Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 04:59:09 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41
51  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: September 12, 2012, 03:44:42 PM
Actually, while I may not agree with McCarthy, I have never criticized his credentials.

As for Spencer, I think you are using the term "scholar" loosely, merely, if in fact he does (I couldn't find confirmation) speak Arabic hardly makes him a "scholar".  I know a few people who speak Arabic; I speak Japanese, but none of us are "scholars" on the subject.  He has no advance degrees in the subject nor has he published in any scholarly journals or "respected" publications.

As for Shoebat versus Obama and his "friends", well, I'm not quite sure I agree with you; Obama's "friends" CV are rather impressive versus Shoebat's only claim to fame, "former terrorist" however, in the interest of truth (and getting along)  smiley if you notice, I have never quoted or referenced one of them to make a point.
52  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel and Iran on: September 12, 2012, 10:54:18 AM
Who Else Opposes An Iran Attack?
by Ali Gharib  | September 11, 2012 8:45 AM EDT
The bad news is that most Americans are ill-informed about the Iranian nuclear program; the good news is that they still don't want to attack Iran. Those are results of the biennial Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey of public opinion on foreign policy (PDF).

The bad news first: Who can blame them? There's a constant stream of misinformation out there, and so a stunning majority of 66 percent of Americans don't know that U.S. intelligence agencies think Iran has not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. Here's the chart from the Chicago Council:


Screen capture of a chart from Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2012 survey report.

While nearly two-thirds of Americans see Iran as a threat (down a bit from two years ago), slightly more still want their government to talk to the Iranians. What don't Americans want? A war with Iran, especially not a unilateral one (my emphasis):

A slim majority (51%) opposes UN authorization of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear energy facilities, with a substantial minority (45%) supporting such action. A far broader majority (70%) opposes a unilateral strike by the United States if Iran continues to enrich uranium but the Security Council does not authorize a military strike.

That means even some of those Americans who think Iran is hellbent on developing weapons—or that Iran already has them—don't support an attack.

Americans aren't that keen on the idea of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program either: 59 percent of respondents to the Chicago Council said the U.S. shouldn't commit military forces to help Israel in the event that an Israeli initiated-strike touches off a broader conflict. Nearly four-in-ten said the U.S. should jump in.

Instead of an attack, Americans support unilateral and multilateral sanctions (such as pressure from the U.N. Security Council), and direct diplomacy. Whose policy does that sound like?
53  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: September 12, 2012, 10:17:02 AM
Doug, there is NO hypocrisy.  Each politician chooses how to run their campaign.  Each politician is different.  That Feinstein sees no merit in giving attention to her unknown opponent mades good strategy.
Don't blame her. 

As for MN law, I am a bit vague, but as you phrased it, "In our state (MN), minor parties who get 15% of the vote in one election get a seat at the table in the debates of the next election."
That begs the question, IF there are no debates, well I guess you don't get a seat.  Further, as a side note, in the primary election Feinstein's opponent didn't even get 15%.  She is a no body
begging for attention; no wonder Feinstein won't give her any time.

I notice even in MN there is an argument about how many debates.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2012/08/bills_call_for.shtml

It reminds me of our Presidential debates; Gingrich (a good debater) offered to debate Obama at every bus stop, Romney, given his marginal speaking ability if I had to guess is
grateful that he only has to meet Obama 2-3 times.   smiley
54  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Whistleblowers on: September 12, 2012, 09:49:21 AM
"Financier Bradley Birkenfeld went to prison after helping clients avoid taxes. But he also got $104 million for blowing the whistle."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-whistleblower-20120912,0,2889365.story
55  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: September 11, 2012, 05:48:15 PM
Doug, don't be ridiculous.

You know as well as I do that front runners, if they are clearly front runners rarely debate their opponents.  Strategically, it doesn't make sense.
There is no upset, only downside.  That is politics played both both parties.  Perhaps regrettable, but fact.  There are quite a few precedents. 

And she is freely elected; overwhelmingly I might point out.   So why compare her to despots? 

As for Prop 8; it did not become law because it was considered by the Appeals Court to be Unconstitutional.  If I recollect, The Supreme Court may here this case; at the moment, it is only "stayed".  As for 52% approving it, well, to raise taxes, California requires a 2/3 vote in favor.  Hardly the will of the "majority" or the liberal orthodoxy. 
56  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: September 11, 2012, 04:25:01 PM
While I am not necessarily a Feinstein fan (she is better than Boxer) why do you say, "shame on her" because her opponents are inept and/or poorly supported?  The majority of Californians really like Feinstein; they will vote for her.  Why blame her for her popularity?  instead, kudo's to her for being popular in the State.  That is how you get re-elected; not by debating a nobody opponent.

Shame on the losers perhaps; it is their incompetence that enables Feinstein to ignore them.  But don't blame Feinstein for being popular.
57  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Unions on: September 11, 2012, 02:32:55 PM
haha that's because they can afford it!  Teachers in Chicago get paid a LOT of money!
58  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: September 11, 2012, 02:31:24 PM

No, while as I said, it would be nice if she did, always nice to hear the topics debated, practically speaking, since she is WAY out in front, she has no incentive; only downside to give her opponent free publicity.   She gets nothing out of it.  So politically, as I said, "Why should she"?
59  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: September 11, 2012, 12:14:27 PM
Why should she?  I mean, yes, it would be nice, but frankly at this point, she has absolutely no incentive to do so.
Why give your opponent who no one has ever even heard of, a public forum and free publicity?
60  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mayor Rahm Emanuel AND Ryan finally agree! on: September 11, 2012, 10:07:58 AM
Hopefully, the Mayor will not waiver against the unions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chicago-teachers-strike-20120911,0,1301512.story
61  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bailouts are profitable on: September 11, 2012, 10:01:15 AM
The government's sale of about $18 billion shares of stock in rescued insurance giant American International Group locks in a minimum $12.4-billion profit for taxpayers on one of the most controversial bailouts of the financial crisis, the Treasury Department said late Monday.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-aig-bailout-treasury-profit-20120910,0,6421410.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29
62  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 06, 2012, 07:14:53 PM
"Michele Obama has turned into a great political performer, and her speech Tuesday night was remarkable and memorable'

Truthfully, wouldn't most people get good at making speeches if they do it frequently for years?

