Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 07, 2015, 06:18:30 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86841 Posts in 2278 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 131
201  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Economics: Government Policies Killed the Two Parent Family on: March 19, 2015, 10:09:46 AM
This liberal article goes halfway to the truth of causation, IMHO.

"Yes, Culture Helped Kill the Two-Parent Family. And Liberals Shouldn’t Be Afraid to Admit It."

They suggest more liberal policies as the solution. 

Causation is a little more simple than this deep article suggests.  Government took over the role of the husband and father.  And would like to take over the role of the mother too!

The solution, in law of holes - when you realize you are in one, is generally to stop digging.
202  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, George Will on Ohio Gov. John Kasich on: March 19, 2015, 09:52:03 AM
We have kind of ignored John Kasich here.  However, he is a two term Governor of a major state and also with big-time Washington experience, especially on the budget. 

Kasich isn't going to go out and compete with Jeb Bush and others for the big donors, but he is sitting there in Columbus with all his ideas, ready to serve.

He is not my first choice, but could be a very acceptable choice.  Goes to show what a deep bench this is for just one side.

Read George Will today:
203  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Dr. Ben Carson on: March 19, 2015, 09:49:50 AM
I believe Crafty wrote early on that his first political endeavor should not be running for President.
And this, "Carson may make a very appealing VP candidate."

On the previous post, I find him to be on the right side of the net neutrality fight, but not extremely persuasive.

Now this, right after my post predicting Hugh Hewitt would bring down a few of our own.
 Ben Carson Forgets Baltic States Are in NATO, Dates Islam to Before Christ in Flubbed Foreign Policy Interview March 18, 2015 7:35 PM

Neurosurgeon and prospective Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson stumbled on key foreign policy questions during an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday, appearing to not realize the Baltic States are members of NATO and dating the founding of Islam to well before the birth of Christ. “I don’t do ‘ambush’ interviews,” Hewitt began, first asking Carson if he felt prepared to tackle some questions on foreign affairs. The neurosurgeon seemed keen, but quickly got into trouble. When asked about the origins of the rage felt by Islamic fundamentalists against the West, Carson said “You have to recognize that they go back thousands and thousands of years — really back to the battle between Jacob and Esau.” “Dr. Carson,” Hewitt said, “you know, Mohammed lives in 632 A.D. So it’s a 13, a 1,400-year-old religion. How do you go back to Jacob and Esau, which is B.C.?” “I’m just saying that the conflict has been ongoing for thousands of years,” Carson replied haltingly. “This is not anything new, is what I’m saying.” “So it’s not specific to the Islamic faith, or to the Salafist offshoot of the Islamic faith?” Hewitt pressed. “Well the Islamic faith emanated from Esau,” Carson said. Biblical tradition claims that Esau is one of the sons of Isaac and the ancestor of all Arabs — but even with that understanding, he was born thousands of years before Islam was first founded. Carson also said he believes that, despite being locked in a brutal regional war, Sunni and Shi’a Islamic radicals could “unite” against the United States. It was an assertion Hewitt called “unique,” and one that many foreign policy experts would likely dismiss entirely. Hewitt later turned to the threat of Vladmir Putin, asked the doctor how to best combat an aggressive and expansionist Russia — particularly in the vulnerable Baltic States. “We need to convince them to get involved in NATO, and strengthen NATO,” he said. “Well, the Balts, they are in NATO,” Hewitt said. “When you were saying ‘Baltic states,’ I thought you were continuing our conversation about the former components of the Soviet Union,” Carson tried to explain. “Obviously they are only three Baltic states.” “Yeah, and they’re all part of NATO,” Hewitt said, adding that he was concerned that the same questions that tripped up Sarah Palin in 2008 could trip up Ben Carson in 2016. “How are you going to navigate that?” Hewitt asked. “Have you been doing geopolitics? Do you read this stuff? Do you immerse yourself in it?” “I’ve, uh, read a lot in the last six months,” Carson chuckled. “There’s a lot of stuff to learn, there’s no question about that.”
Still, I would like to see him on the debate stage, along with Carly F and all the boring white guys.
204  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Krugman's fatal conceit, 'Austerity' didn't stop (plowhorse) growth on: March 19, 2015, 09:34:32 AM
Also file under cognitive dissonance of the left.  Somehow, cutting deficit spending from over a trillion every year to mere hundreds of billions per year is defined as "austerity" in this argument, but liberal economic icon Paul Krugman was wrong nonetheless.  Two charts make his point. (Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review) Please read the rest at the link:
205  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Black Lives Matter?? Depends on the issue!! on: March 19, 2015, 09:18:33 AM
First, stipulate this:  black lives matter, yes they do!

File this also under cognitive dissonance of the left.

Somehow the mantra 'black lives matter' cannot be extrapolated into the larger truth, 'all lives matter'.

Why not?  I don't know, but let's stick with black lives mattering for this brief post.

The death penalty is unfair because it has been dealt disproportionately to blacks.  Guilt is not the issue.

Ferguson and other police departments arrest blacks disproportionately.  This is wrong, unfair and racist no matter of guilt.

Darren Wilson is a white cop who killed an unarmed black teenager.  This is wrong and racist no matter the facts or 200 years of law and precedent that govern justified homocide, such as SELF DEFENSE.

Now switch issues.  Black babies are aborted in America at FIVE TIMES the rate of white babies.  Aborted, killed, terminated, had their young life stopped short, however you want to put it.  This is NO PROBLEM.  In fact, more is better!  Liberal politicians are up in arms when tricked into supporting legislation that would at all minimize this racial disparity.  Go figure.

Twice as many blacks are killed by abortion as by all other causes of death combined, including old age. No race issue here.  Now back to police being too tough on street criminals.
206  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bill and Hillary made nearly $20M from UAE on: March 18, 2015, 10:56:09 PM

It's hard to fathom the scale of the Clinton misdeeds, but remember the other William Jefferson - the Louisiana Congressman who got caught with $90,000 CASH in his freezer.  It is quite a vivid kickback that people can visualize and remember.  This allegation is to line up 222 of those stocked freezers throughout the Clinton household when the Feds come in to search.  Instead of sneaking in, it is done by wire transfer right under the Feds' watch.

Maybe the new Attorney General will open an investigation.  Lol.
207  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel election, Netanyahu on: March 18, 2015, 10:24:45 AM
Over here we wonder how this election could have even been close.

(WSJ)  "During the campaign, Mr. Herzog accused the prime minister of neglecting Israel’s economy."

This accusation resonated.  We have seen the success of the Israeli economy but lately there are serious complaints of very high cost of living, over-regulation, and other problems.  Netanyahu reportedly neglected domestic issues with his focus on security threats.  His opponents would address these problems with the wrong solutions.  Now that he won, I hope he will do as America should do, energize the free economy at home, as the right thing to do AND as an essential component of any national security strategy.
208  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons' email, Jack Lew can't remember on: March 17, 2015, 11:24:41 PM
Secretary of the Treasury isn't really a position of slouch.  The position, high in the order of succession to the Presidency, was held by many distinguished Americans including Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Mellon, George Schultz.  Now enter Jack Lew of the most transparent administration.  Did he notice Hillary used an email address not of the variety.  He was, after all, Undersecretary of State reporting to her.  He isn't able to even say the words, I don't recall.


One other point on Clinton emails.  The system was set up by "President Clinton", is guarded 24/7 by Secret Service, is used presumably to take care of his official duties as former President among other things.  If so, then most likely it was paid for in full or in part with federal dollars, which makes it a public asset subject to oversight by Congress.  No?

209  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Washington Post's David Ignatius, not certain she's going to be a candidate on: March 17, 2015, 04:15:07 PM
One more liberal pundit, Washington Post's David Ignatius,  "I'm still not certain she's going to be a candidate."

Me neither.   wink
210  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: March 17, 2015, 03:46:44 PM
Washngton Post, The Fix:
Nobody can match Marco Rubio’s upside
Although Rubio hasn't been at the top of GOP primary polls for many months, the new poll shows he's the guy most Republicans could see themselves voting for.
More at the link:

And a BIG negative story yesterday on Rubio at Politico - contains nothing that wasn't vetted in 2010 and nothing in it comes close to landing a punch.  It could even be Rubio people making sure this story is forever old news.
Marco Rubio’s house of horrors
A Tallahassee home co-owned by a scandal-plagued ex-congressman is the locus of questions about the senator’s finances and judgment.
By Marc Caputo  3/16/15

The friend's money problems had to do with the lobby expanding gambling in Florida and Rubio opposed that.  He paid the bills when the friend didn't.  Used his RNC credit cards a couple of times and reimbursed them. 

