Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 28, 2016, 07:21:21 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97987 Posts in 2335 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 167
201  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the left, Socialism for the Uninformed, Thomas Sowell on: July 30, 2016, 08:50:14 AM
I have a feeling all the people who really need to read Thomas Sowell regularly don't.  For one thing Hillary, socialism and all your Bernie inspired policy proposals are anti-science and anti-economics, a denial that incentives and disincentives affect behavior and outcomes. 

Socialism for the Uninformed

Thomas Sowell
By Thomas Sowell
Published May 31, 2016

Socialism sounds great. It has always sounded great. And it will probably always continue to sound great. It is only when you go beyond rhetoric, and start looking at hard facts, that socialism turns out to be a big disappointment, if not a disaster.

While throngs of young people are cheering loudly for avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, socialism has turned oil-rich Venezuela into a place where there are shortages of everything from toilet paper to beer, where electricity keeps shutting down, and where there are long lines of people hoping to get food, people complaining that they cannot feed their families.

With national income going down, and prices going up under triple-digit inflation in Venezuela, these complaints are by no means frivolous. But it is doubtful if the young people cheering for Bernie Sanders have even heard of such things, whether in Venezuela or in other countries around the world that have turned their economies over to politicians and bureaucrats to run.

The anti-capitalist policies in Venezuela have worked so well that the number of companies in Venezuela is now a fraction of what it once was. That should certainly reduce capitalist "exploitation," shouldn't it?

But people who attribute income inequality to capitalists exploiting workers, as Karl Marx claimed, never seem to get around to testing that belief against facts — such as the fact that none of the Marxist regimes around the world has ever had as high a standard of living for working people as there is in many capitalist countries.

Facts are seldom allowed to contaminate the beautiful vision of the left. What matters to the true believers are the ringing slogans, endlessly repeated.

When Senator Sanders cries, "The system is rigged!" no one asks, "Just what specifically does that mean?" or "What facts do you have to back that up?"

In 2015, the 400 richest people in the world had net losses of $19 billion. If they had rigged the system, surely they could have rigged it better than that.

But the very idea of subjecting their pet notions to the test of hard facts will probably not even occur to those who are cheering for socialism and for other bright ideas of the political left.

How many of the people who are demanding an increase in the minimum wage have ever bothered to check what actually happens when higher minimum wages are imposed? More often they just assume what is assumed by like-minded peers — sometimes known as "everybody," with their assumptions being what "everybody knows."

Back in 1948, when inflation had rendered meaningless the minimum wage established a decade earlier, the unemployment rate among 16-17-year-old black males was under 10 percent. But after the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation, the unemployment rate for black males that age was never under 30 percent for more than 20 consecutive years, from 1971 through 1994. In many of those years, the unemployment rate for black youngsters that age exceeded 40 percent and, for a couple of years, it exceeded 50 percent.

The damage is even greater than these statistics might suggest. Most low-wage jobs are entry-level jobs that young people move up out of, after acquiring work experience and a track record that makes them eligible for better jobs. But you can't move up the ladder if you don't get on the ladder.

The great promise of socialism is something for nothing. It is one of the signs of today's dumbed-down education that so many college students seem to think that the cost of their education should — and will — be paid by raising taxes on "the rich."

Here again, just a little check of the facts would reveal that higher tax rates on upper-income earners do not automatically translate into more tax revenue coming in to the government. Often high tax rates have led to less revenue than lower tax rates.

In a globalized economy, high tax rates may just lead investors to invest in other countries with lower tax rates. That means that jobs created by those investments will be overseas.

None of this is rocket science. But you do have to stop and think — and that is what too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach their students to do.
202  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clinton, You don't say, Mr. President on: July 30, 2016, 08:35:07 AM
Ask not who’s the most qualified to be president

Obama really said this Wednesday night:

“I can say with confidence there has never been a man or woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

You don’t say, Mr. President? So why don’t we size up her, uh, qualifications, eminent as they might be, compared to some of the prior, lesser 44 occupants of the office.

Dwight Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander. Hillary ran the Bimbo Eruptions Unit.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Hillary wrote “It Takes a Village.”

Teddy Roosevelt charged up San Juan Hill. Hillary dodged sniper fire on the tarmac at Tuzla.

Honest Abe, Crooked Hillary.

Lincoln slept in the Lincoln bedroom. Hillary rented it out.

Reagan said, “Tear down this wall.” Hillary said, “Delete them all.”

William Howard Taft threw out the first pitch at a baseball opener. Hillary threw the first vase at a president.

Gerald Ford appointed Justice Stevens. Hillary abandoned Ambassador Stevens.

George Washington wrote letters to John Paul Jones. Hillary wrote a check for $850,000 to Paula Jones.

JFK said, “Ask not….” Hillary said, “Don’t ask.”

George H.W. Bush built oil rigs. Hillary rigged elections.

Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. Hillary delivered three speeches to Goldman Sachs … for $675,000.

Andrew Johnson was the first impeached president. Hillary is the wife of the second.

Washington could not tell a lie, Nixon could not tell the truth, Hillary could not tell the difference.

Harry S. Truman was a haberdasher. Hillary donated her underwear to charity for a $2 tax write off.

James Madison wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers. Hillary served on the Wal-Mart board of directors.

Truman: “The buck stops here.” Hillary: Pay for play.

Calvin Coolidge: “The business of America is business.” Hillary: the Clinton Foundation.

FDR defeated Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Hillary defeated Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.

James Garfield was shot by a disgruntled office-seeker. Hillary was a disgruntled office-seeker.

William Henry Harrison: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too. Hillary: Me Too.

Lincoln: “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Hillary: “Are you sure about that?”

In 1953, Truman drove his own car back to Independence, Missouri. Hillary hasn’t driven a car since 1996.

Washington turned down the invitation to become king. What would Hillary have done?
203  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Clinton Crime Family Foundation on: July 30, 2016, 08:31:33 AM
Unsolvable mystery:, For all the good they do, including $2 Billion unaccounted for and an FBI investigation in process, can anyone figure out why no one mentioned the Clinton Foundation in the convention...
204  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science, science isn't a belief system on: July 30, 2016, 07:52:16 AM

Hillary Clinton pauses while speaking during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Philadelphia on July 28, 2016.DANIEL ACKER/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

ON THURSDAY NIGHT, Hillary Clinton made history when she became the first woman to lead a major presidential ticket. In a speech filled with reminders of her experience and her plans for reform, one remark stood out: “I believe in science!” she said, chuckling. “I believe climate change is real, and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good paying clean energy jobs.”

Delegates filling the convention hall in Philadelphia roared in approval. Pockets of Twitter, too. Just as quickly, though, reactions turned cynical: How awful it is, in this day and age, that a presidential candidate must say she believes in science? In the retelling, Clinton’s laugh became a nod to the absurdity of the moment.

Yes, it’s absurd that a presidential candidate has to explicitly declare an allegiance to science. But the problem with what Clinton said runs deeper. Science is not a philosophy or a religion. It is a method—imperfect, yet powerful—of testing and accumulating knowledge. It’s not something you believe. You can believe that the scientific method is a good way of amassing knowledge. You can use that knowledge to shape policy.

Yet that’s not how American politics—especially in this election—talk about science. “When people say ‘Do you believe in climate change or global warming,’ that is the wrong framing,” says Cristine Russell, a veteran science reporter now at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “Science is not a belief system.”

Of course, the word “science” has come to represent much more than the scientific method. More than ever, it shapes American culture and is a subculture unto itself. To be giddily fascinated and informed by the discoveries of neuroscientists and physicists and climate scientists is a privilege. When Clinton says she believes in science, she’s using the language of a community, fostered by the Internet, that builds cachet out of scientific curiosity. A love for the products of science has become cultural currency.

It has also become political shorthand. Both US political parties have adopted positions on issues informed by science, and as those issues have become more divisive and the positions more extreme, some people have characterized them as either “pro-science” or “anti-science.” But of course the platforms don’t actually have anything to do with science as a practice. Both sides may choose different evidence to rely on, or interpret that evidence differently. At the extremes, some groups may ignore evidence entirely.

Nowhere is that divide more apparent than climate change. The science here has reached all-but-inescapable conclusions. Some policymakers, primarily liberal, have formed policies that depend upon those conclusions. Others, mostly conservative, have made policies that dispute those conclusions (for all kinds of different reasons). But to the public, that divide now gets framed in terms of acceptance and denial—states of belief. “The idea that you can believe your own facts is an unfortunate consequence of the whole climate denial movement,” says Russell.

And now the Democrats have adopted those same words and tactics. Theparty platform echoes Clinton’s belief framework: “Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and future.” In a short film shown at the convention on Wednesday, director James Cameron explicitly focused on an emotional message about the dangers of a warming climate to target swing voters.

Clinton’s line suggests that she’s at least in on the joke. It was a laugh line—offset by a pause, thrown out in a mocking, sing-song voice: “And I-I-I believe in science!” She’s intentionally using emotional rhetoric, both as a jab at her opponents and a signal to supporters.

But even if Clinton understands how silly it is to conflate belief in science with belief in the products of the scientific method, her line is still problematic. Clinton’s target is Donald Trump, who has claimed that climate change is a hoax—that the evidence for it isn’t real, or true. But Republicans could hear her tone as mocking not their candidate, but them.

People who remain unconvinced that humans are a significant contributor to climate change are not necessarily anti-science (whatever that means). Many have simply grown distrustful of climate scientists and their relationship with the government. They’re not wrong to be skeptical. Science in its purest form is the best method humans have yet come up with to apprehend the world around them. But it’s humans who execute it—people with hopes and dreams and fears. To deny the potential for bias is to marginalize a huge number of potential voters who have doubts, or who hope scientists describing an impending apocalypse are wrong.

