Bleacher Bums Forum

General Category => Archives => Topic started by: Dave23 on April 15, 2014, 03:21:40 pm

Title: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on April 15, 2014, 03:21:40 pm

worst topic on the board (next to the Green Bay talk, anyway...)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 15, 2014, 04:10:47 pm

Get a better team, win more Super Bowls than the Packers and we can talk.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 15, 2014, 04:22:42 pm

 
 WOO HOO ! POST #3 !!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on April 15, 2014, 04:35:17 pm

This is for Oddo and his savior Nobama....

The Obama Administration just keeps lying!!!!! All they do is lie.........

A study released Tuesday by the non-profit RAND Corporation found that only 3.9 million people have enrolled in the Obamacare exchanges--a much smaller number than the 7 million sign-ups touted by the Obama administration:

By our estimate, 3.9 million people are now covered through the state and federal marketplaces. This number is lower than current estimates of marketplace enrollment through the end of March from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), perhaps because some of the [Health Reform Opinion Study] data were collected in early March. All HROS data collection reported here ended on March 28, and therefore missed the last three days of the open enrollment period, during which time there was a surge in enrollment.

The study also found that people gaining employer-provided insurance was the biggest reason why the uninsured rate has dropped in recent months:

Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained [employer-sponsored insurance], 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million signed up through the marketplaces, and the remainder gained coverage through other sources.

If the 1.4 million figure is correct, that means that less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. population gained insurance through the Obamacare exchanges. Of course, it's certainly possible that the Obama administration's estimates are closer to the mark. But even if that's the case, it's highly unlikely that more than 1 percent of the U.S. population gained insurance--that is, they were previously uninsured but are now insured--because of the Obamacare exchanges.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on April 15, 2014, 04:36:34 pm

Real Obamacare sign-up #s (from Rand): 1.4 million. The rest were either thrown off old insurance or got Medicaid

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 15, 2014, 05:20:03 pm

Reports: Company Tied to Reid's Son Wants Land in Bundy Standoff
 
Image: Reports: Company Tied to Reid's Son Wants Land in Bundy Standoff  Rory Reid 
 

Sunday, 13 Apr 2014 08:48 PM

By Greg Richter

The Nevada rancher who forced the federal Bureau of Land Management to back down last week may have been targeted because a Chinese solar company with ties to Sen. Harry Reid's son wants the land for an energy plant, several websites report.

 A report on Godfatherpolitics.com,  says Chinese energy giant ENN Energy Group wants to use federal land as part of its effort to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel-building plant in the southern Nevada desert. Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is representing ENN in their efforts to locate in Nevada.

 Part of the land ENN wants to use was purchased from Clark County at well below appraised value. Rory Reid is the former Clark County Commission chairman, and he persuaded the commission to sell 9,000 acres of county land to ENN on the promise it would provide jobs for the area, Reuters reported in 2012.

 In addition to the county acreage, the federal Bureau of Land Management at one time was looking at BLM property under dispute with cattle rancher Cliven Bundy. The BLM is headed by former Harry Reid senior policy adviser Neil Kornz.

 According to BizPac Review, BLM documents indicate that the federal property for which Bundy claims grazing rights were under consideration by a solar energy company. Those documents have since been removed from BLM's website, but BizPac quotes from one of them:

 "Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle."

 "Trespass cattle" is a reference to Bundy's herd. Bundy's family has grazed cattle on the land since the 1870s, and Bundy maintains he has grazing rights to the federal land. But he hasn't paid his federal grazing fees in 20 years in a dispute with the BLM.

 BLM agents hired contract cowboys earlier this year to seize hundreds of head of cattle and were moving in to seize the rest when militia members from across the country and other supporters showed up last week.

 Citing a dangerous situation, the BLM backed off its efforts and returned Bundy's cattle Saturday, but it has vowed to continue fighting him in court and administratively.

 In its effort to get Bundy off the land, it has attempted to get him to reduce his 1,000-head herd to 150, The Blaze's Dana Loesch reports. Bundy says his ranch would not be viable with a herd that small.

 The BLM claims a need to control grazing on the land to protect an endangered desert tortoise. But Loesch and others note that in August, the tortoise population in a nearby conservation center was set to be euthanized because of underfunding.

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service denied those reports, saying that only unhealthy tortoises would be euthanized and others would be relocated. But KVVU-TV in Las Vegas reported that the agency didn't say how many of the tortoises in its care were deemed "healthy."

 Further, Loesch reports, Harry Reid pressured the BLM to change the tortoise's protected zone to accommodate developer Harvey Whittemore, one of the Democrat's top donors. Whittemore was convicted in May 2013 of making illegal campaign contributions to him.

 "BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development," Loesch writes.

 "Clearly, these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bundy-ranch-rory-reid-harry-reid/2014/04/13/id/565328/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1564290_04142014&promo_code=df2fw3k4

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 15, 2014, 05:57:02 pm

 
 Hey Wsh,
 
 Gotta ask ya ... can you repost the e-mail from your friend about WWII?
 
 I think I can post the pics mentioned but I need to know which ones from that e-mail.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 15, 2014, 06:11:39 pm

You could just give him your e-mail and he could send it to you like he asked.  :)

Just saying...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 15, 2014, 06:48:10 pm

JJ if I had an e-mail address I might be able to forward it but I am not sure I still have it. The planes were awesome. Let me check to see if I still have it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 15, 2014, 06:49:50 pm

Yes I still have it. I've been waiting for somebody to want it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 15, 2014, 06:59:13 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 15, 2014, 06:11:39 pm

You could just give him your e-mail and he could send it to you like he asked.  :)

Just saying...

 Now you know thats against the law Duck ...
 

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 15, 2014, 06:49:50 pm

Yes I still have it. I've been waiting for somebody to want it

 Repost it !
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 15, 2014, 07:13:31 pm

I cant repost the pics. I cant cut and past the pics. If you can you are better than I am at it. All th writing will post if I repost it but not the pics. To enjoy the pics you need the e-mail

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 15, 2014, 07:16:14 pm

Thanks Peke. any old e-mail addy will do

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 15, 2014, 07:24:52 pm

send me a personal message (above) with the e-mail addy you want it and I will forward it to that addy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 15, 2014, 08:01:24 pm

This person can expect an audit....

http://news.yahoo.com/learned-liberal-talking-head-fox-news-143013301--politics.html

The questions came mostly from fellow liberals who had not watched much Fox News but had seen the most outlandish clips of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity that had made it to "The Daily Show" or YouTube. They perhaps imagined that walking down the hallway outside makeup, Mr. O'Reilly might yell then, too, instead of just saying hello. That's a funny notion, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

My time at Fox News was marked by meeting and working with some of the kindest, smartest, and most talented people I've had the pleasure of meeting in life. As I said in my TED talk, Sean Hannity is one of the sweetest people you'll ever meet – and even now that I've parted ways with Fox, he remains a good friend and mentor.

For a radical progressive who once harbored negative stereotypes about folks on the right, it was a turning point for me to meet people such as Mr. Hannity, Karl Rove, Monica Crowley, Sarah Palin, and so many others, and see that – though we certainly disagree profoundly on political issues – they're personable and kind and human. Just like me.

It's strange to suggest that a seemingly simple realization such as that is in fact a profound revelation, but in our hyperpartisan era, when we often vilify the other side as being less-than-human, it is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 15, 2014, 08:35:34 pm

The future of ObamaCare it it is not repealed and instead serves (as Obama wanted) as the first step to a complete government takeover of health care:  http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/14/nhs-nurses-stretch-breaking-point-report

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 15, 2014, 09:10:08 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 15, 2014, 07:13:31 pm

I cant repost the pics. I cant cut and past the pics. If you can you are better than I am at it. All th writing will post if I repost it but not the pics. To enjoy the pics you need the e-mail

 I know that. What I am saying is repost the original e-mail and I can hunt down the pics that wernt posted and post them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 15, 2014, 09:32:36 pm

 
 How will money be moved ?
 
 Bit Coin ?
 
 Space Coin ?
 
 Dakota ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 15, 2014, 09:44:45 pm

We just **** canned the old politics thread because it was enormous and was skipping. 

Plus if he e-mails it to you can then post it if you so choose or just enjoy the pics yourself. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 15, 2014, 10:38:35 pm

 
 So anyways Wsh repost the e-mail from your friend because the info was in there of the pics he posted that could not post.
 
 I need that info to post them.
 
 BTW ... the CHAT(at the top of the page) line works.
 
 You could actually talk to one another.
 
 Imagine yourselves in REAL TIME conversing.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubjIc3qLPds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubjIc3qLPds)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2014, 01:51:38 am

 

Take the time to view all of these photos and facts. Is long.

Amazing WW2 Aircraft Facts.

On average 6600 American service men died per MONTH, during WW2 (about 220 a day).

People who were not around during WW2 have no understanding of the magnitude.  This gives some insight.

276,000 aircraft manufactured in the US.
43,000 planes lost overseas, including 23,000 in combat. 
14,000 lost in the continental U.S.


The staggering cost of aircraft in 1945 dollars

B-17       $204,370.     P-40       $44,892.
B-24       $215,516.     P-47       $85,578.
B-25       $142,194.     P-51       $51,572.
B-26       $192,426.     C-47       $88,574.
B-29       $605,360.     PT-17     $15,052.
P-38         $97,147.     AT-6       $22,952.


From Germany 's invasion of Poland , Sept. 1, 1939,  until Japan 's surrender on Sept. 2, 1945 = 2,433 days.   
America lost an average of 170 planes a day.

A  B-17 carried 2,500 gallons of high octane fuel and carried a crew of 10 airmen.

9.7 billion gallons of gasoline consumed.
108 million hours flown.
460 thousand million rounds of aircraft ammo fired overseas.
7.9 million bombs dropped  overseas.
2.3 million combat flights.
299,230 aircraft used.
808,471 aircraft engines used.
799,972 propellers.

WWII   MOST-PRODUCED COMBAT AIRCRAFT

Russian  Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik                                  36,183
cid:X.MA1.1356187553@aol.com


Yakolev Yak-1,-3,-7, -9                               31,000
cid:X.MA2.1356187553@aol.com

Messerschmitt BF-109                                  30,480
cid:X.MA3.1356187553@aol.com

Focke-Wulf Fw-190                                      29,001
cid:X.MA4.1356187553@aol.com

Supermarine Spitfire                                     20,351
cid:X.MA5.1356187553@aol.com

Convair B-24/PB4Y Liberator/Privateer       18,482
cid:X.MA6.1356187553@aol.com

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt                          15,686
cid:X.MA7.1356187553@aol.com

North American P-51 Mustang                     15,875
cid:X.MA8.1356187553@aol.com

Junkers Ju-88                                              15,000
cid:X.MA9.1356187553@aol.com

Hawker Hurricane                                        14,533
cid:X.MA10.1356187553@aol.com

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk                                 13,738
cid:X.MA11.1356187553@aol.com

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress                         12,731
cid:X.MA12.1356187553@aol.com

Vought F4U Corsair                                      12,571
cid:X.MA13.1356187553@aol.com

Grumman F6F Hellcat                                  12,275
cid:X.MA14.1356187553@aol.com

Petlyakov Pe-2                                             11,400
cid:X.MA15.1356187553@aol.com

Lockheed P-38 Lightning                              10,037
cid:X.MA16.1356187553@aol.com

Mitsubishi A6M Zero                                    10,449
cid:X.MA17.1356187553@aol.com

North American B-25 Mitchell                        9,984
cid:X.MA18.1356187553@aol.com

Lavochkin LaGG-5                                         9,920



cid:X.MA19.1356187553@aol.com

Grumman TBM Avenger                                9,837
cid:X.MA20.1356187553@aol.com

Bell P-39 Airacobra                                        9,584
cid:X.MA21.1356187553@aol.com

Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar                                    5,919
cid:X.MA22.1356187553@aol.com

DeHavilland Mosquito                                   7,780
cid:X.MA23.1356187553@aol.com

Avro Lancaster                                              7,377
cid:X.MA24.1356187553@aol.com

Heinkel He-111                                              6,508
cid:X.MA25.1356187553@aol.com

Handley-Page Halifax                                     6,176
cid:X.MA26.1356187553@aol.com

Messerschmitt Bf-110                                    6,150
cid:X.MA27.1356187553@aol.com

Lavochkin LaGG-7                                         5,753
cid:X.MA28.1356187553@aol.com

Boeing B-29 Superfortress                            3,970
cid:X.MA29.1356187553@aol.com

Short  Stirling                                                  2,383
cid:X.MA30.1356187553@aol.com
 

The US lost 14,903 pilots, aircrew and support personnel plus 13,873 airplanes ---inside the continental United States.  There were 52,651 aircraft accidents (6,039 involving fatalities) in 45 months.
Average 1,170 aircraft accidents per month---- nearly 40 a day.


It gets worse.....
Almost 1,000  planes disappeared en route from the US to foreign climes.  But  43,581 aircraft were lost overseas including 22,948 on combat missions (18,418 in Europe) and 20,633 due to non-combat causes overseas.

In a single 376 plane raid in August 1943,  60 B-17s were shot down. That was a 16 percent loss rate and meant
600 empty bunks in England.  In 1942-43, it was statistically impossible for bomber crews to complete the intended 25-mission tour in Europe.

Pacific theatre losses were far less (4,530 in combat) owing to smaller forces committed.  The B-29 mission against Tokyo on May 25, 1945, cost 26 Superfortresses, 5.6 percent of the 464 dispatched from the Marianas.

On  average, 6,600 American servicemen died per month during WWII, about 220 a day.  Over 40,000 airmen were killed in combat and another 18,000 wounded.  Some 12,000 missing men were declared dead, including those "liberated" by the Soviets but never returned.  More than 41,000 were captured.  Half of the 5,400 held by the Japanese died in captivity, compared with one-tenth in German hands. Total combat casualties were  121,867.

The US forces peak strength was in 1944 with 2,372,000 personnel, nearly twice the previous year's figure.

Losses were huge---but so were production totals.   From 1941 through 1945, American industry delivered more than 276,000 military aircraft.  That was not only for US Army, Navy and Marine Corps, but also for allies as diverse as Britain, Australia, China and Russia.   

Our enemies took massive losses.  Through much of 1944, the Luftwaffe sustained hemorrhaging of  25% of aircrews and 40 planes a month.


Experience Level:
Uncle Sam sent many men to war with minimum training.  Some fighter pilots entered combat in 1942 with less than 1 hour in their assigned aircraft..
The 357th Fighter Group (The Yoxford Boys) went to England in late 1943 having trained on P-39s, then flew Mustangs.   They never saw a Mustang until the first combat mission. 

With the arrival of new aircraft, many units transitioned in combat.  The attitude was, "They all have a stick and a throttle.  Go fly `em."   When the famed 4th Fighter Group converted from P-47s to P-51s in Feb 44, there was no time to stand down for an orderly transition.   The Group commander, Col. Donald Blakeslee, said,
"You can learn to fly 51s on the way to the target". 
 
A future P-47 ace said, "I was sent to England to die."  Many bomber crews were still learning their trade.  Of Jimmy Doolittle's 15pilots on the April 1942  Tokyo raid, only five had won their wings before 1941.   All but one of the 16 co-pilots were less than a year out of flight school.

In WW2,  safety took a back seat to combat.  The AAF's worst accident rate was recorded by the A-36 Invader version of the P-51: a staggering 274 accidents per 100,000 flying hours.   Next worst were the P-39 at245, the P-40 at 188, and the P-38 at 139.  All were Allison powered.

Bomber wrecks were fewer but more expensive.  The B-17 and B-24 averaged 30 and 35 accidents per 100,000
flight hours respectively-- a horrific figure considering that from 1980 to2000 the Air Force's major mishap rate
was less than 2.

The B-29 was even worse at 40 per 100,000 hours; the world's most sophisticated, most capable and most expensive bomber was too urgently needed to be able to stand down for mere safety reasons.

(Compare:  when a $2.1 billion B-2 crashed in 2008, the Air Force declared a two-month "safety pause").

The B-29 was no better for maintenance. Although the R3350 was known as a complicated, troublesome power-plant, only half the mechanics had previous experience with it.   

Navigators:
Perhaps the greatest success story concerned Navigators.  The Army graduated some 50,000 during WW2.

Many had never flown out of sight of land before leaving "Uncle Sugar" for a war zone.  Yet they found their way across oceans and continents without getting lost or running out of fuel - a tribute to the AAF's training.

At its height in mid-1944, the USAAF had 2.6 million people and nearly 80,000 aircraft of all types. 
Today the US Air Force employs 327,000 active personnel (plus 170,000 civilians) with 5,500+manned and perhaps 200 unmanned aircraft.  That's about 12% of the manpower and 7% of the airplanes of the WW2 peak.

SUMMATION:
Another war like that of 1939-45 is doubtful, as fighters and bombers have given way to helicopters and remotely-controlled drones, eg. over Afghanistan and Iraq.  But within our living memory, men left the earth in 1,000-plane formations and fought major battles five miles high, leaving a legacy that remains timeless.



 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2014, 01:55:45 am

According to the bottom there are 29 attachments (the pics). Those wont cut and paste. I still think you need to get the whole e-mail to see the pics. That's 29 planes JJ.............29. Oh well have fun

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 16, 2014, 10:31:13 am

When I was stationed in Schrevesport, LA in 1966 I served with a guy named Frank Jones, who was a Warrent Officer that had served since the beginning of WWII.  He told me this story.

From 1942 to 1944 he was at a training base that trained pilots.  I wish I could remember which one, but all I remember was that it was in texas.  One of his jobs was to purchase land and create a cemetery for pilots that died in crashes during training.  He said that at the time he left, there were more than 3 thousand graves just at that one base.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on April 16, 2014, 12:22:31 pm

Jes...the biggest problem with ObamaCare (and there are massive amounts of problems) is the cost....we can't afford it, we NEVER could afford it...it is increasing our deficeit significantly.

Obama PROMISED ObamaCare would not cost 1 penny more than $900 billion. HE LIED. It's already estimated at $2.6 trillion AND RISING. Money we do not have.

Are we supposed to keep borrowing until we go broke? and we will one day.

People should pay what they can for insurance. What happened to working hard and getting a head? 97% of country wants a hand out. I am sorry if healthcare is not affordable - but it's not somehtng our gvernment can offer - we can't afford it. + WHY should we be paying for people who make bad choices - smoking, eating, daredevils, drinkers, drug addicts - those folks should be on their own,

"if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"- LIE

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 16, 2014, 03:14:27 pm

It is going to get very interesting when all these "formerly uninsured" (  it's bs but ok I'll play) realize what a deductable is and finally understand that they will be paying the first 2-5 grand out of their own pocket before the insurance kicks in the first dollar.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2014, 03:19:47 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 15, 2014, 09:10:08 pm

 I know that. What I am saying is repost the original e-mail and I can hunt down the pics that wernt posted and post them.

I cant do that, I did all I can do without an e-mail addy to forward it to. If that's not satisfactory you need to provide me with an e-mail addy of your choice. Preferably via the message system we have above so that your e-mail addy and my e-mail addy are secure.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 16, 2014, 04:21:11 pm

Quote from: Beerfan21 on April 16, 2014, 12:22:31 pm

Jes...the biggest problem with ObamaCare (and there are massive amounts of problems) is the cost....we can't afford it, we NEVER could afford it...it is increasing our deficeit significantly.

I strongly disagree.  The biggest problem is that it is a major step toward socialism and a massive expansion of the power of government.  The problems with its cost are insignificant in comparison.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2014, 04:26:55 pm

Yes, it makes us right on a par with Europe and their socialized medicine and their bankruptcy issues.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 16, 2014, 04:44:11 pm

Ahhh...don't like the numbers?  Just change the way they're counted.

http://news.yahoo.com/census-bureau-picked-bad-time-change-counts-uninsured-173556286.html

This is the kind of announcement every Obamacare enrollment truther has been waiting for — the Census Bureau is changing the questions it asks about health insurance, to the point that the data won't be comparable to past years, according to the New York Times. An Obama administration official told Vox's Sarah Kliff that this will affect census data starting with the 2013 data released this fall, meaning we'll have one year of pre-Obamacare data with the new questions. Still, the Census Bureau said “it is coincidental and unfortunate timing” that the new questions are lining up so closely to the start of the health care law.

Census officials said it will be difficult to determine how much of the change is attributable to Obamacare. That change will likely be a lower number of uninsured. “We are expecting much lower numbers just because of the questions and how they are asked,” Brett J. O’Hara, chief of the health statistics branch at the Census Bureau, told the Times.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2014, 05:27:17 pm

O'Reilly: Fraud, Not Racism, Behind Voter ID Card Proposal

http://www.newsmax.com/US/voter-fraud-ID-Bill-OReilly/2014/04/16/id/565908/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1564773_04162014&promo_code=jjzgycsz

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on April 16, 2014, 05:36:54 pm

"I strongly disagree.  The biggest problem is that it is a major step toward socialism and a massive expansion of the power of government.  The problems with its cost are insignificant in comparison."

True that. 100%

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 16, 2014, 07:17:15 pm

The long-awaited Rand Corp. study of Obamacare's effect on health insurance coverage was released Tuesday and confirmed the numbers that had been telegraphed for more than a week: At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the law.


That's a net figure, accommodating all those who lost their individual health insurance because of cancellations. The Rand study confirms other surveys that placed the number of people who lost their old insurance and did not or could not replace it -- the focus of an enormous volume of anti-Obamacare rhetoric -- at less than 1 million. The Rand experts call this a "very small" number, less than 1% of the U.S. population age 18 to 64.

The Rand study was eagerly anticipated in part because of the dearth of hard information from other sources, including the federal and state governments, which are still compiling their statistics and may not have a full slate for months.


Rand acknowledges that its figures have limitations -- they're based on a survey sampling, meaning that the breakdowns are subject to various margins of error, and they don't include much of the surge in enrollments in late March and early April. Those 3.2-million sign-ups not counted by Rand could "dramatically affect" the figures on total insureds, the organization said.

A few other important takeaways:

--The number of people getting insurance through their employers increased by 8.2 million. Rand said the increase is likely to have been driven by a decline in unemployment, which made more people eligible for employer plans, and by the incentives in the Affordable Care Act encouraging more employer coverage. The figure certainly undermines the contention by the healthcare law's critics that the legislation gave employers an incentive to drop coverage.

--Of the 3.9 million people counted by Rand as obtaining insurance on the individual exchange market, 36% were previously uninsured. That ratio is expected to rise when the late signups are factored in. Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million, the majority of whom did not have insurance before signing up.

--These figures are only the leading edge of a long-term trend. "It's still early in the life of the ACA," Rand said. Its experts expect more enrollments "as people become more familiar with the law, the individual mandates increase to their highest levels, the employer mandate kicks in, and other changes occur." But their bottom line is that the law already has led to "a substantial increase in insurance coverage."



http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-rand-20140408,0,6208659.column#ixzz2z67iGVpB (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-rand-20140408,0,6208659.column#ixzz2z67iGVpB)



Enjoy that beerflabby

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 16, 2014, 09:05:25 pm

Bullshit!

Do you ever get tired of carrying the water for this administration?  The law is a disaster as is this administration.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 16, 2014, 09:14:56 pm

He's posted that same article at least 3 times. He's running out of material. Can't wait to hear  the whining from all the people who used to go to the emergency room for free now show up there and find out that they owe $200 or more for the ER co-pay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 16, 2014, 09:19:01 pm

Ignorant wingbutts


Its a Rand Corp study of the PPACA, not a press release from the Administration.


Idiots.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 16, 2014, 09:35:58 pm

Rand Corporation calls itself independent but as they say...follow the money. Interesting article showing political contributions of "think tank" employees including Rand.

Rand employees donations between 2003-2010  91.20% to democrats vs 8.80% to republicans. Why would anyone be skeptical about the results of the survey?


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/03/think-tank-employees-tend-to-support-democrats

However, employee contributions from some of the top moderate think tanks skew decidedly to the left. For example, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the RAND Corporation, two of the policy institutes with the most generous employees, have 84 percent and 91 percent Democratic giving records, respectively. The two think tanks with the most bipartisan spread of campaign contributions--the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Institute--still have seen more than two-thirds of their employees' reported contributions going toward Democrats and liberal PACs since 2003. Even employees of the Congressional Research Service, sometimes called "Congress' think tank," have given 100 percent of their donations since 2003 to Democratic candidates and committees.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 17, 2014, 12:07:27 am

 
 Who started the Rand Corporation ? Yer gonna **** when you find out.
 
 Look it up.
 
 As far as the 29 aircraft pics go ... Im gonna post them, may take some time ...  ;D
 
 Just to let all of us know who died so that we can do this.  >:(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 17, 2014, 01:21:00 am

 
 
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Yahoo's recently fired chief operating officer, Henrique de Castro, left the Internet company with a severance package of $58 million even though he lasted just 15 months on the job.
 
 The disclosure in a regulatory filing Wednesday may lead to more second-guessing about Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer's decision to hire de Castro as her second-in-command in October 2012.
 
 Mayer dumped de Castro in January after concluding he wasn't executing on her plan for reviving Yahoo's lackluster ad growth. De Castro had been in charge of ad sales.
 
 "Ultimately, Henrique was not a fit and that's a very regrettable conclusion," Mayer told analysts in late January. "And it's a conclusion that we tried very hard to avoid, but it was the right decision in the end for the company." After making the expensive mistake, Mayer has said she won't pick another chief operating officer.
 
 De Castro's severance pay more than doubled the amount that Yahoo paid Mayer last year. Mayer's compensation was valued at $24.9 million, a 32 percent decline from the previous year. The decrease stemmed primarily from a stock award of $35 million that she received in July 2012 when Yahoo persuaded her to leave her previous job as a top Google Inc. executive to become its CEO.
 
 Yahoo Inc. previously disclosed de Castro would be getting a severance package, but didn't reveal the amount until Wednesday.
 
 The company's board said most of the severance stemmed from the costs of luring de Castro from his previous job at Google. Like many other senior Google executives, de Castro would have received millions in stock by staying at the company. That prompted Yahoo to make up for some of the Google awards he had to relinquish when he defected.
 
 "The board believed at the time Mr. de Castro was hired that he had a unique set of highly valuable skills and experiences that would be key to returning the company to long-term growth and success," Yahoo's compensation committee said in its defense of de Castro's severance pay.
 
 The compensation committee ended up having such a dim view of de Castro's performance in 2013 that it decided not to give him a bonus, according to Wednesday's filing. He was eligible for a bonus of up to $540,000, or 90 percent of the $600,000 salary that he received last year.
 
 De Castro's severance package wouldn't have been worth nearly as much if Yahoo's stock hadn't more than doubled during de Castro's brief tenure with the company.
 
 But those gains had little to do with the managerial acumen of de Castro, Mayer or any other Yahoo executives.
 
 Analysts trace almost all the increase in Yahoo's stock price to the company's 24 percent stake in China's Alibaba Group, which is running some of the world's fastest-growing and most-profitable e-commerce sites. Alibaba is planning to go public on the New York Stock Exchange and when that happens, Yahoo will be able to reap a multibillion dollar windfall from its holdings in the company.
 
 Yahoo's own business remains in a funk. The Sunnyvale, Calif., company's revenue, minus ad commissions, dipped 1 percent last year. Advertising sales showed some signs of modest improvement during the first three months of this year, but Yahoo is still lagging the overall growth of Internet marketing.
 
 Had Yahoo's stock price remained at roughly the same level as when de Castro joined the company, his severance package value would have been worth about $17 million.
 
 Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 17, 2014, 05:00:21 am

Rand employees donations between 2003-2010  91.20% to democrats vs 8.80% to republicans. Why would anyone be skeptical about the results of the survey?

Who couldn't trust them? LOL!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 07:13:42 am

No IRS scandal? Its all Issa's fault? NO, its coming out and its going to explode.



How High Does It Go?: New Emails Could Implicate Holder’s DOJ In IRS Targeting Of Conservatives


April 17, 2014 by Sam Rolley 

How High Does It Go?: New Emails Could Implicate Holder’s DOJ In IRS Targeting Of Conservatives
 
New emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit indicate that former Internal Revenues Service official Lois Lerner’s targeting of conservative groups was part of a broader assault on right-leaning groups by other Federal agencies.

The emails, obtained by Judicial Watch, reveal communication between Lerner and Justice Department officials regarding the possibility of prosecuting tax-exempt groups for making “false statements.” The email exchange took place just days before Lerner was forced to apologize for the IRS’s unfair targeting of conservatives.

In a May 8 email to Nikole C. Flax, former chief of staff to former-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller, Lerner wrote:


I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS …”

Lerner, who was heading up the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations division at the time, was referencing suggestions Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) made during a Senate hearing on campaign finance last April.

In a reply, Flax said, “I think we should do it — also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate.” She went on to suggest that the IRS should partner in the undertaking with the Federal Elections Commission.

In a later email to top IRS staff, Lerner sought to alleviate any concern that the targeting was politically motivated:


As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are). One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff.

So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated — it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity

In other emails, however, Lerner acknowledged that the finding a legal means for the prosecutions would be difficult.

The emails largely serve to indicate that in the days leading up to inevitable bad press about the Federal government using the IRS to bully conservatives, top government officials were working feverishly to manufacture evidence that the targeting was justified via criminal prosecution.

They also provide evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ was well-aware of the targeting.

As House Republicans continue to in attempts to get more information about the extent of the IRS targeting, the newly released emails will likely be a major help to Congressional investigators.

“These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal. No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 07:27:36 am

Rand Paul Questions Number Of Armed Federal Agents, Criticizes Government Treatment Of Rancher


April 16, 2014 by Sam Rolley 


Rand Paul Questions Number Of Armed Federal Agents, Criticizes Government Treatment Of Rancher
 
While many GOP politicians remain mum on the Federal response to Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s refusal to pay grazing fees, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized the government’s actions this week.

During a radio interview, Paul called out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and questioned why the government has so many armed personnel.

After a tense standoff between Federal agents and Bundy supporters, some of whom were armed, culminated in the government backing down and releasing the rancher’s livestock, Reid said Monday that the standoff is far from over.

“Well, it’s not over,” Reid told KRNV. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

American citizens shouldn’t violate the law, Paul agreed— however, the government shouldn’t either.

“I think there’s an opposite thing to what Harry Reid said, and that’s the federal government shouldn’t violate the law, nor should we have 48 Federal agencies carrying weapons and having SWAT teams,” Paul said Tuesday in a radio interview with the Kentucky-based WHAS.

The lawmaker went on to say that the disputed land, which the Bundy family had leased from the county before a Federal takeover, should be returned to local control—a goal he believes can be best achieved in court.

“Can everybody decide what the law is on their own? No, there has to be a legal process,” he said. “But I think there is definitely a philosophic debate over who should own the land.

“I hope it’ll go through a court. But if it were in a court, I would be siding and wanting to say that look, the States and the individuals in the State should own these lands,” he continued.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 07:52:59 am

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/justice-department-emails-probe/2014/04/16/id/566075/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1564835_04172014&promo_code=fjeuhogr


Report: Emails Show Justice Dept. Involved in IRS Tea Party Probe
 
Image: Report: Emails Show Justice Dept. Involved in IRS Tea Party Probe 
 

Wednesday, 16 Apr 2014 07:01 PM

By Todd Beamon

Embattled former IRS official Lois Lerner last year discussed working with the Justice Department to prosecute nonprofit organizations that she felt had "lied" about their political activities, according to new documents released on Wednesday by Judicial Watch about the agency's targeting of conservative groups.

The new documents show Lerner's communications with Justice within days of publicly acknowledging that the Internal Revenue Service was singling out tea party, conservative, and religious groups.

 They also indicate that the targeting may have reached further into the Obama White House despite Lerner's original assertions that it was all based out of the agency's Cincinnati field office.

In a May 8 email, for instance, Lerner said that she had received a call from Richard Pilger, director of the elections crimes unit at Justice.

 Pilger asked whether the IRS could help the department "piece together false statement cases about applicants who 'lied'" on a particular IRS form, "saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures.

 "DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs," Lerner said in the email.

 "I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…," she said.

 Lerner wrote the email to Nikole Flax, who was chief of staff at the time to Steven Miller, who was the acting IRS commissioner.

 She responded in an email the next day: "I think we should do it -- also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to [Federal Election Commission]. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?"

 Lerner, who retired last September, oversaw the unit that evaluated applications for tax-exempt status. Miller was fired because of the scandal, and Flax has reportedly been targeted by congressional investigators.

 Judicial Watch said on Wednesday that it had obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed last October. The watchdog group has sought documents showing how the IRS had targeted the groups between 2010 and the 2012 presidential election.

 Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the IRS failed to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to last May.

 "These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. "The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal."

 Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that has been investigating the scandal, said the new emails underscored "the political nature of IRS tea party targeting and the extent to which supposed apolitical officials took direction from elected Democrats.

 "These e-mails are part of an overwhelming body of evidence that political pressure from prominent Democrats led to the targeting of Americans for their political beliefs," the California Republican said in a statement.

 "Now I see why the IRS is scared to give up the rest of Lois Lerner's emails,” Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan said in a statement.

 The documents "further prove the coordination among the IRS, the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department and committee Democrats to target conservatives," he said.

 Jordan added that had the oversight panel not become involved, "Eric Holder’s politicized Justice Department would likely have been leveling trumped-up criminal charges against tea party groups to intimidate them from exercising their Constitutional rights."

 President Barack Obama has denied GOP charges that the targeting of the groups was politically motivated or illegal, telling Fox News in February that "not even a smidgen of corruption" was involved in the specialized screening.

 In addition, emails Issa's panel released last week showed that staff members of the oversight committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, had shared information with the IRS that effectively led the agency to investigate True the Vote after the group filed its application for tax-exempt status in 2010.

 Cummings did not disclose any of those dealings with oversight committee Republicans, Issa charged.

In a March 27 email, Lerner told IRS staffers about an April 9 2013, hearing — and the document also suggests that the other Obama administration departments might have been targeting the conservative groups.

 The tax-exempt status the groups were seeking was 501(c)(4), which allows them to keep their donors private.

 "There are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are)," Lerner wrote in the email.

 "One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former general counsel at the the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform," she added.

 "This is their latest push to shut these down.

 "One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn't feel so comfortable doing the stuff," Lerner said. "So, don't be fooled about how this is being articulated — it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity."

 Lerner ignited the controversy last May when she disclosed the scandal in response to a question asked at a conference in Chicago.

 Her response came just before the Treasury Department's inspector general released a report disclosing the targeting.

 President Obama fired Miller — and at least three other IRS workers have been placed on put on administrative leave.

 In testimony before the oversight committee, Lerner has twice invoked the Fifth Amendment, though she has denied wrongdoing. The panel voted last week to hold her in contempt for her refusals.

 If the full House finds Lerner in contempt, the matter would be referred to federal prosecutors.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 08:08:54 am

Rep. Blackburn on Idea of Sebelius as Senator: Hah!

Thursday, 17 Apr 2014 06:37 AM


There's no way Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius can win a Senate seat, Rep. Marsha Blackburn says.

 Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, was stunned at reports that Sebelius — widely blamed for the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act — is mulling a run for U.S. Senate in Kansas.

 "I cannot imagine that she could think she could go back to Kansas after, as she said, she was responsible for the debacle of the HealthCare.gov rollout," Blackburn told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

 "I cannot imagine her saying, 'I'm going to go put my name on the ballot.' That would be a seat that a Republican would certainly win," Blackburn said Wednesday.

 Blackburn is also concerned by a new report from Judicial Watch that indicates former IRS official Lois Lerner wanted to sic the Justice Department on conservative groups the IRS was targeting.

 "It shows a complete disregard for the ethics and integrity of what they are sworn to do and supposed to do with the IRS," said Blackburn, who is vice chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

 "It's supposed to be an independent agency free of political pressures and implications, and what we have seen is that they have gone about politicizing lots of agencies, whether it is CMS or HHS or the ETA or the IRS or Fish and Wildlife, you name it," she said.

 "Look at the amount of overreach and inappropriate activity that has taken place by taking the federal government and using it as a weapon against our fellow citizens, and we're seeing it across the board."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 08:12:52 am

That has to be the biggest joke of the year.

Maybe she should hire our Oddo to be her campaign manager. That might be even funnier.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 08:15:45 am

OTOH Oddo would likely lose his welfare checks if he took the job. NO......he'd whine to Obama who would fix it so he could take the job and still keep his welfare money. Obama can fix anything

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 11:03:43 am

old white dude


So protecting crimes or unlawful action is now the focus of the lip service law and order cult that is the modern day gop? So, if people claim squatting or occupy rights to federal lands anywhere you would be good with it? If a Liberal leaning 401c that filed papers for the tax exemption turned around and engaged on political activity you would be fine with?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 17, 2014, 11:03:57 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 17, 2014, 12:07:27 am

 Who started the Rand Corporation ? Yer gonna **** when you find out.
 
 Look it up.

No need to look it up.  It was started by the Douglas Aircraft company.  Is that significant of something?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 11:04:41 am

Martha....let the stupid flow...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlcFzW5GZo8&feature=player_detailpage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlcFzW5GZo8&feature=player_detailpage)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 11:08:48 am

And flow and flow.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60eOCqC-Xs0&feature=player_detailpage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60eOCqC-Xs0&feature=player_detailpage)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 11:15:42 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 11:03:43 am

So protecting crimes or unlawful action is now the focus of the lip service law and order cult that is the modern day gop?

No, I thnk Eric Holder's  DOJ has  that covered.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 11:39:47 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 11:03:43 am

old white dude


So protecting crimes or unlawful action is now the focus of the lip service law and order cult that is the modern day gop? So, if people claim squatting or occupy rights to federal lands anywhere you would be good with it? If a Liberal leaning 401c that filed papers for the tax exemption turned around and engaged on political activity you would be fine with?

Holder is protecting a lot of unlawful acts by Dumbocrats. In fact he is protecting himself in Fast and Furious for one thing. He is protecting himself for directing Lois Lerner. He keeps trying so snuff out damaging e-mails by trying to block access to them.

As for the tax exempts for conservative groups, I'd be fine with that provided they did that for liberal groups, unions, and community activist groups. Whats fair for the goose is fair for the gander, but don't make a rule for one political group but not the other. As for liberal groups doing political work, you mean they aren't? Of course they are doing so and you know that. Proof? You will be right back by denying it so you know it has to be true. The point is you just want liberal groups doing it and conservative groups not doing it. You don't think unions don't go around soliciting money for political candidates from their members? I was union and I know that's false.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 11:42:30 am

And another thing Oddo since you are so pro enforcing the laws, why haven't you voiced your call for Holder to arrest all the illegal aliens for crossing the border illegally?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 11:55:23 am

Only Otto could support the BLM sending 200 troops with automatic weapons to surround one lone rancher over a grazing fee debt. Harry Reid must really want that land bad.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 12:01:47 pm

His son does. His son is set to make millions

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on April 17, 2014, 12:09:51 pm

after reading a little more about this situation it looks like the family was leasing the land for years until the Federal govt took the land from the state. When the Feds confiscated the land the family quit paying the lease.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 12:34:32 pm

Rand Paul says the land should b transferred back to the state. Oh and the Feds control 81% of all Nevada land.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 17, 2014, 12:35:04 pm

That lone rancher is violating the law.  I have a problem with people screaming that illegal aliens should be prosecuted, but giving a pass to someone that is not only flagrantly violating the law, but doing so violently.

The Clinton administration foolishly waited months before going into Waco to deal with similar situations.  I hope that the Obama administration doesn't do the same.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 12:39:32 pm

The issue at stake really is the land rights that go back to the 1880's which is the source of the disagreement. That issue should be brought before the Supreme Court. Its like the old Spanish land grants. Some of those claims aren't honored.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 12:57:27 pm

Quote from: davep on April 17, 2014, 12:35:04 pm

That lone rancher is violating the law.  I have a problem with people screaming that illegal aliens should be prosecuted, but giving a pass to someone that is not only flagrantly violating the law, but doing so violently.

The Clinton administration foolishly waited months before going into Waco to deal with similar situations.  I hope that the Obama administration doesn't do the same.

I have not heard that the rancher was violent. I also have not heard that the rancher was in any way endangering children as was the allegation in Waco so I thnk that's an apples and oranges thing. It appears to me to be simply a money issue. If I owe my town money they put a lein on my house and wait until I sell or die to collect their loot. They don't send in stormtroopers to steal my property.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 01:07:09 pm

But they have to send in storm troopers in because Rory Reid has already sold the land to the Chinese. They cant wait for Bundy to die. And it was sold for 11% of the actual value.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 01:10:10 pm

Check this out, I cant post it.

http://survivaljoe.net/blog/1-image-that-explains-the-bundy-ranch-standoff-in-60-seconds/?utm_source=140417SJ1&utm_campaign=140417SJ1

Just a warning it doesn't load fast, but that video screen tells the whole story

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 02:26:16 pm

olde white militia dude


The Chinese solar crap that you're clinging too has been debunked as false. The Chinese abandoned the project over a year ago, yet you keep believing the stupid stories from the wingnuts sites that you travel.

Are you that dense that facts can't penetrate your skull?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 02:43:49 pm

Not the militia you wanted, but it's the only militia that puts women and children first...


In an interview with TPM, former Arizona sheriff Richard mack claims he never thought it was a good idea to put women out front in case the shooting started at Cliven Bundy's Nevada melon and free cattle grazing on public land ranch. He told TPM's Dylan Scott "I never thought it was a good idea. I was kind of surprised by the fact that they did."

But that's the opposite of he previously told radio host Ben Swann:

“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”

“I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die.”


nice

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 02:50:09 pm

This can't be good for vote 50+ on the repeal and never replace PPACA for the party of olde white militia types...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYyvAw5MOgw&feature=player_embedded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYyvAw5MOgw&feature=player_embedded)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 02:59:35 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 02:43:49 pm

Not the militia you wanted, but it's the only militia that puts women and children first...


In an interview with TPM, former Arizona sheriff Richard mack claims he never thought it was a good idea to put women out front in case the shooting started at Cliven Bundy's Nevada melon and free cattle grazing on public land ranch. He told TPM's Dylan Scott "I never thought it was a good idea. I was kind of surprised by the fact that they did."

But that's the opposite of he previously told radio host Ben Swann:

“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”

“I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die.”


nice

There wouldn't have even been a threat of shooting if the government stormtroopers hadn't invaded and stole the cattle. Looked like Elian Gonzalez all over again. Government out of control.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 03:01:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 02:26:16 pm

olde white militia dude


The Chinese solar crap that you're clinging too has been debunked as false. The Chinese abandoned the project over a year ago, yet you keep believing the stupid stories from the wingnuts sites that you travel.

Then perhaps you would like to explain why now?  20 years this has been going on and suddenly it's so urgent that we have to send in 200 troops to threaten a single rancher. Why?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 03:04:05 pm

Are you really that blind? Stupid? Dense?

How about reading the following before you get  white militia fool first.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/)


Try to think of pipe bombs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 03:06:41 pm

That tells me you don't have an answer. Why now?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 03:08:15 pm

See above modified post and get back to me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 03:17:24 pm

Is this the pipe bomb issue? So no bombs since 1996 but now in 2014 it a big enough issue to call out troops? Again I ask...if not in 1996 why now?

"March 18, 1996: The federal government, which owns 87 percent of the land in Nevada,  is still worried about potential violence if they try to remove illegally grazing cattle from protected land. Two more pipebombs had exploded in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management offices in the past two years. The Justice Department has 12 lawsuits pending against Nevada cattle ranchers. A federal court in the state struck down the Nye County ordinance that caused trouble the year before. Not that ranchers took that as reason to stand down, however. One local resident told USA Today,"A single district court decision in one district doesn't settle it. It's just a single day in the year of a revolutionary war. We're going to continue on with the fight." Bundy is also continuing to graze on federal lands. "I'm still saying the state of Nevada owns that land, and the federal government has been an encroacher. I'm not moving my cattle. We have ... rights." '

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 03:48:32 pm

Just an apologist are you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:00:01 pm

beerflabby


The PPACA enrollment just topped 8 MILLION.



Deal with It.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:04:43 pm

keysbart

I think the Federal Government should have went in there with enough buses to take all you racist white militia types to jail with all of good olde clive's cattle and put a lien on his Mormon ass for the fees he has passed on to the American People.

I'd treat them the same way that you would advocate treating the Occupy Anywhere people.


Right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 04:07:27 pm

Moron

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:08:35 pm

8 million

 

Just five weeks ago, the Associated Press ran an article on the pace of Affordable Care Act enrollments.

The White House, the piece said, "needs something close to a miracle to meet its goal of enrolling 6 million people by the end of this month."

Congressional Republicans eagerly passed the AP's item around.


Pass it around.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:11:53 pm

Quote

moron

olde white militia dude


I feel sorry for you that you miss what the internet was designed for...information to increase one's knowledge.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 04:14:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:04:43 pm

keysbart

I think the Federal Government should have went in there with enough buses to take all you racist white militia types to jail with all of good olde clive's cattle and put a lien on his Mormon ass for the fees he has passed on to the American People.

I'd treat them the same way that you would advocate treating the Occupy Anywhere people.


Right.

Your very good at making straw men aren't you? Care to show where I ever advocated any action against the occupy movement? They were just a bunch of know nothing kids that disappeared as soon as the weather changed and they just went back to mom's basement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 04:16:23 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:08:35 pm

8 million

 

Just five weeks ago, the Associated Press ran an article on the pace of Affordable Care Act enrollments.

The White House, the piece said, "needs something close to a miracle to meet its goal of enrolling 6 million people by the end of this month."

Congressional Republicans eagerly passed the AP's item around.


Pass it around.

Anyone who believes that number has clearly been passing something around.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:18:49 pm

As for retaking the Senate...


Politico's Morning Score email newsletter:

Arkansas: Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor 39, GOP Rep. Tom Cotton 39, not sure 22. Pryor approval rating: 38 percent approve, 44 percent disapprove; Cotton favorability: 31 percent favorable, 39 percent unfavorable. (Margin of error: ± 4.3 percentage points.)

Colorado: Democratic Sen. Mark Udall 45, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner 43, not sure 12. Udall approval rating: 38 percent approve, 46 percent disapprove; Gardner favorability: 30 percent favorable, 38 percent unfavorable. (Margin of error: ± 4.4 percentage points.)

Louisiana: In Nov. 4 primary: Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu 40, GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy 35, Republican Rob Maness 4, Republican Paul Hollis 3, not sure 18 percent. In hypothetical runoff: Landrieu 43, Cassidy 47, not sure 10. Landrieu approval rating: 39 percent approve, 51 percent disapprove. (Margin of error: ± 4.2 percentage points.)

Michigan: Republican former secretary of state Terri Lynn Land 43, Democratic Rep. Gary Peters 40, not sure 18. Land favorability: 32 percent favorable, 32 percent unfavorable; Peters favorability: 25 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable. (Margin of error: ± 4.2 percentage points.)

Montana: Democratic Sen. John Walsh 35, Republican Rep. Steve Daines 42, not sure 23. Democratic former Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger 33, Daines 44, not sure 23. Walsh favorability: 33 percent favorable, 22 percent unfavorable; Daines favorability: 43 percent favorable, 31 percent unfavorable; Bohlinger favorability: 27 percent favorable, 23 percent unfavorable. (Margin of error: ± 4.3 percentage points.)


The polls were conducted by Harper Research, a new GOP robo firm designed to counter PPP.



Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:22:11 pm

Quote

Anyone who believes that number has clearly been passing something around.

Having another karl rove unskew the polls moment are we?


I'll give you a moment to clear your eyes...clean your underwear.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:31:00 pm

This should be a good read for you olde white militia types...he's on your side.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/17/could_democrats_gain_senate_seats_this_fall_122301.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/17/could_democrats_gain_senate_seats_this_fall_122301.html)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:38:47 pm

Ouch...national journal and all....


http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/obamacare-is-on-a-winning-streak-20140416 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/obamacare-is-on-a-winning-streak-20140416)

With this big ouch in the article...

"The most authoritative count of uninsured Americans has come from the Census Bureau, which announced earlier this week that it's changing the way it asks about health insurance. The new questions are more likely to be accurate, but the timing of the change means it will be all but impossible to look for trends in the census data."



