Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 27, 2015, 11:11:23 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
84450 Posts in 2263 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 11:09:48 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Still nothing!   Wow! 

 cry

 2 
 on: Today at 11:08:23 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
Over the years, I've heard this before.  I can't get a job, I am too old to do what I do, and I am depressed and anxious and can't sleep.  As a result apply for disability.   Hey everyone else is taking advantage of the "system" so I don't really disagree:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/1-3-disability-have-mental-disorder-429-dc


Sure, Obama has his money stash to cover everyone.

 3 
 on: Today at 11:07:18 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
This is from a progressive site, but the point is dead on:   The Reps are years past where they should have a list of bullet points to answer the question presented here:

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/boehner-mcconnell-humiliated-when-asked-about-gop-obamacare-alternatives-they-still-got-nothin-video/

"Our bloated government healthcare duster cluck is better than Obama's!"

 4 
 on: Today at 11:06:46 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Over the years, I've heard this before.  I can't get a job, I am too old to do what I do, and I am depressed and anxious and can't sleep.  As a result apply for disability.   Hey everyone else is taking advantage of the "system" so I don't really disagree:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/1-3-disability-have-mental-disorder-429-dc

 5 
 on: Today at 10:27:06 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
This is from a progressive site, but the point is dead on:   The Reps are years past where they should have a list of bullet points to answer the question presented here:

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/boehner-mcconnell-humiliated-when-asked-about-gop-obamacare-alternatives-they-still-got-nothin-video/

 6 
 on: Today at 10:25:58 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
Crafty, previously:  "She was distinctly unimpressive when she ran here in CA"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This speech was perhaps the biggest surprise in the recent event in Iowa - the contest to selected as Rubio's running mate.   wink

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/26/carly_fiorina_to_hillary_clinton_flying_is_an_activity_not_an_accomplishment.html

It is possible that she choked in her recent Senate race because she knew these views did not fit with that audience, the California electorate.  Still she only lost 52-42 in a far left state.

She makes very powerful and persuasive points about government getting too big.  For wherever her candidacy leads, it is a very positive thing for the process to have a sharp and experienced woman up on the stage making the conservative case.

She has met Putin, knows Netanyahu, understand cyber-warfare and the Chinese policy supporting theft of our technology.  She explained beautifully how big businesses can hire lawyers to deal with over-regulation while small businesses cannot.

And she didn't wear a pant suit.

Fiorina has degrees from Stanford and MIT.  Breast cancer survivor.  Worked as a secretary out of college, worked her way up at AT&T/Lucent.  She was named Fortune magazine's most powerful woman in business prior to being chosen CEO at HP.  She led the world's largest technology company 5 years through troubled times with mixed results.  

She was quite comfortable taking on Hillary Clinton directly.  Took a jab at the Putin reset button, said I'll tell you what difference it makes regarding Benghazi, and asserted that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.


 7 
 on: Today at 06:39:46 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by objectivist1
The Pity Party

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On January 27, 2015

Progressives will always claim that no matter how badly their plans go wrong, at least their terrible policies were well-intentioned.

The regimes that shot orphans, starved entire cities into submission and committed genocide were “caring” in comparison to the heartless Dickensian capitalists who did nothing for the poor except create cheap products and jobs. They might have killed millions, but their red hearts were in the right place.

They didn’t just spend all their time gobbling caviar and diving into swimming pools full of all money like the millionaires of the West. Instead they gave speeches about Marxism-Leninism, killed anyone who wasn’t up on their dialectical materialism and then gobbled working class caviar and dove into proletarian swimming pools full of money.

The path to everything from death panels to gulags was paved by outrage over the oppressed and compassion for the less fortunate… even if the real less fortunate turned out to be those on whom the tender-hearted compassion of progressives was practiced on.

That compassion is the theme of William Voegeli’s “The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion.” Going from Bill Clinton’s “I Feel Your Pain” to Barack Obama’s “Yes, We Can,” Voegeli challenges the conspicuous compassion and self-centered emotional displays on which the contemporary progressive argument is built.

Rather than dealing with the issues, the left deals in narratives. Its pornography of misery bypasses facts, particularly those which demonstrate that it is the left’s policies that create misery, thereby showing the dangers of placing compassion above any other value; including truth. And that is one of the subjects explored in Voegeli’s book whose themes occupy the moral realm as much as the sphere of government policy.

“So many Americans,” Voegeli writes, take for granted, “that moral growth requires little else than feeling, acting and being more compassionate.”

The conspicuous compassion of progressivism results in the appearance of goodness, without its substance. It is easy to mandate social welfare. Especially at someone else’s expense. What is difficult is grappling with human limitations and aspirations. That’s why the War on Poverty failed.

FDR explicitly laid out the moral double standard for the right and the left. The Pity Party quotes him as saying, “Divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”

There lies the high-minded formula for dismissing the crimes of the left as the “occasional faults” of warm-blooded leftists over the neglect of a conservative government. FDR was saying that it was better to do something, even if it was the wrong thing, than to do nothing. It was a left-wing indictment of nothing less than the United States Constitution. The argument is echoed today in defense of amnesty and any other disastrous Obama policy by asserting that doing something is better than nothing.

The good leftist may destroy lives, but at least he doesn’t neglect his warm-hearted duty to meddle. Better a caring killer, than a constitutionalist who doesn’t care enough to death panel the sick.

In The Pity Party, Voegeli explores the failure of progressive ideas and the immunity of those failures to reform. Looking at the global and national consequences of progressive policymaking he shows that the politics of conspicuous compassion are self-contradictory and lead to bad results and advises conservatives on how to counter the caring spin cycle of the left.

