Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 27, 2015, 07:38:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85812 Posts in 2269 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 on: Today at 03:24:06 PM 
Started by HUSS - Last post by objectivist1
New York Daily News: AFDI ad criticizing Hamas is “outrageous drivel” that “would offend many Muslims”


It is no doubt guided by Society of Professional Journalists policy that requires journalists never to state or imply any link between Islam and terrorism, but for Leftist journalists (i.e., almost all of them) these days, it’s a kneejerk reaction: when they see an Islamic jihadist vowing blood and murder, they immediately frame it in their report in terms of Muslims being victimized. So when there is a jihad mass murder attack or foiled plot, we get the stories about Muslim communities fearing a “backlash” against innocent Muslims. And in this execrable New York Daily News editorial, the first and only reaction to the genocidal antisemitic statement from Hamas that is depicted in our ad is to note that “the message would offend many Muslims.”

The Daily News means they will be offended at Pamela Geller, of course, not at Hamas. They should be offended at Hamas, if what we’re constantly told about the vast majority of Muslims being moderate, democratic, tolerant and pluralistic were true. They should see the ad and call upon Hamas and other Muslim groups to stop the jihad against Israel, drop the genocidal rhetoric, and teach against Islamic antisemitism in mosques and Islamic schools in the U.S. The Daily News should be calling upon them to do those things. Instead, it smears Pamela Geller as a “hatemonger” (in the photo caption) for pointing out that this genocidal antisemitic statement was made, and that nothing is being done about it.

More below.

“The First Amendment train: Despite Pamela Geller’s offensive nonsense, the MTA should continue to allow political ads on buses and subways,” New York Daily News, April 24, 2015:

After being forced by a court to run an inflammatory, anti-Muslim ad on the city’s buses and subways, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority aims to get out of the political advertising business.

Hamas is a Muslim group. It made the statement that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah” in a video that also said: “Repeat in the name of your Jihad: Death to Israel!” Our AFDI ad was meant to counter Hamas-linked CAIR’s cynical and deceptive campaign trying to fool Americans into thinking that jihad was romping through the daisies and blowing milk bubbles through a straw. The ad counters these comforting fictions with reality, making the point that for all too many Muslims, jihad is something more lethal. The implication is that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should be calling upon Hamas and other Muslim entities to drop this hateful rhetoric. Instead, the Daily News shoots the messenger, referring to the ad as “Pamela Geller’s hateful nonsense” and as an “inflammatory, anti-Muslim ad.”

With sympathy for the MTA’s tough spot, the agency is mistaken in trying to eliminate issue-oriented ads as a way to swat one annoying gadfly.

Pamela Geller makes a habit of throwing rhetorical bombs. She’s written books like “Stop the Islamization of America” and argued that President Obama is “consistently on the side of Islamic supremacist regimes.”

What, he isn’t? Where? When?

One of her latest proposed ads quotes a Palestinian TV station run by Hamas as stating that “Killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah,” alongside the image of a young man in a headscarf. “That’s his Jihad. What’s yours?”

Understanding that the message would offend many Muslims and arguing that it might even incite violence, the MTA rejected the campaign.

Why would the ad offend many Muslims? Because they condemn Hamas and its genocidal rhetoric, and back up their condemnation with real action to teach against these attitudes in Muslim communities? Where? When? Do they have a different idea of jihad and consider Hamas and its antisemitic jihad to be un-Islamic? Even if that were true, Hamas presents itself as Muslim group waging jihad in cause of Islam, and justifying its actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings. Do Americans not need to know this? Does no one need to call attention to it or endeavor to counter it? Everything the ad says is true: Hamas made this statement, and did so in the context of jihad. Muslims who oppose this view of jihad and this hateful antisemitism should be siding with Pamela Geller and criticizing Hamas, not her. And the Daily News should be more concerned about the fact that there are Muslims who actually believe this than about the Muslims who claim to be so offended by it that they want it off the buses, but don’t lift a finger to counter these attitudes within Muslim communities.