His tenant at the "House of Horrors":

The tenant declined to speak with POLITICO, but she said in a written statement that Rubio and his wife “have been very gracious and understanding of my circumstances.” She called them “extraordinary landlords” and expressed her “deep appreciation … for all that you’ve done.”

Try getting a tenant to give their landlord a great reference.  It's not that easy!

211  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: March 17, 2015, 03:24:34 PM

I enjoyed it too.  I have been wondering about the credibility of Blood Feud author Ed Klein, once of Newsweek and referenced by Dick Morris.  Here he was ripped pretty badly for accuracy and sourcing by liberal radio on his 2005 Hillary book.  They are a little unfair to him, but mostly make the point he is willing to just repeat juicy things, unverified, to make a buck.

False but true, the overall point stands; there is a divide between the Clinton and Obama camps and it will get worse when she has to define how she is different.
212  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: VDH: Hillary campaign slogan will not be "more of the same"? on: March 17, 2015, 02:26:08 PM
Victor Davis Hanson: "...Clinton will not run in 2016 on the slogan of continuing the hope-and-change policies of Barack Obama.

That's right.  They're having trouble coming up with a winning theme. 

Previously, here:  "...[lack of] excitement of kicking off a campaign theme called 'more of the same'.
213  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Presidential - 21 Democrats who could maybe take Hillary Clinton's place on: March 17, 2015, 02:10:58 PM
This list doesn't add much to what is already posted in this thread.  Hard to take serious anyone listed behind Bernie Sanders, Terry McAuliffe, and others.  But who knows?
Here, in roughly ascending order of feasibility, are 21 prominent or semi-prominent Democrats who could step up for a 2016 presidential run:

Dannel Malloy
Malloy was supposed to be headed for a tough 2014 re-election race for governor of Connecticut, but he ended up winning easily. A spokesman said he was not interested in the Oval Office — but also indicated the Washington Examiner is not the first publication to ask. "As the Governor has said repeatedly, he loves his current job as Governor of Connecticut and has no interest in running for President," Malloy's office said. "He believes that should Secretary Clinton become a candidate for President, she has the outstanding credentials, experience and record to be a very strong candidate."

Tom Udall
The son of a Kennedy-era secretary of the interior and nephew of a powerful Arizona congressman, Udall won a senate seat in New Mexico in 2009. He brings no youth at age 66, but he hails from American royalty. Udalls have had starring political roles in the American Southwest for more than a century. Is it time for a President Udall? Udall declined to comment.

Bernie Sanders
Vermont's junior senator is the most prominent (out of the closet) socialist in American politics, a status that makes him a favorite with reporters (because he gives good copy) and the Democratic base (because he's a socialist). Strangely, the usually forthright and garrulous Sanders has turned coy about his previous 2016 talk. Sanders told Politico Friday he was not eager to run "a poor campaign" that was "not well funded," adding that he had not raised much money. The 73-year-old did not respond to Examiner requests for comment.

Jay Nixon
For better or worse, the Ferguson riots made the governor of Missouri a national figure, and he declined to give a flat "No" when Politico asked him about being a potential Hillary replacement in February — before the email story broke. Nixon did not respond to requests for comment.

Bill Nelson
At 72 years young, the senior senator from Florida is a reliable liberal who occasionally finds common ground with Republicans on defense and intelligence votes. He would also be America's first spaceman president, having traveled into the vacuum as a payload specialist on space shuttle Columbia in 1986. A Nelson spokesman told the Examiner his 2016 answer "is a no."

Martin Heinrich
That New Mexico boasts two Democratic senators is a rare success story for the party. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3-to-2 ratio in the Land of Enchantment, Democrat hold large majorities in both chambers of the state house, and Republican Gov. Susana Martinez runs moderate to liberal on the GOP spectrum. Nevertheless, Heinrich — though he toes the party line on abortion and environmentalism — is careful to shore up conservative appeal. While he now supports gay marriage, the epiphany that brought his deeply held beliefs into compliance with Democratic Party norms came very late — in 2012 — and only when a primary opponent attempted to flank him on the issue. He opposes the federal "assault weapons" ban. He is just about as handsome and untested as Barack Obama was in 2008. Heinrich declined to comment.

Tom Wolf
A one-time forklift operator with a Ph.D., Wolf successfully ran his family's York-based building materials company for 30 years, before spending a generous chunk of his fortune on a successful 2014 campaign for governor of Pennsylvania. He has assumed office at a time when the Keystone State has nowhere to go but up. GDP growth was anemic under Republican predecessor Tom Corbett, and the city of Chester boasts the second-highest violent crime rate in the country. None of that may add up to a presidential profile for the 66-year-old, but Democrats could use a candidate who has not spent his life seeking one political office after another. Wolf did not comment.

Steve Beshear
Governor of Kentucky since 2007, Beshear has followed a familiar economic-management pattern, with predictable results: A scheme to lure manufacturing of environmentally correct Zap cars went nowhere, as have his efforts to get the Bluegrass State a bigger share of the declining casino gambling business. Kentucky has nevertheless enjoyed reasonable prosperity during his administration, and with two of the Republican Party's most prominent senators, it's the kind of state Democrats need to know how to win. Beshear will be 71 next year, and while fans frequently propose him as a prospective Hillary Clinton running mate, he declined to comment for this article.

Al Gore
What Democrat can ever forget that Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the popular vote in 2000? Like many folks on this list, the two-term vice president is of a certain age. But he has not been idle in his 66 years, having amassed a fortune estimated at $200 million. Various media have quoted anonymous sources saying Gore — whose work history includes honorable service in Vietnam and employment as a journalist, senator and knockabout presidential candidate even before environmentalism made him a Nobel laureate – is interested in a 2016 run. Gore did not respond to requests for comment.

Amy Klobuchar
The senior senator from Minnesota can't quite boast of having appeal in a battleground state: Her colleague Al Franken, also on the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party ticket, snoozed his way to re-election last November. A Republican wave across the great lakes region has failed to reach the Gopher State, where the DFL still holds the governor's office and one house of the legislative branch. Which means at this point, big labor may need a Minnesotan, and Klobuchar does her part, most recently lamenting U.S. Steel's decision to close a major plant by noting that she's in contact with Local 2660 about the matter. She declined to comment and remains an outside bet at best.

Joe Manchin
If the Democrats are interested in again finding the center of American politics, they could ask West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin the way. Republicans have repeatedly tried to lure him to switch parties. Crucially, he is untainted by Obamacare, having come into office after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, and he is generally pro-gun and pro-coal. Although he'd be running from the Senate, Manchin has executive experience as governor of West Virginia. So far he has made no 2016 moves. Nor has he ruled out the possibility of a run. "I'm not serious about running," Manchin told a West Virginia CBS affiliate. "On a national ticket, it would be a pretty far reach probably for me."

John Hickenlooper
The governor of Colorado could put together a coalition of labor, hipsters and louche libertarians. A secession movement during Hickenlooper's administration went nowhere. A concentrated backlash against his extremely broad gun control law cost several Centennial State Democrats their jobs, but Hickenlooper is still around. He declined to comment.

Rahm Emanuel
Emanuel combines the vices of Andrew Cuomo (unions hate him) and Terry McAuliffe (clinging Clinton odor). On the plus side, Chicago's GDP has grown 10.5 percent since he assumed office, and despite widely reported murder spikes, the city's violent crime rate has declined on his watch, according to a database of violent crime statistics from all law enforcement agencies in cities with populations more than 25,000. Wealth in Chicago is highly concentrated, and Emanuel is highly connected there and in Los Angeles. He declined to comment to the Examiner.

Cory Booker
Booker's passion for retail politics gave him a national profile even before he became mayor of Newark, N.J., in 2006 (the 2005 documentary "Street Fight" details his first, unsuccessful attempt to beat the Sharpe James machine). He ran the Brick City with a penchant for colorful — usually unverifiable — tales of hands-on constituent service. Since joining the Senate in 2013, Booker has more than once found common ground with likely Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky. He declined to comment on the 2016 election.

