Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 02, 2015, 11:41:51 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86802 Posts in 2278 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 131
51  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: WSJ/Strassel: Clinton charity begins at home on: June 05, 2015, 01:43:02 PM
That's right!  How did the IRS non-profit group shut down tea party groups for years for doing nothing wrong and then give the Clinton Family Crime Foundation who directs almost none of its money to charity a free pass.  You would think they would have to at least fake an investigation.
52  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio out there shrinking the gender gap on: June 05, 2015, 01:39:01 PM

A good interview with the gals on Fox.  I think they found him likable.  Unlike the other side, he answered all their questions.
53  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen. Rand Paul's outrage, IRS or NSA? on: June 04, 2015, 10:29:11 PM
While Rand Paul was blaming Republicans for ISIS and shutting down the NSA, somehow we let his thread drift down to page 2.

Rand Paul has made himself a niche player, using NSA grandstanding for his Presidential fundraising.  Further, acting like an establishment politician, he got his own election rules changed so that he could run for both President and reelection - unlike a competitor I have mentioned from Fla.

The federal government over-reach on NSA has not been egregious.  They know what phone numbers have connected and have use for that only when one of them is connected with terrorism.  There have been no abuses of the program that we know of so far.  They are not listening to your conversations.

Meanwhile, this God-awful administration used the IRS to put down opposition groups to get reelected in ways that would make Richard Nixon blush.  WHERE IS RAND PAUL'S OUTRAGE ON THAT?  

I get sick and tired of these Republicans who try to advance themselves by attacking other Republicans. Who is your adversary here Rand, the Republicans whose vote you will need to win or the Democrats who you will run against if you win the nomination you say you are seeking.

Taking the Obama administration down a notch based on their own lies, corruption and failures is necessary to win the next election along with taking down their nomine.  His approval rating is a key factor in the outcome of the election of his successor - according to every election expert.

If you are serious about running for President as a Republican defeating Democrats - then start acting like it.
54  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade on: June 04, 2015, 10:07:52 PM
The fact that McConnell is saying the trade deal is about the country and not Obama just shows how corrupt he is.  There can be no other explanation that he is for this for pork and for his lobby business cronies.
Just despicable how our own party just washes us down the drain.  I expect it from the crats but not from Republican

Doug, I take it you go to Repub conventions?

I for one am with the millions who will not vote for the likes of Bush (unless he really changes his tune), Graham, Kasich, Christy, and the like.   I will sit home and if Hillary wins she wins.  These guys are a loss anyway so no point in voting for them.
McConnell and the other fraud from the other House are corrupt.  Just no other explanation folks.
Give Obama fast track?  There not crazy - just corrupt.

Doc,  You have this about right.  The fast track opposition is really about distrust of the Congress to vote down a bad deal, not the obvious - that this President can't be trusted to negotiate in our best interests.

Bush won't be the nominee IMO, but I have already been wrong on one of these picks.

If it really came down to Bush v. Clinton ...     well let's deal with that only if we have to.  He isn't going to change, but we aren't going to sit still and let her win either.

Remember the author of the latest Clinton corruption book also has a follow-the-money book coming out about Jeb.   So far, Jeb is under-performing in terms of both fund raising and poll numbers, even if he is almost in first place.  He hasn't won an election in a long time and doesn't seem to get the framework of this one.

All I can say about trade bills that aren't about trade is vote them down and vote in a better President.  We are the United States of America, very recently the largest economy in the world.  People should want to trade with us!
55  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's whistle blowers meet with House committee on: June 04, 2015, 02:51:32 PM
56  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Immigration issues: Ann Coulter newest book, Adios America on: June 03, 2015, 02:07:32 PM
Our ccp is proven right - again.

I have been on the WSJ side of this, believing LEGAL immigration is mostly good - good for the country, good for the economy, and completely unrelated to illegal immigration.  Not so, according to this new bool.

Ann Coulter is often a flame thrower, but when she gets things right, she can do that with amazing wit, persuasion and clarity.

Only one chapter of this book is on illegal immigration, but the main point is to examine and expose what is happening on the legal side.

"You know I am a ferocious researcher", she said in an interview, and then went on to tell how the federal government with all its demographics, data and record keeping will not give out any information that ties statistics like crime or welfare to immigration.  So she relentlessly went through local crime stories from across the country looking for keywords like "translator" as it applied to criminal charges and other things and found out things that are not otherwise reported.

Here is a link:    I haven't read the book but her point is that these immigrants are not like those immigrants.  Generalizing, they are not coming here for the same reasons as the immigrants of the past.

Legal immigration SHOULD be a good thing because we have needs and should decide who comes in - the right people from the right places for the right reasons.  In this politically correct world, that type of analysis is never going to happen

The Pamela Geller piece posted today in 'Islam in America' about Somali immigration is relevant here too. I went to school there on the west bank of the Univ. of Minnesota and knew that neighborhood that is now called "Little Mogadishu".  Arguably we took in refugees from a region with brutal civil war and we have done that before with other people from other regions.  But why are these people here - legally - if they don't accept basic foundations of our society like free speech.  Besides the right to remain silent, to an attorney, etc., in Minneapolis you also have the right to a free, competent and "culturally sensitive" interpreter, no matter your language and not just for criminal matters.

More later when people have time to read the book and cite her facts, but her main point in my words is that these people, Hispanic and others, are coming from failed cultures and bringing their failed ways with them causing more problems and societal costs here.  Liberals and Democrats are conspiring to get them here, all set up on welfare programs and dependent on government from the moment they arrive and lock them in as reliable voters.  If true (and it IS true) that should drive every remaining, hard working, blue collar Democrat out of the party.  

Signing up for free everything isn't how it worked when other groups in the past came here and successfully assimilated over time and contributed greatly to our country.  Don't confuse the greatness of these people with the results of what is happening now.  Critics of course call that line of inquiry racist, but what are the facts?  No one else will say.

Whatever comes out of this, there should be a serious discussion about what legal immigration should be, in addition to solving the illegal problem.  You can look at Sweden for another example, but you can't mix open borders with a massive entitlement system and then be surprised to learn people are coming for the wrong reasons and causing problems.
57  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Marco Rubio First in latest CNN poll on: June 02, 2015, 01:30:43 PM
Rubio 1st in CNN poll (and 4th in ABC poll).  Gained 7 points on Jeb Bush in one month, passing him by one, all within the margin of error.   Walker and Huckabee also double digits.  These early polls are all over the map but the averages and trend lines matter.  Best position I think is to be top of the second tier, not at the very top too early where everyone needs to knock you down.  As long as this stays 5 or 6-way close, the candidates need to audition for the general election rather than knock down each other.
58  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade on: June 01, 2015, 12:01:57 PM
Good points ccp.

The debate so far was about fast track trade negotiating authority.  Of course we don't want President O negotiating on our behalf, but we also don't want that precedent to be lost on his successors.  536 people can't negotiate.

On the question of what we can do about it if it comes out as a bad agreement:  The majority of Dems already oppose it without the defects speculated.  A letter signed by half the Republicans would put the President on notice that if it contains the 'other 24 sections', it will be voted down.  But say that only if you mean it, not to paint Obama-like red lines.

I am SO tired of bills, laws and treaties not being what they are named.  If they put something into a trade agreement that is not in his trade authorization, then amend it anyway, down to its authorized and constitutional sections, and vote it up or down.

Let's make sure US sovereignty versus consenting to world government is on the issues list in the next campaign.  That is NOT opposition to trade.  And don't give away whatever control of the internet that we still have.
59  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re-do: Hillary to announce (again) on June 13 on: June 01, 2015, 11:36:54 AM
Is this the point where I have officially lost (again) Phase I of my bet with ccp, that she won't run, won't win the nomination, and won't be elected President?

Her first attempt, posting a video and a couple of pretend appearances, looked pretty lame.  She wasn't really launching yet; she just needed to jump through some legal, financial hoops.  You know how the Clintons want to comply with not only the letter but the spirit of the law.  Soon she be up to her 2007 pace, announcing her willingness to accept the coronation.