And the idea that it “might even incite violence” is also nonsense. The ad ran in San Francisco and Chicago without incident. The MTA claimed it would incite violence but could not adduce even one example of its doing so. And the violence would be from Islamic jihadists who would presumably mistake it for a pro-jihad ad. You’d have to be quite dim to do that, but if someone did, the focus should be on protecting people from violence, not on curtailing speech in light of the possibility that violence could ensue — for once we do that, we enable any thug to shut down any speech he dislikes by threatening violence over it.

…It’s well and good, and constitutional, to ban ads that could reasonably incite violence — say, with mocking images of the Prophet Mohammed.

In this, the Daily News is essentially counseling surrender to the jihad. Instead of standing up against violent intimidation, the Daily News is saying, Give in to the bullies and thugs. They will kill us if we say something they dislike, so let’s not say anything they dislike. That is the coward’s way, the path of capitulation and submission. What ever happened to, I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? Gone and forgotten. And so also, before too long, will be our freedom of speech, and with it our other freedoms.

Beyond that, viewpoints should be welcome. New Yorkers are big boys and girls. If swallowing some outrageous drivel is the cost of preserving other worthwhile advertising in one of the city’s most important gathering places, so be it. One hater shouldn’t spoil things for everyone else.

So it’s “outrageous drivel” now to call attention to Hamas’ genocidal rhetoric. Which only ensures that we will get more such rhetoric.

 on: Today at 10:28:47 AM 
Started by Bob Burgee - Last post by Bob Burgee
Greetings DBMA Association Members!

New DBMA Association Vid Lesson:

DBMA Vid Lesson - Kali Tudo: Leap Stalls and Sawtooth Footwork

All the best.


 on: April 26, 2015, 10:29:16 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M

If you are being surveiled by officers in plain clothes, is that a search?

 on: April 26, 2015, 09:21:53 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
The author of the Clinton Cash book that could very well take down Hillary Clinton says that he has researchers 4 months into a look at Jeb Bush's financial affairs. (Fox News Sunday today) Too early to comment he says but hints that they are finding similar patterns, with the main difference being that the stakes with a Governor are smaller and less global.  Bush seems like a moral, standup and straightforward guy and can probably explain quite well every action he took as Governor.  But somehow these well-connected people stumble into big money quite easily.  The timing of it is that it follows the Hillary scandal and in the context of a little Clinton-Bush fatigue.  It could turn out that his big money advantage for Bush will turn out to be a negative in the campaign. 

That said, I doubt he was responsible for the transfer of our nuclear fuel assets to one of our largest, state enemies.

Meanwhile, I see that both Cruz and Rubio or up and that Marco Rubio moved into first place (within the margin of error) in the latest two polls:

The goal at this early stage is probably just to poll high enough to stay relevant.

 on: April 26, 2015, 08:46:17 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
I think I may have found a missing piece of the puzzle in this scandal that never seems to get mentioned.  First, this is what we know for sure.

We know that as a Senator Hillary in 2005 publicly and vehemently opposed foreign takeover of critical American assets that ended in the cancellation of the Dubai Ports deal.

In a relatively abrupt about face, we know she was critically involved in the approval of the Russian - Uranium One deal, where the State Department was one of the agencies that had the full power and responsibility to stop the transfer of US Uranium assets to the Russians, if it was not in America's best interest.

We know that more than a dozen Russian individuals and organizations associated with the Uranium One deal gave millions upon millions to the Clinton Foundation.

We know that Bill Clinton's speaking fees in Russia TRIPLED during the period that the time that deal was before the State Department.

The innocent explanation for speaking fees tripling is that the speeches, in Russia, suddenly got that much better over the time, even though the aging ex-President who was aging was drifting further and further from power.   

The opposite conclusion is that the speech income, which goes to both Clintons, was actually buying an expectation of influence with the United States Secretary of State. 

Speaking fees go directly into the power couple's pocket, like a bribe or kickback, not into the Foundation to feed the poor, etc.