Jerry Brown
A fixture of California politics since the time of Zorro, Jerry Brown will be 77 next year. But he is an American original whose idiosyncratic career includes a serious challenge to candidate Bill Clinton in the 1992 primary (Brown ran on a flat-tax platform) and a lifelong desire to become president. Now in the second term of his second tenure as California governor, Brown has arguably been a more conservative executive than his Republican predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's also remarkably popular, though claims of a broad California recovery don't bear scrutiny. But he says he's no longer eyeing the Oval Office. "Running against Hillary is like running against Jerry Brown in California," Brown told the Washington Post Friday. "In the Democratic Party, it's not going to happen."

Terry McAuliffe
A gleefully political animal, the current governor of Virginia had the good fortune of following Republican Bob McDonnell, whose recent conviction on corruption charges softens McAuliffe's own reputation for pushing the limits (of good taste if not political ethics). McAuliffe is a longtime Clinton crony, but intriguingly, he said last year he has no intention of helping her campaign. "I've done that," McAuliffe told Richmond's NBC affiliate. "It's been a great part of my life, but to be honest with you, I'm past the politics, I'm now into governing."

Andrew Cuomo
Cuomo wouldn't comment to the Examiner about his presidential thoughts, but he is one of the Democratic Party's most effective fundraisers, and he's the governor of the not-inconsiderable state of New York. The Empire State's dire finances sometimes put him at odds with the labor unions essential to all Democrats. Idealistic leftists — who will be crucial in the primaries — have no passion for him. Last year unnamed Cuomo associates told the New York Post the son of Mario Cuomo is keeping his powder dry for 2020.

Jim Webb
Webb has one of the most impressive résumés in America: Vietnam veteran with a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts; Reagan administration secretary of the Navy; Emmy-winning journalist; inspired author of both fiction and non-fiction; and former Virginia senator who chose to leave office after one term. He told Politico last year he could run a "first-class campaign" reminiscent of his upset over Republican Sen. George Allen. Webb is a Jacksonian Democrat, a type of populism with potentially broader appeal than Warren's professorial jabs at inequality. That could also be his Achilles heel: The Democratic base has moved steadily leftward, and Webb's Scots-Irish candor and emotional patriotism make him a tough sell in the primaries.

Martin O'Malley
O'Malley completed two terms as Maryland governor this year, and his legacy is mixed at best. In a very surprising upset, Old Line State voters elected a Republican over his chosen successor, and painful memories of his "rain tax" and other schemes linger. But he is on record as wanting to run, and "Vote for M.O'M" is a campaign slogan that writes itself. On MSNBC this week he criticized Clinton over the email scandal and said he would decide this spring whether to run.

Joe Biden
The vice president is one of a handful of Democrats who have expressed verbal interest in running for president next year. "There's a chance, but I haven't made my mind up about that," he told ABC in January. "We've got a lot of work to do between now and then. There's plenty of time." Biden is hamstrung by his age, a strong habit of putting his foot in his mouth, and an even stronger habit of putting his hands on uncomfortable-looking women during photo ops. But he is the Democrats' sort-of-lovable uncle, and his current job is a natural — though far from guaranteed — springboard to a presidential run.

Elizabeth Warren
The freshman senator from Massachusetts provided much of the intellectual firepower for Obama-era innovations like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. More than any other potential candidate (Clinton included), she speaks to the hard economic Left that provides most of the party's grassroots energy these days. When Democrats look in their hearts, it's Elizabeth Warren they see. Warren repeatedly disclaims any interest in a 2016 run, a stance she has maintained through Clinton's current troubles and repeated when asked by the Examiner.
214  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Glenn Beck tells NRA: "It's Grover Norquist or Me." on: March 17, 2015, 12:30:42 PM
It would seem that our Obj had this right (about Grover Norquist) all along.  His no new taxes pledge isn't really advancing that cause anymore either.  Dems use it against us and Rs raise 'fees' instead of taxes. 
215  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Clinton Rumors (Who is your daddy?) snopes and politics on: March 17, 2015, 12:24:58 PM

+ 3) Valerie Jarrett leaked the HRC Clinton email info.

1)  Yes, the cute, blonde 16 year old looks like Bill, sounds totally possible and at least a little bit credible if a court is at least willing to hear the arguments (but they aren't).  A DNA test is either ordered or agreed to, paternity or not is determined quickly.  If this was true, then what happens?  Hillary is the victim which is how she broke out of the doldrums in the first place.  The new girl becomes a star.  Bill takes responsibility and lectures us about how we all need to do that, year of the woman, etc.  In other words, this would not be a political winner if true. In any case, that story disappeared from that link and SNopes says "fiction".  We need to be careful what we spread...

2)  Yes, if these photos are actual, she is a spitting image of Webb.  But...  it can't be proven, they'll never admit to it, it's totally off-limits politically, and it doesn't amount to anything even if true.  If Arkansas is at all like state law here, the married husband is the legal father of the child no matter the actual DNA. Hillary would be seen as justified, plus Chelsea is 35 now, and a mother.  It can only turn back on the meddling accusers.

3)  Yes, someone like Jarrett and the Obama machine might be one source of some of Hillary's problems.  The author of 'Blood Feud' is just as credible as either the Clintons or the Obamas, which is not saying much.  Again, it won't be admitted to or proven.  NYT isn't giving up sources.  The two camps are bound to split apart if they haven't already.  But our interest IMHO is to paint them both with the same political brush, just as Obama in 2008 was always running against George Bush.

It is important that we defeat these people directly on their failed political ideology, and not get tempted with all the shiny objects that come floating by, Obama's birth certificate and these stories, etc.  Distractions don't change these facts: we are badly over-taxed, over-regulated and are in the process of letting our constitution, sovereignty, national security, fiscal integrity, monetary system, work ethic and culture go to hell if we don't change course pretty soon.
216  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Valerie Jarret did it?!? on: March 16, 2015, 03:48:33 PM

White House non-denial denial:
... he answered with just two words: “Utter baloney.”
217  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / National Journal on Hugh Hewitt on: March 13, 2015, 10:19:51 AM
Along with John Hinderaker of Powerline who has done local radio here, I find Hugh Hewitt to be a conservative on radio who is thoughtful and persuasive without the flame throwing that I think turns centrists and undecideds away from conservative talk and comment.  Lately he has been getting all the best guests, often first, stumping Jeb Bush on naval capabilities and posing very tough questions about Obama to David Axelrod, for examples.

Real Clear Politics entitles their link to the piece today, the "GOP Establishment's Go-To Pundit".

"He is tough but fair, as they say,"
"he's an intellectual's ideologue"
He puts out full transcripts because "you don't want the media to filter for you what [the guest] said."
...named Hewitt as the first conservative figure who will get to ask questions of the candidates.  His selection was widely praised, inside the party and out. ...predicted that Hewitt "is probably the most likely to ask a debate question that knocks a candidate out of the race."

[Reince] Priebus wasn't stingy with his praise. "He's a star on talk radio and a star in the conservative media circles and someone who I think is reasonable but tough," he told me. "And I think he's very well respected no matter where you fit in in our party."
218  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Krauthammer, Early Onset Clinton Fatigue. Conceal and control, not convenience. on: March 13, 2015, 09:58:57 AM
First, Chris Wallace this morning on radio called the move to keep (incriminating) emails on a private server a "genius", "politically genius" (meaning evil genius) move.  She served on the Watergate committee and learned from Nixon's mistakes.  Nixon could have destroyed his own incriminating evidence and didn't.  She faces about a month-long uproar now, a year and a half before the election, but then nothing jumps out later to take her down. 

I disagree.  This has lasting hurt.  She isn't as smart as she thinks she is or as smooth an operator as her slippery husband.  If she thought she was protected, she may have been sloppy with what shouldn't have been put in writing.  Those emails and other skeletons will come back to haunt her. 

Famous people caught reading the forum (?), or in this case can we humbly say great minds think alike.  Charles Krauthammer writes with great clarity the same points all of us are making about the HRC email scandal:

Early Onset Clinton Fatigue

By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer, Washington Post (today)

She burned the tapes.

Had Richard Nixon burned his tapes, he would have survived Watergate. Sure, there would have been a major firestorm, but no smoking gun. Hillary Rodham was a young staffer on the House Judiciary Committee investigating Nixon. She saw. She learned.