I hope some junior Senator (other than Rubio or Cruz) doesn't step in and mess it up for her,

I bumped into an old friend yesterday, medium lefty, who I enjoy some political banter with.  He asked who I was supporting.  I said Rubio.  He seemed shocked, no response.  I asked him who he was supporting and he said Hillary without hesitation.  I asked if he liked her for her honesty?  No response.  I think he likes her now because that's who he wanted last time.  That should give her at least as good of a chance to be President as our second place finisher, Rick Santorum.   )
60  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans on: June 01, 2015, 10:34:51 AM
"This is probably a very common scam the politicians use to make money.   Remember this is exactly how Harry Reid got his millions.  Same scam."

    - It sure does sound the same - except that this was after Hastert left office so R's have no more opportunity to kick him out.  Dems had every opportunity and left their slime in power.

"Oh but perfectly legal"   

    - I doubt that.

"As for sexual indiscretion(s) hard to say.  Why now that he is rich did his alleged victim come forward ~ 35 later."

    - There are better explanations for why not come forward sooner than for why these payments were made.  Since i'm not on the jury and don't want to look into the facts any further, I'm going to assume he's guilty.  Otherwise he can explain the payments in a way that we believe him.  BTW, praying on young boys is not an 'indiscretion'.  It's closer to treason - the thread where this started.  Penalty should be genitalia-ectomy.  Maybe that would discourage it.
61  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Hillbillary Clintons shadiest characters: Cody Shearer on: June 01, 2015, 10:17:06 AM
My wish is to defeat her on ideology, rather than corruption and character, but while we wait for her trade position, Keysone decision, tax plan and budget, we can take a look at her team.

Meet Cody Shearer, the Strangest Character in Hillary’s Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy
 BY BRENDAN BORDELON,   National Review  (link below)

And you thought Sidney Blumenthal was shady. Few people have heard of Cody Shearer, the unsanctioned diplomat, private eye, and Clinton flunky whose name surfaced in connection with the so-called intelligence reports Sidney Blumenthal was channeling to Hillary Clinton during her time at the State Department. But this shadowy fixture of the Clinton machine was everywhere in the 1990s — including war-torn Bosnia, where he became the subject of a State Department investigation after he represented himself as an agent of the U.S. government and took cash from a genocidal warlord.

Now evidence suggests Shearer, working with his partner Blumenthal, was up to something similar during the 2011 revolution in Libya. And like in the 1990s, the Clintons were lurking on the margins. Much of the intelligence contained in memos fed to the Clinton State Department by Blumenthal was not just self-serving — it was provided by someone with a history of misleading foreign sources, misrepresenting himself as an agent of the U.S. government, and creating trouble for both himself and the United States abroad. Much of the intelligence contained in memos fed to the Clinton State Department by Blumenthal was not just self-serving — it was provided by someone with a history of misrepresenting himself as an agent of the U.S. government.

Though often described as a journalist, Shearer hasn’t written much since the 1980s. His work, like that of his father, Lloyd Shearer, the former editor of Parade magazine, was often gossipy and reputation-ruining. A series of columns the younger Shearer wrote on the sexual proclivities of former Texas senator John Tower sank his nomination for defense secretary in 1989. RELATED: Did Sidney Blumenthal Violate Foreign-Lobbying Laws?

Shearer’s career took a strange turn when the Clintons entered the White House in 1992. His entrée into the first family’s orbit was Strobe Talbott, Shearer’s brother-in-law, who had been a friend of Bill Clinton since the president’s days at Oxford. Talbott served as a deputy secretary in Bill Clinton’s State Department; his brother-in-law took a different route, allegedly working with Clinton enforcer Terry Lenzner to investigate and, at times, intimidate women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.

But Shearer’s political intrigues in the ’90s extended beyond U.S. shores. In the middle of the decade, for reasons that remain unclear, he traveled to Europe to negotiate with associates of Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian-Serb president known to have orchestrated the mass killings of Bosnian Muslims — including the Srebrenica genocide — during the brutal Yugoslav Wars. Representing himself as an agent of the State Department, Shearer told his Serbian contacts, which included members of Karadzic’s family, that he could reduce the severity of impending war-crimes charges if Karadzic surrendered. He claimed he was in contact not only with his brother-in-law, but also with then-secretary of state Madeleine Albright and even with President Clinton himself. 

“He said, ‘If you can show to my friends, meaning his brother-in-law and the president, that you can offer a serious line of negotiation, military action to capture Karadzic would not happen,’” the Serbian associate said, according to a 1999 Wall Street Journal article. A subsequent State Department investigation found that the Serbs paid Shearer at least $25,000 for his efforts, though the Serbs themselves claim he was paid much more.

Although Shearer’s negotiations on behalf of the U.S. government were unauthorized, the Wall Street Journal reported that Strobe Talbott knew of his brother-in-law’s activities at least one year before the State Department did and asked him to stop. He only felt compelled to do so, according to the Journal, because Shearer was erroneously informing his Serbian contacts that the U.S. supported a plan to partition Bosnia, not because he was conducting shadow diplomacy with a genocidal warlord.

David Bossie, now the president of the conservative political-action committee Citizens United, first uncovered Shearer’s role in the Bosnia negotiations as a GOP researcher on the House Oversight Committee in the 1990s. The State Department’s inspector general opened an investigation into Shearer’s actions in 1999, but it was never publicly released. “It was just one of those things that fell by the wayside,” says Bossie. “And then the Clintons leave office and it’s all forgotten.” Citizens United is now asking the State Department to release the investigation’s results.

Fast-forward 14 years and, in early 2011, as a State Department-sanctioned revolution against the Qaddafi regime in Libya was picking up steam, longtime Clinton consigliere Sidney Blumenthal was sending “confidential” intelligence memos to Hillary Clinton. He was touting leaders of the Libyan rebel movement with whom he had business dealings and pushing for the hire of private military contractors while working as an adviser to Osprey Global Solutions, a contracting company seeking to do business in Libya.

Shearer was aiding Blumenthal in these “intelligence-gathering” efforts. In one e-mail message from May 2001, first published by Gawker in March, Shearer appears to be serving as the liaison between Blumenthal and “Grange,” the former Army general and CEO of Osprey, as they attempt to organize a small team of contractors to conduct an unspecified mission to the Libyan border from Tunisia. He is also in frequent contact with “K,” a Libyan named Khalifa al Sherif who seems to be feeding Shearer intelligence reports from inside the Libyan revolutionary council.

It’s not clear to what extent Clinton knew she was involving herself with Shearer — National Review was unable to contact Shearer, and the Clinton campaign did not reply to a request for comment. Bossie says the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been notified of Shearer’s past indiscretions in Bosnia and believes that history will prove instructive as to what he was up to in Libya — and on whose behalf.

 - Brendan Bordelon is a political reporter for National Review.
62  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Issues...Constitutional Law, 5 cases to watch, not just Burwell and Hodges on: June 01, 2015, 09:55:45 AM
5 Supreme Court Cases to Watch in June
(I would like to discuss these with Bigdog.)

The High Court prepares to rule on Obamacare, gay marriage, death penalty drugs, and more.
Damon Root | May 31, 2015

The Supreme Court's 2014-2015 term will soon reach its finale. By the end of June, when the justices depart for their summer break, the Court is expected to issue a series of blockbuster decisions, including rulings on gay marriage, death penalty drugs, and Obamacare. Here are five cases to watch as another momentous SCOTUS term reaches its peak.

Elonis v. United States

Anthony Elonis claims that he's "just an aspiring rapper" who likes to post violent lyrics and graphic first-person murder fantasies to Facebook. But after numerous Facebook postings in which Elonis wrote about killing his estranged wife, killing his boss, and killing others, including the FBI agent sent to investigate him, a federal jury found him guilty of transmitting "in interstate or foreign commerce any communications containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another." He was sentenced to 44 months in prison.

In Elonis v. United States the Supreme Court will decide whether those Facebook posts constituted a "true threat" of violence or whether they count as constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.