Someone call canter's bonerherer....and quickly get another repeal vote on the doc...

You guys desire it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 04:54:44 pm

The nation’s largest insurer thinks Obamacare exchanges are doing just fine



By Jason Millman
April 17 at 10:13 am


After taking a pretty cautious approach to the launch of the health insurance marketplaces in 2014, the nation’s largest insurer said it’s looking to expand its Obamacare footprint in 2015.

UnitedHealth Group, which is participating in just five public exchanges this year, said it’s likely to join more insurance marketplaces in 2015 but didn't offer specifics. Executive vice president Gail Boudreaux, on an earnings call with investors Thursday morning, said the company “has a bias to increase” the company’s participation in Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2015 after seeing encouraging trends in the program's first year.

“The size of the overall market is positive,” Boudreaux said. She said consumers’ large interest in “silver” health plans – mid-level insurance plans in which insurers cover 70 percent of the care costs – is another positive sign for the young exchanges. Almost two-thirds of customers selecting health plans through the exchanges have chosen silver plans.


Well, just how is that going to play in tea-bagger disasterville?

 I'm guessing not well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 17, 2014, 05:30:56 pm

 
 Whats it been ... two days since the old forum was deleted and how many posts already ?
 
 Anybody go to the chat room? It works fine.
 
 Hey Dave I worked for McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft and never knew they started the Rand Corp. until I looked it up.
 
 And Gen. "Hap" Arnold was the co founder.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 17, 2014, 05:36:49 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 04:16:23 pm

Anyone who believes that number has clearly been passing something around.

Is there anyone other than otto who would believe the 8 million figure from Obama?

Is there anyone other than otto who believes ANYTHING from Obama?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 06:04:44 pm

Run away little Sheldon, nobody cares about your skewed paranoia.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 06:22:37 pm

Quote

Is there anyone other than otto who would believe the 8 million figure from Obama?

The nation’s largest insurer thinks Obamacare exchanges are doing just fine

By Jason Millman
April 17 at 10:13 am


After taking a pretty cautious approach to the launch of the health insurance marketplaces in 2014, the nation’s largest insurer said it’s looking to expand its Obamacare footprint in 2015.

UnitedHealth Group, which is participating in just five public exchanges this year, said it’s likely to join more insurance marketplaces in 2015 but didn't offer specifics. Executive vice president Gail Boudreaux, on an earnings call with investors Thursday morning, said the company “has a bias to increase” the company’s participation in Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2015 after seeing encouraging trends in the program's first year.

“The size of the overall market is positive,” Boudreaux said. She said consumers’ large interest in “silver” health plans – mid-level insurance plans in which insurers cover 70 percent of the care costs – is another positive sign for the young exchanges. Almost two-thirds of customers selecting health plans through the exchanges have chosen silver plans.


Who outside of YOUR world believes you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 06:55:38 pm

From the Nevada Constitution.



Atlantic contributor Matt Ford pointed out Monday that Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution directly contradicts Bundy’s actions:


“... Whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.”




Bundy isn’t upholding state sovereignty—he’s upholding his own personal conception of state sovereignty.


Can any of you olde white militia types explain what olde clive is standing in?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 17, 2014, 07:01:16 pm

Yes Otto....swatting a fly with a nuke is always a good idea. 200 troops armed with automatic weapons is a great idea to address a debt issue. Who knew you were such a law and order guy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 07:03:40 pm

I would have bused all you little wussy wingnuts straight to jail and charged you for the ride.

You got your little god and pop guns right white rebellion squatters?


BTW keysbart

The government has waited 20 years for clive's little wingnut tantrum to end.

Got an answer for that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 07:06:26 pm

Keep the women and children out front...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 07:54:48 pm

JJ apparently you don't want those plane pics. I sent you a message above to show you how it works.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 17, 2014, 08:08:11 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 12:39:32 pm

The issue at stake really is the land rights that go back to the 1880's which is the source of the disagreement. That issue should be brought before the Supreme Court. Its like the old Spanish land grants. Some of those claims aren't honored.

The issue at stake is the Endangered Species Act, which HAS been before the courts.  And the family has taken it to court and lost three separate times.  Their cases may well work their way up to the Supreme Court, but until then, they have to obey the law like the rest of us.

Just because they have been using Federal Land for a long period of time does not give them ownership in it, absent any Federal law that does so.  And even if they had such a right, the fact that they have not paid grazing rights for almost two decades certainly would have ended that right.

The Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to manage Federal Lands.  If they do not like the way it is being managed, they can  try to win in court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 17, 2014, 08:21:07 pm

Legally the Bundy's don't have a leg to stand on.  Place a lien and be done with it.  No need to bring in a bunch of armed men, taze people, and spend tax dollars rounding up cattle.  They are not endangering anyone. 

Cattle do not trample tortoise, they go around them.  However the ATV's that can run on the land do not.



 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 08:50:12 pm

Quote from: davep on April 17, 2014, 08:08:11 pm

The issue at stake is the Endangered Species Act, which HAS been before the courts.  And the family has taken it to court and lost three separate times.  Their cases may well work their way up to the Supreme Court, but until then, they have to obey the law like the rest of us.

Just because they have been using Federal Land for a long period of time does not give them ownership in it, absent any Federal law that does so.  And even if they had such a right, the fact that they have not paid grazing rights for almost two decades certainly would have ended that right.

The Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to manage Federal Lands.  If they do not like the way it is being managed, they can  try to win in court.

But that land used to be state land and it was taken over by the Feds. And he was paying grazing rights to the state, but not the Feds

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 17, 2014, 09:16:00 pm

He claims he would have continued to pay the state but no one would take the money.  Regardless he is an idiot for not paying the grazing rights and endangering his family.

He is not the only one though.  There are many ranchers who refuse to pay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 09:54:27 pm

There is another rancher who has taken the Govt to court and won. Apparently they are using the same tactics with all the ranchers and this Fed judge Jones came down hard on the Feds.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 18, 2014, 12:22:06 am

Nice reach, the cases are not the same.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 18, 2014, 05:49:02 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 17, 2014, 06:55:38 pm

From the Nevada Constitution.

Atlantic contributor Matt Ford pointed out Monday that Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution directly contradicts Bundy’s actions:


“... Whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.”
Bundy isn’t upholding state sovereignty—he’s upholding his own personal conception of state sovereignty.

Can any of you olde white militia types explain what olde clive is standing in?

That provision of the Nevada constitution is only relevant if someone in Nevada is attempting to secede from the federal government.  When is it that Bundy said he was trying to do that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 18, 2014, 07:14:30 am

I don't know the true specifics of this case, as do none of us, but for me I'm glad to see folks standing up to this out of control Government. There need to be checks and balances in this and this was a time when the people 'checked' the Government and basically said 'Enough! You've come so far, you'll go no further!'. I like that....otherwise we're not a Government for the people, but to control the people.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 18, 2014, 08:41:02 am

or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws

Miss that part?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 18, 2014, 08:43:34 am

sport

We all know that you will never get to know any of the specifics of the case, but that won't stop you from spouting militia based wingnutery anyway.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 18, 2014, 08:46:47 am

What Is Senator Harry Reid’s Involvement In Government Assault On Nevada Ranch?


April 18, 2014 by Wayne Allyn Root 


Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. I live in Las Vegas. I live and breathe Nevada politics. Something is very wrong. Something smells rotten in the Nevada desert. And Senator Harry Reid’s fingerprints are all over it.

I am, of course, referring to the Bundy ranch siege. This was a dispute between a Nevada ranching family with rights to the land in question for 140 years and the Bureau of Land Management. The government claims they haven’t paid grazing fees for 20 years. The result was a government assault on the ranch, including snipers with assault rifles, SUVs, helicopters, airplanes and more than 200 heavily armed troops. No matter whether you come down on the side of the government or the ranch family, I think all of us can agree this was excessive force.

But forget all that. I believe the more important question is: Why is this case so important to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Reid, and what was his involvement in this controversial assault?

Let’s start with Reid’s obsession with the case. Just on Monday evening he weighed in again, promising, “This isn’t over.”

Doesn’t it strike anyone as strange that the U.S. Senate Majority Leader is so obsessed with a small rancher who hasn’t paid grazing fees? Does New York Senator Chuck Schumer get involved publicly when a New York company is late paying rent to the U.S. government?

Doesn’t the Senate Majority Leader have anything more important to think about? There are almost 100 million working-age Americans no longer working. More Americans are today on entitlements than working in the private sector. More Americans are on food stamps than the number of women working in America. Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Russian jet fighters are threatening American ships. Yet Reid obsesses about a rancher late on his rent? Something smells fishy, folks.

There are other questions raised about Reid’s involvement. Why did this assault become the No. 1 priority of government only days after a senior political adviser to Reid took over BLM? Coincidence?

Government appeared completely uninterested in backing down for days on end… and completely unconcerned with instigating a deadly confrontation like Waco or Ruby Ridge. Then suddenly, Reid’s involvement was brought up by conservative websites across the Internet. Instantly, out of the blue — within hours of Reid’s name being attached to the raid — the BLM decided to back down, pack up and walk away. Don’t you think that this timing was a tad too coincidental?

It has been pointed out by journalists intent on covering for Reid that a $5 billion Chinese solar project backed by Reid was recently shelved. But what they forgot to mention is Reid’s involvement in multiple solar and wind projects across the Nevada desert. Only days ago, Reid was featured in a photo at a groundbreaking ceremony for a new solar project. Where is that project located? Thirty-five miles from the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville, Nev.

Reid’s fingers are in virtually every solar and wind project in the Nevada desert. Green energy is his obsession. Green energy is his baby. His vision is turning the Nevada desert into the “Green Energy Capital of America.”

Who benefits from that vision? Democratic donors who run green energy companies. Who stands in the way of that vision? Nevada’s ranchers, farmers and property owners — almost all of whom are diehard Tea Party conservatives and patriots, who despise Reid.

Reid and the BLM needed a “cover story” to take the land away from the ranchers. So they claim it’s about protecting the “endangered” desert tortoise.

But if the protection of the desert tortoise was so important to the BLM, why did the same BLM kill hundreds of desert tortoises last fall?

If protecting the tortoises was so important, why has the BLM constantly waived rules protecting the desert tortoise for multiple solar and wind projects? If cattle are a danger to tortoises, why are solar panels and wind turbines not a danger?

There’s much more to this story, folks. My educated guess is that someone in the government already has big plans lined up for the Bundy ranch. Someone is going to make a financial killing with this forceful land grab. Someone powerful in government wants the Bundy family off their land (after 140 years).

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It was Reid who famously made a guess about Mitt Romney’s taxes. He guessed wrong. No one seemed to mind. So now it’s time for all of us to ask questions about Reid’s involvement in this scandal and government land grab. It’s time for the media to investigate.

I’m only guessing, but something smells very rotten in Nevada.

http://personalliberty.com/senator-harry-reids-involvement-government-assault-nevada-ranch/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 18, 2014, 08:57:50 am

Reid: Supporters Of Nevada Rancher Are ‘Domestic Terrorists’


April 17, 2014 by Sam Rolley 


Reid: Supporters Of Nevada Rancher Are ‘Domestic Terrorists’
 
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) doubled down on his criticism of rancher Cliven Bundy Thursday, labeling the rancher’s supporters as “domestic terrorists.”

In an interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal, Reid accused Americans who defended Bundy against the Bureau of Land Management of being terrorists because they protested the Federal government’s actions while armed. The Senator also charged that some families put their children in harm’s way to protect the rancher.

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

Reid, who recently said that the Federal government is not finished with Bundy, went on to suggest that the rancher is a criminal for failing to acknowledge the Federal government’s demands that he pay $1 million in overdue grazing fees.

“Clive Bundy does not recognize the United States,” Reid said. “The United States, he says, is a foreign government. He doesn’t pay his taxes. He doesn’t pay his fees. And he doesn’t follow the law. He continues to thumb his nose at authority.”

The standoff between Bundy supporters and the Feds ended over the weekend when his confiscated cattle were returned— but officials continue in efforts to enact the government’s will over the rancher.

Reid, it seems, wants Federal officials to make an example of the rancher.

“It is an issue we cannot let go, just walk away from,” Reid said.

“There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?”

http://personalliberty.com/reid-supporters-nevada-rancher-domestic-terrorists/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 18, 2014, 08:59:32 am

Something is definitely rotten in Nevada

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 18, 2014, 09:23:17 am

There certainly is...it's facts and stupid white militia types that have a funny definition of being a patriot.


Right good olde cliven?


Speaking to conservative radio host Dana Loesch last week, he said he believes in a “sovereign state of Nevada” and abides by all state laws, but, “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.”

Libbbberty folks...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 18, 2014, 09:38:06 am

It appears that the only person more obsessed with this case than Harry Reid is Otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 18, 2014, 09:57:20 am

It looks like a big land grab to me. It looks like the government wants all the ranch land. It also looks like Harry Reid wants to turn Nevada into a green industry state.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 18, 2014, 10:21:38 am

Reid wouldn't be so concerned if he didn't have something up his sleeve. And Otts, what is it with you? The more you open your trap, the more ignorant and ridiculous the statements become. You are becoming a caricature of yourself!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 18, 2014, 12:54:44 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 17, 2014, 08:50:12 pm

But that land used to be state land and it was taken over by the Feds. And he was paying grazing rights to the state, but not the Feds

I have seen this stated, but have been unable to verify it.  At one time, before the state was created, all the land was Federal land.  I have seen it reported that when the enabling act creating the state was passed, it kept much of the land, including this one, as Federal land, just as it did in Alaska.  Is this not correct?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 18, 2014, 01:01:28 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 18, 2014, 05:49:02 am

That provision of the Nevada constitution is only relevant if someone in Nevada is attempting to secede from the federal government.  When is it that Bundy said he was trying to do that?

That kind of provision is meaningless on the face of it.  The Federal Government has the authority to enforce Federal Laws that they ahve the Constitutional authority to pass.  And only the Courts can decide if a particular law was unconstitutional.  And they have not done so in this case.  Until they do, everyone has to follow the law or face the consequences.

Hopefully, the Federal Government will go in with sufficient force to enforce the law, as they did in Waco.  Like it or not, we are a nation of laws, and laws should be enforced.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 18, 2014, 01:02:23 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 18, 2014, 12:22:06 am

Nice reach, the cases are not the same.

How are the cases different?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 18, 2014, 01:07:11 pm

I think its partially correct. What then happened was the state was created it passed to the state, then things get dicy. When this conservation crap got going in the 90's the Feds took over management again which is the time when he stopped paying usage rights. He says he was paying grazing rights to the state until it turned the land over to the Feds. Since then he has had this agency then that agency down on his back since. Other ranchers have had trouble with all the Fed rules.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 18, 2014, 04:12:59 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 18, 2014, 08:41:02 am

or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws

Miss that part?

I did miss the part where anyone would have ever suggested otherwise.

So could you point that out to me?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 18, 2014, 04:31:02 pm

Hey Sheldon

As a job worthy of your ability....can you research randie raul the last time America has created 1 million jobs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 18, 2014, 04:36:21 pm

otto, I notice you ignored my question, and instead of responding posted something which might charitably be described as incoherent.

My question remains, even though I won't be surprised if you fail to answer it, since I strongly suspected you would not be able to answer it when I asked it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 18, 2014, 08:41:20 pm

 
 Wsh,
 
 I sure hope this works ... one of 29 planes coming your way from your friends e-mail ... keep the fingers crossed. Plane #1 ...
 
 Ilyushin IL-2
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Il2_sturmovik.jpg/300px-Il2_sturmovik.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Il2_sturmovik.jpg)
 
 If this works I should be able to get the rest.
 
 And look up "the circle of death" when it came to this aircraft.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 18, 2014, 08:51:58 pm

 
  Theres lots of pics WSH, but sombody else owns them so they cant be posted. That sucks.
 
 YAK - 9
 
 #2 of 29
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Yak_9_1.jpg/300px-Yak_9_1.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yak_9_1.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 18, 2014, 09:02:19 pm

 
 Wsh,
 
 Im posting in the order that your friend sent them.
 
 BF-109 "ME-109"
 
 #3 0f 29
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Me109_G-6_D-FMBB_1.jpg/300px-Me109_G-6_D-FMBB_1.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Me109_G-6_D-FMBB_1.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 18, 2014, 09:22:39 pm

 
 Focke-Wulf FW-190
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Fw_190_D-9_Silhouette.jpg/220px-Fw_190_D-9_Silhouette.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fw_190_D-9_Silhouette.jpg)
 
 I actually worked with a pilot from WWII who went up against this and the ME-109. He flew P-47's and P-51's.
 
 This is the one he didnt want to **** with.
 
 Both him and his brother (also a pilot) carried Colt .38 Supers that their father brought for them in case they got shot down.
 
 Thats fuckin AMERICA baby ! And #4 of 29.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 18, 2014, 09:34:23 pm

 
 The Supermarine Spitfire #5 of 29
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Ray_Flying_Legends_2005-1.jpg/300px-Ray_Flying_Legends_2005-1.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ray_Flying_Legends_2005-1.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 18, 2014, 09:52:38 pm

 
 Consolidated B-24 Liberator
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Maxwell_B-24.jpg/300px-Maxwell_B-24.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maxwell_B-24.jpg)
 
 Nothing more needs to be said about the crews that went up in this.
 
 And alot of them never came back.
 
 Except that they were heros fighting for you. #6 0f 29
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 18, 2014, 10:16:33 pm

 
 
The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was one of the largest and heaviest fighter aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft) in history to be powered by a single piston engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocating_engine). It was heavily armed with eight .50-caliber machine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun), four per wing. When fully loaded, the P-47 weighed up to eight tons, and in the fighter-bomber ground-attack roles could carry five-inch rockets or a significant bomb load of 2,500 pounds; it could carry over half the payload of the B-17 bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress) on long-range missions (although the B-17 had a far greater range). The P-47, based on the powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-2800) Double Wasp engine, was to be very effective as a short-to-medium range escort fighter in high-altitude air-to-air combat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_warfare) and, when unleashed as a fighter-bomber, proved especially adept at ground attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-attack_aircraft) in both the World War II European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Theater_of_World_War_II) and Pacific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War) Theaters.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/P-47D-40_Thunderbolt_44-95471_side.jpg/300px-P-47D-40_Thunderbolt_44-95471_side.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P-47D-40_Thunderbolt_44-95471_side.jpg)
 
 What the **** are you going to say to a dude that FLEW one of these ??
 
 JJ doesnt have a good comeback.  :D
 
 Thats 7 of 29
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 18, 2014, 10:38:21 pm

Good job JJ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 19, 2014, 05:45:02 am

For otto, one of the problems with the "wingnuts," as he calls them, is that they seem to be growing....

37% of Voters Fear the Federal Government
Friday, April 18, 2014

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Likely U.S. Voters now fear the federal government, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-seven percent (47%) do not, but another 17% are not sure.

Perhaps in part that’s because 54% consider the federal government today a threat to individual liberty rather than a protector. Just 22% see the government as a protector of individual rights, and that’s down from 30% last November. Slightly more (24%) are now undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

As recently as December 2012, voters were evenly divided on this question: 45% said the federal government was a protector of individual rights, while 46% described it as a threat to those rights.

Two-out-of-three voters (67%) view the federal government today as a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Just 17% disagree, while 15% are undecided.

Only 19% now trust the federal government to do the right thing most or nearly all the time, down from 24% in June of last year. Eighty percent (80%) disagree, with 44% who trust the government to do the right thing only some of the time and 36% who say it rarely or never does the right thing.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters believe that if America’s Founding Fathers came back today, they would regard the federal government as too big. Just three percent (3%) think the nation’s founders would consider the government too small, while 21% say they would view the size of the federal government as about right.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 15-16, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Just 19% of voters believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed.

Men and those 40 and over are more likely to fear the federal government than women and younger voters.

Democrats, as they do in most instances, have a less critical view of the federal government than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. Most GOP voters (53%) and 43% of unaffiliateds fear the federal government. Just 18% of voters in President Obama’s party agree.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Republicans and 59% of unaffiliated voters view the government as a threat to individual liberty, a view shared by only 34% of Democrats. GOP and unaffiliated voters are twice as likely as Democrats to believe that the federal government rarely or never does the right thing.

Majorities of all three groups, however, agree that the government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests.

Forty-two percent (42%) of voters with a gun in their household fear the federal government, compared to 30% of those who do not have a gun in their home. Fifty-two percent (52%) of union members share that fear versus 35% of those who are not unionized.

Sixty percent (60%) of all voters favor a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with the party’s base throughout the nation. By contrast, 63% of Democratic voters believe Democrats in Congress have done a good job representing their party's values.

Just six percent (6%) of voters nationwide now rate Congress’ job performance as good or excellent.  Seventy-two percent (72%) say it would be better for the country if most members of the current Congress were defeated this November.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 19, 2014, 06:18:36 am

And here might be one of the reasons why: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-17/irs-among-agencies-using-license-plate-tracking-vendor.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 19, 2014, 06:53:39 am

And as soon as that underground facility in Utah is finished, the government will know how you spend every dollar you earn and where and what you buy. This spying crap has gone too far. With the GPS tracking devices in the cars you wont be able to go see your Aunt without the government knowing where you are. Just think if criminals got this information they'd know when the best time to break into your house and steal your belongings.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 19, 2014, 08:52:21 am

That license plate tracking stuff is Orwellian for sure. Ridiculous and should definately be challenged and defeated in court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 19, 2014, 09:08:48 am

Quote from: Sportster on April 19, 2014, 08:52:21 am

That license plate tracking stuff is Orwellian for sure. Ridiculous and should definately be challenged and defeated in court.

Orwellian?  Or Biblical?  Revelation 13:17.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 19, 2014, 06:53:39 am

And as soon as that underground facility in Utah is finished, the government will know how you spend every dollar you earn and where and what you buy. This spying crap has gone too far. With the GPS tracking devices in the cars you wont be able to go see your Aunt without the government knowing where you are. Just think if criminals got this information they'd know when the best time to break into your house and steal your belongings.

I am nearly always far less concerned with what criminals might do to me than with what government might do to me, and as government accumulates ever more information about all of us, and becomes more adept at processing and using it, we will eventually reach a point when it will become virtually impossible for the people to effectively resist, organize against or revolt against oppression... because the government will not only know as soon as any effort is attempted, it will be able to predict it before it happens.  The more effectively government is able to crush a revolt which has begun, or to choke off a revolt before it begins, the less concern government will have about overreaching the powers it is to legitimately exercise.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 19, 2014, 09:12:47 am

Too late. Too many people including the newly indoctrinated youth care little for individual rights and liberty. They don't care how intrusive government is as long as they are getting  free stuff from that same government. Too bad they won't realize until it's too late that is isn't really free and what they've lost will never be regained.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 19, 2014, 10:24:19 am

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/19/western-lawmakers-strategize-on-taking-control-federal-lands/

Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

The lawmakers and county commissioners discussed ways to wresting oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart said it was in the works before this month's standoff.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 19, 2014, 10:43:43 am

Jackie - Thanks.  With the exception of the Yak, I as kid built models of all those, Sturmovik included. If you haven't, I strongly encourage all to visit the museium at wright patterson in Dayton. Its free, and its,its fricking huge! Two things shocked me about the exhibits as an old geezer. 1. -  All that stuff, up until the 50's looks flimsy to say the least. 2.- People back then were very,very, small. Everything was streched to crazy until you die.  fyi also, if you go to mudd island in memphis tn, you'll see the memphis belle, a b-17 bomber the likes of which went down over Germany in droves. Kids still got in them, still bombed europe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 19, 2014, 10:48:00 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 18, 2014, 01:07:11 pm

I think its partially correct. What then happened was the state was created it passed to the state, then things get dicy. When this conservation crap got going in the 90's the Feds took over management again which is the time when he stopped paying usage rights. He says he was paying grazing rights to the state until it turned the land over to the Feds. Since then he has had this agency then that agency down on his back since. Other ranchers have had trouble with all the Fed rules.

Did the state pass the land over to the Feds, or did the Feds just take it against thier will?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 19, 2014, 10:49:03 am

Bravo, finally somebody with the right attitude, its long overdue. Get it done soon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 19, 2014, 11:01:13 am

Quote from: davep on April 19, 2014, 10:48:00 am

Did the state pass the land over to the Feds, or did the Feds just take it against thier will?

I am not real sure of that. I remember reading something on that but don't remember for sure what I read. I imagine it was the Feds taking back from the states. I doubt the state objected much because they didn't have to spend money. But now since all the problems have come up its time for the states to take back control. I've seen 2 figures about how much the Feds control in Nevada. One report said 81% and another said 87%. That's just unreal. Utah is much the same way.

We have similar problems here where I live. You cant do this and you cant do that without a permit. Getting a permit might take years. Too much beurocracy, red tape, and government interference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 19, 2014, 12:23:19 pm

It makes a great deal of difference to the legal rights in the case.  If the land does indeed belong to the Federal Government, they have every right to collect the fees and to manage the land.

Since the family has already lost the case three times, and since they never actually spell out their legal rights, it is reasonable to assume that they are in the wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 19, 2014, 12:56:03 pm

I am not in disagreement that they are in the wrong for not paying the Federal fees. Its my belief that they claim their land and grazing rights go back to the days when it was under state control and jurisdiction, like a preexisting condition, or kinda like the old Spanish land grants. Bundy was paying the grazing fees to the state prior to the Feds taking over.

I think this movement to reacquire states rights to this Federal land, if it takes hold, will stop all this problem Bundy is having. Other ranchers have also had their share of problems with BLM, and other Federal agencies

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 19, 2014, 01:31:33 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on April 19, 2014, 09:12:47 am

Too late. Too many people including the newly indoctrinated youth care little for individual rights and liberty. They don't care how intrusive government is as long as they are getting  free stuff from that same government. Too bad they won't realize until it's too late that is isn't really free and what they've lost will never be regained.

And you base that conclusion on.... what?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 19, 2014, 01:44:16 pm

Election results...Obama lied about a lot of things but his intentions to expand the power and reach of the government was clear for all to see and yet he was re-elected.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 19, 2014, 01:49:16 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 19, 2014, 10:24:19 am

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/19/western-lawmakers-strategize-on-taking-control-federal-lands/

Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

The lawmakers and county commissioners discussed ways to wresting oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart said it was in the works before this month's standoff.

Considering that each of those nine states began as federal territory and were created by the federal government, trying to harken back state claims to the 1800's might not be the best route to go.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 19, 2014, 12:56:03 pm

I am not in disagreement that they are in the wrong for not paying the Federal fees. Its my belief that they claim their land and grazing rights go back to the days when it was under state control and jurisdiction, like a preexisting condition, or kinda like the old Spanish land grants. Bundy was paying the grazing fees to the state prior to the Feds taking over.

I think this movement to reacquire states rights to this Federal land, if it takes hold, will stop all this problem Bundy is having. Other ranchers have also had their share of problems with BLM, and other Federal agencies

Pointing out that the federal government is unreasonable, overreaching, and in general an institutional ****, does nothing to strengthen Bundy's legal claim.

If you are renting property from a landowner or paying a mortgage to a mortgage-holder who then sells or transfers ownership of that property or mortgage and you continue making your payments to the old landowner or mortgage holder and pay nothing to the new one, you are an idiot and deserve to be forcibly removed.  It sounds as if Bundy is essentially claiming that is what he did.

Quote from: davep on April 19, 2014, 10:48:00 am

Did the state pass the land over to the Feds, or did the Feds just take it against thier will?

If the feds took the land improperly, the state should have litigated the issue in the courts, and if they failed to do so, that pretty much closes the issue.  But any dispute on that question would be between the state and the Feds, not between Bundy and the Feds.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 19, 2014, 11:01:13 am

I am not real sure of that. I remember reading something on that but don't remember for sure what I read. I imagine it was the Feds taking back from the states. I doubt the state objected much because they didn't have to spend money. But now since all the problems have come up its time for the states to take back control. I've seen 2 figures about how much the Feds control in Nevada. One report said 81% and another said 87%. That's just unreal. Utah is much the same way.

We have similar problems here where I live. You cant do this and you cant do that without a permit. Getting a permit might take years. Too much beurocracy, red tape, and government interference.

As a matter of public policy I no more want the government in the business of owning, leasing, preserving or developing land than I want it in the business of lending money, building cars, making shoes, providing health care, running gambling casinos, or providing education.  Increasingly, however, the federal government IS doing all of those, except making shoes... and I am sure that before too long some good progressive will advocate doing just that.

But none of that is really at issue in the Bundy case.

Does the federal government own too much land in Neveda?  Sure.  But I would say that if the federal government only owned a single acre.  At the same time, as I pointed out above, these states are creatures of the federal government.  The idea that the federal government still owns and directly controls large areas of them should not surprise anyone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 19, 2014, 08:00:28 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 19, 2014, 12:56:03 pm

I am not in disagreement that they are in the wrong for not paying the Federal fees. Its my belief that they claim their land and grazing rights go back to the days when it was under state control and jurisdiction, like a preexisting condition, or kinda like the old Spanish land grants. Bundy was paying the grazing fees to the state prior to the Feds taking over.

I think this movement to reacquire states rights to this Federal land, if it takes hold, will stop all this problem Bundy is having. Other ranchers have also had their share of problems with BLM, and other Federal agencies

There is no such thing as preexisting conditions in leasing land from the Government.  When he stopped paying the lease fees to the legal owner, he forfeited any rights that he might have had contractually. 

I don't like the concentration of power in the Federal Government.  But the way to end it, other than through the courts, is through the vote.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 19, 2014, 08:27:58 pm

This guy knows he does not have a leg to stand on legally. He did this to try and get the state to step up and take back the land.

It is probably the only shot his family has of keeping the ranch viable after he passes.  Or to keep it at all because more then likely the Feds already have a lien on the property.

These people are not complete idiots.  I am sure they have talked to lawyers, gone over their options and know that the Feds have them painted into a corner.  Sometimes when you have no options left you take a bold one and hope for the best. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2014, 11:02:14 pm

 
 North American P-51 Mustang
 
 What is aircraft and what is art ? This defines both.
 
 Picasso wished he could have painted this.
 
 Notice the huge propeller on such a small plane.
 
 Thats the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine doing its job.
 
 My friend who flew one of these said it fit you like a glove.
 
 But he liked the P-47 razorback more because he felt safer.
 
 And could pull out of a dive faster with the extra sheetmetal over the bubble top versions of the P-47 & P-51.
 
 (http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51pics/air2air.jpg) (http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/?images/air2air)
 
 8 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2014, 11:15:24 pm

 
 Junkers JU-88
 
 This one was kind of in a class of its own ... fighter bomber ? Bomber ?
 
 Night fighter ? It did everything.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-363-2258-11%2C_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_88.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-363-2258-11%2C_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_88.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-363-2258-11,_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_88.jpg)
 
 9 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2014, 11:25:16 pm

 
 Hawker Hurricane
 
 The back of this plane was made from wood and fabric.
 
 It shot down more German airplanes then the Spitfire in the battle of Britain.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Hurricane_mk1_r4118_fairford_arp.jpg/300px-Hurricane_mk1_r4118_fairford_arp.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hurricane_mk1_r4118_fairford_arp.jpg)
 
 10 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2014, 11:35:19 pm

 
 While we were busy trying to get us out of the mess we were in ...
 
 like with declaring WAR and all that **** ... and how to fight back ...
 
 this kept the pagans at bay ... A classic.
 
 Curtis P-40 Warhawk.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Curtiss_P-40E_Warhawk_2_USAF.jpg/300px-Curtiss_P-40E_Warhawk_2_USAF.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Curtiss_P-40E_Warhawk_2_USAF.jpg)
 
 11 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2014, 11:54:18 pm

 
 Here it is Wsh,
 
 Just when you thought it was safe to back into a bed instead of a foxhole ...
 
 you had to get into one of these ...
 
 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Color_Photographed_B-17E_in_Flight.jpg/300px-Color_Photographed_B-17E_in_Flight.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Color_Photographed_B-17E_in_Flight.jpg)
 
 At 30000 feet at -60 degrees wearing a flak jacket with an oxygen mask freezing to your face while trying to fly in formation ...
 
 Nope Wsh  ... we can imagine hell ... but we never lived thru hell.
 
 They did this for us.
 
 12 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 20, 2014, 12:15:38 am

The greatest generation fought and died for our freedom as well as other nations.  Now they are giving it away and we are also.  It is pathetic and sad.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 12:30:58 am

 
 
    The Chance Vought F4U Corsair was an American fighter aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft) that saw service primarily in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) and the Korean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War). Demand for the aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft) soon overwhelmed Vought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought)'s manufacturing capability, resulting in production by Goodyear and Brewster: Goodyear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_Tire_and_Rubber_Company)-built Corsairs were designated FG and Brewster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Aeronautical_Corporation)-built aircraft F3A.
 
 From the first prototype delivery to the U.S. Navy in 1940, to final delivery in 1953 to the French, 12,571 F4U Corsairs were manufactured by Vought, in 16 separate models,
 
 in the longest production run of any piston-engined fighter in U.S. history (1942–53).
 
 The Corsair was designed as a carrier-based aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-based_aircraft). However its difficult carrier landing performance rendered the Corsair unsuitable for Navy use until the carrier landing issues were overcome when used by the British Fleet Air Arm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Air_Arm).
 
 The Corsair thus came to and retained prominence in its area of greatest deployment, land based use by the U.S. Marines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marines).
 
  The role of the dominant U.S. carrier based fighter in the second part of the war was thus filled by the Grumman F6F Hellcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat).
 
 The Corsair served to a lesser degree in the U.S. Navy. As well as the U.S. and British use the Corsair was also used by the Royal New Zealand Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force), the French Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Navy) Aéronavale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_navale) and other, smaller, air forces until the 1960s.
 
 Some Japanese pilots regarded it as the most formidable American fighter of World War II, and the U.S. Navy counted an 11:1 kill ratio with the F4U Corsair.
 
 After the carrier landing issues had been tackled it quickly became the most capable carrier-based fighter-bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter-bomber) of World War II.
 
 The Corsair served almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber throughout the Korean War and during the French colonial wars in Indochina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War) and Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War).
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Vought_F4U_Corsair_%28USMC%29.jpg/300px-Vought_F4U_Corsair_%28USMC%29.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vought_F4U_Corsair_(USMC).jpg)
 
 13 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 09:32:01 am

Quote from: davep on April 19, 2014, 08:00:28 pm

I don't like the concentration of power in the Federal Government.  But the way to end it, other than through the courts, is through the vote.

Yeah, too bad no one was able to persuade Adams and Jefferson and Washington and those other wingnuts of that back in the 1770's.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 09:33:36 am

Quote from: Pekin on April 19, 2014, 08:27:58 pm

This guy knows he does not have a leg to stand on legally. He did this to try and get the state to step up and take back the land.

It is probably the only shot his family has of keeping the ranch viable after he passes.  Or to keep it at all because more then likely the Feds already have a lien on the property.

These people are not complete idiots.  I am sure they have talked to lawyers, gone over their options and know that the Feds have them painted into a corner.  Sometimes when you have no options left you take a bold one and hope for the best.

Though I have not followed this at all closely (and don't really care enough about it to try sorting thru things), I'm a long way from convinced they are not complete idiots.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 10:12:11 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2014, 11:54:18 pm

 Here it is Wsh,
 
 Just when you thought it was safe to back into a bed instead of a foxhole ...
 
 you had to get into one of these ...
 
 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Color_Photographed_B-17E_in_Flight.jpg/300px-Color_Photographed_B-17E_in_Flight.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Color_Photographed_B-17E_in_Flight.jpg)
 
 At 30000 feet at -60 degrees wearing a flak jacket with an oxygen mask freezing to your face while trying to fly in formation ...
 
 Nope Wsh  ... we can imagine hell ... but we never lived thru hell.
 
 They did this for us.

Very few men who were ever wore flak jackets on a B-17 also spent any time in foxholes.  Not to minimize the hardship either faced, but you probably could count on one hand the number who did both.

Quote from: Pekin on April 20, 2014, 12:15:38 am

The greatest generation fought and died for our freedom as well as other nations.  Now they are giving it away and we are also.  It is pathetic and sad.

Eh.....

The "greatest generation" is giving it away?  I don't believe elderly voters tend to support the moves which you believe would constitute "giving away" "our freedom."

And our involvement in WWII was not about protecting our freedoms, since there was no real prospect anyone was going to invade us.  It was actually about protecting the freedoms of folks very few Americans even knew.

The last time U.S. troops went to war to protect OUR freedom was 1812.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 20, 2014, 10:50:28 am

Pearl Harbor wasn't an invasion of us?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 20, 2014, 10:51:18 am

Other nations are giving it away and we are also.  I should have made that more clear.

We have had this discussion before.  Hitler was not going to stop until he controlled the entire planet.  Sure we could have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor and hoped no one else would attack us again but it would have been a fantasy.  Japan or Germany would have come calling sooner or later.  Plus Germany was trying to get Mexico to invade us.

As technology advanced it was no longer possible to stay in isolation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 11:51:48 am

Quote from: Keysbear on April 20, 2014, 10:50:28 am

Pearl Harbor wasn't an invasion of us?

Not really.

It was unquestionably an attack, but not an invasion.  An invasion involves an effort to take over, oust a government, occupy a nation.... you know, like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And Pekin, what can you point to suggesting that German was trying to invade us in WWII.  I think you are remembering things you read about WWI.  As to where Hitler was going to stop, the problem of occupying other nations who do not want you around is rather severe, and there were nowhere close to enough Germans to run the world.  Hitler may have WANTED to control the entire planet (though I believe that even his writings do not suggest that), but even if he WANTED to do so, there is no reason sane people would have seen him as any real threat of doing so.  Was that kind of rhetoric used after Pearl Harbor to try to encourage support of the war effort?  It was, and sane people even mouthed it, and probably even did their best to persuade themselves it was true... but it never was.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 11:54:43 am

Quote from: Pekin on April 20, 2014, 10:51:18 am

Sure we could have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor and hoped no one else would attack us again but it would have been a fantasy.

I have never in my life suggest that we should have.  Actually the fact that we entered WWII to come to the defense of others makes the sacrifices of our troops, and of the entire nation, all the more laudable and heroic.  Not particularly heroic to do something to save your own ass.  Quite heroic to put your own safe ass at risk to save someone else's.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 20, 2014, 12:39:56 pm

Hitler had plans to invade us, eventually. He even had operatives learned in our language and States and locales. Thankfully we eliminated his threat before he had a chance to move....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 01:03:35 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 20, 2014, 12:39:56 pm

Hitler had plans to invade us, eventually. He even had operatives learned in our language and States and locales. Thankfully we eliminated his threat before he had a chance to move....

And your source for that would be....

Pekin?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 20, 2014, 01:38:55 pm

There was an at least perceived real threat of invasion by Japan early the in the war.  The west coast was in a panic preparing for it.

Hitler followed closely the development of long range bombers to bomb the US.

Realistically neither Japan nor Germany had the military capacity to attack an occupy much of the US.

However, at the time with German submarines on the eastern seaboard sinking ships just as they left New York Harbor, and the Japanese rolling across the pacific it was realistic for Americans to see they were defending OUR freedoms and country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 02:03:11 pm

Quote from: davebear on April 20, 2014, 01:38:55 pm

There was an at least perceived real threat of invasion by Japan early the in the war.  The west coast was in a panic preparing for it.

And in the 1950's there was a fear of Martians invading, but irrational fear is not a real threat... even when it is used as an excuse to throw folks in concentration camps and steal their ****, much like Nazi Germany did with the Jews.

Quote from: davebear on April 20, 2014, 01:38:55 pm

Hitler followed closely the development of long range bombers to bomb the US.

Hitler may have followed the development of long range bombers to bomb Moscow, but not to bomb the U.S.  Long range bombers by the end of the war scarcely were able to make it from London to Berlin, forget about the crossing the entire Atlantic.

Quote from: davebear on April 20, 2014, 01:38:55 pm

Realistically neither Japan nor Germany had the military capacity to attack an occupy much of the US.

On that one we fully agree.  And sane people and the national and military leadership (not always one in the same) were fully aware of that at the time.

Quote from: davebear on April 20, 2014, 01:38:55 pm

However, at the time with German submarines on the eastern seaboard sinking ships just as they left New York Harbor, and the Japanese rolling across the pacific it was realistic for Americans to see they were defending OUR freedoms and country.

Not only was it not realistic, there were very few U.S. ships being sunk "just as they left New York Harbor" (where there ANY?).  But those who argue that U.S. troops were defending the motherland from Germans and the Japanese during WWII are minimizing what the United States was actually doing.  We were not sacrificing for our own well-being.  We were sacrificing in order to save the free world.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 20, 2014, 02:25:54 pm

Be careful what you wish for ****.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-amos-kahn/dear-president-obama_b_5173155.html


   
Dear President Obama,

I wanted to make out with you. I was so in awe of the way you managed to get Obamacare through that insane Congress, run mostly by a bunch of Republicans. (OK, maybe they are not all lunatics, just the obstructionist, obnoxious ones -- does that narrow it down?)

And now you have something like eight million people signed up, despite all the glitches and the fights and the name calling -- you prevailed! Congratulations on a worthy accomplishment, bringing health care to millions of Americans. Whoohoo!

Except for one thing. For those of us who had to give up our insurance policies (because they were phased out) and sign up for an ACA exchange -- we are now SCREWED. BIG TIME.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 04:25:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 10:12:11 am

1.)Very few men who were ever wore flak jackets on a B-17 also spent any time in foxholes.  Not to minimize the hardship either faced, but you probably could count on one hand the number who did both.

 Eh.....

The "greatest generation" is giving it away?  I don't believe elderly voters tend to support the moves which you believe would constitute "giving away" "our freedom."

And our involvement in WWII was not about protecting our freedoms, since there was no real prospect anyone was going to invade us.  It was actually about protecting the freedoms of folks very few Americans even knew.

2.)The last time U.S. troops went to war to protect OUR freedom was 1812.
 
 

 1.)I think you missed the point that by signing up with the USAAF,
 
 you got to sleep in a bed instead of a foxhole after the workday was
 
 done ... if you got back to that bed.
 
 And the odds were in favor of the guy in the foxhole coming back alive.
 
 No one in the U.S. Army had a higher death rate then the
 
 Eighth Air Force in WWII.

 
 2.)I thought it was the Civil war to protect African-Americans freedom.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 04:38:22 pm

 
 
The Grumman F6F Hellcat was a carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier)-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-based_aircraft) fighter aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft) conceived to replace the earlier F4F Wildcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F4F_Wildcat) in United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) (USN) service. The Hellcat was an erstwhile rival of the faster Vought F4U Corsair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair) for use as a carrier based fighter. However, the Corsair had significant issues with carrier landing that the Hellcat did not, allowing the Hellcat to steal a march as the Navy's dominant fighter in the second part of World War II, a position the Hellcat did not relinquish. The Corsair instead was primarily deployed to great effect in land-based use by the U.S. Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps).
 
 
The F6F was best known for its role as a rugged, well-designed carrier fighter which was able, after its combat debut in early 1943, to counter the Mitsubishi A6M Zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero) and help secure air superiority over the Pacific Theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War).
 Such was the quality of the basic simple, straightforward design, that the Hellcat was the least modified fighter of the war, with a total of 12,200 being built in just over two years.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Hellcats_F6F-3%2C_May_1943.jpg/300px-Hellcats_F6F-3%2C_May_1943.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellcats_F6F-3,_May_1943.jpg)
 
 14 of 29
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 04:51:19 pm

 
 Petlyakov Pe-2
 
 As usual , butt fuckin ugly from the Soviets ... but effective.
 
 It was regarded as one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war and it was extremely successful in the roles of heavy fighter, reconnaissance and night fighter.
 
 It was one of the most important aircraft of World War II, being in many respects similar to the British de Havilland Mosquito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito).
 
 11,400 Pe-2s were manufactured during the war, greater numbers than any other twin-engined combat aircraft except for the German Junkers Ju 88 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_88) and British Vickers Wellington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Wellington).
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Pe-2-2004.jpg/300px-Pe-2-2004.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pe-2-2004.jpg)
 
 15 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 04:57:37 pm

 
 
The P-38 was unusually quiet for a fighter, the exhaust muffled by the turbo-superchargers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosupercharging). It was extremely forgiving, and could be mishandled in many ways, but the rate of roll in the early versions was too slow for it to excel as a dogfighter.
 
 The P-38 was the only American fighter aircraft in production throughout American involvement in the war, from Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor) to Victory over Japan Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_over_Japan_Day).
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Lockheed_P-38J_Lightning_-_1.jpg/300px-Lockheed_P-38J_Lightning_-_1.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_P-38J_Lightning_-_1.jpg)
 
 16 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 05:04:22 pm

 
 
 When it was introduced early in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), the Zero was considered the most capable carrier-based fighter in the world, combining excellent maneuverability and very long range.
 
 In early combat operations, the Zero gained a legendary reputation as a dogfighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight), achieving the outstanding kill ratio of 12 to 1,
 
  but by mid-1942 a combination of new tactics and the introduction of better equipment enabled the Allied pilots to engage the Zero on generally equal terms.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/A6M3_Zero_N712Z_1.jpg/300px-A6M3_Zero_N712Z_1.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A6M3_Zero_N712Z_1.jpg)
 
 17 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 05:15:25 pm

 
 
The North American B-25 Mitchell was an American twin-engined medium bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_bomber) manufactured by North American Aviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aviation). It was used by many Allied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II) air forces, in every theater of World War II, as well as many other air forces after the war ended, and saw service across four decades.
 
 Note that this is a photo of the earlier model with the top machine gun turret mounted to the rear.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/North_American_Aviation%27s_B-25_medium_bomber%2C_Inglewood%2C_Calif.jpg/300px-North_American_Aviation%27s_B-25_medium_bomber%2C_Inglewood%2C_Calif.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_American_Aviation%27s_B-25_medium_bomber,_Inglewood,_Calif.jpg)
 
 18 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 20, 2014, 05:26:40 pm

Thanks for the pics Jackie

Introduction
Although one would think that the New York Harbor was always safe from a foreign military invasion, there have been times in recent history when enemy forces operated just outside of the harbor.  In World War 2, the Battle of the Atlantic came to the shores of America.

The U-boats Attack
In 1941, Admiral Doenitz, Commander-in-Chief of U-boats, believed that "a U-boat could steam directly into the throat of New York Harbor, on the surface , at night, without being challenged. As for the nets and shore batteries, he doubted their effectiveness, if they even existed" (Ref 1, page 71).  This statement was partly true in 1941.  The effectiveness of the harbor defenses at this time was limited by the lack of radar, hydrophones, and the magnetic detection loops that would be added in mid-1942.  These overdue improvements in coastal defense were implemented in a rush after German submarines had already begun their attacks in American coastal waters.  After America entered World War 2 on December 7, 1941, Doenitz implemented his plan named "Operation Drumbeat", by launching submarines to attack the United States on December 12, 1941.

The "Pearl Harbor" of the Atlantic
A few German U-boats were responsible for the sinking of a total of 397 ships in the first six months of 1942.  There were 171 ships sunk off the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida, 62 sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean.  A total of 2,403 persons were killed and 1,178 were wounded.

Explosions could be heard and burning wrecks could be seen from the shoreline at night.  Dead bodies, debris and oil washed ashore on east coast beaches.  Despite all of this, blackouts were never implemented as they were along the coasts of England and Germany. This gave the German submarine crews a tremendous advantage in being able to spot cargo ships running along the coast at night with their lights extinguished.  A "dim-out" was eventually mandated, but even with the lights dimmed out, patrol boats were able see the glow of New York from a distance of 25 miles off shore.


**************************
Jes,  you can say the threat was only perceived,  and I a agree in our hindsight,  but the threat was definitely real to Americans in 1942.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 05:32:59 pm

 
 
 When the prototype took flight in March, the result was extremely pleasing - the fighter finally had a powerplant that allowed it to perform as well in the air as it had been supposed to on paper.
 
