Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 30, 2016, 09:42:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95612 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 275
151  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Austria looks to be headed hard right on: May 22, 2016, 01:52:08 PM

152  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / In Soviet America, TV watches YOU on: May 22, 2016, 12:26:26 PM

Retro-tech may well be the way to go.
153  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Black Lives Matter ‘Activist’ Was Invited To White House AFTER His Arrest on: May 22, 2016, 12:23:42 PM

Black Lives Matter ‘Activist’ Was Invited To White House AFTER His Arrest For Allegedly Pimping 17 Yr Old Girl

From 15:10 to 21:20:

We broke this story on Wednesday, that Charles Wade, a Black Lives Matter and Ferguson ‘activist’, had been arrested on multiple human trafficking and prostitution charges for allegedly pimping out a 17 year old girl in a Howard Johnson’s in Maryland. The 7 counts include serious felonies with up to 25 years and $15,000 fines.

Wade, who previously had worked as a stylist for Solange Knowles, Beyonce’s sister, became known in Ferguson for starting a non-profit ‘Operation Help or Hush’. He claimed he helped to house and feed protesters involved in Ferguson protests.

Wade had a history of prior arrests before this one, including an arrest in Travis County, Texas in August 2014 for making false statements, and an arrest in January 2016 in Miami for grand theft. The Miami arrest resulted in a ‘deferred prosecution’. While we do not know the circumstances of the agreement, often such arrangements are based off of no prior criminal involvement, with agreements to not become involved in future criminal involvement.
Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 2.08.09 PM

The deferred prosecution arrangement appears to have been entered into on April 29, 4 days after the arrest in Maryland, raising the question of whether the court there had been informed of the arrests in Maryland, since it seems unlikely the court would have made such an arrangement, knowing of these pending charges.

In a statement released on Twitter, Wade tried to justify his actions in both the pimping arrest and the Miami arrest, claiming he had been unfairly accused for trying to help people. The police report in the Maryland case claimed, however, that he had advertised the girl in a ‘Backpage’ ad, that they called his phone number and they arranged the ‘date’ with him.

Yet, even giving this history, Wade was apparently invited to the White House, according to the Daily Caller, to attend a special movie screening earlier this week with other Black Lives Matter members. He did not attend.

Bill O’Reilly and his guests question how Wade managed to be invited to the White House, and why wasn’t he vetted either by them, or media, which promoted him without question. Geraldo Rivera even referred to him as a ‘poverty pimp’, and brought up again the question of what has become of the money donated to his charity, noting there has been no accounting.
154  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Some remember on: May 22, 2016, 12:07:04 PM

155  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Soros funding NPR on: May 22, 2016, 11:52:08 AM

Read this latest dispatch from Omri Ceren, political analyst and The Israel Project senior adviser, breaking down the blockbuster AP story on how the group that helped sell Iran nuke deal also funded media. It is an extraordinary window into how media is bought and paid for. It’s deeply disturbing, like watching sausage being made.

Here’s the back-story on how and why the media supported the most dangerous “deal” in American history — Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran.
“A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.” Aaron Klein notes, not mentioned in the AP article is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

For those of you smart enough to never trust big media — here’s the concrete evidence of your “tin foil hat” theories.
AP: In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

Omri Ceren: In his NYT profile, Ben Rhodes put the Ploughshares Fund at the center of the echo chamber constructed by the White House to sell the Iran deal: “We are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this… We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else” [a].

The Ploughshares Fund is a donation hub that has distributed millions of dollars in recent years to groups pushing the Iran deal. After Congress failed to defeat the deal, Ploughshares President Joseph Cirincione published a video and letter boasting about how the echo chamber – over 85 groups and 200 people – was created with Ploughshares money: “groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network… we built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds” .

The Associated Press just published a deep dive into Ploughshares’s most recent annual report, which details some of those 85 organizations and 200 individuals. The full article is pasted below. The AP broke down the network funded by Ploughshares into three kinds of groups:

— Journalists and media outlets (this is the part that’s getting the most attention, and includes NRP and at least two unnamed writers who were funded to write at Mother Jones and The Nation):

Ploughshares has funded NPR’s coverage of national security since 2005, the radio station said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran… Previous efforts… Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too. In a “Cultural Strategy Report” on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of “ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets” such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or Pro Publica. Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included “funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk.”

— Think tanks and nuclear-issues associations:

The 33-page document lists the groups that Ploughshares funded last year to advance its nonproliferation agenda. The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500… Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”

— Lobbies:

Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants. J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.
On May 5 the NYT published its profile of Ben Rhodes, in which Rhodes bragged about creating an “echo chamber” with the Ploughshares Fund to sell the Iran deal on the basis of false pretenses [a]. A few hours ago the AP published a deep dive into Ploughshares showing that the group is funding a range of lobbies, policy shops, and journalists and media outlets, all of which are bouncing Iran messaging back and forth between each other .

Aspects of the Ploughshares network had already been reported out. In Feb 2012 the WFB reported on Ploughshares funding NPR [c]. In March 2015 the WSJ reported “the Ploughshares coalition includes a former Iranian government spokesman, the liberal Jewish organization J Street and a group of former American diplomats who have held private talks with Iranian government officials… [and] the Arms Control Association” [d]. In July 2015 the WFB printed details of a Ploughshares conference call that brought together White House officials with over 100 participants, in which groups were told to prepare for a “real war” that would involve “blitzing the hell out of the Hill,” pressuring Congressional Democrats, and leaning on Jewish groups [e][f]. In August 2015 Commentary published 1,500 words and a couple dozen links naming names in the network [g].

What hadn’t been widely discussed – until today’s AP story – was that Ploughshares has been directly funding journalists and media outlets in the context of the politicized Iran deal fight. In case you’re running down this angle, here are some documents published by Ploughshares Fund describing the group’s efforts in its own words.

— In 2014 Ploughshares commissioned a “Cultural Strategy Report.” It laid out how the organization could use PR firms, Hollywood studios, video games, and journalists to create a “cultural strategy that could complement existing funding and operational activities.” Here is part of the section describing directly funding journalism [PDF here – h]:

Similar to an academic chair, directly fund one or more national journalism positions at media outlets like The Guardian, Salon, Huffington Post, or Pro Publica, whose exclusive “beat” and focus of investigation and reporting would be nuclear weapons, disarmament, and nonproliferation… We understand that similar efforts supported by Ploughshares Fund in the past did not generate the desired volume of coverage (funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with the Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk). However we feel this strategy would be more successful by focusing on themes, media outlets and journalists who resonate with the target audiences (youth and faith communities) and by pursing this strategy in concert with other approaches.

— In 2015 Ploughshares published a video and letter from Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione titled “How We Won.” Cirincione boasted that the group leveraged its funding so lobbyists, policy voices, and journalists could “coordinate efforts” to push the Iran deal. The video ends with a scrolling list of groups involved. The letter goes into detail on how Ploughshares leveraged funding to create its network :

These groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network. Often, networks can make all the difference… We built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals in favor of a negotiated solution to the Iranian crisis… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds.
A lot of work is now being done on how the Iran deal echo chamber worked and funded. Two other articles from the last 48 hours: how Ploughshares also funded faith groups to be part of the pro-deal network [j] and how the network was mobilized this week to attack witnesses who testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on the White House’s sales campaign [k].—

- See more at:

156  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 21, 2016, 02:33:10 PM
I am still wrestling with this decision. Do I hold my nose and vote for Littlefingers, because the Dowager empress would be much worse, or do I go 3rd party protest vote? I won't tell you not to vote for Trump, but steel yourself for when he fcuks us.
157  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 21, 2016, 12:48:52 PM
utterly unfounded, like most of what Trump says.

"Rafael Cruz was involved with the JFK assassination, "

Any one here about the final conclusion of that published photo? Was that really him in the photo standing near Lee Harvey Oswald after his arrest?

It was implied that was him but was it really?  I never heard whether it was or not.