Glossip v. Gross

The state of Oklahoma employs a three-drug protocol when carrying out the death penalty via lethal injection. The first drug is supposed to render the prisoner totally unconscious and insensate. The second drug is a paralytic. The third drug does the killing. But what if there is a lack of medical consensus about whether or not the first drug actually renders the prisoner unconscious and insensate? What if paralyzed prisoners sometimes suffer excruciating pain in the final minutes before death? (A concern not afforded to the innocent in late term abortions.) Would that lack of medical certainty about the drug's effects violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against imposing cruel and unusual punishments (of serial killers)?  Italics comments added.

Glossip v. Gross centers on such concerns. At issue is Oklahoma's use of the drug midazolam to render prisoners unconscious during execution. According to the petitioners, midazolam "is not approved or used as a standalone anesthetic during painful surgeries, because it is inherently incapable of reliably inducing and maintaining deep, comalike unconsciousness." The Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether or not the lower court got it wrong when it allowed Oklahoma to continue using this potentially unreliable drug.

Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use. Yet according to a federal regulation designed to "stabilize" the raisin market, raisin farmers such as Marvin and Laura Horne are required to physically surrender a portion of their crop to federal officials each year without receiving just compensation in return. For example, in 2002-2003, the USDA demanded 30 percent of the annual raisin crop, which amounted to 89,000 tons. In return, the federal government paid nothing back to raisin farmers.

Do the USDA's actions violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment? The Supreme Court will decide in Horne v. USDA.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Do state legislatures have the lawful power to prohibit gay marriage? Or do state bans on gay marriage violate the 14th Amendment, which forbids the states from denying the equal protection of the laws to any person within their respective jurisdictions? In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court confronts the possibility of legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

King v. Burwell

The question before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell is whether the Obama administration illegally implemented the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) when the IRS allowed tax credits to issue to certain persons who bought health insurance on federally established health care exchanges. According to the text of the ACA, such tax credits should only issue in connection with purchases made via an "Exchange established by the State." According to the Obama administration, however, the phrase "established by the State" is actually a "term of art" that encompasses exchanges established by both the states and by the federal government. The legal challengers, by contrast, maintain that the statutory text is clear and that the health care law means what it says. Depending on how the Court sees it, the long-term survival of Obamacare could be at risk.

Damon Root is a senior editor of Reason magazine and the author of Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court (Palgrave Macmillan).
63  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans, Ripping Hastert on: June 01, 2015, 09:41:49 AM
There are many bizarre things in this story.  They Feds used a blackmail investigation to go after the victim (of blackmail).  Ends justify means.  Down goes a creep.  Unproven but it sounds true.  A whole, other matter, why was Hastert so wealthy?  Others are writing on that but it's ugly.

Whether you are a gym teacher or a former Speaker of the House, one question you might ask yourself before committing any crime or moral sin is how will this look in the newspapers?

Scummy character comes on both sides.  I would like to think that Republicans will turn against their own when they deserve it.  He's not running for anything, but hopefully would not be endorsed for dog catcher once we know about the sleaze.  That is not always true over on the other side.

Let's rip Hastert a little further.  He was speaker from 1999 until they lost the congress to Reid, Pelosi and the gang that now has a hold on the executive branch.  During 4 of those years, Republicans held the Presidency, Senate and House.  They did a few things partly right, but their governance also included lack of spending restraint, the authorization of new federal programs, and the funding of all things the federal government does that it shouldn't, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CRAp just to name a few that came back to bite us, while they failed to repeal or reform anything, like Humphrey-Hawkins and the dual mission of the Fed, or the budget process or CBO.

Like nearly all elected Republicans, they failed to communicate the reasons why they were doing something even when they got it right.  The end result of it all was financial meltdown and the election of liberal Democrats to run everything.  In other words, they managed to get Republicans blamed for Democrat policies.

The Speaker of the House is next in line to be President, behind the VP.  One qualification therefore for Speaker IMO is to be Presidential, not just be legislatively effective.  Hastert's strength was the opposite.  His job was to blend in with the furniture and not draw attention to anything.  While they were working so hard to offend no one, fund everything, reform nothing, and go along with every RINO whim like a federal education program authored by Ted Kennedy and a federal housing Ponzi scheme that started before they got there, they managed to get reelected (until the end) and muster up about a 9% approval rate, while squandering a surplus, increasing spending by 60%.  They gave supply side economics a bad name without even trying it - and left people thinking this country needed a sharp left turn to correct all of that!

Child molester or not, we need better leaders.
64  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Scott Grannis agrees with Wesbury on: May 30, 2015, 04:26:39 PM

This is not to say that we are wrong, but we are speaking as prophets, and Wesbury is speaking to profit.   With regard to the stock market (whidh is one of the subjects of his thread) he has done spectacularly better than any of us for the past six years.

I agree with Obj in large part, but what Crafty says about past stock market performance is true too.  The "markets" are way up over a long period - using the rear view mirror and skipping all downturns which seem so far behind us now.  But the rear view mirror does not tell us much about what is in front of us now.

Wesbury knows that half or more of this economy has been under-performing this whole time.  And he mixes his analysis between markets and the US economy, as we do.  He is on our side of the political fence, but with a positive bias on the markets.  Scott Grannis has roughly the same views without the bias of writing for an equities firm.

When we saw 00.002 growth in the 1st quarter, one could only guess this will no doubt be adjusted downward.  Now there is perhaps a 50% chance we are already 5 months into a recession that no one is reporting on - hence some of the frustration. 

The negative bias on our side comes from the fact that we know these policies don't work.  The only question is how resilient is the productive spirit in the remaining sectors of the private American economy to withstand these negative forces.  Where we should have had 5-6% growth coming out of a collapse, we had 2%.  Where we should be getting on a 3.1% longer term growth trend we are see zero, and now less.  Instead of getting back on our long term GDP growth curve, we have a gap of tens of trillions of dollars of production and wealth that will never be recovered.  Or as the O administration says, it was because of a long cold, snowy, harsh winter - again - right while global warming is our number one national security risk.  Good grief.

As PP points out on housing, so many of these economic measures are bogus, out of date, or tell us nothing.  The unemployment rate tells us nothing about how many people are out of work just as our poverty measures tell us nothing about the real income of the poor.  Affordable housing, the term, refers to all housing that isn't affordable.  Affordable care means that 84% on it require subsidy.  The GDP growth rate now has more margin of error than it has growth.  The Dow tells us how 30 big companies are doing, adjusted for occasionally removing and replacing the lousy ones.  The wider measure S&P covers 500, Nasdaq lists 3000, and none of these tell us anything about the other 28 million small businesses in this country or the millions that never got started due to excessive government barriers to entry.  At some point a rational person trying his or her hardest to understand what is going on gets tired of hearing bullsh*t.

Here is another look at it without the Wesbury spin.  Note how QE affects the market and how Wall Street is up without seeing the larger context.
65  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 5th Circuit ruling on: May 27, 2015, 11:03:30 AM
“Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.’” Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification."
66  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary vs. Hillary on illegal immigration on: May 27, 2015, 11:00:26 AM
In 2003, Restrictionist Hillary told conservative radio host John Grambling that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants” and that “we’ve got to do more at our borders.”

In 2006, while serving in the Senate, Restrictionist Hillary told the New York Daily News that she supported more fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border because “a country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations.” That same year, she voted for the Secure Fence Act, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing.

In 2008, during a presidential debate with Barack Obama, Restrictionist Hillary tried to woo organized labor by blaming lost jobs on “employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages.” She mentioned an African-American man who had told her: “I used to have a lot of construction jobs, and now it just seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation.”

During that debate, Clinton also said that she didn’t agree with “deporting people, rounding them up.” Yet, while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Restrictionist Hillary was part of an administration that turned that into an art form.

And in 2014, as more than 60,000 refugees from Central America – most of them unaccompanied children – crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, Restrictionist Hillary said coldly during a CNN town hall that the kids “should be sent back” because “we have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”
67  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: gov Brown looking to merge health care with Oregon? on: May 27, 2015, 10:54:26 AM

Should Calif bailing out Oregon be in the humor thread, or obituaries/RIP?