Clinton did not say that she believes in science unequivocally—she likely understands the imperfections in the research she uses to guide her policy positions. But by playing the science card for laughs, she risks alienating the voters she’s trying to attract. In this narrative, not only does Clinton become the candidate of the “pro-science” voters, but she validates the opposition of people who think science is just another way of knowing.

To reinforce the idea of science as something you can believe or not believe, to force Americans into “pro-science” and “anti-science” camps, robs science of its power. It changes the practice of science from a method for understanding into a dangerous political weapon. And in the end, that makes science smaller. At its best and most objective, science can heal divides, answer questions, solve problems. It’s not a talking point.
205  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: July 30, 2016, 07:22:02 AM
I wonder if leftists who write anti-bullying laws are careful enough to exclude they most obvious violation of the stronger harming the weak and most vulnerable among us, abortion.

Is this a hate crime?
206  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues on: July 30, 2016, 06:36:53 AM
The authors also don't consider that the globalist movement is not just about free trade but is even more importantly about the erasure of "borders", concept of country and sovereignty , and nation hood.

I am not against fair trade but I don't want to see our country disappear and we become subjects of the UN or some other single world leadership .

The left and the bureaucrats may mix and conflate these but free trade and giving up sovereignty are two different matters.

Also, government picking winners and losers in industry via selective taxation  (tariffs) is an act of leftism no matter who commits it.
207  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bernie Sanders leaves the Democratic Party on: July 28, 2016, 02:50:04 PM
He stayed just long enough to run for the nomination.

Bernie supporters, ask yourselves honestly now that Bernie has had a taste of the money and is bought off by Hillary...

Who better supports your ideals, Hillary of Jill Stein?  The Queen of Crony Government or the real heiress to the Bernie movement?

Can Jill Stein Lead a Revolution?
The Green Party candidate wants disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporters to join her—not Hillary Clinton.

New thread Crafty?
208  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, Did Trump trap Hillary on deleted emails? on: July 28, 2016, 02:39:23 PM
Trump said:

"I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me," Trump said during a press conference this morning at his golf club in Doral, Florida. "I have nothing to do with Russia."

"By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do," he continued. "They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted."

"Now these are lying, bad people, folks," Trump said of the Clinton campaign. "These are bad, bad people and they're’ incompetent people."

“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

Funny how the news sources omit half of the point he made, losing its meaning:

The Hillary campaign responded:
"This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security.",

Oops, I thought these 33,000 emails were only about yoga and wedding plans, NOTHING to do with national security.  Otherwise they are under subpoena and evidence of obstruction, right?

As James Carville said:  “I suspect she didn't want Louie Gohmert (the oversight committee) rifling through her emails,”
That's why she setup the private server.  If it was in fact secured, Russia and the rest of the hackers in the world won't have her emails.

209  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's First Felony, "Cattle Straddles" on: July 28, 2016, 12:25:13 PM
Hillary's First Felony, "Cattle Straddles"    - Memorize the name for future access to the links and articles.  I have no link fo the 1994 WSJ article; it was emailed to me in pdf by the deputy editor.

1 in 31 trillion are the odds that Hillary told the truth about her amazing commodity trades.  Quoting the Journal of Economics and Finance: "Economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion."  
Stating it the other way around, the odds are 31 trillion to one that Tyson Foods was buying state government favors from the Governor by depositing rigged commodity trading profits with his wife, with her knowledge.  

Facts of Hillary's trades were analyzed by a former IRS chief prosecutor of commodities trading crimes and published in the WSJ article below.  The commodity trader that Tyson Foods referred to Hillary was convicted of this exact crime for trades done with other clients during this exact same time period.  

Quid pro quo.  It was the NY Times that broke this case in 1994: "During Mr. Clinton's tenure in Arkansas, Tyson benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans, the placement of company executives on important state boards and favorable decisions on environmental issues."

The statute of limitations had expired by the time these trades were known.  The crime is otherwise a felony for all involved.  

The Mystery of Hillary's Trades
By David L. Brandon
7 April 1994
The Wall Street Journal

(Copyright (c) 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)
As former head of the IRS chief counsel's Commodities Industry Specialization Team in the mid-1980s, I have followed with great interest the media stories on Hillary Clinton's excellent adventures in the commodities markets. As a proud capitalist and free market proponent (and an avid beef eater), I would be the first in line to salute this woman's success with cattle futures. But based on my years of experience with these markets, her story just doesn't add up. In fact, the chances of someone making almost $100,000 in the futures markets on her first try are about as great as walking into a casino in Las Vegas, hitting the million-dollar jackpot on your first try at the slots, then walking out never to play again. It just doesn't happen that way.

For those unfamiliar with the details of Mrs. Clinton's remarkable venture into the commodities markets, she allegedly made more than $99,000 in cattle futures (and other commodities) in late 1978 and 1979, withdrawing from trading just before the markets went bust. No explanation has been offered of how Mrs. Clinton managed to satisfy state laws that require futures investors to demonstrate a minimum net income and net worth, nor how a novice could have such uncanny timing.

There is, in fact, a much more probable explanation for Mrs. Clinton's good fortune. The media have already suggested that trades may have been moved to Mrs. Clinton's account after gains had been realized. However, the stories thus far have not clearly focused on a common trading strategy called a "straddle" that was very much in vogue at the time.

Straddles have the unique ability to produce exactly equal and offsetting gains and losses that can be transferred or used by the straddle trader for a variety of purposes. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, straddles were used for all kinds of illegal activities, ranging from tax evasion to money-laundering and bribes. In fact, this activity prompted a number of legal and regulatory changes by the Reagan administration to curb the abuses.

Although it sounds somewhat esoteric, a commodities straddle is a relatively simple trading device.

A commodities futures contract is nothing more than an agreement between two parties to buy or sell a certain type of commodity (in Mrs. Clinton's case, cattle) for a stated price on some date in the future. If the price of the commodity goes up before the contract delivery date, the individual who agreed to buy the commodity will realize a gain equal to the difference between the current price and the contract price. The individual who agreed to sell will realize a loss in an equal amount. Conversely, if the price goes down, the buyer will lose and the seller will gain.

A straddle is created when an investor enters into contracts to both buy and sell the same commodity. In this case, any gain on one contract will be exactly offset by a loss on the opposite contract. While straddle trading today is used in a variety of legitimate ways, these transactions lend themselves to all sorts of abuses as well. Before regulatory changes in the 1980s, it was common to enter into straddles to wipe out large capital gains for tax purposes. For example, an investor who realized a $100,000 capital gain in the stock market might enter into a large straddle in the commodities market. When the commodity price moved, the investor would close the loss leg of the straddle and realize a $100,000 loss, which offset his gain in the stock market. The investor was not required to report the unrealized $100,000 gain in the opposite leg of the straddle until that leg was closed in the following year. Typically, the investor entered into another straddle in the following year, thereby indefinitely rolling over the capital gain into subsequent years.

Another ploy common during that time required the assistance of a friendly broker. An investor could create a straddle using two separate investment accounts with his broker. After the straddle had moved, so that a gain and an offsetting loss had been created, the friendly broker simply wrote in the name of the investor's tax-exempt retirement fund on the account that held the gain leg of the straddle. The result was that a loss was realized that was reported on the investor's tax return, while the gain went unreported in the tax-exempt retirement account.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the IRS began noticing large numbers of individual tax returns that curiously showed commodities losses just big enough to wipe out unrelated capital gains; no corresponding commodities gains, which would suggest a straddle, ever appeared on subsequent returns. Even more curiously, the profile of these investors always had one thing in common, which was limited experience or no prior experience in commodities trading. In the early 1980s, an IRS agent in Chicago thought to look into one taxpayer's retirement fund and, of course, found the hidden gain leg of the straddle.

After that experience, the IRS redoubled its efforts to seek out thousands of missing straddle gains. It found them in retirement accounts, in London, in the Cayman Islands -- almost anywhere a taxpayer thought he might hide them from the IRS. With respect to these thousands of mysterious, isolated commodities transactions that showed up on tax returns, the IRS uncovered some form of questionable trading in virtually 100% of the cases it investigated. Well before the close of the 1980s, the IRS had assessed more than $7 billion in delinquent taxes and penalties attributable to these transactions and eventually settled these cases out of court for approximately $3.5 billion.

While most of the IRS's efforts were directed at finding hidden gains of the ubiquitous straddle, the trading device could just as easily be used to openly transfer gains while hiding the offsetting loss. If someone desired to make an illicit payment to another party, a straddle could be used to accomplish this purpose with no incriminating or suspicious-looking bank withdrawals or deposits. In fact, the IRS found numerous incidents of straddles being used for money-laundering purposes.

Does Mrs. Clinton's trading activity fit the profile of the illegitimate straddle trader? She was a novice in the commodities markets who, against all odds, realized large gains. Although she intermittently realized losses, it does not appear that she ever had to risk her own capital beyond her initial $1,000 deposit, which itself may have been insufficient to cover even her first transaction (which netted her $5,300). According to the trading records released by the White House, most of Mrs. Clinton's gains were recorded as intra-month transactions. This means that these records include no information regarding key elements of the trade, such as the type and quantity of the contracts, acquisition dates, acquisition prices, etc. Such information is needed to determine whether trades were part of a prearranged straddle.

It also appears that Mrs. Clinton's broker, Robert L. "Red" Bone, was no stranger to the spicier practices of commodities trading, according to The Wall Street Journal's front-page article last Friday.

It seems more than coincidental that Mr. Bone was a former employee of Tyson Foods and that Mrs. Clinton's investment adviser, James Blair, was the company's legal counsel. Tyson, the poultry concern, is one of the largest employers in the state of Arkansas. The fact that the Clintons withheld disclosing only those tax returns that included their commodities gains until the transactions were reported by the New York Times in February also appears quite suspicious. From my standpoint as a former government staff attorney with extensive experience in these matters, Mrs. Clinton's windfall in the late 1970s has all the trappings of pre-arranged trades.

