too and are capable of putting life ahead of politics...  Or should I expect a correction.  She didn't mean to say mother and child - and Trump didn't mean to say punish the woman.

Unfortunately, we live in a time void of great leaders.
245  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: April 03, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
Strangely it is the (non-existent?) Republican Party of California in June that will determine what the Presidential ballot will look like for the nation in 2016.  If Trump can't clinch, someone else eventually will.

Trump is 500 delegates short of the 1237 needed right now, with 848 remaining.  He could lose Wisconsin, win NY and some other states and get within the 172 Calif. delegate reach by June 7.  

California for the most part is 53 separate, congressional district elections, very difficult to sweep if votes tend to go with regions or demographics.

Primary Calendar    G.O.P. delegates   
Delegates Remaining   848   
APRIL 5   Wisconsin   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-MOST  42   
APRIL 8   Colorado Republican Conventions  37
APRIL 19   New York   95   
APRIL 26   Connecticut   28   
Delaware   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL   16   
Maryland   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-MOST   38   
Pennsylvania   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-MOST   71   
Rhode Island      19   
MAY 3   Indiana   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-MOST  57
MAY 10   Nebraska Republican Primary  G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL  36   
West Virginia   34   
Oregon   28   
MAY 24   Washington State Republican Primary  44   
JUNE 7   California   172   
Montana   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL   27
New Jersey   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL   51
New Mexico      24   
South Dakota   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL   29  JUNE 14   
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0
--------------------------------------------------------------

After all the Kasich hoopla, I notice that Marco Rubio is still in third place in the delegate count.  Depending on rules not yet set, if Trump cannot win on the first or second ballot and if Cruz cannot win on the 3rd or 4th ballot, and if they start taking more names into nomination, I would look for Kasich and Rubio to re-enter the contest, not Romney or Ryan or a "fresh face".  What happens after that is all legitimate if it follows the agreed rules of the process.  

In a contested convention, it becomes a game of momentum.  Let's say Trump is a  delegate or 2 short on the first ballot and 3 or 4 delegates short on the second ballot.  He will only go down from there.  Same will be true for Cruz after delegates are gradually released.  If he is rising while Trump is falling but peaks short of 1237, once his momentum stops, he is done.

My current prediction is Cruz on the third ballot.  Failing that, Rubio on the 27th ballot.  Then, as Priebus pointed out, it is the delegates who decide the VP choice, not the Presidential nominee.

Take the advice of the exciting governor of Ohio, better get your seat belt on...

Meanwhile, on the Dem side, frontrunner Hillary Clinton has a close race going with FBI Director James Comey.
246  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade, 1 Million Manufacturing jobs lost since NAFTA on: April 03, 2016, 01:21:58 PM
(Related post here: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg95132#msg95132 )

Speaking of answering myths, we are hearing that Ohio lost 320,000 manufacturing jobs since the passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/sanders-overshoots-nafta-job-losses/
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

Similar claims, different numbers in Wisconsin. 

FYI to the zero-sum, anti-Reagan, static economy supporters that make up a third of the Republican party and 2/3rd of the Democrats:  Economic globalization was not caused by one piece of paper (1200 pages in this case),   It was already happening!

If not for this one document, our little economy would be chugging along like it's 1956 again.  We could build iphones right here in America, they would cost $20,000 each. 3 people would have one, and everything would be fine.  We could keep Walmart out and the 5 and dime store open over on main street - if not for NAFTA, currency manipulation in China etc.

Besides that it's false, I have not heard from the opponents of freedom to trade the number of jobs Ohio would have lost if did not pursue free trade with the world.

There is so much bunk thrown around on this subject, from Krugman falsely crediting NAFTA to Democrats to the reversal of roles in this election if the protectionist DT is the Republican nominee. 

NAFTA is not a free trade agreement.  A free trade agreement can be written in one sentence, does not require three reams of paper to print.  Also, it was Mexico ending tariffs; we had already ended ours. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ec200210a.pdf

[A vote for TPA (TPP fast track authority) is not a vote for a trade agreement either.]