What does it take for people to recognize failure and quit supporting it? 
68  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Wesbury: Inflation dormant, not dead on: May 27, 2015, 10:39:17 AM
"The current looseness of monetary policy will eventually generate higher inflation. It may not be hyperinflation, but it’s more than many investors are prepared for."

   - Now Wesbury sounds like he agrees with us!  The monetary expansion happened (inflation, more money for the same quantity of goods and services) but price increases require some level of demand to materialize.  Who raises prices when they already lack customers?  Also the fall of energy prices is masking or offsetting negative factors and forces in the economy.

The key problems are slow growth, low participation, and the extermination of new business startups.  We have mustered nothing more than a 2% growth rate, when 3.1% is normal long term average and twice that would be a healthy growth rate coming out of a hole this deep.  There is so much stalled productive capability; roughly ONE HUNDRED MILLION ADULTS don't work! 

Our problem was not monetary so neither was the solution.  Imagine what our near zero growth rate over the last 6 years would be without the stimulus of near zero interest rates!  Instead we had just enough growth in the productive half of the economy to mask failure, reelect the status quo, and avoid reform.
69  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A trial lawyer goes through Hillary Clinton's Benghazi emails on: May 26, 2015, 06:02:50 PM

Commentary with images of actual emails.  From the start it was presetned to her as an "attack by mortar fire"

Hinderaker:  "Demonstrators and protesters don't use mortars."

Interesting progression on the word spontaneous.  They are pleased that Susan Rice has advanced "our view" and then frantic when that story  failed to find out whether Hillary had expressly said that.  Odd that NPR is their source that THERE WAS NO PROTEST IN BENGHAZI.  Does she not have better intel than that?

70  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / National Journal: Marco Rubio grabs early advantage in South Carolina on: May 26, 2015, 05:39:57 PM
Great, detailed story about the 3rd primary.  If Rubio locks in South Carolina and then takes either Iowa, New Hampshire or both, it could be over early.  Like Obama in 2008, it looks like Marco Rubio is running a 50 state race.  Mentioned also is that all the candidates would like the endorsement of Sen. Tim Scott.  Not that Rubio needs a Senator or general election help in SC, but maybe we should add him to our VP watch list.

Another good article:  Can Marco Rubio Make Peace With Conservatives on Immigration?
(We have already covered these points here.)
71  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: May 26, 2015, 01:20:14 PM
Thank your for running down the info which I requested.

You're welcome.  Look forward to learning what comes from it.  Sounds like you may be in a discussion where someone denies suspicious behavior by the Clintons...

Not only was it Hillary's assistant seen by a credible Secret Service source with the files before the police could seal it off, but we know she received an urgent, off-hours communication from Hillary immediately preceding that act.

Regarding Riady and Hubbell, the trading of money for favors with the Clintons is so common, persistent and well-known that each instance of it doesn't seem newsworthy.  Others like the VA Governor and NJ Senator face prosecution for less.

The patterns in these are like those in the commodities trades where there is a 1 in 34 trillion chance that what we were told by the Clintons is true, that these events happened just the way they did without wrongdoing.

Maybe Maggie Williams already had an armload of files before she entered the dead man's office and just wanted to turn his light off when she was the first one there to know he wasn't coming back that night.  Maybe a maid brought the missing Whitewater file from Vince Foster's office to the closet of the Clinton living quarters - thinking that legal documents in folders were actually Hillary's shoes.  And maybe Hillary's page sent to Williams immediately upon learning of her close friend's death was regarding the next day's lunch plans.  There are so many innocent explanations; people will believe what they will.
72  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / National security content emails on Hillary Clinton's private, unsecured server on: May 26, 2015, 12:24:39 PM
From Friday's slow news day news dump:

HRC:  "all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately."

   - In fact, none of it was, except maybe wedding planning etc.  Even that should have had better security.

As early as April 2011, Clinton was forwarded a message sent to her staff that the situation in the country had worsened to the point "where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi," The email was marked "Importance: High."

Enemies and Snowden type hackers all knew or could have known the whereabouts of our soon to be murdered Ambassador along with his admitted lack of security.

There ought to be a department or administration rule against exposing that.
73  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Miami Herald (HRC ) inevitability is hardly a winning strategy on: May 26, 2015, 12:12:52 PM
"where the country is only benefiting from the scrappy fighters on the Republican side...Mrs. Clinton and her party lack that “oomph.” They must keep in mind that inevitability is hardly a winning strategy."
74  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: May 26, 2015, 12:02:48 PM

Another chapter in the ongoing story of disruptive innovation.  It wasn't that long ago that someone first suggested Craigslist to us for our rental ads.  Besides the cost, we were getting terrible service with advertising at the local monopoly newspaper, having to commit on Wednesday for what we will need on Sunday for example.  Now major city newspapers barely have a classified section.  There is now an awful lot of news, weather, sports, opinion and classifieds that people can get online for free.  Almost everything.  Meanwhile the quality has mostly gone up.  (Just reading this forum would put you ahead of almost any traditional news magazine.)

One has to be careful with sources.  There was a online story over the weekend that water levels dropped 8 feet on Lake Meade with the earthquake.  It turned out the damage was to a sensor.  But the traditional media has always been loaded with errors, deception and bias too, (often pointed out here) so that is nothing new.
75  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The switch to dollars in socialist Venezuela on: May 26, 2015, 11:38:01 AM
"I have long held that Venezuela's salvation was bankruptcy, the inability of government to buy votes. That is now coming to pass. The danger is that the uprising can be cruelly violent "

For even a town to be too dependent on one industry often leads to demise.  And I would argue that having the government sell off the natural resources does not fully count as production or industry.

With a 6 year term, it is 2019 before voters can knock Maduro out?

It is much like our problems here only so much worse.  Very frustrating that people can't just vote in the policies that would address and correct the known ills even when they finally do have the chance.  Maduro, I assume, governed essentially the way people knew he would.  He and his supporters were just badly mistaken about the results of those policies.
76  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Drowning in debt on: May 26, 2015, 11:18:27 AM

It looks to me like Greenland and Libya are the main areas with workable debt ratios.  We should learn more about the healthcare system and entitlement guarantees in Benghazi...

Countries that have a good history of producing their own energy tend to have manageable debt, Russia, Norway, Saudi.  We could learn from that too.

If my religion forbids me from taking on egregious debt, I wonder if I can I opt out of participation in the US unfunded liabilities scheme.
77  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 81% of respondents to Al-Jazeera poll support ISIS... on: May 26, 2015, 11:02:59 AM
Note Robert's comments regarding Bill O'Reilly - fool that he is:

We learned in the Anbar province that people support the side that is winning.  In the Middle East, if you support the side that is losing or the side that is leaving, then you will be slaughtered.  If I were Muslim polled here, it is a lose-lose situation.  I would not want the US identifying me for a terror watch list and I most certainly would not want the terrorist side putting me on a list of Muslims who do not support the jihad.

This is an online poll so who knows what it means.  If the respondents are all unique, then it means they found over 30,000 readers/viewers who support ISIS.  But if I opposed the gains of ISIS, I might not be motivated to call the terror-affiliated media and tell them that - and how to reach me.
78  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: May 25, 2015, 06:43:41 PM
BTW, I'm needing a good definitive description of:
a) What happened the night Vince Foster died, especially with regard to Hillary removing papers from his office;
b) the billing issues with Hillary's law firm, including Webster Hubbell taking the fall and getting a $700k contract from the Riady family of Indonesia (and front for the Red Chinese) upon his release from prison, and the billing papers that mysteriously showed up in Hillary's quarters in the White House.

Isn't it perfectly normal to ransack a lawyer's office after a suicide, before the police arrive?