How would a straddle have been used in Mrs. Clinton's case? The Journal has already reported that gains theoretically could have been transferred to Mrs. Clinton's account, while "others" may have absorbed losses. Such a transaction could be accomplished with a straddle.

A party desiring to transfer cash to another's personal account for legal or illegal purposes could enter into a straddle in a particularly volatile commodity, such as cattle futures in the late 1970s. After gains and losses were generated in the opposite sides of the straddle, the gain side would be marked to the beneficiary's account, while the loss side would remain in the account of the contributor. The contributor might even be entitled to use the loss to offset other gains. Such a transaction would be not only well-hidden from government authorities but potentially tax-deductible.

No direct evidence of wrongdoing has been produced in the case of Mrs. Clinton's trading activity. In fact, no conclusive evidence of anything has been produced. In order to settle the legitimate questions surrounding her trades, a satisfactory explanation is needed for her apparently low initial margin deposit and whether the requirements relating to an investor's minimum net income and net worth were satisfied. In addition, the details of her numerous intra-month trades should be provided, as well as the details of the trades of persons who may have had a special interest in how well she did. If it is discovered that certain interested parties happened to realize losses in cattle futures at the same time, and they were comparable in size to the gains reported by Mrs. Clinton, this would amount to a "smoking gun."

This is not a matter of partisan politics. Even if the public had never heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the circumstances surrounding her unusual good fortune would still appear suspicious to anyone awake to abuses of the commodities markets. In this writer's experience, the normal trading world just doesn't work that way.

Mr. Brandon was a career attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service from 1983 to 1989. During that time he also served as head of that department's Commodity Industry Specialization Team, which was responsible for coordinating and developing the IRS's legal positions on tax issues arising in connection with commodities transactions.

Dow Jones & Company - copyright, reprinted with permission

Bringing more links forward:

A few days after Hubbell’s resignation, the New York Times ran a lengthy story about Hillary’s commodity trades. Her aides and lawyers had finally provided financial records to the Times, but only after the newspaper made clear that it was preparing to publish a detailed account of her trading profits.

Initially, senior aides to the Clintons said in March 1994 that Hillary “based her trades on information in the Wall Street Journal.” That explanation was subsequently dropped. An aide to Hillary then said she had withdrawn from the market in the fall of 1979 because she had found trading too nerve-racking in the final months of her pregnancy. But another White House aide quickly declared that excuse “inoperative” after it was disclosed in April 1994 that Hillary made $6,500 in a commodities-trading venture in 1980 but failed to report that profit to the IRS.

Shortly after that, Hillary took responsibility—in her standard combination of singular acknowledgment and plural blame—for her aides’ confusing answers to reporters, saying they stemmed from her being away, working on other issues. “I probably did not spend enough time, get as precise,” she explained, “so I think that the confusion was our responsibility.”
A reporter asked whether her criticism of the Reagan era as a decade of unabashed greed appeared hypocritical in light of her recently disclosed commodities-trading windfall.

“I think it’s a pretty long stretch to say that the decisions we made to try to create some financial security for our family and make some investments come anywhere near” the “excess of the 1980s,” she replied. Inverting reality, she claimed that it was her father’s stubborn frugality and quest for financial security that had helped her succeed at trading commodities.

Mrs. Clinton traded with Mr. Bone[known crook], the chief broker in 1978 at the Springdale, Ark., offices of Ray E. Friedman & Co., or Refco. In 1981, Mr. Bone was fined $100,000 and barred from trading for three years after an investigation of allegations that he had been allocating winning positions to favored clients.

New Records Outline Favor for Hillary Clinton on Trades
Published: May 27, 1994

WASHINGTON, May 26— The White House today released new records showing that Hillary Rodham Clinton received preferential treatment from her commodities broker in the late 1970's, when she was allowed to trade in cattle futures without depositing the cash that normally would have been required.

Mrs. Clinton ultimately turned a $1,000 investment into profits of nearly $100,000. The records showed that she had earned her initial $5,300 in profits without depositing $12,000 in cash that ordinarily would have been needed for the purchase of a contract for 400,000 pounds of cattle.

In such margin trading, brokerages are required to deposit $1,200 per cattle contract with the commodity exchanges, and they typically demand that their customers put up the money in case, as sometimes happens, the market moves against them and the customers lose more than their original investment. Margin Rules Ignored

Several commodities experts said the failure to enforce the margin requirements had amounted to favorable treatment. But Mr. Kendall said she would have been liable had the market turned against her.

"I don't think it was a favor," he said. "She was under margin, that's true, but she was still on the hook. If they needed the money, they could have gotten it from her. They knew who she was. She violated no rules. Margin is for the protection of the broker."

The documents did not conclusively settle questions raised by some commodity experts about whether her broker had improperly allocated winning trades to her account.

"It doesn't suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn't prove there wasn't," said Leo Melamed, the former head of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, to whom the White House directed press questions. "I told them I couldn't say it wasn't."

Merton H. Miller, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, agreed. "It doesn't answer the questions people were asking," he said in a telephone interview this afternoon. "It's her account number, but it doesn't necessarily they were her trades." Explanation Changes

Mrs. Clinton earned the commodities profits in 1978 and 1979 with trading advice from James B. Blair, the general counsel of the Arkansas-based Tyson Foods and a close friend of both Clintons. Mrs. Clinton initially said that she had placed all of her trades herself and had made her decisions by consulting Mr. Blair, other advisers and The Wall Street Journal. Later, she acknowledged that Mr. Blair had placed many of her trades.

From the beginning, some experts suspected that Mrs. Clinton's good fortune had stemmed from favorable treatment by her broker, Robert Bone, a good friend of Mr. Blair's. Mr. Bone was disciplined by commodity regulators both before and after Mrs. Clinton's trading.

Mr. Blair and Mrs. Clinton traded with Mr. Bone, the chief broker in 1978 at the Springdale, Ark., offices of Ray E. Friedman & Co., or Refco. In 1981, Mr. Bone was fined $100,000 and barred from trading for three years after an investigation of allegations that he had been allocating winning positions to favored clients. Mr. Bone was also accused of "serious and repeated" violations of recordkeeping rules and margin requirements.

Margin requirements, former commodity regulators explained, are a matter between brokerages like Refco and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which wants to make sure the costs of trades are covered. Generally, brokers in turn require their customers to put up the money. But in the late 1970's, Refco permitted many of its customers to trade without putting up their margins in advance.

Earlier this year, the White House made public documents concerning commodity trading from Mrs. Clinton's personal files. Today, the White House released records of her account maintained by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Promises to Buy or Sell

Futures trading is essentially a bet on the price of cattle, soybeans or some other commodity. A speculator enters into a contract promising to buy or sell a given amount of cattle, say, at a certain price on a specific date in the future. The contracts are typically sold and resold months before they expire. Speculators can gamble that the price of cattle will rise or fall, depending on the type of contract. If the prices move favorably, the speculators sell their contracts and reap profits.

In 7 of Mrs. Clinton's 32 transactions, the Mercantile Exchange records are missing at least one segment of the transactions described in her personal documents. Mr. Melamed said this could stem from poor recordkeeping or a mistake by a clerk or it could reflect trading in large blocks of stock.

He said these were unlikely to be part of a scheme to allocate winning trades to Mrs. Clinton's account, since all of the transactions with missing data involved trades over more than one day.

"If this were predominantly day trading, you would hear me saying something different," Mr. Melamed said. "If there was anything wrong, there's no way the Federal Government, the exchange or anyone else would have gone to Mrs. Clinton and said, 'You violated something.' " Constency Noted

Mr. Kendall, the Clintons' lawyer, noted that Mrs. Clinton's personal records and the Chicago Mercantile documents were consistent. "At no point do they contradict," he said.

All of the records released by the White House make clear that Mrs. Clinton ran substantial risks in her trading. On one day in July 1979, for example, she held contracts for two million pounds of cattle, worth around $1.36 million.

What would have happened if the market had moved against her, and Mrs. Clinton had run up large losses? Professor Miller said no records would ever make clear what understandings might have existed between brokers and customers.

"Suppose that first trade had gone the other way and she had lost $5,300," he said. "Would she have paid it? She says she would have, but the question is, Did someone agree to vouch for those trades and say, in effect, 'Don't worry about it'? I'm not suggesting it did happen, but there's no way to say it didn't."
210  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trump-Pence, My endorsement on: July 28, 2016, 12:18:03 PM
Hillary will open up felon votes, illegal votes, no-ID votes, foreigner votes, maybe pre-school votes, and I barely exaggerate.  All but the last is already in motion. This will be the last close election if we give them four more years to transform the electorate.
I do have one question though.... what's your issue with American citizens voting in their elections, as listed above (the felons)? They are American citizens last time I checked.

If losing your privilege to vote is one of the lawful penalties of being convicted of a felony or of certain crimes, then one has not fully paid his or her debt when released.  Has this particular penalty been struck down in any court as unconstitutional?  Oddly, it is put forward by Democrats not out of fairness but out of political advantage.  7 out of 10 felons register Democrat:

Interesting that you use the word "privilege." That's what your rights are, are they? "Privileges?"By the way, they've also shown that most wouldn't even bother voting, and this person typing this, would never vote Democrat.

By the way, they have laws against cruel and unusual punishment. Most people buy into that crap. I don't. Even arguing it or discussing it is ridiculous and leads no where.

I don't think I feel like asking your permission for my rights that YOU grant to no one, especially because you fear that it may not lead to the candidate of your choice being elected, and especially while you expect me to work and pay for it through taxes.

I think there was a war started over that once.

DDF,  I like hearing your view on this.  I also noticed I chose the word privilege over right, had second thoughts about it as I wrote.  Is it a right or a privilege?  We used to not let 18, 19, 20 year olds vote.  It took a constitutional amendment to change that.  Can you lose a right?  Can a penalty be for a lifetime?