Actually no, just watch Romney.  smiley
63  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 06, 2012, 12:42:47 PM
One of the most surprising statistics of the night came from former President Bill Clinton. Since 1961, he said, 24 million private-sector jobs were added during the 28 years that Republicans held the White House. But when Democrats were president, that figure almost doubled — 42 million private-sector jobs created over 24 years. That claim appears to be true; it is backed up by a recent Bloomberg News analysis and federal labor statistics.
64  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 06, 2012, 08:57:00 AM
Clinton was outstandinding.  grin
65  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: September 05, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
It does remain to be seen.

As most here know, I am a fan of snoopes.com
I think they are honest and unbiased; they seek the truth.

But merely because someone calls themselves a "fact checker" doesn't mean $%^&*.
66  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 05, 2012, 04:18:54 PM
CCP; No Doug specifically referred to a "drawn out war".

My point CCP is not whether Israel should "unilaterally" attack Iran; that is THEIR choice.  Just don't ask us to fight and suffer
their war.

OUR choice is whether to become "sucked in" to an action America does not agree with;
my answer, and the answer of our Military and Intelligence Leaders is "don't do it". 

The question, as even you identified, is whether it is in America's best interest; do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

And the answer is a resounding "NO".  Not at this time according to our Experts.

I mean think about it CCP; if Taiwan who is also our ally unilaterally decided to attack China, should we be sucked in?
or IF South Korea unilaterally decided to unilaterally attack North Korea, should we be sucked in?

And the answer is clearly "No"; before we are "sucked in" we have a right to decide what's best and if they want us
to help, they better follow our advice or they are on their own.  The same should apply here.

I know you support Israel.  I respect that.  I too have a love and respect for Israel.  But.....
Don't you agree?
67  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 05, 2012, 11:21:10 AM
Doug, perhaps Israel did try to coordinate with the U.S.  However in the expert opinion of our military, we rejected their conclusion and our military decided now is not the time.
OUR military is only interested in OUR security.  It's not indifference; in fact is unbridled loyalty to America.  What's best for America should be the only question on their table.

Frankly, I think it's absurd to think we would immediately come to anyone's aid if they took unilateral action directly against our advice.

Imagine for a moment the possible worldwide negative effects of a military attack on Iran. It's HUGE!
Especially when OUR military says now is not the time.

Why should we be be suckered in and suffer the negative consequences?

That said, if a drawn out war ensues, no one is saying that we won't step in before Israel is destroyed.  Of course we would.
68  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 04, 2012, 03:31:15 PM
Top U.S. Military leaders Intelligence leaders are AGAINST the US taking action at this time.

Nearly everyone agrees that IF we take action, we need to do it on OUR timeline.  IF Israel takes unilateral action, that is their choice, but then they should be on their own; America should not get involved. 


Former CIA Director Says No Need to Attack Iran Now
A former U.S. Air Force General and CIA director says Iran cannot get the bomb before next year. "Let the US attack - it can do it better."
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 9/4/2012, 11:32 AM


US Department of Defense
A former U.S. Air Force General and CIA director says Iran cannot get the bomb before next year, when the US is better able to attack.

Michael Hayden, who headed the CIA when Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor under construction, told the Haaretz newspaper in an interview, "While it is probably true that the so-called 'window' regarding effective action is closing, there is still some time, as real decisions are to be made in 2013 or 2014."

Hayden added, "I do not underestimate the Israeli talent, but geometry and physics tell us that Iran's nuclear program would pose a difficult challenge to any military, as it is not a raid, and Israel's resources are more limited than those of the U.S.”

Now a security consultant and previously mentioned as a possible national security advisor during Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Hayden is in Israel to attend an Institute for National Security Studies seminar on Tel Aviv.

He echoed several reasons stated by others who are against Israel’s staging a military strike to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

"There is no absolute certainty that all targets are known," according to Hayden. "They will have to be revisited - which only the U.S. Air Force would be able to do - and the operation will only set the Iranians back some time and actually push them to do that which it is supposed to prevent, getting nuclear weapons."

He also revealed that following the Israeli attack on the Syrian reactor site in September 2007, the United States feared that Syrian would retaliate and spark a war. Hayden said that the Bush administration coordinated with Israel that no statements would be made implying Israel carried out the pre-emptive strike.

Six months later, he estimated that the self-imposed gag policy no longer was necessary.

69  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 04, 2012, 02:28:51 PM
Well, so much for "All options are on the table". 
As feared, and as predicted here, we have been bluffing all along.

Actually, that's not true.

Obama has not necessarily taken military action off the table.  Rather, appropriately so, he has taken "unilateral" action by Israel off OUR table. 
"Israel decides to strike unilaterally and without advance coordination [with the U.S.]..."

Until AMERICA decides it's in AMERICA'S best interest to take action, AMERICA should stay out of it.  Israel can do what it wants, but I'm glad/hope that Israel has clearly been told they are on their own if they act "unilaterally".  We should not be "sucked in" to their unilateral decision.

70  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 04, 2012, 10:42:10 AM
"Baraq throws Israel under the bus"

No, he just said if you are going to take the bus without our permission, you (Israel) will be solely responsible.


