Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 19, 2017, 07:52:34 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
105349 Posts in 2392 Topics by 1093 Members
Latest Member: Cruces
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10

 41 
 on: October 16, 2017, 06:33:58 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
GM:

" **Remember, Hollywood/DNC/the left isn't dropping Weinstein because they found out what he has done. They've known for years, decades even. They are dropping him because WE found out about him."

That is the truth in a nutshell

Plain and simple.


 42 
 on: October 16, 2017, 05:44:37 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
**Remember, Hollywood/DNC/the left isn't dropping Weinstein because they found out what he has done. They've known for years, decades even. They are dropping him because WE found out about him.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/372026.php

October 16, 2017
Harvey Weinstein Helped Pay Bill Clinton's Legal Bills During Lewinsky Investigations
Thick as sexual assailants.

Harvey Weinstein is no stranger to sex scandals -- back when Bill Clinton was battling allegations he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Weinstein had the president’s back, and a hefty check in hand.
A recently uncovered 1998 story in The Washington Post lists the powerful producer -- now accused of sexual harassment and assault by numerous women -- among several Hollywood heavyweights who gave the maximum $10,000 to Clinton’s legal defense fund.

The detail gives a fuller picture of the longstanding financial relationship between the former first family and one of their best West Coast fundraisers. That relationship has been under the microscope after Hillary Clinton came under criticism for waiting five days to condemn Weinstein.

How many dominoes will fall before we're done? Is anyone, for example, going to probe deeper into Jeffrey Epstein and the Lolita Express to Pedophile Isle?

I don't see much media interest perking up about the allegations of widespread pedophilia in Hollywood made by Corey Feldman and Todd Bridges.

Feldman says he gave cops the names of his abusers/rapists -- before the statute of limitations ran out, so charges could have been brought -- but says police did "zero."

One begins to see a pattern of police not taking action against rich and connected Hollywood types, and one begins to wonder how deep the corruption runs.

Might be time to watch the documentary An Open Secret about Hollywood's pedophilia problem.

One of the most Hollywood-throne-sniffing magazines, Variety, claims that it's "Game Over" not just for Weinstein, but for Hollywood's Culture of the Cover-Up:

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
 Follow
Claudia Eller ✔@Variety_Claudia
We have an explosive story packagein tomorrow's issue. "Game Over" refers not only to Weinstein, but to Hollywood's history of covering up
11:18 AM - Oct 16, 2017
 23 23 Replies   118 118 Retweets   148 148 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

We'll see.

 43 
 on: October 16, 2017, 05:16:53 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
if we do not use military force the NK will continue to expand their nuclear capability and threaten the whole SE Asia and more distant targets.

I conclude we should just assassinate Kim and his top henchmen, if we can .  Then be ready for any response if HIS underlings have the chuztpa to give a military response.

I wonder what the war game guys have concluded about this scenario.

Are they really against it because it won't work, or risk too high, or political fall out or all of it?

One wonders what the NK people really think of Kim and his mob.  They may be totally blacked out from the rest of the world and or just too terrified to pretend/think otherwise .

Do they know how much they suffer from the hands of the monsters who control them?  How much is brain washing and how much is sheer fear?  Don't know.

If Kin and his mob were dead would the average N Korean really fight to the death?






 44 
 on: October 16, 2017, 04:25:44 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Yes, of course.

So, what is our bullet point response?

 45 
 on: October 16, 2017, 04:24:32 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Second post

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-court-overrules-trump-administration-objections-will-review-state-department-clinton-petraeus-emails/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20171016212213

 46 
 on: October 16, 2017, 04:21:49 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-homeland-security-documents-reveal-sanctuary-cities-denied-284-ice-detainers-three-months-released-illegal-aliens-charged-assaults-drug-weapons-violations/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20171016211944

 47 
 on: October 16, 2017, 03:51:05 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
" xploring it a bit further, I suspect one of the most common rejoinders, if not THE most common rejoinder, will be that once they have nuclear capability, they will no motive to initiate nuclear war and that MAD logic will take over-- and that therefore there is no need for a war of choice.  "

I assume that is the rationale of Rice/Obama  when they admit a nuclear capable NK is "not so bad"

 48 
 on: October 16, 2017, 03:46:43 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
We need something like Pearl Harbor to garner the political will to get  this over with.

