Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 25, 2017, 01:08:36 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101164 Posts in 2371 Topics by 1087 Members
Latest Member: R.K
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: March 24, 2017, 11:07:04 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
" (Famous people caught reading the forum.)"

We have our moments grin

 2 
 on: March 24, 2017, 11:06:21 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Did Obama Abuse Raw Intelligence?

I couldn’t have seen those transcripts when I led the House intel committee.
By Peter Hoekstra chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 2004-07.
March 23, 2017 6:56 p.m. ET
WSJ

It was remarkable when Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed Wednesday that Trump campaign officials were caught up in the inadvertent collection of intelligence. Read between the lines with a clear understanding of the intelligence community, and it’s positively astonishing.

Starting with the premise of Mr. Nunes’s announcement, there’s evidence to show that communications involving people connected with the Trump transition were collected by America’s intelligence apparatus. We don’t know the particulars, but it could include conversations between Trump transition staff and foreign officials whose conversations were subject to intelligence monitoring.

Things begin to get a little frightening when we learn that this inadvertent collection of Trump staff conversations was followed up with transcriptions of those conversations and the disclosure (or unmasking) of the persons involved in the conversation. These transcripts would be considered raw intelligence reports.

When I was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I was routinely involved in briefings as a member of the “Gang of Eight”—both parties’ leaders in the House and Senate and on the intelligence committees. I cannot recall how many times I asked to see raw intelligence reporting and was refused because that stuff is just not made available to policy makers.

But according to Mr. Nunes, such information made its way to the Obama White House before Inauguration Day. Few if any people working in the White House would ever need to see raw intelligence. Like intelligence committee members, they are typically consumers of intelligence products, not raw intelligence.

The raw transcripts of masked persons—or unmasked persons, or U.S. persons who can be easily identified—making their way to the White House is very likely unprecedented. One can only imagine who, at that point, might be reading these reports. Valerie Jarrett? Susan Rice? Ben Rhodes? The president himself? We don’t know, and the people who do aren’t talking at the moment.

Then we have the testimony earlier this week from FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers. Mr. Comey said there was no basis to support the tweet from President Trump that his “wires” had been tapped by Barack Obama. What he didn’t say—and wasn’t asked—was whether information was collected on Trump staff by other means. Mr. Trump was a little inarticulate in the context of Twitter’s 140-character limit, but it seems he got the general picture right.

Then there’s Mr. Comey’s testimony that the FBI had been investigating Trump staff for eight months. It almost certainly included surveillance; an investigation without surveillance would approach farcical.

Adm. Rogers told the House Intelligence Committee that there are strict controls in place for masking and unmasking the identities of people caught up in the inadvertent collection of information and the distribution of this kind of material. It now appears he either misled the committee or doesn’t know what’s happening inside his own agency. If Mr. Nunes is right, the rules either weren’t followed or were much less stringent than Adm. Rogers let on.

Last, and rather damningly, I believe that Mr. Comey and Adm. Rogers would have to have known that raw transcripts of captured conversations that included members of the Trump team were at the White House. It is inconceivable that people in those positions of power would not know. While this may not be criminal, it is at least a cause for them to be fired.

My greatest concern—the one that keeps me awake at night—is that the awesome powers of our intelligence community might have been corrupted for political purposes. While we’re not witnessing broad, Stasi-style surveillance of citizens, it’s clear there have been serious errors of judgment and action among our otherwise professional intelligence community. This is truly scary. We have to learn the entire truth before anyone, in or out of Congress, can again have confidence in our intelligence community.

Mr. Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 2004-07.

 3 
 on: March 24, 2017, 11:00:01 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-cia-director-mike-flynn-and-turkish-officials-discussed-removal-of-erdogan-foe-from-u-s-1490380426

 4 
 on: March 24, 2017, 09:10:01 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Drop this forever and move on is probably a negotiating move.

John Hinderer at Powerline says, in hindsight they should have done tax reform first.  (Famous people caught reading the forum.)

 5 
 on: March 24, 2017, 07:05:59 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
and frankly look foolish to have been voting to repeal for years and now they have their chance and they cannot get it together.

So I don't know what Charles who is on our side, seems to be cheerful about.

Except they he voted for Hillary was it?  Not Trump.