Today you don’t burn tapes. You delete e-mails. Hillary Clinton deleted 30,000, dismissing their destruction with the brilliantly casual: “I didn’t see any reason to keep them.” After all, they were private and personal, she assured everyone.

How do we know that? She says so. Were, say, Clinton Foundation contributions considered personal? No one asked. It’s unlikely we’ll ever know. We have to trust her.

That’s not easy. Not just because of her history — William Safire wrote in 1996 that “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady . . . is a congenital liar” — but because of what she said in her emergency news conference on Tuesday. Among the things she listed as private were “personal communications from my husband and me.” Except that, as the Wall Street Journal reported the very same day, Bill Clinton’s spokesman said the former president has sent exactly two e-mails in his life, one to John Glenn, the other to U.S. troops in the Adriatic.

Mrs. Clinton’s other major declaration was that the server containing the e-mails — owned, controlled and housed by her — “will remain private.” Meaning: No one will get near them.

This she learned not from Watergate but from Whitewater. Her husband acquiesced to the appointment of a Whitewater special prosecutor. Hillary objected strenuously. Her fear was that once someone is empowered to search, the searcher can roam freely. In the Clintons’ case, it led to impeachment because when the Lewinsky scandal broke, the special prosecutor added that to his portfolio.

Hillary was determined never to permit another open-ended investigation. Which is why she decided even before being confirmed as secretary of state that only she would control her e-mail.

Her pretense for keeping just a single private e-mail account was “convenience.” She doesn’t like to carry around two devices.

But two weeks ago she said she now carries two phones and a total of four devices. Moreover, it takes about a minute to create two accounts on one device. Ray LaHood, while transportation secretary, did exactly that.

Her answers are farcical. Everyone knows she kept the e-mail private for purposes of concealment and, above all, control. For other State Department employees, their e-mails belong to the government. The records officers decide to return to you what’s personal. For Hillary Clinton, she decides.

The point of regulations is to ensure government transparency. The point of owning the server is to ensure opacity. Because she holds the e-mails, all document requests by Congress, by subpoena, by Freedom of Information Act inquiries have ultimately to go through her lawyers, who will stonewall until the end of time — or Election Day 2016, whichever comes first.

It’s a smart political calculation. Taking a few weeks of heat now — it’s only March 2015 — is far less risky than being blown up by some future e-mail discovery. Moreover, around April 1, the Clinton apologists will begin dismissing the whole story as “old news.”

But even if nothing further is found, the damage is done. After all, what is Hillary running on? Her experience and record, say her supporters.

What record? She’s had three major jobs. Secretary of state: Can you name a single achievement in four years? U.S. senator: Can you name a single achievement in eight years? First lady: her one achievement in eight years? Hillarycare, a shipwreck.

In reality, Hillary Clinton is running on two things: gender and name. Gender is not to be underestimated. It will make her the Democratic nominee. The name is equally valuable. It evokes the warm memory of the golden 1990s, a decade of peace and prosperity during our holiday from history.

Now breaking through, however, is a stark reminder of the underside of that Clinton decade: the chicanery, the sleaze, the dodging, the parsing, the wordplay. It’s a dual legacy that Hillary Clinton cannot escape and that will be a permanent drag on her candidacy.

You can feel it. It’s a recurrence of an old ailment. It was bound to set in, but not this soon. What you’re feeling now is Early Onset Clinton Fatigue. The CDC is recommending elaborate precautions. Forget it. The only known cure is Elizabeth Warren.


Peggy Noonan says she looks tired, not hungry.  On the other issue no one else will mention, I have wondered if Hillary's occasional disappearances had anything to do with so-called plastic surgery facial work being done.  Maybe that sounds sexist to ask, but it was fair for the media to ask Reagan if he colored his hair and use his denial as proof of dishonesty.  Below is the photo that ran with the Krauthammer column.  If she had work done, I think we can all agree it wasn't successful.  (Nothing personal against her, I am removing mirrors from my own home as aging sets in.)  Besides sexist, this sounds trivial, but a woman's aversion to photos like this being published, criticisms like this, and the efforts with makeup etc it takes to fight this might become the last straw as to why she doesn't run.

219  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: March 13, 2015, 09:18:32 AM
People are going to want someone of whom they have already heard, and who the hell is O'Malley?

Not only is she a woman, but Warren is the darling of the Dem-Progressive base.  They will work hard for her.

I miss the good old days when admitting you're a militant, far left, extremist meant you couldn't get elected to national office.

Crafty doesn't think O'Malley's story about the Maryland Miracle, with unemployment 50% above the national average, will fly?

Speaking of NE Liberal Governors with unemployment rates higher than the national average, what about Patrick Deval and Andrew Cuomo?

We should hope the more known, flawed, Democratic candidate, Hillary Problem Clinton is the nominee.
220  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glibness/Jarrett and Warren on: March 12, 2015, 02:20:32 PM
Note: This story is old - from August 2014.  Jarrett and Warren have plenty of reasons to talk and no one knows the content of these talks.  But since these people aren't transparent, we only have conjecture to figure it out.  )  Jarrett is telling Warren to stay ready for when the President gives her the green light to run.  (I fear Warren more than Hillary, FWIW.)

New York Times best-selling author and long-time journalist Ed Klein said that Valerie Jarrett has been engaging in secret meetings with Sen. Elizabeth Warren in recent months, giving rise to speculations that the Massachusetts political newcomer is actually the administration’s choice to head the White House in 2016.

“President Obama has authorized Valerie Jarrett, his most important political adviser, to hold secret meetings with Elizabeth Warren to encourage her to challenge Hillary Clinton because the Obamas do not want to see the Clintons succeed them in the White House,” Mr. Klein said.  He believes the stories he’s heard from sources about the meetings are “absolutely true,” Newsmax reported.   Mr. Klein said the feud between the Obamas and Clintons — which he details in depth in his recently released “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas” — has been largely ignored, despite its “deep and gut-wrenching” aspects.

“[Clinton] is looking quite vulnerable” for 2016, he said... Ms. Warren is being pushed by a handful of high-ranking politicians to run for president in 2016, including the “Kennedys and a lot of people on the left wing of the Democratic Party,” Mr. Klein said. “And Elizabeth Warren really gets that left wing base of the party excited, where Hillary does not.”
221  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: March 12, 2015, 02:09:10 PM
Good work covering this!  

"Who gave the money is one question.  Who got the money is another question."

This points out that is what the foundation is all about - moving money, power and influence around the globe.  If you or I set up a family foundation, no money would move; we don't have power or influence  But when the Clintons do it, billions move.  Why?  As Rich Lowry pointed out, not because donors don't know about the Reds Cross.  You give to Clintons to buy influence - with Clintons.  The Clintons chooses who receives based on what advances their mostly corrupt interests.  Follow the money on both sides!

Nothing classified was sent.  But was anything classified received?  If there is no issue with security, why all the bragging about secret service guarding the service?  What experience do armed guards outside the house have with security breaches over the internet?  What a joke.

She did this for "convenience" reasons.  NO, she did this to not let anyone see what she doesn't want us to see, namely her corrupt entanglement of personal interests and government influence.  She knew she would have to stand up some day and tell these lies to the camera with a straight face.  Whatever corruption she planned made all of this worth it to her.

She didn't know when she set this up that there would be a Benghazi scandal and investigation.  She didn't know 'mainstream' 'journalists' and some Democrats would stand up against her.  It's got to remind her of 2008 when the tide shifted against her without anything else really going wrong.

Keeping your secret life secret is great, but then don't choose to work in "public service" in "the most transparent administration ever".  There are plenty more shoes still to drop.  She knows what some of them, but other troubles will come from Bill having his own unscrutinized private life.  She knows she can do this routine over and over.  Ignore facts for a while, answer them by standing there and not answering, then let time pass and say that is all old news.  

But is this what she wants to be doing?  The private life of retirement, making speeches, writing books, running a foundation and disappearing off the public stage for months at a time is quite easy, powerful and profitable, without all this scrutiny.  Weigh that against the excitement of kicking off a campaign theme that will be called 'more of the same'.  Getting her name in the record books forever as first female President is pretty exciting, but she knows somewhere down deep that the voters turned against her last time.  