Even PolitiFact rates Sanders claim of 800,000 job losses since NAFTA as 'mostly false'.

Smoot Hawley could be renamed Sanders Trump.

To complicate matters more, Trump says (paraphrasing) he supports free trade and is just bluffing to get the vote of the protectionists.  Hillary says she supports free trade too and is just bluffing to compete for the vote of the Sanders crowd.

Just what our economy needs, more uncertainty along with receding economic freedoms.  What conservative wants to let government determine what goods should come in or not at what price and regulate that by levying a tax on the American consumer? 

I recall from my export days that we had a million dollar order of modems made in the Twin Cites, ready to ship to Mexico, and then we broke open the boxes and had them disassembled and separated into circuit boards and cases, then needing to be reassembled upon receipt, to fall under a different, less punitive tariff class in third world, pre-NAFTA Mexico.  That kind of nonsense is what trade protectionists unknowingly favor.

Big government conservatism is an Oxy Moron.
247  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / European matters, Out of EU vote poll leading by 4% in U.K. on: April 03, 2016, 12:22:28 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/02/eu-referendum-young-voters-brexit-leave

My guess is that it will be a close vote to stay in since this is almost margin of error close and people are mostly afraid of change.  Similarly, Scotland voted narrowly to stay in the U.K.

Which way would YOU vote?  My instinct would be to vote yes for the economic common market, no for open borders, no for Euro currency and in this case no for E.U. 

Being just one member is too little control of your own country.  The E.U. is not a country.  It is not an e pluribus unum, out of many, one.  Nor are we anymore, but Europe is less so.  Too many screwed up, failing states, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece... and too much going wrong in the so called stronger ones such as a million new refugees in Germany, trouble in France, Brussels, etc.
248  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Eight false memes about Iraq on: April 03, 2016, 12:00:20 PM

Since the media gets it wrong, the history books get it wrong.  A lot went wrong in Iraq, but the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was not wrong, IMHO.  The details of this are worth saving!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq
 John Hawkins,  Jan, 2012  

1) George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.: This is a charge that has been repeated ad nauseum by opponents of the war, but the claim that Bush “lied” about stockpiles of WMDs doesn’t hold up to the least bit of scrutiny.

Once you understand one crucial fact, that: numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We’re not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here’s a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

To believe that George Bush lied about WMDs is to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to lie about WMDs that goes to the highest level of both parties & that stretches across both the pro and anti-war movements.

It’s just not possible — and that’s before we even consider the numerous other pieces of exculpating evidence like: all the non-American intelligence agencies that also believed Saddam had WMDs, CIA Director George Tenet famously saying it was a: “‘slam-dunk’ that Hussein possessed the banned weapons”, the once secret: Downing Street Memo: which certainly proves that our allies in Britain believed Saddam had WMDs…

“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”

…and of course, that we did find: warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents: and artillery shells filled with: mustard gas: &: sarin: (even though they were small in number and weren’t recently made).

When you add it all up, it appears that George Bush, like a lot of other people, was wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of WMDs. But without question, he did not lie about it.

2) A study released in March of 2003 by a British medical journal, the Lancet, showed that 100,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the US invasion.To be perfectly frank, it’s hard to see how anyone who has even a passing familiarity with statistics could take Lancet’s numbers seriously.: Fred Kaplanfrom Slate explains:

“The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.The report’s authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference’the number of “extra” deaths in the post-invasion period’signifies the war’s toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I’ll spell it out in plain English’which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language’98,000’is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn’t an estimate. It’s a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday’s election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It’s a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.”

Bingo! What Lancet was in effect saying was that they believed 98,000 civilians died, but they might have been off by roughly 90,000 people or so in either direction.