Of course it is controversial and I see your side of it.  A lot of the real 'felons' are never caught, never prosecuted.  A lot of good people are charged or plea to 'crimes' of no real note or victim. Some are innocent and some guilty people reform.  Still we take pride in the rule of law here and the point I made I think explains one side of this issue.
211  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary Commodity trading odds 1 in 31 trillion,Journal of Economics and Finance on: July 28, 2016, 12:05:23 PM
To the top, Previously posted, I had trouble digging out this information.  I will try to weave it all together on the next post, searchable as Hillary's First Felony, Cattle Straddles

he odds of doing what she did without cheating the system are one in 31 trillion against her, best case.  Assuming that the return is made in the most efficient way possible, this probability falls to approximately 1.5×10−16

In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.[14]
 Anderson, Seth C.; Jackson, John D.; Steagall, Jeffrey W. (September 1994). "A note on odds in the cattle futures market". Journal of Economics and Finance 18 (3): 357–365. doi:10.1007/BF02920493.

212  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trump-Pence, My endorsement on: July 28, 2016, 10:18:56 AM
Hillary will open up felon votes, illegal votes, no-ID votes, foreigner votes, maybe pre-school votes, and I barely exaggerate.  All but the last is already in motion. This will be the last close election if we give them four more years to transform the electorate.
I do have one question though.... what's your issue with American citizens voting in their elections, as listed above (the felons)? They are American citizens last time I checked.

If losing your privilege to vote is one of the lawful penalties of being convicted of a felony or of certain crimes, then one has not fully paid his or her debt when released.  Has this particular penalty been struck down in any court as unconstitutional?  Oddly, it is put forward by Democrats not out of fairness but out of political advantage.  7 out of 10 felons register Democrat:
213  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Top 10 Hillary Lies and Exaggerations on: July 28, 2016, 08:36:52 AM
Link below.  I will be working on my own list.

10.  Under Sniper Fire - Smiling and waving
9.  Dead Broke - Total Assets $1.8 million
8.  In Accordance with the Rules - Federal Judge ruled it violated government policy
7.  Grandparents came over here - No so but she thought of them as immigrants
6.  Bin-Laden Was Her Reaction To The Helicopter Crash
5.  DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act was to stop Republicans from going further
4.  College costs won't be a burden
3.  Campaign will be Carbon Neutral
2.  Veterans Affair Scandals Are Not “As Widespread As it Has Been made Out To Be”
1.   I have been very consistent, Same sex marriage, trade deals, immigration policies
214  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: July 26, 2016, 10:48:46 PM
Currently Trump has 23% of the Latino vote.  Romney had 27%.

I'm guessing the Latino vote will have a stronger than usual turnout.

Trump needs to start paying attention to this right now.

That's right.  Maybe he can come up with something like the Rubio plan tempered by how it would have come out of a conservative Republican House.  Keep the people who have been here a period of time and are invested, not the criminals and freeloaders.  Let them pay a fine, earn an opening and agree to join us as law abiding, tax paying citizens.  Build a wall and start securing the country.

Everybody who is a legal, votiing Hispanic knows and likes somebody who isn't legal and faces deportation if we suddenly enforce our laws.

On the other hand, legal Hispanics are probably among those people that Democrats are worried are being under-counted as Trump supporters.  They don't want to tell their friends or strangers but they are among those whose jobs and pay are being crushed by the influx of illegals.  If a day came when we knew that every Hispanic who is here is legal, their own standing and confidence (and income) would rise.

23% versus 27% isn't that bad if it is being under-counted - except that Romney lost!  If Trump can take that proportion up to the mid 30s and win 10-15% of blacks instead of 2-5%, this is whole new ballgame.  And if he can't make progress into traditional Democratic groups, he loses.
215  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: From PP repost from hot gas, leave the two party system? on: July 26, 2016, 12:46:53 PM

Agree, well written.

Pat will leave the R party until it (or a new party) is re-formed by Trump.  But Trump is now in charge of the party the way I understand it.  Reince and everyone else serves at his pleasure.  Reince is also doing everything asked of him by Trump.  Any timidity in a shakeup is now Trump's.  He wants to say "you're fired" selectively.

If Pat means wait for all of congress to be reformed in Trump's image, the timing of that is never.

If Pat thinks forming a third party, two parties on the right, is a better idea, he is wrong and at odds with Trump who could have much more easily launched a third party caampaign.

My daughter's commencement speaker was the band director at a college renowned for their music.  He hit all the right notes, follow your dream, save the world, etc.  Strike out on your own and do anything you want, all by yourself, to make the world a better place.  But if you really want to make a difference, form 'a band'.  In politics, that is 'a party'.  Major parties have more impact than minor ones.

The two party system works better than the alternatives although we seem to currently be at an all time low point.  The best way to reform the party of the right is from within.  Ted Cruz's de-funding ideas didn't work because we didn't have the votes.  Build a wall didn't work because we didn't have the votes - or the right people to carry out the law.  Conservatives sit in their homes and businesses being conservative but mostly don't organize, give a dollar or lift a finger to save the country.  People like Boehner and Cantor can occasionally be defeated from within, but not when the left controls the debate and we keep losing on their terms. 

I've written the-way-forward rants before and our side has done none of it, really done the opposite.  Our 18 month campaign of ideas resulted in Obama's approval rating rising while the country and the world deteriorate under his watch.  Trump's messaging is still mostly wrong.

Trump is running as a great person, not as a new movement.  Pat started a website and would like to start a movement.  Great.  But more than half of the right will not join and then we are divided and the left wins.  To be fair, the left wins anyway so no big, new loss.

We can get special privileges and treatment and cronyism out of government by doing the things that already are our principles, simplifying the tax code, treating everyone the same, ending the goodies that go beyond a genuine safety net.  You keep American manufacturers here and see new companies formed faster by streamlining the red tape and knocking down the disincentives.  That is already our platform.  You hold politicians to their promises through the primary process and the elections, and we don't. 

So I oppose his strategy by commend his activism.  I wish everyone took it that seriously.
216  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: July 26, 2016, 12:14:21 PM
ccp:  Hillary has already made her honorary chairwoman of her campaign!  As usual with the libs.  When finally caught , some slight embarrassment, maybe an apology but never real consequences.

Debbie knows where some of the bodies are buried. 
217  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The clothing parade, Michelle Obama on: July 26, 2016, 12:06:07 PM
From a Dem point of view, Michelle is the star coming out of this convention.  No doubt she has the highest approval of all Dems.  If Hillary loses, that becomes immediately relevant.  I have posted previously I fear her politically more than Hillary.  Ironic how powerful Dem women make their rise off the accomplishments of a man.  Tonight's big speaker?  Bill Clinton.  Maybe they should suggest that strategy, marrying a rich and powerful man, to the little people.

Also in this election leaks is the fact that little guy Bernie, average contribution $27, was demanding a plane for his entourage for the entire campaign in exchange for his support. 

He doesn't see himself as a phony little guy; he sees himself as a former one.  Next up, book deals!
218  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: July 26, 2016, 11:54:34 AM

If Vlad really wanted to torch the Hildabeast he would release her Clinton Foundation corruption just before the election.  We all know what went on.  Since Comey won't do anything and allowed her and her criminal lawyers to destroy evidence Vlad may well have copies.  Would that be great!

Why would he do that when he can sit on them and use them as leverage if the Dowager Empress becomes president?

Good points.  That was the risk of cheating, of corruption, of deception and of communicating over an unsecured server.  Give an enemy leverage, career ending leverage.  Hillary's only defense against damaging releases is that everyone already knows she is a crook.  There are books out there documenting it.

I believed all along that deleted emails will become public over time from a variety of sources and that the worst ones will come out last.  The tell-all books from her friends will mostly come out too late to matter and most of the media would rather be a co-conspirator than report.  Still, there is more info out there and big secrets are hard to keep.

Assuming Putin has control over these even if it was a private Russian hack, it is an interesting game theory exercise to ponder how he will best use it to his advantage.  First he has to show he has it and is willing to use it:  Check.  Now if they communicate over keeping something secret, he will have that too!

Which candidate would make a better partner for Putin, Trump or Hillary, through his eyes?  The answer is not clear or obvious.  The Hillary side wants us to presume Putin prefers Trump, because what?  The Democrat would be so tough on him?  What did Obama say, tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after my reelection...  Putin may prefer Trump for reasons different than people think, a more rational person to deal with.  He may prefer Hillary as the pushover.  Or is Hillary more of a hawk than Trump?  Trump would build an arsenal that would make Putin's look puny? 

Also assume that various people, even the Clintons, have dirt on Trump beyond the Trump University, commenting on breasts and business bankruptcies to expose. 

Look for this to keep getting uglier. 
219  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Debbie wasseerman Schultz on: July 26, 2016, 11:30:09 AM

I consider it 100% her fault that I take pleasure in her political demise.

Instead of serious arguments and contests over issues, for them it is always, lie, cheat, deceive, dodge and spin, never allowing us to just defeat them straight up.

These leaks expose what was already obvious to everyone.

Her fall is to cover her real leader, Bill and Hillary.  It was the Hillary campaign that rigged the system.  Vasserman Schultz (as in Sargent Schultz, "I know nothing") was the puppet.
220  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump-Pence, My endorsement on: July 25, 2016, 09:47:49 AM
Here is my whole-hearted, lukewarm, lesser of evils, unapologetic endorsement of Trump-Pence for President in 2016, and my advice to others on the fence.

I started this as a Rubio supporter.  Trump beat Rubio in his own state, in his own party.  Trump needs Florida to win in November.  Trump needs Rubio -in the Senate.  Rubio needs Trump for turnout in Florida, for Commander in Chief and to sign the badly needed reform in Washington.  America needs bothTrump and Rubio and all of us or else leftism will be permanent.  As unlikely as it seemed a short time ago, this is our team.