"They made clear to the Iranians that the U.S. does not intend to be sucked into a campaign if Israel decides to strike unilaterally and without advance coordination [with the U.S.], and they
said that they expect from Iran that it will not attack strategic American targets in the Persian Gulf."


THAT is in America's best Interest. 

71  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Islam in America on: September 03, 2012, 11:01:33 AM
http://spencerwatch.com/2012/07/03/jihadwatch-zombie-eric-allen-bell-thinks-he-hit-it-big-on-eric-bolling-show/
72  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 01, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
"U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told reporters in London this week  that a military strike could damage but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, and added, “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”


Just what we need, another war in the Middle East.....  It would be economically devastating for America.  We should as most American military men agree, "stay out of this war". 

If Israel wants to attack Iran, that is their choice.  But the United States should offer Israel no aid other than emergency aid. 

What's best for America?


Even Israeli experts think it's ill advised.
Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz, a former military chief, accused Netanyahu of "generating panic" by "rashly" leading an ill-prepared home front into conflict.
The Israelis are "scared of your lack of judgment, scared that you are being led and are not leading, scared that you are putting a dangerous and irresponsible policy into motion," he said in parliament, addressing Netanyahu.

You are risking a disastrous broad regional conflict and soaring global oil prices with little or no chance of complete success.


73  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: September 01, 2012, 12:03:00 PM
Actually Crafty, Robert Spencer's Website jihadwatch.org primary guest/alternative spokesperson is Pam Geller; it's like two peas in a pod. 
Objectivist1 himself seems to alternate between Spencer/Geller.
I guess it's easier for him to go to the same website.   smiley


That said, I agree, Robert Spencer seems more "reasonable" than Geller who is a complete Wacko.  I don't ignore Spencer, but I do take him with a grain of salt.  He's hardly a respected scholar on the matter. 

Robert Spencer does not possess any scholarly credentials.  He doesn't have any rudimentary academic education in the field in which one is claiming scholarship.  First year students in Ph.D. programs have published far more academic articles than Robert Spencer ever has.  Spencer has published no such articles, contenting himself with reproducing work in non-academic and populist publications.  Spencer does not even possess a Master’s Degree in anything related to Islam, let alone a Ph.D. and post-doctoral fellowship but calls himself a scholar and expert.

Besides who needs peer-reviewed papers, Spencer seems content to receive rave reviews from Weasel Zippers, Nice Doggie, Atlas Shrugs, Muslims are Terrorists, et al.   evil

So I guess I'm saying, yeah, it would be nice if Objectivist1 could broaden his cite list with a few "respected" souces.   shocked

But that's right, he's not going to respond to me.   grin
74  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Voting Rights on: September 01, 2012, 11:26:24 AM
A federal judge ordered the battleground state of Ohio to open its polling places three days before the Nov. 6 election, giving a victory to the Obama campaign and marking the sixth ruling in recent weeks to block or void new voting rules set by Republican-dominated state legislatures.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-voting-rights-20120901,0,146164.story
75  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Koch on: September 01, 2012, 11:23:44 AM
He sounds rather reasonable.

"David Koch breaks from GOP on gay marriage, taxes, defense cuts"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html
76  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney on: September 01, 2012, 11:15:05 AM
While I think you make some good points Doug, I take exception to

"g. The question isnt whether Mitt Romney is up to the job of running Bain...."

Actually it is; if not Bain, do we look closer at his Governorship?  Remember, his pinnacle achievement as Governor was a health care plan similar to Obama.  smiley

I mean what qualifications does Romney have if not Bain?  He himself is running on his success and experience at Bain so....  it seems fair game.
77  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: September 01, 2012, 10:57:24 AM
Ahhh Pam Geller's website again; that's the best, the ONLY response you ever have Objectivist1  shocked
Can't you find ANY source besides Pam Geller's website? shocked
Do you even read anything else?  smiley

By the way, I thought you wrote an eloquent piece yesterday, saying you were not going to respond to my postings;   shocked

"Henceforth (and I've broken this rule too many times already with regard to him) I will not waste any time responding to "arguments" - from JDN or others"

yet you responded to this one in less than 5 minutes.

Do you miss me?   evil
78  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: September 01, 2012, 10:26:55 AM
Nathan Lean responds:

My Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article on Islamophobia and the Anders Behring Breivik verdict sparked a lively debate. And that's a good thing. Conversations like this belong in the pages of prominent newspapers, not on the blogs of hate group leaders.

Shapiro falsely asserts that I prescribed censorship to combat a growing discourse of hate. Instead, what I advocated was that reasonable voices within the population should publicly shame bigots and marginalize their harmful messages so that there is a well-considered and persuasive counterpoint that drowns out their hate. If thoughtful people more frequently and more forcefully speak out against individuals who provided Breivik with his ideological underpinnings, one day, hopefully, they will be treated with the same derision as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups.

Shapiro belittles my claim that right-wing terrorism is of great concern. He psychoanalyzes domestic terrorists like McVeigh and Koresh as "obsessed" or "paranoid," discounting their violence as somehow less concerning than that carried out by Muslim terrorists, whose violence he views as a normal part of their ideological makeup. For those predisposed to judge Islam in this light, if violence is committed by a Christian or someone of another preferred identity, then he is an aberrant mental case, but if it is performed by a Muslim, then that is just how those people are.

This week's news of a plot by four Georgia-based members of the U.S. military to blow up several bases and other targets around the country and assassinate President Obama apparently did not calculate in his logic. Though some may believe otherwise, it's not the Muslim Brotherhood that's planning attacks or infiltrating America's corridors of power.

Just as many peace-loving Muslim imams condemn un-Islamic extremism and violence, it is incumbent on reasonable Americans to condemn the hateful extremism of our own fellow citizens. Nothing good can come from this mindless anti-Muslim rhetoric. Those who listen to it regularly and digest it will become violent.