Maybe a Havana harbor would be better, though probably not enough.

That said the N Koreans are too clever by half to let any of this happen.

So we have to sit and allow this murderous regime to threaten us with ICBMs till they can finally do it.

And of course we have those on our side who rationalize (irrationally) that the NKoreans are doing what they need to do to protect themselves.   angry








 49 
 on: October 16, 2017, 03:00:14 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Gorsuch Joins Court’s Liberals Over Protections for Criminal Defendants
Case explores whether defendants give up all rights to appeal after entering a plea bargain
By Jess Bravin
Oct. 4, 2017 6:23 p.m. ET




WASHINGTON—Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s appointee to the Supreme Court, joined liberal colleagues Wednesday in sharply questioning government arguments that criminal defendants forfeit all rights to appeal after entering a plea bargain.

Since his April appointment, Justice Gorsuch’s remarks and votes nearly always have placed him on the court’s right. This week’s arguments suggested, however, that like his late predecessor, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Gorsuch’s legal philosophy sometimes may lead him to split with fellow conservatives and back procedural protections for criminal defendants.


Wednesday’s case involved Ronald Class, a High Shoals, N.C., retiree who in May 2013 illegally parked his Jeep Wrangler in a U.S. Capitol lot. Police found the vehicle contained several loaded weapons, including a 9mm Ruger pistol, a .44-caliber Taurus pistol and a .44- caliber Henry rifle. Although he had a North Carolina concealed weapons permit, Mr. Class was arrested under a federal law prohibiting guns on the Capitol grounds.

According to the government’s brief, Mr. Class told Federal Bureau of Investigation agents that “he was a ‘Constitutional Bounty Hunter ’ and a ‘Private Attorney General’ who traveled the nation with guns and other weapons to enforce federal criminal law against judges whom he believed had acted unlawfully.”

Mr. Class later reached a plea bargain with prosecutors and was sentenced to 24 days’ imprisonment and a year of supervised release. Although plea bargains typically restrict appeals from defendants, Mr. Class then sought to have his conviction overturned on several grounds, including that he had a Second Amendment right to take his guns to the Capitol.

A federal appeals court dismissed the appeal in an unsigned order, noting that Mr. Class had told the trial judge he understood the plea bargain required him to forgo all but a few technical forms of appeal. But on Wednesday, an attorney for Mr. Class said that Supreme Court precedents established that defendants retained the right to raise constitutional claims even after pleading guilty.

A Justice Department attorney, Eric Feigin, argued that the government was entitled to assume Mr. Class had waived all appeals. “There’s a serious information imbalance here. Only the defendant knows what kinds of claims he might want to bring after a guilty plea and in what respects he doesn’t intend his guilty plea to be final,” he told the court.


Justice Gorsuch appeared incredulous. “Mr. Feigin, is this information asymmetry problem a suggestion that the government lacks sufficient bargaining power in the plea bargaining process?” he asked.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Feigin said.

Federal and state prosecutors win more than 90% of criminal cases without persuading a jury; defendants nearly always agree to plead guilty under threat of harsher punishment should they be convicted after opting for a trial.

Picking up on a question by Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Gorsuch suggested that a defendant who pleads guilty admits the factual allegations in an indictment—but not that those actions necessarily are illegal.

“You’re admitting to what’s in the indictment. Isn’t that maybe the most natural and historically consistent understanding of what a guilty plea is?” Justice Gorsuch said.

Justice Gorsuch’s remarks Wednesday followed similar pro-defendant positions he took Monday. That case involved a Filipino with permanent U.S. residency who had been convicted of burglary and who argued that the criteria Congress adopted authorizing deportation of immigrants for committing violent crimes were unconstitutionally vague.

Wednesday’s other case, involving a lawsuit by 16 partygoers alleging they were improperly arrested by Washington, D.C., police, may have been more illuminating about some justices’ personal experiences than their views on constitutional law.

One question involved whether police legitimately could assume from the threadbare décor and detritus on the floor that the partygoers were using a vacant home without permission. Justice Gorsuch, who recently has relocated to the Washington area from Colorado, appeared concerned that could put new tenants in legal jeopardy.





“We all live with folding chairs for a period of time when we move,” he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged whether the mess the officers found was legally significant. “What happens during a party? ” she said. “Disarray. So what was different in this disarray from a party? ”

Justice Breyer suggested that the revelers would have no reason to doubt that they lacked the owner’s permission to gather at the house.