These are my biggest objections to Trump (other than his personality) and how he addressed these to win my vote:

1)  He is profoundly wrong on Kelo and private, crony government takings.

2)  He is profoundly wrong on trade.

3)  Trump is not a true, limited government conservative.

(1) On Kelo, his answer was to offer a list of potential Supreme Court picks representing the type of Justices he will appoint.  This is not a promise or a perfect answer but it is a great list that addresses that concern as well as it is possible.  There is a risk that Trump (or any Republican) will make a bad pick and there is the certainty that Hillary will make nothing but bad picks for the Courts from a constitutional conservative point of view.

(2)  On trade, Trump promises to re-open trade agreements bilaterally and get better terms for America.  I am not on the same page as Trump in his view of what has gone wrong.    America can compete with anyone on a level playing field.  Our problems are internal, excess taxation and excess over-regulation. These are both areas that Trump is actively addressing and that Hillary will make worse, much worse.  

Trump promises the new agreements will be better for America.  They are not better if they include high tariffs paid by American consumers, a trade war, a falling economy or a rising cost of living.  He can't let that happen and deliver on his promise.  Trump is willing to threaten tariffs with Mexico, China and others.  The threat must be real but the end point must be no tariff.  If he stands true on his promise, we will win concessions without new tariffs and he will not trigger a trade war or the next Great Depression.

More importantly, the sovereignty loss in "trade" agreements is real and Trump will not give away our country the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton have and would.

(3)  Regarding limited government conservatism, Donald Trump was not among my top 100 choices of the 17 running and those who might have.  Mike Pence, on the other hand, is as good of a limited government conservative as we can hope for in high elective office and he is Trump's pick for his VP choice.  Worst case, no matter how badly Trump governs we are one heartbeat away from a chance at having great, limited government, conservative President.  With Hillary there is no such hope or chance.  Far more optimistically, the Pence pick and other limited government promises such as relief on taxes and regulations are positive indicators of the direction the Trump Presidency will take.

Then there is the Gary Johnson (non-)alternative.  This is a binary choice, Trump v. Hillary.  Johnson is disqualified.  When asked whether it was wrong for the United States to intervene in WWI? In WWII? Johnson's entire answer was, "I don't know"!
For all our differences over Iraq, Iran, Syria and ISIS, if you don't know the answer to that one at this point in your life and are running for President, you aren't going to be my choice for Commander in Chief!

Hillary Clinton starts this race with 242 electoral votes in hand out of 270 required, the so-called "Blue Wall".  18 states including NY, Calif, etc. and D.C. have gone Democratic in the last six presidential elections. If she loses within these, she has also loses the swing states and loses the election in a landslide. Trump running with Mike Pence will win all the solidly Republican states, more states but less than half the electoral votes.  Gary Johnson and all other minor party candidates combined will win zero states.  Trump-Pence will open the contest in the Midwest, so called rust belt states, and can make Clinton spend resources in NY and NJ.  But mostly, any Republican ticket needs to run the table in the well-known swing states to win.

Anyone who leans at all right, despises Hillary, lives in any contested state, and then does not vote for Donald Trump, the only alternative to Clinton, is securing her election and a permanently leftist, anti-constitutional country.  Sure they say this every year and it's true every year, but the consequences of screwing up this time have never been worse.

Herb Brooks told his gold medal hockey team after they beat the Soviet Union and were facing Finland in the finals, "Lose this one and you will take it to your grave".  Complain about Trump all you want, but sit this one, help Hillary win, and ... ditto ... you will take the consequences of that to your grave.

Trump is far from perfect but there is no acceptable alternative remaining.  You take all that is wrong with Trump or you and your children and your grandchildren will be ruled forever by leftists.   No pressure.

Hillary will open up felon votes, illegal votes, no-ID votes, foreigner votes, maybe pre-school votes, and I barely exaggerate.  All but the last is already in motion. This will be the last close election if we give them four more years to transform the electorate.

This Rubio supporter, almost-never-Trump-type will be voting for Trump-Pence on November 8 with no apologies!
221  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: July 25, 2016, 08:43:52 AM
2 things I noticed
#1  Ivanka said something about single mothers should have child care - my question - at whose expense.

Nice catch.  I missed her speech, but Trump's format was a State of the Union speech and the longer those speeches go, the more proposals we get for new federal government programs.  Our 'big government conservatives' (oxymoron) can't attract those votes without surrendering principles to the the left.  Yes single parents need child care in order to work and be self sufficient.  Therefore we need a federal government program?  "Life of Julia".  We need assistance, really a relationship with the federal government at every point in our life from pre-natal to 6 feet under.  This is defied in Article WHAT? in the constitution?

The government is not your husband.  To say out loud, Rule 1 of not being in poverty is to marry before starting a family is to lose votes.  Leftists want to go back to the 50s for marginal tax rates but not for family structure.  And pseudo-Republicans want to emulate Democrats to win votes.

Asking this question in public may win votes, but if you really think this through you will find that a new federal social engineering program is the not best answer.  Designing a perfect life for single mothers to raise children without fathers might not even be asking the right question.
222  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: July 25, 2016, 08:23:02 AM
"Note the absence of all Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner, and Rove at Trump's convention."
I don't blame them.  But for me, they were not missed.

Right.  I'm not as anti-'establishment' as some but my point is, that rift is a positive for Trump in the eyes of many he wishes to court especially those wanting to express a protest or screw them all vote.     Trump says he is not a Republican (or a Democrat), right as he accepts the Republican nomination!  A majority of voters do not identify as Republican and a majority do not identify as Democrat.  This starts as a 3 point election either way.  They both have challenges holding their base and need to chip away a point here and there in the middle and around the edges. 
223  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: July 24, 2016, 10:10:41 AM
" I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn’t deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again. To date, I haven’t broken that promise. For the sake of preventing a proto-fascist from becoming our commander-in-chief, I’m breaking that promise. I sadly believe Clinton will find a way to get us in some kind of military action."  [ - Michael Moore, not much of an endorsement!]

" Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system."

Did you vote for Ventura?

No, I didn't vote for Ventura but I watched it happen.  He wasn't as crazy then.  Someone before him in the Independence Party or whatever they called it earned the right for him to be in the debates with 15% of the vote in a previous election.  Two totally establishment politicians set the table for people to say f*** you to both parties pretty much the way Moore described it.  That is partly analogous to Trump.  He is a way for people to say f*** you to both sides of the establishment without agreeing with him on issues.

Note the absence of all Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner, and Rove at Trump's convention.

We seek reason here but people vote largely on emotion.

Speaking of humor I think voting the comedian Al Franken to the Senate was pretty great.  I mean Moore doesn't see "dark" humor in that?

I was not a fan of Franken's SNL humor and he's not the least bit funny as a Senator. All he knows is sarcasm and leftism.  It was more that he was a celebrity in name and a serious voice in politics from a leftist point of view.  He wrote books on Rush Limbaugh and he hosted the failed Air America radio to challenge him, bringing in leftist thought leaders for 3 hours a day for years.  This work caused him to be fully versed on the leftist side of the issues.  By winning the DFL (Dem) nomination, he won the election in 'blue' MN.  Amy Klobuchar, the other Senator is more popular and probably more liberal.  Think Hillary Clinton without all the charm and charisma.  Trump does not bring MN into play and Hillary will only come here to raise big money.  When Reagan won 49 states, guess which one he lost...
224  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science, The "Duck Chart", Grid Energy Demand on: July 24, 2016, 09:27:57 AM
Referred to in a previous post, here is a picture of the Duck Chart showing energy production needs at different hours of the day.  We made this giant investment in renewable energy via government subsidy, not economics or environmental forethought.  Once in place, renewables have two main characteristics, they are greatly variable in output depending on weather, time of day, time of year, and they have a nearly zero variable cost, skewing the demand for other sources.  That leaves us with the challenge of filling the large gaps with coal, gas and nuclear on a super large scale, but they don't switch on and off quickly and easily when the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind stills on a hot, air conditioned afternoon.

Natural gas is now cheaper than nuclear and more able to scale up and down to meet the extreme variations in the new grid demand curve.  Putting carbon-free nuclear out of business makes the whole renewable boondoggle a giant step backwards for the environment by all measures.

Who knew?
225  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: "Allah Akbar" translates to "we may never know the motive" on: July 24, 2016, 07:37:32 AM
That's right, They holler Allah Akbar and we don't know the motive?!   Muslim Brotherhood is secular? Islamic State is not Islamic?   [An economy stuck in place is in recovery? Affordable housing and healthcare are the kinds you can't afford, requiring subsidy?  Tax cuts are racist?   Exhaling is pollution?  Marriage is not when a woman become husband and wife?] We live in George Orwell's 1984.   They took over thoughts by taking over language.   It could backfire.  A man who owns 11 trillion and lives in a palace can represent the common man.  Europe has their own Trumps to oppose the Islamic invasion and the denial of it.
226  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, Michael Moore, five reasons Trump will win on: July 24, 2016, 07:03:47 AM
227  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillar's VEEP, Friday afternoon news dump? on: July 22, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
I said it would be Tim Kaine, now NYTimes says Tim Kaine, Washington Post, too, but he is not liberal enough!  Supported Free Trade!

Cory Booker is black.  That's exciting!  'His' life matters.  But supports school choice.  (

Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee, Harvard's first 'woman of color'!  Too risky.

Hickenlooper supports fracking.  Are there ANY good Democrats available?

It's pretty hard to say her first choice Huma comes from a different state if they are together 24/7/365.

This is a conundrum.

Hillary should pick Joe Biden!  Tanned and tested.

Democrats save bad news they want ignored for the Friday afternoon news dump.
Hillary says she will 'tweet' her choice today.
228  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Renewable Energy Is Blowing Climate Change Efforts Off Course on: July 21, 2016, 12:49:43 PM
Some truths see light...