 After flying, the LaG-5 (the change in name reflecting that one of the original LaGG designers was no longer with the programme(Dont **** with Stalin)), Air Force test pilots declared it superior to the Yak-7, and intensive flight tests began in April.
 
  After only a few weeks, the design was modified further, cutting down the rear fuselage to give the pilot better visibility.
 
 By July, Stalin ordered maximum-rate production of the aircraft, now simply known as the La-5 and the conversion of any incomplete LaGG-3 airframes to the new configuration.
 
 The prototype was put in mass production almost immediately in factories located in Moscow and in the Yaroslav region.
 
 While still inferior to the best German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) fighters at high altitudes, the La-5 proved to be every bit their match closer to the ground.
 
 With most of the air combat over the Eastern Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(WWII)) taking place at altitudes of under 5,000 m (16,404 ft), the La-5 was very much in its element. Its rate of roll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll_(flight)) was excellent.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/La-5_Moscow.jpg/240px-La-5_Moscow.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La-5_Moscow.jpg)
 
 19 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 05:41:13 pm

 
 
The Grumman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman) TBF Avenger (designated TBM for aircraft manufactured by General Motors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors)) was a torpedo bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_bomber) developed initially for the United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) and Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps), and eventually used by several air or naval arms around the world.
The Avenger entered U.S. service in 1942, and first saw action during the Battle of Midway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway). Despite the loss of five of the six Avengers on its combat debut, it survived in service to become one of the outstanding torpedo bombers of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). Greatly modified after the war, it remained in use until the 1960s.
 
 George Bush's the first's hot rod!
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/TBF_Avenger_in_Flight.jpg/300px-TBF_Avenger_in_Flight.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TBF_Avenger_in_Flight.jpg)
 
 20 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 05:58:24 pm

 
 
The Bell P-39 Airacobra was one of the principal American fighter aircraft in service when the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) entered World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).
 
 The P-39 was used with great success by the Soviet Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Force), which scored the highest number of individual kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type.

 Those motherfuckers ripped off our cannon design on the P-39 and shot back at us in Korea !! Fuckin Jagoffs ... well...what are friends for ?
 
 Other major users of the type included the Free French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French), the Royal Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force), the United States Army Air Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces), and the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Co-Belligerent_Air_Force).
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/P-39N.jpg/300px-P-39N.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P-39N.jpg)
 
 21 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 20, 2014, 06:13:32 pm

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-attacks-on-u-s-soil-during-world-war-ii

Thanks to its sheer distance from the European, African and Pacific theaters, the mainland United States never became a significant site of battle during World War II. But while North America was spared the destruction of total warfare, both the Germans and the Japanese waged small-scale campaigns of bombing, sabotage and espionage on American soil. Find out more about five of these attempts to bring the carnage of World War II to the American home front.

By the way the battle for Los Angeles mentioned in the second incident was not nothing.  There were way to many witnesses for it to be absolutely nothing.  I suspect it was some form of psychological warfare used to try and demoralize the US.  A holographic projection perhaps, or some form of remote controlled device that was small enough to avoid being hit by all the flak.  If it was a weather balloon it surely would have been shot down in way less then an hour and the remains of it would have been found.

Heck it may have been the US military itself doing it to drum up support for the war but after it got so big they backed off.  Or aliens, this guy thinks so.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=history+channel+aliens+meme&id=54DC2CDF3E5A5F74466BB8B879968E5F71ED6E37&FORM=IQFRBA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 06:14:54 pm

 
 
 The Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (隼, "Peregrine Falcon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_Falcon)") was a single-engine land-based tactical fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft) used by the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army_Air_Force) in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).
 
 The Army designation was "Army Type 1 Fighter" (一式戦闘機);
 
  The Allied reporting name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_Allied_names_for_Japanese_aircraft) was "Oscar", but it was often called the "Army Zero" by American pilots for its side-view resemblance to the Mitsubishi A6M Zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero) that was flown by the Japanese Navy.
 
 Like the Japanese A6M Zero, the radial-engined Ki-43 was light and easy to fly and became legendary for its combat performance in East Asia in the early years of the war.
 
 It could outmaneuver any opponent, but did not have armor or self-sealing tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sealing_fuel_tank), and its armament was poor until its final version, which was produced as late as 1945.
 
 Allied pilots often reported that the nimble Ki-43s were difficult targets but burned easily or broke apart with few hits.
 
 In spite of its drawbacks, the Ki-43 shot down more Allied aircraft than any other Japanese fighter and almost all the JAAF'S aces achieved most of their kills in it.
 
 Theres a Japanese motorcycle company that makes a bike called :
 
 Hayabusa ... Kawasaki ?
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Nakajima_Ki-43-IIa.jpg/300px-Nakajima_Ki-43-IIa.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nakajima_Ki-43-IIa.jpg)
 
 22 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 20, 2014, 07:28:48 pm

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/documents-detail-another-delayed-gm-recall

Government Motors  admits the screwup in delaying recall of defective cars.  What else would you expect with the Obama administration involved with automobile production.  They have screwed up everything else that they have touched.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 20, 2014, 09:12:27 pm

So predictably lame...dull would be thousand time improvement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 09:17:23 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 04:25:33 pm

 1.)I think you missed the point that by signing up with the USAAF, you got to sleep in a bed instead of a foxhole after the workday was done ... if you got back to that bed.  And the odds were in favor of the guy in the foxhole coming back alive.  No one in the U.S. Army had a higher death rate then the Eighth Air Force in WWII.

If that was your point, then you need to learn how to express yourself... since what you WROTE, was:

Quote

Just when you thought it was safe to back into a bed instead of a foxhole ...
 
 you had to get into one of these ...
 
 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2014, 04:25:33 pm

2.)I thought it was the Civil war to protect African-Americans freedom.

Then you were wrong, though that is quite understandable if you went to public schools in the north, where that is routinely what is taught.

Two quick points to illustrate your error:
1) The first race riot in our nation's history was in New York City during the Civil War when whites rioted and lynched dozens if not hundreds of blacks because someone began the RUMOR that the draft which had been going on in the north for a while was in order to send troops to the southern states to free the slaves.
2) Read the Emancipation Proclamation some time.  Actually read the thing to see what Lincoln was doing.  Not only did he limit its application to the states which were in a state of rebellion, meaning it did not apply to Maryland, a slave state which did not secede, but he also stated that it would not be applied ANYWHERE until about three months after the announcement... meaning that if any southern state simply had their troops lay down arms and leave the CSA, they could keep their slaves.

The war was NOT fought to end slavery, or to protect black Americans.  Lincoln himself supported rounding up all blacks, even free blacks, and sending them back to Africa.  And many northern states at the time, including I believe Indiana and Illinois, had laws on the books which made the later Jim Crow laws in the south seem tame in comparison, with some states making it illegal for any blacks to even live in the state.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 09:32:13 pm

Quote from: davebear on April 20, 2014, 05:26:40 pm

Although one would think that the New York Harbor was always safe from a foreign military invasion, there have been times in recent history when enemy forces operated just outside of the harbor.  In World War 2, the Battle of the Atlantic came to the shores of America.

The U-boats Attack
In 1941, Admiral Doenitz, Commander-in-Chief of U-boats, believed that "a U-boat could steam directly into the throat of New York Harbor, on the surface , at night, without being challenged. As for the nets and shore batteries, he doubted their effectiveness, if they even existed" (Ref 1, page 71).  This statement was partly true in 1941.  The effectiveness of the harbor defenses at this time was limited by the lack of radar, hydrophones, and the magnetic detection loops that would be added in mid-1942.  These overdue improvements in coastal defense were implemented in a rush after German submarines had already begun their attacks in American coastal waters.  After America entered World War 2 on December 7, 1941, Doenitz implemented his plan named "Operation Drumbeat", by launching submarines to attack the United States on December 12, 1941.

The "Pearl Harbor" of the Atlantic
A few German U-boats were responsible for the sinking of a total of 397 ships in the first six months of 1942.  There were 171 ships sunk off the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida, 62 sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean.  A total of 2,403 persons were killed and 1,178 were wounded.

Explosions could be heard and burning wrecks could be seen from the shoreline at night.  Dead bodies, debris and oil washed ashore on east coast beaches.  Despite all of this, blackouts were never implemented as they were along the coasts of England and Germany. This gave the German submarine crews a tremendous advantage in being able to spot cargo ships running along the coast at night with their lights extinguished.  A "dim-out" was eventually mandated, but even with the lights dimmed out, patrol boats were able see the glow of New York from a distance of 25 miles off shore.

**************************
Jes,  you can say the threat was only perceived,  and I a agree in our hindsight,  but the threat was definitely real to Americans in 1942.

In other words, I was perfectly correct that it did not happen.  That leaves the only room for dispute over who believed at the time that something which was not possible to happen was going to happen.

I will readily concede, as I believe I already have, that there were certainly idiots in the U.S. who thought that it would (that invasion by Japan or Germany was imminent).  I believe what I wrote was that those running the show in D.C. (FDR and friends) and those running the military, and those in the population in general who were both reasonably intelligent (meaning they understood the limits of existing military transportation and had looked at a map and understood the relative populations of the nations involved in the war and of the U.S.) new that it was NOT going to happen and that there was no reasonable prospect of it happening.

And after Pearl Harbor, even with that knowledge, they all STILL supported entering the war to defeat Germany and Japan.  And that, going to the defense of others, is far more heroic than rising to themselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 09:46:44 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 20, 2014, 06:13:32 pm

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-attacks-on-u-s-soil-during-world-war-ii

Thanks to its sheer distance from the European, African and Pacific theaters, the mainland United States never became a significant site of battle during World War II. But while North America was spared the destruction of total warfare, both the Germans and the Japanese waged small-scale campaigns of bombing, sabotage and espionage on American soil. Find out more about five of these attempts to bring the carnage of World War II to the American home front.

By the way the battle for Los Angeles mentioned in the second incident was not nothing.  There were way to many witnesses for it to be absolutely nothing.  I suspect it was some form of psychological warfare used to try and demoralize the US.  A holographic projection perhaps, or some form of remote controlled device that was small enough to avoid being hit by all the flak.  If it was a weather balloon it surely would have been shot down in way less then an hour and the remains of it would have been found.

Heck it may have been the US military itself doing it to drum up support for the war but after it got so big they backed off.  Or aliens, this guy thinks so.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=history+channel+aliens+meme&id=54DC2CDF3E5A5F74466BB8B879968E5F71ED6E37&FORM=IQFRBA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

When you hear several rapidly approaching large hoofed animals coming in your direction, think horses, not zebras, or, just think of Occam's Razor.  Even the military explained it simply as a false alarm.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 20, 2014, 10:49:23 pm

There was something in the sky that night that they were shooting at.  Lots of people saw it and there was no wreckage found.  Even though there were spot lights on it and lots of shots fired at it.  So either it was a hologram painted on the clouds, something so small they had no shot at hitting it, an aircraft so high that the AA could not reach it or aliens.  It certainly was not a weather balloon.  That would have been shot down quickly and easily.

I am not advocating any of these theories other then that the weather balloon one is ridiculous.  It would have been shot and downed immediately.  I actually believe that the US government being the one behind it is the most plausible.  That would explain why we had no planes in the sky.  They knew they would have gotten hit by the AA.  Might have been a practice run that went horribly wrong.

When civilians die you don't claim it.  You make excuses.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 21, 2014, 07:53:24 am

Jes,

Your misunderstanding of the American situation and mindset of 1942 makes any further discussion pointless.  Calling those who went through that experience, and the many who joined the war effort "idiots" is pretty self-explanatory.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 21, 2014, 04:43:33 pm

http://personalliberty.com/standing-government-now-domestic-terrorism/


Standing Up To Government Is Now Domestic Terrorism

April 21, 2014 by Bob Livingston 

The political class is now demonstrating a level of hubris rarely, if ever, seen in the American system.

Within just a few hours, three of the top four most post powerful politicians in the country unabashedly revealed the low opinion they have of liberty and the American people and a willingness to persecute, prosecute and lie to those who advocate and fight for Constitutional government. And by their silence, the rest of the political class nodded their agreement.

First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bunkerville, Nev., rancher Cliven Bundy and the hundreds of Americans who rallied to Bundy’s defense domestic terrorists. Then, President Barack Obama brazenly lied to the American people in claiming that 8 million people had signed up for Obamacare and that the program was a success, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And early Friday morning, we learned Speaker of the House John Boehner has proclaimed once again to big money donors and crony capitalists that an immigration bill would be passed this year over the wishes of the majority of Americans.

Within hours of reports circulating in alternative media of Reid’s use of the Bureau of Land Management in his land grab on behalf of a Chinese solar energy firm, BLM pulled its goon squad of armed enforcers out of the area. It also scrambled to delete evidence from its own website that the area the Bundy family has used to graze their cattle is needed for “utility-scale solar power generation facilities on public lands” and that need was hindered by “trespass grazing” cattle.

Reid and his son Rory have worked in lockstep with the BLM and transnational green energy firms to wrestle land and use rights from American ranchers for years. Bundy is the last rancher standing in an area that once saw dozens of them.

What few reports on the standoff between Bundy and BLM that have made it into the mainstream media speciously claim the Bundy ranch is some 200 miles from the proposed site of the ENN Energy Group’s solar farm and panel building plant, and that the ENN project was shelved last year. Even the supposedly reliable “right wing” websites Breitbart.com and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze have carried the Federal government’s water on this dispute. The two-faced Beck — who has called for a pitchfork revolution and sells shirts calling for one — even went so far as to call Bundy supporters “frightening” and compared them with Occupy Wall Street, which was a CIA-funded operation designed to foment unrest in America.

Claims have also been made that the Federal government owns the land in question. But the Constitution specifically describes in Article I, Section 8 what land the Federal government can possess, and there are subsequent Supreme Court decisions that lay out the legal framework. (Hint: It does not include protecting tortoises or building solar plants.)

A BLM document discusses the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and specifically mentions the Gold Butte area (which includes Bunkerville) and “cattle trespass grazing” as being part of critical concern to future utility-scale solar energy development. In short, Reid is using the BLM (headed by his lackey and former adviser Neil Kornze) to turn all Nevada “Federal lands” into a green energy zone for his and his son’s personal gain and Bundy’s cattle are hindering this effort. This is proven by information on the BLM website (since removed) that states grazing by Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development and the construction of solar development on public lands.

Understand the implications of Reid’s claim that those who bravely stood with Bundy, stared into the barrels of heavily armed oppressors who were threatening to shoot them and faced down the BLM’s armed goons are “domestic terrorists.”

Thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act, the government can simply designate Americans as terrorists and they can then be disappeared into gulags never to be charged, tried or heard from again. Habeas corpus, in the cases deemed “domestic terrorism,” is now nonexistent. Obama has already ordered drone strikes to kill Americans in foreign lands without due process. The step from indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of American “terrorists”  overseas to indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of “domestic terrorists” in America has just been shortened considerably.

This is common knowledge in circles of people who depend upon the alternative media and understand the truth about the Federal police state. Don’t think that Reid is not aware of this. And he understands that those who sided with the Bundys recognize this as well.

Reid is too savvy and too skilled a politician to make a slip of the tongue statement accusing Americans of domestic terrorism.

Obama’s claim that 8 million people have now signed up for Obamacare and the law is working as intended is an incredible stretch even for a man who is such a consummate liar that more than half of Americans know he lies on important issues. The law is working “so well” that even in the face of monetary penalties, tens of millions of people who are eligible to sign up for Obamacare insurance have avoided doing so.

Boehner is said to be “hell-bent” on passing an amnesty bill this year. This has been an important issue for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for some time and is, therefore, an important issue for the Republican establishment.

Understand that, for the Republican elite, amnesty is not about trying to win over Hispanics in order to bolster chances for carrying national elections. It’s about providing cheap labor for big corporations. The plight of millions of unemployed Americans does not concern the establishment.

I have been writing for many years that the U.S. government is democracy in name only. In truth, it is fascist and ruled by one party with two names under the control of the globalists.

The only goal of the globalists and their psychopathic political class stooges is to loot and pillage. They have done so to the point that America is now a giant rock rolling downhill toward collapse.

As regimes get closer to collapse, they inflict increasingly greater pain and controls on their people. It is now evident in America for those who would see it.

The domestic terrorists in question are not the American people. They are Reid, Obama, Boehner and the rest of the political and bureaucratic class who ignore the rule of law and oppress the American people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 21, 2014, 04:48:20 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 19, 2014, 08:27:58 pm

This guy knows he does not have a leg to stand on legally. He did this to try and get the state to step up and take back the land.

It is probably the only shot his family has of keeping the ranch viable after he passes.  Or to keep it at all because more then likely the Feds already have a lien on the property.

/quote]

The Feds already own the land, so they do not need a lien against it.  They probably have a claim against the family for unpaid fees, which I hope they collect.

This family has absolutely no right to the land, nor any rights to use the land.  Send in and use whatever force we need to rid the land of the cattle that are there illegally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 21, 2014, 04:55:32 pm

It isn't true that the US was not invaded by the Japanese.  The Japanese invaded the aleutian islands shortly after attacking Hawaii.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 04:56:40 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 20, 2014, 10:49:23 pm

There was something in the sky that night that they were shooting at.  Lots of people saw it and there was no wreckage found.  Even though there were spot lights on it and lots of shots fired at it.  So either it was a hologram painted on the clouds, something so small they had no shot at hitting it, an aircraft so high that the AA could not reach it or aliens.  It certainly was not a weather balloon.  That would have been shot down quickly and easily.

I am not advocating any of these theories other then that the weather balloon one is ridiculous.  It would have been shot and downed immediately.  I actually believe that the US government being the one behind it is the most plausible.  That would explain why we had no planes in the sky.  They knew they would have gotten hit by the AA.  Might have been a practice run that went horribly wrong.

When civilians die you don't claim it.  You make excuses.

The AA?  What is the AA?

What is the "it" you reference in your next to last sentence saying when "civilians die (I) don't claim it"?

Now despite that inability to understand what you wrote, you seemingly believe that the most logical explanation for what happened is that the U.S. was behind the "something" that you think was in the sky, and which, despite efforts to shoot it down was not shot down, was never found, and which did no damage to anything.

If police officers out at night think they hear a bump in the darkness and draw guns and blaze away and hit nothing, would you be convinced there was something there, but that it was a ghost?

The logical explanation is mass hysteria.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 05:03:57 pm

davebear, I never said those who joined the war effort were idiots.

I said that those who actually feared an invasion were idiots.

The difference in our view of their intelligence might also result in a different view of them in general.

I believe that most of those who enlisted were just as my father was -- fully aware that the U.S. faced no meaningful prospect of invasion.  My father saw the war clouds gathering in Europe in the late 30's, became convinced the U.S. would once again end up sucked into a war in Europe when there was no meaningful prospect of invasion of the U.S. by any of the European forces, and believed that if he got in and was trained before a major draft began, he would be one of those helping to train troops for combat instead of being one of those in combat.  He was right.  But he never at any time believed there was any reasonable prospect Germany or Japan would invade us.

Thinking they believed otherwise is to think that they were not only stupid, but is to minimize the sacrifice they made for the rest of the world.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 05:15:31 pm

Quote from: davep on April 21, 2014, 04:55:32 pm

It isn't true that the US was not invaded by the Japanese.  The Japanese invaded the aleutian islands shortly after attacking Hawaii.

While you are correct, what was the U.S. population on the Aleution Islands at the time?

A dozen?

The continental United States never faced any prospect of invasion.  Japan's attack and invasion of the Philippines was much more an "invasion of the U.S." that the invasion of the Aleutian Islands, since Japan not only attacked the Philippines, it occupied and seized it and the Philippines were U.S. territory with the same status as the Aleutians at that time, and the Philippines had a meaningful population and represented meaning economic and geopolitical interests at the time.  The Aleutians were less significant to the U.S. than the Falkland Islands were to the British, and I doubt there are many Brits who ever were concerned Argentina was going to land in the British Isles to try to take over after the effort to take the Falklands.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 21, 2014, 05:23:54 pm

Jes,

Pearl Harbor was attacked and the next day Germany declared war on the US.

Men signed up in droves to protect America.  Few shared your father's perception of the Axis capabilities ( even though he was right in terms of their capability of a US invasion).

These men did not have the information available to them that we have today.  They signed up to protect America and the fear of invasion was very real to them at the time.  You can say they were idiots because they didn't know, but The west coast was in hysteria.  No one knew where the japanese fleet was, and the east coast had merchant vessels sunk by uboats very shortly after leaving port.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 05:27:05 pm

AA is anti-aircraft guns.   Civilians were killed by shrapnel falling to the ground and in one case finding an unexploded shell and it blowing them up when they moved it.

I do not have an answer for what it was.  There was something in the sky that night.  I am sure a lot of the AA was shooting blindly into the sky as panic and hysteria took over.  Something real set it off though.   

Something was seen that caused the alert.  If it was just war jitters or hysteria you would think this would have been happening all over the US.  Something real was in the sky and was seen multiple times over several nights.   

Perhaps it was a test of the air defense by the US itself but they did not want to admit as much after it went terribly wrong.  People tend to cover their own ass in situations like this. 




http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist9/aaf2.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 05:36:10 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 21, 2014, 04:43:33 pm

http://personalliberty.com/standing-government-now-domestic-terrorism/


Standing Up To Government Is Now Domestic Terrorism

April 21, 2014 by Bob Livingston 

The political class is now demonstrating a level of hubris rarely, if ever, seen in the American system.

Within just a few hours, three of the top four most post powerful politicians in the country unabashedly revealed the low opinion they have of liberty and the American people and a willingness to persecute, prosecute and lie to those who advocate and fight for Constitutional government. And by their silence, the rest of the political class nodded their agreement.

First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bunkerville, Nev., rancher Cliven Bundy and the hundreds of Americans who rallied to Bundy’s defense domestic terrorists. Then, President Barack Obama brazenly lied to the American people in claiming that 8 million people had signed up for Obamacare and that the program was a success, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And early Friday morning, we learned Speaker of the House John Boehner has proclaimed once again to big money donors and crony capitalists that an immigration bill would be passed this year over the wishes of the majority of Americans.

Within hours of reports circulating in alternative media of Reid’s use of the Bureau of Land Management in his land grab on behalf of a Chinese solar energy firm, BLM pulled its goon squad of armed enforcers out of the area. It also scrambled to delete evidence from its own website that the area the Bundy family has used to graze their cattle is needed for “utility-scale solar power generation facilities on public lands” and that need was hindered by “trespass grazing” cattle.

Reid and his son Rory have worked in lockstep with the BLM and transnational green energy firms to wrestle land and use rights from American ranchers for years. Bundy is the last rancher standing in an area that once saw dozens of them.

What few reports on the standoff between Bundy and BLM that have made it into the mainstream media speciously claim the Bundy ranch is some 200 miles from the proposed site of the ENN Energy Group’s solar farm and panel building plant, and that the ENN project was shelved last year. Even the supposedly reliable “right wing” websites Breitbart.com and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze have carried the Federal government’s water on this dispute. The two-faced Beck — who has called for a pitchfork revolution and sells shirts calling for one — even went so far as to call Bundy supporters “frightening” and compared them with Occupy Wall Street, which was a CIA-funded operation designed to foment unrest in America.

Claims have also been made that the Federal government owns the land in question. But the Constitution specifically describes in Article I, Section 8 what land the Federal government can possess, and there are subsequent Supreme Court decisions that lay out the legal framework. (Hint: It does not include protecting tortoises or building solar plants.)

A BLM document discusses the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and specifically mentions the Gold Butte area (which includes Bunkerville) and “cattle trespass grazing” as being part of critical concern to future utility-scale solar energy development. In short, Reid is using the BLM (headed by his lackey and former adviser Neil Kornze) to turn all Nevada “Federal lands” into a green energy zone for his and his son’s personal gain and Bundy’s cattle are hindering this effort. This is proven by information on the BLM website (since removed) that states grazing by Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development and the construction of solar development on public lands.

Understand the implications of Reid’s claim that those who bravely stood with Bundy, stared into the barrels of heavily armed oppressors who were threatening to shoot them and faced down the BLM’s armed goons are “domestic terrorists.”

Thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act, the government can simply designate Americans as terrorists and they can then be disappeared into gulags never to be charged, tried or heard from again. Habeas corpus, in the cases deemed “domestic terrorism,” is now nonexistent. Obama has already ordered drone strikes to kill Americans in foreign lands without due process. The step from indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of American “terrorists”  overseas to indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of “domestic terrorists” in America has just been shortened considerably.

This is common knowledge in circles of people who depend upon the alternative media and understand the truth about the Federal police state. Don’t think that Reid is not aware of this. And he understands that those who sided with the Bundys recognize this as well.

Reid is too savvy and too skilled a politician to make a slip of the tongue statement accusing Americans of domestic terrorism.

Obama’s claim that 8 million people have now signed up for Obamacare and the law is working as intended is an incredible stretch even for a man who is such a consummate liar that more than half of Americans know he lies on important issues. The law is working “so well” that even in the face of monetary penalties, tens of millions of people who are eligible to sign up for Obamacare insurance have avoided doing so.

Boehner is said to be “hell-bent” on passing an amnesty bill this year. This has been an important issue for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for some time and is, therefore, an important issue for the Republican establishment.

Understand that, for the Republican elite, amnesty is not about trying to win over Hispanics in order to bolster chances for carrying national elections. It’s about providing cheap labor for big corporations. The plight of millions of unemployed Americans does not concern the establishment.

I have been writing for many years that the U.S. government is democracy in name only. In truth, it is fascist and ruled by one party with two names under the control of the globalists.

The only goal of the globalists and their psychopathic political class stooges is to loot and pillage. They have done so to the point that America is now a giant rock rolling downhill toward collapse.

As regimes get closer to collapse, they inflict increasingly greater pain and controls on their people. It is now evident in America for those who would see it.

The domestic terrorists in question are not the American people. They are Reid, Obama, Boehner and the rest of the political and bureaucratic class who ignore the rule of law and oppress the American people.

The internal incoherence of this piece rivals anything I have ever seen from otto.

Quote

First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bunkerville, Nev., rancher Cliven Bundy and the hundreds of Americans who rallied to Bundy’s defense domestic terrorists.... Understand the implications of Reid’s claim that those who bravely stood with Bundy, stared into the barrels of heavily armed oppressors who were threatening to shoot them and faced down the BLM’s armed goons are “domestic terrorists.”  .... Reid is too savvy and too skilled a politician to make a slip of the tongue statement accusing Americans of domestic terrorism.

As if that were not enough:

Quote

Claims have also been made that the Federal government owns the land in question. But the Constitution specifically describes in Article I, Section 8 what land the Federal government can possess, and there are subsequent Supreme Court decisions that lay out the legal framework. (Hint: It does not include protecting tortoises or building solar plants.)

Land protecting tortoises?  Beyond that, despite his claim to the contrary, Article 1, Section 8, does NOT address AT ALL "what land the Federal government can possess."  Take a look at the provision yourself:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html  In fact the word "property" does not appear in the section at all, nor does the word "own," nor the phrase "real estate," and and the word "land" only appears twice with moth times in reference to the military and "land troops."

My memory of Bob Livingston is that he is one of those former members of Congress who in Newt Gingrich's heyday was fond of pulling from his jacket pocket a small copy of the Constitution and to then calmly (and accurately) explain how the only powers the federal government has are those granted to it in the Constitution... mini-tutorial he regularly offered while he personally had no clue what the Constitution actually said because he had never really read the damn thing.  About the kind of thing you might expect from Michelle Bachmann.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 05:37:34 pm

By the way if the US had not entered the war there was a good chance Germany would have owned all of Europe.  They did not have the capability to invade the US in 1942.  However once the fighting had died down in Europe and they were occupying instead of fighting they certainly could have invaded the US main land if they chose to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 05:41:40 pm

Quote from: davebear on April 21, 2014, 05:23:54 pm

Jes,

Pearl Harbor was attacked and the next day Germany declared war on the US.

Men signed up in droves to protect America.  Few shared your father's perception of the Axis capabilities ( even though he was right in terms of their capability of a US invasion).

These men did not have the information available to them that we have today.  They signed up to protect America and the fear of invasion was very real to them at the time.  You can say they were idiots because they didn't know, but The west coast was in hysteria.  No one knew where the japanese fleet was, and the east coast had merchant vessels sunk by uboats very shortly after leaving port.

In December of 1941 the East coast did NOT have uboats sinking merchant vessels "very shortly after leaving port," and the primary information we have today which shows us there was no plan to invade the U.S. is a map.  The folks in 1941 and 1942 were quite aware of the presence and size of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, that no military aircraft could cross that distance, and that neither Japan nor Germany had sufficient population to occupy the U.S.

You have to assume the nation at that time was made up of utter idiots to think otherwise.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 05:44:58 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 05:37:34 pm

By the way if the US had not entered the war there was a good chance Germany would have owned all of Europe.  They did not have the capability to invade the US in 1942.  However once the fighting had died down in Europe and they were occupying instead of fighting they certainly could have invaded the US main land if they chose to do so.

Even this is nonsense.

Occupied nations do not overnight become active participants in expansionist plans, nor has it ever been the case that they have.  Germany would have more than had its hands full simply to hold onto Europe, without every fantasizing about next conquering the U.S.  Look at the history of any large empire.  It simply had never happened, nor is there any reason to think it ever will.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 05:52:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 05:27:05 pm

AA is anti-aircraft guns.   Civilians were killed by shrapnel falling to the ground and in one case finding an unexploded shell and it blowing them up when they moved it.

I do not have an answer for what it was.  There was something in the sky that night.  I am sure a lot of the AA was shooting blindly into the sky as panic and hysteria took over.  Something real set it off though.   

Something was seen that caused the alert.  If it was just war jitters or hysteria you would think this would have been happening all over the US.  Something real was in the sky and was seen multiple times over several nights.   

Perhaps it was a test of the air defense by the US itself but they did not want to admit as much after it went terribly wrong.  People tend to cover their own ass in situations like this. 

Something real was in the sky.... just like all of the folks who have seen aliens hovering in their spacecrafts.  The fact that people are absolutely certain they have seen something does not mean they in fact have.

As to the Anti-Aircraft fire, one of the things I learned from covering a police shootout in 1982 in Arkansas was that when law enforcement (or the military) is tense and ready for action, all it takes is one person to fire and they all will, whether the initial person to fire was justified or not, and once they fire, many of those firing will become absolutely convinced that they did see SOMETHING, and that the SOMETHING they say was something which made it reasonable for them to fire.  It is human nature to want to reconcile known action we have taken with what we "know" was there or what we saw, because otherwise we are essentially saying we acted quite foolishly.

The Anti-Aricraft guns hit nothing, and nothing being shot at did any damage anywhere, nor was anything ever found to have crashed.  The Occam's razor conclusion is that there was nothing there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 21, 2014, 05:58:48 pm

OK, I'm to put sheldon as a War Between the States southern racist.

Seriously, Sheldon?  The Civil War was NOT fought about race...


Mind numbing in it's shear stupidity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 21, 2014, 06:09:01 pm

Jes,

The amount of information contrary to your postion is so overwhelming I wouldn't even want to insult you by posting much of it. 

I already posted  an article about the merchant ship sinkings off the US coast, it's a simple fact of history.

We'll have to agree to disagree

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 06:17:14 pm

Jes, why were they on high alert?  Planes were seen before the incident and were tracked on radar.  It was not all hysteria. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 06:25:10 pm

Oh and I did not say they could occupy the entire US.  Just that they could invade it.  Once the other countries were occupied they certainly could have started recruiting soldiers in those countries.  In every country there was an element that worked with the Nazi's.  If the war was over that element would have grown as they adjusted to the new reality.

Would it happen over night?  No.  However how long would the war have lasted if the US had not entered the war?  The UK and Russia could not have held out forever.  It would have been much shorter then 4 years. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 21, 2014, 06:44:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 05:15:31 pm

While you are correct, what was the U.S. population on the Aleution Islands at the time?

A dozen?

You are willing to quibble about whether Hawaii was invaded or just attacked, even though either act justifies War, but you feel that it is wrong to quibble about the population required to be considered an invasion?

Sorry.  An invasion is foreign troops entering foreign territory.  Even if the islands were unoccupied, it would still be an invasion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 07:07:31 pm

Quote from: davebear on April 21, 2014, 06:09:01 pm

Jes,

The amount of information contrary to your postion is so overwhelming I wouldn't even want to insult you by posting much of it. 

Ah.... MUCH less insulting to claim there is oodles of stuff out there, but you wouldn't want to insult a person by actually referencing facts than it is to.... well, actually reference facts.

As to what you posted, you need to re-read it, if you in fact ever did.

It does NOT discuss the "merchant ship sinkings off the US coast," but instead discusses how "Admiral Doenitz, Commander-in-Chief of U-boats, believed that 'a U-boat could steam directly into the throat of New York Harbor, on the surface , at night, without being challenged.'"

Not that Doenitz and the Germans DID that, but that he "believed" they could.

Now the article also did mention the following:
"A few German U-boats were responsible for the sinking of a total of 397 ships in the first six months of 1942.  There were 171 ships sunk off the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida, 62 sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean.  A total of 2,403 persons were killed and 1,178 were wounded."

Your comment about the overwhelming amount of information contrary to my position was in response to my post as follows:

Quote

In December of 1941 the East coast did NOT have uboats sinking merchant vessels "very shortly after leaving port," and the primary information we have today which shows us there was no plan to invade the U.S. is a map.  The folks in 1941 and 1942 were quite aware of the presence and size of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, that no military aircraft could cross that distance, and that neither Japan nor Germany had sufficient population to occupy the U.S.
You have to assume the nation at that time was made up of utter idiots to think otherwise.

But nothing from what you posted contradicts that.... unless you want to contend that the "first six months of 1942" were somehow crammed into December of 1941, or that sinking merchant ships loaded with armaments for Britain somehow constituted a land invasion or occupation of the U.S. or demonstrated a capacity for doing so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 07:08:39 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 06:17:14 pm

Jes, why were they on high alert?  Planes were seen before the incident and were tracked on radar.  It was not all hysteria. 

There were no Japanese planes over LA.  If any planes were seen, there were not Japanese.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 07:10:26 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 21, 2014, 05:58:48 pm

OK, I'm to put sheldon as a War Between the States southern racist.

Seriously, Sheldon?  The Civil War was NOT fought about race...


Mind numbing in it's shear stupidity.

Direct me to anything said or written at the time which would indicate the Civil War was "about race."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 07:25:02 pm

Quote from: davep on April 21, 2014, 06:44:33 pm

You are willing to quibble about whether Hawaii was invaded or just attacked, even though either act justifies War, but you feel that it is wrong to quibble about the population required to be considered an invasion?

Sorry.  An invasion is foreign troops entering foreign territory.  Even if the islands were unoccupied, it would still be an invasion.

Your distortion of my position, and trying to blur the distinction between an attack and an effort at conquest (invasion and occupation) is severe enough to appear intentional.

Never have I suggested that the U.S. had no justification for going to war with Japan or Germany.  Not here.  Not anywhere.  Not now.  Not ever.  Never have I argued that the United States should not have gone to war with Japan or Germany.  Never have I argued that the world is not a better place as a result of American sacrifices in that war.

Because my references to "invasion" have included references to "occupation," the idea that the attack on Pearl Harbor should qualify as an invasion is a bit nutty.  And while I have conceded that the Japanese attack on and occupation of the Philippines, which was then a U.S. territory (a concession I made without you or anyone else bringing it up), that still did not in the minds of most Americans at the time qualify as an invasion and occupation of the U.S.  No one other than McCarthur, who wanted to protest his own personal financial interests in Philippino breweries there, viewed that as a basis for going to war with Japan.  (And I am already aware that it did constitute a basis for doing so.)  Now the attack on the U.S. base at Bataan, and the treatment of our troops there, was a much more serious matter to the U.S. public, but even that was not seen as an invasion of the U.S.)  Sane people simply did not see the U.S. as threatened with invasion and occupation, nor should they have.

The isolationist crowd, led by Lindberg, had done a very effective job of pointing out the geographic, and geopolitical realities to the American public, and my father was not remotely close to the only person who saw no real prospect of an invasion.  The isolationists were the majority in 1940, and that was largely because they knew we could not be invaded.  The isolationists CEASED to be a majority on December 7, 1941, the moment the nation learned of Pearl Harbor, but that change was not because the nation feared invasion -- if there had been a real fear of invasion, some push for diplomatic talks might have been reasonable, but there was no such push.  The push was for getting even, for  punishing those responsible for attacking us, not defending us against invasion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 21, 2014, 07:30:17 pm

Oh for the love of Jesus!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 07:40:38 pm

otto regularly moans those he labels "wingnuts."

I wonder if that concern extends to the wingnuts within the Obama administration.... wingnuts like Lisa Monaco.

Quote

White House counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco gave a speech this week in which she urged parents to watch their children for signs of “confrontational” behavior which could be an indication of them becoming terrorists.
During the speech at at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on Tuesday night, Monaco, who replaced John Brennan last year in overseeing the executive branch’s homeland-security activities, said that parents need to be suspicious of “sudden personality changes in their children at home.”
“What kinds of behaviors are we talking about?” she asked. “For the most part, they’re not related directly to plotting attacks. They’re more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational.”
Monaco lamented the fact that, “The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals,” encouraging parents to act as watchdogs to detect radicalization in line with President Obama’s goal of combating homegrown extremism.

http://www.infowars.com/white-house-counterterror-chief-confrontational-children-could-be-terrorists/

A teenager becoming confrontational, particularly toward his or her parents.... yup, a certain indication the kid is on the way to becoming a radical terrorist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 07:43:20 pm

I never said they were Japanese.  The article I linked even said the Japanese said after the war they had no planes in the area at that time.  There were planes picked up by radar though.  Whose they were or where they came from has never been divulged if anyone knows.

The Japanese did however have subs with the ability to reach the US and launch planes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2014, 07:54:45 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 07:43:20 pm

The Japanese did however have subs with the ability to reach the US and launch planes.

Planes.... launched from subs.

So the planes were early hovercraft?

Or the subs had takeoff runways on the deck of the subs?

Really?

REALLY?

And I am supposed to take your comments on this seriously?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: octagon on April 21, 2014, 08:05:10 pm

The Japanese had quite a few subs that could launch float planes with a catapult system.  The only aerial bombardment of the continental US was carried out by a submarine launched plane in Oregon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 09:08:20 pm

Yes planes launched from subs.  They had them.  Most could only launch one plane but they did have a sub that could launch two.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 21, 2014, 11:05:46 pm

What you said was this.

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 10:12:11 am

And our involvement in WWII was not about protecting our freedoms, since there was no real prospect anyone was going to invade us.  It was actually about protecting the freedoms of folks very few Americans even knew.

The last time U.S. troops went to war to protect OUR freedom was 1812.

But we were invaded.

Those people losing their freedom had been doing so for more than 6 years.  We didn't get involved until we were attacked and our territory invaded.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 22, 2014, 03:30:02 am

Quote from: Pekin on April 21, 2014, 09:08:20 pm

Yes planes launched from subs.  They had them.  Most could only launch one plane but they did have a sub that could launch two.

Any links to that?  Any photos?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 22, 2014, 03:37:56 am

Quote from: davep on April 21, 2014, 11:05:46 pm

What you said was this.

But we were invaded.

Those people losing their freedom had been doing so for more than 6 years.  We didn't get involved until we were attacked and our territory invaded.

You continue to focus on whether the U.S. was justified in going to war ("We didn't get involved until we were attacked and our territory invaded.")  I have never written, said, or even thought, anything justifying otherwise.

Now, that said (for the umpteenth time), you also wrote, "Those people losing their freedom had been doing so for more than 6 years."  In context, there is no reference to who "Those people" might be, who you are contending had been "losing their freedom... for more than six years," presumably in 1941.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 22, 2014, 04:08:34 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 22, 2014, 03:30:02 am

Any links to that?  Any photos?

Amazing.  https://www.google.com/search?q=Japan+WWII+submarine+plane+launch+catapult&newwindow=1&safe=off&rlz=1

Nothing approaching a threat to folks living in the U.S., in part because their capability was for the most part limited to launching a torpedo or two and not dropping bombs, but obviously they did exist, though their function was primarily reconnaissance.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier

My apologies for suggesting anyone claiming they did exist didn't know what they were talking about.  Quite obviously on that point I didn't know what I was talking about.  They did NOT mean Japan had any more capability of invading/occupying the U.S. than I have been saying, but obviously they did exist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 22, 2014, 05:31:54 am

http://survivaljoe.net/blog/mass-graves-found-at-bundy-ranch-blm-confesses-to-killing-cattle/?utm_source=140422SJ1&utm_campaign=140422SJ1 

   
Mass Graves Found at Bundy Ranch – BLM Confesses to Killing Cattle
 
     

On Easter Sunday, April 20, pictures began to emerge of the path of destruction the BLM left behind them after the standoff at Bundy Ranch.

The Bundy Family shared pictures and videos of mass cattle graves on Facebook. They wrote: “Digging up 1 of the HUGE holes where they threw the cows that they had ran to death or shot. I feel that this NEEDS to be put out for the public to see.”

Bundy Ranch Mass Cattle Grave
A backhoe lifts a dead cow from a mass grave where the BLM dumped dead cattle. Source: Bundy Ranch Facebook Page

Bundy Ranch Mass Cattle Grave
More pictures of dead cattle discovered while digging up the mass grave. Source: Bundy Ranch Facebook Page

After the mass graves were discovered, the BLM confessed to “euthanizing” at least two prize bulls the Bundy’s owned.

The BLM claimed the executions were necessary for safety reasons. But the Bundy Family claims the bulls were docile and had never tried to hurt anybody.

The two prize bulls had been drug along the ground away from where anybody might find them. They were then shot and left to decompose out in the desert heat.

Cattle that may have died from exhaustion and mishandling were dumped into mass graves, which the Bundy family has now dug up.

Remember, this was the issue when violence first broke out at Bundy Ranch. The Bundy family and their supporters blocked a BLM caravan that included heavy earth-moving equipment. They feared the equipment was going to be used to dig a mass grave for the cattle. This weekend, their original fears were proven true.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 22, 2014, 07:48:59 am

http://www.historylecture.org/laairraid.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 22, 2014, 08:24:23 am

The US was concerned with being bombed from the air during WWII. I know this because we have a military complex where they made bombs not far from where I grew up. They covered the train tracks in a long row of trees in open field areas so as to hide the trains from air raids. They hid bunkers in large dirt mounds not easily seen from the air.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 22, 2014, 10:34:00 am

http://personalliberty.com/whats-next-bundys/


What’s Next For The Bundys?


April 22, 2014 by LewRockwell

This article originally ran on LewRockwell.com on April 21. 

The Federal response will definitely come. It will likely be in three areas, two of which don’t involve the Bundys specifically. First, a multifaceted attack will be made on the Bundys; second, a broad-front regulatory response against other land users will be made for the purpose of retaliation against the whole group and as a deterrent; and third, new provocateur deployments will probably be made across the West into similar situations.

The attack on the Bundys will be planned to be large enough so as to not fail, since precedents are being considered by the Feds. To give an historical example, the precedent of voluntary militias forming in the 1990s as a Constitutional concept in lieu of standing armies was effectively derailed for 20 years when the whole movement was painted as obscene by multiple Federal law enforcement agencies intensely targeting them, or anything that looked like them, while prosecuting a PR campaign in conjunction with the sycophant mass media in the wake of the provocateured Oklahoma City fiasco.

There is the possibility that doors will be smashed down in the darkness of early morning raids for all the Bundy family members, supporters and ranch hands. There is the possibility that plants are feigning inside knowledge at this very moment and are seated with prosecutors scrolling through video and pointing out participants and ascribing statements or actions to them. Such violent raids on houses and places of business targeting these designated domestic terrorists represent one possibility. If that happens, it probably won’t be immediate. The following factors all affect the timeline for the response, which I estimate to be in about three weeks, give or take a week or two.

The most likely first step for the violent option involves the impaneling of a grand jury that will be brought along slowly with presentations by government “experts” giving sensational overviews of generic un-American activities, terrorist groups and right-wing extremists. All of the activity involving the grand jury will be officially in “secret.” PowerPoint presentations will be made to the grand jury showing pipe bombs, smoking buildings and Nazi symbolism. It will be blatantly prejudicial to the eventual case presented for indictment, but there is no “other side” in this process to object. There is just a prosecutor, government agents and the grand jury eating doughnuts in a little room. Period. The massaging of the jury’s mindset is done long before they are shown case-specific information. This process can go on for a week. It is not adversarial. It is a one-sided show. There is no defense. It is designed to paint a picture of a general evil class of people. It’s kind of like the process used to get police cadets ready to shoot people. There is no danger that the grand jurors will ever be identified by the Bundys or feel any guilt from having to face those they bravely accuse.

Next, with the extent of the balderdashing that needs to be done to the grand jury to obfuscate the truth in this case, the prosecutor will need another week of ominous head-nodding alongside the agent witnesses’ general summarizing of the evil network masterminded by the Bundys. That puts us at two weeks. Then, the grand jury would be asked to give a “true bill,” an indictment. The grand jury always indicts if asked to do so. Always, always, always. Because if they don’t, they are dismissed and another one is impaneled until the indictment is handed down. The warrants on the indictment will then be issued by the Federal magistrate by the following week.

And finally, the law enforcement agencies need a few days to draw up plans, print out Google Earth photos of all the target locations, bring in temporary duty support from other Federal agencies, assemble for briefings, give out team assignments and pick a date to execute search warrants and arrest warrants. All of that puts us at three weeks. The three weeks also gives a period of apparent peace and quiet. It will be hoped that this quiet period will cause any supporters to give up and go home. Agents from other agencies will be enticed, probably with notices going out right now, to volunteer for an all-expense-paid week living on the Las Vegas strip at taxpayer expense enjoying wine, women and song at a premier hotel. This is one of the possible approaches against the Bundys.

Another possibility will be considered by agency heads who are reviewing the news coverage, the iconic images of cowboys waving flags displaying historic “American” individualism and the favorable reaction by much of the public to the visible stand taken by Bundy supporters. This possibility would probably begin to slowly go into effect along the same three-week timeline as the smash-and-grab scenario above. This one may involve the grand jury also, but as an “investigative tool.” While a grand jury is “investigating” a suspect or a “criminal organization,” unlimited secret subpoenas may be issued for anything. No other reason for the subpoena is needed other than the fact that the grand jury is investigating something. Anything and everything will be scarfed up. The Feds will get financial information, phone information and witnesses who will be compelled to testify or be incarcerated if they refuse to testify. There is no “I stand on the 5th” when the grand jury asks you about something. You will be held in contempt merely for refusing to testify when in front of a grand jury. No day in court. No due process. No good time. No parole. No probation. You are locked up as a grand jury witness until you change your mind and decide to go along with the government.

Ex-parte orders would be obtained to obtain Internal Revenue Service records for all involved. Asset forfeiture orders for substitute assets could be obtained that would identify Bundy or supporter assets and forfeit those assets to the government in lieu of supposed specific losses sustained by the government from unpaid grazing fees or other claimed damages or from an estimated value of the illegal proceeds of the criminal activity (ranching). These designated substitute assets may have no identifiable connection to the asset classes designated as losses or as illegal income by the government. Money laundering charges could be filed for “conversion” of “illegally obtained” assets or income.

Archived call data or live “pen registers” may be obtained to make conspiracy connections within the “criminal organization.” Wiretaps may be initiated, although this would be more time consuming and would lead to jury-sympathetic recorded conversations with fewer co-conspirator and criminal hierarchy connections than those that could be manufactured by experts analyzing the call data with link charts to be shown to a jury.

This alternate slower attack against the Bundys would be the nickel-and-dime approach that would result in service of seizure orders to banks and persons. Seizure notices would be posted on residential or business property accompanied by lis pendens filings recorded at the county courthouse against those properties. Notices would be mailed out. Administrative or judicial forfeiture action would commence against personal assets depending on value thresholds. Bank accounts would be frozen and then drained. People would be detained individually when they went shopping away from their homes to avoid video clips of militarized Feds attacking the houses of ordinary Americans in military operations. Businesses and vehicles would be seized over time. Cars would be grabbed when driven away from home when the owners were alone in their vehicles so as to not precipitate a defensive response from supporters.