If it was him in the photo so what.  So he was an anti-Castro guy.
158  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Who will win? on: May 21, 2016, 10:26:55 AM
159  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Four Reasons Donald Trump Cannot Be Trusted On Gun Rights on: May 21, 2016, 09:40:26 AM

Four Reasons Donald Trump Cannot Be Trusted On Gun Rights
By: goldwaterconservative (Diary)  |  May 3rd, 2016 at 05:08 PM  |  2

Many Donald Trump supporters believe that their candidate has genuinely converted to the conservative persuasion. I am not inclined to agree. On the issue of gun rights and the Second Amendment, which is critically important, I believe that Donald Trump cannot be trusted.

Reason 1: Trump supported an assault weapons ban in 2000

The policy advocated by Trump in 2000 was not simply an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter, he thought about it enough to put it in his book The America We Deserve in preparation for a potential presidential bid. Here is what Trump said:

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”

Reason 2: Trump has been friends with Michael Bloomberg for over a decade

Nobody in America is more anti-gun than Michael Bloomberg. Nobody has done more personally to attack the Second Amendment than he has.

Reason 3: Trump praised President Obama’s remarks following the Newtown shooting

Below is a real, verified tweet. Click on it, it is real.

During his speech, Obama introduced his “even if it saves one child” argument for gun control:

I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, fourth time we’ve hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims.

And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and in big cities all across America, victims whose — much of the time their only fault was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.

We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.

If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that’s visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try.

Reason 4: Trump has banned guns on his properties for years

This issue was actually brought up during a debate:

“We called a few Trump resorts, a few Trump properties that do not allow guns with or without a permit. Would you change those policies?” moderator Carl Quintanilla asked.

“I would change them,” Trump tersely replied.

Yet so far the policies haven’t been reversed on Trump properties. “If Donald Trump wants to earn the support of gun owners, he needs to follow through on that promise,” the group’s statement continued.

A number of Trump properties in which the Republican presidential front-runner does still own remain gun-free zones, among them Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, Trump National Gulf Club in Los Angeles and Trump International Hotel Waikiki Beach Walk in Honolulu.

Do you still trust Donald Trump on the Second Amendment after reading this? All you have is his current word. After his recent claims that convicted rapist Mike Tyson is innocent, and that Rafael Cruz was involved with the JFK assassination, we know how good is word is.
160  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / How to scrub what Google has on you. on: May 21, 2016, 09:30:49 AM

161  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Child trafficker's lives matter on: May 21, 2016, 08:52:35 AM

One of the leaders of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, Charles Wade, was arrested on human trafficking and prostitution charges during an April sting operation in Maryland, according to multiple press reports. Wade, the co-founder of Operation Help (sometimes known as “Hush”) — an organization that provided clothing, food and shelter for #BlackLivesMatter activists protesting in Ferguson, Missouri — is accused of forcing a 17-year-old girl into prostitution.

The Daily Caller obtained a police report stating that Wade was picked up in a College Park police sting after cops responded to a ad from a woman who claimed to be 23, offering sexual services at an area Howard Johnson hotel.

When police arrived and confronted the woman, who turned out to be 17, she identified Wade, who had been watching from the parking lot, as her “manager” named “CJ.” The police then arrested Wade who, according to the report, had rented the hotel room and was carrying three cell phones.

According to the police report, the woman told police that “CJ” knew she was underage and “wasn’t worried” because she’d turn 18 in a few months. She told investigators that she provided CJ with all of the money she made in her endeavors.
162  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ben Rhodes, NPR and lies on: May 20, 2016, 05:42:56 PM

Group ID'd as One of Ben Rhodes' "Force Multipliers" In Selling Iran Deal Also Gave $100,000 to NPR to "Help" It "Report" on the Deal
163  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Trump Would Deal with the National Debt on: May 20, 2016, 03:22:06 PM
How Trump Would Deal with the National Debt


The candidate’s various plans range from useless to disastrous. The budget deficit is going up. The Congressional Budget Office recently warned that revenues this year are lower than had been expected. This means that the deficit will almost certainly be higher than the $544 billion previously projected. With our national debt now topping $19.15 trillion and likely to reach $29 trillion by 2026, this is not good news. But don’t worry — Donald Trump has a solution for this growing tide of debt. He just won’t pay it. Last week Trump initially said, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal” to pay bondholders less than full value on the debt owed to them. This is, after all, the sort of thing Trump has done with creditors when, say, one of his casinos went bankrupt. It is also more or less what Greece has repeatedly negotiated with its bondholders over the last few years. But the United States is neither Greece nor one of The Donald’s businesses. There wouldn’t be any outside entity to force bondholders to accept less than face value. And a President Trump would have little leverage in any negotiation without threatening a general default. But even the hint of a default would inject an almost unprecedented level of uncertainty into international markets, causing interest rates to spike for all other kinds of debt, from corporate debt to state- and local-government debt. In this maelstrom of uncertainty, liquidity would probably collapse, since financial institutions, in an attempt to reduce their exposure, would be unwilling to make loans. This, in turn, would lead to a huge drop in business investment and consumer spending. It would be like the last economic crisis on steroids. The last country to try this route was Argentina, which defaulted on some of its debt in July 2014. The result wasn’t pretty. The economy was thrown into recession, contracting by 3.5 percent. Inflation spiked to as much as 41 percent. Consumption fell by 4.5 percent. The country was shut out of international markets. It may be years before Argentinians dig their way out of the mess. Oh, and those bondholders who would get screwed under Trump’s proposal? That would be you and me. Roughly 55 percent of government debt is owned by Americans, mostly through their 401(k) or company pension funds. If Trump reduces the value of those bonds, we can say goodbye to our retirement plans. Moreover, in the aftermath of Trump’s “renegotiation,” investors would obviously be reluctant to take a risk on future U.S. bonds; interest rates would need to be higher to offset the increased risk. But every percentage-point increase in interest rates costs the federal government $120 billion in additional interest payments. Thus, in attempting to lower the debt, Trump’s plan could actually end up increasing it. And not that the Constitution matters that much to Trump, but there is a little provision that says: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned.” Faced with the utter implausibility of his idea, Trump quickly traded Greece for Venezuela, saying, “You never have to default because you print the money.” Not since Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin has anyone seriously proposed inflating our way out of debt. Massive inflation would mean that the savings and investments of millions of Americans would be wiped out. The cost of living would skyrocket, and low- and middle-income Americans would find it more difficult to afford even the basic necessities of life. Those on fixed incomes, like senior citizens, would be among the biggest losers. Businesses would be forced to offset rising costs by slashing payrolls, throwing millions of Americans out of work. The cost of imports would rise dramatically, which would be a disaster for consumers, but, on the bright side, it would save Trump the trouble of imposing all those tariff hikes. Eventually, Trump backed into his third position on the issue: He would have the Treasury Department reconfigure U.S. debt by issuing new Treasury bonds to buy back older bonds that trade at slightly lower rates. (Because of quirks in the bond market, investors have a preference for newly issued Treasuries.) Such an approach probably wouldn’t disrupt financial markets. But it also would result in only a minuscule reduction in our total debt, and it would do so by increasing the interest rate the U.S. is paying on that debt, so it would basically just be shuffling things around without actually changing anything. Trump’s rapidly multiplying positions didn’t just display how little he knows about how the U.S. government and the U.S. economy really work. It also underscored the fact that Trump has no plan to reduce the size and cost of government. Yes, he has said he would cut taxes, though he has now repudiated his own tax plan, but he has no plans to cut spending beyond vague promises to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.” In fact, in areas ranging from defense to the VA to border enforcement, he wants to hike spending. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that Trump’s plans would add as much as $15.45 trillion to the national debt over ten years, including interest costs. At the same time, Trump has specifically taken reform of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid off the table. Since those entitlement programs account for half of all federal spending, there is no serious debt-reduction plan that exempts them. In fact, given that those programs face more than $70 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Trump’s plans would virtually guarantee that we would continue down the same disastrous road to fiscal collapse that we have been taking for the past 15 years. Trump declares himself the ‘king of debt’ and says, ‘I love debt.’ He must, since he wants to create so much of it. Trump declares himself the “king of debt” and says, “I love debt.” He must, since he wants to create so much of it. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is an old-fashioned tax-and-spend Democrat. The CRFB suggests that her proposed $1.8 trillion in new spending over the next ten years would be mostly paid for by new taxes, with other policy proposals like enacting immigration reform making up most of the remaining difference. Others, such as the Tax Foundation, point out that when you consider the reduced economic growth that would result from Hillary’s tax hikes, her spending increases would add roughly $1.2 trillion to the debt over the next decade. Hillary is no fiscal conservative. A Clinton presidency would mean bigger and more costly government, financed by more taxes and, most likely, more debt. That’s bad news. But on this issue, it’s hard to see that she’s worse than Trump. Either way, the American economy and the American people will be the losers. — Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis. You can follow him on Twitter @mtannercato, or on his blog,

Read more at:
164  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 20, 2016, 10:13:40 AM
So what you are saying is you weren't smart enough to be born into a wealthy family. Well Trump was! So there!