She faces an easy choice.  Run and lose, or step aside gracefully.
222  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Clinton fatigue: Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: March 10, 2015, 11:00:13 AM
Welcome back to the Clinton baggage years.

Clinton's problem is based on right wing talking points?  Again?  Still?

Even Carville's main point is that it's never going to change and predicts a bigger scandal coming.  I predict that also.  People like this have more problems out there than we know.  Even MSNBC thinks HRC broke an important promise - to not take foreign money into the foundation while serving as Secretary of State.  What say she about THAT?!

Rich Lowry pegs the Clinton contribution scandal.  "There is a reason that so many of Hillary’s political donors also give to the family foundation, and it’s not because they have never heard of the Red Cross."  (It is to buy favor.)

Why did Obama knowingly tolerate her personal email use?

Why do the defenders think she did nothing wrong or illegal?  The laws cited don't apply to her?  Why not?  It just took us years to find Lois Lerner emails.  Bad timing for Hillary that people are sick of all the dodging.  She is going to stall this off past the election?  And win?  Like Obama did with an election coming 2 months after Benghazi.  I don't think that will fly here.  Carville gives us every reason to move on past Hillary.  Is there really no one with ANY integrity they can put forward?

Why don't we trust Hillary to cherry pick her own emails and tell us which ones are relevant?  Either committees have access to her body of work or they don't.  Either there is oversight or there isn't.  She took an oath and claimed to be a public servant, not a private plotter.  Either Dems promised greater transparency or they didn't.  I know we are sick of the Clintons, and distrustful of them.  When will the left admit they are sick of them and distrustful of them too?  Dems jumped at the first sign of a credible alternative in 2008.  What will they do now? Judging by the reactions of Andrea Mirchell of MSNBC and Diane Feinstein, senior statesman of the Dems in the US Senate, maybe not just stick their heads in the sand.
223  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: March 10, 2015, 10:16:15 AM
Someone called into the Mark Levin radio broadcast and brought up an excellent point.  The US government has severe restrictions on peaceful use of nuclear power here in our country yet they support the use of nuclear power in Iran.
Anyone see a contradiction?

Isn't that a great observation! 
224  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Krugman: Rubs our nose in it - with bs on: March 10, 2015, 10:14:51 AM
What did we predict?  From my point of view, we predicted a high risk of inflation AFTER demand and velocity return to the economy.  But that hasn't happened.  We predict that that it will difficult to phase out years of monetary insanity.  That has proved true.  Even Krugman expresses fear of returning interest rates to normal after all this phenomenal, artificial growth.  What specifically did we predict?  That pouring more gas in the tank won't repair the three flat tires we are riding on, nor get us where we wish to go.  What else?  That low interest rates helps one side while obliterating the other, namely savings and new investment in the economy.  We were right on that!

What did Krugman, who knows better, omit?

We now have the worst workforce participation rate since women widely entered the workforce.  It is the worst workforce participation rate EVER for men, since before caveman days.  And now the lowest workforce participation for women in modern time.  Obama-Krugman policies also caused the worst startup rate in our lifetimes for businesses with the capability of growing to employ future generations, leaving behind economic expectations on a par with the Soviet Union in its last decade - if we don't change course.

By the end of the Obama era, to put a number on it, 100 million adults in the US won't work, out of 244 million.  That is 41% real unemployment as the intentionally deceitful Nobel prize winner tells you we are now hitting full employment.

If the economy really was back on rock-solid footing, why would an award winning economist want interest rates held artificially lower even longer yet?  That makes no sense.

Nothing is holding up this economy and holding down overall price levels more than the fracking revolution that all these leftists still vehemently oppose.  Yet they blabber on about their successes.

The economic issue they ran on when they took political power was to address and correct income inequality, not to fight against 1-2% inflation.  So they stepped on economic growth in the pursuit of fairness.  But everything they did made the disparities grow even wider.  Go figure.
225  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Netanyahu: Deal doesn’t block Iran’s path to nuclear bomb; it paves the path on: March 03, 2015, 11:33:02 AM
226  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ALAN REYNOLDS: The Mumbo-Jumbo of ‘Middle-Class Economics’ on: March 03, 2015, 09:50:54 AM
"People often form strong opinions on the basis of weak statistics."  Great followup here to our Elizabeth Warren discussion.  (Did I mention a fact check was needed?)  $20 trillion of income missed in just one category.  The income measure Warren quotes (from Piketty) excludes 40% of income and then she is disturbed by the lack of income.

The Mumbo-Jumbo of ‘Middle-Class Economics’
The statistics used to claim that average incomes have stagnated since 1980 also show stagnation since 1968.
March 2, 2015 7:01 p.m. ET

In the “Economic Report of the President” released on Feb. 19, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers defines “middle class economics” primarily by the average income of the bottom 90%. “Average income for the bottom 90 percent of households,” according to the ERP, “functions as a decent proxy for the median household’s income growth.”

This is absurd: The average income for the bottom 90% is not a decent proxy for the median nor even a decent measure of household income. It is instead a roughly fabricated estimate of pretax “market income” reported on tax returns that falls below some threshold for the top 10% ($114,290 in 2013). But this dodgy number does serve as the basis for CEA Chairman Jason Furman ’s assertion a day later on the Vox blog that the U.S. has suffered a “40-year stagnation in incomes for the middle class and those working to get into the middle class.”

The measure has become popular on the left. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) recently asked an AFL-CIO conference, “Since 1980, guess how much of the growth in income the [bottom] 90% got? Nothing. None. Zero.” NPR displayed the same bottom 90% data and stretched it even further, claiming that “after 1980, only the top 1% saw their incomes rise.”

The source cited in the ERP for the claims about stagnating average incomes is the World Top Incomes Database. The U.S. data come from economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, the same source cited by Sen. Warren and NPR.

Amazingly, these same statistics also show there has been no increase for the “bottom” 90% since 1968. Measured in 2013 dollars, average income of the bottom 90% was supposedly $32,730 in 1968, $32,887 in 1980, $35,326 in 2007 and $32,341 in 2013.

This is totally inconsistent with the data the Bureau of Economic Analysis uses to calculate GDP. For example, real personal consumption per person has tripled since 1968 and doubled since 1980, according to the BEA. Are all those shopping malls, big box stores, car dealers and restaurants catering to only the top 10%? The question answers itself.

Instead of the White House concoction, consider the Congressional Budget Office estimates of actual median household income. Measured in 2013 dollars, after-tax median income rose briskly from $46,998 in 1983 to $70,393 in 2008 but remained below that 2008 peak in 2011. The sizable increase before 2008 is partly because the average of all federal taxes paid by the middle fifth has almost been cut in half since 1981—from 19.2% that year to 17.7% in 1989, 16.5% in 2000, 13.6% in 2003 and 11.2% in 2011.

Census Bureau estimates of median “money income,” on the other hand, do not account for taxes, so they miss a major source of improved living standards. They also exclude realized capital gains, public and private health insurance, food stamps and other in-kind benefits. Even so, the Census Bureau’s flawed estimate of median income rose 13.7% from 1984 to 2007 before falling 8% from 2007 to 2013.

Both CBO and Census estimates show only six years of middle-class stagnation, not 40.

The Piketty and Saez data are crucially flawed. The total income reported on individual tax returns, which is the basis of their estimates, is substantially less than any official measure of total income, and the difference keeps getting wider. In their original 2003 study, Messrs. Piketty and Saez mentioned one rapidly expanding source of missing income—disappearing dividends in tax-return data. These were “due mostly to the growth of funded pension plans and retirement savings accounts through which individuals receive dividends that are never reported as dividends on income tax returns.”

The same is true of interest and capital gains accumulating inside such tax-free savings accounts. These have grown to nearly $20 trillion, according to a 2014 report by Tax Foundation economist Alan Cole.

Messrs. Piketty and Saez shrink the total income numbers further by subtracting all transfer payments, such as Social Security and unemployment benefits, and excluding all health and retirement benefits provided by private employers or government agencies. The result, as Brookings Institution’s Gary Burtless noted, is that, “The Piketty-Saez measure [of total income] excluded 24% of NIPA [National Income and Product Accounts] ‘personal income’ in 1970, but it excluded 37% of ‘personal income’ in 2008.” It excluded 40% of personal income by 2011.

