Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2016, 07:34:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96189 Posts in 2316 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

 11 
 on: Today at 08:35:07 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Ask not who’s the most qualified to be president

Obama really said this Wednesday night:

“I can say with confidence there has never been a man or woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

You don’t say, Mr. President? So why don’t we size up her, uh, qualifications, eminent as they might be, compared to some of the prior, lesser 44 occupants of the office.

Dwight Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander. Hillary ran the Bimbo Eruptions Unit.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Hillary wrote “It Takes a Village.”

Teddy Roosevelt charged up San Juan Hill. Hillary dodged sniper fire on the tarmac at Tuzla.

Honest Abe, Crooked Hillary.

Lincoln slept in the Lincoln bedroom. Hillary rented it out.

Reagan said, “Tear down this wall.” Hillary said, “Delete them all.”

William Howard Taft threw out the first pitch at a baseball opener. Hillary threw the first vase at a president.

Gerald Ford appointed Justice Stevens. Hillary abandoned Ambassador Stevens.

George Washington wrote letters to John Paul Jones. Hillary wrote a check for $850,000 to Paula Jones.

JFK said, “Ask not….” Hillary said, “Don’t ask.”

George H.W. Bush built oil rigs. Hillary rigged elections.

Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. Hillary delivered three speeches to Goldman Sachs … for $675,000.

Andrew Johnson was the first impeached president. Hillary is the wife of the second.

Washington could not tell a lie, Nixon could not tell the truth, Hillary could not tell the difference.

Harry S. Truman was a haberdasher. Hillary donated her underwear to charity for a $2 tax write off.

James Madison wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers. Hillary served on the Wal-Mart board of directors.

Truman: “The buck stops here.” Hillary: Pay for play.

Calvin Coolidge: “The business of America is business.” Hillary: the Clinton Foundation.

FDR defeated Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Hillary defeated Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.

James Garfield was shot by a disgruntled office-seeker. Hillary was a disgruntled office-seeker.

William Henry Harrison: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too. Hillary: Me Too.

Lincoln: “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Hillary: “Are you sure about that?”

In 1953, Truman drove his own car back to Independence, Missouri. Hillary hasn’t driven a car since 1996.

Washington turned down the invitation to become king. What would Hillary have done?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/07/carr_ask_not_who_s_the_most_qualified_to_be_president

 12 
 on: Today at 08:31:33 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Unsolvable mystery:, For all the good they do, including $2 Billion unaccounted for and an FBI investigation in process, can anyone figure out why no one mentioned the Clinton Foundation in the convention...

 13 
 on: Today at 07:52:16 AM 
Started by buzwardo - Last post by DougMacG
AUTHOR: KATIE M. PALMER   SCIENCE
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 07.29.16.07.29.16

COOL CATCHPHRASE, HILLARY, BUT SCIENCE ISN’T ABOUT BELIEF
Hillary Clinton pauses while speaking during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Philadelphia on July 28, 2016.DANIEL ACKER/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

ON THURSDAY NIGHT, Hillary Clinton made history when she became the first woman to lead a major presidential ticket. In a speech filled with reminders of her experience and her plans for reform, one remark stood out: “I believe in science!” she said, chuckling. “I believe climate change is real, and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good paying clean energy jobs.”

Delegates filling the convention hall in Philadelphia roared in approval. Pockets of Twitter, too. Just as quickly, though, reactions turned cynical: How awful it is, in this day and age, that a presidential candidate must say she believes in science? In the retelling, Clinton’s laugh became a nod to the absurdity of the moment.

Yes, it’s absurd that a presidential candidate has to explicitly declare an allegiance to science. But the problem with what Clinton said runs deeper. Science is not a philosophy or a religion. It is a method—imperfect, yet powerful—of testing and accumulating knowledge. It’s not something you believe. You can believe that the scientific method is a good way of amassing knowledge. You can use that knowledge to shape policy.

Yet that’s not how American politics—especially in this election—talk about science. “When people say ‘Do you believe in climate change or global warming,’ that is the wrong framing,” says Cristine Russell, a veteran science reporter now at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “Science is not a belief system.”

Of course, the word “science” has come to represent much more than the scientific method. More than ever, it shapes American culture and is a subculture unto itself. To be giddily fascinated and informed by the discoveries of neuroscientists and physicists and climate scientists is a privilege. When Clinton says she believes in science, she’s using the language of a community, fostered by the Internet, that builds cachet out of scientific curiosity. A love for the products of science has become cultural currency.