"Don't try confusing us with your elite arguments, Doug."

I know, flaunting my elite public school education.  Like most upper class elites removed from reality, I worked all the way through college, commuted from my parents house to the nearest public university during the Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter boom years.  Today, like a lot of ivory tower elites, after a little writing I will go up to north Minneapolis, clean tenant debris and see if I can get a couple of toilets to flush more smoothly - 2 blocks from where Jamar Clark was shot.

Economics is all theoretical to me.  I already have it made, born like George Bush with a silver foot in my mouth.

165  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 20, 2016, 09:26:55 AM

Don't try confusing us with your elite arguments, Doug.
166  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Elites on: May 19, 2016, 06:16:30 PM

There is a club. We aren't in it.
167  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / From Hotgas comments on: May 19, 2016, 05:42:09 PM
"PatrickPu Basileus • a day ago
Thank you all for the kind words. I have just so abused, put upon, denigrated and simply castigated by the "elites" and those who are anti-american that I just had to put this together.

We are different that the Reagan Democrats because we encompass so many different groups. Rep, Dems, Indies, we are it. We are the Trump Americans and damned proud of it."

168  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left, vasectomies for young bucks on: May 19, 2016, 02:24:38 AM

Us hicks out west have this thing called hunting that is much more effective in managing deer populations.
169  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 18, 2016, 08:32:34 PM
Trump Americans=makes scientologists look like a meeting of a skeptic's group.
170  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Our Pat on "Trump Americans" on: May 18, 2016, 04:59:18 PM

#Invalid YouTube Link#

171  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: African Immigrants score highest academically on: May 18, 2016, 07:46:11 AM

Won't be picked up by the MSM.
172  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 17, 2016, 04:36:55 PM
See, I told you he strengthens some of Trump's weakest links!

Good point.
173  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 16, 2016, 11:53:14 PM
Speaking only politically, Kasich has a lot to offer in the way of strengthening up some of Trump's weakest links.

Kasich is a loathsome turd who makes Trump seem decent and ethical in comparison.
174  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 16, 2016, 10:08:31 AM
Strange. I've been assured that there are professional journalists, who are fair and objective! With credentials!
175  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: May 16, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
I doubt "Littlefingers" could tell you which Korea is an ally and which is an enemy.
176  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: May 16, 2016, 09:44:29 AM
So, if I was Xi Jinping, and feeling threatened by internal strife, I wait until the Hilderbeast is sworn in, then through diplomatic channels let it be know that China does indeed have ALL her emails, and if she makes one peep about the reunification with the renegade province, or a confrontation with Japan or other asian parties, it all gets dumped online.

If things get bad enough, fast enough, then they just say fcuk it, Obama is a P*ssy and go for broke.
177  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: May 16, 2016, 09:36:42 AM
Or it might realize it might be a good idea to start working to restrain the Norks and to start respecting international law in the South China Sea.

I have a HUMINT source that says that things feel very unstable in China right now. Reminded of the Cultural Revolution at the start.
178  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 16, 2016, 09:34:33 AM
I'm glad you said non-STEM; my daughter's degree is in math.

Smart girl. Now she should find a good job in Singapore or Hong Kong to develop global business skills.

I will suggest the growth industries of our time, canned goods and ammo...

We have some time, I hope. Not long ago I was having dinner with a friend who has a an elite military background and is a career law enforcement officer. We see the same endgame,and it's hard to say if we have months, or years before it kicks off.

Now, the firearms business is one of the few bright spots for domestic industries, thanks to history's greatest gun salesman.
179  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump’s nuclear arson in Asia: Spengler on: May 16, 2016, 09:26:20 AM

Trump’s nuclear arson in Asia: Spengler

Late last year I spent some time with a former chief of China’s military intelligence, a bruiser with an ax to grind against the United States. Halfway through a long tirade about America’s alleged abuse of its global power, he interrupted himself and said: “There’s one thing we appreciate about America, though. You keep the Japanese away from us.”

Some Asian countries abhor American power, some like it, and some live with it reluctantly. But they all have one thing in common: They trust the United States of America more than they trust each other. There’s no regional balance-of-power arrangement that could replace America as a strategic buffer.

That’s why Donald Trump’s April 29 suggestion that Japan and South Korea should acquire nuclear weapons was the craziest single statement on foreign policy of any major American presidential candidate since the Second World War. “You have so many countries already — China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia — you have so many countries right now that have them,” said Trump. “Now, wouldn’t you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?”


Trump’s April 29 foreign policy address made some good points, or rather points that would have been good if they had been in a different speech by a different candidate. But the core of the speech was Trump’s narcissistic claim that he would negotiate a “great deal” for the United States with its Russian and Chinese rivals. You don’t start negotiations by pouring gasoline around the conference table and flicking a cigarette lighter. Trump can’t un-ring that bell. Any negotiations he were to undertake in Asia would be a disaster.

The Japanese and South Koreans were horrified, with good reason. As CNN reported, “So high was the level of concern, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe felt the need to respond publicly, saying, ‘whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan’s diplomacy.’ Japan remains the only country to have had nuclear weapons used against it and has had a non-nuclear policy and pacifist constitution since the end of World War II. Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida added, ‘It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons.'”
Trump doesn’t read books, except the ghostwritten tomes that have appeared under his name, and probably doesn’t know that that the Japanese army killed about 25 million Chinese during the Second World War, the vast majority of them civilians. The scale of Japanese atrocities makes the mind reel, and China remains traumatized by the memory. Japan has never acknowledged the scale of its wartime misdeeds, unlike Germany. Japan and China fear each other and take extraordinary measures to keep provocation below the threshold of danger. As Kyle Mizokami wrote in The National Interest:
It is perhaps China’s greatest nightmare: a nuclear-armed Japan. Permanently anchored off the Asian mainland, bristling with nuclear weapons, a nuclear Japan would make China’s security situation much more complex than it is now, and force China to revise both its nuclear doctrine and increase its nuclear arsenal. To be perfectly clear, Japan has no intention of building nuclear weapons. In fact, it has a strong aversion to nukes, having been the only country to actually be on the receiving end of a nuclear strike on its cities. Japan’s strategic situation would have to grow very dire for it to undertake such a drastic and expensive option. At the same time, China has no interest in provoking Japan into building them. China’s nuclear “no first use” policy is in part aimed at reassuring Japan that, unless it were attacked first with nuclear weapons, it will not use them in wartime.
China grudgingly respects the United States for acting as a superpower in East Asia. By keeping Japan under the American strategic umbrella, Washington in effect told China that it did not have to prepare for war with Japan. Trump has now told China to prepare for a nuclear-armed Japan.

Trump understands nothing about China.  “China respects strength and by letting them take advantage of us economically, which they are doing like never before, we have lost all of their respect,” he said on April 29. The merits of this claim are beside the point (China’s real effective exchange rate has risen by 40% since 2009, not fallen as Trump alleged). China’s first three priorities are security, security, and security. Its economy comes far down the list. If China believes that it faces an existential threat by the adversary that devastated it between 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, and 1945, when America won the Pacific war, it will make any sacrifice it thinks necessary in order to prevail.