Both of these types of attacks on the Bundys would likely involve the task force concept where multiple agencies would be brought in to confer and participate in either the slow or fast takedown of the Bundys and their livelihood. The other three-letter agencies would likely be tapped to lend equipment, manpower, administrative authority or proprietary investigative techniques to wage the good fight against the hard-working American cowboys and their loyal families.

The most likely response will involve the above techniques in a hybrid operation with the sheriff’s office or Nevada State authorities. Up to half of current Federal agency prosecutions are done through county prosecutor offices or the offices of State attorneys general. The Federal prosecutors don’t object, since their resources haven’t always kept up with the expansion of Federal law enforcement agencies. They are all too happy to see a Federal law enforcement agency prosecute a case, or parts of a case, through State and county channels when similar laws exist on the Federal and State sides. Charging the core case via the county or State would be somewhat complex in this situation, however, since the base charges are primarily Federal in nature regarding lands that the Feds have proclaimed off-limits to various citizen and resident uses. That wouldn’t be a stopper, though.

Cliven Bundy has indicated that he would surrender or submit to justice if the sheriff was the one making the request on behalf of the county or State. It is likely that the Feds will approach the sheriff and suggest that he be part of the face of leviathan when Bundy is approached with a combination of charges. The Feds will pressure the county and State authorities to come up with a few token charges that could be dovetailed with the Federal charges so that a county warrant, summons, writ or subpoena could be presented by a local officer tacitly or overtly working with the Feds. Local officers are quite often deputized with Federal authority for the duration of a certain case or longer. Once the Bundy case is in the State system, criminally or civilly, the State charges could then be dropped or held in abeyance while county authorities defer to Federal prosecutors awaiting the outcome of the Federal case.

Aside from the Bundy family, all other ranchers will likely be punished by the Feds via enhanced regulatory interventions in response to the actions on display in Nevada. This is common fare as a mechanism to teach the public to not mimic others who are standing up for themselves. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management staff will be told at the headquarters level to crack down on ranchers in general and to give no quarter when dealing with “grazing permits” and “grazing fees.” The continual downward trend for the number of cattle allowed on historical grazing lands (i.e., “Federal allotments”) will be announced to ranchers during their recurring annual grazing permit meetings with the Feds. The continually reduced allotments will be enforced with vigor to teach the rancher scum a lesson. My family has had to deal for generations with perpetually reduced livestock “allowances” on grazing lands in Arizona, along with the more recent “endangered species” excuse to stomp on the land and water rights of ranchers who willingly maintain infrastructure that benefits both livestock and wildlife at no taxpayer expense. This happens and will continue to happen on both private deeded ranching land and on historical grazing “permit” lands used by ranchers for generations that were beyond the acreage amounts permitted for official deeded homesteading claims. (By the way, these grazing “permits” on specific land parcels with their documented historical homestead linkages convey and are bought and sold just like other real estate.)

The final likely type of general response by the Feds will be a chaotic, unpredictable deployment of provocateurs throughout the West trying to simulate the crisis presented in this trendy new visible law enforcement category. More visible crises are needed to allow Fox News and CNN to delineate between the good guys (the police state) and the bad guys (ranchers). Attempts will be made to catch evil ranchers operating their ranches while scheming, in recorded conversations, to keep operating their ranches despite growing opposition by the Feds to the presence of ranchers. That won’t work since cowboys are wary and hard to trap, so provocateurs will try to find a bozo in a cowboy hat and suggest to him, after he consumes a 12-pack purchased by the provocateur, that the drunk pretend cowboy and his newfound friend should have some fun and smash some turtles out in the desert. The Feds would then save us from that fate just on the cusp of it occurring with Federal planning, financing and taxpayer-purchased plastic turtle props. It would be made clear in press releases that no real turtles were harmed, lest we worry. The Federal press releases for this activity would be glorious and be seen by most being read verbatim by a horrified network newsreader tossing her hair incredulously while sports scores scroll underneath the screen. A hammer over a turtle outline could be the graphic floating next to the newsreader’s head.

Or attempts may be made to paint a rancher as evil by trying to compile statistics of drug loads arriving in the interior of the U.S. that Federal experts would suggest must have traversed the rancher’s land, proving unequivocally that the rancher can’t manage the grazing land as effectively as armed Federal bureaucrats who will keep us safe from beef cattle on that land and other productive uses. These actions will all increase to prove that the Feds will not be dictated to.

Although I cheer for the Bundys and applaud the courage of their sweet family, my heart would much rather see them running now and hiding out in a freer country like Mexico as opposed to becoming a decimated family of martyrs ravaged by the state.


–David Hathaway

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 22, 2014, 01:06:10 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 22, 2014, 03:37:56 am

You continue to focus on whether the U.S. was justified in going to war ("We didn't get involved until we were attacked and our territory invaded.")  I have never written, said, or even thought, anything justifying otherwise.

I am not focused on whether the U. S. was justified in going to war.  I am focused upon the fact that you said that the U. S. was not invaded, which is untrue.

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 22, 2014, 03:37:56 am

Now, that said (for the umpteenth time), you also wrote, "Those people losing their freedom had been doing so for more than 6 years."  In context, there is no reference to who "Those people" might be, who you are contending had been "losing their freedom... for more than six years," presumably in 1941.

I can see why you wouldn't read your own posts.  But you should really try.

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 20, 2014, 10:12:11 am

And our involvement in WWII was not about protecting our freedoms, since there was no real prospect anyone was going to invade us.  It was actually about protecting the freedoms of folks very few Americans even knew.

The last time U.S. troops went to war to protect OUR freedom was 1812.

It was you refered to "those people".  Was I wrong in assuming you knew who you were talking about?  Or are you saying that "folks" are not "people"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 22, 2014, 03:30:21 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 22, 2014, 08:24:23 am

The US was concerned with being bombed from the air during WWII. I know this because we have a military complex where they made bombs not far from where I grew up. They covered the train tracks in a long row of trees in open field areas so as to hide the trains from air raids. They hid bunkers in large dirt mounds not easily seen from the air.

There is considerable difference between fear and rational fear.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 22, 2014, 03:48:12 pm

Looking back to when I was a kid in the early 60's being taught in school to hide under my desk in case of a nuclear attack my fear was clearly irrational.  It was quite real at the time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 04:36:04 pm

The last time we went to War to protect all Americans freedoms was 1861.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 22, 2014, 04:46:17 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 04:36:04 pm

The last time we went to War to protect all Americans freedoms was 1861.

otto, have you read the Emancipation Proclamation?

If so, do you remember the part where Lincoln specifically stated it would not apply in states which were not "in a state of rebellion" three months later when it would take effect, and that slaveowners in those states would continue to own their slaves... and that Union forces would in fact return escaped slaves to their masters?

I understand what you believe to be the case about the Civil War.

It is simply that what you believe is wrong, and completely at odds with reality.

A lot like your political and economic views.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 04:48:39 pm

Good olde clive bundy....taker, moocher and simple thief


Right now they are paying $1.35 a month for each cow/calf combination eating our grass. By comparison, the average grazing fee on private land in the West is $16.80 a month, according to the Congressional Research Service, and ranges between $2.28 and $150 on state lands in the region.

The federal lands grazing program is like supercharged food stamps for bovines. And it is massively subsidized. As the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2005, the program brought in $21 million in fees paid by ranchers, but cost $144 million to run.


Hero of the wingnut stupid nation

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 04:55:29 pm

The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time.

The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.

The Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (also unnamed, you must be proud of this), and specifically excluded counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.


History that

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 04:58:12 pm

The Emancipation Proclamation


January 1, 1863

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

 



Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:


"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.


I'm pretty sure President Lincoln made it clear.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 05:03:03 pm

 
 My two favorite posters on this forum are Jes & Otto !
 
 For sheer ENTERTAINMENT value !
 
 The bros never cease to amaze !
 
 God bless us for having them !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 05:14:11 pm

The last time we went to War to protect all Americans freedoms was 1861.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 05:17:51 pm

wingnuts....keep this type of thing up. The youth of American love this stuff.

Stuff being old white privileged intolerant a-holes acting like the Taliban.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sc-colleges-production-highlights-political-battle-between-lawmakers-public-universities/2014/04/22/d2f357f6-ca0e-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sc-colleges-production-highlights-political-battle-between-lawmakers-public-universities/2014/04/22/d2f357f6-ca0e-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html?hpid=z1)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 05:18:50 pm

 
 Hey Duck,
 
 The Japanese did have submarines that could launch aircraft ...
 
 they were designed to bomb the locks of the Panama Canal.
 
 Which according to estimates would have put the Panama Canal out of action for one month.
 
 So alot of unnecessary effort on the Japanese part would have contributed to nothing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on April 22, 2014, 05:29:29 pm

Has Obama been impeached yet? It's coming....abuse of power.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 05:40:47 pm

 
 DeHavilland Mosquito
 
 
When the Mosquito began production in 1941, it was one of the fastest operational aircraft in the world.
 
 Entering widespread service in 1942, the Mosquito was a high-speed, high-altitude photo-reconnaissance aircraft, continuing in this role throughout the war.
 From mid-1942 to mid-1943 Mosquito bombers flew high-speed, medium or low-altitude missions against factories, railways and other pinpoint targets in Germany and German-occupied Europe.
 From late 1943, Mosquito bombers were formed into the Light Night Strike Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(RAF)#Light_Night_Striking_Force) and used as pathfinders for RAF Bomber Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command)'s heavy-bomber raids.
 They were also used as "nuisance" bombers, often dropping Blockbuster bombs - 4,000 lb (1,812 kg) "cookies" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb) - in high-altitude, high-speed raids that German night fighters were almost powerless to intercept.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/De_Havilland_DH-98_Mosquito_ExCC.jpg/300px-De_Havilland_DH-98_Mosquito_ExCC.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_Havilland_DH-98_Mosquito_ExCC.jpg)
 
 23 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 22, 2014, 05:47:47 pm

Hey Otto.

Lincoln was a Republican. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 05:48:49 pm

 
 Avro Lancaster
 
 A long, unobstructed bomb bay meant that the Lancaster could take even the largest bombs used by the RAF, including the 4,000 lb (1,800 kg), 8,000 lb (3,600 kg), and 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) blockbusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb), loads often supplemented with smaller bombs or incendiaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_device).
 
 Although the Lancaster was primarily a night bomber, it excelled in many other roles, including daylight precision bombing: in the latter role some Lancasters were adapted to carry the 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) Tallboy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_(bomb)) and, ultimately, the 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) Grand Slam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)) earthquake bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_bomb).
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Avro_Lancaster_B_I_PA474.jpg/300px-Avro_Lancaster_B_I_PA474.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avro_Lancaster_B_I_PA474.jpg)
 
 24 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 05:57:03 pm

 
 Heinkel HE-111
 
 
Although constantly upgraded, the Heinkel He 111 became obsolete during the latter part of the war. It was intended to be replaced by the Luftwaffe's Bomber B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_B) project, but the delays and eventual cancellation of the project forced the Luftwaffe to continue using the He 111 until the end of the war.
 
 Manufacture ceased in 1944, at which point, piston-engine bomber production was largely halted in favour of fighter aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft).
 
 With the German bomber force defunct, the He 111 was used for transport and logistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics).
 
The design of the Heinkel endured after the war in the CASA 2.111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_2.111). The Spanish received a batch of He 111H-16s in 1943 along with an agreement to licence-build Spanish versions.
 
 Its airframe was produced in Spain under license by Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construcciones_Aeron%C3%A1uticas_SA). The design differed significantly in powerplant only.
 
 The Heinkel's descendant continued in service until 1973.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-343-0694-21%2C_Belgien-Frankreich%2C_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_111.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-343-0694-21%2C_Belgien-Frankreich%2C_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_111.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-343-0694-21,_Belgien-Frankreich,_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_111.jpg)
 
 25 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 06:05:33 pm

 
 Handley - Page Halifax
 
 
The Handley Page Halifax was one of the four-engined heavy bombers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_bomber) of the Royal Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force) during the Second World War. A contemporary of the famous Avro Lancaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster), the Halifax remained in service until the end of the war, performing a variety of duties in addition to bombing.
 
 The Halifax was also operated by squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Force), Royal Australian Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force), Free French Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French_Air_Force), and Polish forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II#Air_force),
 
 and after the Second World War by the Royal Egyptian Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Air_Force), the Armée de l'Air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_Force) and the Royal Pakistan Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Pakistan_Air_Force).
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Halifax-mk3.jpg/300px-Halifax-mk3.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halifax-mk3.jpg)
 
 26 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 06:16:37 pm

 
 Messerschmitt BF - 110
 
  Hermann Göring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring) was a proponent of the Bf 110. It was armed with two 20 mm cannons, four 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_17_machine_gun), and one 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 15 machine gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_15_machine_gun) or twin MG 81 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_81)Zs for defense.
 
 Most of the German night fighter aces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_night_fighter_aces) flew the Bf 110 at some point during their combat careers, and the top night fighter ace of all time, Major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major) Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz-Wolfgang_Schnaufer), flew it exclusively and claimed 121 victories in 164 combat missions.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-377-2801-013%2C_Flugzeug_Messerschmitt_Me_110.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-377-2801-013%2C_Flugzeug_Messerschmitt_Me_110.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-377-2801-013,_Flugzeug_Messerschmitt_Me_110.jpg)
 
 27 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 06:27:01 pm

 
 Lavochkin LaGG-7   
 
 Its first flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden_flight) was in early 1944 and it entered service with the Soviet Air Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Forces) later in the year. A small batch of La-7s was given to the Czechoslovak Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Air_Force) the following year, but it was otherwise not exported. Armed with two or three 20 mm (0.79 in) cannon, it had a top speed of 661 kilometers per hour (411 mph). The La-7 was felt by its pilots to be at least the equal of any German piston-engined fighter and even shot down a Messerschmitt Me 262 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262) jet fighter. It was phased out in 1947 by the Soviet Air Force, but lasted until 1950 with the Czechoslovak Air Force.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Memorial_La-7_open_7-may-2007.jpg/300px-Memorial_La-7_open_7-may-2007.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Memorial_La-7_open_7-may-2007.jpg) 
 
 28 of 29                                   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 06:42:21 pm

 
 
The B-29 Superfortress is a four-engine propeller-driven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-wing_aircraft#Propeller_aircraft) heavy bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_bomber) designed by Boeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing) that was flown primarily by the United States toward the end of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) and during the Korean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War).
 
 It was one of the largest aircraft to have seen service during World War II and a very advanced bomber for its time, with features such as a pressurized cabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization), an electronic fire-control system, and remote-controlled machine-gun turrets.
 
 The name "Superfortress" was derived from that of its well-known predecessor, the B-17 Flying Fortress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress).
 
 Although designed as a high-altitude strategic bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bomber), and initially used in this role against the Empire of Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan), these attacks proved to be disappointing; as a result the B-29 became the primary aircraft used in the American firebombing campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing_attacks), and was used extensively in low-altitude night-time incendiary bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_bomb) missions.
 
 One of the B-29's final roles during World War II was carrying out the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki).
 
 
 Unlike many other World War II-era bombers, the B-29 remained in service long after the war ended, with a few even being employed as flying television transmitters for the Stratovision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovision) company.
 
 The B-29 served in various roles throughout the 1950s. The Royal Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force) flew the B-29 and used the name Washington for the type, replacing them in 1953 with the Canberra jet bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Canberra),
 
 and the Soviet Union produced an unlicensed reverse-engineered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse-engineered) copy as the Tupolev Tu-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4).
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg/300px-B-29_in_flight.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B-29_in_flight.jpg)
 
 29 of 29
 
 Well here it is Wsh, the 29 of 29 ... except your friend posted 30 ...
 
 heres the last one ... ;D
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 07:07:23 pm

Hey duck


To think that Lincoln would be representative of modern day t-baggers is a disservice to the memory of one of our greatest Presidents.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 07:16:10 pm

Can somebody tell me why this is a good thing...


mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?from=homepage (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?from=homepage)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 07:26:00 pm

I keep thinking what the resident idiot liberation would claim...even less regulations.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/lack-of-oversight-and-regulations-blamed-in-texas-chemical-explosion.html (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/lack-of-oversight-and-regulations-blamed-in-texas-chemical-explosion.html)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 08:13:47 pm

 
 I have been for quite some time trying to sell volumes of books online,
 
 collected works ...etc.
 
 There are no takers and why should there be ?
 
 They arent rare they just are.
 
 Its all on the Internet already. Kiss that market goodbye.
 
 Im donating them to a school near me.
 
 But to think back to all of the knowledge it took to make those books ...
 
 and today its toilet paper.
 
 No the books arent gone ... theyve just been replaced by a new medium.
 
 That contains all of those books. But in a way its sad ...
 
 because what Guttenberg invented is passing to the wayside.
 
 Until the electricity runs out ...  ;D   :D   ;)   ::)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 08:50:12 pm

 
 Hey Wsh heres 30 of 29 from your friend ... Nyuk !
 
 The Short Stirling was the first four-engined British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) heavy bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_bomber) of the Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).
 
 The Stirling was designed and built by Short Brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Brothers) to an Air Ministry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Ministry) specification from 1936, and entered service in 1941.
 
 The Stirling had a relatively brief operational career as a bomber, being relegated to second line duties from 1943 onwards when other four-engined RAF bombers, specifically the Handley Page Halifax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax) and Avro Lancaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster), took over.
 
 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Short_Stirling_bomber_N6101.jpg/300px-Short_Stirling_bomber_N6101.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Short_Stirling_bomber_N6101.jpg)
 
 30 of 29

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 09:01:50 pm

 
 Now I can dig a hand job from any dude or dudette on this board if I keep my eyes closed and you use enough K-Y Jelly.
 
 Jes ... Otto ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 09:11:58 pm

JJ

I have yer back man.

Keep the weird alive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 22, 2014, 09:12:34 pm

It is liberal policies that have destroyed the middle class.  Sure some Republicans are to blame but just the RINO's.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 22, 2014, 09:13:03 pm

Did Otto just say he was going to give JJ a reach around?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 09:23:10 pm

Ok citizen of pottersville, what Liberal policies are you referring too?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2014, 10:40:06 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 22, 2014, 09:13:03 pm

Did Otto just say he was going to give JJ a reach around?

 I have to admit that was a pretty good comeback !
 
 "cumback"
 
 Lets keep the laffs coming !
 
 Its better then trying to prove whose right and whose wrong ...
 
 which is never going to happen.  ;D
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 22, 2014, 10:48:48 pm

All of them.

We pay more for everything due to ridiculous regulations.  It all adds costs to the company which in turn stops giving raises, cuts work force and reduces pay.  So we make less but everything costs more. 

Every single year under Obama I have had less to spend on items that aren't absolutely necessary.  Every day I read some article about how some government regulation is going to increase the cost of x amount of products.  By the way usually those articles are on MSN.

For instance the government has decided to stop allowing brewers to give grains to ranchers for feed.  WTF?

Is this some insane thing tied to cow farts causing the made up man made global warming?  Is this why there is a sudden attack on ranchers?

The list is endless otto.  I could go on all day.  Although I am gussing Jes will come along with a lengthy list real soon so I won't have to.  I am kind of tired after working all day.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 23, 2014, 04:57:32 am

Quote from: Pekin on April 22, 2014, 09:13:03 pm

Did Otto just say he was going to give JJ a reach around?

I wonder if Otto will wear the mittens...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on April 23, 2014, 05:46:45 am

Just one...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 05:51:23 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 04:55:29 pm

The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time.

The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.

The Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (also unnamed, you must be proud of this), and specifically excluded counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.


History that

otto, since I sincerely do not want to be cruel to you and rub your nose in your ignorance, instead of simply reading what some other ignorant person wrote, please do as I suggested initially and read the Emancipation Proclamation itself.  It is not long and is readily available.  And then, try to explain to me how it is that Lincoln could more than three years into the war change the reason the war BEGAN.... and try to reconcile your claim that it was about race and old Abe's wonderful desire to free those poor ol' darkies with the fact that before the attack on Fort Sumpter Lincoln expressly and in writing promised not to end slavery if the southern states would just be good boys and girls and rejoin the union.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 06:15:11 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 07:26:00 pm

I keep thinking what the resident idiot liberation would claim...even less regulations.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/lack-of-oversight-and-regulations-blamed-in-texas-chemical-explosion.html (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/lack-of-oversight-and-regulations-blamed-in-texas-chemical-explosion.html)

poor otto.... at the time this happened you predicted that I would claim it was a result of government regulation.   I responded by saying I didn't know enough about what happened to offer a comment.

Now the investigation comes out and concludes that it was a result of.... government regulation.

Not my conclusion, but instead the conclusion of the report you just pointed to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 06:51:02 am

Quote from: Pekin on April 22, 2014, 10:48:48 pm

All of them.

We pay more for everything due to ridiculous regulations.  It all adds costs to the company which in turn stops giving raises, cuts work force and reduces pay.  So we make less but everything costs more. 

Every single year under Obama I have had less to spend on items that aren't absolutely necessary.  Every day I read some article about how some government regulation is going to increase the cost of x amount of products.  By the way usually those articles are on MSN.

For instance the government has decided to stop allowing brewers to give grains to ranchers for feed.  WTF?

Is this some insane thing tied to cow farts causing the made up man made global warming?  Is this why there is a sudden attack on ranchers?

The list is endless otto.  I could go on all day.  Although I am gussing Jes will come along with a lengthy list real soon so I won't have to.  I am kind of tired after working all day.

Obamacare will ruin the middle class. SOP.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 23, 2014, 07:30:40 am

Otts has grass at the Bundy's ranch?? "Eating our grass"??? Do you want it?? Or should we let the cows have it? You know it grows back, right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 03:24:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 04:58:12 pm

The Emancipation Proclamation
January 1, 1863

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

I'm pretty sure President Lincoln made it clear.

You are correct that he made things clear.  What you seemingly fail to understand is WHAT he made clear.

First he issued the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1962, at which time the war had been going on for a year and a half.  It was NOT at the start of the war.

Next, while he issued it on September 22, 1962, it was not to take effect until January 1st, 1863, more than three months later.

And finally, it was only going to take effect in the states which Lincoln determined to, AS OF JANUARY 1, 1863, to be in a state of rebellion.  It wasn't going to take effect in Maryland at all, and Maryland was a slave state.  And for any slave state which WAS in rebellion, if the rebellion ceased, Lincoln made clear that he was not only not going to apply the Proclamation, but that the Union troops would actually return to slaveowners any slaves which had escaped.

It was NOT about race, nor was it about ending slavery.

Contending it was makes some self-riteous northers feel good about themselves and the Northern in the Civil War, but they are deluding themselves with such a contention.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 23, 2014, 03:38:09 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html#ixzz2zhdwX8G0

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 23, 2014, 03:45:55 pm

Jon Gabriel (a.k.a., @ExJon on Twitter) is a political writer and marketing consultant, contributing articles to Ricochet, The Blaze, FreedomWorks and the Heartland Institute. Until 2012, he served as Director of Marketing for the free-market Goldwater Institute, where he converted policy initiatives into compelling stories. In the private sector, Jon led marketing efforts for Cold Stone Creamery, Honeywell, and several technology companies.

In his spare time he helped create a political satire blog, garnering several notices from Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, National Review, The New York Times and other media outlets.

Jon is a summa cum laude graduate of Arizona State's Cronkite School of Journalism and is a former submarine reactor operator for the U.S. Navy. When not obsessing about the news, he obsesses about the Green Bay Packers, Arizona Diamondbacks and indie rock. He lives in Mesa, Ariz., with his long-suffering wife and two precocious daughters.


Today is Earth Day — an annual event first launched on April 22, 1970. The inaugural festivities (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded. Sound familiar? Behold the coming apocalypse, as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”  — Harvard biologist George Wald

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

“[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

Voices of the ignorami.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 23, 2014, 04:01:16 pm

Benghazi fiasco.

http://mash.network.coull.com/activatevideo?video_provider_id=2&pid=8165&website_id=23863&width=549&height=339&embed_type=IFRAME&video_provider_url=http://www.youtube.com/embed/A1jeJmeeMjs?version%3D3%26rel%3D1%26fs%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26wmode%3Dtransparent&mobile=true&referrer=http://allenwestrepublic.com/2013/11/10/allen-west-here-is-truly-one-of-the-exceptional-good-guys-on-capitol-h

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 04:13:04 pm

Quote from: packrat on April 23, 2014, 03:38:09 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html#ixzz2zhdwX8G0

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

It is called blowback, and it is the natural, and pretty much unavoidable, consequence of international intervention.

Stick your nose into enough places often enough, and someone is going to cut a piece or two of it off.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 04:23:24 pm

Quote from: packrat on April 23, 2014, 04:01:16 pm

Benghazi fiasco.

http://mash.network.coull.com/activatevideo?video_provider_id=2&pid=8165&website_id=23863&width=549&height=339&embed_type=IFRAME&video_provider_url=http://www.youtube.com/embed/A1jeJmeeMjs?version%3D3%26rel%3D1%26fs%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26wmode%3Dtransparent&mobile=true&referrer=http://allenwestrepublic.com/2013/11/10/allen-west-here-is-truly-one-of-the-exceptional-good-guys-on-capitol-h

There is one more question Trey Gowdy should have asked, and that was why the three idiots behind him were smirking and smiling as if they were Jr. High students who had just pulled a prank.

Gowdy's questions are perfectly legitimate, but the optics there were utterly terrible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 04:25:25 pm

Quote from: packrat on April 23, 2014, 03:45:55 pm

Today is Earth Day — an annual event first launched on April 22, 1970. The inaugural festivities (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded. Sound familiar? Behold the coming apocalypse, as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”  — Harvard biologist George Wald

<snip>

Come on, give them all a break.  They were perfectly well intentioned.

I mean, they wanted to save the planet!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 04:35:21 pm

Stupidity on stilts.

http://thepcmdgazette.com/news/following-college-debate-club-rules-now-considered-white-privilege-and-racist/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 04:47:47 pm

Next, while he issued it on September 22, 1962, it was not to take effect until January 1st, 1863, more than three months later.

Come on Jess Lincoln wasn't alive still on Sept 22, 1962

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 04:50:54 pm

Good catch.

Doesn't change the point, but a good catch.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 23, 2014, 05:00:09 pm

sheldon, since I sincerely do want to be cruel to you and rub your nose in your ignorance...



Can you try to explain this.

Quote

try to explain to me how it is that Lincoln could more than three years into the war change the reason the war BEGAN

Got some dates you want to put on it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 05:24:29 pm

Subtract a year, otto, it does not change the point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 23, 2014, 06:59:50 pm

 
 Sombody give me a Cheeseburger !!
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyV41-tFPcQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyV41-tFPcQ)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 23, 2014, 07:19:23 pm

Dude....Sheldon


Your whole premise as the boards southern "historian" is a joke.

Do better before I attempt anything which will only shame you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 07:22:20 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Greg-Abbott-BLM-Oklahoma-land/2014/04/22/id/567136/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1565815_04232014&promo_code=ag14nh1t

Texas AG to Feds: 'Come And Take' Disputed Land
 
Wednesday, 23 Apr 2014 10:51 AM

By Jason Devaney

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for the Bureau of Land Management about disputed land along the Oklahoma-Texas border: "Come and take it."

 Abbott was referring to a potential land grab of 90,000 acres that belong to Texas residents. According to Breitbart Texas, the federal government is considering taking the land, which stretches 116 miles along the Red River.

 "I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a 'Come and Take It' flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas," Abbott said.

 Abbott wrote a letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze about the matter, expressing his concerns about the government's interest in taking the land from Texans, who have owned it for decades.

 "I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations," Abbott wrote in the letter.

 "The BLM's newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles — including the rule of law — that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box."

 Abbott expanded on the subject in an interview with Breitbart.

 "What Barack Obama's BLM is doing is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state," Abbott said.

 The issue with the land dates to the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. The physical boundary between Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River can fluctuate, depending on the river itself. This has led to countless legal battles over the years between the two states and the federal government.

According to Breitbart, the Texas Farm Bureau thinks the border moves south when the river shifts in that direction. But when the flow of water shifts to the north, the organization maintains that the border stays where it is supposed to be.

 The BLM has stepped in and wants to take over the land to settle the matter once and for all.

 "This is the latest line of attack by the Obama administration, where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country," Abbott told Breitbart. "And now they've crossed the line quite literally by coming into the state of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the attorney general of Texas, I am not going to allow this."

 The situation comes on the heels of the case between the BLM and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.

The BLM says Bundy had been illegally grazing his cattle on 600,000 acres of federal land for 20 years. Bundy disagrees, saying the land belongs to the state. The BLM had started to confiscate Bundy's cattle, but returned the animals 10 days ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 07:29:28 pm

One piece of advice to Reid stooge Kornze, don't mess with Texas. You will pay dearly if you do. And there are more guns in the state of Texas to back it up. Furthermore before Texas joined the Union it was a separate country, an independent Republic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 07:51:56 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 07:29:28 pm

One piece of advice to Reid stooge Kornze, don't mess with Texas. You will pay dearly if you do. And there are more guns in the state of Texas to back it up. Furthermore before Texas joined the Union it was a separate country, an independent Republic.

That is an important point on any effort to have a serious discussion addressing the actual legalities of secession.

Texas was the last real republic to join the union.  Other than the original 13, all of the rest of the states had been U.S. territories and already a part of the U.S. before Congress carved them up and granted them statehood.  Hard to argue that the federal government would have granted U.S. territory a status (statehood) which might allow them to leave whenever they wanted, since the territory would never have had that right so long as it was a territory.  Also hard to argue that an independent republic would join the Union without reserving the right to leave it if the direction of the Union became to distasteful to those in that independent republic.  I've been in Texas now since last September, and the attitudes and mindset here is rather different from the rest of the nation.  For many people here the secession talk sometimes heard from Governor Rick Perry is not at all wild rhetoric.   To them it is a perfectly rational, and serious, discussion.  Part of that is because it is a big enough state, and the media markets are situated in such a way, that the people here view themselves as Texans first.  In most states (California might be one other exception), at least some of the media markets are either on or close enough to state borders that advertisers air rather generic ads cut for the national market, or at least for a regional market.  In Texas, I believe ALL of the media markets have pretty much Texas-only audiences, meaning advertisers can, and do, cut and air spots tailors specifically to Texans, further helping to foster the attitude of many that they are TEXANS.  It is almost immediately noticeable if you are here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 08:03:49 pm

And another point that I've heard but never seen written and that is at one time maybe at the time Texas joined the union it was said that Texas had the right to divide into 5 separate states.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 08:06:59 pm

And there is a lot of Federal land in Texas in the form of military instalations there. That also could be a talking point too about state takeover of state land.

Old saying, "Don't mess with Texas"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 23, 2014, 08:26:01 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 07:29:28 pm

One piece of advice to Reid stooge Kornze, don't mess with Texas. You will pay dearly if you do. And there are more guns in the state of Texas to back it up. Furthermore before Texas joined the Union it was a separate country, an independent Republic.

 And so was California.
 
 
 The California Republic (in Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) "República de California"),
 also Bear Flag Republic or Bear Republic, refers to a period of revolt by American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) settlers in the Mexican territory of Alta California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_California) against Mexico.
 
 Revolt was initially proclaimed in Sonoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoma,_California) on June 14, 1846, before news of the outbreak of the Mexican–American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War) had reached the area.
 
 Although participants declared independence from Mexico, they failed to form a functional provisional government. Thus, the "republic" never exercised any real authority, and it was never recognized by any nation.
 
 In fact, most of Alta California knew nothing about it. The revolt lasted 26 days, at the end of which the U.S. Army arrived to occupy the area.
 
 Once the leaders of the revolt knew the United States was claiming the area, they disbanded their "republic" and supported the U.S. annexation of Alta California.
 
 The California Republic is notable for creation of the "(Grizzly) Bear Flag", whose symbols were later incorporated into the California state flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_California) — including the words "California Republic."
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 08:39:00 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 23, 2014, 08:26:01 pm

 And so was California.

Uh, not really.

From your own post:

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 23, 2014, 08:26:01 pm

Although participants declared independence from Mexico, they failed to form a functional provisional government. Thus, the "republic" never exercised any real authority, and it was never recognized by any nation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 23, 2014, 09:37:34 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 23, 2014, 08:39:00 pm

Uh, not really.

From your own post:

 Uh ..excuse me Jes but THE VATICAN ... New York Post ... Kim Jung Un,
 
 and 38 million people from the State Of California say otherwise.
 
 Lets remember what Abraham Lincoln said in giving his Emancipation Proclamation:
 
 Holy motherfuckin dogshit !! We got California on our side tho half of its below the Mason - Dixon Line !!
 
 The tide of the Civil War turned there my friend...
 
 within weeks the first airport was built in Los Angeles to ferry in troops that U.S. Grant used to take Vicksburg.
 
 Although anyone could argue that Monitor ships helped to seal the fate of Vicksburg as they had done at New Orleans ...
 
 everyone with a cell phone knew in the old south to get onto their agent for a movie contract.
 
 Thus was born : D W Griffith's  : "Birth of McDonalds"
 
 The true story in retelling by Hollywood of how simple farmers in Minnisota went on to form General Motors.
 
 Although denying that the Chevrolet Vega ever existed.
 
 But let me point this out to you Jes Beard and may you never forget it,
 
 in 1858 John Brown tried to take over Harpers Ferry in Virginia,
 
 but he was stopped by Erryl Flynn ... with a walkon cameo by Ronald Reagon.
 
 Erryl Flynn went on to become President Of The Universal Studios Tour.
 
 So its a small world isnt it Jes ? Because you never thought Elvis Presley
 
 would go on to become Mayor of Hoboken New Jersey.
 
 And that an entire window in a house would be named after him.
 
 It just shows how wrong we can be in predicting the future babes.
 
 Im hungry ... wanna split a Philly Cheesesteak with me ?
 
 Genos or Pats ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 24, 2014, 10:27:37 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 23, 2014, 07:19:23 pm

Dude....Sheldon

Do better before I attempt anything which will only shame you.

Take him seriously, Jes.  He can probably do it.  He has been shaming himself for decades.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 24, 2014, 04:26:50 pm

He wants me to "do better," after I have pointed out that his position makes no sense whatsoever and is directly at odds with the facts.  Pretty much the kind of nonsense we have all grown to expect from him.  When his position is shredded, instead of countering it, or admitting his error, he stubbornly insists he is right and claims that he is being kind by not shaming those opposing him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 24, 2014, 06:38:34 pm

My position that the Civil War was fought over slavery was shredded? By whom? That idiot ex-lawyer who can't even get timeline regarding it right.

Sure....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 24, 2014, 06:39:52 pm

Sheldon


Clive Bundy on line one for you...he agrees that slavery was good for the Negro folks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 24, 2014, 06:57:11 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 24, 2014, 06:38:34 pm

My position that the Civil War was fought over slavery was shredded? By whom? That idiot ex-lawyer who can't even get timeline regarding it right.

Sure....

Except that was NOT your position.  The position you stated was in response to mine, and I never have claimed the Civil War was not fought (to a significant degree) over slavery.

YOUR position was the foolish claim as follows:

Quote from: otto105 on April 22, 2014, 04:36:04 pm

The last time we went to War to protect all Americans freedoms was 1861.

You then repeated it in boldface.  And those posts were in response to my statement that the last time U.S. troops went to war to protect American freedom was the War of 1812.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 24, 2014, 07:20:06 pm

Idiot


The War was about protecting ALL American citizens rights. Was there slavery in the North?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 24, 2014, 07:56:24 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 24, 2014, 07:20:06 pm

Idiot


The War was about protecting ALL American citizens rights. Was there slavery in the North?

Where do you get that nonsense at? I never heard that before.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 24, 2014, 08:59:20 pm

http://news.msn.com/us/rebellious-nevada-ranchers-racist-remarks-dim-republican-support

And the media attacks begin.  What the guy is saying makes him stupid not racist.  Same as not paying the grazing fees it makes him stupid not a domestic terrorist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 24, 2014, 09:05:35 pm

You can observe the dumbing down of America's education system every time that you read a modern day columnist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 24, 2014, 09:26:16 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 23, 2014, 08:03:49 pm

And another point that I've heard but never seen written and that is at one time maybe at the time Texas joined the union it was said that Texas had the right to divide into 5 separate states.

That was (and is) in the enabling legislation.  But it is extremely doubtful that they would ever do it.  Texans like being the biggest state (Alaska doesn't count for some reason).

I have lived in quite a few states in my life.  Texas was by far the best place to live that I experienced.

Jes - where you at?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 25, 2014, 01:21:32 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 24, 2014, 07:56:24 pm

Where do you get that nonsense at?

It's otto.  Where does he get ANY of his nonsense at?

Quote from: otto105 on April 24, 2014, 07:20:06 pm

Idiot

The War was about protecting ALL American citizens rights. Was there slavery in the North?

Actually, yes, there was slavery in the north, and the northern states also had their black codes which sometimes made it illegal for blacks to even LIVE in the state, and the war did nothing to end those laws.

As to protecting the rights of ALL American citizens, what of native Americans?  Or did you forget they existed?  (And before you say they were not citizens, you need to remember that before the Civil War, slaves and native Americans had the same "citizenship" status.)

What of the point that Lincoln told the Southern states before Fort Sumpter that if they did not secede he promised he would make no effort to end slavery?

What of the fact that in the Emancipation Proclamation he expressly restricted its application to avoid any impact on slavery in the Union state of Maryland?

What of the fact that he further in the Proclamation made clear that if any of the CSA states ended their "state of rebellion" and rejoined the union, slave-owners could continue owning their slaves, AND that Union troops would return runaway slaves to slave-owners in those states?

What of the fact that for more than the first year of the war Union troops were under orders to return any runaway slaves, even when they were being returned to slaveowners who were in CSA states and the slaves might reasonably have been expected to be used in the southern war effort against the north?

The idea that the Union sent troops into the south in 1861 at the start of the war in order to protect the rights of black slaves is nonsense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 25, 2014, 06:47:39 am

http://personalliberty.com/harry-reid-calling-patriots-domestic-terrorists/


Here’s Why Harry Reid Is Calling Patriots ‘Domestic Terrorists’


April 25, 2014 by Wayne Allyn Root

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called patriots “domestic terrorists.” He used the term to describe anyone who thinks the raid at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada was government overreach and intimidation — like me. You mean sending 200 heavily armed troops, snipers, helicopters, airplanes and rendering tricks (to transport dead cattle) isn’t government overreach?

Isn’t that strange? Isn’t that bizarre? Well, actually, no. It makes perfect sense. Barack Obama’s supporters (like Harry Reid) have learned well about demonization, intimidation, slander and vicious attacks. Obama’s mentor, communist organizer Saul Alinsky, taught his followers that “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” He defined political opponents as “the enemy.” He advised: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Alinsky’s strategy was to attack, attack and attack some more. He advised his Marxist followers to demonize your opponent with exactly what you see in the mirror. In other words, if you’re the radical, call your political opponents “radical.” If you’re extreme, call them “extreme.” If you’re a domestic terrorist, call them a “domestic terrorist.” That’s how you distract and deflect: by spreading misinformation. That’s how you take the spotlight off your radical views: by painting the other guy as “radical.”

So calling conservatives who want to defend the Constitution by the name “domestic terrorists” makes perfect sense, because Reid is looking right into the mirror.

The facts of just the past few days have proven Obama, Reid (the man who carries Obama’s water in the U.S. Senate) and their entire Marxist cabal to be the real “domestic terrorists.” That’s why they chose the very words that describe themselves — to distract, deflect and cover their tracks.

Just look at the results of Obama’s policies (all voted into place by Reid).

More Americans are now on food stamps than the total number of women working in America.

The number of full-time working Americans in the private sector is about 70 percent lower than the number of Americans who get government checks: 86 million versus about 148 million.

Aren’t these statistics the definition of “domestic terrorism?” How did this happen? This Administration put in place more regulations than any Administration in history. Last year alone, Obama set the all-time record with 26,417 pages of new Federal regulations.

Obama now owns four of the five highest-regulation years in the history of the Presidency.

Then there’s the dollar cost of those regulations. In just one year (2012), Obama’s new regulations cost more than all the regulations of Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s entire first terms combined.

How about the cost for Obamacare regulations alone? American Action Forum reports that Obamacare imposes 645 million hours of paperwork, 4,116 Federal forms and $35.3 billion in costs.

Is there any wonder the economy is a disaster? Is there any wonder why there are no jobs? Obama has placed more handcuffs on the job creators and more roadblocks in front of small business than any President in history.

Isn’t this the definition of domestic terrorism? But wait. As infomercial pitchmen often say, there’s more! It was just revealed that Obama proposed 442 new taxes in his first five years. Yes I said 442.

Forget what this Administration actually passed. Thank goodness Obama had a Republican Congress standing in his way. But can you imagine if Obama had gotten what he wanted? We’d have 442 new taxes. Tax rates would surely be in the 80 percent to 90 percent range. That’s as high as any socialist or communist economy in the world. France is run by a Socialist Party President, and its highest tax rate is 75 percent.

Then there’s Obama Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is trying desperately to regulate coal producers out of business. The EPA also just announced sweeping new clean water regulations that put the government in control of virtually every piece of land in the United States that has a ditch or pothole on it. If it’s an indentation and collects water, then your land is under EPA control — not yours.

Isn’t that the definition of domestic terrorism? Then there’s the government intimidation. The Internal Revenue Service scandal grows bigger by the day. Now it turns out that IRS officials like Lois Lerner were openly consulting with Department of Justice officials about how to target Obama’s political opposition.

This same IRS is tracking our license plates on highways across America. This same IRS has requested the donor lists of the conservative Hollywood organization “Friends of Abe” and now the Ron Paul organization “Campaign for Liberty.”

Why would the government want confidential donor lists? There’s only one possible reason: to conduct a witch hunt to intimidate, bankrupt and destroy their political opposition.

Isn’t that the very definition of domestic terrorism? Yes, Reid is right. We do indeed have domestic terrorists in America. But it’s certainly not Tea Party conservatives.

By definition, it’s the group that wants a different kind of America, that wants to undo what the Founding Fathers created, that wants to violate the Constitution and kill capitalism. That’s the very definition of domestic terrorism. That group resides in the White House. It controls the U.S. Senate. It runs the Democratic Party.

Now you understand why Obama, Reid and their Marxist cabal call others by nasty names. This is the Alinsky playbook.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. God bless America.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 25, 2014, 09:35:17 am

So, peke, how did no regulation work in West, TX?


A year after a fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, killed 14 and destroyed a good chunk of the town, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board has released preliminary findings from an investigation that should serve as a major wake-up call for how the United States—and Texas in particular—regulates dangerous chemicals:


Tiny white pellets of ammonium nitrate were stored in a wooden warehouse in wooden bins, inside a building without a sprinkler system. No federal regulations exist preventing a company from storing the chemical in such a way. The volunteer firefighters who rushed to the plant to fight a fire that broke out there before the explosion were largely unaware of the dangers of ammonium nitrate, and a local emergency planning committee had not adopted an emergency response plan for the plant. Even if they had, Texas has no statewide fire code that would have established a minimum set of standards to hold industrial sites accountable for the safe handling of chemicals.

Ammonium nitrate is stored at more than 1,300 facilities around the country, but there are no zoning regulations at any level of government to prevent such plants from being located near residential areas, officials said on Tuesday. Other countries have more rigorous standards covering both the storage of the chemical and the proximity to other buildings. [...]

Agency officials said that no other single chemical has caused more widespread harm to the public in preventable accidents than ammonium nitrate. Nevertheless, fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate is not classified as an explosive in the United States.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 25, 2014, 09:38:08 am

Looks like good olde cliven bundy gave phaxnews the slip...

Is randie paul looking for him too?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 25, 2014, 10:55:11 am

Still waiting to hear about how Bundy's racial attitudes are in any way related to the governments excessive use of force over a few cows. To the Otto's of the world...this story is about overreach of government ...not race.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 25, 2014, 11:25:50 am

What over reach? The fact deadbeat racist clive refuses to pay his grazing fees as required by law?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 25, 2014, 11:36:19 am

Why don't all the government employees who do not pay there taxes have 200 armed men assaulting their properties?  Heck why not fire them if they don't pay their taxes? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 25, 2014, 11:40:37 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 25, 2014, 11:25:50 am

What over reach? The fact deadbeat racist clive refuses to pay his grazing fees as required by law?

So you think that it's ok for the government to point guns at you and your family because you owe them money? Sounds more like mafia than government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 25, 2014, 12:36:29 pm

Lets hear how Comrade Oddo explains how he would feel if he owed a dollar in taxes to Obumma and he came to collect with 200 armed soldiers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 25, 2014, 01:57:02 pm

The NY Times edited the remarks to distort the context? Oh no...not the Times. Say it ain't so...

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-racist-remarks

The 67-year-old Bundy, battling the U.S. government after federal agents stormed his ranch to confiscate his cattle in a dispute over grazing fees, said far more than what appeared in the New York Times and most other news accounts. While his grammar is pretty bad -- and his use of "negro" and "colored" considered politically incorrect (although they were both once preferred terms chosen by blacks) -- he actually was making a larger point, not simply deriding blacks.

In a YouTube video, he is filmed already in mid-sentence.

“... and so what I've testified to you -- I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don't have their freedoms, they didn't have these things, and they didn't have them.

We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don't want to go back. We sure don't want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don't want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Those comments appear to change the context of the next section, which was quoted in the New York Times. One clear point the rancher made: America has progressed since the 1965 race riots and "we sure don't want to go back." Here are the heavily quoted comments from Bundy that followed the above section edited out by most news organizations.

“Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids -- and there's always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy -- so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom -- they got less family life, and their happiness -- you could see it in their faces -- they wasn't happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips -- so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

But Bundy went on after saying that -- and again, his comments were edited out of most reports.

“Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people -- and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.

So, Bundy thinks Hispanics are hard-working family people, and laments the current plight of American blacks under the federal welfare system while saying there has been much progress and that "we sure don't want to go back." As always, there's more to the story than what the New York Times says.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 25, 2014, 03:40:02 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on April 25, 2014, 11:40:37 am

So you think that it's ok for the government to point guns at you and your family because you owe them money? Sounds more like mafia than government.

No.  But if the Court decision is ignored by a citizen, the Government should do whatever it must to enforce that decision.  We are still ruled by laws, not by mobs.  And the mob, by the way, also pointed guns at the officers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 25, 2014, 03:41:37 pm

That sure puts things in a different light doesn't it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 25, 2014, 05:52:24 pm

 
 Ive had research scientists on this for weeks now...
 
 what are the ingredients of a SNICKERS candy bar ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 25, 2014, 06:45:01 pm

Stuff

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 25, 2014, 07:46:26 pm

Quote from: davep on April 25, 2014, 06:45:01 pm

Stuff

 Dave I just think THANK GOD that the FCC is going to go to a "who can pay plays" on the Internet.
 
 This **** freedom **** has been getting out of hand on the Internet.
 
 
 Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler proposed new regulations Thursday (http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/23/technology/open-internet/index.html?iid=EL) that would allow Internet service providers like Comcast (CMCSA (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=CMCSA&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/5035.html?iid=EL)) and Verizon (VZ (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=VZ&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/2773.html?iid=EL)) to strike deals with individual websites and services, giving them priority access -- a so-called "fast lane" -- to customers.
 
 The FCC will vote on the proposal on May 15 before putting it out for public comment.
     
How would the fast lane work?
 
 
 It's not 100% clear yet.
 
 
 Hypothetically, you could imagine Amazon (AMZN (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=AMZN&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/10810.html?iid=EL)) striking a deal with Cablevision (CVC (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=CVC&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/10071.html?iid=EL)) to make its results load twice as fast on Black Friday.
 Streaming media services like Spotify might want to pay broadband providers for priority access to make sure their users aren't held up by endless buffering.
 
 Different companies will have different approaches, and it's up to the FCC to decide what's reasonable and what isn't.
 
What do the rules cover?
 
 The FCC's planned rules relate specifically to broadband, which is used for most home Internet connections.
 