Moreover, other sources at the time were coming in with numbers that were a tiny fraction of the 98,000 figure that the Lancet settled on. From a: New York Times: article on the Lancet study:

“The 100,000 estimate immediately came under attack. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain questioned the methodology of the study and compared it with an Iraq Health Ministry figure that put civilian fatalities at less than 4,000. Other critics referred to the findings of the Iraq Body Count project, which has constructed a database of war-related civilian deaths from verified news media reports or official sources like hospitals and morgues.That database recently placed civilian deaths somewhere between 14,429 and 16,579, the range arising largely from uncertainty about whether some victims were civilians or insurgents. But because of its stringent conditions for including deaths in the database, the project has quite explicitly said, ”Our own total is certain to be an underestimate.”

Via: GlobalSecurity.org, here’s another Iraqi civilian death estimate:

“On 20 October 2003 the Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants — that is: civilians who did not take up arms.”

Given all that, how any informed person can buy into Lancet’s numbers is simply beyond me.

3) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.: It’s always difficult to prove a negative, but that simply never happened.

Many people may believe this was the case because in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore truncated a comment by Condi Rice in order to deliberately give viewers of his movie that false impression. Here’s the quote as it appeared in the film:

“There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11”

Now here’s the full quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Setting aside Moore’s little deceit, there just aren’t any quotations I’ve ever seen from anyone in the Bush administration saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. That’s why, in a piece called “Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism,” which incidentally was written about a week before the war began, I wrote this:

The Bush administration has never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11…

Furthermore, after the war had begun, in September of 2003,: President Bush himself publicly & explicitly said:

“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.”

It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

4) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century.: The problem with trying to claim that the war in Iraq was preordained during some 1998 PNAC meeting is that the United States government has been trying to find a way to get rid of Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War. In an interview I did with him back in January of 2004,: David Frum, went into detail on this subject:

“The idea that overthrowing Saddam Hussein sprung out of the minds of a few people in Washington forgets an awful lot of history. In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America’s policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn’t work. Then we tried coups; that didn’t work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991.”

The reality is just as Frum pointed out: overthrowing Saddam Hussein by hook or crook was the de facto policy of the US government for more than a decade before the war in Iraq and the disagreement was over how to do it. That argument was settled in many people’s minds by 9/11, not by people conspiring in a think tank back in 1998.

5) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.: This is another historical rewrite. The reality is that the pro-war movement in this country since 9/11 has plainly spoken of dealing with Saddam Hussein as part of the war on terrorism almost from the very beginning. Here’s George Bush in a: speech given on 9/20/2001:

“Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

Iraq certainly was a state that harbored and supported terrorists and the approach Bush discussed, the Bush Doctrine, was adopted and talked about often in relation to Iraq during the lead up to the war. As proof, look to a column called “Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism” that I wrote back on March 13, 2003:

Why are we going to invade Iraq?: Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said,“(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

That definition fits Iraq and since they happened to be the easiest nation to make a case against at the UN and in the court of World Opinion, they were our next logical target after Afghanistan — although they’re not our last target.”

The war on terrorism cannot be won as long as there are terrorist supporting states out there. So one way or the other, we need to get those rogue regimes out of the business of supporting terrorist groups of international reach. Saddam led one of those regimes and now, happily, he’s gone — perhaps before the US was hit with an Iraqi based terrorist attack:

“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.” — Russian President Vladimir Putin as quoted by CNN on June 18, 2004

Even: John Kerry, the flip-flopping Democratic candidate for President last year, seemed to at least agree that the fate of Iraq was crucial to the war on terror:

“Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean].” — John Kerry, 12/15/03

Kerry even pointed out that he thought Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists:

“I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that – that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.” — John Kerry, “Face The Nation”, 9/15/02

Now if even John Kerry of all people is willing to admit that Iraq is: “critical to the outcome of the war on terror”: and that Saddam was the kind of guy who might use terrorist groups to attack the US, we should be able to at least agree at this point that it’s not the least bit disingenuous to suggest that Iraq is an important part of the war on terrorism.

6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism.: It’s amazing to me that today in 2005, people are still trotting out that oft-disproven quip. Christopher Hitchens was also apparently surprised when Ron Reagan, Jr. made a similar assertion recently and you may find his: response to be most enlightening:

“CH:: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?RR:: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…

CH:: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? … At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?…

RR:: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH:: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?”