He is happy now? vindicated.  Sounds like DC er to me.
BTW I don't see how anyone can blame Trump for this defeat.  The bill basically pissed off everyone from the right - center - left.




 6 
 on: March 24, 2017, 06:54:07 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAjKyEGDlXA

Bono: 'Capitalism Takes More People Out of Poverty Than Aid'

U2 frontman Bono, who is also an investor, philanthropist, and Christian told students at Georgetown University that real economic growth, not government aid, is what lifts people and countries out of poverty long-term, emphasizing that "entrepreneurial capitalism" is the key to prosperity.

“Some of Africa is rising, and some of Africa is stuck," said Bono while speaking at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business to about 700 students.  "The question is whether the rising bit will pull the rest of Africa up, or whether the other Africa will weigh the continent down. Which will it be? The stakes here aren’t just about them."


"Imagine for a second this last global recession [in 2007-2009] but without the economic growth of China and India, without the hundreds of millions of newly minted middle class folks who now buy American and European goods – imagine that," said Bono.  "Think about the last 5 years."

Then, holding his forehead with his right hand, Bono, who has an estimated wealth of $600 million, said, "Rock star preaches capitalism—wow. Sometimes I hear myself and I just cannot believe it."

"But commerce is real," he said.  "That’s what you’re about here. It’s real. Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid -- of course, we know that.”

Bono made those remarks on Nov. 12, 2012
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/bono-capitalism-takes-more-people-out-poverty-aid

 7 
 on: March 24, 2017, 06:42:40 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/25078/9781464809583.pdf
"...success in reducing inequality and boosting shared prosperity in a given period does not necessarily translate into similar success on other economic, social, or political fronts, nor into sustainable reductions in inequality over time."

 8 
 on: March 24, 2017, 03:28:22 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
We hear about gender 'equality', great word but what they mean is 'sameness'.  It doesn't benefit women be the same as men, nor does it benefit the children.


 9 
 on: March 24, 2017, 01:15:45 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DDF
Thank you, to both of you.

Doug, I don't disagree at all.

I came across this gem this morning... it is only relevant because there is a government committee attached to it, capable of influencing policy.

"Lean in"? How about lean on?

Australian columnist Sarrah Le Marquand offers this winning strategy for getting more women into the workforce: Make it illegal to be a stay-at-home mom.

Or actually, since she's Australian, make it illegal to be a stay-at-home mum.

Yes, that's the headline for Le Marquand's latest column for the Sydney Daily Telegraph: "It Should be Illegal to Be a Stay-at-Home Mum."

And she's bluntly upfront about what she wants, which is unconditional surrender in the mommy wars:

Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.
And here's the reasoning:

Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.
Only when it becomes the norm for all families to have both parents in paid employment, and sharing the stress of the work-home juggle, will we finally have a serious conversation about how to achieve a more balanced modern workplace.
Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.
So long as we as a nation cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.
Take that, Sheryl Sandburg!

Le Marquand's demand to arrest and imprison any woman who dares to spend her time baking after-school cookies for Junior and Sophie instead of slaving in a cubicle could become part of U.S. policy as well. The international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, whose 35 members include the U.S., recently issued a report stating that nations could solve their labor-shortage problems by putting mothers to work full-time. (Part-time jobs, the kind of employment that many women with growing children prefer, apparently don't count in OECD-land.)

The report singled out Australia as a particularly egregious offender in the stay-at-home-mom department. News.com.au reported:

Employment rates of women with children in Australia are 9 per cent lower than those of all prime-aged women, the report declared.
Urging Australia to help this “untapped potential” into the Australian workforce, the OECD recommends the government adopt “facilitation of a better work-life balance” and focus and the provision of affordable childcare.
"Work-life balance"! Whether you like it or not.

- See more at: http://iwf.org/blog/2803166/Aussie-Columnist-Wants-to-Make-It-Illegal-to-Be-a-Stay-at-Home-Mother#sthash.ULZZIY0X.iEmELy0e.dpuf

http://iwf.org/blog/2803166/Aussie-Columnist-Wants-to-Make-It-Illegal-to-Be-a-Stay-at-Home-Mother


 10 
 on: March 24, 2017, 01:13:55 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1586

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!