Because of their increasingly understated estimates of total income, Messrs. Piketty and Saez estimate that in 2013 the “other 90 percent”—meaning all incomes smaller than $114,290—had an average income of only $32,341. That number is not remotely credible.

According to the CBO, that $32,341 would have been below the $34,000 needed to escape from the poorest fifth of two-person households in 2011, when half of all households earned more than $75,200 before taxes. Even using the Census Bureau’s narrow definition of money income, average income for the middle fifth was $72,641 in 2013, and half of us earned more than $51,939.

In short, the Piketty-Saez average of all incomes below the top 10% is far lower than any official estimate of incomes among the middle fifth of the income distribution. This means their comparisons of cyclical shares of income growth among the top 10% and bottom 90% during booms and busts are invalid. And so too are their estimates of the shares of mismeasured “total income” supposedly received by the top 1%-10%.

People often form strong opinions on the basis of weak statistics, but this “bottom 90%” fable may be the worst example yet. The Economic Report of the President’s description of “middle-class economics” rests on a far-fetched claim that middle incomes have stagnated for four decades rather than from 2008-13—most of these years during the Obama presidency.

Mr. Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, is author of a 2012 Cato paper, “The Misuse of Top 1 Percent Income Shares as a Measure of Inequality.”
227  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary Clinton broke the law doing State Dept business on her personal email on: March 03, 2015, 09:22:40 AM

"Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so."

It was not until two months ago, nearly two years after Clinton had resigned from the State Department that her aides, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. They eventually turned over 55,000 pages of emails.

Only the Clinton aides know how many emails involving official business they did not turn over. And even these aides probably don’t know whether or to what extent Clinton’s emails previously were purged.
228  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / IS THE GOVERNMENT MANDATING INCOMPETENT BANKING? on: March 03, 2015, 09:16:19 AM
As Crafty asks, why aren't WE attacking the crony corruption link between big government and big business.

Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat announced last week that Citi is going deep in green technology. Citi “will lend, invest and facilitate $100 billion over 10 years for projects ranging from energy, to clean tech, to water, to green infrastructure. Simply put, it is a $100 billion investment in sustainable growth.” That all this reflects the No. 1 domestic priority of the Obama Administration is no doubt a coincidence.

Citigroup says it has already met a 2007 objective of raising $50 billion for “climate friendly projects.” With Mr. Corbat’s announcement it will add $100 billion by looking for “opportunities to finance greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and resource efficiency in other sectors, such as sustainable transportation.”

We don’t doubt there will be such projects worthy of financing when the planets of market economics align. But green projects not subsidized by taxpayers have been at a price disadvantage for years, and their competitiveness isn’t likely to improve as the price of oil and natural gas declines.

Shaping a lending policy around a green agenda while the politics and science of climate change remain controversial and the technology of fossil-fuel extraction is advancing rapidly seems like a recipe for raising risk.

WSJ Editorial
229  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues, Gruber Obamacare videos on: March 03, 2015, 09:10:14 AM
Short video at the link.  Sharyl Attkisson's interviews the guy who found the Gruber Obamacare videos.

A financial adviser who lost his health insurance plan looked into the ACA.  Why couldn't the mainstream media do this research or figure this out before it all hit?
230  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color on: March 03, 2015, 08:56:35 AM
I humbly suggest that you are missing a piece of the pie here.

IMHO her critique overlaps more than a little with our Liberal Fascism critique-- which also addresses rent seekers, corruption of the political process by favored business interests and the like.

"Nearly all would buy into this"


WE should be making some of these points AND offering actual solutions.

Agree in part.  Yes, most certainly, rent seekers and corruption of the political process by favored business interests should be OUR attack on THEIR system. 

Her attacks on capitalism and free enterprise however do not hold up to scrutiny.  Free enterprise and constitutional capitalism does not favor special interests over the interests of those not connected and powerful; it is the exact opposite.  In a free society, the government does not get in bed with one business over another.  They can cooperate only in the open, public bidding system of providing a product or service to the government.  The government is the referee, not the participant, yet her side partners up with interest after interest, with auto makers, health insurers, the mortgage industry, the solar cronies, the colleges and everything up to the marriage industry.  Her claims are laden with factual errors and her proposals or solutions make each of these problems worse. 

Candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are running campaigns expressly on the concept of upward mobility which IMO does address specifically the problem of stagnation of the middle class.  I know what is holding me back, regulation and taxes, and I know that what is holding back the formation of new small businesses that will create and grow the better jobs is over-taxation and over-regulation, as unexciting and cliche as that may sound.  As Rubio has said, the giant, entrenched corporations with compliance departments can deal with all of that, but a startup business run out of spare bedroom cannot.

The great growth of the Obama administration she brags of is 2% growth and more than 100% of that came out of fracking which she and Obama vehemently oppose.  What is left if they prevailed in those states is decline.  They passed their big bank regulations, their health monstrosity - the largest wealth transfer in history, their tax rate increases in two dozen different ways and a hundred thousand new regulations and the result was that middle class income is stuck and income inequality widened.  Her answer now is the same as Hillary's, do more of the same, double down on failure.  Every economic statistic and every symptom of a private economy weighed down by a bloated public sector is another reason for her to make further increases to the size and scope of central government.  That carries the day when our messengers are Boehner and McConnell in the context of committee and floor votes on liberal policies through the filter of reading it in the mainstream media.  We haven't had a leader in a very long time who could reach the people articulate the other side of it and now we have several of them.  That is why I have tried to get out early in support of whoever can best express the link between freedom and prosperity and define the differences between that and the Elizabeth Warren mindset. 

I would like to come back to her rant, point by point, and expose the deceptions and contradictions within it.  Median income stays stagnant even during growth, for one reason, because we have added tens of millions of new people to the country at the low end.  People stay off the lower steps of the economic ladder because we offer them more not to work.  Disability is the fastest growing profession of the Obama economy.  The greatest building block to economic success is marriage and the liberal culture wars have decimated that.  She opposes the entire concept of an economic ladder, saying that all who work should be fully compensated regardless of value.  Some people stuck on the line between programs and work face effective tax rates on their next dollar of income earned greater than 100%.  Worst of all is the dearth of real, new business startups which is hidden by the fact that most LLC new filings are just people trying to protect existing assets from liability.

She is missing a link in her liberal economic logic.  She says the top 10% or top 1% experienced all of this success, but she doesn't follow it with what is stopping the rest from doing that too!  It isn't the wealth and success of some that is limited the economic opportunities for the middle class; it is the programs and policies she espouses that are doing that.

I am all ears to learning of solutions beyond giving people back some of the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves and their own families.

231  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: March 03, 2015, 07:38:27 AM
One pundit said that people like Rubio can overcome the cash disadvantage they have compared to establishment candidates by taking interviews like this one with a television station in New Hampshire and staying until the last question is answered.  No handlers, no script, no podium, this didn't cost him anything except a trip to the studio.  It ran on NH tv and was covered by a Florida newspaper.
232  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hillary knew that night on: March 02, 2015, 10:57:50 PM

Yes, she knew it was a terrorist attack right from the beginning.  I find that lie about the video, among all their other lies, particularly offensive.  4 dead, no rescue, and their focus was on how to minimize the political damage.  Pathological lying backfire on them someday.

233  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Marco Rubio's tax plan on: March 02, 2015, 10:44:02 PM
Elizabeth Warren isn't going to like this.
234  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color on: March 02, 2015, 10:31:43 PM
Besides that she has her facts and causes all mangled, it is quite striking that she is one angry person.  Maybe the Marc Levin of the left?  I notice that she chooses to read every word, looking down, where the top Republican candidates just showed they able to think and talk on their own.

Yes, this is the line they will sell and a good number of people will buy into it.  Everything is great now because of Obama and the Democrats but at the same time everything is bad and wrong because of Republicans. ??   Now its the Dems who want to go back to the 50s, lol.  Good luck getting her Ozzie and Harriet middle class growth back where 9 out of 10 minority children live in a house that does not have with a mom and a dad married under one roof, mostly as a result of Democrat programs.

2 million views for her; I regret being one of them.  Nearly all would buy into this line of bs if not exposed to an equally persuasive rebuttal.   I would love to see the most persuasive of the Republicans debate either Warren or Hillary on this.  Fact check their work and lay out a better alternative to doubling down on the failed Obama agenda of even more regulations, higher tax rates and stepped up redistribution.
235  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan on: March 02, 2015, 01:37:06 PM
Many of the possible campaign themes have already been used so Hillary advisers are scrambling to meet her planned April announcement plan.

