Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 30, 2015, 02:04:12 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
90541 Posts in 2292 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 on: November 29, 2015, 10:19:35 PM 
Started by buzwardo - Last post by DougMacG

BBG,  I wonder what percentagbe of scientists know the temperature pattern of the last 10,000 years.
Here is one arctic look at just the last 10k:

Source: NOAA

Another look, last 12k, here is the Antarctic:


 on: November 29, 2015, 10:09:06 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG

To hear Hillary Clinton tell it, she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Mount Everest — even though she was already 6 years old when he made his famous ascent.

On a visit to war-torn Bosnia in 1996, she claimed she and her entourage landed under sniper fire and had to run “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base” — although videos of her arrival show her waltzing serenely across the tarmac, waving to the crowd.

She blamed the 2012 attack on American diplomatic and intelligence-gathering installations in Benghazi on “a disgusting video” when she knew almost from the first moment that it was a jihadist assault that took the lives of four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya.

No wonder the late William Safire, writing in The New York Times in 1996, at the height of the Whitewater investigation, called her a “congenital liar.” Said Safire: “She is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

Baron Munchausen has nothing on Hillary Rodham Clinton.  (

Now comes the recycling this month of another Clinton tall tale: that shortly before her 1975 marriage to Bill Clinton, she decided in a fit of patriotic fervor and dedication to “public service” to stroll into a recruiter’s office in Arkansas and join the Marine Corps.

It’s an anecdote she trots out to charm military audiences, whether it’s a group on Capitol Hill in 1994, or, most recently, to veterans in Derry, NH.

“He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you,’ ” Clinton recalled at the New Hampshire event on Nov. 10. “I said, ‘Well, I’m 26. I will be 27.’ And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.’ And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, ‘Maybe the dogs will take you,’ meaning the Army,” she added.

Yeah, right. Never mind that the term is “dogface,” used to refer to the Army infantry. And never mind as well that, given the tenor of the times, the Marines or any other service would have taken young Ms. Rodham in a heartbeat, especially given their need for lawyers.

Like so many carefully parsed Clintonian statements, Hillary’s Leatherneck fantasy is either unverifiable or dependent upon how it’s phrased. When confronted with the obvious discrepancy in her “Edmund Hillary” story, she characteristically shifted the blame to her mother, Dorothy, saying the fable was something her mother told her.

But let’s assume for a moment that, unlike Clinton’s other whoppers, this story is actually, in some sense, true.

What are the odds that, in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam, the anti-war Wellesley graduate, who’d written her college senior thesis on “community organizer” Saul Alinsky, had a snazzy Yale Law degree, and who was already envisioning a career in state and national politics alongside Bill (then a candidate for Arkansas attorney general), would do such a thing — and actually mean it?

I’m betting zero.

A far more likely explanation is that Hillary entered the Marine recruiting office — if she did — not out of any desire to “serve her country,” but as an agent provocateur, determined to show that the Marines were a bunch of bigoted sexist, ageist pigs in order to fuel her sense of outrage.

This explanation is given credence by one of Hillary’s Fayetteville, Ark., friends at the time, Ann Henry, who said that Hillary was interested in probing the way the military treated women candidates. “I can remember discussing it, but I cannot give you the details of when and what was said,” Henry told a reporter. “Hillary would go and do things just to test it out, and I can totally see her doing that just to see what the reaction was.”

Given the mood of the time, and the vituperative nastiness of the left regarding all things military, it would have been just like the self-aggrandizing Hillary Rodham to try and manufacture a controversy where there was none, to make herself look good.

And now she allegedly recasts the story as a legitimate desire to join the military, to show her dedication to public service. Is the story true? And if it is true, were her motives as described?

What difference does it make!

The late Christopher Hitchens titled his memoir of the Whitewater/Monica Lewinsky circus “No One Left to Lie To,” but even someone as perceptive as Hitch couldn’t foresee that the Clintons, like cockroaches and the Kardashians, would always be with us, forever playing the same shell game on the American people and laughing as we fall for it.

That would be the same Clintons (combined current net worth: $101 million) who were “dead broke” when they left the White House.

 on: November 29, 2015, 09:50:20 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
1. and 2.  It's interesting that we only disagree on maybe one issue and differ on strategy on about one or two more.  That isn't very far apart.

