Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 29, 2015, 01:56:56 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87767 Posts in 2281 Topics by 1070 Members
Latest Member: Nexquietus
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

 81 
 on: August 27, 2015, 03:59:47 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by objectivist1
THIS MAY BE OBAMA'S DUMBEST GUN CONTROL ARGUMENT YET

August 27, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   


And that's saying something.

Obama is determined to fight his gun control Jihad and attempted to exploit the racist murder of two white reporters by pushing his own political agenda in the dumbest way possible.

“It breaks my heart every time you read about or hear about these kinds of incidents,” Obama said. “What we know, is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.”

Since the set of people killed by guns includes terrorist attacks, this is a stupid and meaningless thing to say.

Obama could have equally said that more people are murdered than are murdered by terrorists. Or that more people died in wars than in WW2.

The various statistical attempts to minimize 9/11 that the left has been pushing all these years (more people die in car accidents in a year, etc) are obnoxious enough, but this is really aimed at liberals so stupid they have trouble walking upright.

Since gun-related incidents include suicides, Obama is giving us the incredible news that the total number of ways in which people are killed by guns is greater than any specific way they can be killed by guns.

Also the total number of ways in which people can die is greater than any specific way people can die, including gun-related incidents, therefore we shouldn't take them seriously, because despite Obama's Ivy League education, he has no concept of logical reasoning.

I'm not clear on the number of people who have been killed by carbon dioxide, but Obama has been turning the country upside down and destroying jobs even faster than usual fighting it. But if it kills fewer people than all the other gases combined, including it, we don't need to worry about it.

That's Obama logic. It's close enough for government work. Unfortunately.

 82 
 on: August 27, 2015, 02:37:43 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Real GDP was Revised to a 3.7% Annual Growth Rate in Q2 To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist

Real GDP was revised to a 3.7% annual growth rate in Q2 from a prior estimate of 2.3%...

FYI to our friend BW.  Aberrant quarterly GDP growth does not get "annualized" when the other quarters were zero or negative.

 83 
 on: August 27, 2015, 02:31:49 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
"He has clearly tapped into a reserve of public resentment for inside-the-Beltway politics. How far this resentment will carry him is anyone’s guess, but the Republican establishment is worried. His latest proposal to end birthright citizenship has set off alarm bells in the Republican party. The leadership worries that Trump will derail the party’s plans to appeal to the Latino vote"

I keep hearing on MSLSD and the Feminist controlled CNN that 70% of Latins are against Trump.

So what.   70% are against any Republican.   And who is the establishment catering to?  Illegals and new immigrants who overstay their Visas.  They should be catering to those who come here legally as well as US citizens. 

And the darn CANS still can't get it that it is not about Latinos.  It is about anyone from anywhere that comes here illegally.

Does anyone think the Puerto Ricans are thrilled to have Mexicans flooding here by the millions having babies at our expense and then turning around and demanding benefits and the same rights they have? 

I will not vote for a pro amnesty candidate.  I will sit the next election out.

I am not saying Trump is my ideal choice but he is the only standing up to this leftist intimidation.   The rest of the bunch are cowards and are signing their own demise.
 
Thank you.  I feel better now.

CCP has been right on the immigration problem for quite a while.  Assuming it is not going to be Trump, we will need a candidate who will assimilate the Trump voters with the rest of us - and win - and then DO SOMETHING about it.

Immigration SHOULD be a very positive thing for this country.  On the current course, it will never be a positive force with our safety net running wild and our private economy stalled.

 84 
 on: August 27, 2015, 02:24:57 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
A very good discussion.

I am quite busy with the sort of things that go with having been on the road for seven days, but this thread is the right place for the discussion of this issue.  May I ask that some one paste here my post of this morning on this matter (on the Immigration thread?)?