  They won't cover the mobile Web, which is much more lightly regulated.
 
 
 The FCC rules also won't cover deals like the one reached earlier this year between Netflix and Comcast, in which the online video company reluctantly agreed to pay for a direct connection to Comcast's network to boost lagging streaming speeds.
 
 That's because the proposal only relates to the so-called "last mile" of broadband networks, where they connect directly to the homes of customers. It doesn't relate to connections between the many networks that make up the broader Internet.
 
Why allow a fast lane?
 
 
 In a conference call with reporters Thursday, senior FCC officials said preserving innovation and competition were their core concerns.
 
 The proposal follows a January court decision (http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/14/technology/fcc-net-neutrality/?iid=EL) that struck down the FCC's previous "net neutrality" rules, which barred Internet service providers from blocking or "unreasonably discriminating" against online content.
 
 
 The regulator has since been working to craft new rules that will pass legal muster.
 
 
 But the FCC said there were a number of possible instances in which prioritized connections could be helpful to some consumers without harming the broader marketplace, citing the example of remote heart rate monitoring for medical patients.
 
 Is this a good thing?
 
 
 It could be. With broadband providers collecting revenue from both home subscribers and content providers, it's possible that monthly cable bills could drop in some places should the proposal go into effect.
 
 
 Wheeler also noted in a blog post (http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules) Thursday that the proposal includes several protections to ensure companies don't abuse the fast lane.
 
 Any agreement between a broadband provider and a content company will be invalidated if the commission finds it's not "commercially reasonable." Wheeler claims the "commercially reasonable" test will ensure that consumers don't face price hikes as a result of deals between content providers and broadband companies.
 
 The FCC, he added, will invalidate any deals that create "harm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity,"
 
 though it's still not clear how that standard will be implemented in practice.
 
 
 The proposal would also ban the blocking of lawful content and would require a "baseline level of service" for all sites.
 
 
 "There are many possible priority arrangements that give consumers more broadband services and don't harm competition," said Brent Skorup, a tech policy expert with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
 
 Why are people worried?
 
 
 Given the limited options most Americans have for high-speed Internet, net neutrality supporters aren't so optimistic.
 
 They worry that if companies like Netflix (NFLX (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=NFLX&source=story_quote_link)) are forced to pay up to ensure adequate speeds, those costs will be passed on to consumers.
 
 There's also the fear that start-ups will be disadvantaged against larger, deep-pocketed rivals, and that the prospect of fast-lane revenue will create an incentive for ISPs to allow congestion to build.
 
 
"The proposed approach is the fastest lane to punish consumers and Internet innovators," Netflix said.
 
 
 Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School professor who coined the term "net neutrality," says the proposal "will profoundly change the Internet as a platform for free speech and small-scale innovation."
 
 
"We take it for granted that bloggers, start-ups, or nonprofits on an open Internet reach their audiences roughly the same way as everyone else," Wu wrote in a blog post (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/the-end-of-net-neutrality.html) for The New Yorker on Thursday. "Now they won't. They'll be behind in the queue, watching as companies that can pay tolls to the cable companies speed ahead."
 
 
 Activists are already preparing to fight the proposal, with some calling for a wave of protest on the issue similar to that whichderailed the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/technology/SOPA_PIPA_postponed/?iid=EL) back in 2012.
 
 
Who do I trust?
 
 
 The FCC doesn't have a great record on net neutrality issues, and vague, subjective standards about what's "reasonable," won't likely help its cause.
 
 
 Some believe the FCC could have imposed stricter regulations on broadband providers by treating them more like phone companies.
 
 That move would surely meet resistance from the industry's well-funded lobbyists, of which Wheeler (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/19/fcc-nominee-wheeler-is-more-wonk-than-water-carrier/?iid=EL) was previously one.
 
 Yet despite weak regulation in years past, consumers haven't yet faced anything like the nightmare scenario some activists are predicting.
 
 It's also worth noting that consumer Internet use is shifting rapidly (http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/28/technology/mobile/mobile-apps-internet/?iid=EL) to apps mobile devices, so whatever regulations the FCC lays down may not seem as consequential in a few years' time as they do now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 25, 2014, 10:16:02 pm

 
 What does our fate hold for us? Did we do right ? How will we be judged?
 
 Is anything keeping track? And if so why ?
 
 The consience appearred ... and that if being judged by the consience...
 
 one would have to ask ...
 
 why be invented by a consience just to judge us ...
 
 would those or any **** want to do that to us in the first place ?
 
 Except in the meaning of a tree ... or oceans ... or ground ...
 
 or a butterfly in the sky.
 
 I sure in the **** havent been able to figure it out.
 
 But then again maybe I did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 26, 2014, 12:27:15 am

The Mark: Scientist Claims Human Microchip Implants Will Become “Not Optional”

 Mac Slavo
 April 24th, 2014
 SHTFplan.com

And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.…

Revelations 13:16-17

Technologies designed specifically to track and monitor human beings have been in development for at least two decades.

In the virtual realm, software programs are now capable of watching us in real time, going so far as to make predictions about our future behaviors and sending alerts to the appropriate monitoring station depending on how a computer algorithm flags your activities. That is in and of itself a scary proposition.

What may be even scarier, however, is what’s happening in the physical realm. According to researches working on human-embedded microchips it’s only a matter of time before these systems achieve widespread acceptance.


Chances are you’re carrying a couple of RFID microchips now. And if you are, they’re sending out a 15-digit number that identifies you. That number can be picked up by what’s called an ISO compliant scanner. And they’re everywhere, too.

…

It’s not possible to interact with society in a meaningful way by not having a mobile phone. I think human implants are likely to go along a very similar route. It would be such a disadvantage to not have the implant that it essentially becomes not optional.


Your initial reaction to this idea may be one of disbelief. There’s no way society would accept such a device. Why would anyone want to implant this in their body?

Consider for a moment where we are right now. For decades Americans rejected the notion that they would submit to being tracked or recorded.

Yet, just about every American now carries a mobile phone. They’re so prevalent, in fact, that many consider it a “right,” prompting the government to actually provide subsidies to those who can’t afford one on their own.

Embedded in every one of those phones is an RFID chip that can track our every movement via GPS or cell tower triangulation. Moreover, those microphones and cameras that come standard on every phone can be remotely activated by law enforcement surveillance systems, a capability that has existed since the early 2000′s.

But as intrusive as these devices are, they are accepted as the norm by billions of people world wide. Not only that, but no one had to “force” them on us. We are, it seems, the masters of our own enslavement. And we pay top dollar to have the best tracking device money can buy!

Granted, one can simply disconnect from “the grid” by throwing away their cell phone. But, the direction these new monitoring technologies are moving coupled with continued government expansion of surveillance suggests that microchip RFID technology will eventually be non-voluntary.

Michael Snyder of The Truth Wins asks What will you do when you can no longer buy or sell without submitting to biometric identification?


This technology is going to keep spreading, and it is going to become harder and harder to avoid it.

And it is easy to imagine what a tyrannical government could do with this kind of technology.  If it wanted to, it could use it to literally track the movements and behavior of everyone.

…

And one day, this kind of technology will likely be so pervasive that you won’t be able to open a bank account, get a credit card or even buy anything without having either your hand or your face scanned first.

It’s difficult to imagine a populace that will freely submit to such digital bondage. But as has been the case with the degradation of personal privacy and rights in America, be assured it won’t simply become law over night.

First, the technologies will need to be generally accepted by society. It’ll start with real-time consumer based products like Google Glass. The older generations may reject it, but in a couple of years you can bet that tens of millions of kids, teens and younger adults will be roaming the streets while sporting cool shades, interactive web surfing and the capability to record everything around them and upload it to the internet instantly.

Next, as we’re already seeing from early adopters, RFID chips will be voluntarily implanted under our skin for everything from access to high security buildings to grocery store purchases.

Eventually, once the concept is generally accepted by the majority, it will become our new “social security number.”

To gain access to official services, you’ll need to be a verified human. Without verification you won’t even be able to purchase a six pack of beer, let alone get medical care or a driver’s license.

Whether we like it or not this is the future. Every purchase you make and every step you take will be tracked by a tiny 15-digit passive microchip, meaning that the only way to “turn it off” will be to physically remove it from your body.

In essence, we’ll soon live in a world of Always On Monitoring.

Our children and grandchildren – at least most of them – will likely not only submit to implantation, they’ll gladly pay the costs so that they, too, can “interact with society in a meaningful way.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 26, 2014, 12:47:10 am

Quote from: Sportster on April 26, 2014, 12:27:15 am

Our children and grandchildren – at least most of them – will likely not only submit to implantation, they’ll gladly pay the costs so that they, too, can “interact with society in a meaningful way.”

Yup.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 26, 2014, 05:48:19 am

Good God! The mark of the Beast. You know its time for Jesus to return.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 26, 2014, 06:50:57 am

Nope.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 12:35:38 pm

Republicans Are Racists? No, It’s Just All a Big Coincidence

The revolting comments. The emails. The jokes. The posters. The T-shirts. The ghostwriters. It’s not like it’s a pattern or something.

Come on, fellow liberals. Calm down. I guess maybe it’s fair to call Cliven Bundy a racist. That “picking cotton” business put it over the top, and wondering whether they were better off under slavery. Even Sean Hannity, Bundy’s greatest media champion, threw in the towel last night: He wanted it to be “abundantly clear,” Hannity said at the top of his show, that he found the remarks “downright racist,” “repugnant,” “beyond disturbing,” and so on.


OK, so Bundy’s a racist. It’s fine to point that out. But point up the fact that he’s a registered Republican? That’s where I draw the line, friends. I mean, come on. That’s just a coincidence. Total cosmic coincidence.

Just like it’s a coincidence that that one black comic, a Barack Obama impersonator, was yanked offstage at an official Republican Party meeting in 2011 for telling a series of racially themed jokes. I mean, that could easily have happened at a Democratic—well, maybe not. But still. A coincidence. Just like it’s a coincidence that one federal judge who sent an email around to friends saying that Obama’s father was a dog happened to be a Republican.  Complete and utter accident of fate, the puny matter of his voter enrollment.

Those rancidly racist T-shirts and posters  one sometimes sees at Tea Party rallies? They’re just a coincidence, too. I mean, Tea Party people might not be Republican, strictly speaking, and it’s totally unfair to assume that! OK, Tea Party candidates run in Republican primaries, not Democratic ones, and the Tea Party caucus in the House doesn’t include one Democrat.  But still. Guilt by association!

Bundy has a broad libertarian streak, too. But please, let’s not suggest that libertarian-leaning Republicans might be a little racist, too. I mean, again, what’s the evidence for such a statement? What—the fact that Ron Paul’s ghostwriter(s) of his newsletters in the 1990s had very clear Confederate sympathies?  If I were you, I would be careful about drawing any inferences from that. It was a long time ago. And a sentence like this one: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began” ...well, admit it. It’s open to ambiguity. Can be interpreted in any number of ways.

What’s that? You counter by telling me that all that was two decades ago? OK. You’re right. And you’re right that it’s also a coincidence that his son Rand’s ghostwriter—that’s Rand Paul, the current Republican front-runner to be the party’s presidential nominee in 2016—on his book also has expressed sympathetic views about the Confederacy?  Remember this guy—called himself the Southern Avenger, was photographed wearing a stars and bars superhero kind of mask? It’s just a coincidence that he ended up in Rand Paul’s orbit.

Really. Stop taking these little things out of context and acting like they constitute a pattern. They just don’t. OK? The pattern liberals ought to be worried about is the following one.


A century ago, or more, it was the Democratic Party that was playing footsie with the Ku Klux Klan. Even worse—the Klan, in the Deep South anyway, was almost an arm of the Democratic Party. Sure, it was a century ago, and the parties have completely flipped identities since then, but so what? I still don’t hear an answer! That’s No. 1.

No. 2: Robert Byrd was in the KKK! That it was 60 years ago and that he recanted 40 years ago and that he hasn’t been a truly leading Democrat since 30 years ago and that he’s dead now, well, none of those things matter. Robert Byrd was in the KKK! This one fact will blot the Democratic escutcheon forever.

And No. 3: Everett Dirksen passed the Civil Rights Act, pal. Not Lyndon Johnson. Not Speaker John McCormack, not Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. They were all Democrats, you see, and they were compromised, polluted by the racists in their party. But Dirksen, the pure Dirksen. He made it all happen; the deus ex machina of the whole thing. Those people who point out that the Southern racists moved to the GOP, and that today’s GOP would have no room for the likes of a Dirksen… I have one sentence for them: Bobby Byrd was in the KKK!

So really. Go after Bundy all you want. He’s deplorable, just like Sean Hannity said. But the idea that he represents anything? That others of similar circumstance might have views anything like his on racial matters? Shame on you. That he’s an enrolled Republican is, again, just a coincidence. Everything. The signs. The emails. The jokes. The ghostwriters. They’re all just coincidences. Got it?

And by the way—you still haven’t explained what Robert Byrd was doing in the KKK.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 04:02:35 pm

Poll for board

Is LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling a Democrat or republic?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 26, 2014, 04:36:55 pm

Who cares?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 04:44:12 pm

Special Congratulations are out this week for republic reps Michael Grimm and Steve Stockman for criminal indictments.

Salute!

Also a special mention for tea-bagger candidate for senate in Kentucky matt bevin for his support of ****-fighting. Great job against the chinless senator!


Additionally, we have a call for funding for good olde clive bundy since the Koch outfit americans for conservative prosperity have pulled support post his racist statements. The Koch outfit would also says former Senator Robert Byrd was a Democratic member of the Senate and all white people of conservative belief should take comfort in it.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 05:06:02 pm

What Cliven Bundy’s Famous Backers Said, Before and After

The Nevada rancher’s breathtakingly racist comments Wednesday left Republican supporters racing to distance themselves. What they’re saying now.

Nevada’s “last cattle rancher” Cliven Bundy became a right-wing hero when he fought the federal government and (at least for the time being) won. But now that it turns out he is a racist, some of his biggest fans are quickly backing away.

Bundy, a 67-year-old Republican and father of 14 who looks exactly like you would expect a Nevada cattle rancher to look, has let his cattle illegally graze on federal land near his ranch for decades. In 1993, the Bureau of Land Management began cracking down, mostly to save the endangered desert turtle, and requested he pay for use of the land, but he refused. He attempted to pay the county, but when they wouldn’t accept payment, Bundy shrugged at the whole thing.

Bundy doesn’t just dislike the federal government, Bundy think it’s some mythical entity.

He has been quoted as saying, “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.” Remarks such as that, unsurprisingly, endeared him to the far-right.

On April 5, the federal government came to let Bundy know that it does indeed exist. The BLM brought in armed federal agents and began removing Bundy’s cattle from the land. They planned to sell the cattle at auction. In addition to the cattle being removed, so was Bundy’s son Dave, who was arrested for refusing to leave the land that had been temporarily closed off.

That night, Bundy took to his website to send a message. “They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow.” Range War.

Que the stupid at phaxnews and all other white movement warriors....


Then rest of the story


Over the next few days, a heated battle involving Bundy and his supporters—some of whom traveled from out of state—against the BLM commenced.

Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff, so believed in Bundy’s cause that he was basically willing to sacrifice women to prove a point. “We’re actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

On April 9, Bundy’s son Ammon was tased by officers after he soullessly kicked a government dog.

And then on April 12, the BLM “announced the decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our grave concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.”

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke out against Bundy after the standoff. “Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists… They had sniper rifles on the freeway. They had assault weapons. They had automatic weapons.”

But Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) stood with Bundy. “What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the standoff “the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government on,” because Obama has been at the helm of federal government since 1993, right? Cruz added that “we have seen our constitutional liberties eroded under the Obama administration.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY ) told Fox News, “There is a legitimate constitutional question here about whether the state should be in charge of endangered species or whether the federal government should be.” Referring to Reid's remarks, Paul said, “but I don’t think name-calling is going to calm this down.”

Fox News host Sean Hannity, who it should be noted doesn’t think the government should be providing things like health care to people, couldn’t seem to figure out why the federal government wouldn't just let Bundy use the land for free. “…What we’ve always been talking about is the government fighting over land that they don’t need for a hospital or a road or a school, and the land is going to be sitting there anyway, and all the cows are doing is eating and maybe going to the bathroom on it.”

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that at a news conference that drew little press, Bundy made some shockingly racist remarks.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” as he recalled driving by a housing project in Las Vegas. “…In front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids—and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch—they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do. And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Upon learning of Bundy’s remarks, his supporters immediately backtracked.

Sen. Heller, through his spokesman, said he “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

Sen. Cruz, also through his spokesperson, said, “those comments are completely unacceptable.”

Sen. Paul, declared the remarks “offensive, and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.”

Hannity said in no uncertain terms “his comments are beyond repugnant to me… They are beyond despicable to me. They are beyond ignorant to me.”

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 05:17:29 pm

If one thinks that just olde cliven is shooting from the republic hip...I offer the following statements into record.


Trent Franks, the Republican Rep. from Arizona, said in 2010 that “far more of the African-American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by policies of slavery.”

While vying for the Republican presidential nomination in 2011, both Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed “The Marriage Vow,” a pledge against same-sex marriage circulated by a Christian conservative group, that included a line about how much stronger African-American families were during the era of slavery. The line, which read, “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President,” was removed from the pledge once word got out—but not until after both Bachmann and Santorum had signed it.

America has been the best country on earth for black folks,” conservative commentator Pat Buchanan wrote in “A Brief for Whitey,” his 2008 essay on the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. “It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.”

While he was running for re-election in 2012 (a campaign that was backed by the Arkansas Republican Party), the Arkansas Times exposed state Rep. Loy Mauch’s history of writing pro-slavery letters to the editor. In one such letter, the Republican wrote, “If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?”

Enjoy the republic plantation

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 05:25:05 pm

Sheldon


Just how has the party of southern whites done in national elections involving southern pols since it's conversion to the republic party?

Any wins for the white republic party?

Or as this guy writes...

As Nate Cohn noted in the New York Times on Thursday, "a record 41 percent of Republican voters in the 2012 election hailed from the South" and, in some counties, over 90% of whites voted for Mitt Romney in the GOP ticket. But, while the Republican Party is increasingly becoming the party of Southern whites, this shift has not been reflected in the GOP's national candidates.

In fact, since the GOP's founding in 1856, the party has only had one presidential nominee who was born and raised in the South.


I wonder why, or not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 26, 2014, 05:34:32 pm

If one thinks that just olde cliven is shooting from the republic hip

So which hip are the Government Communists shooting from? And why are they trying to steal Texas land too? Isnt 81% of the state land enough in Nevada that they need more? Why don't they condemn 3/4 of the city of Detoilet and take that land too? When does the land grab stop? If they can continue to take any land they want, whenever they want, who is going to stop them?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 07:44:32 pm

why are you so stupid?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 26, 2014, 07:59:43 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 04:02:35 pm

Poll for board

Is LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling a Democrat or republic?

It would appear that he is a democrat

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/democrat-donor-donald-sterling-caught-on-tape-spewing-racist-comments/


enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 26, 2014, 08:01:11 pm

Why are you?

Why does anyone who does not walk in lockstep with this administration get branded as a racist?

They follow Alinsky's rules just as all the "radical stupid" conservatives said they would right from the beginning. 

Do you not see how dangerous it is to everyone for such a small group of people to become so powerful?  The checks and balances are being eroded.  They own the media and the places that actually report their dishonesty they try and shut down.  Every check and balance eroded will be gone when the next president comes into office.  Perhaps that president will be a Republican who hates mitten wearing liberal Packer fans.  What then Otto?

You said nothing when they came for others.  Who will speak for you?       

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 26, 2014, 08:01:26 pm

Keys that is **** hilarious!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 26, 2014, 08:04:23 pm

Although it seems to me he has a bigger problem with his hot girlfriend **** black men and advertising it then them being black.  But maybe he dislikes both aspects. 

Just goes to show money can not buy you happiness.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 26, 2014, 08:58:34 pm

Just goes to show money can not buy you happiness.

If money cant buy you happiness why are the Dumbocrats buying votes and land? And why are the biggest tax cheats in the IRS?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 26, 2014, 09:01:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 26, 2014, 07:44:32 pm

why are you so stupid?

Why are you such a moron?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 26, 2014, 09:02:41 pm

Because money can buy you power.  It still can not buy you happiness.  Do you think that Harpy Hillary is truly happy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 04:36:33 am

With otto's recent obsession with, and demonization of, the south, it is almost as if he wants to have another war between the states.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 27, 2014, 05:25:45 am

Hmmmm. Ya think?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 05:34:45 am

What else have the libs got?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 05:35:11 am

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/10256894_814334261928391_2525663671614494242_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 05:48:41 am

The Wichita Lineman is no longer on the line.  http://countrymusicnation.com/47969/glen-campbell-moved-to-health-care-facility/

Before he began his solo career, he played guitar as a session musiciaion on recordings by Bobby Darin, Ricky Nelson, Dean Martin, Nat King Cole, The Monkees, Nancy Sinatra, Merle Haggard, Jan and Dean, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and Phil Spector.

From December 1964 to early March 1965, Campbell was a touring member of the Beach Boys, filling in for Brian Wilson. He also played guitar on the group's Pet Sounds album, among other recordings. On tour, he played bass guitar and sang falsetto harmonies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 06:17:22 am

Move along, dangnabit, nothing to see here.

Democrat leader reaped $1.1 million from sale of land he didn't own
Updated 10/11/2006 7:03 PM ET   
By Charles Dharapak, AP

Sen. Harry Reid's two lots on the outskirts of Las Vegas were never owned by the government, but the piece of land joining Reid's property to the street corner — a key to the shopping center deal — came from the government in 1994.
By John Solomon And Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.
VIDEO: Reid land deal may violate rules

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing — except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

•The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

•In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

•After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.

They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.

The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land."

Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties — regardless of profit or loss — and to report any ownership stake in companies.

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."

Other parts of the deal — such as the informal handling of property taxes — raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

"It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said.

Concealed from Congress

Reid and his wife, Landra, personally signed the deeds selling their full interest in the property to Brown's company, Patrick Lane LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998, records show.

Despite the sale, Reid continued to report on his public ethics reports that he personally owned the land until it was sold again in 2004. His disclosure forms to Congress do not mention an interest in Patrick Lane or the company's role in the 2004 sale.

AP first learned of the transaction from a former Reid aide who expressed concern the deal hadn't been properly reported.

Reid isn't listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's corporate filings with Nevada, even though the land he sold accounted for three-quarters of the company's assets. Brown is listed as the company's manager. Reid's office said Nevada law didn't require Reid to be mentioned in the filings.

"We have been friends for over 35 years. We didn't need a written agreement between us," Brown said.

The informalities didn't stop there.

Taxes handled loosely

Brown sometimes paid a share of the local property taxes on the lot Reid owned outright between 1998 and 2001, while Reid sometimes paid more than his share of taxes on the second parcel they co-owned.

And the two men continued to pay the property taxes from their personal checking accounts even after the land was sold to Patrick Lane in 2001, records show.

Brown said Reid first approached him in 1997 about land purchases and the two men considered the two lots a single investment.

"During the years of ownership, there may have been occasions that he advanced the property taxes, or that I advanced the property taxes," Brown said. "The bottom line is that between ourselves we always settled up and each of us paid our respective percentages."

Ultimately, Reid paid about 74% of the property taxes, slightly less than his actual 75.1% ownership stake, according to canceled checks kept at the local assessor's office. One year, the property tax payments were delinquent and resulted in a small penalty, the records show.

Ethics experts said such informality raises questions about whether any of Brown's tax payments amounted to a benefit for Reid. "It might be a gift," Cooper said.

Brand said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid but it was unlikely to prompt an investigation. "If someone is paying a liability you owe, there may be some income imputed. But at that level, it's pretty small dollars," he said.

Land swapped

Nevada land deeds show Reid and his wife first bought the property in January 1998 in a proposed subdivision created partly with federal lands transferred by the Interior Department to private developers.

Reid's two lots were never owned by the government, but the piece of land joining Reid's property to the street corner — a key to the shopping center deal — came from the government in 1994.

One of the sellers was Fred Lessman, a vice president of land acquisition at Perma-Bilt Homes.

Around the time of the 1998 sale, Lessman and his company were completing a complicated federal land transfer that also involved an Arizona-based developer named Del Webb Corp.

In the deal, Del Webb and Perma-Bilt purchased environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe area, transferred them to the government and then got in exchange several pieces of valuable Las Vegas land.

Lessman was personally involved, writing a March 1997 letter to Interior lobbying for the deal. "This exchange has been through many trials and tribulations ... we do not need to create any more stumbling blocks," Lessman wrote.

For years, Reid also had been encouraging Interior to make land swaps on behalf of Del Webb, where one of his former aides worked.

In 1994, Reid wrote a letter with other Nevada lawmakers on behalf of Del Webb, and then met personally with a top federal land official in Nevada. That official claimed in media reports he felt pressured by the senator. Reid denied any pressure.

The next year, Reid collected $18,000 in political donations from Del Webb's political action committee and employees. Del Webb's efforts to get federal land dragged on.

In December 1996, Reid wrote a second letter on behalf of Del Webb, urging Interior to answer the company's concerns. The deal came together in summer and fall 1997, with Perma-Bilt joining in.

In January 1998 — just days before he bought his land — Reid applauded the Lake Tahoe land transfers, saying they would create the "gateway to paradise."

None of Reid's letters mentioned Perma-Bilt. Reid's office said the senator never met Lessman nor discussed the Lake Tahoe land transfer or his personal land purchase. A real estate attorney handled the 1998 sale at arms-length, aides said.

"This land investment was completely unrelated to federal land swaps that took place in the mid-1990's," Manley said.

Lessman said he never talked to Reid or asked for his help before the 1998 land sale, and only met the senator years later at a public event. "Any suggestion that the land sale between Senator Reid and myself is somehow tied in with the Perma-Bilt exchange is completely absurd," Lessman said.

Rezoning

Clark County intended for the property Reid owned to be used solely for new housing, records show. Just days before Reid sold the parcels to Brown's company, Brown sought permission in May 2001 to rezone the properties so a shopping center could be built.

Career zoning officials objected, saying the request was "inconsistent" with Clark County's master development plan. The town board in Spring Valley, where Reid's property was located, also voted 4-1 to reject the rezoning.

Brown persisted. The Clark County zoning board followed by the Clark County Commission voted to overrule the recommendation and approve commercial zoning. Such votes were common at the time.

Before the approval in September 2001, Brown's consultant told commissioners that Reid was involved. "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you," the consultant testified.

With the rezoning granted, Patrick Lane pursued the shopping center deal. On Jan. 20, 2004, the company sold the property to developers for $1.6 million. Today, a multimillion dollar retail complex sits on the land.

On Jan. 21, 2004, Reid received more than $1.1 million of the sale proceeds. Reid disclosed the money the following year on his Senate ethics report as a personal sale of land, not mentioning Patrick Lane.

Business partner's past

Brown has been a behind-the-scenes power broker in Nevada for years, donating to Democrats, Republicans and charities. He represented a major casino in legal cases and dabbled in Nevada's booming real estate market.

Brown befriended Reid four decades ago, even before Reid served as chairman of the Nevada gaming commission and decided cases involving Brown's clients.

Brown's name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s.

This past summer, federal prosecutors introduced testimony at the bribery trial of former Clark County Commission chairman Dario Herrara that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrara was convicted of taking kickbacks. Brown was never called as a witness.

Brown declined to discuss past cases where his name surfaced, including Herrara. "The federal government investigated this whole matter thoroughly, and there was never any implication of impropriety on my part," he said.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-11-reid_x.htm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 27, 2014, 06:37:15 am

Yet Bundy is a criminal and Reid isn't. Who is more despicable. That is probably in the beholder's political eye.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 06:49:01 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI6oZkYbvOc

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 06:56:53 am

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/24/rich-obama-donor-kicks-girlfriend-117-times-wait-until-you-see-his-sentence/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 06:57:15 am

Damb corruption by Republicans....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 07:29:12 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/26/meet-the-guy-who-could-once-and-for-all-destroy-the-lefts-argument-against-putting-more-guns-in-schools/

.... “introduction of a minimal (10%) armed faculty in conjunction with [a] resource officer” could reduce overall casualties in school-related shootings by roughly 70 percent....  To the critics who say more guns always translate into more crime, the Purdue research notes that there has been an increase in firearms ownership by 61 percent between 2004-2012 — yet there has been a reduction in violence crime by 12.9 percent since 2008.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 27, 2014, 09:43:52 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 06:49:01 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI6oZkYbvOc

You are clearly a racist.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 02:52:56 pm

Immediately after he took office I actually had some hope for Obama, believing that there was some remote hope that he would attempt to govern as he promised on the campaign trail when he was trying to appeal to moderates, and that an Obama presidency might be "post racial."  Now that was not a terribly high bar, and is not really what I would like to see from a president, but I genuinely hoped he might at least reach that level, and that if he did, in balance, his presidency might be a good thing.

Boy was I wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 27, 2014, 03:17:25 pm

Not only is he a racist but a Communist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2014, 04:11:29 pm

I didn't want him elected but once he was I was rooting for him to do a good job as I would any president of the US.

If he is not the worst president we have ever had he has to be in the top 3.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 27, 2014, 04:33:09 pm

Clearly top 3. The problem is trying to get us back on the right track after we get him out of there, to fix the damage he has done

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2014, 05:25:13 pm

If Republicans don't like being called racists, they can stop behaving like racists


Republican former governor and apparently perpetual Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's refusal to accept that the nation's first black president wasn't born in Africa.

Republican former senator and apparently perpetual Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum's racist welfare rant.

Republican governor and apparently perpetual presidential candidate Rick Perry's refusal to criticize the racist rant that has other Republicans scurrying to jump ship on the deadbeat social welfare rancher they and Perry had been defending. But then Perry and racism and ranching are nothing new.

Republican senator and all-but-announced presidential candidate Rand Paul's curious habit of associating with white supremacists.

Republican former vice-presidential nominee, current Congressman and potential presidential candidate Paul Ryan's inner city problems.

Apparently perpetual Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. There's not much more that needs be said than Donald Trump. Forever Donald Trump. Perpetually Donald Trump. A real estate magnate in search of a hinge Donald Trump.

Republican former vice-presidential nominee and—as long as it keeps her in the general vicinity of a spotlight, any spotlight—apparently perpetual pretend potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin... Okay... Just ick.

Republican former Gov. George Allen's clumsy, casual racism that derailed what could have been his own perpetual presidential ambitions.

Republican former governor (and potential future resident of a different form of public housing) Bob McDonnell's fond memories of the Confederacy.

Republican former speaker of the House, former presidential candidate and current CNN TV pundit Newt Gingrich ever and always being Newt Gingrich.

The blithe and lunatic Islamophobia of Republican former Congressman and current Fox "News" contributor Allen West.

The Republican National Committee running a racist ad on behalf of soon-to-be Sen. Bob Corker.

Republican former governor and former Republican Governors Association Chair Haley Barbour's amnesia about the brutality of the Civil Rights era, and fond memories of extreme racists.

Republican Gov. Nikki Haley slowly coming to realize that it wasn't a good idea to have a white supremacist on her campaign steering committee.

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose long history on the wrong side of history continues to defy history.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker's staff circulating a racist email.

Republican Rep. Steve King's special insights about immigrants from the south.

Republican Rep. Peter King's medievalist crusade against Arab and Muslim Americans.

Republican Rep. Devin Nunes rationalizing and excusing bigoted extremism.

Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland calling the nation's first African-American president "uppity."

Republican Rep. Geoff Davis calling the nation's first African-American president—who also happens to be older than Davis—"that boy."

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert concerned that "federal funds going to China for the protection of rare cats and dogs may actually result in 'moo goo dog pan or moo goo cat pan'," and comparing civil rights laws to protecting lizards and chickens.

The 2012 Republican National Convention, so rife with racism, both on and off stage, the latter exemplified by a black CNN camerawoman being pelted with peanuts because "this is how we feed animals."

The Iowa Republican Party posting on its Facebook page a humorless racist graphic about racism.

The Mississippi Republican Party's Neo-Confederate wing.

Colorado Republicans defending their state senator who said "poverty is higher among the 'Black race' because they eat too much chicken."

Republican state Rep. Dennis Johnson's casual anti-Semitism.

Conservative media darling Sean Hannity, who just can't help being drawn to certain types of people, and has even been called out for it by at least one other conservative media darling.

Conservative and former sports media darling Rush Limbaugh, ever and always being Rush Limbaugh.

Conservative media darling Bill O'Reilly, ever and always being nothing less than Bill O'Reilly.

Conservative media central Fox "News"... Fox "News"... Fox "News"... Fox "News"...

Conservative tabloid the New York Post publishing a blatantly racist and sexist front page about the nation's first African-American president meeting with Denmark's Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

Conservative Heritage Foundation think tank thinker Jason Richwine, forced to resign after public revelations about his racist history, even as the Heritage Foundation itself continues to keep it all on the plantation.

Conservative Hoover Institute think tank thinker and National Review columnist Victor Davis Hanson's keen solipsistic projections about the motives, behavior and psychology of people who are not like Victor Davis Hanson.

And speaking of the conservative media icon National Review, how does one speak of the conservative media icon National Review without mentioning its long history of giving a print bullhorn to racists?

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2014, 05:42:23 pm

For you Sheldon, let's look at your randie paul.

Does he still employ jack hunter the southern avenger?

From 1999 to 2012, Hunter was a South Carolina radio shock jock known as the “Southern Avenger.” He has weighed in on issues such as racial pride and Hispanic immigration, and stated his support for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.
During public appearances, Hunter often wore a mask on which was printed a Confederate flag.

Prior to his radio career, while in his 20s, Hunter was a chairman in the League of the South, which “advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic.”

Or how about his onetime spokesman chris hightower?

-a two-year-old post to his Myspace page, declaring "Happy N***** Day," on Martin Luther King Day. The post also included a photo of a lynching.

Or randie himself, who has a hard time with the landmark Civil Rights Law.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 27, 2014, 06:44:38 pm

Sorry Otto but the "call everyone a racist" gambit has been overused and lost its clout. That ship has sailed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2014, 06:52:06 pm

What... did otto post something?

Did it have any substance this time?

Has he tried to explain how the Civil war was an effort to protect the civil rights of all Americans?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2014, 07:14:45 pm

Apparently Otto signed up to receive an e-mail on what talking points Democrats are to use this week.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2014, 07:15:47 pm

Yea doufus from TN the 13th Amendment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2014, 07:18:15 pm

Singed up?


Sorry Duck, davep or keysbart is supposed to post that nonsense according to your republic posting rules.

Your just to agree and parrot it thru a convenient story about a racial minority.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2014, 07:26:56 pm

LOL!  Otto, you are going to correct me on a typo?  That is rich. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 27, 2014, 07:30:37 pm

 
 Paris Hilton has more money then everyone on this board.
 
 And all she had to do was be born and **** for kicks.
 
 A status that not only you ... but any of your offspring will ever get to.
 
 Because wether you like it or not ...
 
 sombody else is driving a yacht ...
 
 that you as a worker made ...
 
 while humping your ass off to get them there ...
 
 as they go out and play.
 
 NOW GET BACK TO WORK !!
 
 "This Sunday off **** has got to be stopped ... its money lost for US."
 
-Thurston Howell III

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2014, 07:40:58 pm

Wow, Paris Hilton must **** harder than poor folks since republics all believe the rich work harder than anyone else.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 27, 2014, 07:58:40 pm

http://nypost.com/2014/04/27/the-media-is-turning-on-president-obama/


Obamanancy writhing in its final days.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 27, 2014, 08:04:20 pm

 
 
   FRESNO, Calif. — On the steps of a Fresno courthouse, legendary Gen. Charles "Chuck" Yeager talked about shooting down Nazi German planes during World War II, breaking the sound barrier in an experimental aircraft in 1947 and parachuting out of a free-falling supersonic jet after his pressurized suit caught fire.
   
 He also talked about his latest enemy — a Fresno law firm that has sued him for breach of contract.
 
 "I would rather be fighting them in the air than stuck in this ... courtroom," Yeager, 91, said last week. "Nothing but a bunch of baloney going on in there."
 
 The American war hero who trained astronauts for NASA and still believes he can fly fighter jets is a defendant in a 5-year-old lawsuit filed by the oldest law firm in Fresno.
 
 Wild, Carter & Tipton, founded in 1893, contends that Yeager and his wife, Victoria Scott Yeager, never paid for its services in a number of civil cases and have an unpaid bill of nearly $270,000.
 
 The Yeagers say the firm was doing the work for free and have countersued Wild, Carter & Tipton for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
 
 The civil trial starts Monday in Fresno County Superior Court.
 
 In an interview Thursday, the Yeagers described the case as David vs. Goliath. They are defending themselves, while Wild, Carter & Tipton has hired attorneys Marshall Whitney, Mandy Jeffcoach and Kristi Marshall of the Fresno firm McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth.
 
 The Yeagers also contend they haven't gotten a fair shake from the Fresno court system.
 
 Before Judge Kristi Kapetan was picked to be the trial judge, the case had been assigned to Judge Jeffrey Hamilton, who worked for McCormick Barstow in the early 1990s.
 
 Victoria Yeager said Hamilton should have declared a conflict because his pretrial rulings have been unfair. Hamilton said Friday that judicial ethics prohibit him from commenting.
 
 In a ruling in March, Hamilton ordered the Yeagers to pay the McCormick Barstow lawyers $7,740 for delaying the trial. The trial was continued six times when the Yeagers needed only one continuance, the judge said.
 
 In addition, Hamilton closed discovery — the time for gathering evidence — which the Yeagers contend will prohibit them from presenting their case.
 
 The Yeagers contend the McCormick Barstow lawyers also aren't playing fair. Thursday, they dismissed the General Chuck Yeager Foundation as a defendant from the suit. That's bad for the Yeagers because the lawyer representing the foundation can't assist them in their arguments.
 
 As the trial nears, the Yeagers said one issue weighs heavily on their minds — their request for a jury trial.
 Their opponent wants Kapetan to decide the lawsuit after hearing testimony.
 
 "The general wants to tell his side and let the people decide who's right," Victoria Yeager said.
 
 Kapetan is expected to decide Monday on the jury request.
 
 Whitney and Jeffcoach declined to comment Thursday, saying they did not want to disparage Yeager or his reputation.
 But in court papers, they contend Yeager's wife is taking advantage of him and got him in legal trouble.
 
 Yeager bristled at the allegation, saying his wife takes good care of him.
"Look at her," he said, smiling. "I got a good deal."
 
 Chuck Yeager was just launching his life as an American icon when he married his first wife in 1945. Chuck and Glennis Yeager were married 45 years until her death in 1990.
 
 The Yeagers had retired to the Grass Valley area years earlier, and Yeager stayed in the area after his wife died. He met actress Victoria Scott D'Angelo on a hiking trail there in 2000, and they married in August 2003.
 
 Since then, Yeager has been thrust into nearly two dozen lawsuits involving a variety of opponents, including his own children.
 
 He also has gone through more than 20 attorneys in a span of less than seven years, including 10 lawyers to fight Wild, Carter & Tipton.
 
 "Prior to that, General Yeager had no real exposure to litigation," the McCormick Barstow lawyers say in court papers, which note that Victoria Yeager was involved in more than 30 lawsuits before marrying Yeager.
 
 In an interview, the Yeagers said they live on the general's pension in a modest three-bedroom, two-bath home on 30 acres in the Gold Country community of Penn Valley.
 
 They drove to Fresno in a 2002 Chevrolet Silverado pickup. The only tipoff to Yeager's life of excitement is the license plate: BELL X1, the plane that Yeager flew faster than the speed of sound way back in 1947.
 
 Yeager said his advancing age barely limits him. He wears a hearing aid but doesn't need a walker or assistance to get around.
 
 He said he still drives and flies private planes. A couple of years ago, he broke the sound barrier again in a military jet above Edwards Air Force Base, and said he could do it again if given the opportunity.
 
 When his wife tries to give details of his exploits, he takes over the conversation.
 
 He recalled being 21 when he shot down his first German plane near Berlin in March 1944. He was flying a P-51 Mustang that he said was the first plane to penetrate Germany and reach Berlin to hunt down the powerful Luftwaffe.
 
 As an Air Force test pilot, he became the first human to travel faster than the speed of sound on Oct. 14, 1947, flying the experimental Bell X-1 plane above the Mojave Desert at a top speed of Mach 1.06 (700 mph).
 
 He broke the world speed record again on Dec. 12, 1953, going Mach 2.44 in an X-1A aircraft. During the flight, he lost control and plummeted nearly 50,000 feet before regaining control.
 
 In 1962, Yeager became the first commandant of the Aerospace Research Pilot School, training astronauts in the early years of NASA.
 
 Despite Yeager's achievements, his life has been complicated by lawsuits — including one brought by a daughter.
 
 Yeager had four children with his first wife. Victoria Yeager said Glennis was a "great wife to the general" because she took care of the finances "and gave him his freedom to do what he wanted to do."
 
 Before she died, Glennis Yeager set up a tax-shelter corporation for their children into which earnings from Yeager's books, commercials and speeches flowed.
 
 But after Yeager remarried, he began battling his daughter Susan Yeager in court over control of his private assets, which had been placed in a trust.
 
 Victoria Yeager, who is younger than any of her stepchildren, declined to talk about the family's legal fight. "It costs money to be rich because everyone wants a piece of you," she said.
 
 Wild, Carter & Tipton at one point represented Chuck and Victoria Yeager in the case against Susan Yeager. It was one of seven suits the Fresno law firm took on the Yeagers' behalf before ending their relationship in 2008.
 
 When the Yeagers didn't pay, Wild, Carter & Tipton sued them in January 2009. The Yeagers then countersued, saying the lawyers bungled the cases. The Yeagers also contend that they thought the lawyers were doing the cases pro bono since there was no written contract, court records say.
 
 Wild, Carter & Tipton contends in court papers that, even without a written contract, the firm is entitled to be paid for its services, especially since it provided "the Yeagers with monthly billing statements that evidence their hourly rate, the time expended and a description of their work performed."
 
 One of the cases involved AT&T. In November 2007, Wild, Carter & Tipton filed a complaint against AT&T on behalf of the Yeagers, accusing the corporate giant of violating the general's privacy and by using his name without permission in a news release for its Cingular Wireless product.
 
 In June 2012, the Yeagers won $135,000 in damages in the case.
 
 In court papers, the Yeagers contend that Wild, Carter & Tipton did not advise them of a $300,000 offer to settle the case.
 
 But Wild, Carter & Tipton says "there is no such evidence such an offer was ever made by AT&T." The only offer Wild, Carter & Tipton knew about was for $20,000 that the Yeagers declined, court papers say.
 
 The Yeagers also accuse the lawyers of negligence, saying the case was worth much more, but Wild, Carter & Tipton says the Yeagers have no evidence to support their allegations.
 
 In another case, Wild, Carter & Tipton represented the Yeagers against Park River Oak Estates Homeowners Association in Sacramento.
 
 The association accused the Yeagers of failing to pay a monthly assessment fee. Once the Yeagers got rid of Wild, Carter & Tipton, they were represented by at least five other attorneys before losing the suit and owing $43,135 in damages, court records say.
 
 
 Victoria Yeager said she and her husband don't trust lawyers.
 
 
 "They're complaining now, but they took the cases because they thought they were going to get rich off the general," she said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2014, 08:11:31 pm

Don't you just love it when an olde tacit racist idiot posts a "story" where a conservative writer (hack) sources unnamed other conservative hack writers to "prove" their own point.

Can you hear the echo....echo....echo....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2014, 08:37:31 pm

And when you do it with liberal writers it is A OK right?   University professors all work in an echo chamber as do the "reporters" in the media.

I am sure wherever you post over at Huffington or wherever you copy and paste your "articles" from it is a great big circle jerk.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2014, 08:43:10 pm

Nobody, and I mean nobody, plays the victim card better than wingnuts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2014, 08:45:04 pm

Not a victim and neither are you so stop crying.  I am just stating the facts.  Hypocrite much?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2014, 09:33:43 pm

duck

Come on man...you started with the same old republic screech about the MSM being against us, the whole college system is against us, we can't get our positions out because everyone is trying to silence us....


Cheese with the whine?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 27, 2014, 09:44:35 pm

Obama said on Saturday on a visit to Seoul, where the U.S. army has a large presence, that the United States did not use its military might to "impose things" on others, but that it would use that might if necessary to defend South Korea from any attack by the reclusive North.

Who is he crapping? Drones to kill people, BLM to intimidate its own citizens and the IRS to threaten citizens to comply with laws even IRS agents get away with violating.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2014, 10:26:33 pm

You were the one talking about an echo.  People tend to hang out with other like minded people.

You do so then come here and copy and paste what they said or type it out in pigeon English if it is from your memory.  Don't attack packrat for doing what you but doing it better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 28, 2014, 07:41:45 am

You guys have this Otto crapping his pants.

 Pretty sure he will wake up angry foaming at the mouth and get right on his computer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 11:10:15 am

I love it when you wingnut conservatives try to not act like the homogenous white skim milk that is represented by your leaders, political groups and media hacks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 11:14:45 am

Any of you skim milk drinkers going to NY City today to defend rep grimm from guvmit overreach against criminal behavior?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 11:18:36 am

Michael Grimm Denies Having Sex in Brooklyn Bar Bathroom

By Ross Barkan | 10/15/13 8:59pm   
 

 
Congressman Michael Grimm is rejecting reports suggesting he had sex in the bathroom of a Brooklyn wine bar right before the Washington shutdown began two weeks ago.

Mr. Grimm reportedly spent an unusually long time in the bathroom of The Owl’s Head in Bay Ridge–pegged by the New York Post at 17 minutes–with an unidentified woman. But Mr. Grimm, who is single, flat-out denied the accusation that anything inappropriate occurred.

“This never happened and I will not dignify this absurd distortion of the facts with a response, except to say that this is nothing more than a typical Democrat-led smear campaign,” the Republican said in a statement released tonight.

A Politicker reporter was in the neighborhood Tuesday and dropped by the chic, hipster-friendly bar in question. But owner John Avelutto repeatedly refused to address the allegations. (“I think it was pretty f–ing obvious what was going on in there,’’ a Post source insisted.)

“I don’t know anything about that,” Mr. Avelutto said. “I wasn’t here that night. I’ve never seen him here before and I’d rather talk about wine than what he might or might not have done in the bathroom.”

The gender-neutral bathroom where the alleged romp took place is small and handicap accessible with blue walls.


http://observer.com/2013/10/michael-grimm-denies-having-sex-in-brooklyn-bar-bathroom/#ixzz30CMVzUC (http://observer.com/2013/10/michael-grimm-denies-having-sex-in-brooklyn-bar-bathroom/#ixzz30CMVzUC)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2014, 11:31:09 am

October? Good Grief. You wait this long to drag up that manure? Shame on you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 12:00:35 pm

More from the astro-turf movement

Tea Party groups send out urgent appeals, telling contributors that their generosity will help elect conservatives. As a matter of practice, it's a different story -- the Washington Post, found that the six major Tea Party PACs have spent a combined $37.5 million this cycle (first QTR 2014), but less than $7 million has gone towards direct support for candidates.

In other words, for every dollar a conservative donor sends to one of the major Tea Party PACs, about 18 cents ends up backing like-minded candidates. For some of the groups, it's closer to just 5 cents.

"Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base are the marks."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2014, 12:21:08 pm

Hey moron how about dragging some manure up about your buddy "Dirty Harry"? If you cant I can

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 02:02:13 pm

I've moved on from the Dirty Harry movies of the 1970's.

BTW only the first one was good. Besides, justice isn't revenge.

Why have you not?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 02:04:07 pm

PPACA signup to date (sort of) 8.14 MILLION

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 02:10:11 pm

If anyone doubts the stupid in the republic party... here's your topic...


Palin: 'Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists'

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2014, 02:23:44 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 02:02:13 pm

I've moved on from the Dirty Harry movies of the 1970's.

BTW only the first one was good. Besides, justice isn't revenge.

Why have you not?