Mr. Hitchens is entirely correct. Saddam provided “safe haven” for: terrorists with “global reach.”: Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yassin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, “Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over…Scotland,”Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer,” & “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan” who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq.

Without question, Saddam Hussein had extensive ties to terrorism.

7) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda.: A couple of quotes by the 9/11 Commission, which were often used out of context during the polarizing 2004 election cycle, have fueled the ridiculous claim that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al-Qaeda. Here’s an excerpt from an article at: MSNBC: called: “9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida,”: that should give you a good idea of the anti-war spin that was put on the Commission’s comments:

“It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan ‘do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,’ and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates “have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.”The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, ‘We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.’

However, the spin doesn’t match the reality.

What the 9/11 Commission was trying to get across was that there was no evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda collaborated on specific attacks, not that they didn’t have a working relationship.: 9/11 Commission Vice-Chairman (and former Democratic Congressman) Lee Hamiliton: echoed exactly that point in comments that were largely ignored because they didn’t fit the anti-war storyline some people were pushing:

“The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don’t disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don’t have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States.”

While there may not be evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda cooperated in attacks on the United States, the evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al-Qaeda worked together is absolutely undeniable.

For example, no one disputes that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who once ran an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and is leading Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in Iraq today, was in Iraq BEFORE the war started getting medical care. In and of itself, that would seem to strongly suggest a significant connection.

But wait, there’s more!

Consider this comment by former: CIA Director George Tenet: in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002:

“Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.”

Here’s more from: Richard Miniter, author of “Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror“:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq’s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam’s son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam’s mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam’s son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

Here’s more from Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes, author of “The Connection : How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America“:

“Evan Bayh, Democrat from Indiana, has described the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as a relationship of “mutual exploitation.” Joe Lieberman said, “There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.” George Tenet, too, has spoken of those contacts and goes further, claiming Iraqi “training” of al Qaeda terrorists on WMDs and provision of “safe haven” for al Qaeda in Baghdad. Richard Clarke once said the U.S. government was “sure” Iraq had provided a chemical-weapons precursor to an al Qaeda-linked pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Even Hillary Clinton cited the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as one reason she voted for the Iraq War.”

So is there proof that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda worked together to hit targets in the US? No. But, is there extensive evidence that they had ties and worked together at times? Absolutely.

8 ) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.: The left-side of the blogosphere has been bleating ceaselessly about the Downing Street Memo since the beginning of May which might lead you to wonder why the reaction to the memo has been so tepid in the scandal loving mainstream media. Well, the problem with the DSM is that there’s no “there, there.”

Some of the anti-war crowd’s rantings about the memo have hinged on its acknowledgement of increased bombings in the Iraqi no-fly zones (“spikes of activity”) during the run-up to the war. However, the increased frequency of bombings was common knowledge even back in 2002 (See: here,: here, &: here). We had already been bombing the Iraqis in the no-fly zone and we increased the pace to soften them up a bit just in case we had to go in. It probably saved the lives of some of our soldiers and almost no one except members of Saddam’s government seemed upset about it while it was actually going on. So why should it be a big deal now in 2005? The carping about it at this point is pure political gamesmanship.

Moving on to another jejune point in the memos that has led to hyperventilation among Bush foes, take a look at this line:

“C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable.”

Note that no particular person in the Bush administration said war is “inevitable,” it’s just the perception that C, AKA Sir Richard Dearlove, has. Again, we’re talking about something that was common knowledge back in July of 2002, as even liberal: Michael Kinsley: pointed out in a notably unenthusiastic LA Times column about the DSM:

“Just look at what was in the newspapers on July 23, 2002, and the day before. Left-wing Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer casually referred to the coming war as “much planned for.” The New York Times reported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s response to a story that “reported preliminary planning on ways the United States might attack Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein.” Rumsfeld effectively confirmed the report by announcing an investigation of the leak.A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed declared that “the drums of war beat louder.” A dispatch from Turkey in the New York Times even used the same word, “inevitable,” to describe the thinking in Ankara about the thinking in Washington about the decision “to topple President Saddam Hussein of Iraq by force.”