"In an account directly at odds with the White House, a Secret Service officer testified Wednesday that he saw Hillary Rodham Clinton's top aide leave Vincent Foster's office area with a stack of documents the night of Foster's death. The aide denied doing so. Margaret Williams, the first lady's chief of staff, "was carrying, in her arms and her hands, what I would describe as file folders," Secret Service officer Henry P. O'Neill told the Senate Whitewater Committee. "She walked past me . . . and started to enter her office, and she had to brace the folders on her arms against a cabinet," he said. "She came out a few moments later and locked her office." "I took nothing from Vince's office," Williams insisted in an opening statement shortly before the panel took a lunch break."

Other accounts/sources:
The Night Foster Died

The Special Committee's Whitewater Report

The Riadys' Persistent Pursuit of Influence
By Sharon LaFraniere, John Pomfret and Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 27, 1997; Page A01
The Riadys also promoted Hubbell at Suharto's presidential palace as someone "influential with Bill Clinton," said another Indonesian official. After Hubbell resigned from the Justice Department amid allegations of fraud, James Riady arranged for him to tour Indonesia.
James Riady masterminded a giving campaign of Lippo executives to the Democratic Party, beginning in 1988. Federal Election Commission records indicate Riady, Lippo executives and business executives contributed more than $700,000 to the Democratic National Committee since 1991.

Hubbell Got $700,000 for Little or No Work, House Probe Shows

See if your Clinton sympathizing friends can explain all of THIS:
79  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's Real Benghazi Problem on: May 23, 2015, 06:47:57 PM
When supporters say they can't think of an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, they are missing an obvious one.  The disaster in Libya is her accomplishment.

HILLARY’S REAL BENGHAZI PROBLEM    (John Hinderaker, Powerline)
Yesterday the State Department released a handful of Hillary Clinton’s emails relating to Benghazi. They have been selected at least twice for release to the public, once by Hillary’s minions and once by the Department, so on one expected any bombshells. Nevertheless, I find them surprisingly interesting. This post addresses what I think is the most important point. I will cover a few smaller matters in a future post. This batch of emails, in their entirety, are at the bottom of this post, so you can read them for yourself.

In my opinion, Hillary’s biggest problem isn’t Benghazi per se, it is the broader issue of Libya. Why were Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans murdered? Because by September 2012, Libya was a terrorist playground. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Libya has become a failed state, a 21st century source of boat people, as refugees from ubiquitous violence stream across the Mediterranean. Libya is now a haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups; it was on the Libyan coast that ISIS beheaded 30 Christians. Some of the “refugees” now making their way into Europe are, in fact, ISIS agents. In short, Libya is a disaster.

Whose disaster? Hillary Clinton’s. It was Hillary who, more than anyone else, pushed to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi. Why? No compelling reason. Qaddafi had been tame ever since the Iraq war, which he interpreted as a threat to his rule. Almost incredibly, Clinton and her cohorts in NATO overthrew Qaddafi (who was subsequently murdered by a mob) without having a plan for what would come next.

Who says Hillary Clinton is responsible for the Libya fiasco? She does. In fact, at one point she was poised to claim Libya as the notable accomplishment of her term as Secretary of State. In August 2011, Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s deputy chief of staff, wrote an email in which he summarized “Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya.” He sent to it henchwoman Cheryl Mills and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who passed it on to Hillary. Sullivan’s email begins:

this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S’ [Secretary Clinton's] leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s libya policy from start to finish. let me know what you think.

The email continues, with bold print in the original:

Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya

HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings–as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

Sullivan goes on to itemize, day by day, how Clinton drove the Libya policy not just in the U.S., but in NATO as well. This is a screen shot of the first page of the email; it goes on and on thereafter, showing how Hillary “owned” and was “the public face of,” our Libya policy, “from start to finish.” Click to enlarge:

Screen Shot

Hillary’s problem is not primarily the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, outrageous as those murders were. Rather, her real problem is that she bears primary responsibility for a policy that was not just a failure, but a disaster. Further, it was a policy that, as you can see from Sullivan’s email, she intended to be a crown jewel of her years as Secretary of State and, no doubt, a chief credential in her run for the presidency. Instead, it blew up in her face–worse, in ours–like an exploding cigar.

The Benghazi murders are of course important. But it is critical to recognize that they resulted not just from a lack of adequate security or other misjudgments that may have been made at the time. Rather, the fact that terrorists were largely in control of Benghazi by September 2012 was the direct result of Hillary’s bad judgment in leading the overthrow of Qaddafi while having no plan for what would come after, and no ability to influence events on the ground. It is that poor judgment that disqualifies her as a candidate for the presidency.
80  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dear Abby on: May 23, 2015, 06:34:05 PM
Old old email joke updated slightly.

Dear Abby,

My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning, and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows that the cheats on me. It is so humiliating.

Also, since he lost his job more than 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and shoot the bull with his buddies, while I work to pay the bills.

Ever since our daughter went away to college he doesn't even pretend to like me, even hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?

Clueless in New York

Dear Clueless in New York, Grow up and dump him. Good grief woman! You don't need him anymore! You're running for President of the United States. Act like one.

81  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade on: May 23, 2015, 06:29:05 PM
Sometimes uneven source Dick Morris cheesy says that free flow of labor is in there and I have seen assertions that foreign companies will be able to challenge US environmental standards.

These are things I've heard too.  I wonder what a "free flow of labor" looks like if it happens within our existing laws for foreign, legal, documented workers.  And I'm not sure that hurts us.  The key to our sovereignty is that these agreements do not supercede the US constitution and existing US laws.  All trade agreements tend to be opposed based on the threat to our labor and environmental laws.  Critics generally claim that international companies will just build the products elsewhere, if we let them, where the laws aren't as strict.  All things otherwise equal, they already do that.  

I don't see how anyone who builds a factory here thinks they will not be subject to EPA regulations.  All it takes is one sentence in the trade agreement:  "Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to change or weaken US environmental laws, or labor laws, or immigration laws."  It shouldn't even take that.

The WSJ (years ago) made a point that global trade is both a) beneficial and b) inevitable.  If you don't agree with a), then see b).

If the US cannot compete on an even playing field with Asia or Mexico or whoever, then we have bigger problems than a trade agreement.  Global competition might be the only motivator left to correct our  over-taxation and over-regulation problems.  If we right-size all of that, I don't know anyone who believes the US cannot compete successfully in the global marketplace.

We are down to the fact that this President will negotiate a bad agreement.  In that case, vote it it down and let these countries know we are trying to get a better President.
82  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NY Times: Prospect of Hillary Clinton-Marco Rubio Matchup Unnerves Democrats on: May 22, 2015, 06:25:21 PM
Thank you msm, though don't trust the source.  This is what I have been talking about.  Rubio is likable.  She is not.  Rubio can make a genuine appeal to Hispanic Americans based on a vision of the American Dream.  She can parrot a single issue policy point on which she has flip-flopped.  He is young and vibrant.  She is ... well, judge for yourself.  He rose on the merits of his own talents.  She is some aberration of an old fashioned power broker, married for power, and plays off of that every time she gets stuck.  Rubio has core convictions.  She is calculating on every position.  He is quick and steady on his feet and extremely articulate without notes or teleprompter.  Would very likely eat her lunch in a debate. She is a stumbler without a focus group and team of writers.  The more candid she is, the more she falls in it.  Rubio is all-in, not even running for his Senate seat.  She is legally in, announced via a video, made the fewest open appearance and takes the fewest questions imaginable.  Still busy addressing her own latest scandals.  She is keeping up the speaking income, the criminal, non-non-profit foundation and hedging on key issues.  Rubio is scandal-free.  She is synonymous with corruption.  Rubio brings Florida with him.  She has no state other than the states of corruption and confusion.  Illinois, NY, Arkansas and DC are not in play and she has no special appeal in any of them anyway.  Rubio has a beautiful, monogamous wife and adorable children.  She has Bill and Chelsea, hopes her little grand-daughter can grow up in an entitled world and someday make million dollar, 20 minutes speeches too!

Prospect of Hillary Clinton-Marco Rubio Matchup Unnerves Democrats

By JEREMY W. PETERS      MAY 22, 2015

WASHINGTON — They use words like “historic” and “charismatic,” phrases like “great potential” and “million-dollar smile.” They notice audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story. When they look at the cold, hard political math, they get uneasy.