I am talking about "Dirty Harry" Reid, your Commie Buddy. I see you are still behind the times. You are still thinking about the "Civil War" or is that the new "Civil War" the one coming?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 04:07:43 pm

If there is a god.....god  would want to know why you are so stupid.


BTW Rusty has called him Dingy Harry and he has notbeen arrested unlike rep Grimm.


 Idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 28, 2014, 04:13:41 pm

How many times have each of them been convicted?

Neither of them as often as Democratic Representative William Jennings Jefferson of Louisiana.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2014, 04:20:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 04:07:43 pm

If there is a god.....god  would want to know why you are so stupid.


BTW Rusty has called him Dingy Harry and he has notbeen arrested unlike rep Grimm.


 Idiot.

http://personalliberty.com/playing-reid-card/

Enjoy moron

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 04:23:01 pm

Let's roll... we have a republic pol who can best that.


And you support him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 04:29:06 pm

Wsfullofshit


WTF? NOTHING


Again even your god thinks that your reason is lost to wingnut stupid.


Enjoy the low horizon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2014, 05:14:16 pm

For your enjoyment JJ


BILL OVERSTREET

In the spring of 1944 Bill and his P-51C, the 'Berlin Express' were near Paris when the scene that is immortalized in the artwork by Len Krenzler of Action Art that leads this article took place. Bill had followed this Bf109 from the bombers he was escorting when most of the German fighters left. The two planes had been in a running dogfight. The German pilot flew over Paris hoping that the heavy German anti-aircraft artillery would solve his problem and eliminate Overstreet and the 'Berlin Express', though Bill managed to get some hits in at about 1500 feet. The German's engine was hit, and Bill stayed on his tail braving the intense enemy flak. His desperation undoubtedly growing, the German pilot aimed his plane at the Eiffel Tower and in a surprising maneuver, flew beneath it. Undeterred, Bill followed right behind him , scoring several more hits in the process. The German plane crashed and Bill escaped the heavy flak around Paris by flying low and full throttle over the river until he had cleared the cities heavy anti-aircraft batteries.

http://cdn.1starriving.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/01/W

WWII fighter pilot who flew THROUGH the Eiffel Tower to take down a German plane dies in Virginia aged 92

William Overstreet Jr., a former captain in the U.S. Air Corps, passed away on Sunday at a hospital in Roanoke .

He famously flew his plane beneath the Eiffel Tower in Nazi-occupied Paris in 1944, lifting the spirits of French troops on the ground In 2009, he was presented France 's Legion of Honor. William Overstreet Jr. died on Sunday at a hospital in Roanoke , Virginia , according to his obituary, but there was no indication of the cause of his death.

Overstreet's famously flew his P-51C 'Berlin Express' beneath the Eiffel Tower in Nazi-occupied Paris in 1944, which has been credited with lifting the spirits of French Resistance troops on the ground.

For his valiant service, the French ambassador to the United States presented Overstreet with France 's Legion of Honor at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford in 2009.

Hero: World War II

Hero: World War II Aviator Bill Overstreet Jr., best known for flying beneath the Eiffel Tower in pursuit of a German plane, is pictured in his military days. He passed away in Virginia on Sunday, aged 92.

Before the ceremony, Overstreet had previously said that, if he lived long enough to receive the Legion of Honor, he would be accepting it in memory of his fallen brothers.

In particular, he wanted to pay tribute to a friend, Eddy Simpson, who died fighting the Nazis on the ground so his comrades, including Overstreet, could escape.

After the award was pinned to his lapel, Overstreet said: 'If I said, "Thank you," it wouldn.t be enough,' before adding: 'What more than "thank you" do you need?

He was born in Clifton Forge, Virginia in 1921 and after Pearl Harbor , he enlisted in the Air Corps as a fighter pilot.

By February 1942, he was a private and sent to California for flight training; here, his instructors prepared him for the unexpected mid-flight by cutting the engine as he landed.

Remembered: Overstreet

Remembered: Overstreet was presented with France 's Legion of Honour in 2009

Action: An artist's

Action: An artist's depiction of the dramatic moment shows Overstreet in his P51 Mustang chasing an ME 109 under the Eiffel Tower in Spring 1944. He was able to shoot the plane down. Overstreet credited this extreme training method with preparing him for the unexpected in war, Warbirds Ne ws reported.

During training in 1943, he suffered a near-death crash when his plane, a Bell P-39 Airacobra, began spinning as he practiced maneuvers, and he was unable to control it.

He eventually forced his way out through the doors and found himself standing amid the wreckage. When he flew in World War II, he suffered another freak accident when his oxygen line cut out as he flew 25,000 feet over France.

He passed out but snapped awake and controlled the plane and dodged trees in front of him to figure out where he was and land safely. Newspapers at the time reported that he could not remember a whole 90 minutes of the flight.

In the spring of 1944, he was following a German aircraft over Paris, with the two planes firing at each other. Overstreet eventually hit the other pilot's engine.

Aircraft: Overstreet is

Aircraft: Overstreet is pictured by his P-51 'Berlin Express', the plane he flew beneath the Eiffel Tower

Proud: Overstreet is

Proud: Overstreet is pictured in 1943 with his cherished 1938 Buick in California , where he trained

Close call: The wr

Close call: The wreckage of his Bell P-39 Airacobra which spun out of control mid-air as he completed combat training in 1943. He managed to force his way out of the craft and walked away unhurt.

As the German pilot desperately sought to out-maneuver Overstreet, he flew beneath the Eiffel Tower - but the brave American flew directly beneath it and continued to fire. The German plane crashed and Overstreet was able to escape the city. The astounding show of skill and bravery lifted the spirits of the French, French dignitary, Bernard Marie, told the Roanoke Times.

He said he only fully understood the importance of Overstreet's feat when he spoke with his father about it.

'My father began shouting out me - "I have to meet this man," Marie said. 'This guy has done even more than what people are thinking. He lifted the spirit of the French."

After flying further missions, including a top secret escort mission, his tour of duty ended in October 1944 and he returned to the U.S.

Loss: Bill Overstreet

Loss: Bill Overstreet is pictured at an event, Warbirds Over the Beach, in 2013.

After finishing his service, he returned to the U.S. and became an accountant - but he continued to attend veterans events He went on to teach at a gunnery school in Pinellas, Florida and when he was released from active duty, he remained on the Reserves.

He went on to work as General Manager of Charleston Aviation in West Virginia before moving to Roanoke in 1950, where he worked as an accountant until he was 65.

Before his death, he also worked with numerous charities and veterans groups, appearing at air shows and gatherings with fellow veterans. He was preceded in death by his wife, Nita.

Anne Mason Keller, Overstreet's niece, said of her uncle: 'He was a fighter, he was always a perfect gentleman. He was concise, focused with a delightful sense of humor and a twinkle in his eyes. 'He was always humble. Whenever the press interviewed him, he said, "I didn't do anything, we were a team."

His family has asked that those attending his memorial service on Saturday those wear something either or both red and yellow, his squadron's colors.

RIP Bill Overstreet.



Nice pics and graphics JJ Too bad that stuff wont post here

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 28, 2014, 05:23:23 pm

Otts, were you dropped on your head as a child? Or adult? or both???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 28, 2014, 06:24:22 pm

DROPPED on his head?

You mean like just once?

I figured his parents used his head like a basketball.... and on concrete courts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 28, 2014, 06:59:52 pm

He was probably one of those kids whose parents thought it was funny to get them high.  That would explain a lot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 07:17:45 pm

Parents who create drummers are like that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 28, 2014, 07:29:12 pm

Parents who create libertarians are Neanderthals who grunt to ayrn rand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 28, 2014, 07:57:01 pm

Hard to argue with logic like that.

Real education just doesn't take place in the backwoods town in the hillbilly state that Oddo lives in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 29, 2014, 07:24:03 am

Otto is usually so thorough on reporting about the sexual activities of politicians. I wonder how (or why) he missed this one....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/elgin/chi-exstate-rep-farnham-charged-with-child-****-20140428,0,7141488.story

Former Illinois State Rep. Keith Farnham was charged Monday with using both personal and state-owned computers to trade hundreds of images and videos depicting child pornography and engage in graphic online chats in which he allegedly bragged about sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl.

The federal criminal complaint alleged that Farnham, 66, a Democrat from Elgin, possessed two videos depicting child pornography on a computer that was seized from his state office in Elgin a week before his abrupt resignation in March. Authorities also linked a Yahoo! email account used by Farnham to a online trading forum in which he chatted with other users about his sexual preferences, according to the charges.

“12 is about as old as i can handle,” Farnham allegedly said in one online chat in November, according to the charges. “i love them at 6 7 8”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 29, 2014, 08:07:48 am

He obviously thought its acceptable if the politician is a Dumbocrat

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 09:13:15 am

"Report: Clippers Owner Caught In Racist Rant Is A Democratic Donor" — Fox Nation.


"NBA Sterling is a Democrat..." — Matt Drudge.


"Race Hate Spewing Clippers Owner Is Democratic Donor" — the Daily Caller.

"Media Ignoring Dem Donations of LA Clippers' Owner, Allegedly Caught on Tape in Race-Based Rant" — NewsBusters.

"LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling is a Racist Democrat" — the Tea Party News Network.

"It would appear that he is a democrat" -- Ex-lawyer from TN

But...the truth is...

On Sunday, Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times columnist, tweeted that local voter records show Sterling to be a registered Republican "since 1998." We followed up on that, and a search of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's website for Sterling's name, date of birth, and address confirmed that he's registered as a Republican.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 29, 2014, 10:01:15 am

Does it really matter if he registered republican if he gives his money to democrats? We have tried to tell you over and over....follow the money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 10:08:51 am

Yea, follow the money.

2K to Bill Bradley Foundation in 1989 and 2K to Grey Davis in 1991.

Wow.


Registered as a republic in 1998.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest77 on April 29, 2014, 12:04:32 pm

I would offer that there are perverts, racists & prevaricators across the political spectrum.  Sadly, none of those attributes tend to surface until after they are elected.  Except the lying, no one should be surprised at the skill that politicians have with lying. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 29, 2014, 02:58:31 pm

Quote from: BearFan on April 29, 2014, 12:04:32 pm

I would offer that there are perverts, racists & prevaricators across the political spectrum.  Sadly, none of those attributes tend to surface until after they are elected.  Except the lying, no one should be surprised at the skill that politicians have with lying. 

The major difference being that in most cases of perversions, drugs etc the republicans will call for a resignation while democrats circle the wagons to protect their own. The lying is a whole other story. Both lie repeatedly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 03:03:13 pm

Name one republic that called sen Dave Vitter to resign.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 29, 2014, 03:26:27 pm

http://cenlamar.com/2014/04/10/exclusive-louisiana-republican-party-chairman-demands-senator-david-vitters-resignation/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/conservative-christian-group-calls-on-david-vitter-to-quit-in-wake-of-weiners-resignation-51371/

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2007/07/20/4437752-hannity-calls-for-vitter-to-resign

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2014, 04:14:05 pm

Sterling was not only giving campaign contributions to Democrats, and had given none to Republicans, he also was going to be given a "lifetime achievement" award by the NAACP because of his financial contributions to them, which, I assume, otto will now describe as being one more indication of both his being a Republican, AND his being racist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 04:22:54 pm

No, that would be an indication of his desire to buy his way to favor.

And if you consider giving 4K in political contributions 25 years ago to two Democratic pols over being a registered republic voter since 1998 would qualify him an active "campaign contributor" your diluted.

The facts are that he is a 1) Registered republic 2) Racist


Disprove any of that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 04:28:20 pm

keysbart

All you have a state republic dude, some Christian group and sean handity?


Seriously?


No peers of good olde dave? No republic Senators? No house of crap republic pols? No national republic talking heads?

What you have is...a **** john problem and he still is in the Senate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2014, 04:30:13 pm

You just have to love liberalism. I mean, they have all of the good ideas. You know, ideas like eliminating free speech, and being quite open about it. http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/?page=single#

When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue....  Only those who care about justice can take the moral upper hand.  It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2014, 04:33:00 pm

Regarding Sterling, the Democratic apologists who point to Sterling having been a registered Republican the last few years fail to mention whether he has even voted, or how often, or in which party's primaries he has voted.  Being registered one way or another is rather meaningless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 04:33:28 pm

Tell that to the good olde folks at bob jones university, oral Roberts university, liberty college....et al.


What was the point of the post ex-lawyer?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 04:35:13 pm

So a "last few years" would be 16 years in libertarianland?


Whats a couple 40?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2014, 05:03:39 pm

It's not just lefty college students who want to restrict free speech, either.  Prominent, mainstream, liberal Dems are pushing the same idea in Congress.  Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) are sponsoring legislation which have the Justice Department initiate action against any cable television or radio shows determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.”

The **** are not even trying to hide this.  They are patting themselves on the back about it and issuing press releases boasting of it.  http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/-sen-markey-and-rep-jeffries-introduce-legislation-to-examine-and-prevent-the-promotion-of-hate-crimes-and-hate-speech-in-media

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2014, 05:53:17 pm

The voting record for Sterling is interesting.  He did not vote in the 2000 presidential general election, voted in NO off-year Congressional elections, DID vote in the 2005 CA Special Election, voted in the 2002 Gubenatorial election, voted in the 2008 direct election primary but no other primary since registering as a Republican, and voted in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, but not the 2012 presidential election.

That does not sound to me like the voting pattern of a Republican.  If he were indeed a hate-mongering, racist, Republican, he would have voted in 2012 AGAINST Obama.  More likely that he voted in 2008 FOR Obama, but then became a bit disillusioned in 2012 and simply sat it out.  And voting in the 2004, but not in 2000, presidential election, would appear to be what you would expect from someone who was not particularly involved at all, but by 2004 had bought into the "Bush Lied, People Died" nonsense from Kerry (who in Congressional Hearings in December of 2013, when he was the sitting Secretary of State, acknowledged that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction immediately before the U.S. invaded, but shipped them to Syria before the U.S. could take control of them).

Oh, the link to his actual voter registration records is here: http://bit.ly/1hLc4e0

Disprove any of that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 05:58:55 pm

Nothing that you have posted refutes either of the facts.


 1) He is a republic registered voter

 2) He has racist views.


When will you be offering evidence against those two facts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 06:04:19 pm

Also, does being  a lunatic libertarian mean advocating "violent acts" in a crowded movie theater?


 Are you really an ass?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 29, 2014, 06:28:04 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 29, 2014, 04:28:20 pm

keysbart

All you have a state republic dude, some Christian group and sean handity?


Seriously?


No peers of good olde dave? No republic Senators? No house of crap republic pols? No national republic talking heads?

What you have is...a **** john problem and he still is in the Senate.

You asked for one...now it's "name one besides the ones you already named"....

You sure don't mind quoting Hannity when it's something you don't agree with. You are truly pathetic with your inconsistency

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 29, 2014, 07:18:07 pm

So the righteous NBA has booted old whitey out of the league.. What a laugher..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 29, 2014, 07:25:29 pm

I thought he was Jewish, not a whitey. Regardless, he won't suffer with the sale. Read somewhere he was usually loaded on Vodka laced with some type of perscription med. 81 and loaded, what the hell is he doing in public?  Why was what he did from 1981 on, "ok"?  I'll tell you why.  He's got the goods on everybody thtat's why. This could get reallllly ugly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 29, 2014, 07:33:53 pm

I thought he was taped in the privacy of his own home?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 29, 2014, 07:41:56 pm

My meaning is, why is he out in public the face of the clips, loaded? I honestly haven't followed this much, and, we are all entitled to express opinions.  You better be prepared though, to accept the results of your actions. I had read, that the recordings were at his own request? True, False? He's got enough money, if he wants, he doesn't have to sell to anyone, he could just shut the operation. down. You'll play hell forcing him to sell if he doesn't want to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 29, 2014, 07:52:38 pm

It's going to be very interesting to see if a lifetime ban will apply to a player that is recorded saying something racist. You know it's going to happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 29, 2014, 08:13:31 pm

My take on it is the guy is a racist PoS.  He has been taken to court and lost over discrimination.  He seems to be a pretty crappy person.

I am guessing he will fight this in court.  It will get very ugly.  If the government had banned him from the NBA and was trying to force him to sell the team I would be 100% against it.  However the NBA has every right to try and get rid of a guy who is harming their business.

Also my understanding is his girlfriend taped him illegally and released it.  So she will probably be brought up on charges. 

By the way his girlfriend is black so how can he be a racist?  Didn't Phill tell us because he slept with a white woman he couldn't possibly be a racist.  I sure don't miss that guy.     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2014, 08:35:43 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on April 29, 2014, 07:18:07 pm

So the righteous NBA has booted old whitey out of the league.. What a laugher..

At this point, hearing the reports that the NBA has not only ordered Sterling to sell the team, and banned him from attending the games or even attending practices, it would be amusing for Sterling to prohibit his players -- his employees -- from taking the court in the remaining playoff games if the NBA insists on standing by that position. It is, after all, HIS team. If the NBA insists on screwing Sterling and sticking its thumb in his eye, it would truly be downright amusing to see Sterling essentially forfeit the games, and if the league tried to block it, then for him to fire the players and coach before the games. I am not saying he SHOULD do it, or that it would be morally right... just that it would be downright amusing, and that the NBA would truly deserve the mess.

Quote from: 46 on April 29, 2014, 07:41:56 pm

why is he out in public the face of the clips, loaded?

First owners are seldom the face of the team, and he was no exception.  Second he was not "out in public" when he made these comments, but was in a private setting.

Quote from: 46 on April 29, 2014, 07:41:56 pm

You better be prepared though, to accept the results of your actions.

The result of his "actions"?  His "actions" were private comments made in a private setting.

Quote from: 46 on April 29, 2014, 07:41:56 pm

I had read, that the recordings were at his own request? True, False?

False.  I believe you either read wrong, or read something which was wrong.  http://voices.yahoo.com/los-angeles-clippers-owner-donald-sterlings-penalty-12631583.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 29, 2014, 09:10:30 pm

Owners are always the face of the franchise when in public ref. Jerry jones,mark cuban, the mccaskeys, etc.,etc. I didn't say the taping took place in public, rather why was he roaming around self medicated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 29, 2014, 09:18:16 pm

This is going to get VERY interesting. What he said, though wrong, but in the privacy of his own home spread to the airwaves....yea, we're definitely going to see a lawsuit or seven out of this.....he has a expectation of privacy in his own home.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 29, 2014, 09:37:12 pm

Anyone ever get around the neighborhoods of Chicago much?

None of the ethnic groups like each other.  The Polish don't like the Italians, blacks or Irish.  The Irish don't like the blacks.  The Mexicans hate the blacks and vice versa.
The Italians don't like anyone not Italian, same for the Germans.  And everyone disses on the Puerto Ricans. yadayadayada

It amazes me how naive these media types are so astonished to think this racism still exists.  Go to any large city in America for heavens sake.
Small towns go bonkers if a minority family moves in.

By the way did I say I'm sick of the story now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 29, 2014, 10:59:00 pm

davebear that is all dying out.  The older generations feel that way but the younger don't.  If a family of any race or religion moved in next door to me I wouldn't give a **** as long as they were good neighbors.  My kids think even less of race then I do and I am sure the same will be true of their kids.   

Sporty, What the guy said was terribly wrong but he obviously had some insecurities about his girlfriend banging the black guys she was instagraming pictures of or whatever.  The racist jerk is like 80 and she is a hot 25 yr old.  She isn't with him for his good looks or stamina in the bedroom.  She is with him for the money and probably was getting some on the side.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 29, 2014, 11:09:23 pm

Sterling wasn't liked decades ago either

http://www.cbs8.com/story/25384935/vintage-himmel-sterling-a-jerk-larry-called-it-decades-ago

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2014, 06:27:15 am

This whole Sterling thing is a powderkeg. And just because the NBA wants to divorce itself from Sterling doesn't necessarily assure that it will happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on April 30, 2014, 07:02:11 am

If I got fined $2.5M for some racist remarks - I'd just take a long walk off a short pier

- this was the top news story last night - in front of "35 people killed by tornadoes"

Something is wrong in this country

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2014, 07:43:04 am

There is definitely something wrong in this country. There is no doubt about that

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 30, 2014, 09:03:45 am

So the guy said he didn't want his girlfriend hanging around black guys... who gives a ****.. I don't!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 30, 2014, 09:03:52 am

http://news.yahoo.com/public-preference-gop-congress-marks-low-obamas-approval-132151463--abc-news-politics.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 30, 2014, 09:15:29 am

He done it to hisself.
 recordings of Sterling in existence.


Speaking of Stiviano the archivist, she was apparently maybe too good at her job? TMZ, which has been breaking the story at almost every angle, also reported that Stiviano has more than 100 hours of recordings that hold more damning evidence against Sterling's already muddied reputation. She was responsible for making the recordings at the Clippers owner's request so that he could freshen up on what he's said in the past, as he claimed to have a bad memory.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 30, 2014, 10:20:48 am

This tells you all you need to know about the NAACP. Give us enough money and we will forgive.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/naacp-forgive-clippers-donald-sterling-yanking-award/story?id=23501911

"God teaches us to forgive, and the way I look at it, after a sustained period of proof to the African American community that those words don't reflect his heart, I think there's room for forgiveness. I wouldn't be a Christian if I said there wasn't," Jenkins said.

"We are negotiating with him about giving more moneys to African American students at UCLA, and so we are in preliminary discussions," Jenkins said. He also noted, however, they had not spoken since the scandal broke.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2014, 10:45:36 am

by  Tom Fletcher - BC Local News
posted Apr 29, 2014 at 9:00 AM— updated Apr 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM
VICTORIA – Last week’s column on Earth Day myths attracted a fair amount of criticism.

One tireless member of the “Alberta tar sands killing the planet” crowd scolded me for daring to mention that 60 per cent of the oil pollution in the oceans around North America comes from natural seeps. That’s eight times more than all pipeline and tanker spills combined, and it’s been going on 24 hours a day for the last 10,000 years or so.

This fact blows another hole in the carefully crafted narrative that only Canadian oil exports to Asia would destroy our delicate ecosystems.

That narrative is why the daily Alaska supertankers along the B.C. coast are ignored, as is the barbaric shale oil rush in North Dakota that can be seen from space. U.S. oil barons are flaring off the vast volume of natural gas that comes up with the more valuable light crude, while the U.S. environment lobby obsesses over the Keystone XL pipeline.

Here’s another one that may upset people indoctrinated by our school system, media and our supposedly green B.C. Liberal government.

B.C.’s recent pine beetle epidemic was caused by human carbon emissions, right? Everybody knows that. Gordon Campbell hammered the point home in speeches for years as he promoted his carbon tax.

In 2012 I participated in a B.C. forests ministry tour of facilities where hardy seedlings are grown for reforestation. Test plantings were also underway to see if the range of southern tree species is shifting northward due to climate change.

During the bus ride, I asked the province’s top forest scientists if Campbell was right. The answer? We don’t have enough evidence to conclude that. As for shifting tree habitat, those decades-long experiments are continuing.

The scientists confirmed what I already knew, which is that the most recent bark beetle epidemic is the latest of many. It’s the largest “on record,” but the record goes back less than a century.

In 2008 I interviewed Lorne Swanell on the occasion of his 100th birthday. A graduate of UBC’s school of forest engineering, Swanell began his career with the forests ministry in 1930. After a year as a ranger, he was assigned to the Kamloops region to help deal with a pine beetle epidemic.

Conventional wisdom on the latest outbreak holds that it spread so far because of a lack of cold winters, attributed to human carbon emissions.

I grew up in northern B.C., and my last two visits to the Peace country were both in January. In 2004 I recall changing planes on the tarmac of Prince George airport, moving briskly in the daytime temperature near -40 C. That night, and subsequent nights, the mercury dropped to -50 C.

In January 2013 I returned for some discussions on the Enbridge pipeline route, and experienced a relatively balmy -30 C in the daytime. So when I hear people talk about the end of cold winters in northern B.C. because of global warming, it’s difficult to square with personal experience.

I can hear the rebuttals already. It takes long periods of extreme cold to kill the pine beetle. How long? Longer than those ones, of course.

Similarly flexible theories are being advanced to explain the 17-year “pause” in Earth’s average surface temperature rise, the growing Antarctic ice sheet, and this past winter’s “polar vortex.”

If anyone has substantial evidence that CO2 from human activity was the trigger mechanism for the latest beetle outbreak in B.C., I’d like to see it. But please, spare me the affirmations of quasi-religious faith that often pass for climate change arguments today.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 01:42:42 pm

What could influence the beetle’s continued spread?

Scientists expect the beetle to continue expanding its geographic range, moving into the boreal forest and Canada’s northern and eastern pine forests. Several factors will determine the extent to which this spread occurs:


•Dispersal ability – As a normal feature of their life history, adult beetles fly to new trees and colonize. The possibility of long-distance dispersal (greater than 100 km) under favourable weather conditions is well documented.

•Climatic suitability for infestation – Milder winters and warmer summers contribute to both higher recruitment and survival rates of the MPB.

Just requires a web search tom. Of course, you don't believe climate change is happening anymore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 02:18:57 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/white-house-opens-door-to-tolls-on-interstate-highways-removing-long-standing-prohibition/2014/04/29/5d2b9f30-cfac-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html

So now Illinois can be one big toll road. They toll darned near everywhere they can already. It's gonna cost a small fortune to go through there now, thanks to our wonderful frigging Administration! These idiots in charge are doing everything they can to destroy this economy.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2014, 02:35:02 pm

That would effectively shutdown a lot of automobile travel, and as a result cut down a lot gasoline usage. I suppose that would be except in urban areas like Chicago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 02:38:36 pm

Let the shallow end of the republic pool post more stupidity.

Small "c" christian....did you even read the article that you presented?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 03:22:18 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/most-young-voters-planning-to-sit-out-midterm-elections--new-poll-finds-190922923.html

A new poll of America’s youth finds that three-quarters of voters aged 18-29 plan to sit out the 2014 midterm elections, a significant drop compared with recent years.

The Harvard Institute of Politics (IOP) poll found that just 23 percent of younger voters said they would “definitely be voting” in the midterm elections, an 11-point drop from a similar poll conducted in December.

Those results could be problematic for Democratic candidates, who have benefited from a surge in the youth turnout, particularly during President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.

“There’s an erosion of trust in the individuals and institutions that make government work — and now we see the lowest level of interest in any election we’ve measured since 2000,” IOP Polling Director John Della Volpe said in a statement. “Young people still care about our country, but we will likely see more volunteerism than voting in 2014.”

Though overall youth turnout appears set to decline, young Republican voters are more enthusiastic than their Democratic counterparts. Thirty-two percent of self-identified young conservatives said they are likely to vote in the midterms compared with 22 percent of liberals, according to the IOP poll. Men also appear more inclined to vote than women, 28 percent to 19 percent, and whites (27 percent) appear more likely to vote than African-Americans and Hispanics (19 percent).

Overall, 44 percent of young voters who supported Mitt Romney in 2012 say they plan to vote in the midterms, compared with 35 percent of Obama voters. Obama’s youth turnout dropped by more than 2 million votes in the 2012 election compared with 2008. The bulk of that drop was the result of young voters staying home, as opposed to voters switching from the Democratic to the Republican column.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 03:28:19 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on April 30, 2014, 09:03:45 am

So the guy said he didn't want his girlfriend hanging around black guys... who gives a ****.. I don't!!

He said a lot more than that.

Quote from: 46 on April 30, 2014, 09:15:29 am

Stiviano.... was responsible for making the recordings at the Clippers owner's request so that he could freshen up on what he's said in the past, as he claimed to have a bad memory.

If so, then he essentially gave consent for the recordings, and violated no laws in recording him... though that report is inconsistent with reports she has denied having made the recordings.

Quote from: Keysbear on April 30, 2014, 10:20:48 am

This tells you all you need to know about the NAACP. Give us enough money and we will forgive.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/naacp-forgive-clippers-donald-sterling-yanking-award/story?id=23501911

"We are negotiating with him about giving more moneys to African American students at UCLA, and so we are in preliminary discussions," Jenkins said. He also noted, however, they had not spoken since the scandal broke.

Oh, I strongly disagree about that being all you need to know about the NAACP.  You also need to know that the NAACP is STILL giving its lifetime achievement award to Al Sharpton, despite recordings of Sharpton, in very public settings (political rallies) referring to a black politician he did not like as a "**** ****," and doing so repeatedly and clearly in the recording.... and the NAACP is not even asking Sharpton to contribute financially to get the award.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 03:29:20 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 02:18:57 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/white-house-opens-door-to-tolls-on-interstate-highways-removing-long-standing-prohibition/2014/04/29/5d2b9f30-cfac-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html

So now Illinois can be one big toll road. They toll darned near everywhere they can already. It's gonna cost a small fortune to go through there now, thanks to our wonderful frigging Administration! These idiots in charge are doing everything they can to destroy this economy.....

Someone has to pay for the construction and maintenance of the roads.  Doesn't it make sense to have those using them pay for them?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 03:44:15 pm

We pay enough in taxes already. Adding another mandatory one in the form of a toll would just hurt people further. Especially those who have to use them for work purposes. We get taxed in darned near everything we do already, including gas taxes TO pay for road construction. There's only so much blood in the turnip. The best thing would be to cut spending elsewhere and use that to fund the roads, but cutting spending is not the 'easy' way to fix the problem. Just adding another tax to us is faster and simpler.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2014, 03:44:31 pm

And the trucking industry will pay a lot more than an automobile driver

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 03:45:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 01:42:42 pm

Just requires a web search tom.

(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTA2WDcwNA==/z/YTMAAOxy63FSp3hq/$_2.JPG)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 03:46:17 pm

Which, once again, will be funnelled down to the consumers, US, and we'll be paying even MORE in new and fascinating ways, like for everything that is shipped. So yea, we will get double screwed....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on April 30, 2014, 03:52:08 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 03:29:20 pm

Someone has to pay for the construction and maintenance of the roads.  Doesn't it make sense to have those using them pay for them?

I have to agree with Jes.
I would prefer toll roads so the folks that use the roads pay the fees than to raise the gas tax.
They could also quit pushing all these fuel efficient vehicles, open up to more domestic drilling/refining and people would use more fuel and thus pay more taxes.
It is a good thing the taxes on fuel isn't % based like sales tax, they would jack up fuel prices then!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2014, 03:54:20 pm

They want to jack up fuel prices to cut down on driving.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 03:59:05 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 03:44:15 pm

We pay enough in taxes already. Adding another mandatory one in the form of a toll would just hurt people further. Especially those who have to use them for work purposes. We get taxed in darned near everything we do already, including gas taxes TO pay for road construction. There's only so much blood in the turnip. The best thing would be to cut spending elsewhere and use that to fund the roads, but cutting spending is not the 'easy' way to fix the problem. Just adding another tax to us is faster and simpler.

While it is not a tax, but a fee, and it can be very simply avoided by not using the tollroad, meaning it is not at all mandatory, you ignore the very simple question of who should pay the costs of construction and maintenance if not those using the road.  So long as the money raised in tolls is used for construction and maintenance of THAT roadway and/or direct alternatives to THAT roadway, tolls make a great deal of economic sense, are eminently fair, and do not hurt the economy, but instead often help the economy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2014, 04:03:06 pm

The Federal Gas Tax was created to pay for maintenance on Federal Roads.

I think it is a great idea to make all Federal roads into toll roads and allow actual users to pay for the maintenance.

If, of course, they eliminate the Federal Gas Tax.

And, by the way, they should charge not only by mile, but also by weight.  Large trucks do 95 percent of the damage to the Federal Highways.  A truck weighing 25 tons does far more damage to a highway than 10 cars that weigh 2 and one half tons each.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 04:03:42 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 03:46:17 pm

Which, once again, will be funnelled down to the consumers, US, and we'll be paying even MORE in new and fascinating ways, like for everything that is shipped. So yea, we will get double screwed....

OR, it will create an incentive to find alternative ways to get goods to consumers, more efficient trucking, more reliance on rail or air transport, or more reliance on local producers who do not have to ship as far, or who drive other routes.

Pissing and moaning about this is REALLY foolish for those who claim to want responsible government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 04:05:08 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 30, 2014, 03:44:31 pm

And the trucking industry will pay a lot more than an automobile driver

Those who do the driving and create the need for the highways and the wear and tear on the highways are certainly the ones who will be paying more under a toll system than those who do not... as it should be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 30, 2014, 05:12:13 pm

 
 Hey gang,
 
 What are you paying for a gallon of gas in your town ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2014, 05:19:04 pm

about $3.64 in Fort Myers Florida

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 05:35:12 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 30, 2014, 05:12:13 pm

 Hey gang,
 
 What are you paying for a gallon of gas in your town ?

Whatever it might be for the rest of us, and wherever sportster might be, we know he is paying about 50 cents a gallon more than the rest of us.... AND that it is all because of the greedy bastards running the oil industry and the evil oil speculators who manipulate prices whenever they want, and by as much as they want.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 05:43:57 pm

The economy just keeps charging along!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140430/us-economy-gdp-09b1567225.html

POINT-one-percent for the first quarter.  A big .1%.  WooHoo!

Factor in population growth and that is an actual contraction.  Can't beat economic news like that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 05:48:46 pm

Quote

They could also quit pushing all these fuel efficient vehicles, open up to more domestic drilling/refining and people would use more fuel and thus pay more taxes.

Seriously?!? I am not sure I read that right, but that is completely absolutely absurd!! The reason they are pushing these fuel efficient vehicles is because of the gas price gouging that has been going on for quite awhile now. I'll be darned if I'm giving up my Civic for a freaking gas guzzler just so I can 'pay more taxes'! That is really one of the most absurd things I've read here. Nav I am very surprised at you.

And thankfully, there are a couple stations near me duking it out (AMAZING what competition can do to prices.....) so the prices have stayed down at those two stations for awhile now. Paying right now $3.43/gal. Most of the stations in the area are around $3.69. They don't care to compete so those two that are are getting all the business.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 05:52:27 pm

And no, I'm not going to convince Jessy that there truly is greed in the oil market motivating gas prices. It's obvious to the rest of the world but not him. When there is nothing moving things, i.e. demand going up, hurricanes, lack of oil, etc then yea, it's speculation driving the market, i.e. greed.....you can believe what ya want, Jes, but the facts are the facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 06:04:15 pm

 At least the President and VP are doing what they can to stimulate the economy.... http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-biden.../article/2547892

Obama-Biden vacation tab reaches $40M.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 06:06:01 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 05:52:27 pm

the facts are the facts.

Sportster, the problem is not that you and I can not agree on what the facts are, the problem is that you appear not to know what a fact is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2014, 06:09:23 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 05:52:27 pm

And no, I'm not going to convince Jessy that there truly is greed in the oil market motivating gas prices. It's obvious to the rest of the world but not him. When there is nothing moving things, i.e. demand going up, hurricanes, lack of oil, etc then yea, it's speculation driving the market, i.e. greed.....you can believe what ya want, Jes, but the facts are the facts.

There is greed in all markets.  That is what makes markets work.

When you bought you home, you paid as little as you possibly could.  When you sell it, you will try to get as much as you can.  As you indicated above, competition makes greed work in the markets.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 06:34:51 pm

Oh, hush, davep.  You know it's different with oil and gasoline.  We have no choice at all but to buy them, so the speculator bastards can just run prices up as high as they want without anything to stop them.

Facts are facts, whether you want to admit it or not, Bub.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 06:55:56 pm

(http://www.englishforum.ch/attachments/general-off-topic/64291d1371200410-buyer-beware-triple_facepalm.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 07:43:16 pm

Free Speech Farce: Rise of American Fascism

By Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- America is facing a new fascism that does not tolerate any views it doesn't like -- where "wrong" speech is being hounded, demonized and shouted down.
 
The head of Mozilla, maker of Firefox web browser, was forced to step down because he gave money to a campaign several years ago that was against gay marriage.
 
Brandeis University recently withdrew an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an internationally acclaimed champion of women's rights and a victim of female genital mutilation and forced marriage, because her opposition to Islam was deemed offensive.
 
Across the Water
 
If you want a glimpse into how bad it could become in the future, Americans need not look any further than across the Atlantic to Western Europe.
 
Transplant American conservative values of 'God, country and traditional family' in Western Europe and, more likely than not, you'd be branded "extreme right," "anti-woman," "homophobic," and even "Nazi." 

If you're against radical Islam or immigration, you can be labelled a racist. Wave your nation's flag too much and you're a fascist.
 
And should you be brave enough to demonstrate publicly for a conservative cause or run for office on conservative principles, you could be physically attacked or, in Sweden, your home might be wrecked.

Danish Journalist Lars Hedegaard publishes the Scandinavian online newspaper Dispatch International.
 
"You could get beaten up. We see that in Sweden. You have these so called 'anti-fascists' coming to known right-wingers' homes and wrecking their apartments," Hedegaard said. "They go destroy the furniture, tear up the books, and then they make a video of it and put it out on the web."
 
Under the banner of "fighting racism," left-wing radicals terrorize those who dare to speak out against the Left's experiment in multiculturalism.
 
"They call them 'anti-racists' or they fight for a 'better environment' and a 'more humane society,' but their goal is to smash democracy as we know it. They're revolutionary communists," Kim Møller, a leading expert on the extreme, violent left groups in Denmark, said.
 
"If you say you want revolution, people say you're crazy, but if you say you want to fight racism, people support that," Møller said.
 
Free Speech Farce
 
Throughout Western Europe, those who hold to American-style conservative values are the outsiders.

Freedom of speech -- the right to say things the majority doesn't like -- is gone in most of Europe, including Britain, George Igler, with Discourse Institute in London, says.
 
"No, Britain is not a country that has free speech. Britain is not a country that has the rule of law," Igler said.
 
"We have populations who believe they have free speech and then they do something, maybe they tweet something a politician doesn't like, and a knock comes on the door and they realize they don't live in the same kind of democracy they thought they lived in," he added.
 
Last week, Liberty Party candidate Paul Weston was arrested in Winchester for publicly repeating Winston Churchill's criticism of Islam, in which Churchill wrote about the "curses of Islam."

It's a similar situation in France, where Libertarian publisher Jean Robin described how the government and the media seem to work in tandem to control information and what viewpoints people will see.
 
"You can't really say it's a democracy with free media. It's an oligarchy. It's not a democracy anymore," Robin said.
 
Shut Up and Unlearn Liberty
 
Many conservative Europeans cope by simply not expressing their opinions publicly.
 
"Americans who look at Europe idealistically just don't have a clue," Christopher Doss, with the Leadership Institute near Washington, D.C., said. 

Doss studied at the University of Oslo in Norway and still works in European politics. He said America risks going the way of Europe, especially because most of our universities are training young people to be intolerant.
 
"We're headed in the same direction as we unlearn liberty, as students go through four years or more of college indoctrination, they become inculcated with the notion that all speech shouldn't be allowed," Doss said.
 
If this new fascism is not turned back, life for conservatives in America could become very unpleasant, as it already is for conservatives in Europe.
 
**Editor's note: This article uses the American meaning of "conservative." In Europe, conservatives are called "liberals."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2014, 08:34:52 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 07:43:16 pm

The head of Mozilla, maker of Firefox web browser, was forced to step down because he gave money to a campaign several years ago that was against gay marriage.
 

What did he do.... contribute to the 2008 Obama campaign?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 09:36:43 pm

Looks like Dean Angstadt is now an ex-phaxnews viewer.


And he gets to live the rest of his life because of it.


PPACA that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2014, 09:45:49 pm

Oddo is babbling again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 10:10:24 pm

Obamacare beneficiary: ‘You wouldn’t have caught me dead watching MSNBC’


By Erik Wemple   
April 29 at 3:43 pm


The story of Dean Angstadt’s sudden embrace of Obamacare made MSNBC last night. Host Chris Hayes picked up on a heartwarming story in the Philadelphia Inquirer about a 57-year-old logger of Boyertown, Pa., who’d resisted signing up for Obamacare coverage but finally relented under the urging of a friend.

Noted Hayes of Angstadt, “He was so resistant to the thought of submitting to the tyrannical Obamacare pushed by a party he despises that he refused to sign up, even though he needed to have a heart valve replaced. Finally, his friend basically staged an intervention, helping him apply and choose a plan, which then enabled him to have life-saving surgery. And without that, Angstadt says — quote — ‘I probably would have ended up falling over dead.’”

In an interview with the Erik Wemple Blog today, Angstadt reported having watched that MSNBC segment online today. It was an introduction of sorts: “You wouldn’t have caught me dead watching MSNBC,” said Angstadt. “That’s probably the longest I’d ever sat and watched MSNBC in my life.”

Angstadt was in bad condition prior to his March 31 valve-replacement surgery. “I was going to die,” he told this blog. “I was preparing myself. I knew I was pretty sick since last October.” Yet he still resisted the attempts of friend Bob Leinhauser to get him enrolled in Obamacare. “I had to back him into a corner,” says Leinhauser, who worked for 27 years for Montgomery County’s fire and rescue department. He told Angstadt, “You’re what we call a cardiac cripple.”

After signing up for insurance via the Obamacare exchange, Angstadt pays $26.11 for the Highmark Blue Cross silver PPO plan, as reported by the Inquirer. The policy took effect just before Angstadt’s surgery.

But what accounts for Angstadt’s resistance to Obamacare in the first place? He says that he “leans” Republican and essentially listened to what the GOP had to say about Obamacare, and not so much to what the Democrats had to say. As for his media diet, Anstadt says he goes online for some of his news, but when it comes to television, “Fox News, of course, and that’s basically what I watch on TV,” in addition to local news, he says. “I like some of those radicals” on Fox News, he says. “I like O’Reilly.”

Asked if Fox News had molded his view of Obamacare, Angstadt responded, “Yeah, yeah — they get people fired up. You know what, I really do have a different outlook on it. It’s really wrong that people are making it into a political thing. To me, it is a life-and-death thing.” Of Obamacare’s namesake, Angstadt says, “I didn’t care for Obama. I can’t say nothing bad about him now because it was his plan that probably saved my life.”


Take away...watching phaxnews makes you ignorant and may kill you.

Babble that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 30, 2014, 10:13:33 pm

They finally found a guy it helped.  Compared to how many it has killed and will kill in the future? 

Ask the Vets how their free government run healthcare works.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 10:15:46 pm

Wow, another phaxnews disaster posting...

Duck

How many Americans will red state governors kill by blocking the Medicaid expansion?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 30, 2014, 10:30:26 pm

Isn't it interesting that in that entire Ottobabble post there is not a word a about how much the deductible is or how much Dean Wermer will owe out of pocket? I bet he could have gotten a better policy with a reasonable deductible before Obamacare if he had chosen to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 10:32:05 pm

Uninsured woman with 3 jobs dies because Florida refused Medicaid expansion

 
Charlene Dill was killed by Republican obstruction of the ACA.


April 9, 2014
 

Sometimes it really sucks to say, "I told you so." The Supreme Court created an "insurance gap" when it ruled that states don't have to accept Medicaid expansion. In states that refused expansion, people in this gap are royally screwed.

And now, in Florida, Charlene Dill has paid the ultimate price for this political screwing over of the poor. Anything but "lazy," she worked three jobs as a single mother. She had a documented heart condition that was treatable, but could not afford to go to the doctor. And today, she's dead, and if Governor Rick Scott had accepted Medicaid expansion -- like he originally indicated he would -- Charlene's three children would not be orphans.


Another t-billy success story, except for who will care for her kids.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 30, 2014, 10:40:28 pm

I call BS on that story. A  single mother would have qualified for Medicaid in Florida  long before Obamacare ever existed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2014, 10:45:44 pm

If isn't fair to call BS on the things Oddo Posts.  He wouldn't be able to post anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 10:51:42 pm

Enjoy the **** sandwich...

This 32-Year-Old Florida Woman Is Dead Because Her State Refused To Expand Medicaid


By Tara Culp-Ressler April 9, 2014 at 10:21 am


http://orlandoweekly.com/news/the-perils-of-florida-s-refusal-to-expand-medicaid-1.1665144?pgno=2 (http://orlandoweekly.com/news/the-perils-of-florida-s-refusal-to-expand-medicaid-1.1665144?pgno=2)

Own it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 30, 2014, 10:59:06 pm

"when she separated from her husband in 2009, that was last time she had reliable health insurance"


She would have been eligible for Medicaid in 2009. She clearly chose not to do anything for 5 years. Poor choices have consequences

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2014, 11:03:16 pm

Fail.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on April 30, 2014, 11:05:21 pm

No Otto...if she was as poor as the article says with 3 children she would have qualified for Medicare.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2014, 03:50:11 am

Quote from: davep on April 30, 2014, 09:45:49 pm

Oddo is babbling again.

again?

AGAIN?

Wouldn't that suggest there have been times when he is not babbling?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2014, 06:58:52 am

Furthermore the divorce court would have insured the insurance coverage would have continued had she been smart. It seems she didn't want to be covered. Also the claim the kids are orphans is false since they have a father.

Just more Oddo BS.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2014, 07:44:46 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 01, 2014, 06:58:52 am

Furthermore the divorce court would have insured the insurance coverage would have continued had she been smart. It seems she didn't want to be covered. Also the claim the kids are orphans is false since they have a father.

Just more Oddo BS.

Well, Dad may be dead, and while a divorce court may ORDER that one spouse provide and continue providing health insurance for the other, just as with child support orders, such orders are quite often ignored, and judges sometimes will not order it in the first place.  You simply can not accurately say that she would have had insurance provided by her ex- if she had wanted it.

You also can not accurately claim that she only could have had insurance thru ObamaCare (and, if that were true, we do still allow people to move from one state to another in the U.S., meaning she could have moved to a state where she could have gotten it), even though otto may make such a claim.

But even if the story is completely and totally accurate, that changes nothing whatsoever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2014, 08:02:25 am

The latest example of racism in this country, also helps to illustrate how immigrants are destroying the nation: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/us/new-york-student-selects-yale/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 01, 2014, 08:07:22 am

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2014, 05:48:46 pm

Seriously?!? I am not sure I read that right, but that is completely absolutely absurd!! The reason they are pushing these fuel efficient vehicles is because of the gas price gouging that has been going on for quite awhile now. I'll be darned if I'm giving up my Civic for a freaking gas guzzler just so I can 'pay more taxes'! That is really one of the most absurd things I've read here. Nav I am very surprised at you.

I was joking Sporty!
that being said neither of my SUVs average over 15 mpg. We get about 17mpg on road trips.
Fortunately my wife is a stay at home mom and I tele-commute. If I had to drive 20+ miles to work each day I would get something better on gas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 01, 2014, 09:40:24 am

Don't confuse Oddo with the facts.  He needs to BELIEVE, regardless of the truth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2014, 10:07:44 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 01, 2014, 07:44:46 am

Well, Dad may be dead, and while a divorce court may ORDER that one spouse provide and continue providing health insurance for the other, just as with child support orders, such orders are quite often ignored, and judges sometimes will not order it in the first place.  You simply can not accurately say that she would have had insurance provided by her ex- if she had wanted it.

You also can not accurately claim that she only could have had insurance thru ObamaCare (and, if that were true, we do still allow people to move from one state to another in the U.S., meaning she could have moved to a state where she could have gotten it), even though otto may make such a claim.

But even if the story is completely and totally accurate, that changes nothing whatsoever.

Yeah? And the man in the moon eats green cheese, right? I'll guarantee you if you don't pay what you are supposed to pay you will be constantly hauled into court. Its a nasty racket. I know, I've been through it. I don't take the word of some ex-lawyer over personal experience. Another thing, every state is different. Different states have different laws. What a person can get away with in one state he wouldn't get away with in all states.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2014, 10:42:30 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 01, 2014, 10:07:44 am

Yeah? And the man in the moon eats green cheese, right? I'll guarantee you if you don't pay what you are supposed to pay you will be constantly hauled into court. Its a nasty racket. I know, I've been through it. I don't take the word of some ex-lawyer over personal experience. Another thing, every state is different. Different states have different laws. What a person can get away with in one state he wouldn't get away with in all states.

Wshfl, believe it or not, and this might shock you a bit, but personal experience and observation do not always extrapolate well to the rest of the world.  Now, that said, please go back to look at what I wrote. 