Here's what I don't get about the innocent, coincidental explanation of taking a half million bucks for a short speech in Russia:

The man does not speak Russian!

 on: April 25, 2015, 04:27:28 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Powerline 4/24/15
Liberal pundit Jonathan Chait concludes from the emerging “Clinton cash” scandal that, at a minimum, the Clintons have been “disorganized and greedy.” Of the greed, there can be no doubt. But whether the Clintons have been disorganized depends on what they were trying, primarily, to accomplish through their Foundation.

From Bill Clinton’s perspective, I gather, the Foundation was intended to raise huge amounts of money and to serve as a vehicle through which he would remain an important international player. Clinton plainly wanted an enormously lucrative and conspicuously consequential post-presidency. The Clinton Foundation would enable him to meet these aspirations.

And so it has. From Bill’s perspective, then, the Clinton Foundation is a raging success, brilliantly conceived and executed, and sufficiently well-organized to achieve its purposes.

This point appears to be lost on Chait. He says, with surprise, that “Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative.”

Well, yeah. Having Hillary running the State Department clearly maximized the Foundation’s ability to raise huge amounts of money and to project Bill into major deals all over the world.

As one Clintonista told Ryan Lizza, “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State; it worked out very well for him.”

But how has it worked out for Hillary Clinton? We don’t know yet. Surely, she is delighted to see her family massively enriched through the Foundation. And while a part of her may not love seeing her husband flying so high, it’s unlikely that she begrudges him a place on the world stage.

Her primary mission, though, is to become president of the United States. It remains to be seen whether the “Clinton cash” scandal will derail her quest. But she must believe that it has created more risk of derailment than is worth the incremental income Bill’s more aggressive plays has accrued. The scandal probably seem to her, as it does to Chait, like an unforced error — one that, left to her own devices, she would have avoided.

In sum, the Foundation has operated the way Bill wanted it to, but probably not quite as Hillary, with her focus on the presidency, wished.

If so, this tells us that Bill Clinton remains the dominant force in the family. When their interests diverged, Bill’s carried the day.

Lizza’s reporting tends to confirm that this was the case. He writes:

More than anyone, [Bill] pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.”

The husband’s pushy advocacy was the “tie-breaking” reason why the wife made the momentous decision to take an all-consuming job? In which version of feminism are things supposed to work like this?

I hope America’s first female president will be a woman who is not under the sway of her husband and who would not permit the family enterprise to be commandeered by a husband notorious for having no sense of proportion or propriety. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.

 on: April 25, 2015, 08:22:56 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
"The episode illustrates that the Senate’s advice and consent power offers political leverage that government shutdowns and impeachment do not. Jeb Bush is right that the Senate should in most cases defer to a President’s choices to run the executive branch. But as long as Messrs. Reid and Obama show willful disregard for Congress and the law, Republicans must use their legal powers to fight back."

I disagree.  My response is  names:

Meese  nominated atty gen

Bork  Supreme Court

I just don't get that Bush is who the Wash Repubs want.

 on: April 25, 2015, 07:42:53 AM 
Started by Bob Burgee - Last post by Bob Burgee
The origins of DBMA Stick Grappling - Part 1 - with Guro Crafty & Dog Antone