An incipient sense of anxiety is tugging at some Democrats — a feeling tersely captured in four words from a blog post written recently by a seasoned party strategist in Florida: “Marco Rubio scares me.”

What is so unnerving to them at this early phase of the 2016 presidential campaign still seems, at worst, a distant danger: the prospect of a head-to-head general-election contest between Mr. Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Yet the worriers include some on Mrs. Clinton’s team. And even former President Bill Clinton is said to worry that Mr. Rubio could become the Republican nominee, whittle away at Mrs. Clinton’s support from Hispanics and jeopardize her chances of carrying Florida’s vital 29 electoral votes.
Democrats express concerns not only about whether Mr. Rubio, 43, a son of Cuban immigrants, will win over Hispanic voters, a growing and increasingly important slice of the electorate. They also worry that he would offer a sharp generational contrast to Mrs. Clinton, a fixture in American politics for nearly a quarter-century who will turn 69 less than two weeks before the election.

As her supporters recall, Barack Obama beat Mrs. Clinton for the nomination in the 2008 elections after drawing similar contrasts himself.

Patti Solis Doyle, who ran Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for most of the 2008 contest, said Mr. Rubio “could have the ability to nip away at the numbers for the Democrats.”

Ms. Doyle, the first Hispanic woman to manage a presidential campaign, added that Mr. Rubio could allow Republicans to regain a “reasonable percentage” of the Hispanic vote, which hit a low of 27 percent in the 2012 presidential election.

“He is a powerful speaker,” she added. “He is young. He is very motivational. He has a powerful story.”

Recognizing how essential it is to win Hispanic support, Mrs. Clinton has gone further in laying out an immigration policy than she has on almost any other issue, saying that she would extend greater protections to halt deportations of people in the United States illegally. She has also hired a former undocumented immigrant to lead her Latino outreach efforts.

Her own strategists, their allies in the “super PACs” working on her behalf and the Democratic Party all say they see plenty of vulnerabilities in Mr. Rubio’s record and his views. And they are trying to shape the perception people have of him while polls show that he is still relatively unknown: Yes, the Democratic National Committee said in a recent memo, Mr. Rubio was a fresh face, but one “peddling a tired playbook of policies that endanger our country, hurt the middle class, and stifle the American dream.”

So far, Democrats who have combed over Mr. Rubio’s voting record in the Senate have seized on his opposition to legislation raising the minimum wage and to expanding college loan refinancing, trying to cast him as no different from other Republicans.

The subtext: He may be Hispanic, but he is not on the side of Hispanics when it comes to the issues they care about.

Democrats will try to use Mr. Rubio’s youth and four-year career in national politics against him, depicting him as green or naïve — a liability at a time when unrest abroad is a top concern. “A Dan Quayle without the experience,” suggested Christopher Lehane, a veteran strategist who has worked for the Clintons.

Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, who is of Mexican heritage, said Democrats would also make an issue of Mr. Rubio’s mixed record on how to overhaul the immigration system: He initially supported a Senate bill to grant people in the United States illegally a path to citizenship, but he later backed down.

Mr. Richardson said that would poison his chances with Hispanic voters. “His own Hispanic potential would defeat him,” he said.

It is also unclear how much Mr. Rubio would appeal to Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and other voters with Latin American ancestry who may not feel much
cultural affinity with a Cuban.

Still, when many Democrats assess Mr. Rubio’s chances, as nearly a dozen of them did for this article, they put him in the top tier of candidates who concern them the most, along with former Gov. Jeb Bush, another Floridian who is courting Hispanics, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Mr. Rubio’s heritage and his youth could be particularly dangerous to Mrs. Clinton, they said. Each of those points could help neutralize one of her biggest strengths: the opportunity to help elect the first female president, and the experience Mrs. Clinton gained as secretary of state.

Mr. Rubio already appears to be pursuing that strategy. By calling himself a candidate of the “21st century, not the 20th,” he seeks both to turn Mrs. Clinton’s long career against her and to entice voters who may desire a change of direction.

In Florida, Democrats who have watched Mr. Rubio’s rise warn against playing down his strengths.

Former Gov. Charlie Crist, who lost to Mr. Rubio in the Republican primary for the 2010 senatorial election but later switched parties, said he admired how Mr. Rubio told the story of his immigrant parents — his mother a maid, his father a bartender — and how they worked hard so that he could succeed. “It’s hard to get more compelling than that,” Mr. Crist said.
John Morgan, a major Democratic donor in Florida who will hold a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton next week, said he planned to raise the issue of Mr. Rubio’s strengths with her.

“Jim Messina talks about how elections are about where we want to go from here,” Mr. Morgan said, naming the strategist who helped President Obama win two national elections. What is problematic about Mr. Rubio, he said, is “his theme will be, ‘We don’t want to go back; we need to go forward.’ ”

“I think they do underestimate him,” Mr. Morgan added. “He’s energetic,
he’s photogenic, and he will say whatever you want him to say.”

Steve Schale, the Florida strategist who wrote the “Marco Rubio scares me” blog post, said that when he worked for the Democratic leader of the Florida House of Representatives, his boss, Dan Gelber, had a saying about Mr. Rubio’s effect on crowds, and about his sincerity: “Young women swoon, old women pass out, and toilets flush themselves.”

And Mr. Gelber himself recalled the day in Tallahassee, Fla., in 2008 when he and Mr. Rubio, then the speaker of the State House, gave their farewell speeches. He spoke first, followed by Mr. Rubio, as Mr. Gelber’s wife looked on.

“She’s sitting there weeping,” Mr. Gelber recalled, still incredulous. “And I look up, and I mouth, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ”

Mr. Gelber praised Mr. Rubio’s ability to use his family’s story to convey compassion for people marginalized by society, but he said he believed, as many Democrats do, that this was disingenuous.

“It’s a little maddening when his policies are so inconsistent with that,” Mr. Gelber said. “My head would explode.”

A Rubio-Clinton contest could ultimately come down to Florida. Republicans can ill afford to lose the state if they hope to win the White House. And bleeding Hispanic votes could make Mrs. Clinton’s path much harder.

“Losing a point among whites means winning Hispanics by about 5 percent more just to make up that loss,” Mr. Schale wrote in his memo on Florida’s election demographics. If Democrats continue to lose white voters, he added, Mr. Rubio’s place on the ballot would only complicate matters.

“He should be the one you don’t want to face,” Mr. Schale wrote.
83  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade on: May 22, 2015, 05:37:07 PM
Trade is good. (IMHO)   Having Pres. Barack Obama negotiate the details on our behalf is not.  Difficult situation for a Republican lawmaker.  Giving away sovereignty is a deal killer.  No one knows what is in this deal so it is hard to make sense of what is said.

It is funny to see Democrats squirm and split on this, including a falling out between Obama and Warren, and seeing Hillary afraid to take either side and piss off the other.

It is odd to have Obama on the pro-trade side.  Maybe he sees it the same way protectionists see it - that it hurts the American worker and the American economy - and that is why he supports it.

True free trade favors both sides of an agreement.  Consensual trade by definition benefits both sides.  99% of the words in these agreements spell out not-free trade terms.  I believe NAFTA was a 900 page document.  I don't want to brag but I could write a free trade on a single side of a cocktail napkin.
84  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: May 21, 2015, 05:47:17 PM
“The CNN Republican primary debate on September 16 will be divided into two parts featuring two different sets of candidates: those who rank in the top 10 according to public polling, and the remaining candidates who mean a minimum threshold of one percent in public polling"

The first thing wrong with the information above is that CNN is allowed to host.  They should be in at least a 4 year penalty box for their behavior last time.

The Republican party leaders face a good but difficult situation.  As it sits now, there are candidates excluded that I would like to see included.  But if one person like Reince Priebus made that determination, the story would be about him instead of about the candidates.  If you set up stadium seating for 19 or so, the event becomes unmanageable and unwatchable for most viewers.  Early polling data is a lousy criteria, though probably better than all the alternatives.  We are talking about 9 debates over an extended period?  If so, the big news coming into debates 2, 3, 4, etc. is that candidate so-and-so is the new face to watch.  It is a game of momentum, among other things, so missing the first few debates is not necessarily a knockout punch unless a campaign is not organized and managed to survive that.

