Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 21, 2014, 05:23:30 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83742 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

 51 
 on: December 17, 2014, 03:29:20 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
If you have a D next to your name, it isn't really rape.

 52 
 on: December 17, 2014, 03:27:55 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by G M
1.We fought wars to avoid hereditary rulers.

2. Jeb called illegal immigration "an act of love". He can go perform an act on himself as far as I am concerned.

rolleyes

This is where I vote 3rd party or don't even bother.

That is why he is announcing this so early - to give us more time to recover from the initial stomach emptying reaction.  He is not my candidate.  But, ...  He was a successful, two term governor, an otherwise divided state,  the only Republican to ever serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida.  Many of the better policy oriented candidates have no executive experience.  He was considered the most conservative of the 3 Bushes in politics.  His record in Florida was more conservative than Reagan's was in California (they say).  This will be a long, substantive campaign (I think).  He will be known for his own strengths and weaknesses more than family name by the end of it.  Support for "Common Core" and amnesty look like his big obstacles to me.   
-----------------------------

John Hinderacker has an anyone but jeb Bush column out.  He admits that his current favorite is Marco Rubio

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/anyone-but-jeb-bush-pretty-much.php

"Hillary Clinton ... can be had by someone younger: a fresh face, a new voice, someone who changes the dynamic. Pretty much anyone but a Bush, in other words.
...
Polling data suggest that there are more conservatives in the U.S. than there are Republicans. There certainly are plenty of conservatives to put a Republican presidential candidate over the top. But they need a strong candidate to rally behind. This cycle, I think there are a number of Republicans who could fit that description–Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio (my current favorite), maybe Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal or John Kasich, maybe Chris Christie if he can define himself as a conservative. There are others who could jump into the race, both plausible candidates (John Thune) and less plausible (Ben Carson)."




 53 
 on: December 17, 2014, 11:19:16 AM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by DougMacG
It's the moderator's call, but it seems to me it is time to put the cognitively dissonant left's leading voice into her own category for future search and find convenience.  For the record, I fear her the most right now.  And leftists love her the most.

Author of, [you employ a million people,] good for you.  But you didn't build that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P-CoSNYaI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/great-352668-warren-elizabeth.html
http://twitchy.com/2012/05/15/fauxcahontas-warren-heralded-as-harvards-first-woman-of-color-hilarity-ensues/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

For today:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121514-730656-why-liberal-icon-elizabeth-warren-should-champion-limited-government.htm#ixzz0c8RcNoaU

What Elizabeth Warren Missed in Her Big Bank Tirade  (Crony Governmentism)

Crony Capitalism: Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered a stemwinder speech last Friday on the need for government to rein in Wall Street influence. But it's big government that created the monster in the first place.

Warren, D-Mass., was attacking a "dangerous provision" in the so-called cromnibus spending bill that, she said, stripped a part of Dodd-Frank that big banks, particularly Citigroup, don't like.

Her speech had the left slobbering over itself. Michael Tomasky, writing for the Daily Beast, said Warren's "weekend heroics" made her the "most powerful Democrat in America." The Huffington Post ran a column calling it "the speech that could make Elizabeth Warren the next president."

That's only possible if voters overlook the glaring problem with her argument.

Warren isn't wrong to complain that big business has too much influence over public policy. But that influence isn't the result of insufficient government intervention. It's the result of a government that is too massive and too willing to intrude in free markets.
To take just one example: Up until the mid-1990s, Microsoft had virtually no lobbyist presence in Washington, D.C., and gave almost no money to political campaigns. Then the Clinton Justice Department decided to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations.

By 1998, the company was pouring $3.7 million into lobbying and giving more than $1.4 million to political campaigns. Influencing Washington became part of Microsoft's business strategy only after Washington decided to butt into Microsoft's business.

Warren and her compatriots also fail to understand that big businesses like costly, intrusive regulations when they handicap new competitors.