China has invested massively in its strategic forces, including carrier-killer surface-to-ship missiles, satellite-killer missiles, ultra-quiet diesel electric submarines, a new generation of ICBM’s, as well as cyber war capabilities. Trump presumably would threaten to restrict Chinese exports; China would respond by massively shifting resources to its military sector. America’s interest lies in persuading China that it can feel security within its borders without projecting power in such a way as to destabilize the region around it, as it threatens to do by constructing artificial islands for military use in the South China Sea. The worst possible thing would be to introduce the wild card of a Japanese nuclear threat into the discussion.
Beijing will never believe that Trump is merely a blithering, blathering ignoramus. In China’s imperial system, every public statement is weighed carefully, for words cannot be retracted. The Chinese will remember that Trump proposed to put nuclear weapons into the hands of the Japanese and treat him as a dangerous enemy. And the consequences for Asian and American security will be dire.

The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Asia Times.
180  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / So much for the peaceful rise of China... on: May 16, 2016, 09:21:16 AM

#Invalid YouTube Link#

‎China‬'s ‪‎PLA‬ army enlists rap-style music video to recruit young soldiers

Published on May 2, 2016
The People's Liberation Army has released a rap-style music video filled with masculine lyrics and advanced weaponry in an attempt to attract more young people to join the military.
The song, called Battle Declaration, was posted on, the PLA Daily's website, on Thursday. It is the first hip-hop video made by the PLA.
Previous PLA songs have been sung to the accompaniment of orchestral melodies, and their lyrics were carefully worded to avoid being too aggressive. By comparison, Battle Declaration, in an unmistakable effort to cater to the taste of young people, features a popular hip-hop style, and the lyrics hide neither combativeness nor a desire to fight.
The video starts with a young PLA soldier touching his uniform and putting on his cap. Then a man's voice comes in and says, "There are always missions in soldiers' minds, enemies in their eyes, responsibilities on their shoulders, and passions in their hearts."
The song then continues: "There could be a war at any time. Are you ready for that?"
The video shows soldiers training and exercising, fighter jets conducting dogfights and missiles being fired, among other military activities.
Almost all of the PLA's best weaponry is displayed in the video, including the aircraft carrier Liaoning, J-11 fighter jet, Type-99A tank and DF-11 ballistic missile.
Satellites and spacecraft also appear in the video, which indicates the PLA has placed unprecedented importance on its space force, said a PLA publicity expert who asked to be identified only as Jiao.
Moreover, the appearance of the military's space assets also intends to impress upon viewers that "the PLA is no longer the poorly equipped one that they saw from TV dramas, but a powerful force as modernized as the United States military," he told China Daily.
Jiao said the hip-hop video could be a big help in recruiting young people.
The PLA is striving to recruit more educated young people. An increasing number of media reports say some young people spare no efforts to avoid military service.
Colonel Wu Qian, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said at a news conference on Thursday that a man's youth is not only about being cool, but also about being responsible for the nation and its security.
181  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 16, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
I'm glad you said non-STEM; my daughter's degree is in math.

Smart girl. Now she should find a good job in Singapore or Hong Kong to develop global business skills.
182  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Beijing rattling sabres at Taiwan on: May 16, 2016, 09:04:49 AM
1992 Consensus called key to cross-Straits ties
By Peng Yining (China Daily)
Updated: 2016-05-07 07:37
 1992 Consensus called key to cross-Straits ties
Taiwan's Democratic progessive party (DPP) leader Tsai Ing-wen attends to the talent competition of children with mental disabilities in Taiwan, file photo. [Photo/IC]

'Mainland won't tolerate any vagueness' on whether Tsai endorses one-China principle

A denial of the 1992 Consensus principle that Taiwan and the mainland are both parts of one China would change cross-Straits relations and cause the collapse of the political mutual trust and process of dialogue between the two sides, experts say.

"The island's new leader has to answer whether she endorses the 1992 Consensus - it's not an optional question," Li Yihu, head of Peking University's Taiwan Institute, said on Friday. "The new leader has to voice a clear position on this issue."

Tsai Ing-wen, chairwoman of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party, will assume the island's leadership on May 20 and deliver her inaugural speech.

"Cross-Straits relations have come to a turning point," said Li. "The mainland won't tolerate any vagueness regarding the Consensus."

In a front-page commentary on Thursday, People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Communist Party of China, stressed that not adhering to the 1992 Consensus constitutes sabotage of the common political foundation for cross-Straits ties.

According to the commentary, the development of cross-Straits relations in the past two decades has proved that the relations have a bright future with the endorsement of the Consensus. And without it, the peaceful development of the relations would be off course and could founder, it said.

"It is very rare for People's Daily to have a commentary like this on its front page," said Li. "The article shows the central leadership's firm position on this point. It's an official message and a powerful statement."

Li said the mainland has reiterated the importance of the Consensus and the serious consequences of not adhering to the principle.

"Economic loss is obvious, and the political impact would be inevitable," he said. "All the consequences would have to be borne by the Taiwan leadership."

But the island's new leader has been trying to skirt around the issue, said Ni Yongjie, deputy director of Shanghai's Taiwan Research Institute.

"Tsai did say she would prefer preserving the status quo. But without the Consensus, the status quo would not exist," he said, adding that Tsai could use the opportunity on May 20 to explicitly endorse the Consensus.

Zhu Songling, director of the Institute of Cross-Straits Relations at Beijing Union University, said the mainland has been unequivocal and has warned that further development of cross-Straits relations would be set back by its denial.

"Tsai's dodging of inquiries about her position on the Consensus is actually destroying cross-Straits ties," he said.
183  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Good thing our side isn't this easy to con... on: May 16, 2016, 08:53:36 AM

Penn Jillette on the Clintons: Quote of the Day
Their fans think they can read their minds
Anything Peaceful
 Thursday, October 15, 2015
 Facebook Twitter Reddit More
#Clinton #Libertarianism #Politics #Democracy
On his weekly podcast, libertarian magician and skeptic Penn Jillette gave an incisive take on Hillary and Bill Clinton.

We have Hillary Clinton — while you were alive, while you were sexually active, three years ago — saying marriage is just between a man and a woman. ...
And yet many people in [the gay community] are supporting Hillary, and their reason for supporting her is that "she was always in favor of gay rights, but she had to say what she had to to be elected." …
She came out in favor of the pacific trade deal, very strongly in favor of it, and now she’s against it.
And that’s not seen as flip-flopping, it’s not really seen as a revelation or learning something — it’s seen as "she is politically expedient, and we want someone who is politically expedient."
The followers of Hillary Clinton seem to think they have a secret deal with her — where they understand what she really believes, what she’s really going to do — and they are willing to support her as she bends the truth in order to be elected. …
Why do the people who support Hillary think that what she’s saying is to manipulate other people and not to manipulate them?
This cultivated impression of insincerity allows her supporters project whatever beliefs and values they want onto her, rationalizing away any dissonant actions as just "savvy politics," letting her be everything to everyone.

Penn notes that Bill Clinton exploited the same tendency when he ran for president in 1992:

I remember when Bill Clinton was running for president. He was in a capital punishment state, Arkansas, and he flew back during his campaign, during the Gennifer Flowers thing, to pull the switch on a mentally handicapped criminal.
He went back to pull the switch, and I remember talking to a buddy of mine in Chicago … who said, "We know Bill Clinton is against capital punishment, we know he’s against it, but he had to make sure this guy was killed in order to be elected, and he knows that’s important."
And I said I know people who are pro-capital punishment who have never actually been part of killing a person, and who might balk at that.
So this is what they postulate: you’ve got an anti-death penalty guy who think it’s worth it to kill this guy in order to be elected... so he can fight for not killing people?
Of course, this is not unique to Clinton supporters. Politics is a tribal game, where members of one team will always assume that their leaders are (at least secretly) really on their side and doing the right thing, and they'll find ways to rationalize their disagreements as merely strategic or cosmetic.