I choose to stand on the side of pluralism and tolerance rather than bandy about prejudice and hate.
79  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: August 31, 2012, 06:12:44 PM
With all due respect, I don't think Pam Geller is honestly citable; she is usually fallible and inflammatory; she is a racist; that said, if alternative sources are cited as well from learned souces, that would strengthen the arguments.  But quoting her cite alone leaves one open to ridicule. 

I never said that Objectivist1 "only" cites Pam Geller or her website, however he does so too way too frequently, probably 90%+ on this site and the Islam in America site, resulting in no credibility.  Is the only source he reads Pam Geller and her website?  Surely there are more learned individuals who could be quoted to make his point?  Or if not, maybe he has no point?   shocked

I do agree YOU cite numerous sources, many are valid, not all with whom I agree, but that is why we have a forum; to discuss diverse opinions.  I have found the diverse arguments on circumcision rather interesting for example. 
80  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: August 31, 2012, 01:41:39 PM
Objectivist1; I think nearly everyone, even on this site, think Pam Geller is a bit Wacko.  Only you......

However, giving the benefit of the doubt, I did read the piece.  No where could I find reference to
a public advertisement that was "anti-Semitic".  So I asked you for examples; evidence, facts.....

I forgot that's a problem for you; you prefer sleaze and rumors.

Actually Ojbectivist1 YOU are the troll; you have a one track mind; all Muslims are bad and evil.  Your most frequent (only) sited source;
Pam Geller.  Truly you should post of the humor page.  Along with the Martians are coming.

You don't have to respond to my arguments; actually you never have before; you just post more Pam Geller.   shocked

But I hope you don't mind if I post in response to your sleaze and sensationalism.  It's kinda fun and easy to refute. Like arguing with that
5 year old neighbor who keeps yelling, "The Martians are coming; they are behind every tree, run for your life!". 
It's pointless, but kinda fun and entertaining.  evil
81  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: August 31, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
Ahhh it's Pam Geller again....  evil

You said, "The double-standard here is really staggering - and indicative IMHO of the growing acceptance of anti-Semitism in the U.S. and around the world."

The article talks about public ads.
Yet, I couldn't find any "anti-Semitism" public ads referenced.  Objectivist1 could you provide a few "anti-Semitism" public ad's in America examples?

By the way, please make sure you distinguish between "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Israel" policies.  The two are not blindly congruous as many American Jewish groups will confirm.
Supporting the plight of the Palestinians, or hoping for peace in the Middle East, or opposing the bombing of Iran, the annexation of Jerusalem, etc. are NOT "anti-Semitic".

My Grandfather is Norwegian.  Norway is a great place; I like Norwegians, however at all times what is good for America comes before my warm thoughts for Norway.  And if I/you support
what's good for what we believe is best for America, and Norway suffers in our opinion, that doesn't mean we hate Norwegian's, it merely means you disagree with Norway's State policy.
The same applies to Israel; I and others can criticize Israel if we believe their policies do not coincide with what we think is best for America.  That does not mean I or millions of others,
including many Jews in America are anti-Semitic.

And Objectivist1, if you could find someone, anyone, other than from Pam Geller's page a few people might start listening to you.   sad
82  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / bin Laden book on: August 31, 2012, 10:53:17 AM
Now that’s a letter you don’t want to get. The Pentagon’s top lawyer has written to the author of the upcoming book about the top-secret raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden to threaten legal action Thursday. The book, which wasn’t vetted by government agencies, is “in material breach and violation of the nondisclosure agreements you signed,” said the letter obtained by Reuters. The author is a former Navy SEAL known by the pseudonym Mark Owen, who issued a statement saying he has not disclosed confidential material that would compromise national security. Legal action may be the least of the author’s worries—his real name and photo were posted on an official al Qaeda Web site last week after being revealed by Fox News.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/entertainment-us-usa-security-binladen-b-idUSBRE87U00F20120831
83  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Republican Platform on: August 31, 2012, 10:42:00 AM
By Michael Kinsley
August 31, 2012

It's puzzling that people are shocked that, on abortion, the Republican platform contains no exceptions for rape or incest or to protect the health of a woman.

"The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time." That sweet reason is from the 1976 Republican platform, three years after Roe vs. Wade, which ruled that a woman's right to abortion is protected by the Constitution. The platform went on in the same moral-relativist vein. "There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision," and those who want that decision "changed by a constitutional amendment." Just to leave no one out, it went on to note that "others have yet to take a position" while others still fall somewhere in between.

It called for "public dialogue on abortion," and then, in a surprising and unexplained reversal, endorsed a "constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."

In 1980, the platform's abortion plank conceded "the complex nature of its various issues" and "differing views on this question among Americans in general." Nevertheless, "we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."

By 1984: "The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

In addition, the 1984 platform called for "the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Ever since then, with various rhetorical flourishes, the platform has contained the same four elements: 1) the unborn child has a "fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed"; 2) endorsement of a "human life" constitutional amendment; 3) a call for judges who "respect human life"; and 4) new laws to "make clear" that the fetus is a "person" under the 14th Amendment. Paul Ryan has co-sponsored such legislation, declaring that the fetus is a "person."

So it's a bit puzzling that people are so shocked and dismayed that this year's GOP platform contains no exceptions for rape or incest or to protect the health — or even the life — of a woman. The anti-abortion plank of the Republican platform has never contained an explicit exception for any of these situations.

The Human Life Amendment could mean anything because it doesn't exist yet. It could contain exceptions for rape or to save a woman's life or some other reason. But the 14th Amendment is another matter. It is the constitutional provision that guarantees "equal protection of the laws." It was enacted after the Civil War for the benefit of the freed black slaves.