If not CNN, another network, even if it is pj media (or dbma), can host competing forums to showcase the best of the excluded candidates and ask the same questions - or better ones.  Candidates can cut their own answers out and run ads or post their own videos to promote on the internet.

Bobby Jindal is a two term Governor of a crucial state.  He handled the Katrina aftermath, the gulf oil spill, has immigrant heritage, was a Rhodes Scholar, etc., is young with good ideas; he deserves a look.  People love Ben Carson, fresh face, amazing personal story, big thinker, really accomplished guy; he deserves a look.  I believe he is black, too, which would be good for the party's reach out efforts.  Carly Fiorina has unique qualifications and is showing a unique ability to challenge the front runner of the other side.  She may have an advantage trying to connect with a certain side of the electorate.

Still, reaching the top ten of the Republicans before the 9th debate is very do-able for anyone that is capable of winning the nomination and the general election.  It is not that hard for the top 19 to get a look on conservative media coverage.  Candidates at or near the top will stumble, and this is a very long process.

85  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hillary responsible for email delay on: May 21, 2015, 10:18:25 AM
"... the only reason that there's been such a long delay is that Hillary deliberately delivered the 550,000 emails in hard copies, instead of in electronic ... She knew that the paper files couldn't be searched like electronic files. ...
She thinks we are all stupid and that we don't get it. But we do: Hillary set up her home server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, she did just that, and once caught, she wiped her server clean and got rid of everything she didn't want us to see."

Too bad to live in a world where Dick Morris can make this most obvious observation that none of the so-called mainstream networks or newspapers can. 

Rush L had a long montage of msm reporting on how Hillary finally answered questions.

No she didn't.
86  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Presidential, Bobby Jindal: Iran isn't Iraq and this isn't 2003 on: May 20, 2015, 12:05:28 PM
Jindal isn't getting traction yet but this is a long campaign and having a two term Governor speak out with wisdom on foreign poicy is a very good thing for the process.

Instead of rehashing the Iraq War, let’s face today’s much more serious threat from Iran. You have to give the media credit for trying. Last week saw a manufactured debate about a manufactured subject — whether our country should have invaded Iraq in 2003 based on what we know in 2015 about the course of events in the Middle East. But there’s a reason why the phrase “hindsight is 20/20” contains more than a kernel of truth — because Monday-morning quarterbacking, however nice it might make others feel, doesn’t change the past one whit.

In the real world, presidents have to play the hand of cards they are dealt. President Bush did just operating off the information he had, and he did it well. Unlike President Obama — who decided to withdraw our forces in Iraq precipitously, endearing himself to war-weary voters but creating a vacuum for terrorists — President Bush kept our country safe after 9/11, and Americans appreciate him for it. I supported his decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and I will not second-guess him now even for one minute.

But if the media are going to play these games, then let me add a few. I’m pretty sure that President Roosevelt would have increased patrols around Oahu on the morning of December 7, 1941. I don’t think King Philip II of Spain would have sent his Armada into the English Channel in the summer of 1588. And I’m fairly certain that Red Sox owner Harry Frazee would not have sold Babe Ruth’s contract rights to the New York Yankees.

But the more important question is not how Hillary Clinton and others have changed their minds on Iraq; it’s how she and the president she worked for have learned the wrong lesson from that conflict. Because this decade’s answer to an Iraqi regime that did not in reality possess large numbers of chemical and biological weapons is not to leave Iran within easy striking distance of a nuclear bomb. RELATED: Iran: Isolated No Longer

Consider for a moment the October 2002 remarks of a then-unknown state senator named Barack Obama. Prior to the Iraq conflict, the future president said he did not oppose all wars, just “dumb wars.” He believed that “Saddam [Hussein] poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military [is] a fraction of its former strength,” and that the international community could contain what he considered a “petty dictator.”

Contrast his comments about Iraq then to the situation in Iran now. Iran refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist; its leaders have talked about “eliminating” the state. Just last week, President Obama himself called Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism” for fomenting rebellion within the Middle East and elsewhere. The Wall Street Journal reported that “Iran could receive somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion [just for] signing the agreement” — an economic boon and a funding source for more new munitions. Yet as it is, Iran has not lacked for military strength: The Russian military just sold Iran a passel of new missiles — belying the belief that this rogue regime can be easily contained. Iran is much more of a threat now than Iraq was then. But President Obama seems ready to pay any price to get a deal — any deal — out of Iran.

In short, Iran is much more of a threat now than Iraq was then. But President Obama seems ready to pay any price to get a deal — any deal — out of Iran. So unwilling to contemplate a military engagement in the Middle East is he, he appears scared of his shadow. Yet if the shadow of Barack Obama circa 2002 were around today, he would not call Iran a “dumb war.” To the contrary, he might even consider taking the military option off the table to be, well, dumb.

I don’t relish this criticism, nor the thought of armed conflict with Iran. I deprecate war in all its forms and consider it the ultimate last resort. But a last resort it must always remain.

It’s possible to over-learn the lessons of history.  In retrospect, it’s easy to argue that Britain, France, and the United States should have fought German and Italian aggression in Europe well before Hitler invaded Poland. But after the horrors of Verdun, Passchendaele, and the Somme, Neville Chamberlain and his contemporaries so feared the outbreak of another Great War that for years they handsomely rewarded aggression in their midst — setting the stage for an even bloodier global conflict.

That’s why the media hype of the past week hasn’t just been irrelevant; in many respects, the Iraq obsession is dangerous. Every minute we spend arguing about what should, could, or would have happened in Iraq a dozen years ago is a minute our nation is not talking about what must happen about Iran now. We ignore the current threat — and the greater threat — at our peril.

A generation ago, Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 using the Fleetwood Mac song “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.” The ongoing parlor game over Iraq now echoes a song remade during that era: “It’s So Hard to Say Goodbye to Yesterday.” But our country needs to stop fixating over the debates of the past — and the candidates of the past. The better question is whether we have learned the right lessons from the past, and how they affect the policies of the present. Because if we fail to stop the Iranian regime now, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East could greatly darken our children’s future.

— Bobby Jindal is the governor of Louisiana.

87  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: On Michelle Obama's speech on: May 20, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
The speech was written by the writers of the teleprompter in chief, IMHO.  What was new was to see that fiery tone coming from this First Lady.  She was clearly auditioning for a future job, maybe social justice crusader, zillion dollar speech-giver, but more likely - future Presidential candidate.  Sounded to me like the Obama answer to Blood Feud.  If Hillary can't do it, Michelle will (as she sees it).  She doesn't need to waste years pretending to be the junior Senator from flyover country (as she sees it).  She already lives in the White House, is perfectly comfortable being flown around by Air Force One, and everyone she knows already accepts the premise that she is fully qualified.

I regret saying all this, but she is considerably younger than Hillary, clearly blacker, slightly more feminine, noticeably stronger, equally qualified (and I mean that as an insult), can deliver a written speech with passion, and comes with about half the baggage.  
88  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Obama Knew Benghazi Attack Was Planned 10 Days In Advance... on: May 19, 2015, 01:27:10 PM
In another era, this alone would have assured the demise of a presidency.  Nixon was forced out over issues that barely rise to the level of unethical in comparison - let alone criminal and treasonous:

There are so many possible takeaways from Benghazi, that we lost 4 great Americans, what were we doing there, why didn't we send support before or even during the attacks, where else are we vulnerable, etc. 

This was the 3am phone call we were warned about (at 5pm?)  Both of them got it and both of them failed.  Both of them refuse to tell us what happened through the crisis.   Is there something Hillary pressed Obama to do, but he wouldn't and she would have had she been President?  Were they on the same page?  Did they do everything they could but nothing could have helped?  We don't even know their whereabouts.

All of that and I am still stuck on the lying that Susan Rice did on behalf of both Obama and Hillary, and their own lying - putting out that same, false message.