   
Trump's critics are wrong about birthright citizenship
« Reply #929 on: Today at 11:54:53 AM »
Reply with quote
http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20Best%20of%208/22&utm_term=VDHM%20Reader

by Edward J. Erler August 19, 2015 4:00 AM Donald Trump continues to bewilder political experts. He unabashedly wades into politically dangerous territory and yet continues to be rewarded by favorable poll results. He has clearly tapped into a reserve of public resentment for inside-the-Beltway politics. How far this resentment will carry him is anyone’s guess, but the Republican establishment is worried. His latest proposal to end birthright citizenship has set off alarm bells in the Republican party. The leadership worries that Trump will derail the party’s plans to appeal to the Latino vote. Establishment Republicans believe that the future of the party depends on being able to capture a larger share of this rapidly expanding electorate. Trump’s plan, however, may appeal to the most rapidly expanding electorate, senior citizens, and may have an even greater appeal to the millions of Republicans who stayed away from the polls in 2012 as well as the ethnic and blue-collar Democrats who crossed party lines to vote Republican in the congressional elections of 2014. All of these voters outnumber any increase in the Latino vote that Republicans could possibly hope to gain from a population that has consistently voted Democratic by a two-thirds majority and shows little inclination to change. RELATED: Not Hard to Read the 14th Amendment As Not Requiring Birthright Citizenship — And Nothing Odd About Supporting Such a Reading Critics say that Trump’s plan is unrealistic, that it would require a constitutional amendment because the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship and that the Supreme Court has upheld this requirement ever since its passage in 1868. The critics are wrong. A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the U.S. are entitled to American citizenship — and, as Trump says, it is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many of Trump’s critics believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common-law system. This is simply not true. Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” RELATED: End Birthright Citizenship Now: Barack Obama Makes the Case Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. Furthermore, there has never been an explicit holding by the Supreme Court that the children of illegal aliens are automatically accorded birthright citizenship. In the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. of legal aliens was entitled to “birthright citizenship” under the 14th Amendment. This was a 5–4 opinion which provoked the dissent of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who argued that, contrary to the reasoning of the majority’s holding, the 14th Amendment did not in fact adopt the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship. Get Free Exclusive NR Content

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20Best%20of%208/22&utm_term=VDHM%20Reader

 85 
 on: August 27, 2015, 02:18:45 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
"He has clearly tapped into a reserve of public resentment for inside-the-Beltway politics. How far this resentment will carry him is anyone’s guess, but the Republican establishment is worried. His latest proposal to end birthright citizenship has set off alarm bells in the Republican party. The leadership worries that Trump will derail the party’s plans to appeal to the Latino vote"

I keep hearing on MSLSD and the Feminist controlled CNN that 70% of Latins are against Trump.

So what.   70% are against any Republican.   And who is the establishment catering to?  Illegals and new immigrants who overstay their Visas.  They should be catering to those who come here legally as well as US citizens. 

And the darn CANS still can't get it that it is not about Latinos.  It is about anyone from anywhere that comes here illegally.

Does anyone think the Puerto Ricans are thrilled to have Mexicans flooding here by the millions having babies at our expense and then turning around and demanding benefits and the same rights they have? 

I will not vote for a pro amnesty candidate.  I will sit the next election out.

I am not saying Trump is my ideal choice but he is the only standing up to this leftist intimidation.   The rest of the bunch are cowards and are signing their own demise.
 
Thank you.  I feel better now.

 86 
 on: August 27, 2015, 02:18:06 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
PP,  First, glad you're in on the discussion!  Second, I think I'm with you on policies and issues, just not all the conclusions.  

You are kind of tough on some of the other mortals trying to be President, so let's apply that same standard to Trump.  He is a Rino in as many ways as the others who commonly earn that title; he's just not a wishy-washy one.  Most notably, he earns that mark by siding with big government solutions whenever it suits him.  The term Cino is now emerging, conservative in name only.  Trump makes Romney look consistent - and "severely" conservative.  (

"Purity and the ability to be elected does not exist."   - True.  But Trump is also a Rino on constitutional issues, to the left of Sandra Day O'Connor(!), and I don't consider the right to pick the next Supreme Court Justices to be a minor part of the job.  Most of what is wrong with the country today can be traced back to bad Supreme Court decisions.