Nixon 1972 had, Now more than ever.  Reagan 1984, Morning Again in America.  Bill Clinton 1996, Building a bridge to the twenty-first century and don't, stop, thinking about tomorrow.  Barack Obama, Yes we can, Forward, and now Hillary Clinton 2016,  Double Down on Failure!
236  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: March 02, 2015, 01:16:26 PM
All other things equal, I like the background preference to have a two term governor be President and have sufficient public sector executive experience coming into he first day.  Yet I don't put that above getting it right on policy and possessing the ability to connect, communicate, persuade people and lead.

The problem with Barack Obama is not his relatively young age nor is it his lack of executive experience.  His biggest problem is that he is headed in the wrong direction.

Truman didn't have a college degree and Lincoln didn't have executive experience. didn't crash because of Obama's short tenure in the Senate.  His programs are failing because they are wrongheaded, IMHO.  This is not a competence election coming up.  We are not looking for who can best manage our giant status quo of bureaucracy.  This is a change-of-direction election.  We are looking for who has the best vision and detailed plans to turn this around and who can connect, change minds and lead people to get it down.
237  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A Modest Immigration Proposal, dealing with the people who are already here... on: March 02, 2015, 12:53:25 PM
This is not amnesty, but a penalty and payment proposal for converting people from illegal to legal status.

1)  Secure the borders first.  Must be proven over time.  No new inflow.  No overstaying visas.  No hesitation by the government to deport any new entrants.

2)  The plea bargain, penalty settlement should look something like this:  Pay your share of our accumulated debt before you share in our privileges.  That would be roughly 18 trillion divided by 330+ million people, or $55,000 for every man, woman and child who wants to live here and be a voting, American citizen, 220k for a family of four.  Come on in!  (That is not unreasonable, about what a private college charges for one person over 4 years.)  There is an incentive to come out of the shadows and agree quickly before national debt goes up more!  Then, before they vote, the new citizens will have a stake in the ownership and sensitivity to the high cost of government and entitlement programs.  Deportation only for those who do not agree to a schedule or do not keep up with their payments.  
238  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Jeb Bush on: March 02, 2015, 12:30:41 PM
Agree, there is plenty of substance to Jeb.  CPAC was mostly about conservatism.  The question will gradually shift to electability and Jeb may win the nomination with that argument.

He answered the Common Core question strongly.  There is nothing he can do about his last name.  It comes down to the immigration question and primary and general election voters will have to make a judgment about that.  There is border security and there is rule of law.  If we give away too much to those who already came in, more will come.  Also, there is the political conundrum.  People tend to vote for the policies they are fleeing.  If it is to be 11 million people it will be 3 or 4 times that many, and if Republicans welcome them they will presumably vote majority Democrat anyway, guaranteeing Obama-like governance until the system collapses.  If we ignore rule of law and don't deport (status quo),  then there is an underclass living among us without consent of the governed and Dems keep the issue alive forever.  (The middle ground is probably the position Rubio takes now.  Border security must be proven over a period of time before further negotiations can proceed.)

Wm F Buckley said something like this, choose the most conservative candidate who can win.  I would say it the other way around, choose the most electable of the candidates whose positions and experience we find to be right or acceptable.
239  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: J, like H, like W just not equipped to deal with the threat to US as a nation on: March 02, 2015, 07:53:10 AM
"I could live with a compromise that AFTER THE BORDERS ARE CONTROLLED"

I used to think this way too.   I recall Doug once calling me a rhino some years ago.   He was probably right.   Then I learned.   The problem with compromise it is only a temporary rear guard action the delays but never rolls back the progressive onslaught.   It won't stop till the concept of country, sovereignty, borders, and real free will is gone.

ccp: Hopefully I described you as a former moderate, not RINO in that you avoid taking on the Republican name.

Both Jeb and Rubio are more pro-legal-immigration than the views you've expressed here.  Others including myself are perhaps more pro-immigration, but only supporting the legal variety.

240  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Jeb Bush on: March 02, 2015, 06:53:34 AM
"He answered the questions directly "

Yes and no.   I agree he comes across ready, well informed and in control in the interview, hitting the right chords the best he can in front of the CPAC audience.  But when aiming at different audiences he has been leading with the issues that trouble conservatives most.

I found this comment regarding the current funding battle over unconstitutional executive orders on amnesty bothersome.  
Jeb said:  "It doesn't make sense to me that we're not funding control of our border which is the whole argument."

WHO is not funding WHAT??  He implies Republicans are about to not fund border security.  In fact, it is Dems not funding it and even if it fails, shutdowns only involve non-essential department employees, not border security.

I agree that serving two successful terms as governor of a major state is a good qualification.  I agree he sounds the right chords on economics, his Right to Rise is the same theme as Rubio who is trying to restore the American Dream.  I agree he is the sharpest and most conservative of the 3 Bushes we know. (Low bar?)  But I also agree with the criticisms.  He has a trust problem on immigration.  Why do we think he will be tough suddenly on border security where no one else including his own brother has.  Education has been taken over federally, by all the wrong people.  Common Core advocates draws a distinction that it is standards not curriculum, but it has become curriculum in fact if not in law.  It is an issue he should have dropped if he intended to move from state to federal level.  If education is his number one passion, federal government is not the place for him to advance it IMHO.

Jeb is not the candidate to unite the right.  People on the right don't trust him and people in the center who follow things less closely will mostly see him as another Bush.  That isn't easy to shake.  

If nominated, he will be the third candidate in a row who needs to reach back to the right in the general election when he should be courting the middle.
241  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Environmental issues on: March 02, 2015, 06:35:47 AM
Can this many people be this crazy

242  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Environmental issues on: February 27, 2015, 07:39:08 PM
Looks to me llike the experts don't have a clue. 

"Using climate observations and models, the researchers found the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and Atlantic multidecadal oscillation contribute “a large portion of internal variability” to average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere."

Northern hemispheric changes are not global warming or cooling.

"The analysis shows that usually, when the northern Pacific is warming, the northern Atlantic is cooling, and vice versa—offsetting one another in their impact on atmospheric temperatures in the northern hemisphere. But the cycles, and their magnitude, don’t match exactly. For the past decade, the magnitude of northern Pacific cooling has been greater than that of northern Atlantic warming, resulting in a net slowdown in temperature rise, according to an email sent to me by Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, who led the new study."

Meanwhile, outside his door is the world's largest skating rink right now, 94,000 square miles of ice where it normally doesn't freeze.

If these are the greatest minds and they already know "our emissions are going to come back to haunt us", why aren't they focused on a solution rather than studying pauses and  natural oceanic oscillations?

Our grid could be 100% carbon free by now with nuclear replacing coal and gas and our transportation could be largely shifted over to natural gas, 30% better than gasoline or diesel on carbon emiissions. 

Instead we dither while earth hangs in the balance.
243  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / "Climate change" is not a crisis on: February 27, 2015, 02:59:09 PM
"Are the lefties right? "    - No.
What are the lefties and alarmists alleging?   They start with a greatly exaggerated measure of recent warming and forecast that embellished trends will continuously accelerate further without interruption until the Arctic is ice-free, the glaciers are all gone, the oceans rise by multiple meters, and all island and coastal civilizations are under water and large numbers of people die of climate change.  "The earth has a fever."  Hurricanes will become everyday occurrences, hitting new coastal areas like Kansas, or something like that...

Instead of an acceleration of previously exaggerated warming, we have had a temporary end or pause in the warming trend that goes back to the little ice age, long before the industrial age.  We've had no warming beyond the margin of error in nearly 20 years, right while CO2 levels are hitting modern highs.  Meanwhile the Arctic has lost and gained ice, the winters of MN are still brutal and the coast of Florida is unchanged.

What went wrong for this leftist activists who mostly want what ccp described, an excuse for increasing centralized control?

a) The factors at work are far more complex than the climate models can account for.  
b) The previous rate of temperature growth has been greatly exaggerated.
c) Negative feedback mechanisms were ignored.
d) Temperature is not nearly as sensitive to CO2 increases as alleged or previously thought.
e) We aren't going to be hooked on fossil fuels for that much longer.