Courts have been struggling with it ever since. Almost everything the government (or anybody else, for that matter) does is a discrimination of some kind. What other groups does the Constitution protect? Obviously the laws cannot treat criminals equally with the innocent and must be able to discriminate between the old who collect Social Security and the young who pay into it. And so on.

If the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children, this essentially means that the government cannot discriminate between the born and the unborn — that is, between you and a fetus. It certainly cannot allow a fetus to be killed just because it is the result of rape.

In fact, if a fetus is a "person" entitled to "equal protection of the laws," the state would have to prosecute a woman for obtaining an abortion exactly as it would prosecute a mother who murdered her young children. That's equal protection of the laws. States that allow capital punishment, in which a woman could be executed for procuring and paying money to hire a killer to murder her children, would have to follow the same policy regarding a woman who procured and paid for an abortion.

James Bopp, a Republican activist lawyer who wrote the 2012 platform's anti-abortion language, claims that it doesn't preclude exceptions for rape, etc. He says there are "numerous exceptions" to the right to life, even for people who have been born. For example, if a woman's life is in danger, "it's analytically close to self-defense" and self-defense can be justifiable homicide. Or you can be excused for shooting a fleeing felon, he notes.

Of course the fetus, if it is to be considered a person, is an innocent person, and there is no "justifiable" reason to kill an innocent person.

Does the Republican Party actually believe that women who have abortions should be treated like criminals, or at best as committing "justifiable homicide"? Of course not. But that, whether they like it or not, is the necessary implication of the obscure language in the party's platform.

Michael Kinsley, a former editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times, is a Bloomberg View columnist.
84  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: August 31, 2012, 09:57:05 AM
As for the speech, Eastwood was fantastic.  He ran wild with the numbers a little, but who cares; he's great. Rubio was up to the challenge; his speech was good too.  That left Romney with some tough acts to follow.

As a side note, I picked up on Crafty's comment, "On the other hand IMHO Romney's speech sounded like he had been taking too much advice or , , , I dunno."

I know Crafty was applying that to this speech, but I would like to note that in general I think Romney "takes too much advice". Frankly, he wasn't a bad guy on a lot of issues, however in the last
few months he has turned sharp right; full speed ahead.  I don't really think that's him, but if he doesn't have enough backbone to say "No, this is what I believe" then I guess it's his own fault.
85  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 30, 2012, 10:18:42 AM
I get that both theories can't be true, but why is it irresponsible to mention alternative explanations and why is it scurrilous to wonder how the hell a woman with such relationships in her background got the security clearance to sit at the elbow of the Sec. of State? 

Concerning confidence in the government's vetting processes, does the name Maj. Nisan of Fort Hood fame ring a bell?

Crafty, I am NOT saying the government's vetting process is full proof.  Maj. Nisan does ring a bell.  HOWEVER, given Ms. Abedin's position, her visibility compared to Maj. Nisan, I think there IS a huge difference.
Nor has Ms. Abedin hid her move to a new apartment; it's all over the newspapers.  Surely you are not implying that the vetting process didn't include a inquiry as to how she is paying for this place?

Yes, both theories cannot be true, but my point is that there is absolutely NO evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has given money to pay for Ms. Abedin's new apartment.  That is just smear. 
Whether Mr. Rosen is helping out I don't know to what extent.  But given the situation and facts, Mr. Rosen does own the apartment and he is a friend of the Clinton's, therefore he is likely to be one one helping Ms. Abedin.  Odd, Ms. Abedin is accused by Ojectivist1 for taking money from the Muslim Brotherhood (being disloyal) to pay for her new apartment, isn't it ironic that rather, it is probable that she is the beneficiary of Mr. Rosen, the Chairman of the American Jewish Congress!   smiley  Maybe next Objectivist1 will attack Ms. Abedin and say she is a secret Israeli spy?   grin
86  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: JDN's obsession with dismissing the idea of stealth jihad... on: August 30, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
I posted here (on August 16, 2012 - Reply #531 in this thread) an article which raised questions regarding how Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin can afford to pay the rent for their new $3.3 million Manhattan residence.  It posited that the source of the funds might be the Muslim Brotherhood.  The article goes on to list the reasons for this concern, which are several, and include Abedin's documented connections to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations.  JDN chooses nevertheless to ignore the remainder of the article and all of these points, attempting an intellectual sleight-of-hand by pretending they don't exist, and then asserting:

Objectivist1; you don't know when to pack your bag and fold them. 

Never once Objectivist1 did your article tie Abedin identify ANY improper financial payment from the Muslim Brotherhood to either Abedin or Rosen nor did your post identify ANY wrongdoing by Abedin.  The article and the implication was merely to smear Abedin, maligning a fine public servant because of her heritage and religion.  Your truth is no closer than my neighborhood ignorant child yelling, "The Martians are coming.".

"reality, as I posted, is a Jewish man, a friend of the Clinton's, owns the house and is giving it to them either free or at a reduced rate.  Further, everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government.  If I had to guess the disclosure form is over 50 pages long.  Of course she notified her superiors of her pending move; given the FACTS, there was no problem." - JDN

Hmmmm - let's examine this assertion.  JDN's "evidence" to support this claim as to how Weiner and Abedin can afford to live in the aforementioned apartment is contained in an article he linked to from the New York Press (an online publication).  It is reproduced verbatim below:

Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin moved into a $3.3 million Manhattan apartment on Park Avenue owned by a wealthy Democratic donor Jack Rosen, according to NY Post reports.

After leaving the congressional seat that earned Weiner $174,000 a year due to his notorious sexting scandal, the couple made the drastic upgrade from their 875-square foot two-bedroom condo in Forest Hills worth $430,000 to their new 2,210 square-foot, four-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom home.