In the age of Tumblr and Twitter when the Social Justice Warrior deploys limitless outrage, bile and spleen in empathy’s name, progressive pathos has become a revolutionary hysteria that trips easily into riots and violent threats. The primacy of compassion as the only significant virtue makes it impossible to distinguish between empathy and self-serving rhetoric, between caring and egotistical hysteria.

At the big government and big media level, every argument is triangulated as being between caring progressives and uncaring conservatives. Their human shields; children, the elderly, designated minority victim classes and gentle giants, are infinite. Their personal stories, even if they happen to be those of Democratic activists covertly posing as ordinary people at a State of the Union address, negate the facts.

Every dispute, no matter how technical, eventually culminates with the left trotting out its human shields to take the debate out of the realm of facts and into the realm of personal anecdote. Since creative types can figure out how to personalize every debate, every debate becomes an empathy test. The issue stops being whether a policy will work, but whether a politician represents our values of caring. And this is where Democrats routinely trounce Republicans in polling questions.

The longstanding tactic of the left is to turn every debate into a question of which side consists of good people and which side consists of bad people. It is a tactic that Republicans have done a very poor job of fighting because they do not believe of the left what it believes about them.

A secularized empathy provides religion without deity or scripture. The new temple becomes the government building and its new bible is a million pages of ObamaCare regulations that no one reads. Its messiahs are community organizers. Its clergy hold “die-ins” and seek absolute power to regulate every detail of human life. Thus the tyranny of compassion transforms America into a Socialist theocracy.

The compassion of the left exists in a space formerly occupied by religion and is therefore immune to analysis and factual critique. It serves as the supporting ideology for leftist policy and cloaks it in the same self-serving air of a spiritual compassion that should not be examined to see how many people ended up in the gulags or death panels.

Voegeli’s critique serves as a warning that a policy based on the theatrics of compassion without moral substance or factual analysis is doomed to destroy its own unexamined founding virtues. In the name of compassion, the left hurts the very people it claims to want to help while serving its own interests.

Every crime, from Green Energy corruption to totalitarian health care regulations, is justified by an appeal to compassion. But the truly compassionate attribute is not the arrogant paternalism of leftist policymakers, but the empowerment of our fellow man through political and economic freedom.

 8 
 on: January 26, 2015, 08:17:31 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
Comment, Rachel?

 9 
 on: January 26, 2015, 07:27:44 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Why Netanyahu is right to go around Obama to Congress

By Marc A. Thiessen  January 26 at 9:41 AM

Do they talk this way about Iranian President Hassan Rouhani?

After learning that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had accepted an invitation to address a joint session of Congress about the need for new sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear program, the Obama administration went . . . well, nuclear.

One “senior American official” threatened Netanyahu, telling the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that “Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.” Meanwhile a “source close to [Secretary of State John] Kerry” told The Post that the “secretary’s patience is not infinite” and that “playing politics with that relationship could blunt Secretary Kerry’s enthusiasm for being Israel’s primary defender.”

Oh, please. No wonder Netanyahu is going around these people to Congress for support. Is Kerry defending Israel as a favor to Netanyahu, or because it is in the United States’ vital interests to stand with our closest ally in the Middle East? Just the threat of withdrawing that support validates Netanyahu’s suspicion that the Obama administration does not have Israel’s back in its negotiations with Iran.

Using anonymous officials to attack Netanyahu is nothing new. Unnamed officials have called him “chickens---,” “recalcitrant,” “myopic,” “reactionary,” “obtuse,” “blustering,” “pompous,” and “Aspergery” — all to one journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, who keeps a running list).

President Obama will not meet with Benjamin Netanyahu when the Israeli prime minister visits the U.S. in March as the invited guest of Republican congressional leaders. 

The Obama team’s outrage is a bit overwrought. Clearly, it is not a breach of protocol for a foreign leader to lobby Congress. After all, Obama himself deployed British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby lawmakers to oppose new sanctions on Iran. It seems Netanyahu’s crime is not so much a breach of diplomatic protocol, but rather, opposing the administration’s position.

The fact that Netanyahu felt compelled to speak directly to Congress in order to oppose the administration’s position speaks poorly, not of Netanyahu, but of Obama. If the leader of one of our closest allies is so worried about the deal Obama is going to cut with Iran that he is willing to risk a diplomatic rift with the administration to speak out, perhaps the problem is not with Israel, but with the Obama administration. And it is not just Israel that opposes Obama’s deal with Iran; Arab leaders have made clear that they share Israel’s view.

No doubt politics plays a role in Netanyahu’s decision to address Congress. His speech will come just two weeks before the Israeli elections. But is it wrong for a politician to use the foreign stage of an ally to buttress his electoral case back home? If it is, then Barack Obama — who gave a campaign speech in Berlin before 200,000 adoring Germans who could not vote for him — is the wrong man to level that criticism.

Obama claims that new sanctions on Iran “will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails.” If the mere threat of sanctions is enough to derail Iran’s nuclear talks, then whatever deal is in the works is not worth having. It means that Obama is far more desperate for a deal than Tehran is — which is a sure-fire way to guarantee a bad agreement.

Obama wants a nuclear deal with Iran because it would be a major feather in his political cap at a time when his foreign policy is imploding across the world, from Yemen to Syria to Iraq. For Israel, Iran’s nuclear program is not a political challenge; it is an existential one.

Obama can afford a bad deal because, as that anonymous official put it, he has a year and a half left to his presidency. The people of Israel, on the other hand, will have to live with the consequences long after Obama is gone.

Netanyahu understands this — which is why it is good that he is coming to Washington, and why House Republicans deserve credit for inviting him.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

 10 
 on: January 26, 2015, 06:41:03 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR315/315CR113.pdf

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!