Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 06, 2016, 04:11:19 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
98745 Posts in 2346 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

 81 
 on: December 02, 2016, 01:10:24 PM 
Started by G M - Last post by DougMacG
“Pelosi is 76. Her second-in-command, Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, is 77. Jim Clyburn, the 3rd ranking House Democrat, is 76.” Nothing says “forward-looking leadership” like a trio of septuagenarians at the top of the food chain."

  - Chris Cillizza
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/loose-ends-14.php

 82 
 on: December 02, 2016, 12:59:10 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG


From the article:   "During his stint as Mullen’s intelligence chief, Flynn would often write “This is bullshit!” in the margins of classified papers he was obliged to pass on to his boss, someone who saw these papers told me."


That may sound bad to a typical New Yorker reader but I have forwarded things without comment and people presume I am forwarding something I endorse or agree with.  It would be irresponsible not to put some such comment on something passed along to a superior for consideration or awareness if that reflects his own knowledgeable and professional view.  His boss wants his comment.  Furthermore, aren't those comments on a classified document passed between two top clearance people also classified?  The person revealing that has committed a crime(?) and so has the New Yorker in publishing it.  No?    "Hey, here's what I saw on a US military intelligence document marked Classified Top Secret!"  "Great, let's publish it!"   Really??

It tells me the guy doesn't mince words, nor was there any indication his boss offended.

The 'disgruntled' author called Flynn's service to his country in this high position, "during his stint as".  As suggested, they are looking for something to deride or complain about and finding very little of significance.  Like worrying about Bannon while elevating Ellison...

 83 
 on: December 02, 2016, 11:14:16 AM 
Started by Mad Scientist - Last post by DougMacG
CD writes:
"One of the arguments we are going to hear from the other side about the Carrier deal is that Obama did the same sort of thing with the auto industry."

ccp:  2 days ago Rush discussed this very issue.  Fortunately I am able to find the transcript online.  You may have to peruse further down the article to get to the part where he negates the argument that the deals are the same.   One reason is Obama's deal was for the unions.   Secondly the BHO administration basically  bought GM and told them what to do:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/30/the_petty_white_house_response_to_trump_s_carrier_deal

Good work on both the question and the answer.  My view is that it is either unconstitutional or just plain wrong (equal protection under the law) for any government to offer any business any special treatment that would not be available to all, and WAY out of bounds for the federal government to take on the task of running a so-called private business.

Adhering to these principles might have cost us Chrysler in 1979, 2009, Harley Davidson in 1983 and General Motors in 2009.  The positive effects of a consistent and dynamic, free and fair economy would more than make up for that, but telling that to the displaced workers would not be persuasive, consoling or pay the bills.  Trump's approach polls better.

Part of what Trump offered Carrier is offered to all, the promise that lower tax rates and more reasonable regulations are coming.  The rest I believe was the state offering special incentives in a deal brokered by Trump.  I oppose that kind of thing even though it is common at the state and local level and nothing like what Obama did with General Motors.  By coincidence, the Governor of Indiana is ... Mike Pence.  http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/14/pence-finish-term-governor-he-leads-trump-transition/93794636/

Obama acted to prevent the auto workers union from having to take major losses in bankruptcy.  He preventing bankruptcy laws from working as intended.  GM was trying reorganize and President Obama took sides, putting the full faith and credit of the United States where it legally and constitutionally did not belong.

Article WHAT? of the constitution authorizes the federal government to acquire and run an automobile manufacturing company??

 84 
 on: December 02, 2016, 10:58:18 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/greenhut-california-gops-final-death-throes/

 85 
 on: December 02, 2016, 10:44:00 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-one-Israels-constitutional-identity-crisis-474225

 86 
 on: December 02, 2016, 10:43:10 AM 
Started by Mad Scientist - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Very helpful, I used it in a FB conversation-- thank you.

 87 
 on: December 02, 2016, 10:03:43 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser

 88 
 on: December 02, 2016, 09:12:37 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
Third post

Mad Dog for Sec Def!!!




 89 
 on: December 02, 2016, 06:56:03 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
http://nypost.com/2016/12/01/donald-trump-makes-surprise-call-to-al-sharpton/

 90 
 on: December 02, 2016, 05:47:32 AM 
Started by Mad Scientist - Last post by ccp
CD writes:

"One of the arguments we are going to hear from the other side about the Carrier deal is that Obama did the same sort of thing with the auto industry."

2 days ago Rush discussed this very issue.  Fortunately I am able to find the transcript online.  You may have to peruse further down the article to get to the part where he negates the argument that the deals are the same.   One reason is Obama's deal was for the unions.   Secondly the BHO administration basically  bought GM and told them what to do:


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/30/the_petty_white_house_response_to_trump_s_carrier_deal

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!