It's no surprise that Dodd-Frank — which was supposed to rein in the excesses of big banks — not only didn't get rid of the "too big to fail" problem, it hampered community banks that used to compete with the big ones.

"It was not the intent of Congress when it passed Dodd-Frank to harm community banks, but that is the awful reality," Dale Wilson of the First State Bank of San Diego told Congress this summer.

If Warren and her ilk really want to reduce the influence of Wall Street in Washington, they should start by calling for a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government.

 54 
 on: December 17, 2014, 10:41:28 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
I wonder if the Clinon's want the Bill Cosby story to continue to rise throughout the campaign?  The Statute of Limitations does not prevent one's public image from being destroyed.  If they go through with this, it's hard to say which Clinton scandal or weakness will finally catch up with them.



http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/15/why-hillary-is-not-inevitable-bills-sordid-past/
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past

The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oddly, the rationale for the Hillary Clinton campaign is empowerment of women.  People's tolerance of all this, especially Hillary's, is abominable.

 55 
 on: December 17, 2014, 10:22:23 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
It is an argument I have called tax vs. charity or welfare vs. charity.  John Stossels frames it well in the this piece called Governing vs. Giving, which is really government forced redistribution vs the free will of giving and accepting responsibility with assistance.

Personally I find that since the government has taken my income, with my taxes more than 100% of take home income, and nothing left over, and they are spending the majority of that on redistribution, I really have no time or interest in charity unless and until we change that dynamic.

It is the essence of the differences between the two competing philosophies and the smoking gun of liberalism that they don't trust people to do the right thing without coercion.  Instead of helping people, we spend trillions and trillions pretending to help people.
--------------------------
Governing vs. Giving
John Stossel
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2014/12/17/governing-vs-giving-n1932615/page/full

It's the season for giving.

That doesn't mean it's the season for government.

Government creates loyalty in the minds of citizens by pretending to be Santa Claus, doling out gifts and favors. Politicians claim they help those unfortunates who aren't helped by coldhearted capitalism.

The truth is, government gets in the way of charity, making it harder for people to help others and for the poor to help themselves. It also gets in the way of commerce, which is what really makes people better off.

When I was in college, President Lyndon Johnson declared "an all-out war on human poverty. ... For the first time in our history, it's possible to conquer poverty." I believed him. But then I watched government poverty programs fail. America spent trillions of your dollars on the poor, and the poor stayed poor.

Actually, the poverty rate did fall after the "War on Poverty" began. But it had already been falling prior to initiation of welfare. Sadly, the poverty rate stopped falling about seven years after Johnson's programs began, mostly because government handouts encouraged people to be dependent.

Simple capitalism does much more for poor people. On my show this week, Marian Tupy, editor of HumanProgress.org, speculates on why people don't appreciate that.

"Our minds evolved tens of thousands of years ago when we lived in small groups of between 50-200 people," says Tupy. "We would go out, kill game, bring it back, share it." The idea of everyone getting an equal share still makes us feel warm and cozy.

"Some of the anti-capitalist impulse goes back to that hunter-gatherer mentality and not comprehending the complexity of the market economy," says Tupy. "The complexity outpaced our ability to understand it.

But even those who don't understand markets should open their eyes and acknowledge its benefits: World-wide, wherever economic freedom is allowed, millions of people have lifted themselves out of stoop labor and miserable poverty.

Of course, not everyone can reap the benefits of markets. The sick, the mentally ill and other truly helpless people need a hand.

But why assume government must provide that help? Government doesn't do anything very well. Why not let private charity handle it?

I once assumed there was too much poverty for private charity to make much of a difference. But now I realize there is plenty of money, and private charity would do much more if government didn't discourage it.

When the welfare state took over poverty relief, it crowded out "mutual aid" societies that the poor ran for themselves.

They were like a cross between private unemployment insurance and "moose" or "elks" lodges that encouraged members to help each other out. They were better at helping the poor because their members, unlike government poverty workers, were free to make judgments about who deserved help and who didn't.