 on: April 24, 2015, 08:40:26 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog
The Clinton Foundation Is the Democratic Party . . . and Arguably, the U.S. Government As Well
Jonathan Chait comes to terms with the obvious:
When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.
And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem . . .
The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.
The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along.
This explains a bit about why the 2016 cycle could turn out to be another battle between a Clinton and a Bush. (For what it’s worth, I don’t think it will shake out this way.)
The presidency dominates American political life, making every ex-president the former boss of just about every middle-management or rising star figure in his party. If you’re in politics, if you haven’t worked for a president, chances are you’re one degree of separation away from someone who worked for one.
(This was one of the things that made Barack Obama’s win over Hillary in the 2008 primary so improbable -- she had all the veteran national-campaign staffers, pollsters, strategists, etc.)
George W. Bush casts a long shadow on the 2016 Republican field, far beyond his brother. Among those who worked for George W. Bush: Ted Cruz, who worked on the Bush 2000 campaign and in the Federal Trade Commission; Bobby Jindal, who was an assistant secretary of Health and Human Services from 2001 to 2003; Chris Christie, who Bush appointed U.S. Attorney for New Jersey; Rick Perry was Bush’s lieutenant governor in 1999 and 2000; and arguably Carly Fiorina, who served on CIA and State Department advisory committees during the Bush years.
The Clintons, Inc., make up a big slice of the professional class of the Democratic party. And the Bush Family, Inc., makes up a big slice of the professional class of the Republican party.
And as we’ve seen . . . who in the party can tell a former president what he can and can’t do? Who in the Democratic party was willing to put his foot down and tell the Clintons “no”?
There were people who were trying to say “no” . . .
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., where Uranium One’s largest U.S. operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
. . . but they were ignored.
Last night on Greta Van Susteren’s program, Barrasso said, “We tried to throw the penalty flag early on . . . We were very concerned from the standpoint of energy security for our country, and national security. Now you see Vladimir Putin owning 20 percent of American uranium, controlling that and we know Russia sends uranium to countries that are not our friends, that are our enemies, including Iran.”
He said he received a letter, three months later, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that said the commission would keep an eye on the deal. He said that based on his discussions with “people on the ground,” American uranium has left the country and gone overseas, without the company getting the necessary special permissions and permits.

 on: April 23, 2015, 09:07:55 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
We were addressing this phony issue here, income inequality, long before Hillary announced she is pretending to make it the centerpiece for her non-existent campaign.  

Income inequality is the economic ladder, it is the freedom to climb, it is the existence of the American economic dream.  A workable ladder requires a first rung, a second, third rung and so on, all in working order and all rungs going up placed within a reasonable and accessible reach from the one beneath it.  All leftist economic policies, one way or another, weaken or remove steps from the ladder.  Their stated goal is to destroy it altogether, and make us all equally poor.

Income inequality in a dynamic economy is a fact, not an issue.  The political question is how badly do we want to hurt the people at the top in order to also hurt the people further down, wanting to climb up.

When you chop off the top of the ladder and knock people down, you also knock out economic activity (GDP and GDP growth) and make it harder for everyone else to rise up.  

When you raise minimum wage law, you are sawing off or weakening the bottom rung of the ladder.  Some will jump and make it up anyway, but many won't and get stuck at the bottom.  Note the sudden spikes in SNAP and SSI, proof that leftist policies of making basic things free and/or subsidized do not help people to lift themselves up.

Imagine the opposite of the income inequality - income equality.  Everyone makes exactly the same whether they work hard, train, grow, gain experience or improve their skills.  The batboy makes the same as the greatest home run hitter, in this Utopian world.  The incentive to achieve, excel or improve is gone.  What a sad existence that would be.  Innovation ends, startups end, GDP growth ends.  Entrenched powers with the best lobbyists and lawyers might still maneuver through the myriad of taxes and regulations and prosper, but everyone else suffers.  Welcome to the path of Obama's America where the chosen successor promises to do more of the same.

Income inequality, the political issue, grew out of the fact that liberals and leftists could not find any other way to attack the rapid economic growth that came out of past tax rate cuts.  They came up with phony measures that completely ignore income mobility - the fact that people improve their job skills, experience and income throughout their working lives and then retire, work less and live off of savings.  The politics of income inequality alarmism worked quite well around 2006 and the leftists took power in America.  (Relly they won because of an unpopular war, but still they won running on this economic platform.)  They took the House and the Senate, then the Presidency.  Then they took a 60 seat control of the Senate.  They ended tax rate cuts.  They passed Obamacare and anything else that they wanted until the economic and political wheels fell off.  They passed a stimulus, shovel ready government jobs, cash for clunkers, took over the auto companies, attacked energy, surrendered from wars and so on.  

They ruled without a whisper of conservative constraint, and what happened?  

Income inequality got worse!  Income mobility got worse.  Entrepreneurialism was stopped dead in its tracks.  Workforce participation collapsed. Safety net program use exploded.  And their answer to it all of this is to do more of the same!  Go figure.

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!