1) Dad MAY be dead -- If so, he is unlikely to be "hauled into court" and if he is, it will not get his corpse to pay for insurance.

2) Even if he was ordered to provide insurance, such orders are often ignored -- if they were not, then there would be relatively few who were "constantly hauled into court" (and if YOU have been "through it" and "constantly hauled into court" for your own failure to comply with court orders.... well, you might start complying with the dambed court orders, violation of which is usually for failing to pay child support).

3) You can not accurately say she would have had insurance provided thru her ex -- perhaps her ex was disabled, or BECANE disabled and lost all income and assets after the divorce, never had a job, was in prison, fled the country, was simply a deadbeat, the court simply failed to order that he provide it, his company or employer went out of business, or (as is very often the case) the two of them entered into an agreed divorce and they simply failed to address the issue.  Perhaps in the divorce SHE was ordered to pay for HIS insurance.  You simply do not know.

Now, that said, at the end of your post you seemingly acknowledge that perhaps, just perhaps, you really do not know WTF you are talking about and concede that "Different states have different laws" and that what "a person can get away with in one state he wouldn't get away with in all states" (and you should have at the same time recognized what *I* mentioned that there is considerable variation from one judge to the next, as well, even when both are in the same state.

But look back to your third sentence, and it is pretty important here, and while you expressly acknowledge it in that third sentence, you implicitly ignore it in challenging what I wrote:  if you don't pay what you are supposed to pay   And since neither you nor I have ever seen the Divorce Decree at issue, neither of us have a clue what he was or wasn't "supposed to do" under it.  All I did was raise the possibility, since I do not know what was in it.  You, on the other hand, also without knowing what was in it, insist that the possibilities I raise are as likely as "the man in the moon eat(ing) green cheese."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2014, 10:55:51 am

Gee, I wonder which party this candidate belongs to.....  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/30/mayoral-candidate-allegedly-says-this-is-gonna-be-a-fin-n-town-but-her-party-affiliation-might-be-bigger-news/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 01, 2014, 12:11:58 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 01, 2014, 10:55:51 am

Gee, I wonder which party this candidate belongs to.....  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/30/mayoral-candidate-allegedly-says-this-is-gonna-be-a-fin-n-town-but-her-party-affiliation-might-be-bigger-news/

As a result she has been banned from the NBA for life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2014, 12:25:59 pm

....But she gets the NAACP lifetime achievement award

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2014, 01:16:45 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 01, 2014, 12:25:59 pm

....But she gets the NAACP lifetime achievement award

Only if she made a large enough "contribution."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2014, 02:08:12 pm

She is definitely contributing all right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 01, 2014, 09:29:23 pm

The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries.
 
He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.
 
Here is the speech:   
 
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
 
A degraded sensualist deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
 
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ..."
 
Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 01, 2014, 10:36:05 pm

Churchill was a very young war correspondent in the Boer war.  It was in South Africa that he picked up the habit of drinking a quart of gin every day, as he did for over 70 years.

One day while in his cups, he and a small group of friends decided they could end the war in one fell swoop by capturing Oom Paul Kreuger, the president of the Boer Republic.  They rode more than 200 miles northwards and attacked Kreuger's home hoping to capture him and force his forces to surrender.  Unfortunately, Kreuger was not home at the time.  Undeterred, Churchill and his friends "liberated" his wine cellar, and when Kreuger returned home he found all of them passed out in the cellar.  Britain was forced to swap many POWs to get his release.

For some reason, this caught the fancy of the British people, and he returned home to find himself a hero, and his political career was launched.

Perhaps his greatest contribution to World History was when he got into a drinking match with Joseph Stalin.  The next day Stalin had a stroke from which he never recovered, and some claim it was a direct result of the night before.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 06:14:23 am

Dude, that was like two years ago....
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFZMPe83i3E

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 08:52:03 am

The Benghazi tragedy only lives in/on/for the viewers of phaxnews.

And this week Darrell issa (still seeking relevancy) held yet again hearing which offered up more right wingnut noise. Darrell presented a judicial watch dug up email which republics claim as a smoking gun, but really just reinforces the Administration position. Additionally we were offered a retired general who had neither accurate information or direct knowledge of the events.


Anybody been shot at Bunkerville yet?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 02, 2014, 09:39:43 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 08:52:03 am

but really just reinforces the Administration position.

Was it the Administration position that they lied to the American People for a political cover up?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 10:45:29 am

Folks like otto who dismiss Rush listeners and FoxNews viewers ignore the fact that Rush has the biggest radio audience in the nation by a wide margin by everyone except Hannity, while FoxNews (which I only yesterday found on my cable for the first time in four years) has more viewers that all other cable news outlets combined.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 02, 2014, 10:58:26 am

too bad the folks who listen to Rush/Hannity don't vote more frequently than the folks that don't.
Honestly I am a conservative and I hate Fox News what little I have watched it. I really don't watch much news at all. They are so bad about talking over one another and butting in and just seem to have a nasty demeanor. I can see why folks would watch other news channels.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 02, 2014, 11:29:02 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 08:52:03 am

Anybody been shot at Bunkerville yet?

So far just the cattle that the government stole and slaughtered

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 02, 2014, 11:35:02 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 08:52:03 am

The Benghazi tragedy only lives in/on/for the viewers of phaxnews.

And this week Darrell issa (still seeking relevancy) held yet again hearing which offered up more right wingnut noise. Darrell presented a judicial watch dug up email which republics claim as a smoking gun, but really just reinforces the Administration position. Additionally we were offered a retired general who had neither accurate information or direct knowledge of the events.

Well at least Otto is now referring to it as a tragedy rather than Hillary's finest hour.

I wonder if Otto has any idea why Issa has held so many hearings? Could it possibly be that it's because all the emails are so redacted as to be unreadable? The administration doesn't even know what their position is. Hey Jay Carney...if that memo is not about Benghazi then why was it released as part of the Benghazi Freedom of Information request?  But remember...this is the most transparant administration in history.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 11:35:48 am

In the 1930's FDR had the feds do that on a regular basis.

Part of his effort to "stimulate" an economic recovery included trying to drive up farm prices by having the government seize and destroy livestock, milk and grain which was produced beyond the level the good socialists working in the federal government wanted.  Milk they would simply dump into drainage ditches.  Livestock, tens of thousands of cattle and pigs, were herded into shallow pits, shot and buried.  It wasn't widely reported at the time, because the news media then loved FDR almost as much as it loves Obama now.  Farmers, of course, were not compensated for their crops or livestock, since, of course, they never should have grown or raised it in the first place.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 11:38:03 am

Quote

Folks like otto who dismiss Rush listeners and FoxNews viewers ignore the fact that Rush has the biggest radio audience in the nation

Just because you idiots herd yourselves into the same cattle pen doesn't make fatbaugh any less of one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 02, 2014, 11:38:36 am

Quote from: navigator on May 02, 2014, 10:58:26 am

too bad the folks who listen to Rush/Hannity don't vote more frequently than the folks that don't.
Honestly I am a conservative and I hate Fox News what little I have watched it. I really don't watch much news at all. They are so bad about talking over one another and butting in and just seem to have a nasty demeanor. I can see why folks would watch other news channels.

You should enjoy MSNBC then. No reason to interupt or talk over anyone. They rarely have anyone on that has a different viewpoint from what I have seen in the few times I've watched it. I don't watch much Fox News either...mostly Fox Business or sports.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 12:38:19 pm

From the lunatic fringe...

Quote

In the 1930's FDR had the feds do that on a regular basis.

Part of his effort to "stimulate" an economic recovery included trying to drive up farm prices by having the government seize and destroy livestock, milk and grain which was produced beyond the level the good socialists working in the federal government wanted.  Milk they would simply dump into drainage ditches.  Livestock, tens of thousands of cattle and pigs, were herded into shallow pits, shot and buried.  It wasn't widely reported at the time, because the news media then loved FDR almost as much as it loves Obama now.  Farmers, of course, were not compensated for their crops or livestock, since, of course, they never should have grown or raised it in the first place.

This has to be one most asinine statement that you have ever posted. It denies history, logic and any facts.

Well done o'moronic one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 12:41:09 pm

Quote

I wonder if Otto has any idea why Issa has held so many hearings?

Because phaxnews needs content to serve to you old white paranoid fools.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 02, 2014, 12:56:22 pm

nice guess but as usual...wrong. Or in keeping with the maturity level of this administration.....Dude, that's like ...so wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 01:01:09 pm

Quote

Well at least Otto is now referring to it as a tragedy rather than Hillary's finest hour

.

I have referred to it since it happened as a tragedy, so who are you crappin?

Second, every military person who has testified in front of darrell issa's kangaroo court has stated that the State Department in no way denied any military response or altered in any way any action taken or not taken by the  military.  The General in charge of that response reaffirmed that again yesterday.

What you have after all of issa's "investigation" is a flimsy conspiracy theory based on was "a talking point was edited?" You think this kind of talk wins broad support?

It fails the laugh test.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 02, 2014, 01:36:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 01:01:09 pm

.

I have referred to it since it happened as a tragedy, so who are you crappin?

Second, every military person who has testified in front of darrell issa's kangaroo court has stated that the State Department in no way denied any military response or altered in any way any action taken or not taken by the  military.  The General in charge of that response reaffirmed that again yesterday.

What you have after all of issa's "investigation" is a flimsy conspiracy theory based on was "a talking point was edited?" You think this kind of talk wins broad support?

It fails the laugh test.

I see you don't address the ignoring of the Ambasadors request for additional security.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 01:39:11 pm

I don't see you addressing the house of turds voting to cut the State Department budget for security year after year after year.

Is that going to be part of issa's committee?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 01:53:17 pm

POINT-one-percent for the first quarter.  A big .1%.  WooHoo!

Factor in population growth and that is an actual contraction.  Can't beat economic news like that.


So how did today's economic news hit the lunatic fringe?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 02:28:04 pm

Your old white paranoid phaxnews viewer in a nut shell...


The case of Byron Smith white guy, older and defender of all that is godlike in the NRA sort of way.

After his house was burglarized  a couple of months ago set a "trap" for the neighborhood teen he suspected of being the culprit by moving his car away from his house, hiding in the basement and waiting for them. Sure enough, he broke in and headed down to the basement: Smith shot him twice, bringing him down, then told him "you're dead" before shooting him in the face (Smith taped the entire episode, presumably so the world would later praise his banter.)

He moved the body and reloaded his gun; after 10 minutes the teen's friend/partner came looking for him:


Kifer’s footsteps are heard on the stairs and she calls out quietly, “Nick?”

Then comes the sound of more shots. She falls down the stairs. “Oh, sorry about that,” Smith tells her. She screams, “Oh my God!”

Then more shots. Smith tells her, “You’re dying,” and calls her a “****,”.

After more labored breathing and another dragging sound, Smith calls her “****” again. He told authorities that after he moved her, he noticed she was still gasping and didn’t want her to suffer, so he fired under her chin with a 22.-caliber handgun, according to a report in the Pioneer Press. The Star Tribune reported Smith told investigators the last time he fired was “a good clean finishing shot” and “she gave out the death twitch.”

He reported the shootings a day later.

And then there is phaxnews and Sean Handity who covered the case on the April 30 edition of his Fox News program. While Hannity said he didn't like the fact that Smith had called the slain teens "vermin," he nonetheless questioned the verdict because "they broke into the guy's house." Hannity also suggested that "the judge in that case didn't give all the facts to the jury," and asked, "How could it be premeditated when they broke into his house?"

When Fox's Geraldo Rivera expressed disgust at the "coup de grace" shot that killed Kifer, Hannity responded, "You know what, it's easy to say after the fact, 'I wouldn't.'"

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 02:29:14 pm

What BS did the administration say now? Pray tell. And with the mounting lies that have been uttered by this administration who would believe a word they say

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 02:32:11 pm

Some old white idiot post something?


Did he have a point?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 02:33:02 pm

That comment should be considered racist

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 02:41:17 pm

The fact that you are in fact an old white idiot should cover it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 03:01:46 pm

Today in phaxnews one finds...they will only cover the news one would expect from a right wing news outfit...


Earlier today, President Obama held a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House. Mostly, they talked about how to handle Russia's intervention in Ukraine and digital surveillance issues raised by the Snowden leaks. But phaxnews broke from coverage soon after the start with...
 
In the words of Fox anchor Harris Faulkner:


We are not anticipating that [the next question] would be about the situation with Benghazi, which is breaking news. So, if in fact somebody throws him a question on this topic, we'll go back to that joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.


The gop could not write it better....fair and balanced?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 03:07:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 12:38:19 pm

From the lunatic fringe...
This has to be one most asinine statement that you have ever posted. It denies history, logic and any facts.

Well done o'moronic one.

It without question denied logic, as did much of FDR's administration.  Facts and history, on the other hand, are very different things.

It happened.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 03:09:27 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 03:01:46 pm

Today in phaxnews one finds...they will only cover the news one would expect from a right wing news outfit...


Earlier today, President Obama held a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House. Mostly, they talked about how to handle Russia's intervention in Ukraine and digital surveillance issues raised by the Snowden leaks. But phaxnews broke from coverage soon after the start with...
 
In the words of Fox anchor Harris Faulkner:
We are not anticipating that [the next question] would be about the situation with Benghazi, which is breaking news. So, if in fact somebody throws him a question on this topic, we'll go back to that joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The gop could not write it better....fair and balanced?

So if the decision was as bad as you seem to think, what major news was missed by breaking from the "news conference"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 03:10:04 pm

Then show the proof.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 03:13:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 03:10:04 pm

Then show the proof.

Prove that it didn't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 03:15:31 pm

You asserted that it happened.

Show the proof.

Simple....right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 03:26:15 pm

Show that all the news coming out of the Obumma White House is the truth. You cant

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 03:30:53 pm

otto, check out the history of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  It really is not my responsibility to teach you all of the history you never learned in school.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 03:44:17 pm

That is the proof?

Why would you think that is the proof?


 Try again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 03:49:36 pm

As I have pointed out many times, otto, proof is merely whatever is required to persuade someone.  You have made clear an even greater number of times that you will deny anything put in front of you.

So why bother?

Point out a couple of times when you have admitted you were wrong, and it might be worth the effort, until then, study history yourself instead of asking me to serve as your tutor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 02, 2014, 04:24:17 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 01:53:17 pm

POINT-one-percent for the first quarter.  A big .1%.  WooHoo!

Factor in population growth and that is an actual contraction.  Can't beat economic news like that.


So how did today's economic news hit the lunatic fringe?

You don't know your own reaction?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 02, 2014, 05:08:17 pm

The racists from that Liberal utopia  Boston have spoken.....

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/bruins-issue-statement-condemning-racism-towards-p-k--subban-after-game-1-164933596.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 05:27:57 pm

Agreed. Absurd.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 02, 2014, 06:23:22 pm

 
 
 
      "Let me explain how this system works," Dimon writes.
 
 "Politicians protect us from competition and criminal prosecution,
 
    and in return we give them money to use in their campaigns.
 
 
                 NOW GET BACK TO WORK **** !!!
 
 The best thing about really great music is that when its really recorded dirty ...
 
 you still get it.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKT0Kz5VGhw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKT0Kz5VGhw)
 
 DICK CLARK !!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 06:49:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 02, 2014, 01:53:17 pm

So how did today's economic news hit the lunatic fringe?

You mean this news?

92,594,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Hits All-Time Record; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low
May 2, 2014 - 8:43 AM
(CNSNews.com) - A record 92,594,000 Americans were not in the labor force in April as the labor force participation rate matched a 36-year low of 62.8 percent, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Pretty bad, though those still worshiping Obama likely somehow view it to be a positive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 07:04:44 pm

That means 37.2 % of the American people are supporting the other 62.8%. Oddo ought to be proud of that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 07:10:07 pm

http://personalliberty.com/mass-flight-u-s-labor-force-drives-april-unemployment/


Mass Flight From U.S. Labor Force Drives Down April Unemployment


May 2, 2014 by Ben Bullard 
 
 
The U.S. labor force benefited from the creation of 288,000 jobs last month, the highest number since the start of 2012, and the National rate of unemployment concurrently fell from 6.7 percent in March to 6.3 percent.

You can see how Bloomberg and the Associated Press reported the good news here and here.

Read far enough into those stories – and it will take you a while – and you’ll eventually encounter the lede: The number of people participating in the U.S. labor force in April shrank by a staggering 800,000. As you know, people who aren’t looking for work aren’t counted in the BLS’ calculation of the unemployment rate. Yet the number of people who have bowed out of the American labor force now stands at 92 million.

That’s nearly one-third of the population of the entire country – and roughly 38 percent of the 241 million residents over the age of 18.

With 38 percent of American adults not even trying to find work, what difference does a 6.3 percent unemployment rate make? The Obama Administration found the silver lining in the April numbers, noting that the actual rate of job creation is, in fact accelerating – which, so far as it goes, is certainly true – and that several economic sectors saw an uptick in hiring during April (also true).

But the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers also reveal that hourly earnings did not increase – an indicator that much of that growth is still coming in the form of low-wage, low-skill jobs (so much for closing that pernicious wealth gap, Obama).

And, stepping back, the labor economy in the U.S. reflects an ongoing anemic “recovery” trend – one that hasn’t seen growth commensurate with periods of economic growth through the last two decades of the 20th Century – often cited as a benchmark by which present economic growth is measured.

“Unfortunately, the effects of currency manipulation on the U.S. economy – along with self-imposed restraints on oil and gas development and the manifest inefficiencies imposed by dysfunctional management and profiteering in health care, higher education, and finance – have lowered U.S. annual growth to 1.7 percent since the turn of the century from the 3.4 percent pace accomplished during the Reagan-Clinton era,” wrote Peter Morici for Breitbart today.

“Consequently, jobs creation lags population growth. The unemployment rate, which fell to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent the prior month, wholly masks the extent of the problem. The percentage of adults seeking employment dropped precipitously. One out of six men between the ages of 25 and 54 are without jobs, and many have given up looking for work and are not counted in the jobless rate.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 07:13:53 pm

Why would you look for work when it pays more to "lay up"? All that's available out there is part time jobs thanks to Obummacare.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 02, 2014, 07:28:00 pm

 
 A system of goverment united against itself leaving over 300 million
 
 AMERICANS in the lurch.
 
 You want these motherfuckers voted back in ?
 
 You gotta be **** kidding me.
 
 MEANWHILE  ... LETS WATCH FOOBAWH !!
 
 It eases the pain of reality. And gives us hope vicarious ... lousy.
 
 You'll buy into it  ... you'll buy into anything I say.
 
 I AM THE MEDIA ... and you will obey.
 
 Thats just the kind of swingin dick JJ is.
 
 I can program ANY media outlet to twist your gears ...
 
 would you like FOX or MSNBC ?
 
 I can arrange that ... so long as you are supple and believe.
 
 And you are.
 
 But only one of us is going to get rich off of social engineering and playing the suckers to buy me a yacht ...
 
 and its you. Thank you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 07:45:41 pm

Jes, I sent you a message above. The problem I see is the legislature is concervative and the Governor is liberal and he might not sign it. There has been talk of impeaching the governor. but its an interesting read and concept I would like other states to adopt. I can imagine Holder using his power to stop it. If enacted I would expect it to end up in the Supreme Court

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 07:54:18 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 07:04:44 pm

That means 37.2 % of the American people are supporting the other 62.8%. Oddo ought to be proud of that.

You might want to look at your math again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 08:01:22 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 07:45:41 pm

Jes, I sent you a message above. The problem I see is the legislature is concervative and the Governor is liberal and he might not sign it. There has been talk of impeaching the governor. but its an interesting read and concept I would like other states to adopt. I can imagine Holder using his power to stop it. If enacted I would expect it to end up in the Supreme Court

You asked in your message to me what I think of the attempt addressed at this link:  http://personalliberty.com/missouri-legislature-nears-approval-nullification-bill-limit-federal-gun-control/

What I think is that the legislation amounts to political grandstanding of virtually no significance whatsoever.  By its wording the effect of the bill would pretty much be limited to guns manufactured in Missouri, and sold and used only in Missouri and never crossing state lines.  Guns moved in interstate commerce would still very clearly be subject to Congressional regulation (subject to the 2nd Amendment, of course).

So it is a bill which allows conservative state lawmakers to beat their chests and sound tough.... when in fact they are doing nothing.

As to Holder "using his power to stop it," it is unlikely any legal challenge would be resolved before Holder is out of office, meaning he won't be much of a factor one way or another.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 02, 2014, 08:56:00 pm

 
 I wonder what new island I should buy from the labor of my minions?
 
 Do you know why I have them and you dont ?
 
 Because I steal your money and I can get away with it.
 
 Theres nothing you can do about it ... you can vote ...
 
 but I control your thinking ... so you vote for my interests.
 
 I OWN YOU. NOW GET BACK TO WORK **** !!

 Hey heres a little somthing to keep you from asking for a raise ...
 
 A CREDIT CARD !!
 
 Now you can charge for the raise you never got ...
 
 and the interest payments come back to ..............................
 
 ME!
 
 Im going to **** you as many ways as I can as long as you put up with it.
 
 Believe me you'll put up with a lotta ways of being ****.
 
 Student motherfucking loans babes ... was that genius or WHAT ?
 
 Now I own your kids before they graduate.
 
 The PURE GENIUS of JJ ...
 
 is that you let JJ get away with **** you over.
 
 And your kids.
 
 And you ask for more.
 
 REMEMBER : You live in a Democratic Republic :
 
  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !! *
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * Which may at some future venue may be merged with Viacom Time Warner Google Comcast Facebook Apple.*
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * A wholey owned subsiduary of Exxon-Mobil/ Kraft Foods/Cattepiller.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 02, 2014, 09:36:58 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/01/internal-emails-reveal-epa-worked-in-secret-to-get-pebble-mine-project-killed/

We are seeing this over and over yet every time it is just some low level government employee killing these major deals.  Perhaps government has gotten to large and powerful if a simple government peon has this much power...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 02, 2014, 10:13:33 pm

Unfortunately, Jes is right.  A state law that nullifies a federal law is meaningless, unless, of course, that state is willing to go into armed rebellion against the Federal Government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2014, 10:26:42 pm

Quote from: davep on May 02, 2014, 10:13:33 pm

Unfortunately, Jes is right.  A state law that nullifies a federal law is meaningless, unless, of course, that state is willing to go into armed rebellion against the Federal Government.

It depends a bit on the law, but the legislation at issue made clear it would only apply to guns manufactured and sold within Missouri... which is probably to say none of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2014, 11:12:34 pm

But it will also allow Missouri residents to buy any guns within the state and not have to file Federal forms and gun registration. That would hamper confiscation if it ever came to that. The state could also solicit gun manufactures to move operations to Missouri, which would also make for an interesting situation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 08:21:16 am

An ad I just heard on TV leads me to ask a very simple question: Is it acceptable for a business or discriminate against consumers or possible consumers based solely on the religion of the consumer?  I am not asking so much about whether it is legal or illegal, or even whether it SHOULD be legal or illegal, but instead whether it to you personally is acceptable.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 08:37:55 am

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-30/17-facts-show-anyone-still-believes-us-economy-just-fine

17 Facts To Show To Anyone That Still Believes That The U.S. Economy Is Just Fine
#1 The homeownership rate in the United States has dropped to the lowest level in 19 years.

#2 Consumer spending for durable goods has dropped by 3.23 percent since November.  This is a clear sign that an economic slowdown is ahead.

#3 Major retailers are closing stores at the fastest pace that we have seen since the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

#4 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20 percent of all families in the United States do not have a single member that is employed.  That means that one out of every five families in the entire country is completely unemployed.

#5 There are 1.3 million fewer jobs in the U.S. economy than when the last recession began in December 2007.  Meanwhile, our population has continued to grow steadily since that time.

#6 According to a new report from the National Employment Law Project, the quality of the jobs that have been "created" since the end of the last recession does not match the quality of the jobs lost during the last recession...

    Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
    Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
    Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth.

#7 After adjusting for inflation, men who work full-time in America today make less money than men who worked full-time in America 40 years ago.

#8 It is hard to believe, but 62 percent of all Americans make $20 or less an hour at this point.

#9 Nine of the top ten occupations in the U.S. pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year.

#10 The middle class in Canada now makes more money than the middle class in the United States does.

#11 According to one recent study, 40 percent of all Americans could not come up with $2000 right now even if there was a major emergency.

#12 Less than one out of every four Americans has enough money put away to cover six months of expenses if there was a job loss or major emergency.

#13 An astounding 56 percent of all Americans have subprime credit in 2014.

#14 As I wrote about the other day, there are now 49 million Americans that are dealing with food insecurity.

#15 Ten years ago, the number of women in the U.S. that had jobs outnumbered the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin.  But now the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps actually exceeds the number of women that have jobs.

#16 69 percent of the federal budget is spent either on entitlements or on welfare programs.

#17 The number of Americans receiving benefits from the federal government each month exceeds the number of full-time workers in the private sector by more than 60 million.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 08:55:45 am

That will spark a quick denial from Oddo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 09:05:34 am

Not necessarily.

It could still all be Bush's fault, and just show the need for more government action to support and protect the people, additionally, things would be much better if those wascally Wepublicans would just agree with Saint Obama on how to fix things, everything would be wonderful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 09:18:37 am

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/10247236_10152158132857971_7316055638383197864_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 09:41:56 am

NOPE! Of course Oddo would consider it a coincidence

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 03, 2014, 10:24:53 am

Did Squiggy change his name to Rhodes?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 03, 2014, 10:31:08 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 08:21:16 am

An ad I just heard on TV leads me to ask a very simple question: Is it acceptable for a business or discriminate against consumers or possible consumers based solely on the religion of the consumer?  I am not asking so much about whether it is legal or illegal, or even whether it SHOULD be legal or illegal, but instead whether it to you personally is acceptable.

It SHOULD be legally acceptable to for anyone to discriminate against anyone for any reason.

Whether or not it is morally acceptable probably depends upon the circumstances.  For instance, a business that refused to serve blacks would be morally reprehensible to me, and I would deal with it by refusing to do business with it and by trying to convince others to do the same.

I would have no problem with a business that refused to include birth control in it's medical package for religious reasons.  Nor would I have a problem with a business that sold birth control devices at a cut rate to encourage a reduction in world population.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 03, 2014, 11:24:00 am

I've run a business for 31 years, I've never seen things this bad. I've (obviously) gone through previous recessions, none compare to this. For over 3 years I've struggled to make 1/3 of what I previously earned. Actually I'm one of the lucky ones, I was still doing well up to about 2010. People like myself make this economy run, and right now, we're broke. We need leadership in this country, we have none. I guess Obama is getting his wish for economic equality. He wants everyone to be broke and beholden to the government..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 03, 2014, 11:35:49 am

Another problem, new federal guidelines and regs in regards to Banks loaning money. People that would normally have no problem borrowing, are now having to jump through ridiculous hoops.

This is what you get when you hire a community organizer to run the country..

On another note.. What do we hope for, the Republicans take over? That doesn't make me feel any better..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 11:45:48 am

Quote from: davep on May 03, 2014, 10:31:08 am

I would have no problem with a business that refused to include birth control in it's medical package for religious reasons.  Nor would I have a problem with a business that sold birth control devices at a cut rate to encourage a reduction in world population.

That was not the question.  The question is about a business which would refuse to provide its services to people based on the religious beliefs of the consumer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 11:51:41 am

Are we talking Muslim here?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 11:57:00 am

Quote from: chifaninva on May 03, 2014, 11:24:00 am

We need leadership in this country, we have none. I guess Obama is getting his wish for economic equality.

I disagree.  We actually HAVE leadership.  The problem is not a lack of leadership, but where he is leading.  Eliminate the leadership imposing increased regulations, issuing executive orders creating chaos in the rule of law by fiat decisions on what laws will or will not be enforced, and getting Congress to pass ObamaCare and a "stimulus plan" which only stimulated the Democratic party, and the economy would be doing much, much better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 11:58:22 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 11:51:41 am

Are we talking Muslim here?

Does it make any difference whatsoever?

If you can not come up with neutral principles for your position, you don't have much of a position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 12:08:14 pm

Beings the tone of your reply I take it the answer to my question is yes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 12:10:42 pm

Beings the tone of your stupidity, you are wrong.

When I listened to the ad, thought of the question and composed it, neither Islam the religion, nor Moslems, the adherents of that faith, came to mind at all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 12:15:53 pm

My reply would then be that it depended on the situation, and not knowing the situation, I couldn't give an adequate answer to the situation involved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 03, 2014, 12:43:25 pm

I answered that question.  Anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.  If someone refused to provide service to a person because that person was a baptist or muslim, they should have the legal right to do so.

I, personally, would retaliate by refusing to give them my business, regardless of the religious beliefs being discriminated against.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 03:35:44 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Trey-Gowdy-Benghazi-select-committee/2014/05/02/id/569258/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1567727_05032014&promo_code=8on8czmo


Rep. Gowdy: 'I Have Evidence' of Benghazi Cover-Up

Friday, 02 May 2014 09:04 PM

By Todd Beamon

Rep. Trey Gowdy said Friday that he has evidence of a "systematic, intentional" effort by the Obama administration to withhold documents from Congress about the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans.

 "I have evidence that, not only are they hiding it, there's an intent to hide it," the South Carolina Republican told "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren" on Fox News. "I can't disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress — and we're just sick of it."

 House Speaker John Boehner is considering Gowdy to head a select committee to investigate the Libyan attacks on Sept. 11, 2012, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, including two former Navy SEALs.

 The speaker said Friday that the House would vote on a resolution to establish the panel next week.

 Gowdy, 49, a former prosecutor who is in his second House term, made the accusations in response to a question on Secretary of State John Kerry being subpoenaed — also on Friday — by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 The panel, chaired by California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, wants Kerry to explain why the panel did not receive a 2012 email showing Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes counseling former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to link the Benghazi attacks to an anti-Muslim video.

 The email, released Tuesday by Judicial Watch, was not among the documents the oversight panel received in response to its subpoena last year. The committee received the document this week.

 Judicial Watch sued the State Department for documents relating to Benghazi last year.

 Shortly after Kerry took over the top State Department job last year, he pledged to cooperate with congressional investigations of the attacks, which also killed information management officer Sean Smith, and former SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

 "He said a year ago, with respect to Benghazi, 'If you have any trouble getting information, let me know,'" Gowdy told Van Susteren about Kerry. "Well, Mr. Secretary, we're going to let you know that we're not getting the information. We're going to get him to come and explain why we're getting documents 20 months late."

 Gowdy cited the Rhodes email as the "straw that broke the camel's back" in leading Boehner to move for the select committee.

 "Not only are we trying to get answers with respect to Benghazi, we're also now investigating what appears to be a White House cover-up in one of the worst explanations for why they didn't turn the documents over. I think the speaker just finally lost his patience. I'm glad he did what he did."

 The congressman said that a select committee would "cross jurisdictional boundaries." Besides the oversight panel, the Benghazi attacks are being investigated by four other House committees: armed services, intelligence, foreign affairs, and judiciary.

 "We were so pigeonholed, so fragmented," said Gowdy, who sits on the judiciary and oversight panels. "You just need one committee that can send subpoenas.

 "Our chairmen have done the best job they can do, but you have a tendency to stick within your own bailiwick — and we need somebody to cross all lines," he added. "We need to have those lines disappear, quite frankly."

 While Boehner will make the final decision on who will serve on the select panel, Gowdy said he would "volunteer to be a summer intern" to serve in order to keep his promise to the families of the victims "that I would get them the truth.

 "The speaker will decide whether he thinks an old, washed-up prosecutor from South Carolina is good or not, but I'm going to help the committee — regardless of whatever position, if any, I have."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 03:39:33 pm

So the White House doesn't lie eh Oddo? No coverup? Just Republican politics huh? We'll see. I think the buck stops at the President's desk.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 05:11:21 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 12:15:53 pm

My reply would then be that it depended on the situation, and not knowing the situation, I couldn't give an adequate answer to the situation involved.

When you apply neutral principles, the situation really shouldn't matter.

Let me toss a few out for you.

It it acceptable for a restaurant to discriminate against customers based on religion?

A movie theater?

A lunch counter?

A pool or golf club?

An apartment complex?

An employer?

Again, this is not about whether it should or shouldn't be legal, but instead whether it to you personally is acceptable.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 06:04:58 pm

I have had a credit union discriminate against me. They said I had to be a member of a particular religious church to join. It just happens.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2014, 07:55:37 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 03, 2014, 06:04:58 pm

I have had a credit union discriminate against me. They said I had to be a member of a particular religious church to join. It just happens.

The question isn't whether it happens, but whether you find it personally acceptable.

****, murder, and lynchings also happen, but I assume you do not find it acceptable just because it happens.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 03, 2014, 08:30:19 pm

Anyone doing most of those things are stupid, and I have a low tolerance for stupid people.  But people have the right to do stupid things.

Also, if someone wanted to open a business only for their particular religion, I would look less unfavorably on that than if someone opened a business that served every religion other than (muslim, baptist, you name it).  I have no problem with a country club that only accepts Catholics, but would have a problem with a club that accepts every religion other than (jews, muslims, whatever).

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 03, 2014, 08:44:22 pm

There are Mutual groups that have activities and benefits only for members of a   certain religious group.  The government polices those groups to ascertain that  the groups are strictly following the rules.  The group obtains tax benefits for following those regulations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 01:58:04 am

Quote from: chifaninva on May 03, 2014, 11:24:00 am

I've run a business for 31 years, I've never seen things this bad. I've (obviously) gone through previous recessions, none compare to this. For over 3 years I've struggled to make 1/3 of what I previously earned. Actually I'm one of the lucky ones, I was still doing well up to about 2010. People like myself make this economy run, and right now, we're broke. We need leadership in this country, we have none. I guess Obama is getting his wish for economic equality. He wants everyone to be broke and beholden to the government..

 I hear ya Bro. The same clowns behind the scences in the Bush administration are the same clowns in the Obama administration.
 
 Citizens actually think somthing changes other then the political affiliation when one party takes over from the other party as titular head.
 
 Its the same head.
 
 Other people have it as hard as you Bro ... I hope this helps :
 
 JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon got a 74% pay hike for last year, even though the bank was forced to pay billions in fines and settlements last year.  In a government filing Friday, JPMorgan Chase (JPM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=JPM&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/2608.html?iid=EL)) said Dimon would receive $18.5 million worth of restricted stock that will vest over the next three years as his 2013 bonus. That's up from a $10 million bonus for 2012. His $1.5 million base salary remains unchanged.
      The bank said its board considered "several key factors." Among them:
 
 JPMorgan's "sustained long-term performance" and its efforts to put its legal problems behind it.
 
 Dimon, CEO and chairman, had his total 2012 pay slashed (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/16/investing/jpmorgan-earnings/?iid=EL) by about half to $11.5 million after JPMorgan suffered estimated trading loss of nearly $6 billion during the year attributed to a London trader (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/14/investing/jpmorgan-senate/index.html?iid=EL) known as the London Whale.
 
 During 2013 the bank agreed to pay $1 billion in fines to U.S. and UK regulators for lack of proper oversight (http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/19/investing/jpmorgan-london-whale-fine/?iid=EL) of its traders related to that loss.
 
 But that was only a fraction the fines and legal expenses the bank shelled out during the year for a variety of transgressions.
 
 SNL Financial estimates that total payouts by the bank came to $18.6 billion for 2013 alone, as well as more than $1 billion in attorney costs during the year.
 
 Provisions for those payments forced the bank to report a loss (http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/11/investing/jpmorgan-earnings/?iid=EL) in the third quarter, the first of Dimon's tenure as CEO.
 
 For the full year, the bank reported net income of $17.9 billion, down 16% from the previous year. But shares increased 33% during the year.
 
 Dimon had been the top paid bank CEO (http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/20/news/companies/bank-ceo-pay/?iid=EL) in 2011 before the problems of the last two years.
 
 The decision to raise his pay was first reported by the New York Times ahead of the filing.
 
 _________________________________________________________
 
 
 The financial world took a jolt early Tuesday morning when the nation's biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase, announced plans to eliminate roughly 8,000 jobs in consumer and community banking as demand for refinancings drop.
 
 JPMorgan said in an Investor Day presentation Tuesday that it would also add about 3,000 jobs across the company this year in areas such as compliance.
 
 Overall, the bank's headcount is expected to fall by 5,000 in 2014 to about 260,000, including employees and contractors.
 
 In his prepared presentation, Gordon Smith, CEO of the bank's Consumer & Community Banking division, says the bank is targeting 2,000 job cuts in 2014 in credit card services and bank networks.
 
 And to save an additional $2 billion this year, another 6,000 jobs cuts are planned in JP Morgan's mortgage banking unit, or home loan unit.
 
 Job reductions over the past several years at JPMorgan have been massive, even in a recovering economy.
 
 In 2011, the bank's headcount was 280,000, the company revealed in the presentation.
 
 But JPMorgan is not the only financial giant thinning its workforce. Rivals Bank of America and Wells Fargo also have cut back payrolls over the past few years.
 
 The real culprit: rising interest rates are nixing the flood of refinancings that helped to bolster bank profits.
 
 __________________________________________________________
 
 
 BULLSHIT !! Jamie **** up and the workers are getting greased to cover his ass. But that never happens in AMERICA. Nyuk !
 
 In any SANE society Jamie Dimon would have been thrown in JAIL.
 
 His **** dont stink ... however yours does.
 
 Just be late on a CREDIT CARD payment because of this economy.
 
 Hang tuff Chi.
   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 04, 2014, 02:12:24 am

That is true.  The tea party candidates are supposed to be different but the old school Republicans hate them.  Why?  Because the old Republicans are no different then Democrats.

We need new candidates that are not entrenched in the corruption in Washington.

We need conservatives.  Which by the way are actually quite liberal in the truest sense of the word.  The Democrat socialist/communists just stole it.  When their actions poisoned it they then switched to progressives.

They can call themselves whatever they want but what they want is total government control over everything and everybody.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2014, 05:58:29 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 04, 2014, 02:12:24 am

We need conservatives.  Which by the way are actually quite liberal in the truest sense of the word.

How?  Give me an eytmology of the word, running thru what it originally meant, and just how that squares up with what you consider conservatisim today to be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2014, 10:52:36 am

Will I Am of the Black Eyed Peas is on Meet the Press right now as one of their "round-table" panelists.  And I am closely paying attention to him and his comments.

Damn is that guy ignorant.

I don't follow his music enough to identify a single song of his.  He may be a remarkably gifted, talented, incisive artist.  I don't know about that, but as a social observer, as someone commenting on politics, government and the economy, the things that get discussed on Meet the Press, he knows nothing more than I would expect from a slightly slow 8th grader... who thinks he is smart.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2014, 11:14:14 am

Morgan Chase was one of the few large banks that did not come close to bankruptcy in the 2008 crash, and they tried to refuse the government bailout, but were forced by the Federal Reserve to take the loans in order to keep Bank America and Citibank from looking bad, and to make the government look as if they are solving the problems for the entire financial system.

At the time, Morgan Chase stock was about 15 dollars per share.  Under Dimon, it was recently 60 dollars per share.  He deserves anything they pay him.

Over the past century, Morgan Chase and it's predecessors ran their banks strongly and safely, and during hard times have taken over hundreds of poorly run banks, preventing financial ruin for depositors of these banks.

When millions of people started refinancing their homes, Morgan Chase hired thousands of new workers to handle the increased workload.  Now that workload has gone away.  Should Morgan Chase continue to pay those workers to sit around and do nothing?  You confuse them with the Federal Government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 04, 2014, 11:14:15 am

The only thing that will save us is term limits and no extravagant pensions for congress. Time to get back to how the founders intended it. Citizens serve for a few years and then go back to private life. Sadly, that's about as likely to happen as Otto disagreeing with any position taken by democrats.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 04, 2014, 12:07:26 pm

The Black Eyed Peas are a bunch of talentless hacks.  The only talent in the group is Fergie.  The rest of them just strut around stage and talk while she sings or looks pretty.

They never would have made it if it were not for her.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2014, 02:28:27 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 04, 2014, 11:14:15 am

The only thing that will save us is term limits and no extravagant pensions for congress.

Neither term limits nor eliminating pensions will change outcomes.  California has term limits, and what has happened there is not something which should instill any confidence in the approach.  And eliminate pensions entirely and you will simply attract people who can afford to work for years without a pension, which is a great way to assure that folks like the Kennedy clan become even more common in Congress.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 04, 2014, 03:57:13 pm

California has term limits?? They've still got Pelosi and a entire mess of liberals ruining that State!! We need real term limits, like Keys said, badly. We've got so many entrenched, corrupted ,bought out pols there needs to be a complete clean out! Granted the morons that brought Pelosi to power would probably elect the next knucklehead in line but at least they can't keep the same knucklehead. There should be a law also to limit the amount of campaigning these idiots do. Seems they no sooner get in office then they're out campaigning again and not doing the business of the people. And Reps that put lame crap ahead of important tasks like budget balancing should be fired straight out. Like some idiot worrying about what baseball is doing rather than how his people will find work and get jobs. Anyone that puts a stupid bill like that out should be kicked straight out the frigging door.....tired of their ineptitude....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2014, 05:03:46 pm

Sportster, Pelosi is in Congress.  She is not in California government.  But before you continue spouting off about something when you clearly know so little about it, why don't you do a bit of research on just how well term limits have worked in California.  They have been a disaster.  The spending and the growth of state government have not only gotten bigger, the growth has accelerated.

The problem is far less in the lawmakers than in the poorly informed voters who send them to office and then make demands on them which when put into law cause the problems.  You seem to forget that voters elected Obama and the folks who passed ObamaCare not just knowing they wanted to nationalizw health care, but in part BECAUSE they wanted to nationalize health care.  And when I am pointing the finger at poorly informed voters, that would include anyone thinking Pelosi would be covered by a California term limit law, or thinking they could ban re-election campaigning without trashing the First Amendment... or thinking speculators control the price of gasoline.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 06:12:48 pm

Quote from: davep on May 04, 2014, 11:14:14 am

Morgan Chase was one of the few large banks that did not come close to bankruptcy in the 2008 crash, and they tried to refuse the government bailout, but were forced by the Federal Reserve to take the loans in order to keep Bank America and Citibank from looking bad, and to make the government look as if they are solving the problems for the entire financial system.

At the time, Morgan Chase stock was about 15 dollars per share.  Under Dimon, it was recently 60 dollars per share.  He deserves anything they pay him.

Over the past century, Morgan Chase and it's predecessors ran their banks strongly and safely, and during hard times have taken over hundreds of poorly run banks, preventing financial ruin for depositors of these banks.

When millions of people started refinancing their homes, Morgan Chase hired thousands of new workers to handle the increased workload.  Now that workload has gone away.  Should Morgan Chase continue to pay those workers to sit around and do nothing?  You confuse them with the Federal Government.

 Dave if I was the head muckity muck at a bank that got over 18 BIL.
 
 in fines in one year would you give me a raise?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2014, 06:21:01 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 06:12:48 pm

 Dave if I was the head muckity muck at a bank that got over 18 BIL.
 
 in fines in one year would you give me a raise?

Before answering, in your hypothetical, did the stock value still increase by a factor of four?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2014, 06:22:22 pm

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10322543_10152123157564072_6259858388499716032_n.jpg)

I'll let otto tell us what is factually wrong about that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2014, 06:57:36 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 06:12:48 pm

 Dave if I was the head muckity muck at a bank that got over 18 BIL.
 
 in fines in one year would you give me a raise?

If the stock value went from 15 dollars per share to 60 dollars per share, I certainly would, especially if that 18 billion was less than one year's earnings.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 04, 2014, 06:58:11 pm

Now that's funny... In an odd kinda way..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 08:00:45 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 04, 2014, 06:58:11 pm

Now that's funny... In an odd kinda way..

 I swear to god its true ...its how some people think that can see no wrong when it comes to making money.
 
 If all of GM moves to Mexico and it pays out for the investers ...
 
 then so be it.
 
 Its a weird kind of I want mine and I dont care about this nation
 
 mentality , it follows a certain age group.
 
 Who got theirs and dont care about who follows them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2014, 09:14:13 pm

I care greatly about my nation, which is why I do not want to see it turn into a welfare state.  I greatly regret the attitude that has grown among our people that for some reason the our government or our businesses OWE us a living.

Our country became great because our citizens were allowed, and required, to make what they wanted to with themselves.  Citizens helped each other, and the government got out of the way.

I served 12 years in the Air Force.  When the Viet Nam war ended, they no longer needed as many airmen as before, so they let me go. 

Should they have continued to pay me in spite of my no longer being needed or useful?

I got another job and thrived.  Eventually, bad times hit, and the company that formerly needed my services no longer needed them, and let me go.  Should they have continued to pay me in spite of my no longer being needed or useful?

I had enough foresight to put enough money away for just such an emergency, and found another job which paid me extremely well.  I saved for my retirement, and when bad times hit again, and was no longer needed, I was able to retire in reasonable comfort.

Nobody owed me a living, either then or now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 09:20:46 pm

 
 
 Oil is plentiful and demand for gasoline continues to decline as American drivers move to more efficient cars and trucks. So why haven't gas prices come down?
 
 Pump price watchers say this year's seasonal run-up has likely run its course — for now. The national average price is at or near its peak for this spring, according to AAA, which expects prices to remain cheaper than last year's national high of $3.79 per gallon.
 
 But as refiners continue to see strong demand for gasoline exports, don't look for big savings on the cost of filling up your tank any time soon.
 
 Since the 2008 financial collapse sent gas prices tumbling, the cost of fuel has bounced back and settled into a range of between $3.25 and $4 a gallon in most of the country.
 
 Prices typically rise this time of year as refiners draw down winter supplies and begin building inventories of the blends of reformulated gas required in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
 
 In the past, any bottlenecks in production of those reformulated summer supplies — which account for about 30 percent of gas sold in summer months — could send prices spiking. So far this year, the transition has gone relatively smoothly, which means prices should soon begin falling again.
 
 "You'll be paying less on the first day of summer than you are this weekend," Tom Kloza, chief analyst at GasBuddy.com (http://gasbuddy.com/), told CNBC. "And maybe less by Memorial Day."
 
 Kloza is also expecting an easing of recent upward financial price pressure from investors who have been betting on higher prices. As supplies build, those bets should unwind, he said.
 
 Falling ethanol prices should also help. Ethanol accounts for about 10 percent of the total volume of blended gasoline.
 
 Kloza figures the temporary spike in cost of ethanol — which has since eased — added between 5 cents and 12 cents a gallon prices to the price at the pump.
 
 And crude oil remains relatively cheap and plentiful, especially for Gulf coast refiners.
 
 Last month, inventories hit a record 207 million barrels, according to the Energy Information Administration.
 
 The glut resulted from continued increases in U.S. crude production, which is now flowing in greater volume to the Gulf through the southern portion of the Keystone pipeline, which opened earlier this year.
 
 Refiners also have been using less crude as they've slowed production to run through their annual maintenance drills.
 
 Those refiners are also seeing U.S. demand for gasoline continue a gradual decline, after peaking in 2007.
 
 While gasoline consumption continues to rise during summer driving season and fall during the winter, several forces continue to drive the long-term trend to falling demand for gasoline, according to Kloza.
 
 "You don't have the millennials and young people driving anymore," he said. "You've got an aging demographic that's driving less. And the average car is 11.4 years old.
 
 When you turn that over, you get a lot better mileage."
 
 That drop in demand might be expected to bring lower prices. But to make up the shortfall, refiners have found robust demand in Mexico and Latin America, where refining capacity hasn't kept up with growing consumption.
 
 Though the U.S. bans exports of crude oil, gasoline and diesel exports are about 25 percent higher than last year, according to the EIA.
 
 Those exports are expected to keep gasoline inventories relatively tight, which would keep prices from falling below roughly $3.25 a gallon, the low point for the past few years.
 
 Tight inventories could also increase the risk of a price hike later this year, according to Kloza.
 
 "In the third quarter you might see a surprise spike tied to hurricanes," he said. "So if you get some damage or some shutdowns in the Gulf of Mexico that could have really interesting consequences."
 