Weiner is jobless and Abedin makes about $155,000 a year as a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so many are surprised that the couple can afford the rent on the place located at 254 Park Avenue South at East 20th Street. Real-estate experts say that the couple pays at least $12,000 to $14,000 per month while a Democratic fund-raising source speculates to the NY Post that the couple may be living there gratis, as Rosen is a close friend of the Clintons. Rosen has given money into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s election campaigns for years, even flying the Clintons in his private plane. He has also contributed thousands of dollars to Weiner’s financial reserves.

So NOW Objectivist1 are you saying that Mr. Jack Rosen, a close wealthy friend of Clinton (Abedin's boss and friend) and who is also a close friend of Israel (he's Chairman of The American Jewish Congress) is secretly taking payment from the Muslim Brotherhood?  Or was the Muslim Brotherhood just a lie; a smear of Ms. Abedin?  Or are you saying Mr. Rosen did this so he can influence the Clinton's directly?  What are you saying Objectivist1?  I can hear my neighborhood ignorant boy yelling Martians.   shocked

Abedin’s job forces her to face restrictions on receiving gifts and must disclose any financial dealings so her decision-making is not swayed by private interests. But an official who knows the couple denies the notion that Rosen would try to affect Abedin who could then influence Clinton.
(emphasis mine)

So - JDN asserts that I am ignoring reality by posting an article which explicitly states that A DEMOCRATIC FUND-RAISING SOURCE IS MERELY SPECULATING THAT THE COUPLE IS LIVING THERE RENT-FREE.  To repeat - this doesn't even address the issue of Abedin's documented connections to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and the obvious concern that this ought to raise.

JDN further fatuously states: "everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government."  I dare say that few of the posters or readers of this forum share JDN's evident confidence that this administration's vetting process is sound.  Exhibit A to the contrary might be Van Jones.  I could cite several others, but it's rather late, and frankly I don't much relish wasting time rebutting frivolous arguments which seem to always boil down to ad hominem attacks, compurgation, refusal to acknowledge relevant evidence, and obfuscation.

As for the vetting process, are you really suggesting that the State Department doesn't know about this apartment?  This apartment that has been all over the press? Or that they don't know the income
of Ms. Abedin and her husband?  And do you doubt that they have provided full disclosure?  Oh that's right, Objectivist1 still believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is providing the money for
Abedin to live in this house.  Truly, I hope you are not that ignorant Objectivist1. Or are you?   evil   

McCarthy was a dark time in our history.  Like you Objectivist1 without FACTS, only rumors and smear, he maligned innocent people. That's wrong.
 



87  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 29, 2012, 10:15:50 AM
Yes, this is a difficult subject, yet worthy of attention.  But the post is called "Islam in America"; not "Bash all Muslims" through absurd lies and accusations.  Why don't we try to post (I did)
a few good things about Islam in America?  Most of the millions if Muslims in America are law abiding good citizens.  Rather than Muslims in America, it's our far right zealots who seem to be creating the murders and terror lately.  Maybe we should start a new thread?

A lot can and has been learned on this forum: I have.  However, recently Ojectivist1 has not been posting credible sources.  I think nearly everyone (Objectivist1 excepted) think Geller is a true Wacko.
So what happens is similar to if your neighborhood five year old said a Martian was hiding behind every tree, you really wouldn't pay much attention or give it any credibility.  If the child
kept it up, you would tell him to stop his absurd comments.  Yet, if JPL here in Pasadena said the same thing, I would start to pay attention.  Moreover, I would check further into it.  It's
a matter of credibility.  The same applies to economics.  While I respect Doug's opinion, I respect him even more (even though I might not always agree) because he backs up his opinion
with very credible and respected sources.  That is important.

Objectivist1 hasn't posted any arguments from a source that deserves attention more than that five year old child crying "The Martians are coming".  In contrast, if you do read my respected references,
they debunk the accusations.  For example Objectivist1 implied that the Muslim Brotherhood was paying for Abedin's new million dollar apartment.  But that's like the Martians are coming; reality,
as I posted, is a Jewish man, a friend of the Clinton's, owns the house and is giving it to them either free or at a reduced rate.  Further, everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by
government.  If I had to guess the disclosure form is over 50 pages long.  Of course she notified her superiors of her pending move; given the FACTS, there was no problem.

That's the issue.  Objectivist1 has no FACTS.  His posts are just rumor, baseless accusations, and slime, etc.  And most of his sources are vile and no bodies; individuals with no credibility.  In contrast, I've tried to quote senior Republican individuals and sources.  I suppose I could quote Democrats too, but that would be too easy to refute Objectivist1.   smiley  No one, at least no one with any credibility believes that
the accusations posted by Objectivist1 have any merit. 

So just like the little child yelling, "The Martians are coming" I either ignore him or try to point him to reliable sources.  But how can you argue with an ignorant little child if they truly are seeing Martians
behind every tree?   grin

88  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 28, 2012, 02:02:30 PM
Actually after I quoted the ADL and Little Green Footballs some time ago Crafty implied that he respected Little Green Footballs.  Most people do. 

But if you prefer, how about Ed Rollins?  I presume his credentials are gold plated conservative?

"The harshest rebuke came not from any of Rep. Bachmann’s colleagues on the hill, but from her former campaign manager, Ed Rollins, who guided her to victory in the Iowa caucuses. Rollins called her charges “extreme and dishonest,” and expressed personal shock at Bachmann’s distortions.

Rollins went so further to say: “Having worked for Congressman Bachman’s campaign for President, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level.”