Yes, I think electing Rubio could change the mindset and direction in this country, and he polls better than Trump and the others in the general election matchups.  In that sense, it is Trump who is unelectable (looking at it today).  Losing the election, by definition, means not being able to change things.  Conversely, the country will have to change its mindset in order to elect a Republican in these new demographics.  So the question becomes, who can make that case most persuasively - to the people who are most persuadable?  Trump is hitting a chord right now with people that are already pissed off. To me, it is Rubio who has a chance to change minds without evoking the usual negative reaction so many voters tend to have toward conservative candidates.  We can discuss Rubio further on his own thread; I sense you disagree.  

On immigration Trump says he will send them all back but it isn't going to happen.  Pressed for details he says start with the gangbangers, murderers and rapists.  I think we can get Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, Carson and others to agree with at least that.  Rubio went soft on amnesty trying to get a deal (there goes purity) but also got a real world lesson on how Democrats don't negotiate in good faith and how you have to win more elections and bigger ones to make positive changes.  Now he says, secure the border first.  Like Trump, he may actually mean that and accomplish it especially if a like-minded congress got on board.  In the end, I don't see a real policy difference left on immigration beyond that one is going to alienate everyone along the way, and one might win and get border security done.  

PP knows many Hispanics who support Trump.  But most Hispanics know someone pretty closely who is vulnerable to mass deportation talk.  Trump's polling is net -51% with Hispanics.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/184814/hispanics-frown-trump-not-rest-gop-field.aspx  (chart below)  We need to start enforcing the law without the grandstanding to scare everyone (IMHO).

Jeb Bush has stubbornly stuck with Common Core long after everyone else on the right figured out it is a big leftist government takeover.  I don't know where Rubio is on that but I know his underlying principles are not big, federal government centric.  No one speaks out better on liberty than Rubio, IMHO.   Having the federal government bully the states on state issues doesn't match anything else Rubio is saying or doing.  I don't know where Trump is on it, but taking from his other positions, he will head up the best federal government run schools in the world!  

I don't know if Walker survives his latest flipflops.  I've also wondered if Carly is a closet liberal and if statements she made trying to ease the left in California will come back to haunt her.  Now I suspect it is the opposite; she tried sounding moderate in Calif but really was a closet conservative.  She may have some explaining to do along the way but sounds very good to me right now.  I like Cruz but he doesn't seem to know the full political game or have enough appeal, especially crossover appeal to go it alone.  I have the concerns with Carson that PP expressed, does he know enough to survive the process?  It is a long process though and perhaps the answer will be yes.  And when you hear that he lost his two older cousins on the streets of Detroit before he figured out to set his own life on a good path, maybe he knows things about turning things around that the rest of us could never know.  If a significant number of the people currently unproductive by choice suddenly jumped into our economy, amazing things would happen.  Being a black conservative is a GREAT thing!   All of those, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz, Walker, would be fine with me, and Jindal too, though I don't see him catching on.   As PP said, just pick the one who will win - and the one who will get the right things done if they do win.  

Jeb Bush is a topic all his own.  He was a good governor but is wrong about the two issues mentioned and declared he doesn't need the support of people like me to win.  So he can win the nomination without the support of people like me.  Kasich is perhaps in a similar situation.  Let's deal with the question of sitting out the general election only if it comes to that.  Our job right now is to make sure we don't need to.

Gallup Chart:

 87 
 on: August 27, 2015, 01:44:31 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/20/wave-anti-iran-deal-tv-ads-organized-saudi-arabian-lobbyist/

 88 
 on: August 27, 2015, 01:40:35 PM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://ksn.com/2015/08/24/kansas-seeks-to-block-release-of-voting-machine-paper-tapes/

 89 
 on: August 27, 2015, 01:29:06 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
I will reflect upon this.

 90 
 on: August 27, 2015, 01:26:41 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
A very good discussion.

I am quite busy with the sort of things that go with having been on the road for seven days, but this thread is the right place for the discussion of this issue.  May I ask that some one paste here my post of this morning on this matter (on the Immigration thread?)?

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!