Germany, the leader in renewables, uses 40% coal!  "In Germany, where renewables have mostly replaced nuclear power, carbon emissions are rising, even as Germans pay the most expensive electricity rates in Europe."

In the fight against CO2 emissions, we are phasing out the largest source of emission free power generation.  Dumb, even by liberals (and POTH)  standards.  Nuclear, gas and coal plants don't switch on and off on a dime when the sun and the wind go down.

How Renewable Energy Is Blowing Climate Change Efforts Off Course

Is the global effort to combat climate change, painstakingly agreed to in Paris seven months ago, already going off the rails?

Germany, Europe’s champion for renewable energy, seems to be having second thoughts about its ambitious push to ramp up its use of renewable fuels for power generation.

Hoping to slow the burst of new renewable energy on its grid, the country eliminated an open-ended subsidy for solar and wind power and put a ceiling on additional renewable capacity.

Germany may also drop a timetable to end coal-fired generation, which still accounts for over 40 percent of its electricity, according to a report leaked from the country’s environment ministry. Instead, the government will pay billions to keep coal generators in reserve, to provide emergency power at times when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.

Renewables have hit a snag beyond Germany, too. Renewable sources are producing temporary power gluts from Australia to California, driving out other energy sources that are still necessary to maintain a stable supply of power.

In Southern Australia, where wind supplies more than a quarter of the region’s power, the spiking prices of electricity when the wind wasn’t blowing full-bore pushed the state government to ask the power company Engie to switch back on a gas-fired plant that had been shut down.

But in what may be the most worrisome development in the combat against climate change, renewables are helping to push nuclear power, the main source of zero-carbon electricity in the United States, into bankruptcy.

The United States, and indeed the world, would do well to reconsider the promise and the limitations of its infatuation with renewable energy.

“The issue is, how do we decarbonize the electricity sector, while keeping the lights on, keeping costs low and avoiding unintended consequences that could make emissions increase?” said Jan Mazurek, who runs the clean power campaign at the environmental advocacy group ClimateWorks.

Addressing those challenges will require a more subtle approach than just attaching more renewables to the grid.

An analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, narrowly distributed two weeks ago, estimated that nuclear reactors that produce 56 percent of the country’s nuclear power would be unprofitable over the next three years. If those were to go under and be replaced with gas-fired generators, an additional 200 million tons of carbon dioxide would be spewed into the atmosphere every year.

The economics of nuclear energy are mostly to blame. It just cannot compete with cheap natural gas. Most reactors in the country are losing between $5 and $15 per megawatt-hour, according to the analysis.

Nuclear energy’s fate is not being dictated solely by markets, though. Policy makers focused on pushing renewable sources of energy above all else — heavily subsidizing solar and wind projects, and setting legal targets for power generation from renewables — are contributing actively to shut the industry down. Facing intense popular aversion, nuclear energy is being left to wither.

As Will Boisvert wrote in an analysis for Environmental Progress, an environmental organization that advocates nuclear energy, the industry’s woes “could be remedied by subsidies substantially smaller than those routinely given to renewables.” The federal production tax credit for wind farms, for instance, is worth $23 per megawatt-hour, which is more than the amount that nuclear generators would need to break even.

Nuclear generators’ troubles highlight the unintended consequences of brute force policies to push more and more renewable energy onto the grid. These policies do more than endanger the nuclear industry. They could set back the entire effort against climate change.

California, where generators are expected to get half of their electricity from renewables by 2030, offers a pretty good illustration of the problem. It’s called the “duck curve.” It shows what adding renewables to the electric grid does to the demand for other sources of power, and it does look like a duck.

As more and more solar capacity is fed onto the grid, it will displace alternatives. An extra watt from the sun costs nothing. But the sun doesn’t shine equally at all times. Around noon, when it is blazing, there will be little need for energy from nuclear reactors, or even from gas or coal. At 7 p.m., when people get home from work and turn on their appliances, the sun will no longer be so hot. Ramping up alternative sources then will be indispensable.

The problem is that nuclear reactors, and even gas- and coal-fired generators, can’t switch themselves on and off on a dime. So what happens is that around the middle of the day those generators have to pay the grid to take their power. Unsurprisingly, this erodes nukes’ profitability. It might even nudge them out of the system altogether.

How does a renewables strategy play out in the future? Getting more power from renewables at 7 p.m. will mean building excess capacity at noon. Indeed, getting all power from renewables will require building capacity equal to several times the demand during the middle of the day and keeping it turned off much of the time.

Daily fluctuations are not the end of it. Wind power and sunlight change with the seasons, too. What’s more, climate change will probably change their power and seasonality in unforeseen ways. Considering how expensive wind and sun farms can be, it might make sense to reconsider a strategy that dashes a zero-carbon energy source that could stay on all the time.

A report published last month by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers suggests there is space for more renewable energy on the grid. New technologies — to store power when the sun is hot or to share it across wider areas — might allow for a bigger renewable footprint.

But there are limits. “There is a very real integration cost from renewables,” said Kenneth Gillingham, an economist at Yale who wrote the report. “So far that cost is small.”

In Germany, where renewables have mostly replaced nuclear power, carbon emissions are rising, even as Germans pay the most expensive electricity rates in Europe. In South Australia, the all-wind strategy is taking its toll. And in California, the costs of renewables are also apparent.

Nuclear energy’s fate is not quite sealed. In New York, fears that the impending shutdown of three upstate reactors would imperil climate change mitigation persuaded Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office to extend subsidies comparable to those given to renewables, to keep them afloat. Even in California, where nuclear energy has no friends, Diablo Canyon, the last remaining nuclear plant, is expected to stay open for almost another decade.

Still, both New York and California expect to eventually phase out nuclear power entirely. An analysis by Bloomberg puts the cost of replacing Diablo Canyon’s zero-carbon power with solar energy at $15 billion. This sum might be better spent replacing coal.

Displacing nuclear energy clearly makes the battle against climate change more difficult. But that is not what is most worrying. What if the world eventually discovers that renewables can’t do the job alone? “I worry about lock-in,” Ms. Mazurek said. “If it doesn’t work, the climate doesn’t have time for a do-over.”
229  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Energy: "Every time we can't drill a well in America, terrorism is funded!" on: July 21, 2016, 12:19:46 PM
A Great Line That No-One Noticed At The GOP Convention:

"Every time we can't drill a well in America, terrorism is being funded!"

    - Harold Hamm, credited with discovering the Bakken oil fields
230  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude) on: July 21, 2016, 12:14:01 PM
The Somalians were brought to MN for ice hockey, very funny!

"Due to Somalia's proximity to the equator, there is not much seasonal variation in its climate."   - Same here.  )

I'm guessing this started before Al Franken, but the question remains, why?

They were brought here to collect benefits and vote Democratic, or to wage war against us, or both.

231  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Ten Minnesota Somali jihadis found guilty on: July 21, 2016, 10:52:16 AM

"With an estimated 100,000 plus Somali immigrants settled in Minnesota, brought there by the federal government..."

This is such a big story in so many ways and is being ignored by the media.  Powerline blog has covered it in detail, but Scott Johnson from Powerline (writing in City Journal) was Breitbart's only source too.

They were brought here by the federal government?!  Why Minnesota, the place where they will assimilate worst?  Did they assimilate?  No.  Do they join the Jihad?  Yes, significant numbers do.  Many were already arrested for joining al Qaida.  Now it's ISIS. 

The crucial point is that our government is still planning to bring many many more 'refugees' from the region to America, (and Europe, etc.)  Are significant numbers of those people ISIS sympathizers?  Yes.  Will some of them join the Jihad?  Yes.  Will they attack us here?  Yes.  Do they want to come in order to assimilate, join our communities, become Americans?  No, they keep their own communities, set them up here and insist we accept their ways.  Do they bring special job skills needed by our high tech economy?  No.  Will they bring in more revenue than they cost us?  No.  Is there any positive side of this?  Yes.  They are believed to be reliable Democratic voters. 

The Startribune couldn't tell the story without focus on the appeal, entrapment and attacking the "all-white jury", a line right out of Rubin Carter and the story of 'Hurricane'.
Was the Somali Jihadists' trial about incontrovertible evidence or was it about the race of the jury?
Maybe ee could have been culturally sensitive and tried them in a Sharia court and had them judged by a jury of their Jihadi peers...
232  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Michael Yon on the declassified document on: July 21, 2016, 09:44:15 AM

What do you take from this?  The document is new and perhaps provide new details but it seems the relationships were already known.  Does contact with a hijacker mean a family member knew the mission?  Michael Yon is suggested we should have overthrown Saudi or still should?  Saudi is an enemy of ISIS and Iran.  We could depose the royal family and it would be the ISIS Caliphate's dream come true.
233  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: July 21, 2016, 08:50:27 AM
To be fair, Cruz's classless appearance was preceded by Trump being classless in the way he defeated Ted Cruz for the nomination.  That doesn't mean this was the right answer.

Ted Cruz never was the right guy for the job.  He did remarkably well to take second place.  Second place deserves a prime spot on the podium - for the purpose of bringing the different factions together.

The party's nominee owns the convention.  Cruz' petulance makes Trump looks gracious for letting Cruz have the podium and say whatever he wanted to say.  

Kasich wouldn't go to the convention in his own state.  Rubio videotaped it in - as if he hadn't set aside this week for traveling to Cleveland or didn't want to speak in front of a crowd.  I'm disappointed in Rubio too but at least he gave his support to the nominee and the ticket with strong and persuasive reasons.  This has been a lousy process in a year where the table was set for success.  Oddly, it was Trump who set the bad tone and Trump who they feared wouldn't support the party's ultimate nominee.

Take a close look at the Pence speech if you want an example of what a true conservative can find as positives on the Trump side of a Hillary-Trump matchup.  Hillary is the status quo for everything that is wrong.  Judged by his actions of putting out a list of possible Supreme Court nominees, a rock-solid VP choice, his tax plan, his border security plan, his calling out of ISIS for what they are, Trump is something completely different and better than Hillary and the status quo in nearly every direction and dimension.  If you are Ted Cruz and are too bruised by the ugly primary process to see that or say that, decline the opportunity to speak.