Yes, Nixon looked America in the eye and said "I'm not a crook".  Everyone knew what he meant by that.  He was putting it all on the line that he was telling the truth about not knowing about this operation that went wrong.  When he was caught lying to all of us, it was over.  It was over was because HIS OWN PARTY said that isn't good enough. 

Filthy liars like Obama and Hillary get kicked out of power when their own side decides that isn't good enough.  Remind our liberal friends of that.
89  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary's State Department on: May 19, 2015, 12:57:43 PM

181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied the State Department WHEN HILLARY RAN THE PLACE.

Liberal source.  Read the list.

"Not a shred of evidence"
90  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: May 19, 2015, 12:41:45 PM
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance.  . . .”

(Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776)      Wrong thread?  )
91  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: May 19, 2015, 12:34:53 PM
(From Benghazi)
A smoking gun about what we already know happened.

Nonetheless 45% of the country will ignore this:  So she lied.   So what.........  they all do.......  just right wing loons making a stink over a non scandal.......
                  we just need to know the real Hillary.....  what a really nice person she is.......
              yadda yadda.
Two decades of Democrats ignoring sliminess.   Only worse now.   Not better.   

You're about right with that 45% number, about the number who allegedly still approve of Obama now despite all that has happened.  Still, they have to hold their nose with that support.  General polls don't tell is how many will turn out.  Obama won at the level of his poll numbers with magical (or criminal) turnout.  How excited are young people about HRC, running on a platform of more of the same, while home ownership hits a quarter century low and college grads live unemployed in their parents' home.  How excited are blacks and other minorities to see an old, white, privileged woman win the Presidency?

The only excitement comes from a shot at getting some of her big campaign money to come your way.  That, too, only goes to the powerful and connected.

What they have left is the usual fear factor - the scary Republicans are going to take away all your free stuff.  That message has been losing lately in 70% of the state legislative chambers.

The table is set for a Republican with charisma and skill to inspire people to do better than this.
92  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: May 19, 2015, 12:34:12 AM
Look for Rand Paul to win the Iowa straw poll this August.  He won the CPAC straw poll 3 times.  The Pauls know how to turn out activists in the smaller settings.
93  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Clinton--Castro? on: May 19, 2015, 12:20:53 AM
Yes, it will be interesting to see who she picks if she wins the nomination.  I knew Castro was on the short list; I didn't know he was the only one on it!

The way the process and calendar is set up, Democrats will have their convention in late July, immediately after they see what the Republicans do, although its possible that these selections are made before then.

There are so many scenarios.  If it is Rubio and the attack planned on him is that he is too young and too inexperienced, do you pick someone younger yet and even less experienced? 

Shouldn't she pick a woman if the argument is that they are a better choice?  What if the Republican picks a woman and Hillary doesn't.  Who is looking out for women then?

Untested and unvetted is high risk.  Let's assume she is risk averse, shouldn't she pick Joe Biden?  He already knows how to do the job, how to sit still in the chair behind the State of the Union speech, and to grope the families of the federal officials being sworn in.

The strategy is to double down on leftist and genitalianism, why not pick Elizabeth Warren?
94  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: WSJ: The Hole in the Rooftop Solar-Panel Craze on: May 18, 2015, 11:59:02 PM
Thanks for posting this.  I like the idea of decentralized power that home solar offers, just not the subsidy.  If we could afford it and choose to spend our money that way, we could all stand to be a little less reliant on the grid.  Creating this subsidy by charging others more for basic electric service is one of the most regressive taxes possible.  Liberals should be up in arms about it.  If someone investigated this they would find that the people receiving the subsidy are richer in general than the people paying it.  Same goes for the hybrid subsidies, cash for clunkers and so many other boondoggles.

They had a similar program with home telephone service,  By the time I got rid of mine, the service had a 60% tax, hitting the people who could least afford to lose service the hardest.  And off went the home phones in the lower income and middle class homes.  Try calling for the fire department or ambulance on your cell when your battery is dead or minutes are out.

Get rid of the extra taxes and fees and get rid of the subsidies.  Let the market sort it out.  Keep a safety net for people in genuine need, not for the rich to make purchases off of a liberal wish list.
95  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Noonan on the Rubio Doctrine on: May 16, 2015, 10:31:11 PM
"I wish every candidate who rightly lauds Ronald Reagan’s candor and moral clarity would then note: “And interestingly enough, he never invaded the Warsaw Pact countries.” He used words, diplomacy and other forms of muscle to change the world."

A pillar of advance the rights of the persecuted in your foreign policy does not mean that you will invade the countries where you wish to foster change away from tyranny, as evidenced by her own summary of Reagan's tough foreign policy. 

Also, the pillar of peace through strength says that as you rebuild economic, military, naval, defense, and leadership strengths you will have less actual need to fire weapons at enemies.

96  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Christie's tax proposal on: May 16, 2015, 09:51:05 PM
"The centerpiece of Mr. Christie’s proposal is a tax reform that would simplify the code by cutting rates in return for fewer deductions. The Governor proposes an individual income tax with three rates and a top rate of 28%. Mr. Christie’s reform is thus superior to Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s reform plan, which pegs the top individual rate at 35%. "


Mr. Rubio devotes $1.6 trillion over 10 years to tax credits for families with children, which does nothing for growth.

Also true. 

Omitted by critics is that Rubio's plan eliminates all capital gains and estate taxes allowing people to at least accumulate after-tax wealth.  Not much of an analysis or comparison if you skip that.

The candidate has to get elected for the tax plan to matter, and a campaign tax plan is a starting point for negotiation with congress, not an actual, future law.

Last time around all of the R's had great plans, right down to Huntsman, Pawlenty, even Romney!  No one made the sale and what we got was 4 more years of Obama-Alinsky-Marx.
97  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / re: Maryland politicians on: May 15, 2015, 11:48:20 PM
Speaking of Baltimore politicians, there was a famous Governor of Maryland, undergrad Johns Hopkins, Univ of Baltimore JD.  Baltimore County Executive.  White Republican Governor of Maryland back in the 60s.  Linked up with a politician from Calif.  Called his critics the "nattering nabobs of negativism".  But the critics looked back and said he had pulled a 'Hillary' earlier.  Then, because he was a Republican, it was all over.
98  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Salon: Progressives’ looming challenge, Cognitive Dissonance of the Left on: May 15, 2015, 10:25:15 AM
Trying to cover for our shortage of lefties here, this is Salon editor Joan Walsh rambling on about the challenges and troubles facing the left today.  A guaranteed cure for insomnia.  A must read for people who need to know what part of her thinks...

"Progressives’ looming challenge: Bill de Blasio, Elizabeth Warren, inequality, and a stunning blind spot"

Cut through the distractions and the infighting and the answer to failing government is always more government.  Bigger government, higher taxes on production and more limits on economic liberty, that's what we're missing!
99  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio, Castro and Pope Francis on: May 15, 2015, 08:41:02 AM
Charlie Rose asked Marco Rubio about Raul Castro’s comment that he likes Pope Francis so much he might rejoin the church, Mr. Rubio shot back, “That’s gonna be a pretty long confession.”
100  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Presidential: Blood Feud, Michelle Obama vs. Hillary Clinton? on: May 14, 2015, 04:39:31 PM
Somewhere in the archives I said that it was Michelle Obama, not Hillary Clinton, that I fear most as a Republican.

Did anyone see the First Lady's angry, passionate commencement address?

Rasmussen Reports picked up on it.

What If Michelle Obama Challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination?

This solves all the Democrats problems.  Hillary and Obama aren't getting along.  Warren and Obama aren't getting along.  The Dem runs with the President's baggage no matter what, and need the support of his political machine to win.  With Hillary, they gain on gender advantage but lose the authentic African American advantage.  Michelle really is an authentic African-American, and really is a woman.  She isn't expected to turn against the incumbent, yet can say she will be her own person.  Anyone who differs with her can be called both racist and sexist.  And Dems still get what they really want, someone totally unqualified to be President who can continue the dismantling of everything that made this nation great.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 131
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!