Listen to the rest of the show here.
184  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle-Salon 2013 on: May 16, 2016, 08:39:45 AM

WEDNESDAY, MAR 6, 2013 05:30 AM MST
Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle
The Venezuelan leader was often marginalized as a radical. But his brand of socialism achieved real economic gains
Share   10K

Hugo Chavez's economic miracle
Hugo Chavez (Credit: AP/Leslie Mazoch, photo treatment by Salon)
For the last decade in American politics, Hugo Chavez became a potent political weapon – within a few years of his ascent, he was transformed from just a leader of a neighboring nation into a boogeyman synonymous with extremism. Regularly invoked in over-the-top political rhetoric, Chavez’s name became a decontextualized epithet to try to attach to a political opponent so as to make that opponent look like a radical. Because of this, America barely flinched upon hearing the news that the Bush administration tried to orchestrate a coup against the democratically elected Venezuelan leader.

Just to get it out of the way, I’ll state the obvious: with respect to many policies, Chavez was no saint. He, for instance, amassed a troubling record when it came to protecting human rights and basic democratic freedoms (though as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy notes, “Venezuela is recognized by many scholars to be more democratic than it was in the pre-Chávez era”). His rein also coincided with a boom in violent crime.

That said, these serious problems, while certainly worthy of harsh criticism, were not the primary reason Chavez became the favorite effigy of American politicians and pundits. In an age marked by America’s drone assaults, civil liberties abuses, and war on voting, it is not as if this nation’s political establishment sees an assault on democratic freedoms as deplorable. Likewise, that same political establishment is more than friendly with leaders of countries like Mexico and Colombia – countries which are also periodically hotbeds of violent crime.

No, Chavez became the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results. Indeed, as shown by some of the most significant indicators, Chavez racked up an economic record that a legacy-obsessed American president could only dream of achieving.

For instance, according to data compiled by the UK Guardian, Chavez’s first decade in office saw Venezuelan GDP more than double and both infant mortality and unemployment almost halved. Then there is a remarkable graph from the World Bank that shows that under Chavez’s brand of socialism, poverty in Venezuela plummeted (the Guardian reports that its “extreme poverty” rate fell from 23.4 percent in 1999 to 8.5 percent just a decade later). In all, that left the country with the third lowest poverty rate in Latin America. Additionally, as Weisbrot points out, “college enrollment has more than doubled, millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled.”

When a country goes socialist and it craters, it is laughed off as a harmless and forgettable cautionary tale about the perils of command economics. When, by contrast, a country goes socialist and its economy does what Venezuela’s did, it is not perceived to be a laughing matter – and it is not so easy to write off or to ignore. It suddenly looks like a threat to the corporate capitalism, especially when said country has valuable oil resources that global powerhouses like the United States rely on.

For a flamboyant ideologue like Chavez, that meant him being seen by the transnational elite as much more than an insignificant rogue leader of a relatively small country. He came to be seen as a serious threat to the global system of corporate capitalism.

That, of course, is considered a high crime by the American political illuminati – a high crime prompting a special punishment.

As evidenced by the treatment of everyone from Martin Luther King to Michael Moore to Oliver Stone to anyone else who dares question neoliberalism and economic imperialism, that punishment is all about marginalization – the kind that avoids engaging on substance for fear of allowing the notion of socialism to even enter the conversation in the first place. Instead, the non-conformist is attacked and discredited with vapid invective and caricature, becoming a cartoon villain whose ideas, performance and record are ignored before they can be considered on the merits. He becomes, in other words, the Hugo Chavez we so often saw in American political ads.

Stating this, mind you, is not to claim that Venezuela’s economy under Chavez was perfect. As The Week correctly put it, while “Chavez’s policies of redistribution and nationalization of oil assets endeared him to Venezuela’s working class” and produced many laudable results, the country’s “oil-centric economy has taken away resources from other areas that are badly in need of development.”

However, it is to argue that at a moment when America faces a pivotal debate about taxation and the size of government in specific and free market fundamentalism in general, Chavez’s passing should prompt as much reflection on the individual iconoclast as on the overarching economic ideas he came to embody.

To start, that means asking important questions.

For example, the United States has adamantly rejected the concept of nationalization and instead pursued a bailout/subsidy strategy when it comes to rapacious banks and oil companies – and those firms have often gone on to wreak economic havoc. Are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s decision to avoid that subsidization route and instead pursue full-on nationalization?

Likewise, in a United States whose poverty rate is skyrocketing, are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s policies that so rapidly reduced poverty?

And in a United States that has become more unequal than many Latin American nations, are there any constructive lessons to be learned from Chavez’s grand experiment with more aggressive redistribution?

No doubt, there are few absolutely clear answers to those uncomfortable questions, if those questions are assessed honestly. Most likely, in fact, the answers are murky. But such questions need to be asked. The problem is that even gently raising them typically gets one tarred and feathered as a communist and then inevitably called a Hugo Chavez pal (even if Chavez’s overall record is also being criticized!). At the moment Chavez’s name is invoked, the conversation is inevitably terminated, ending any possibility of discourse.

That is by design – it is what the longtime caricaturing and marginalizing of Chavez was always supposed to do. But maybe now that the iconoclast is dead, the cartoon will end. Maybe now Chavez’s easily ridiculed bombast can no longer be used to distract from Venezuela’s record – and, thus, a more constructive, honest and critical economic conversation can finally begin.

 David Sirota
David Sirota is a senior writer for the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at
185  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 16, 2016, 08:12:48 AM
What do you say to a graduate with a non-STEM degree?

Venti mocha on ice, please.
186  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 16, 2016, 12:30:15 AM has seriously gone downhill since it was Michelle Malkin's.
187  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Narrative Space on: May 15, 2016, 07:42:46 PM

Keep in mind that this administration is using these same techniques against us.
188  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 05:21:09 PM
GM,  Are your taking that media photo out of context?     wink

I'm sure I am. Just like the video below is totally out of context.

189  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 05:03:43 PM

How many times did Melania have to drag Bill's hand back to her waist?
190  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 02:30:18 PM
I doubt anyone here has posted that Trump is evil incarnate. If they did, I missed it. Trump may well win. Prepare yourself for when he fcuks us over to make his "deals".

Since I quit posting here, I have been lurking, reading the posts on the election and the candidates. Several times I have almost posted, but realized that I would once again subject myself to negative articles about Trump promoting media and political talking points that have taken Trump’s words out of  context, his history having been distorted, and rants that Trump is evil incarnate. I can go anywhere for that.

Since blew themselves up by going over Facebook for posting, I have been a part of  I am a featured commenter and one of the moderators there.

There is no place generally to go and have a reasoned debate on Trump, Clinton and the ongoing election. Go to The Right Scoop, and anyone opposing Cruz is subjected to the vilest comments imaginable. (I went there once and after writing about 50 words on why the article written was misrepresenting a Trump position, I was attacked in ways that would make a sailor blush. And within two minutes, I was permanently banned.)

Conservation Review? The same thing occurs. Yep, banned The National Review, pro Trump comments are often deleted. But the same happens with the Pro Trump website, The Conservative Treehouse.

I am writing this because I am extending an offer to anyone here.

At HotGas, we would welcome anyone here to pen a thought out article on your views of Trump, other candidates, or the coming General Election.  Then, we can have a reasonable discussion, no name calling, etc.

If anyone chooses to write an article, be prepared to back up claims with proof or facts to support the claims. You will be challenged on what is presented.
Know that HG does support Trump. But know this also…..over 50% of our posters and readers were either Cruz people, as a first or second choice, but most have flipped. We would be happy to discuss why the flipping.

This is your opportunity to present your views to a website that has over 15k unique visits per day, and about 30k hits per day.  Just amazing for a website that began on Feb 8, 2016 and has been operational for just 3 months.

If you want to submit an article, just send me an email, and I will get it posted as a Featured Reader Submission. Just make sure it is well thought out and not just a series of rants.