Every speaker at a convention may be trying to boost themselves by boosting the nominee.  Ted Cruz did neither, committed 'political suicide'.  Win, lose or draw for Trump this year, Ted Cruz will never unite this party.
234  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mike Pence proves you can be both kind and ruthless during rousing RNC speech on: July 21, 2016, 08:23:32 AM
I heard this speech without knowing about the Cruz theatrics that preceded it.
Mike Pence proves you can be both kind and ruthless during rousing RNC speech

We all know what Donald Trump has brought to this presidential campaign. Wednesday night Mike Pence finally brought the stuff that was missing.

Calm, sober, exuding heartland decency, a guy who grew up in front of a cornfield brought a sleepy, surly crowd to its feet. Just an hour or so earlier, Trump’s delegates, led by a vocal Empire State faction, shouted down Treacherous Ted Cruz for failing to offer even a pro forma endorsement of the GOP nominee and finally booed him back to Texas.

No GOP convention anyone can remember has ever before had to stumble through its convention worried about nailing down the votes of its core demographic of Arnold Palmer-drinking, God-fearing, flag-saluting country-club Republicans.

Pence’s speech told these voters: I’m here. I’m proof that we’re still the same party. If you’re worried about who will provide adult supervision in the White House, look no further.

Both party conventions usually go off so smoothly that it’s easy to overlook the potential for disaster. Nobody wants the Message to be occluded by accusations of plagiarism, much less by the nightmare spectacle of the delegates practically coming after the second-place finisher and supposed unifier with pitchforks and torches.

Pence, starting out with his trademark line, “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order” segued beautifully into the kind of gentle self-deprecating humor that always works well in politics — but especially well in a season of anger and hyperbole.

Of Trump, Pence said, “He’s a man known for a large personality, a colorful style and lots of charisma.So I guess he was looking for some balance on the ticket.”

Then Pence did the thing that no other speaker this week, except Donald Trump Jr., could quite manage: Without sounding like it was wishful thinking, he cogently fused his brand of old-fashioned conservatism with Trump’s bold new direction. He wrapped it all up so it was as pretty as a package from the little neighborhood jewelry store around the corner from Trump Tower, the one his younger daughter is named after.

Talking about an economy that has borrowed massively yet barely delivered a pulse, Pence said, “The national debt has nearly doubled in these eight years and [Hillary Clinton’s] answer is to keep borrowing and spending . . . they tell us this economy is the best that we can do. It’s nowhere near the best that we can do. It’s just the best that they can do.”

Serene and mature, Pence provided the superego to Trump’s id, yet identified their common ground: They’re both so indisputably American: “He’s the genuine article,” Pence said. “He’s a doer in a game usually reserved for talkers.

And when Donald Trump does his talking, he doesn’t tiptoe around 1,000 new rules of political correctness. He’s his own man, distinctly American — and where else would an independent spirit like his find a following than in the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

Pence proved to be an adept attack dog, too. Gently, almost politely, he tore Clinton apart without the red-faced shoutiness other speakers showed, the kind commentators easily dismiss as nutty raving.

The crowd here at Quicken Loans Arena has, not entirely to its credit, taken to shouting “Lock her up!” whenever the Democratic Party nominee is mentioned. They did so again when Pence brought her up.

But instead of taking his cue from the crowd in the room, Pence made a subtly damning case to TV viewers: “Over in the other party, if the idea was to present the exact opposite of a political outsider, the exact opposite of an uncalculating truth teller, then on that score you’ve got to hand it to the Democratic establishment, they outdid themselves this time . . . At the very moment when America is crying out for something new and different . . . Democrats are about to anoint someone who represents everything this country is tired of.”

That isn’t Trumpian bluster. That’s succinct, direct, reasonable and devastating. Trump-Pence may be a match made in politics, but this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
235  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Mike Pence on: July 20, 2016, 11:46:35 PM
Did Mike Pence knock it out of the park this evening?  It sounded very good on radio.

236  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: July 20, 2016, 10:42:25 PM
Looking for the post about Hillary's commodity trades and not finding it  , , , angry     
237  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / IBD: Don't Weep For Turkey's Erdogan -- He's Killing His Nation's Democracy on: July 20, 2016, 04:06:11 PM
I can't find where I posted my question, which side were we on, the military coup or the Erdogan disaster?

Don't Weep For Turkey's Erdogan -- He's Killing His Nation's Democracy

rkey: Foreign support for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the coup was based largely on the idea of defending a democracy. But it's Erdogan who seems intent on destroying Turkey's democracy.

Everyone around the world seemed to agree that Turkish democracy was worth defending from a coup. "The president and secretary agreed that all parties in Turkey should support the democratically elected government of Turkey, show restraint and avoid any violence or bloodshed," a statement from the U.S. State Department read.

"Germany stands on the side of all of those in Turkey who defend democracy and the rule of law," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country is home to millions of Turkish gastarbeiter.

Indeed, across the world the response was remarkably the same: Whether we like Erdogan or not, coups are bad and, after all, Erdogan was democratically elected. To support Erdogan is to support democracy. End of story.

Well, to a point.

Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Try us free for 4 weeks.
Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Try us free for 4 weeks.
People forget Erdogan's own conflicted feelings about democracy. In the past, he has likened democracy to a train: You get on and then get off once you get to where you're going. In short, democracy for him isn't a bred-in-the-bone conviction but rather a political convenience, useful only for grabbing power then discarding it like yesterday's trash.

Case in point: Following the coup, Erdogan arrested 8,777 officers from the Interior Ministry, according to the state-run Anadolu news agency, including  103 generals and admirals and thousands of police officers. He also detained judges, lawyers, senior aides and others, said Anadolu.

This looks a lot more like a purge than a legitimate security action, particularly since Turkey's government has described the plotters -- none of whom has had a trial yet -- as a "cancer" that must be "cleansed" from Turkey's public institutions.

In an interview with CNN, it became quite clear that Erdogan won't be governing in the future as a small-d democrat. Apparently, he's getting off the train.

This is problematic for a number of reasons.

For one, Turkey has an outstanding application to join the European Union, based on the notion that it is a legitimate democracy.

But as Erdogan threatens to reinstate the death penalty to take care of those who allegedly plotted against him, the EU warns it will end any hope he has of future membership in the EU.

"Let me be very clear on one thing ... no country can become an EU member state if it introduces (the) death penalty," EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said.

For another, Turkey is a NATO member. But it has been shaky in its support of NATO since Erdogan, a committed Islamist, took over, even denying NATO the use of airbases during the Iraq war. Secretary of State John Kerry warned that the Turkish government could fall foul of NATO's "requirement with respect to democracy" and "diversity" if it fails to uphold the rule of law after the coup attempt.

No doubt Vladimir Putin, looking to expand his baneful influence in the Mideast, is licking his lips.

But the fact is, as head of the Turkish state since 2003 -- first as prime minister and since 2014 as president -- Erdogan has methodically exerted control over Turkish institutions and cashiered thousands of officers in Turkey's military, the traditional pro-Western bulwark against those who would end Turkey's secular democracy, first established by Ataturk in 1923.

And he's become more bold of late.

"Developments in the aftermath of the June and November 2015 parliamentary elections convinced many Turks that it was no longer possible to change the government through democratic and peaceful means," wrote Yüksel Sezgin, director of the Middle Eastern Studies Program at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, in the Washington Post. "Erdogan would not recognize the results of June 2015 parliamentary elections in which his ruling AKP (Justice and Development Party) lost its parliamentary majority and called for repeat elections in November 2015."

"In the meantime, he destroyed the peace process with the Kurdish rebels that he started a few years earlier and launched a major military campaign in the Kurdish cities, which left thousands of people homeless, injured and dead," Sezgin added.

In short, Erdogan has silenced media that criticize his regime, bullied the judiciary, harassed political foes and arrested those who pose a threat to him, all in his bid to restore an Islamic form of government based on Shariah law.

No, that doesn't mean the coup plotters would have been better.  But certainly Erdogan is no democrat -- at least not in the Western sense. We should stop defending him as such. Sadly, what remains of Turkey's democracy of 75 million may be gasping its last breaths, as Erdogan uses the coup as a pretense to seize greater and greater power. What a pity.
238  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Politics at State Level, Politico: Something is Rotten in Minnesota, Race on: July 20, 2016, 04:01:52 PM
"Self inflicted Stupidity", i.e. unforced errors.

This article is not good enough to post 3 times, in state and local, race thread and cognitive dissonance of the left.  But it is an interesting look into leftist cluelessness that affects everyone, everywhere.

They start by interviewing the architect of the current, failed plan, Myron Orfeld, a former state senator and professor of leftism at the University of Minnesota.  To balance his view, they talk to more and more leftists and ask them all the wrong questions about what has gone wrong.

MN WI and IA always have the best test scores in the nation.  Unfortunately it is because they have the highest proportions of white people, not the best schools.  If some other state had that proportion of Asian-American students, the advantage would be there.

People ask why the blue model works in Minnesota, a loaded question with a false premise.  Like Sweden, the welfare state worked back when the population had a more homogeneous culture and a widely held Scandinavian work ethic that was stronger than the disincentives to work contained in the blue state welfare mess.  

Minnesota has the highest disparity of incomes between black and white in the nation.  So much for success.  Many blacks live in neighborhoods where welfare is abundant and employment is scarce.  The goal of the leftists is to get a balance of blacks and welfare and programs and assistance into all the suburbs and communities, not just the currently black neighborhoods.  That would solve what?

Whites tend to come from here.  50% of blacks came here from other states.  That gets loser to 100% as you look back a few generations.