Today, there are fewer mutual aid societies because people say, "Why do it myself when we already have giant welfare bureaucracies? My taxes pay for Obamacare, food stamps, housing vouchers and so on. I'll let the professionals handle it."

But those "professionals" do a poor job.

Fortunately, charities still try to do what government cannot do. I give money to the Doe Fund, an organization that helps addicts and ex-cons discover the benefits of work. I give because I can see the results: Doe Fund participants work as caterers, exterminators and street-cleaners, and they do it with a spring in their step.

Somehow, the charity teaches these men (they only work with men) to take pride in work. That pride changes people. Unlike other ex-cons, those who are Doe graduates rarely go back to jail.

If government didn't discourage it, more charities would do even better work with the poor. Human beings don't sit around ignoring the suffering of their neighbors. But we are most likely to neglect these moral tasks when government insists it has everything covered.

Get government out of the way and just watch what we can do.

 56 
 on: December 17, 2014, 10:09:41 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
Add one more name, Mike Pence has both congressional and executive experience.
http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2014/12/15/gov-mike-pence-national-government-is-not-the-nation-n1932189

If success at the state level were enough to recommend someone for president of the United States, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana would be among the frontrunners for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

...last year's 5 percent income tax reduction, the largest state tax cut in Indiana history." In addition, the state corporate tax rate was reduced from 6.5 percent to 4.9 percent, making it the third lowest in the country and contributing to Indiana's increase in the labor force

He served for 10 years as a congressman

Pence's education agenda includes a goal of taking children in underperforming schools and putting them in good schools...largest education voucher program in America.


 57 
 on: December 17, 2014, 10:00:36 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
At least Cruz fights, unlike the rinos that just pissed away their mandate.

Byron York doesn't buy the storyline that all these confirmations are Ted Cruz' fault:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/did-ted-cruz-really-bungle-the-lame-duck-session-for-republicans/article/2557498
The whole point of the nuclear Senate was to do this.

 58 
 on: December 17, 2014, 09:50:33 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
rolleyes

This is where I vote 3rd party or don't even bother.

That is why he is announcing this so early - to give us more time to recover from the initial stomach emptying reaction.  He is not my candidate.  But, ...  He was a successful, two term governor, an otherwise divided state,  the only Republican to ever serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida.  Many of the better policy oriented candidates have no executive experience.  He was considered the most conservative of the 3 Bushes in politics.  His record in Florida was more conservative than Reagan's was in California (they say).  This will be a long, substantive campaign (I think).  He will be known for his own strengths and weaknesses more than family name by the end of it.  Support for "Common Core" and amnesty look like his big obstacles to me.   
-----------------------------

John Hinderacker has an anyone but jeb Bush column out.  He admits that his current favorite is Marco Rubio

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/anyone-but-jeb-bush-pretty-much.php

"Hillary Clinton ... can be had by someone younger: a fresh face, a new voice, someone who changes the dynamic. Pretty much anyone but a Bush, in other words.
...
Polling data suggest that there are more conservatives in the U.S. than there are Republicans. There certainly are plenty of conservatives to put a Republican presidential candidate over the top. But they need a strong candidate to rally behind. This cycle, I think there are a number of Republicans who could fit that description–Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio (my current favorite), maybe Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal or John Kasich, maybe Chris Christie if he can define himself as a conservative. There are others who could jump into the race, both plausible candidates (John Thune) and less plausible (Ben Carson)."



 59 
 on: December 16, 2014, 11:35:21 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by prentice crawford
Obama's friends do good. $ http://start.toshiba.com/news/read/category/Business/article/afp-ge_to_distribute_40_bn_to_shareholders_in_20152016-afp GE to distribute $40 bn 2015-16  http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/9268-obamas-crony-capitalism-and-his-top-2008-donors Obama’s 08 Donors.

                              P.C.

 60 
 on: December 16, 2014, 09:48:25 PM 
Started by G M - Last post by G M

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/16/federal-judge-obamas-executive-amnesty-is-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comments

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!