191  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: My conscious is clean and I am voting Trump on: May 15, 2016, 02:26:40 PM

And I am aware of his negatives.

Wow GM.  In the many years I have been on this thread I believe this is the longest post you have ever made.

*Actually my posts in debates got quite long, but the post above is from Larry Correia, not me. Though I like it a lot.*

I am voting for Trump.  Why:

Because he as Crafty pointed out has good positions. 

Because he is the nominee like it or not.

Because I believe he can be brought around to our side.

I am not going into this blindly.

I am not low information.

*You aren't, but Trump is a low information candidate. He lacks even basic knowledge of how the US government is supposed to work. He didn't even know what the nuclear triad was.*

They did not have free speech in Nazi Germany.  They killed off their opposition.

We have free speech here.  Trump does not control the media.  Yes they love him.  They have made fortunes off him but they don't like him and they show his negatives along with his positives

He does not the majority of people behind him. 

I do not mind some populism either.   I don't see why we can not have both Conservatism and Populism

Sometimes I think Conservatism gets mixed up with Libertarianism.   I don't like the latter.  Not for me. 

*I am a small "l" libertarian. I don't want big, unconstitutional government weighted against either "side". Will I vote for Trump? Every time I think no way, I see something like this: and it makes me want to get a "make America great again" hat.*
192  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Venezuela finding out how socialism doesn't work on: May 15, 2016, 04:10:02 AM

But, but, it's scientific!
193  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Fight for 15 showing results on: May 15, 2016, 03:43:19 AM

194  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Slick Willie's willy. on: May 15, 2016, 03:37:59 AM

War on women girls.

Waiting on the feminist outrage...

195  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 12:27:49 AM

a) Good on illegal immigration
b) good instincts on limiting immigration of groups likely to contain jihadis
c) promises to announce in advance list of potential SCOTUS picks
d) though protectionist, this has the good result of being against TPP which appears likely to sabotage US sovereignty
e) recognizes that dramatic upgrade of US military is necessary
f) recognizes that US tax code is profoundly destructive, instincts are in the right direction
g) willing to take on much of PC fascism
h) recognizes that nuke deal with Iran is a disaster and that stopping Iran from going nuke is a must

How many of these statements have been contradicted by other statements? Aside from Donald J. Trump, what does Trump actually believe in?

196  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Sex and State Power on: May 14, 2016, 10:23:23 PM

Sex and State Power — What’s Behind Obama’s Transgender Push

Stupid liberals male female restrooms protect women and girlsThe Obama administration has announced that from this day forward, all public schools in America must let children choose their bathroom and locker room based upon a child’s feelings about his or her gender on any given day.  This means that, if a male sexual predator (or simply a sexually curious boy) feels that today is a good day to be a girl and watch the girls’ volleyball team strip off in the bathroom, that is his right and the school is obligated to comply:

The guidance from leaders at the departments of Education and Justice says public schools are obligated to treat transgender students in a way that matches their gender identity, even if their education records or identity documents indicate a different sex.

“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement accompanying the directive, which is being sent to school districts Friday.

Because Congress has already allotted funds to the Department of Education, the DOE wields the power of the purse over this issue, and there’s nothing Congress can do to stop it.

If asked why they are forcing this policy onto American public schools, administration figures, from the president on down, would reply that they’re doing it “for the good of the children.”  It’s all about self-actualization, and self-realization, and personal empowerment, right?

Wrong!  This comes from the Left, so there’s good reason to believe that it’s not “for the children” at all.  Indeed, there’s extremely good reason to believe that the transgender movement is very bad for those who identify as transgender, starting with the children and working up to the disproportionate number of transgender adults who commit suicide.  David French as a good breakdown of the heartbreaking numbers behind the suddenly trendy tranny movement:

The evidence of transgender despair is overwhelming. A Swedish study found that trans people were 19 times more likely to die from suicide. An American study found that a horrifying 41 percent of transgender and “gender non-conforming” people had attempted suicide, compared with a national rate of 1.6 percent. In Canada, a study found that each year one in nine transgender people try to commit suicide, compared with the national rate of one out of 167.

So it’s not “for the children.”  Lie Number One is exposed.

Lie Number Two is the contention that the transgender movement is the same as the gay rights movement.  In fact, the transgender movement also weirdly homophobic, even though the LGBT movement has embraced it .  The weirdly homophobic aspect comes from the fact that the transgender movement puts the lie to what gay rights activists have been telling us for a good decade or more, which is that when it comes to gay, “Baby, I was born this way.”  Again, David French neatly defines the conundrum:

For the last decade, the American public has been told that sexual orientation is a fixed, immutable characteristic — like skin color. Now we’re told that “gender identity” is much the same. Psychology is fixed. Biology has to adjust.

But observe the lamentation in the video: A transgender boy wants other boys to change, to reject the “born this way” of their own sexuality for the open-mindedness of “getting physical” with a girl with a penis. Claire is desperate for their psychology to change, for their minds to open, and for their sexual identity to change in response to Claire’s allegedly unchangeable desires.

Writing in the Gospel Coalition, Trevin Wax asks: “When a person feels a disjunction between one’s sex at birth and one’s gender identity, why is the only course of action to bring the body into closer conformity with the person’s psychological state, rather than vice versa?” That’s the course of action for the transitioning person. The course of action for their loved ones is substantially different. In essence, the Caitlyn Jenners are saying to their spouses or paramours, “I’m now a woman, and that makes you a lesbian.”

Wax notes that the declaration of this new reality — with the expectation that spouses comply and conform — “destabilizes some of the foundational elements of LGBT theory on homosexuality.” Well, yes. But the true “foundational element” of LGBT theory isn’t so much “born this way” as it is “I do what I want.”

Even on the Left, saner minds are figuring out what I pointed out some time ago, which is that we laugh at and despair over all forms of body mutilation except for the gender type, which is wrongly celebrated.  Daniel Harris, a hard Left gay man who hates Republicans, wrote a much-talked-about article for The Antioch Review stating the obvious, which I’ll summarize here in my own words:  Body mutilation is always a sign of some sort of mental disability and that the LGBT world and its fellow travelers cannot say “All body mutilation is a tragic joke, except for gender mutilation, which is a wondrous thing.”

Or, to quote from Harris himself:

. . . TGs have ambushed the debate and entangled us in a snare of such trivialities as the proper pronouns with which to address them, protocol as Byzantine and patronizing as the etiquette for addressing royalty. They insult us with the pejorative term “cisgender,” which they use to describe those of us who accept, however unenthusiastically, our birth gender, as opposed to the enlightened few who question their sex. Moreover, they shame us into silence by ridiculing the blunders we make while trying to come to grips with their unique dilemmas, decrying our curiosity about their bodies as prurience and our unwillingness, or even inability, to enter into their own (often unsuccessful) illusion as narrow‑mindedness.


While I fervently support TGs’ rights to transition and to do so without fear of reprisal, I believe that the whole phenomenon of switching one’s gender is a mass delusion. For one, the physical manipulation involved in transforming oneself into a man or woman is apparently different in kind—or so the transgender community presumes—from the nips and tucks undertaken by the trophy wife or celebrity, anti‑heroes of a materialistic culture with whom the TG, having taken advantage of the same merchandising of the body promoted by commercialized medicine, bears a strong and unfortunate resemblance. The general public almost universally disapproves of plastic surgery and laughs derisively at celebrities who present a face “different from the one they rode in on,” as  one commentator referred to their futile—and often ruinous—efforts to roll back the hands of time. The obscene trout pout of Donatella Versace, the misshapen nipples and oblong breasts of Tara Reid, the Joker’s grimace of Kim Novak, are all fair game for that most American and democratic of blood sports, the desecration of the rich and famous in tabloids and gossip blogs.