The article goes from quoting the person who designing the current failure:  “It was a lot of self-inflicted stupidity” is Myron Orfield’s analysis, to quoting other leftists who think more government programs and subsidies would this time help these people become self sufficient. [an oxymoron?]  Did the people who succeed do so because of more government programs and bigger subsidies?  No.  But they aren't black.

"Minnesota may be paying for its own success; its consistently thriving economy [nation's most generous welfare benefits?] has drawn thousands of blacks and migrants of color from other states and countries, and traditionally homogeneous Minnesota has been slow to absorb them.
The ones not working for the most part didn't come here to work.

The Twin Cities is roughly 1st in the nation for lowest unemployment rate (3.1%) for metropolitan areas:
Like the national numbers, that does not include entire segments of the population who live their lives outside of the BLS defined workforce.

Bring these people back into the economy in a positive and constructive way and it would solve nearly all our problems...
239  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: psycho-babble of a terrorist on: July 17, 2016, 01:24:06 PM
Seems to me that being a psycho and being a radical Islamic terrorist are not mutually exclusive conditions.
240  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff), Mass murders using weapons other than guns on: July 15, 2016, 04:19:45 PM
The trucker in France had guns, but the larger point remains, he didn't need guns or assault rifle to commit mass murder.  We can ban trucks, limit weight and horsepower on trucks, sue the truck manufacturers for the unintended use if we want.  Will that stop mass murder?

The enemy is the ideology that makes us their enemy, and the terrorist following it, not the device used. 

There are IEDs, dirty bombs, pipe bombs, poison gas in enclosed spaces and homemade nuclear devices.  There are guns, airplanes and trucks and who knows what else?  Ban all of them and we will learn which ones we missed, maybe serial beheadings with a kitchen knife, ban that too. 

Guns have a specific use in self defense and crowd defense in some of these same situations. 

Strangely, we only want to ban the one that is a constitutional right, and the only one widely used in self defense.

Ban mass murder, declare war on ISIS and hunt down their sympathizers, but don't ban self defense or the most obvious way to end a mass murder in process.
241  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump, VP pick, election chances on: July 15, 2016, 03:45:44 PM
"Pence had endorsed Ted:"

The Pence pick is better than taking Cruz, Rubio or Kasich.  He gets all the credit without taking any of that baggage.  Pence is better than Cruz in that he served longer in Congress, has foreign policy and executive experience, gets along on Capital hill, and hasn't been in any big fights with Trump.

No conservative in their right mind can not sit out or not vote Trump.  There is the chance that Trump could either govern well or die.  What chance do conservatives have to turn things around if the other side wins?  None.

The timing is perfect.  They needed to unite, not fight, coming into the convention.

The speaker lineup looks great for the convention.  Look for a great show.  I hope they get decent viewership and make some kind of a substantive and lasting impression.  

Hillary is now free to pick Tim Kaine, the left's Mike Pence.  He is a white, middle aged guy that has served as Governor and Senator in Virginia, a key state.  That should be a fair fight.  Let whoever is right on the issues prevail.

The table is now set for Trump to win in a landslide.  (PAT WAS RIGHT.)  Trump closed the gap before doing anything right.  Now he can step up, be Presidential, rip up a flawed opponent and win.  There is a powerful case to be made against the status quo on the economy and around the world and she has no chance to separate herself from it.  Trump faulted Romney for not seizing that opportunity.  Now is his chance.

Don't blow it.

P.S.  Trump is dead wrong on two things in particular, private takings and being or sounding anti-free trade.  The first won't come up and he can rip TPP all he wants for its sovereignty issues.  If he can get through the convention without ripping free trade on its merits he will go a long way toward winning and governing well.  We don't need a trade wall to make America great again.
242  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: July 15, 2016, 03:13:15 PM
Wisdom before law school?  A rare case of it!
243  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education, Job training on: July 15, 2016, 03:02:55 PM
I think a post disappeared here.  I wanted to jump back in and say great story DDF(?).  It brought up many questions about companies, the training of their employees, the difficulty of relocating and considerations that go way beyond wage rates.
244  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hillary's Muslim immigration policy on: July 15, 2016, 02:42:20 PM

She reads that to mean a million new Democratic voters...

Hillary took an issue where her opponent has been seen as extreme and now gone extreme herself in a more dangerous, less popular direction.  Do even the illegal Hispanics want open borders for the Islamists?  Do blacks?  Do gays want more Muslims here?  Do Rabbis?  Do blue collar working people?  Do soccer mom's want more terrorists in the neighborhoods?   I'm not being facetious; Eden Prairie schools, a rich suburb here, had to re-draw the Elementary school lines to uncluster the influx of Somalis moving in.  What means busing the white kid to a school further from their home.  Guess what?  Moms don't like that.

If your opponent has gone extreme right on a crucial issue, why not lock in the center?  Take in new immigrants with due diligence and caution, even a pause while we figure out what is going on.  But the left is not led by the center. Current leftist leaders including Obama, Hillary, BLM, SEIU, AFSCME, the Planned Parenthood organ chop shop and all the rest risk splitting up the coalition they worked so hard to build.
245  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: July 14, 2016, 12:05:29 PM
Pointing out the obvious:

Regarding Hillary's college plan and every other leftist position on every leftist issue, from the Iraq war to minimum wage, healthcare, unemployment, education, and the Obama phones...they don't want to solve the problem; they want to get elected.

"We are the change that we seek."  - Barack Obama, Feb 5, 2008
246  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hillbillary college plan, Dems proposals are usually chump change on: July 14, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
"she would impose a three-month moratorium on federal student loan payments via executive action"

A 3 month moratorium on a LONG term problem?

Via executive action?  Is that the new Article 1, 2 and 3 of the living, breathing US constitution?!

Someone stop her!

How about instead get the economy going again and let adult education be a market? 

How about start with no money toward gender studies and other fields that produce nothing.

The federal student loan and grant money is what is causing the out of control college costs.  It's not students demanding higher costs with their own money.  The idea you might not have to repay it makes it even more attractive to incur, hold and not pay down.

As usual, do more of whatever caused the mess.  Blame others.
247  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Mike Pence on: July 14, 2016, 11:34:39 AM
"Pence had endorsed Ted"

Yes.  And Warren endorsed Sanders.  Unite your own side, then fight for the middle.

Pence's views match Cruz better, but the R's in his state went for Trump.  He endorsed Cruz late and cautiously.

Divided we fall.

248  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sowell reviews "The War on Cops" on: July 14, 2016, 11:28:44 AM
"The majority of humans on the planet are Han Chinese, yet they are vastly unrepresented in the NBA and the US prison system. Some sort of systemic discrimination, obviously."

How come the Gullibles fall for the SJW drivel so easily?

Even Obama admits, if you grow up in fatherless house, you are 5 times more likely to commit crimes.
A black kid has a 72% of being born into a fatherless home.  Not a hit by lightning chance, a 3 out of 4 chance.
Government took the place of fathers.
Result: Too any black kids, boys in particular, turn to crime and end up in prison.
Leftist Answer:  Double down on same strategy and make it worse.  Then blame anyone who questions that.

To the Gullibles:  Do you know this is what you keep voting for?

To the opponents of government-run families and failed communities:  Hello... Is anyone home?
We’re hiring,” the [Dallas] police chief said. “Get out of the protest line and fill out an application.”
249  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump, the Veepstakes and the Republican convention on: July 14, 2016, 10:46:08 AM
"The decision has to be made by tomorrow, Thursday, and the actions needed in Indiana to make that possible need to happen on Friday."

I will make my announcement Friday 11am:

The timing indicates it is Pence.  Ballot juggling needs to be done in Indiana by Friday noon.

Krauthammer prefers Gingrich, Pence doesn't 'move the needle'.

The Pence choice is not bold and takes the pressure off of Hillary to make a risky choice, introducing someone new to the country like Castro or Perez.  She should pick Biden.  But will pick Warren.  Warren unites her left leaving her free to flirt with the center.

On another note, PAT WAS RIGHT, polls are roughly even now both nationally and in key states coming into the conventions, and Trump hasn't really started or done anything right yet.  This race is very winnable.

Trump has been quiet lately, taking just a few minutes to win the argument against Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg who apologized today.  He is preparing for his convention.  This is the media event of the media life he has led since the 1980s.  He has complete control and has had 30 years to visualize and plan for this.  It is the summer doldrums of news.  Can he attract an audience and put forward a message that will live past the Hillary convention that has the advantage of going last?  We will see.

Look for Jodi Earnst to hit it out of the park.  Tray Gowdy should make the case against Clinton; he will be Trump's Attorney General.  Ted Cruz is going to step up to the plate.  Marco Rubio, the one they should have picked, will paint a vision for the future.  And look for some surprises better than Clint Eastwood's attempt last time.

Good luck to the Donald.  He needs to make a personal and Presidential connection with the people who have doubted him.  I wish he wasn't wrong on a couple of key issues.
250  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sowell reviews "The War on Cops" on: July 14, 2016, 10:14:25 AM

As usual, don't we wish people would come across these facts and this level of analysis without having to read an opinion piece of a conservative columnist on a conservative site.  The people who need to see this aren't seeing it.

"Although many people regard these “disparate-impact” statistics as evidence, or virtually proof, of racial discrimination, suppose that I should tell you that black basketball players are penalized by NBA referees out of all proportion to the 13 percent that blacks are in the American population."   - Unfair!

"black political and community leaders, back in the 1980s, spearheaded the drive for more severe legal penalties against those who sold crack cocaine. Black congressman Charlie Rangel of Harlem was just one of those black leaders who urged these more severe penalties. So did the New York Times, the promoter of many crusades on the left."

   - Does anyone ever point that out?  No.  Except here.

"whites were turned down at nearly twice the rate that Asian Americans were turned down"

   - A fact that doesn't fit a narrative or agenda, therefore irrelevant.  If you keep looking for differences between groups, you will find them.  That rarely defines causation.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 167
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!