Why, it almost sounds as if many people who weren’t passing around secret documents saw the invasion of Iraq as “inevitable,” even back then! I guess those “secret” memos aren’t as as chock full of sensitive information as you’d think.

But, let’s move on to the meat of the DSM. Via: Wikipedia, here is the part of the Downing Street Memo that has caused the most “excitement” on the left:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Basically the charge here is supposed to be that Bush “fixed” the evidence for the war.

When the word “fixed” is mentioned in the memo, it’s obviously not being used as Americans would use it if they were talking about “fixing” a horse race. Instead, the writer was trying to get across that the Bush administration was attempting to build a solid case to justify its policy publicly. That’s certainly not a unique way of looking at it either. For example,: John Ware, a reporter at the very liberal BBC, seems to have roughly the same interpretation:

“Several well placed sources have told us that Sir Richard Dearlove was minuted as saying: “The facts and the intelligence were being fixed round the policy by the Bush administration.” By ‘fixed’ the MI6 chief meant that the Americans were trawling for evidence to reinforce their claim that Saddam was a threat.”

Furthermore, to even try to interpret the Downing Street Memo as supporting the idea that Bush was making up evidence — presumably about weapons of mass destruction — is extremely difficult to square with the fact that the DSM itself makes it absolutely clear that the British believed Saddam had WMDs. From theDSM:

“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”

If the Bush administration and the Brits believed Saddam had WMDs and was capable of using them, what exactly is supposed to have been forged? Nothing of course, because that’s not how the person taking the notes meant it to be interpreted. If he’d known his notes were ever going to be read by the public, I’m sure he would have been more careful about ambiguous phrasing that could be willfully misinterpreted for political gain.

On top of all that, there have already been investigations that have cleared the Bush administration of doing anything shady on the intelligence front. As Cassandra at: Villainous Company: correctly pointed out:

Quote (the DSM) all you want. Is there some evidence to back this up? Say, to refute the conclusions of the Butler Report (British), the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, or the 9/11 Commission, which all concluded that there was no improper manipulation of intelligence? Or are we now willing to disregard the conclusions of three official inquiries on the strength of one (word in an) unattributed set of minutes from a single foreign staff meeting?”

The Downing Street Memo is a lot of hullabaloo over nothing of note.
249  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen Feinstein's hubby wins CA rail contract, Crony governmentism on: April 03, 2016, 11:51:36 AM

Small world!  Just lucky Democrats.  

Reminds me of the Clintons, who haven't worked a minute outside of government since being dead broke, but are worth $80 million, and still increasing while neither is working.

The people who say they want government imposed equality for all end up taxing the little people and steering the government money to themselves.  This is more like a Stalin, Chavez and Kim Jung Un kleptocracy than a Heritage Freedom Index top 10 country.  (Oh, we aren't anymore!)
250  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Thomas Frank, The Blue State Model on: April 01, 2016, 11:26:24 PM
Long read.  I must say, this is interesting.  Sensitive to bias, I was trying all the way through to figure out where he was headed with it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-frank/the-blue-state-model-_b_9562960.html?

The focus is on Massachusetts where some things are going right and other things aren't.  He is making distinctions between different kinds of liberalism.  It is the Huffington Post.  He talks about Massachusetts liberals seeking a more perfect meritocracy.

"Professional-class liberals aren’t really alarmed by oversized rewards for society’s winners. On the contrary, this seems natural to them — because they are society’s winners."

Senator Elizabeth Warren is the other kind of liberal, the common man liberal, the inequality fighting liberal.  Not like former governor Deval Patrick, an innovation entrepreneur liberal who sided with Uber riders over taxi drivers.

The role of elite education is central.  "MIT’s alumni have started nearly 26,000 companies over the years, including Intel, Hewlett Packard, and Qualcomm. If you were to take those 26,000 companies as a separate nation, the report tells us, its economy would be one of the most productive in the world."





Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 159
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!