And yet what is the actual difference between Michael Jackson whittling his nose down to a brittle sliver of bone and whitening his skin with alpha hydroxy acid and arsenic in order to efface his blackness and the TG sanding down her brow bone and hacking off a sizeable chunk of her mandible in order to efface her gender? Why is the one decried as a racially reprehensible instance of self‑mutilation, self‑denial, and self‑loathing and the other extolled as a celebratory instance of self‑liberation? Why is it not only okay but valiant for Caitlyn Jenner to liberate her inner woman through rhinoplasties and laryngeal shaves while it is deplorable and pathetic for Michael Jackson to liberate his inner Caucasian through bleaching and cleft chin augmentation? When Rachel Dolezal goes to the Palm Beach tanning salon for her weekly $30 dip, she is committing the unconscionable crime of appropriating blackness (or, in her case, as the Gawker put it, not blackness but “Medium Brown Spray Tan”), but when Laverne Cox, one of the breakout performers on the television show Orange Is the New Black, slaps on a transdermal estrogen patch, she is lauded as a hero and role model. All of the arguments against plastic surgery—that it is dangerous, even fatal, often botched, and symptomatic of either extreme body dysmorphia or a lamentable effort to accommodate Hollywood’s chauvinistic ageism—can be leveled against those who transition from one sex to another. The trophy wife and the TG swim, it seems, in the same surgeon‑infested seas.

Typically, the Social Justice Warriors ran amok when Harris’s piece was published, prompting a craven, groveling apology and distancing from The Antioch Review’s editor, who said (and I paraphrase), “We’re kind of a fiction thing, so don’t take what Harris wrote seriously.  Also, I am crawling on my belly towards you and licking your feet to apologize for the possibility that merely publishing a countervailing view might have hurt your feelings.”  He wasn’t that straightforward, but that’s what Bob Fogarty said:

The Review is a long-standing literary magazine—not a scholarly academic journal—that prints creative fiction, essays and poetry on a wide variety of topics. The views and values espoused in the article represent those of the author, Daniel Harris, and are not those held by the editor, the Antioch Review or Antioch College. However, as the editor, I recognize and acknowledge the criticisms and outrage for the views represented in Harris’s essay. Perhaps more importantly, I sincerely regret any pain and hurt that the publishing of this piece has caused to members of our own community, transgender people, the LGBTQ community, and their families and supporters.

If I were on the Board of The Antioch Review, I’d demand Fogarty’s firing.  The reality, though, is that if I did that, I’d be booted off the board and Fogarty would get a Christmas bonus.  Such is the world in which we live.

I’m satisfied in my own mind that promoting transgenderism is a bad thing for those claiming transgender status.  The statistics David French cites make it clear that transgender people need psychiatric support, not access to the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice.  And Harris’s article nicely hones in on the fact that the LGBT movement and the Left as a whole are hugely hypocritical to support body mutilation of the type that they decry in others.

So what gives?  If the numbers show, and the Left truly knows, that transgenderism is a sign of mental illness, not a sign of self-actualization, self-realization, and self-empowerment, why this huge push to put gender up for grabs, in complete denial of biologic reality right down to the genetic level?

I think I have the answer.  Indeed, I had the answer six years ago, when American Thinker published an article of mine entitled Sex and State Power.  I will quote myself liberally, because the Obama administration’s newest order about public schools reveals that the Left’s motives in exerting control over people’s self-identity, to grab them at the core of their being, is exactly the same as it ever was:

[Note, rather than indent the following long quotation, which creates an endless skinny column, I am setting it off from the body of the text by painting it dark green.]

Those of us who came of age before the 1980s, when the Judeo-Christian, Western tradition, though battered, was still ascendant, view our sexuality as a private matter. We believe that our bodies are our own property, which means that we should not be touched or controlled sexually without our consent. A person raised with this worldview inevitably believes as well that his ability to control his body is the essence of his individuality. This physical individuality is the antithesis of slavery, which represents a person’s ultimate lack of control over his body.

Statist regimes, of course, cannot tolerate self-ownership, which is the natural enemy of government control over the individual. The easiest example one can find of a statist regime using sexuality to deny individuality and dominate its citizens is, of course, Islam.

[I’m snipping the Islam discussion in favor of focusing on the Left’s obsession with sex, but Islam’s sexual obsessions and misogyny are still relevant too, and you might find the discussion interesting to read.]

What’s interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of “freeing” people’s sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is. This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person’s own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery.

The practical problem for the Left when it tries to attack individuality as expressed through sexuality is the fact that a person’s sense of an inviolate physical self develops quite early, during childhood:

Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self. … The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership. (Emphasis mine.)

The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.

Once upon a time, the radical Leftists were quite open about their agenda. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, German Leftists explicitly sought childhood “sexual liberation” as a political goal. In practice, this meant exposing children to adult sexual practices, focusing obsessively on the children’s external sexual organs, speaking about sexual matters in the crudest terms, and, unsurprisingly, engaging in actual sexual molestation. The Leftists advocating this liberation framed it as a way to break free of stifling bourgeois notions of morality that enslaved people and prevented them from realizing full sexual pleasure.

Reading the Leftists’ contemporaneous literature, however, reveals a more comprehensive aim than merely breaking those much-derided bourgeois sexual chains. The Leftists also intended to destroy the traditional nuclear family, with its bright lines between parent and child, and to bring down the capitalist system, which is dependent on a competitive, and therefore individualized, workforce:

For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation — as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nor can the above ranting be excused as the thoughts of a radical fringe. For example, these same European Leftists infiltrated the Catholic Diocese in Mechelen-Brussels, in Belgium, creating a sickening environment that actively promoted pedophilia. In other words, this particular church’s forays into perversion were not the secretive gropings of individual priests. Instead, there was a concerted effort, led by a liberal Belgian church hierarchy, to make pedophilia a routine practice within the Church.

Incidentally, Frank Marshall Davis, a radical Leftist who was Obama’s surrogate father and mentor during his childhood years in Hawaii, fully supported this politically-driven hyper-sexualization, including sex with children. He engaged in and wrote about disturbing sexual practices such as bondage, simulated rape, undinism, and pedophilia (or, at the very least, pederasty). Since Obama’s political ascendancy, both his poetic forays and his peculiar disassociative behavior have supported speculation that Davis, giving free rein to his personal preferences and his commitment to preventing the child from gaining ownership of his own body, may have practiced what he preached on the fatherless young boy given so unthinkingly into his care.

While the overheated Marxist rhetoric of the 1960s has died away, the Leftist preoccupation with childhood sexuality, and its relentless desire to have the state control a child’s sexual development — and, by extension, to deny the child self-ownership — is still alive and well. The primary pathway the Left currently uses to decouple childhood sexual development from self-individuation is the gay rights agenda.

Many of us who believe that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their personal lives free from discrimination have felt bewildered by our discomfort with and resistance to all of the homophilic programs that have suddenly invaded our children’s schools. To use the language of the Left, though, we should “listen to our feelings.”

Subconsciously, we recognize that these pro-homosexual programs have nothing to do with teaching tolerance, which is a virtue in a pluralistic society. Instead, the programs have everything to do with having the state substitute its goal of sexual, and therefore social, control in place of a parent’s desire to inculcate his children with traditional Judeo-Christian values, values that focus on the inviolability of the individual, beginning with his body.

Examples abound of supposedly anti-discriminatory programs that, instead of focusing on tolerance, work to direct a child’s sexual development away from the zone of privacy that is a hallmark of Western sexuality. Robin of Berkeley describes a group called “Gender Spectrum,” which has the ostensible goal of allowing “transgender, gender bending, [and] gender nonconforming” children and teens to hang with each other and share their experiences. She rightly sees this not as an effort to promote tolerance, but as a way to make it “cool to dabble in polyamory and gender nonconformism,” thereby “destroy[ing] the West by degrading traditional values.”

Only four years ago, California narrowly escaped a legislative effort to pass a bill that would have required all California textbooks, starting in first grade, to include materials focusing on famous homosexuals — with the focus not on the achievement that made them famous, but simply on the homosexuality itself. A parental outcry forced the legislature to retreat to something more in keeping with a free society, which is the requirement that children may not be exposed to material that is discriminatory to people based on their sexuality.