Or how about Marco Rubio? Or do you question his conservative credentials too?   shocked

He too publically spoke out against the accusations.  “Everyone I talk to who has dealt with her, says she is a professional and hardworking and patriotic American who loves her country and in the service of her country is serving it.”

And the list of quality people goes on and on and on....

The one thing they all seem to agree upon is that Geller et al are garbage.   shocked

I'm curious; don't YOU objectivist1 have ANY quality sources?  Or are they all found out back?   evil


89  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 27, 2012, 05:04:06 PM
Yes, please form your own opinion.   grin

As Crafty even said, "While on occasion I find Geller to get , , , a bit imprecise"

In this case, that's code or a euphemism for "wacko". 

I guess it says a lot that Objectivist1 is not able to find any respected individuals from respected sources other that Geller who has been discarded
by conservatives as being a "racist".

Conservative Web site Little Green Footballs pretty well sums up Pam Geller; "Deranged" "right wing ranter" "rabidly Islamaphobic hate harpie".  In particular, I think "ugly racism-drenched rants" pretty well sums up Pam Geller et al words.  It's all garbage.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-search.php?searchkey=lgf&searchString=pam+geller

Odd Objectivist1 that you can't seem to find any credible sources for your tirades.  Oh,that's right, you can't huh?  So maybe it's all garbage.  evil

Yes, form your own opinion.  shocked
90  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 27, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Objectivits1 These are the Muslims in America.  Overall, peace loving good people. 

"A day of typical camp activities awaits: scavenger hunts, a "pirates and princesses" dress-up play and water-balloon tosses. But there is a difference here: Those activities are sandwiched between Koran recital, the Dzhur afternoon prayer and story time that includes tales about Mecca and Muhammad."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-muslim-summer-camp-20120826,0,5712040.story
91  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 27, 2012, 02:12:54 PM
The threat isn't Islam, "Statistics show that nearly two decades after the Oklahoma City bombing, right-wing extremism — not Muslim-led terrorism — is a growing threat."

"The Islamophobia that led Breivik to his ruinous binge, for example, came from his digestion of the writings of several anti-Muslim activists, including bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who head the group Stop the Islamization of America. Breivik mentioned them in his 1,500-page manifesto, posted online. The pair has agitated some of the country's nastiest displays of prejudice. Their bus advertisements equating the Palestinian cause with jihad created a stir in New York and San Francisco, and they fanned the flames of the uproar over the Park51 Islamic Community Center in 2010.

Damningly, they see their mission as Breivik saw his: They call themselves "freedom fighters" on a valorous journey to save the world from Muslims. But when it was publicized that the Norway killer mentioned Spencer and Geller in his writings, they cried foul. "Clearly this individual is insane," Spencer wrote on his blog. After Breivik's initial psychological evaluation Geller expressed relief, writing, that Breivik was "declared certifiably insane, which was evident by his actions and his ten-years-in-the-making manifesto."

The magnitude of Breivik's butchery was apparently sufficient evidence of his psychosis. No normal person, in Geller and Spencer's view, would ever do such a thing. But only if that person is not a Muslim. When Muslims engage in violence, they are represented by Islamophobes as ordinary believers acting in a way that aligns with tenets of their faith, not fringe lunatics whose delusional religious interpretations lead them to a monstrous end. Though Spencer and Geller denounced Breivik's violence, they never rejected his anti-Muslim ideas. And that is a problem."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-lean-breivik-hate-groups-u.s.-20120826,0,7942204.story
92  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 27, 2012, 02:07:52 PM
Objectivist1; as your article points out;
"Gaffney … was unanimously condemned by the one of the most powerful conservative organizations in America"
Note, I didn't say "liberal". 

ANOTHER conservative group, so it seems one well known and RESPECTED Republican after another seems to be defending Abedin.  I suppose i could
list the Democrats who support Abedin as well, but I don't want to overwhelm you.   evil
93  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 22, 2012, 11:24:02 PM
Unless I missed it JDN you did not address the McCarthy charges.  His creds seem pretty good to me.  As for being Obj being laughed off the page as the host  of this page I would point out I'm not laughing.


Perhaps you need to develope a sense of humor.  grin

Fact: Objectivist1 references are incompetents and wakos.  Geller and Spencer?   huh  A former terrorist?  shocked  His friend Gaffney?  This is a joke.   As for the the McCarthy charges, as I said McCain, Rubio, et al (senior Republicans) think he's full of camel dung. As for the others objectivists1 quotes, they truly are Camel dung. Truly, the odds of Objectivist1 finding a credible source saying he had a visit from Mars is more credible and believable. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here and call it a joke, let's laugh at the humor.  Have you read the dung the Objectivest1 has posted on this subject?  No one can be that stupid to believe this stuff. Republican leaders don't believe this dung. No one who is credible believes this stuff. So yeah I think you should laugh.
94  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 22, 2012, 06:00:37 PM
Objectivist1; you don't get it. 

They are "allegations".  No facts....

Your Sources?  Wacko's and a "former" terrorist.

In contrast, I refer to individuals who have publicly defended Huma Abedin – respected Republican politicians like John McCain, John Boehner, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Mike Simpson who all have strongly and unequivocally defended Ms. Abedin.

I could quote numerous Democrats too but I don't want to be accused of being political or biased.   evil

Who are you going to believe Objectivist1?  Your rogue band of rejects or McCain, Rubio, et al....?

We can have a discussion on the little Martian that visited you last night too, I'm suppose you could find a few lunatics to support your position,
but that doesn't make it factual or believable. 

If you ask me, I do suggest you move on before you are laughed off the page.

Or move it to the humor page at least so we can all have a good laugh.
95  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 22, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood activist
Gee, with a resume like that, why wouldn't I blindly believe him?   shocked

Is there any RESPECTED conservative, much less a liberal who is critical of Abedin?  EVERYONE in leadership positions seems to think
she is a fine person.  It's a witch hunt with no substance.  Time to move on.