“Younger people frequently say, ‘Hey, there’s a party at Joe’s house.’ And before you know it, 50 people go to Joe’s house,” said Justice Breyer, 79 years old. “I would think the people who went over there, whether they knew Joe, heard it secondhand, thirdhand or whatever, are normally, naturally going to think that Joe has a right to the house.”

Justice Kagan questioned whether the alleged presence of marijuana smoke and alcohol indicated criminal activity in the house.

“From the partygoers’ point of view, they just know that Joe is having a big party, and it’s a good time, and—and maybe there will be some liquor and maybe there will be some recreational drugs,” she said.

“There are these parties that once, long ago, I used to be invited to,” she said, to the courtroom’s laughter. “Where you didn’t know the host, but you know Joe is having a party. And can I say that long, long ago, marijuana was maybe present at those parties?” she said.

Decisions in the cases—Class v. U.S., Sessions v. Dimaya and District of Columbia v. Wesby—are expected before July.

 50 
 on: October 16, 2017, 02:52:23 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
GDP Growth Looking Good To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 10/16/2017

Next week, government statisticians will release the first estimate for third quarter real GDP growth. In spite of hurricanes, and continued negativity by conventional wisdom, we expect 2.8% growth.

If we're right about the third quarter, real GDP will be up 2.2% from a year ago, which is exactly equal to the growth rate since the beginning of this recovery back in 2009. Looking at these four-quarter or eight-year growth rates, many people argue that the economy is still stuck in the mud.

But, we think looking in the rear view mirror misses positive developments. The economy hasn't turned into a thoroughbred, but the plowing is easier. Regulations are being reduced, federal employment growth has slowed (even declined) and monetary policy remains extremely loose with some evidence that a more friendly business environment is lifting monetary velocity.

Early signs suggest solid near 3% growth in the fourth quarter as well. Put it all together and we may be seeing an acceleration toward the 2.5 – 3.0% range for underlying trend economic growth. Less government interference frees up entrepreneurship and productivity growth powered by new technology. Yes, the Fed is starting to normalize policy and, yes, Congress can't seem to legislate itself out of a paper bag, but fiscal and monetary policy together are still pointing toward a good environment for growth.

Here's how we get to 2.8% for Q3.

Consumption: Automakers reported car and light truck sales rose at a 7.6% annual rate in Q3. "Real" (inflation-adjusted) retail sales outside the auto sector grew at a 2% rate, and growth in services was moderate. Our models suggest real personal consumption of goods and services, combined, grew at a 2.3% annual rate in Q3, contributing 1.6 points to the real GDP growth rate (2.3 times the consumption share of GDP, which is 69%, equals 1.6).

Business Investment: Looks like another quarter of growth in overall business investment in Q3, with investment in equipment growing at about a 9% annual rate, investment in intellectual property growing at a trend rate of 5%, but with commercial constriction declining for the first time this year. Combined, it looks like they grew at a 4.9% rate, which should add 0.6 points to the real GDP growth. (4.9 times the 13% business investment share of GDP equals 0.6).

Home Building: Home building was likely hurt by the major storms in Q3 and should bounce back in the fourth quarter and remain on an upward trend for at least the next couple of years. In the meantime, we anticipate a drop at a 2.6% annual rate in Q3, which would subtract from the real GDP growth rate. (-2.6 times the home building share of GDP, which is 4%, equals -0.1).

Government: Military spending was up in Q3 but public construction projects were soft for the quarter. On net, we're estimating that real government purchases were down at a 1.2% annual rate in Q3, which would subtract 0.2 points from the real GDP growth rate. (1.2 times the government purchase share of GDP, which is 17%, equals -0.2).

Trade: At this point, we only have trade data through August. Based on what we've seen so far, it looks like net exports should subtract 0.2 points from the real GDP growth rate in Q3.

Inventories: We have even less information on inventories than we do on trade, but what we have so far suggests companies are stocking shelves and showrooms at a much faster pace in Q3 than they were in Q2, which should add 1.1 points to the real GDP growth rate.

More data this week – on industrial production, durable goods, trade deficits, and inventories – could change our forecast. But, for now, we get an estimate of 2.8%. Not bad at all.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!