In Helena, Montana (Montana!), the school board is contemplating a K-12 sex ed program that repeatedly blurs the line between demanding tolerance, which should be an imperative in a free society, and advocating alternative sexuality, which is consistent with the Leftist agenda of separating sexuality from individuality. In Grade 2, children would be taught, appropriately, that “making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. ‘homo,’ ‘fag,’ ‘queer’) is disrespectful and hurtful.” By Grade 3, however, the focus is on breaking down traditional familial norms, as children are taught that to “nderstand media often presents an unrealistic image of what it means to be male or female, what it means to be in love & what parenthood & marriages are like.” And so it goes, with a proposed curriculum that veers wildly between respect and advocacy.

The relentless Leftist obsession with homosexuality and variations on traditional sexual gender roles is deeply embedded in the Obama administration. Last year, a vigilant blogger exposed the fact that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” as part of his leadership role in the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (“GLSEN”), aggressively promoted child pornography in the classroom. GLSEN’s actions had nothing to do with creating a safe, non-discriminatory environment for young people with different sexual orientations and everything to do with using the government (i.e., public schools) to inculcate in children the notion that their bodies have no boundaries. A body with no boundaries, of course, is a body that can easily be decoupled from the individual’s control and then ceded to the state.

While the gay agenda, which is cloaked in civil rights language that makes it hard to challenge, is the leading edge of the state’s desire to control children’s sexuality, Leftists also use the schools to manipulate heterosexual behaviors so as to destroy a child’s physical boundaries. In England, parents were aghast to learn that a school was requiring its first-grade pupils to massage each other. In Iowa (Iowa!), one middle school has abandoned any pretense of traditional morality and, instead, is teaching its eighth-graders “how to perform female exams and to put a condom on a 3-D, anatomically correct male sex organ.” The body is a tool, and nothing more.

Freud was right when he speculated that sex, perhaps because it is the least easily satisfied human need, may also be the most powerful physical need driving human beings. Freud, however, viewed sexuality through the spectrum of a given individual’s desires. What the statists understand — and have always understood — is that our bodies are the first line in the battle between statism and individualism. If a person is allowed to develop a sense that his body is his own to control, he will never willingly yield to the demands of the state. Only by convincing its citizens that they have no personal autonomy, beginning with control over their own bodies, can a state completely subsume the individual to the bureaucracy.

So if you’re getting an itchy feeling between your shoulder blades when you contemplate your child’s hyper-sexualized reading list and gender-bending sex education curriculum, you need not fear that you have turned into a repressed, homophobic Victorian. Instead, there’s an excellent chance that you are someone with a deep respect for individual freedom who resents the Leftists’ efforts to co-opt your child’s body as a necessary sacrifice to the State.
197  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Larry Correia on Trump on: May 14, 2016, 10:00:26 PM

On the Election
May 4, 2016   correia45   

Well, we’re boned. It’s going to be huckster fraud democrat against lying criminal democrat.

Half the GOP hates the jackass. Question now is what percentage of us stay home or make a 3rd party protest vote. All those crossover democrats who voted for that orange half wit in the primaries will go back to voting democrat in the general election. He thinks young Bernie voters are going to vote for him? Fool.

I’ve voted republican in every election of my adult life. I’ve volunteered and donated money. I can’t in good conscience vote for this vile populist demagogue. If even a few percentage points of the GOP feels the same way, that’s it. He’s toast in the general.

So he energizes the democrats, so they’ll feel like they are fighting tyranny (now comes the great part where all the fawning media coverage turns on him) and he demotivates the republican base.

All the kid glove BS from this season is over. Every vile nasty stupid thing he has ever done will be covered 24/7. By November he will be the most laughed at and despised candidate in history. Because he makes it too easy.

So the classless boor probably loses to the sea hag. Not that it matters too much, since they’d both govern as authoritarian democrats, only one has more nationalist rah rah thrown in.

Spare me the nonsense about lesser evils and SCOTUS judges. He won’t make it that far. And by some miracle, like Hillary has a stroke, this rambling ignoramus wins, he would still screw that up somehow in his one term. Big question is does he suck enough to take the GOP with him?

And if you think he is going to actually build a wall, you are a sucker.

Did I love Cruz? No. Because I was hiring an employee, not a god. He was the least likely to rape the Constitution. Instead we get an authoritarian, who is either lying, or made it to 70 before understanding basic American principles about liberty.

You ignorant low information bastards. Motivated by fear and anger, you overlooked every gain made over the last few cycles, and traded it in to a lying huckster democrat for some magic beans. So you could stick it to the establishment, by electing the shit bird who funded them.

Edit to add, don’t bother posting to argue. We are past that. Now we batten down the hatches and get ready for the suck. If you want to gloat, you are an idiot who doesn’t realize what you have wrought. If you feel disrespected, good. You should.


I wrote that in a few minutes and posted it on Facebook last night. It had 700 shares a couple thousand comments by morning, and I was holding twenty simultaneous arguments. You can check it out for yourself. It is pretty enlightening.


The posters fell into a few categories.

Republicans who hate the guy, but who will vote for him against Hillary, because he will only probably suck, and she will obviously suck. The real question for most of them is how much is he lying lately?

Then Republicans who hate the guy enough that they will vote 3rd party for president because they don’t want him on their conscience, and yes, they are fully aware that it is a futile gesture.

And finally Trumpkins gloating. Those are especially fun because they give you a great look into the mindset of our enthusiastic standard bearers from now until November. Most of them were obviously low information types, very impassioned, but without even a School House Rock level of understanding how our government functions. Any criticism of Trump was “butt hurt” or “whining” and everybody needed to fall in line or else. I was told four or five times that I needed to leave America (make me, fuckers) and that I must be a welfare check cashing Obama lover.

Now picture the rest of the year. These are the new champions of the national debate. You think the articulate people with a clue are going to spend time trying to explain our candidate’s bizarre ramblings?  Nope. It’s going to be the folks like in the thread above. And after Build A Wall and Make America Great, they’re all out of steam. When asked about any of Trump’s many prior liberal stances, they brush that off as being decades ago (2014) and people change!

The important thing now is that they normally feel like losers, but for one bright shining moment, they get to be on the winning team. I’m sure the useful idiots and suckers who elected every populist, tyrant, and despot in history felt the same way. Briefly. Get in line, my ass.

He’s already got the highest negatives of any republican candidate ever. Factor in months of media ridicule and fear mongering, by the time November rolls around the democrats will be super motivated and the regular GOP will be meh.

Hillary is awful. She’s an awful human being and a worse candidate. Her biggest hindrance to winning was apathy among her base. Trump is the best thing that has ever happened to her. Fifteen candidates and you assholes picked the one she was most likely to beat. You picked the one that funded and praised her.

Personally, I’ll still vote, but for the republican candidates downstream. For president, Unicorn Cavalry all the way. I hated John McCain, but I still voted for him because he was pro big government, but still nominally a republican. I thought Romney was a decent man, but a squishy moderate, who sucked on key issues, but I held my nose and voted for him. Trump, lacking in all decency, dignity, intellect, and being a populist demagogue completely without principles is over my line. Can’t do it. Don’t want that stain on my soul.

For the people voting for the lesser of the two evils, fine. I can’t fault your stance and I understand why you’re doing it. Do what you’ve got to do.

In trying to think of a bright side this year, Trump’s antics might not tarnish the entire conservative movement and result in democrats winning everything for a generation… Maybe. Besides that? Well, Hillary and Trump are both really old, so hopefully their VP picks won’t be complete garbage.

Like I said last night, get ready for the suck.
198  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coiling spring-- good summary of China's strategy on: May 14, 2016, 08:37:02 AM

I'm sure either 3AM Hillary or Littlefingers will handle this well.
199  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 13, 2016, 05:08:55 PM
The point is to put an end to such excrement, not make sure that "our side" gets to crap on American freedom too.

Not many here consider Littlefingers to be on our side.
200  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Unexpectedly! Reason magazine and BBG hardest hit! on: May 13, 2016, 04:18:56 PM

Funny how this works.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 275
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!