It has also become political shorthand. Both US political parties have adopted positions on issues informed by science, and as those issues have become more divisive and the positions more extreme, some people have characterized them as either “pro-science” or “anti-science.” But of course the platforms don’t actually have anything to do with science as a practice. Both sides may choose different evidence to rely on, or interpret that evidence differently. At the extremes, some groups may ignore evidence entirely.

Nowhere is that divide more apparent than climate change. The science here has reached all-but-inescapable conclusions. Some policymakers, primarily liberal, have formed policies that depend upon those conclusions. Others, mostly conservative, have made policies that dispute those conclusions (for all kinds of different reasons). But to the public, that divide now gets framed in terms of acceptance and denial—states of belief. “The idea that you can believe your own facts is an unfortunate consequence of the whole climate denial movement,” says Russell.

And now the Democrats have adopted those same words and tactics. Theparty platform echoes Clinton’s belief framework: “Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and future.” In a short film shown at the convention on Wednesday, director James Cameron explicitly focused on an emotional message about the dangers of a warming climate to target swing voters.

Clinton’s line suggests that she’s at least in on the joke. It was a laugh line—offset by a pause, thrown out in a mocking, sing-song voice: “And I-I-I believe in science!” She’s intentionally using emotional rhetoric, both as a jab at her opponents and a signal to supporters.

But even if Clinton understands how silly it is to conflate belief in science with belief in the products of the scientific method, her line is still problematic. Clinton’s target is Donald Trump, who has claimed that climate change is a hoax—that the evidence for it isn’t real, or true. But Republicans could hear her tone as mocking not their candidate, but them.

People who remain unconvinced that humans are a significant contributor to climate change are not necessarily anti-science (whatever that means). Many have simply grown distrustful of climate scientists and their relationship with the government. They’re not wrong to be skeptical. Science in its purest form is the best method humans have yet come up with to apprehend the world around them. But it’s humans who execute it—people with hopes and dreams and fears. To deny the potential for bias is to marginalize a huge number of potential voters who have doubts, or who hope scientists describing an impending apocalypse are wrong.

Clinton did not say that she believes in science unequivocally—she likely understands the imperfections in the research she uses to guide her policy positions. But by playing the science card for laughs, she risks alienating the voters she’s trying to attract. In this narrative, not only does Clinton become the candidate of the “pro-science” voters, but she validates the opposition of people who think science is just another way of knowing.

To reinforce the idea of science as something you can believe or not believe, to force Americans into “pro-science” and “anti-science” camps, robs science of its power. It changes the practice of science from a method for understanding into a dangerous political weapon. And in the end, that makes science smaller. At its best and most objective, science can heal divides, answer questions, solve problems. It’s not a talking point.
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/cool-catchphrase-hillary-science-isnt-belief/

 14 
 on: Today at 07:22:02 AM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by DougMacG
I wonder if leftists who write anti-bullying laws are careful enough to exclude they most obvious violation of the stronger harming the weak and most vulnerable among us, abortion.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/29/dear-dnc-abortion-isnt-empowering-it-turns-women-into-bullies/

Is this a hate crime?

 15 
 on: Today at 06:36:53 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
The authors also don't consider that the globalist movement is not just about free trade but is even more importantly about the erasure of "borders", concept of country and sovereignty , and nation hood.

I am not against fair trade but I don't want to see our country disappear and we become subjects of the UN or some other single world leadership .

The left and the bureaucrats may mix and conflate these but free trade and giving up sovereignty are two different matters.

Also, government picking winners and losers in industry via selective taxation  (tariffs) is an act of leftism no matter who commits it.

 16 
 on: July 29, 2016, 11:13:31 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/16/obama-vs-sun-tzu-deadly-price-not-making-threat-assessment/

 17 
 on: July 29, 2016, 09:27:26 PM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/07/29/reuters-ipsos-poll-change-methodology/

 18 
 on: July 29, 2016, 09:18:24 PM 
Started by captainccs - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/28/why-s-obama-covering-for-russian-war-crimes-in-syria.html

OTOH transgenders in our military and multi-sex bathrooms are a different matter!

Would Trump do any different with the Russkis?

 19 
 on: July 29, 2016, 09:15:42 PM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by Crafty_Dog
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-hillary-clinton-cyber-attack-000000269.html?nhp=1


Separately:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html

 20 
 on: July 29, 2016, 08:57:25 PM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Quelle surprise , , ,

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!