3.  The House of representatives Presidential outcome is interesting.  I suppose the right thing for a representative to do is to cast his or her vote to match the winner is that district.  That favors Cruz, Rubio or Christy only if he has carried the district.  The third place candidate would have to be winning some electoral votes to trigger that provision.

As to the differences with Obama and Romney, I would refer you to 35 long internet pages in the Glibness thread as all examples of bad governance you would categorically have not had with Romney.  And much more over on the Rule of Law thread.  Let's take one issue alone that makes the entire point, IRS targeting.  That would not have happened to anyone under Ronmey and if it had the perpetrators would have gone to prison.For those who believe in a constitution, are conservative, or just patriotic Americans from any political viewpoint and didn't show up to try to defeat this known jerk, ... shame.  Add Fast and Furious to that and perhaps a thousand other abominations, like that crossword puzzles will forever use 'ISIS' as a 4 letter word for 'Obama Legacy'.  Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al Qaida in Libya, too.  And what if, God forbid, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas could not serve out the conclusion of Obama's second term.

We aren't just arranging deck chairs here.

 on: November 29, 2015, 09:27:11 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Pat commented it does not matter anymore, the Feds have new ways of getting the data.

No.  They have other ways of getting other data.  This gives them a cross check when other intelligence is acquired, such as gaining access to a terror connection overseas and seeing what contacts it has madein the US.  Why would we not want to do that.  As asked on the other thread, what privacy have I gotten back at midnight tonight when this expires?  Nothing of note.

See the Chair of the Senate Intelligence 'testimony'.  (Fox News Sunday today)  As far as I know, his only dog in the fight is to gain intelligence and prevent attacks.  And he has clearance that we don't have.  So does Rubio who is a member of that same committee.

By the way, having intelligence updates for the six years coming into the Presidency is better preparation for the Presidency than not having it.  Giving choice committee assignments to your best people isn't always a bad thing.

 on: November 29, 2015, 08:09:03 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Bringing the discussion on Meta Data from the Sen. Ted Cruz thread over to here:

Pat commented it does not matter anymore, the Feds have new ways of getting the data.

My response:  So why then the fuss over this by the NSA et al?  What are they up to?

 on: November 29, 2015, 08:06:34 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: November 29, 2015, 07:27:56 PM 
Started by Anonymous - Last post by blindside

This is a very in depth read on the various Moro war campaigns and analysis of successful and unsuccessful approaches, well worth your time.


 on: November 29, 2015, 06:27:51 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ppulatie
From what I understand, the NSA is using new methods of collecting the data so they no longer needed the old program.

 on: November 29, 2015, 06:25:39 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ppulatie

You want my view on Romney and the 8 million staying at home and Obama winning.  Here you go.

1. I was in favor of Romney over the other candidates simply because I was one who thought he might be electable. I did not like his position on many things, including that he created MassCare, and was more of a moderate in the vein of previous republican candidates and presidents. It was a hold the nose scenario, but under the circumstances, what else was there.

2. As the actual campaign began after the nomination, I quickly began to see Romney's failings. He was a "nice" guy, afraid to attack, etc. In the last two debates, he let Obama and the moderators run roughshod over him. Ryan was no better, though I actually had high hopes for him.

3. The biggest flaw of Romney, though people will not talk about it, was that he was a Mormon. This is what led for so many people to fail to go to the polls. Add to that his other positions, and it was a lost cause.

Would it have mattered if Romney had won the election? I doubt that much would have changed. ObamaCare might have had a few changes made to it, but the Chamber of Commerce and other groups would have pulled out all stops to prevent full repeal.

Immigration?  There would not have been the huge increase in immigration, but the problem would still exist and no one would have been willing to bring it up as an issue.

The economy? Nothing would change there either. No one had the cajones to do what was needed to improve the economy nor to rein in government spending and the programs.

The result of a Romney presidency is that we would have continued on our current path, but simply at a lower speed.

 on: November 29, 2015, 05:43:48 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

Quite the zinger there! 

Peggy Noonan's biography "When Character was King" captures what these two authors are saying about Reagan quite well.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!