As for the other sources...., oh yeah, Objectivist1, you said you know and respect Gaffney,

So what is Bachmann’s source? Every one of her letters prominently cites Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan defense official who has become one of the country’s most prominent anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. Gaffney heads the Center for Security Policy and has for years been preaching to anyone who will listen that the Muslim Brotherhood is secretly infiltrating every aspect of American life in a grand scheme to impose Shariah law when we least expect it. For Gaffney, everyone is an agent of the Brotherhood, including CPAC, the big annual gathering of conservatives in Washington, D.C., and Grover Norquist, the prominent anti-tax activist who is married to a Muslim woman.

Gaffney’s persistent attacks against fellow conservatives got him booted from the American Conservative Union, the organization that puts on CPAC and includes notable hawks like former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. As Ellison explained in his letter, “Mr. Gaffney’s views have been widely discredited, including by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and conservative organizations … After the ACU board conducted a full investigation of Mr. Gaffney’s accusations against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, the board found Mr. Gaffney’s accusations ‘reprehensible,’ ‘baseless’ and ‘false and unfounded.’ The ACU even barred Mr. Gaffney’s participation from CPAC in 2011.”
96  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Intel Matters on: August 21, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
"Of course, all of this would have been avoided if President Obama had decided to release the information officially, as is his purview as Commander-in-Chief."


I'm not defending the leaks; I suppose it depends upon who is doing it and on what authority.

But Obama IS Commander in Chief.  At his discretion, for reasons known only to him and his immediate staff (he is under no obligation to offer an explanation) isn't he entitled to release information (leak it) if he deems it appropriate officially or unofficially?

As for the special ops video, saying that the soldiers on the ground killed bin Laden, well that's like saying the Tibbets dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, not Truman.  Technically true, but ......
97  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: August 17, 2012, 04:26:21 PM
Doug, my poke at MN was done tongue in cheek.  I've only heard good things about MN and the Twin Cities.  My father when he lived there loved it,
as did my former girlfriend (her father was president of Target).  I too remember the state fondly, although it's been a long time since I have been there.

As for CA, as Mr. Hanson siad, the coast is NOT distressed.  Rather, Santa Barbara is like visiting MN in the fall; it defies criticism.  It is truly a lovely area.  While UCSB is an excellent school (a very good friend of mine's daughter goes there) I thought your daughter had decided on a local MN college?  As for me providing transportation for your daughter from LAX to SB on Monday, at least one way, it might be possible, depending upon the time.  I'll need to rearrange a few things. Another suggestion might be the train.  It's a nice trip.  At minimum, I would be happy to pick her up and take her back (both ways) to the airport from the Train Station which is downtown LA (30-40 minutes away).  Or maybe I could drive her up and she could take the train back to LA when she is done visiting? 

The time together would give me an opportunity to fill her head with liberal propaganda.   smiley

If you are serious, sent me personal email.
98  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: August 16, 2012, 04:14:11 PM
Doug, many on this forum post that Social Welfare Programs should be cut and cut again; now you are indignant that I suggest a few welfare recipients move to another state if they are not happy?

My post is hard numbers versus broad generalizations clearly points out that it is NOT the rich leaving in droves; rather it's the poor; the ones who ar a drain on the CA system.  The rich love it here; they are happy to pay another 3% for the pleasure of living here.  It's not coincidence that many most of the brilliant new startups are in CA.  Yes, many live near the coast; why not?  I bet up state New Yorker's average income is a lot less as is their property worth less than Manhattan residents.

There are over 750,000 millionaires in CA.  We are number one in having the number of millionaires among all states; or perhaps New York.  And they are not leaving; rather Hanson is right; they love it here along the high tech cosmopolitan coasts.  More come to start a high tech business everyday.  Many are successful and they pay a lot of taxes.  Immigration gets put down here, but frankly there are a lot of Asian millionaires coming with cash to LA and CA in general as well.  As Hanson also points out, there is no real real estate disaster in the affluent areas of the state.  In a lot of areas, a million dollars won't buy you a 2000 sq. ft. home.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_113718.html

So yeah, Plan B is to raise taxes on millionaires, but make CA an even more exciting, clean, and desirable place to live.  Then even more millionaires will come.  And if a few lower income, uneducated groups want to move; well that's ok too.  Maybe to MN?
99  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: August 16, 2012, 12:10:39 PM
Doug, actually it's mostly the poor and lower middle class who move out; the rich stay; they love California.

If the poor want to leave; well, good riddance. 

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LeavingCAJTF.pdf

100  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 16, 2012, 12:06:49 PM
In a world with the attention span of a television commercial, your sustained focus and attention to detail on this is appreciated Obj.

I too like your new approach with references more qualified (although I disagree with them) than gelled/spencer.

I particularly liked your post about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Imam Mohammed Qatanani.  Wow, he was arrested
for terrorism?  That's really serious.  Maybe Christie should be investigated?

As for Abedin, it's all smoke and no substance.  She was a member of the Muslim Student Association?  Wow, maybe it's because
she is Muslim?  I know a lot of Mexicans who are members of the Mexican Student Association too.  Doesn't mean they
are bad.

As for their new apartment, ALL financial dealings of Abedin are reviewed.  This one is no secret.  The apartment is owned by
Mr. Rosen, a wealthy, Jewish friend of Clinton.  It seems they are living there rent free.  Maybe her loyalty is being bought
by the Jewish lobby.  But I doubt it; I think Abedin is just a hard working, very bright, talented individual who is doing a job
and serving America.

http://nypress.com/weiner-and-wife-move-into-plush-3-3-million-pad/
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!