That said, what are the facts?  Mostly unknown because most of the available data is not accurate or free from agenda-based bias.  

CO2 levels have gone up; we don't know what part of that is human caused.  The dreaded 400 ppm  milestone came and went without measurable consequence.  See data from NOAA at Moana Loa.  CO2 is up about 80 ppm in the last 65 years.  That sounds like a lot unless you know that ppm means parts per million. in other words, CO2 is a trace component of atmospheric content.  The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up by less than .0001, that is, less than .01% increase of atmospheric content in the modern industrial era.   No wonder we are seeing no noticeable movement on temperature.  Assuming human CO2 prodiuction is causing all of the gain, then after the peak gain in content, the atmosphere will still be 99.95% free of CO2.  Considering that CO2 is an essential building block of life, I would be far more alarmed if CO2 content was going down (or the earth was getting colder) because of something we were doing.

The political measures proposed would cripple our economy without significantly changing overall CO2  levels.  The greatest gains to date have actually come from increasing production and consumption of a cleaner fossil fuel, natural gas, against the demands of the alarmist agenda of the left.  The cleanest major source of energy in terms of being CO2-free is nuclear but is opposed by most of the same politicians who demand action on this.

What is the sensitivity of temperature to increased CO2 levels?  According to more than a dozen recent studies, that sensitivity is 7 times weaker than previously thought.

We need to take an honest look at honest data and causation before we ban production, transportation and comfort in the formerly free world.
244  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: February 27, 2015, 11:32:08 AM
As family size drops below 1 we will need more and more housing?
245  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Mike Pence on: February 23, 2015, 10:43:40 AM
Pence impressed me with his interview with Chris Wallace yesterday, thus this thread for him.

Legislative, executive and foreign policy experience.  Common sense conservative.  Perhaps the adult in the room depending on how the others do. 
246  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Marketing wizards help re-imagine Clinton brand - Not a parody? on: February 22, 2015, 12:11:29 PM
Wash Post: The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help re-imagine Clinton brand

Powerlineblog:  They should have added, “Not a parody.”
247  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of Glibness Administration on: February 22, 2015, 11:54:45 AM
248  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate on: February 21, 2015, 10:26:49 PM
Regarding the academic authors and analysis, Pat, I agree with you on all those points. 

In addition to all of the policy blunders, fraud, deception, and monetary flooding, etc. I would agree with Samuelson that there was a bubble mentality at work.  People were buying, selling, lending, borrowing and appraising things for more than they were worth. 

I was buying in Mpls after the crash for 15 cents on the dollar of what they sold for in the peak years.  The previous sales weren't homeowner or investors.  They were what we used to call pigeons.  People just doing transactions, borrowing up to false value (criminally IMO) with no intent of ever living there or holding the property.
249  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: February 21, 2015, 10:09:24 PM
Did Marco really need to get tied up in this meaningless kerfuffle?

I think he made the right choice in not getting tied up with it and instead to talk about his vision for America.

I agree.  There is a real skill to staying on-message without putting down your questioner.  Reagan had about 3 things he wanted to accomplish as President.  For Rubio, I would say, a similar challenge.  He has his vision, agenda, campaign and book - all about growing peace and prosperity, and the MSM has this shiny object, a quote they find controversial and irresistible.  He needed it to go away; he isn't running against Obama - or Rudy.

Stephen Hayes (2016 thread):  "When I sat in on Rubio’s debate-prep sessions for a profile I wrote in 2010, I was blown away by his ability to think on his feet. Rubio routinely came up with memorable one-liners that other candidates would pay consultants thousands of dollars to imagine."

Wash Post blog, Crafty's link:  "In one fell swoop, Rubio gets in a dig at the media, bring in another regular gaffer in Biden, places himself above the fray, says Obama loves America, and criticizes Obama in a very blunt way."

More than that, he ends with, "I think his ideas are bad."  The follow up question, if there was one, puts him right back on message:  Here's why I think his ideas are wrong and here's how I think we should do it differently...

Chuck Todd, host of Meet the Press, said of Rubio's response, "that’s how you do this."

Hillary's managers couldn't answer a similar question in months, and she couldn't do it without a script and a rehearsal.  Crafty said of Ben Carson, no electoral experience.  (I point this out once in a while, but) Rubio won Florida by a million votes.  Key Democrats are looking to jump into the Florida Senate race only if Rubio doesn't.  Not too many other so-called tea party Senators representing swing states evoke that kind of fear or respect.
250  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Some myths of the housing bubble qualified or corrected: on: February 19, 2015, 12:10:08 PM
There's a standard and widely shared explanation of what caused the bubble. The villains were greed, dishonesty and (at times) criminality, the story goes. Wall Street, through a maze of mortgage brokers and securitizations, channeled too much money into home buying and building. Credit standards fell. Loan applications often overstated incomes or lacked proper documentation of creditworthiness (so-called no-doc loans).

The poor were the main victims of this campaign. Scholars who studied the geography of mortgage lending found loans skewed toward low-income neighborhoods. Subprime borrowers were plied with too much debt. All this fattened the revenue of Wall Street firms or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored housing finance enterprises. When home prices reached unsustainable levels, the bubble did what bubbles do. It burst.

Now comes a study that rejects or qualifies much of this received wisdom. Conducted by economists Manuel Adelino of Duke University, Antoinette Schoar of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Felipe Severino of Dartmouth College, the study — recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research — reached three central conclusions.

First, mortgage lending wasn't aimed mainly at the poor. Earlier research studied lending by Zip codes and found sharp growth in poorer neighborhoods. Borrowers were assumed to reflect the average characteristics of residents in these neighborhoods. But the new study examined the actual borrowers and found this wasn't true. They were much richer than average residents. In 2002, home buyers in these poor neighborhoods had average incomes of $63,000, double the neighborhoods' average of $31,000.

Second, borrowers were not saddled with progressively larger mortgage debt burdens. One way of measuring this is the debt-to-income ratio: Someone with a $100,000 mortgage and $50,000 of income has a debt-to-income ratio of 2. In 2002, the mortgage-debt-to-income ratio of the poorest borrowers was 2; in 2006, it was still 2. Ratios for wealthier borrowers also remained stable during the housing boom. The essence of the boom was not that typical debt burdens shot through the roof; it was that more and more people were borrowing.

Third, the bulk of mortgage lending and losses — measured by dollar volume — occurred among middle-class and high-income borrowers. In 2006, the wealthiest 40 percent of borrowers represented 55 percent of new loans and nearly 60 percent of delinquencies (defined as payments at least 90 days overdue) in the next three years.

If these findings hold up to scrutiny by other scholars, they alter our picture of the housing bubble. Specifically, they question the notion that the main engine of the bubble was the abusive peddling of mortgages to the uninformed poor. In 2006, the poorest 30 percent of borrowers accounted for only 17 percent of new mortgage debt. This seems too small to explain the financial crisis that actually happened.

It is not that shoddy, misleading and fraudulent merchandising didn't occur. It did. But it wasn't confined to the poor and was caused, at least in part, by a larger delusion that was the bubble's root source.

During the housing boom, there was a widespread belief that home prices could go in only one direction: up. If this were so, the risks of borrowing and lending against housing were negligible. Home buyers could enjoy spacious new digs as their wealth grew. Lenders were protected. The collateral would always be worth more tomorrow than today. Borrowers who couldn't make their payments could refinance on better terms or sell.

This mind-set fanned the demand for ever bigger homes, creating a permissive mortgage market that — for some — crossed the line into unethical or illegal behavior. Countless mistakes followed. One example: The Washington Post recently reported that, in the early 2000s, many middle-class black families took out huge mortgages, sometimes of $1 million, to buy homes now worth much less. These are upper-middle-class households, not the poor.

It's tempting to blame misfortune on someone else's greed or dishonesty. If Wall Street's bad behavior was the only problem, the cure would be stricter regulatory policing that would catch dangerous characters and practices before they do too much damage. This seems to be the view of the public and many "experts."

But the matter is harder if the deeper cause was bubble psychology. It arose from years of economic expansion, beginning in the 1980s, that lulled people into faith in a placid future. They imagined what they wanted: perpetual prosperity. After the brutal Great Recession, this won't soon repeat itself. But are we forever insulated from bubble psychology? Doubtful. (?)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 131
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!