 _________________________________________________________
 
 No one would ever lie to us in order to make a buck ...
 
 thats the AMERICAN way ! Right ?
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 04, 2014, 09:26:07 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 04, 2014, 05:58:29 am

How?  Give me an eytmology of the word, running thru what it originally meant, and just how that squares up with what you consider conservatisim today to be.

Liberal: of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

When I speak of true conservatives I see them as advocating following the constitution as written.  Our constitution was in part written to keep government from becoming to powerful.  When government becomes to powerful and over reaching the individuals rights and liberties get taken away.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2014, 09:27:05 pm

Gasoline is expensive because our Federal Government has deliberately restricted the supply of gasoline, to satisfy the lunatic fringe left, who have managed to convince people first, that it is harmful, and second, that it is in short supply. 

The world is swimming in oil which we can not extract, and prices go up.

You seem to blame the only guys that are trying to bring more oil to the public.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 10:06:33 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 09:20:46 pm

 
 Oil is plentiful and demand for gasoline continues to decline as American drivers move to more efficient cars and trucks. So why haven't gas prices come down?
 
 But as refiners continue to see strong demand for gasoline exports, don't look for big savings on the cost of filling up your tank any time soon.
 
 Kloza is also expecting an easing of recent upward financial price pressure from investors who have been betting on higher prices. As supplies build, those bets should unwind, he said. 
 
 And crude oil remains relatively cheap and plentiful, especially for Gulf coast refiners.
 
 Last month, inventories hit a record 207 million barrels, according to the Energy Information Administration.
 
 The glut resulted from continued increases in U.S. crude production, which is now flowing in greater volume to the Gulf through the southern portion of the Keystone pipeline, which opened earlier this year.    
 
 That drop in demand might be expected to bring lower prices. But to make up the shortfall, refiners have found robust demand in Mexico and Latin America, where refining capacity hasn't kept up with growing consumption.
 
 Though the U.S. bans exports of crude oil, gasoline and diesel exports are about 25 percent higher than last year, according to the EIA.

 Those exports are expected to keep gasoline inventories relatively tight, which would keep prices from falling below roughly $3.25 a gallon, the low point for the past few years.
 
 Tight inventories could also increase the risk of a price hike later this year, according to Kloza.
 

 Hey Dave I cleaned out my above post so it is easier to understand.
 
 And ... there ARE no speculators in petroleum not now and nor will there ever be.
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2014, 10:11:59 pm

There are speculators in every market.  What is your point?  If we were drilling for the surplus of oil within our borders, prices would be declining, and speculators would be driving futures prices downwards.

You are like the little kid that believes the wizard when he says "don't look at the man behind the screen".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2014, 10:27:26 pm

 Hey Dave Im going to clean out my above  ....  above post for you again.
__________________________________________________________
 Though the U.S. bans exports of crude oil, gasoline and diesel exports are about 25 percent higher than last year, according to the EIA.

Those exports are expected to keep gasoline inventories relatively tight, which would keep prices from falling below roughly $3.25 a gallon, the low point for the past few years.
 
__________________________________________________________
 
 
 Let me know what part of that you didnt understand and I will repost it for you.  ;)   

 
 
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2014, 11:08:16 pm

The part I don't understand is how you can ignore the source of the problem.  The deliberate actions on the part of the Federal Government to keep prices high by restricting production.

You aren't a stupid person, and you don't seem high right now, so it should be something you can grasp.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2014, 03:13:42 am

Quote from: davep on May 04, 2014, 09:27:05 pm

Gasoline is expensive because our Federal Government has deliberately restricted the supply of gasoline, to satisfy the lunatic fringe left, who have managed to convince people first, that it is harmful, and second, that it is in short supply. 

The world is swimming in oil which we can not extract, and prices go up.

You seem to blame the only guys that are trying to bring more oil to the public.

Prices have also gone up because of general inflation, which is a result of the Federal Reserve increasing the money supply, and the Fed has been doing that in large part order to support deficit spending.

If you look at the price of gasoline, it is about the same today as it was 30 years ago, once you adjust for inflation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2014, 03:22:29 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 04, 2014, 09:26:07 pm

Liberal: of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

When I speak of true conservatives I see them as advocating following the constitution as written.  Our constitution was in part written to keep government from becoming to powerful.  When government becomes to powerful and over reaching the individuals rights and liberties get taken away.

Whether I agree with what I hi-lighted or not, that is a hard argument to make to those who focus on slavery, and the fact that it was only ended as a result of a federal government which became far more powerful than it had ever been before, or who focus on the state Jim Crow laws which were only ended as a result of a federal government which, as a result of killing Jim Crow, once again became far more powerful than it had ever been before.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 05, 2014, 12:37:31 pm

Quote

When I speak of true conservatives I see them as advocating following the constitution as written.  Our constitution was in part written to keep government from becoming to powerful

This from the party of corporations are people and money equals speech. Additionally, its the party that sees all policy as military conflict. Eisenhower first warned about the military industrial complex that you whole heartily support as a more powerful govmit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 05, 2014, 01:52:06 pm

davepbart


Really, the govmit controls all, sees all, and dictates all?

Has your olde mind lost its ability to think? Government regulation allows our society to function, to prosper and thrive.

In regard to the oil industry, regulation is what makes our gasoline and diesel fuels (lower sulfur contents) preferred over less regulated lower quality offering by other nations such as Mexico. JJ rightly points out that our price per gallon is NOT because we have more tar sands and fracked oil, but that international demand is driving our domestic producers sell them more over our domestic needs is lost on you.

Why do you miss that?

Are you such a fool as not to research your idiot points of view?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 05, 2014, 02:16:53 pm

Again with the Nazi analogies?

A Tennessee state senator thinks it’s unwise for the Obama administration to brag about how many Americans have signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, likening it to the Nazis touting how many Jews were shipped off to concentration camps.

State Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Tenn.) made the comment on his personal blog Monday morning in a post called, “Thought of the day”:

“Democrats bragging about the number of mandatory sign ups for Obamacare is like Germans bragging about the number of mandatiry [sic] sign ups for ‘train rides’ for Jews in the 40s.”


Let's see, Hitler was going to kill them....the PPACA is going to give them healthcare.

Just how much of a moron can you be?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 05, 2014, 03:16:38 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 05, 2014, 01:52:06 pm

davepbart


Really, the govmit controls all, sees all, and dictates all?

Has your olde mind lost its ability to think? Government regulation allows our society to function, to prosper and thrive.

In regard to the oil industry, regulation is what makes our gasoline and diesel fuels (lower sulfur contents) preferred over less regulated lower quality offering by other nations such as Mexico. JJ rightly points out that our price per gallon is NOT because we have more tar sands and fracked oil, but that international demand is driving our domestic producers sell them more over our domestic needs is lost on you.

Why do you miss that?

Are you such a fool as not to research your idiot points of view?

Learn to read, Oddo.  I didn't say a word about regulation, although that is a major way that they restrict the supply.

It is quite possible to restrict the sulphur content of gasoline without restricting the supply of oil.  The government uses the pretext of regulations for health purposes to restrict the actual supply of oil.  They also use a great number of other tactics, such as preventing oil pipelines, restriction of drilling on public lands, refusing to grant permits for new refineries, and dozens of other methods that drive up the price of gasoline in the hopes that price will discourage usage.

If you are unhappy with the price of gasoline, put the blame where it belongs.  On the Federal Government, not on oil speculators that allow the futures market to work.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2014, 03:46:44 pm

otto's last three posts underscore his ignorance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2014, 04:35:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 05, 2014, 01:52:06 pm

In regard to the oil industry, regulation is what makes our gasoline and diesel fuels (lower sulfur contents) preferred over less regulated lower quality offering by other nations such as Mexico. JJ rightly points out that our price per gallon is NOT because we have more tar sands and fracked oil, but that international demand is driving our domestic producers sell them more over our domestic needs is lost on you.

otto expresses three different ideas in that paragraph, and is apparently so thick that he does not even see the contradictions.

1) Lower sulfur content in oil and gas from the U.S. makes it more desirable to other countries, and therefore more profitable to domestic producers in this country.
2) The only reason U.S. oil companies produce the more profitable oil which is also easier to sell is because of U.S. government regulations forcing them to do so.
3) Those greedy oil companies are out to maximize their profits, without concern for what Americans might need.

So apparently, according to otto, it is a good thing the government regulates their every move and forces them to make a profit, since those dumb oil company execs wouldn't be able to figure out how to do so on their own.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2014, 04:41:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 05, 2014, 12:37:31 pm

This from the party of corporations are people and money equals speech. Additionally, its the party that sees all policy as military conflict. Eisenhower first warned about the military industrial complex that you whole heartily support as a more powerful govmit.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for legal purposes corporations are people long before the Republican party existed.  And it is a legal philosophy central to the idea that corporate income should be taxed (a liberal idea) and that criminal laws should punish corporations (another liberal idea).

As to money equaling speech, that is a position only liberals try to advance.  While money is not speech, if you prevent someone from spending any money on the speech (or ideas) they want to advance, you might as well contend that prohibiting the use of amplifiers or even of the internet is not a restriction on speech.  Each are things which help to disseminate speech or ideas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 05, 2014, 05:45:57 pm

Furthermore, If people have ideas or say things against the way the government is run does that make them wrong? The government wants to control what we think, hear and say. Its like they want us to be robots. Yes sir, no sir and three bags full of manure. The party of free speech and ideas is all about stopping ideas, about controlling speech and controlling every facet of your life

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 05, 2014, 06:41:41 pm

The Democrats are not liberals nor are they progressives.  They are dredging up age old idesa that have been tried and failed numerous times.  They are interested in power and control.

Some of the Republicans are no better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2014, 06:53:29 pm

Pekin, they ARE Progressives.  You need to go back and look at the Progressive movement as it came to the forefront in the late 1800's and early 1900's, look at the leading thinkers of the movement and what they advocated.  Margret Sanger and many other "shining lights" of the period advocated sterilization of those they deemed to be undesirables in order to reduce their number, and they considered blacks, Jews and the poor to be undesirable.  Many of them were socialists.  And all progressives supported expanding the power and scope of government to do whatever it was they in their infinite wisdom thought was best for society.  Liberals today truly merit the mantle.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 05, 2014, 07:05:13 pm

If corporations aren't people, then just who the heck are they?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 05, 2014, 07:24:13 pm

 http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pew-poll-midterm-gop/2014/05/05/id/569443/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1567844_05052014&promo_code=jkqlw8k7


 
USA Today/Pew Poll: GOP Midterm Gains Could Be Largest in Two Decades
 
Monday, 05 May 2014 08:02 AM

By Melanie Batley


Voters currently have so strong a preference for the Republican Party that if midterm elections were held today the results would signal the strongest gains for the GOP in two decades, a new poll has found.

According to the new USA Today/ Pew Research Center Poll conducted April 23-27 of 1,501 people, including 1,162 registered voters, 47 percent said they are inclined to support the Republican candidate over the Democrat in their congressional district in 2014, compared to 43 percent who would choose a Democrat.

 That result is so massive that it suggests 2014 could be a major "wave" election more sweeping than the election of 2010 that saw the tea party movement's rise to dominance.

 "That 4-percentage point edge may seem small, but it's notable because Democrats traditionally fare better among registered voters than they do among those who actually cast ballots, especially in low-turnout midterms," USA Today noted.

 "The friendly landscape, if it holds, could help the GOP bolster its majority in the House and gain the six seats needed to claim control of the Senate."

 The trend over the last six months in the polling data has shown that Democrats have lost ground, Pew said. Specifically, in October, Democrats had a 6-point lead (49 percent to 43 percent) in midterm voting preferences.

 The GOP's lead in the generic congressional ballot is the largest at this point in the midterm cycle for Republicans in the past 20 years, including before the partisan "wave" elections in 1994 and 2010.

 In 1994, when the GOP went on to gain back control of both the House and the Senate, it had a 2-point advantage in the spring of the election year. In 2010, when Republicans would win back the House, the parties were even in their support among voters at this time during the election cycle.

 Voter opinions on a number of key issues appear to be hurting the Democrats, according to the survey, including dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, downbeat views about the economy, skepticism about the Affordable Care Act, and the president's low job approval rating.

 "Perhaps the most disturbing sign for Democrats: By 43 percent to 39 percent, Americans say following the economic policies of Republican congressional leaders would do more to strengthen the economy over the next few years than following the policies of the Obama administration," USA Today said.

 Meanwhile, the survey also found that 65 percent of Americans, compared to 30 percent, say they want the president elected in 2016 to pursue different policies and programs than the Obama administration, rather than similar ones.

 Nevertheless, the survey found that while Democrats face a number of possible disadvantages in the fall, their party's congressional leaders are viewed less negatively than GOP leaders. Just 23 percent of the public approves of the way Republican leaders in Congress are handling their jobs, compared to 68 percent who disapprove.

 For Democratic leaders, 32 percent of those surveyed approve of the job they are doing, compared to 60 percent who disapprove.

 "Despite weak job ratings for Republican leaders, the public is divided over whether their economic policies or Obama's would do more to strengthen the economy over the next few years," Pew said.

 "About four in 10 (43 percent) think Republican leaders' policies would do more for the economy while about the same share (39 percent) says Obama's policies would be more effective."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 05, 2014, 08:04:42 pm

Jes, we arguing semantics.  They take words and make them theirs.  I don't believe it is very progressive to do what they were doing regardless of what they called it.  That has been done for ages.

But point taken.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 06, 2014, 12:16:47 am

Quote from: chifaninva on May 05, 2014, 07:05:13 pm

If corporations aren't people, then just who the heck are they?

 I dunno ... how many corporations have won the Congessional Medal Of Honor?
 
 Are corporations made up of people ? Yes.
 
 The Catholic Church is a person ... goes by the name of Bobby Jimbo to close friends.
 
 Know who else is people? Soylent Green.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 06, 2014, 06:56:04 am

I think Democrats call themselves progressives because of their push for "personal liberty" (moral degradation). They are progressive and liberal on that front.
When it comes to sticking to the constitution and getting away from a large intrusive government and high taxation (like they had in England)  they are neither liberal nor progressive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 06, 2014, 08:12:52 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 06, 2014, 12:16:47 am

 I dunno ... how many corporations have won the Congessional Medal Of Honor?
 
 Are corporations made up of people ? Yes.
 
 The Catholic Church is a person ... goes by the name of Bobby Jimbo to close friends.
 
 Know who else is people? Soylent Green.

Substitute Unions for corportations and you can ask the same questions. What do close friends call SEIU?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2014, 04:30:33 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 06, 2014, 08:12:52 am

Substitute Unions for corportations and you can ask the same questions. What do close friends call SEIU?

You folks miss the obvious.

UNIONS are also corporation.  The are incorporated entities.  So are environmental groups.  So are political parties.  So are newspapers and broadcast enterprises.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2014, 04:32:29 pm

Quote from: navigator on May 06, 2014, 06:56:04 am

I think Democrats call themselves progressives because of their push for "personal liberty" (moral degradation). They are progressive and liberal on that front.

Democrats, and liberals in general, started calling themselves progressives when the term liberal came to be viewed as a dirty word, and wearing it in many areas amounted to political suicide.  So they simply found an older word, meaning much the same thing, and which SOUNDED nice.

Viola!  The present-day progressive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 06, 2014, 06:51:25 pm

 
 
The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) political party. It was formed by former President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Theodore Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt), after a split in the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) between him and President William Howard Taft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft).
The party also became known as the Bull Moose Party after journalists quoted Roosevelt saying "I'm feeling like a bull moose" shortly after the new party was formed.
 
 The main work of the convention was the platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform), which set forth the new party's appeal to the voters. It included a broad range of social and political reforms advocated by progressives.
    The platform's main theme was reversing the domination of politics by business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) interests, which allegedly controlled the Republicans' and Democrats' parties, alike.
 
 The platform asserted that: To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.
 
 To that end, the platform called for
 

• Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_contributions)
• Registration of lobbyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyists)
• Recording and publication of Congressional committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committee) proceedings

 
 In the social sphere the platform called for
 

• A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
• Social insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_insurance), to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
• Limited injunctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunctions) in strikes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action)
• A minimum wage law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law) for women
• An eight hour workday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day)
• A federal securities commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Commission)
• Farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm) relief
• Workers' compensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_compensation) for work-related injuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_injury)
• An inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance) tax
• A Constitutional amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) to allow a Federal income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_income_tax)

  The political reforms proposed included
 

• Women's suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage)
• Direct election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_election) of Senators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate)
• Primary elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election) for state and federal nominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominations)

  The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)", including:
 

• The recall election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election) (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
• The referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum) (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_vote))
• The initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative) (citizens may propose a law by petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition) and enact it by popular vote)
• Judicial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial) recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconstitutional), the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)

  Besides these measures, the platform called for reductions in the tariff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff), limitations on naval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval) armaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armaments) by international agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_agreement) and improvements to inland waterways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_United_States).
 
 The biggest controversy at the convention was over the platform section dealing with trusts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(19th_century)) and monopolies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) such as Standard Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil).
 
 The convention approved a strong "trust-busting" plank, but Roosevelt had it replaced with language that spoke only of "strong National regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law)" and "permanent active [Federal] supervision" of major corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations).
 
 This retreat shocked reformers like Pinchot, who blamed it on Perkins (a director of U.S. Steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Steel)). The result was a deep split in the new party that was never resolved.
 
 In general the platform expressed Roosevelt's "New Nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Nationalism)": a strong government to regulate industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry), protect the middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class) and working classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_classes), and carry on great national projects.
 
 This New Nationalism was paternalistic in direct contrast to Wilson's individualistic philosophy of "New Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Freedom)".
 
 Roosevelt also favored a vigorous foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy), including strong military power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_power). Though the platform called for limiting naval armaments, it also recommended the construction of two new battleships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship) per year, much to the distress of outright pacifists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism) such as Jane Addams.
 
 The 1912 election results :
 
 In the end Roosevelt fell far short of winning. He drew 4.1 million votes—27%, well behind Wilson's 42% but ahead of Taft's 23%. 6% went to Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America) Eugene Debs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Debs). He received 88 electoral votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)), compared to 435 for Wilson and 8 for Taft.
 __________________________________________________________
 
 27+23 =50 Republican
 
 42+6 =48 Democrat
 
 This split in the Republican party led to Wilson being elected President.
 
 Shades of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 06, 2014, 06:58:58 pm

50% drop in the stock market in 2014?

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/Stock-market-recession-alert/2014/02/03/id/550641/?promo_code=16610-1&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 06, 2014, 07:23:13 pm

FWIW

Letter from a senior gentleman in Mesa, Arizona:
 
Dear Family, Friends, Neighbors and former Classmates,
 
I just found myself in the middle of a medical situation that made it very clear that "the affordable care act" is neither affordable, nor do they care.
 
I'll go back about seven years ago to a fairly radical prostate surgery that I underwent. The Urologist (a personal friend) who performed the surgery was very concerned that it was cancer, though I wasn't told this until the lab report revealed it was benign. Since that procedure, I have experienced numerous urinary tract infections, UTI's. Since I had never had a "UTI" prior to the prostate surgery, I assume that it is one of the side effects from surgery, an assumption since confirmed by my Family Doctor.
 
The weekend of March 8-9, I was experiencing all the symptoms of another bout of UTI. By Monday afternoon the infection had hit with full force. Knowing that all I needed was an antibiotic, I went to an Urgent Care Center in Mesa, AZ., to provide a specimen, a requirement for getting the prescription. After waiting 45 min. to see the Doctor, I started getting very nauseous and light headed.
 
I went to the Receptionist to ask where the bathroom was as I felt that I was going to throw up. I was told that I would have to wait for the Doctor because I would need to leave a specimen and they didn't want me in the bathroom without first seeing him.
 
That was when the lights went out, my next awareness was that of finding myself on the floor (in the waiting room) having violent dry heaves, and very confused. At this point, I tried to stand up but couldn't make it, and they made it very clear they weren't going to let me get up until the ambulance got there. By the way, when you're waiting to see the Doctor and you pass out, you get very prompt attention.
 
Now, "the rest of the story", and the reason for sending this to so many of you.
 
I was taken to the nearest hospital, to emergency. Once there, I was transported to an emergency examination room. Once I had removed my clothes and donned one of those lovely hospital gowns, I finally got to see a Doctor. I asked "what is going on" I'm just having a UTI, just get me the proper medication and let me go home. He told me that my symptoms presented the possibility of sepsis, a potentially deadly migration of toxins, and that they needed to run several tests to determine how far the infection had migrated.


For the next 3 hours I was subjected to several tests, blood draws, EKG's, and demands for specimens. At about 7:30 the nurse came back to my room to inform me that one of the tests takes 1- 2 days to complete, I asked if they (the results)could be emailed, at which point she informed me that I wouldn't need them emailed because I wasn't going anywhere. I started arguing with her but was told, "if you don't start behaving, I'll start taking your temperature rectally, at which point I became a perfect gentleman. I did tell her I wanted to see the doctor because I had no intention of staying overnight.
 
Now, this is what I want each of you to understand, please read these next sentences carefully.The doctor finally came in to inform me that he was going to admit me. I said, "are you admitting me for treatment or for observation?" He told me that I would be admitted for observation. I said Doctor, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you admit me for observation my Medicare will not pay anything, this due to the affordable care act , he said that's right, it won't. I then grabbed for my bag of clothing and said, then I'm going home. He said you're really too sick to be going home, but I understand your position, this health program is going to hit seniors especially hard.
 
The doctor then left the room and I started getting dressed, I was just getting ready to put my shoes on when another doctor (the closer) came into the room, he saw me dressed and said, "where do you think you are going?" I simply said "I'm going home, to which he replied, quite vociferously, no you aren't. I said, "Doc, you and I both know that under the "affordable care act" anyone on Medicare who is admitted to a hospital for observation will be responsible for the bill, Medicare won't pay a cent". At which point he nodded in affirmation. I said, "You will either admit me for a specific treatment or you won't admit me." Realizing he wasn't going to win this one, he said he would prepare my release papers.
 
A few minutes later the discharge nurse came to my room to have me sign the necessary papers, relieving them from any responsibility. I told her I wasn't trying to be obstinate, but I wasn't going to be burdened with the full (financial) responsibility for my hospital stay.
 
After making sure the door was closed, she said, "I don't blame you at all, I would do the same thing." She went on to say, "You wouldn't believe the people who elect to leave for the same reasons, people who are deathly sick, people who have to be wheeled out on a gurney." She further said, "The 'Affordable Care Act' is going to be a disaster for seniors. Yet, if you are in this country illegally, and have no coverage, you will be covered in full."
 
This is not internet hype folks, this is real, I just experienced it personally. Moving right along, this gets worse.
 
Today I went to a (required) follow up appointment with my Arizona Family Practitioner. Since my white count was pretty high, the follow up was important. During the visit I shared the experience at emergency, and that I had refused to be admitted. His response was "I don't blame you at all, I would have done the same thing". He went on to say that the colonoscopy and other procedures are probably going to be dropped from coverage for those over 70.
 
I told him that I had heard that the affordable care act would no longer pay for cancer treatment for those 76 and older, is that true? His understanding is that it is true.
 
The more I hear, and experience the Affordable Care Act, the more I'm beginning to see that we seniors are nothing more than an inconvenience, and the sooner they can get rid of us the better off they'll be.
 
November is coming folks, we can have an impact on this debacle by letting everyone in Congress know that their responsibility is to the constituents, not the president and not the lobbyists. We need to let them ALL know that they are in office to serve and to look after the BEST INTERESTS of "we the people", their employers, and not to become self serving bureaucrats who serve only out of greed. And if they don't seem to understand this simple logic, we'll fire them.
 
On the mend, (signed)
 
REMEMBER: Demand your hospital admission is for TREATMENT and NOT for OBSERVATION!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2014, 07:42:14 pm

Quote from: packrat on May 06, 2014, 07:23:13 pm

FWIW

For what it is worth.... it is an unsigned, undated, internet email, horror story anecdote, pleading readers to believe it as not being "internet hype," without any link to anything resembling a source.

Its "worth" is non-existent.

It would equally be absent any worth if it were praising ObamaCare.

It simply has no worth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 06, 2014, 10:29:04 pm

Pretty much the same as the Whitehouse wonderful stories of medical bliss after obamacare.  At least this is just internet BS and not, you know our actual government lying to us...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 06, 2014, 10:49:36 pm

 
 Hey Duck,
 
 What do you think about the Teddy Roosevelt article I posted ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 06, 2014, 11:21:45 pm

I think it was an article about Teddy Roosevelt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 07, 2014, 12:16:00 am

Quote from: davep on May 06, 2014, 11:21:45 pm

I think it was an article about Teddy Roosevelt.

 Thanks for the update Duck ... uh, I mean Dave.
 
 Hey Dave since we are on topic ... what is ALEC?
 
 Look it up.
 
 Sorry you lost your idenity Duck.  :'(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 07, 2014, 08:08:45 am

Whether it is internet hype or not, it is definately true that being hospitalized for observation can be costly. My wife was recently in the hospital overnight after going to the emergency room. With my insurance the hospital deductable is waived if you are admitted to the hospital. Only after she was released and we got the bill did we find out that she had been in for observation only and the ER deuctable had to be paid by us. Not a back breaker but unexpected. Even if you have private insurance asking about the reason you are being kept in the hospital is a good practice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 07, 2014, 10:42:12 am

I give up.  What is ALEC?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on May 07, 2014, 11:37:14 am

Quote from: packrat on May 06, 2014, 07:23:13 pm

 
The more I hear, and experience the Affordable Care Act, the more I'm beginning to see that we seniors are nothing more than an inconvenience, and the sooner they can get rid of us the better off they'll be.
 

This is true.  I'm not sure I'd call seniors an inconvenience but it's undeniable that we spend way too much money on people in the last year or so of their lives.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2014, 12:08:41 pm

olde tacit racist

If the mythological writer of the "letter" is 70 he is not on the PPACA, but rather Medicare.

Now go back to just being stupid instead of ignorant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 07, 2014, 01:05:12 pm

Quote from: Cletus on May 07, 2014, 11:37:14 am

This is true.  I'm not sure I'd call seniors an inconvenience but it's undeniable that we spend way too much money on people in the last year or so of their lives.

This is partly true.  More than half of all the money spent on medical care is spent in the last year of our lives.  But that is not restricted to seniors.  Many people have Heart surgery, cancer treatments, life support systems, etc long before they are "seniors".

But that is a fact of life that we as a country have to face up to at some point.  Can we afford to spend a million dollars treating a cancer that is almost certainly terminal? 

My father-in-law had knee replacement surgery when he was 93.  It cost medicare 95 thousand dollars (this was in 2001, it would cost much more now).  He lived two more years.  Can we, as a society, afford to pay for this type of thing.

Many people are kept on life support for years after they are in vegetative state.  If one in a thousand actually recover from it, can we afford the billions of dollars to do so?

These are decisions that have to be made, and they will not be easy decisions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 07, 2014, 01:24:44 pm

Quote from: Cletus on May 07, 2014, 11:37:14 am

This is true.  I'm not sure I'd call seniors an inconvenience but it's undeniable that we spend way too much money on people in the last year or so of their lives.

I agree that folks near end of life are expensive. In many cases these people have worked and paid into the system much of their lives. A lot of those seniors also have retirement/pensions/401k and wealth built up and are paying it out of their estate. I'm much more concerned about what we are spending on people sitting at home that never pay into the system than what our seniors are costing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 07, 2014, 03:28:46 pm

There aren't very many seniors that are on medicare, but pay for their own medical costs, regardless of how much wealth they have.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 07, 2014, 04:59:57 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/07/judge-halts-secret-probe-wisconsin-conservative-groups-in-win-for-walker/?intcmp=HPBucket

Poor Otto's head is going to explode when he reads this article.  He assured us Walker was going down.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2014, 05:10:20 pm

Quote from: Cletus on May 07, 2014, 11:37:14 am

This is true.  I'm not sure I'd call seniors an inconvenience but it's undeniable that we spend way too much money on people in the last year or so of their lives.

Far more important than the question of whether we do or do not spend too much money on people in the last year or so of their lives (and wouldn't it be great if we always KNEW whether it was the last "year or so," if we KNEW whether some treatment was going to be successful -- could save a lot of money that way...), is the question of who will make the decision whether it is "too much" or "too little" or if it happens to be the Goldilocks amount.

Remove the decision from the hands of bureaucrats, whether insurance bureaucrats or government bureaucrats and instead put it in the hands of the consumer.  The best way to do so is thru medical savings accounts, and dramatically reducing the role of health insurance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2014, 05:14:52 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 07, 2014, 08:08:45 am

Whether it is internet hype or not, it is definately true that....

You don't really mean you don't know whether it is "hype" or not.  The rest of your post makes clear you do not consider it "hype" at all, since "hype" is making more of something than it merits and doing so for some agenda-driven purpose.  You here believe MORE attention should be brought to this (which is why you posted it here for us to read).... for and agenda driven purpose (which, after all, is why most of us post anything here).

What you really mean you don't know is whether it is a LIE or not.  And if you don't know that, or at least have some good reason to believe it is actually truthful (and you have pretty much admitted you don't), it might be a good idea not to post the crap which is more likely simply made up than it is truthful.  Disseminating crap like that is a great way to lose credibility, not just for yourself, but for anyone else sharing your position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2014, 06:27:48 pm

In light of prior discussions here about population growth and what some believe is an inevitable depletion of resources from that growth, and an inevitable loss of quality of life from that growth (both positions I reject): http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RECESSION_POPULATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-07-12-52-32

Births are falling in China, Japan, the United States, Germany, Italy and nearly all other European countries....  The trend emerges as a key gauge of future economic health - the growth in the pool of potential workers, ages 20-64 - is signaling trouble ahead.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2014, 07:02:27 pm

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/07/ted-cruz-releases-definitive-list-of-76-lawless-obama-actions/#ixzz313TkwSXa

He must have gotten tired when he reached 76.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 07:26:15 am

Too bad his opinion is irrelevant before he got to one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 07:51:19 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 07, 2014, 05:14:52 pm

You don't really mean you don't know whether it is "hype" or not.  The rest of your post makes clear you do not consider it "hype" at all, since "hype" is making more of something than it merits and doing so for some agenda-driven purpose.  You here believe MORE attention should be brought to this (which is why you posted it here for us to read).... for and agenda driven purpose (which, after all, is why most of us post anything here).

What you really mean you don't know is whether it is a LIE or not.  And if you don't know that, or at least have some good reason to believe it is actually truthful (and you have pretty much admitted you don't), it might be a good idea not to post the crap which is more likely simply made up than it is truthful.  Disseminating crap like that is a great way to lose credibility, not just for yourself, but for anyone else sharing your position.

Why did you leave out the rest of my post?  the part you left out was  "that being hospitalized for observation can be costly. My wife was recently in the hospital overnight after going to the emergency room. With my insurance the hospital deductable is waived if you are admitted to the hospital. Only after she was released and we got the bill did we find out that she had been in for observation only and the ER deuctable had to be paid by us. Not a back breaker but unexpected. Even if you have private insurance asking about the reason you are being kept in the hospital is a good practice."

You may consider it crap iff you wish but I was simply warning that it is in fact true that it is quite possible to have insurance deny a hospitalization for "observation" and make you liable for the entire cost. In my case I was fortunate that I wasn't stuck with the entire bill. Not once in my post did I mention medicare and I am not going to waste any of my time arguing the semantics of the words Hype or Lie as neither was relevent to the point I was trying to make or the warning I was trying to give.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 08:36:23 am

The only head that going to explode is the conservative activist judge randa.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/judge-s-order-tossing-john-doe-investigation-is-stayed/article_12911db4-70c9-50ac-935b-27f5f61329de.html (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/judge-s-order-tossing-john-doe-investigation-is-stayed/article_12911db4-70c9-50ac-935b-27f5f61329de.html)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 08:52:24 am

Republicans to hold hearing to debunk their own talking points


WASHINGTON — House Republicans summoned a half-dozen health insurance executives to a hearing Wednesday envisioned as another forum for criticism of the Affordable Care Act. But insurers refused to go along with the plan, and surprised Republican critics of the law by undercutting some of their arguments against it.

Insurers, appearing before a panel of the Energy and Commerce Committee, testified that the law had not led to a government takeover of their industry, as some Republicans had predicted. Indeed, several insurers said their stock prices had increased in the last few years.

The executives also declined to endorse Republican predictions of a sharp increase in insurance premiums next year, saying they did not have enough data or experience to forecast prices. And they said they were already receiving federal subsidy payments intended to make insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income people.

Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas, sounded a bit disappointed at the end of the hearing. He marveled at the subdued testimony and complained that no one at the witness table “wanted to be from the republic echo-chamber.”

The Affordable Care Act prevented 15,000 hospital-related deaths in 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services reports. It's also saved $4.1 billion in costs, and prevented 560,000 hospital-related injuries in 2011 and 2012. That means more than half a million fewer falls, bad drug reactions, or hospital-based infections.

The law has also significantly reduced hospital readmissions. Between 2007-11, the 30-day hospital readmission rate held at 19 percent, and has dropped to 17.5 percent last year. The bottom line there is 150,000 fewer Medicare patients being readmitted in the last two years, and that's where much of the savings come in. The administration attributes these big improvements to public-private partnerships launched by the new law.

Repeal that republic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 08:59:08 am

A big WTF to rep Orangeman and his "majority" of Americans represented by the house of turds.

National popular vote, 2012 House races:

Democrats: 59,645,531
republics: 58,228.253


That 35-seat republic majority came despite receiving 1.4 million fewer votes than the Democrats. All praise very aggressive gerrymandering.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 09:03:11 am

Under the category of luv them hypocrits, one finds....


Shot:

Rep. Howdy Gowdy (R-S.C. Lunaticland) on Wednesday morning urged his fellow lawmakers not to use the investigation he is leading into the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, to raise money, calling it a subject that "transcends politics."

Chaser:

Minutes earlier, the National Republic Congressional Committee sent out a fundraising email tied to rep Howdy Gowdy's role leading a select committee to investigate the attacks.

By the way, even though they are fundraising off the committee, and are making a big deal about rep Howdy Gowdy leading it, they still haven't actually technically created it. But who cares about little details like that when there's cash to be made?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 10:19:37 am

You really want to get into a contest over which party has the most distasteful fundraisers?

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/04/08/report-obama-to-attend-dem-fundraiser-in-texas-same-day-as-fort-hood-memorial/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 10:37:31 am

Question you have to ask yourself diluted t-bagger, is the House and Senate fundraiser in Houston later in the day a fundraiser directly off of the tragedy at Fort Hood?


Your nrcc is directly fundraising off the tragedy in Benghazi.


Big difference moron.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 10:51:51 am

Most all fundraisers for both sides are distasteful. It's just that you Obama boot-lickers refuse to recognize anything wrong with your side. Don't like that example? Then look at dem fundraisers after Sandy Hook.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 11:08:03 am

Tell me again what a great Sec of State Hillary was?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html#url=/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 02:39:37 pm

Tell me how you feed yourself.


Hillary Clinton Resisted Designating Boko Haram As A Terrorist Organization"
 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week tweeted out support for efforts to recover the more than two hundred girls kidnapped almost a month ago, saying “We must stand up to terrorism” and using the now ubiquitous #BringBackOurGirls hashtag. But now conservatives are angrily pointing out that she had refused to list the Nigerian group behind the kidnapping as a terrorist organization during her time at the State Department, threatening to turn the latest push against the group into a political football.

That the State Department under Clinton declined to name Boko Haram to a list of terror groups maintained at Foggy Bottom is true. But in making the point, an explosively titled article from the Daily Beast focuses more on the politics of the issue in light of the new interest in Boko Haram, rather than the actual reasoning behind the State Department’s decision. After drawing attention to Clinton’s tweet, the story continues on to note that what the former first lady “didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja,” quoting named and unnamed Republican sources as the crux of its argument.
 
But there were multiple valid reasons for the State Department to disagree with the Justice Department and other agencies dealing with counterterrorism — such as the FBI and CIA — who urged State to place Boko Haram on the Foreign Terrorists Organization (FTO) list. “Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” a former State Department official told the Beast. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.” This includes boosting development aid to undercut the causes of unrest and deploying the FBI to assist in tracking down Boko Haram, both of which the U.S. actually did.

In addition, Clinton didn’t act in a vacuum to determine not to designate Boko Haram back in 2011. Scholars on Twitter who focus on the region, terrorism broadly, and Islamist groups in particular were quick to point out that not only were there few benefits and many possible costs to designation, many of them had argued against listing Boko Haram several years ago. In a letter to the State Department dated May 2012, twenty prominent African studies scholars wrote Clinton to implore her to hold off on placing Boko Haram on the FTO list. Acknowledging the violence Boko Haram had perpetrated, the academics argued that “an FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram, legitimize abuses by Nigeria’s security services, limit the State Department’s latitude in shaping a long term strategy, and undermine the U.S. Government’s ability to receive effective independent analysis from the region.”

The Nigerian government also wasn’t exactly clamoring for U.S. assistance against Boko Haram back in 2011. At the time, Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati Wal-Jihad — the actual full name of the group commonly called Boko Haram — was a threat only within Nigeria. Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson described the group in 2012 testimony to the Senate as “not monolithic or homogenous” and “composed of several groups that remain primarily focused on discrediting the Nigerian government.”

“As Boko Haram is focused primarily on local Nigerian issues and actors, they respond principally to political and security developments within Nigeria,” Carson went on to say. In speaking with the Daily Beast, he defended that analysis: “There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them.” And though the group has become more radicalized as the years have gone on, committing more and more atrocious crimes and latching further onto extremist Islamic ideology, the strategy of seeking to discredit the Nigerian government appears to still be the case even in the recent kidnapping of the three hundred girls kidnapped last month.


Of course blowhard screeching and bloviating is all your echo-chamber allows.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on May 08, 2014, 02:44:27 pm

"House holds Lois Lerner in contempt in IRS scandal" - TODAY.

She lied. Taking the 5th is anadmission of guilt.

Sooooo....we have..from the fine Nobama administration....

1. IRS scadal
2. Bengahzi cover-up lies......this one is just gettingstarted.
3. NSA cover-up/lies
4. NobamaCare fiasco......this one is just getting started
5. Fixing unemployment #s....especially right before the election.


What is next?

"If you like your coverage, you can keep you coverage."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 03:20:42 pm

Did you miss this part Otto?

"That the State Department under Clinton declined to name Boko Haram to a list of terror groups maintained at Foggy Bottom is true"

Of course she had her reasons....sigh. Is there nothing that you democrats hold fellow democrats accountable for?

Late to the dance...just like Benghazi

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 03:28:36 pm

Yah, keysbart

I expect more of my politicians than to be mindless robots for the oligarchy. Maybe that is why you t-baggers love Puti-Puut so much from Russia.

You never have owned a swim suit have you keysbart? No need to when the pool is just inches deep.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 03:31:02 pm

Someone  here mention fundraising and Benghazi?


http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/john-boehner-benghazi-fundraising-106493.html?hp=l3 (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/john-boehner-benghazi-fundraising-106493.html?hp=l3)


That was very transparent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 03:36:52 pm

Speaking of Mindless...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sheldon-adelson-isn-t-money-172600075.html

Reid argued that the Koch brothers – whom he described on the floor of the Senate as “un-American” – are playing the political game primarily to feather their nests even more and impose their conservative libertarian views on the rest of the country. 

“These are the two richest people in the world and they are in it to make money,” Reid explained to Todd. “That’s their whole goal here. To add zeroes to their billions.” 

When Todd pressed Reid on the seeming hypocrisy of blasting the Koch brothers while giving Adelson a pass, Reid became defensive and cited his long-standing personal relationship with the Las Vegas businessman.
 
“I know Sheldon Adelson — he’s not in this for money,” Reid said. “He’s in it because he has certain ideological views. Now, Sheldon Adelson’s social views are in keeping with the Democrats. On choice, on all kinds of things. So, Sheldon Adelson, don’t pick on him. He’s not in it to make money.”

Say what?

Reid’s verbal contortions in defending one Republican multi-billionaire who has repeatedly attempted to topple the Democrats while savaging two other had some political analysts scratching their heads. Todd later summed up the dilemma by telling MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that “You can’t have selective billionaire outrage.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2014, 03:45:17 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 07:51:19 am

Why did you leave out the rest of my post?

I don't know... perhaps because it was utterly irrelevant to the point I was making?

I've generally found it best when discussing something to limit the discussion to what is relevant.

Quote from: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 07:51:19 am

Not once in my post did I mention medicare....

That's good.  Neither did I.

I also didn't mention cotton candy.  Just as you didn't mention it.

Lot's of other things neither of us mentioned.

Quote from: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 07:51:19 am

I am not going to waste any of my time arguing the semantics of the words Hype or Lie as neither was relevent to the point I was trying to make or the warning I was trying to give.

It is a good thing you are not going to "waste (your) arguing" the distinction, because the distinction between the two is not some minor semantic subtly.  It is significant and substantive.  And while the distinction may not be relevant to the point you were trying to make, the fact that it is not relevant to you is central to the point and warning I am trying to give -- you seemingly believe that if something supports what you believe is the "greater truth," it does not matter if that "something" is a lie.  That type of thinking does not just undercut your credibility, it guts it.  And the reason I care is because you and I are on the same side of the issue on ObamaCare, and when folks like you are tossing out utterly unprovable claims (which are most likely utter lies) it undercuts the credibility of the rest of us on the same side, even if we are scrupulously truthful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 03:53:17 pm

What "unprovable claim" did I toss out there? I merely posted a warning that it is not uncommon for insurance companies to decline payment when someone is hospitalized for observation only. This is a fact that my wife and I just went through. Here is my post in it's entirety.

"Whether it is internet hype or not, it is definately true that being hospitalized for observation can be costly. My wife was recently in the hospital overnight after going to the emergency room. With my insurance the hospital deductable is waived if you are admitted to the hospital. Only after she was released and we got the bill did we find out that she had been in for observation only and the ER deuctable had to be paid by us. Not a back breaker but unexpected. Even if you have private insurance asking about the reason you are being kept in the hospital is a good practice."

You got you panties in a bunch over the first 7 words? Really? Everything after that is the truth as I personally experienced it so I don't know what "unprovable claim" you are talking about. If I had not started with those first 7 words you wouldn't have a problem with the rest?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 04:09:18 pm

beerflabblies inter thoughts as he posted...in blue

"House holds Lois Lerner in contempt in IRS scandal on party line vote" - TODAY. I just got a bonerher...

She lied. Taking the 5th is anadmission (SP) of guilt. I'm going to have to forget all those people chris chrissty employed and the Consitution for a while.

Sooooo....we have..from the fine Nobama administration....Sentence here was impossible...

1. IRS scadal Damn just how is sc...an...dal spelled? Man we really need SOMETHING to come out on this. Our base keeps believing we have something, but...

2. Bengahzi cover-up lies......this one is just gettingstarted.  Again, just how hard is it to spell Benghazi right, but THAT ONE EMAIL has me all fired up. Goddammit I hope the judicial watch people have more. Howdy Dude's select committee will fundraise....er investigate that one email...I just really hope SOMETHING comes out of this...our base is getting old and edgy.

3. NSA cover-up/lies I really don't know what the difference is from what I supported under the shrub to President Obama, but man it seems different in a similar way.

4. NobamaCare fiasco......this one is just getting started Jose' Christ where did they get 5...6..er 7...**** 8.14 MILLION people to support a govmit takeover of....pushing  people to buy private insurance that the private insurance executives like. What the **** is up with that...**** I hate the PPACA...damn where is my vibrator.

5. Fixing unemployment #s....especially right before the election. U6 number....or...U7 number...where is the drudge link. **** why can't I spell drufge right...


What is next? Finally a sentence I think I have right...it might be too long....no....save it.

"If you like your coverage, you can keep you coverage." HA, this will get otto105 since I have been posting it for a year now and our next move is.....damn....next move....**** is rush limpbaugh on WLS or....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 04:22:38 pm

A controversial cash cow

By Steve Benen
5/08/14 12:40PM
 

When Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the head of the Republicans' new Benghazi committee, appeared on msnbc and criticized fundraising "on the backs of four murdered Americans," he probably didn't realize the trouble he'd just created for his party.


The same morning Gowdy made the comments, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a fundraising appeal on Benghazi -- specifically referencing Gowdy.
 

This morning, NBC News' Luke Russert asked House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) about the increasingly controversial fundraising (thanks to my colleague Mike Yarvitz for the heads-up).


RUSSERT: Speaker Boehner, four Americans died in Benghazi, should the NRCC fundraise off of your efforts in the Select committee?

 

BOEHNER: Our focus is on getting the answers to those families who lost their loved ones, period.

 

RUSSERT: But should the NRCC, they are fundraising off it right now, is that the best thing to do?

 

BOEHNER: Our focus is getting the truth for these American families and for the American people.

 

RUSSERT: But the campaign committee which you are very involved in is fundraising off this, why is that happening?


Its simple, no republic is ashamed since we have a black president...of doing anything to obstruct, oppose or generally be a **** up.

Don't worry old white party. The youth of America know how white you are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 04:39:14 pm

Enjoy

In May 2013, former IRS official Lois Lerner was called to provide testimony on what seemed like a big deal at the time: the alleged "controversy" surrounding the Internal Revenue service. She asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment.

In May 2014, House Republicans decided they're really upset about it.

The House voted 231-187 on Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before House committees, in a party line vote that drew support from a handful of Democrats. [...]

Maintaining Lerner did not break any laws, her lawyer William Taylor said in a statement that "it is unfortunate that the majority party in the House has put politics before a citizen's constitutional rights."

In theory, the House's complaint -- which does not need Senate approval -- will be referred to a prosecutor, but most see it as unlikely that Lerner's case will be pursued as a criminal matter.

Indeed, it's worth remembering that no American has ever been successfully prosecuted for invoking their Fifth Amendment rights before Congress. The last time Congress tried was Joe McCarthy's witch hunts a half-century ago.


Nice

 

It's quite a legacy House GOP lawmakers are living up to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2014, 04:42:37 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 03:53:17 pm

What "unprovable claim" did I toss out there? I merely posted a warning that it is not uncommon for insurance companies to decline payment when someone is hospitalized for observation only. This is a fact that my wife and I just went through. Here is my post in it's entirety....

My apology.

I looked at your FIRST post on this subject and thought you were the original poster, the one to start the threat with the anonymous email.  That was actually packrat and not you.  My comments responding to you only made sense (or at least were only applicable) if you had also made the original post.  You did not.  As a result, my comments to you were mistaken, misguided, out of line and wrong.

You are ignoring your original post on which I was commenting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 04:44:16 pm

Once again fired for overbilling.

Next time have the clients view at least on your mind.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 04:50:14 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX5GofXLOPo&feature=player_embedded
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX5GofXLOPo&feature=player_embedded)

Moderate what?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2014, 05:03:23 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 04:39:14 pm

Enjoy

In May 2013, former IRS official Lois Lerner was called to provide testimony on what seemed like a big deal at the time: the alleged "controversy" surrounding the Internal Revenue service. She asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment.

In May 2014, House Republicans decided they're really upset about it.

The House voted 231-187 on Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before House committees, in a party line vote that drew support from a handful of Democrats. [...]

Maintaining Lerner did not break any laws, her lawyer William Taylor said in a statement that "it is unfortunate that the majority party in the House has put politics before a citizen's constitutional rights."

In theory, the House's complaint -- which does not need Senate approval -- will be referred to a prosecutor, but most see it as unlikely that Lerner's case will be pursued as a criminal matter.

Indeed, it's worth remembering that no American has ever been successfully prosecuted for invoking their Fifth Amendment rights before Congress. The last time Congress tried was Joe McCarthy's witch hunts a half-century ago.


Nice

It's quite a legacy House GOP lawmakers are living up to.

Instead of posting some foolishness written by someone else and making it appear as if it might even be stupidity from your own mind, you might really want to offer the link you are quoting.

The U.S. Supreme Court held nearly 200 years ago that Congress has the power to hold someone in contempt and to punish them for it.  http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html  And again about 100 years later.  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html  The reason there have been so few prosecutions for the specific matter at issue is because most so few witnesses are as foolish as Lerner, first allowing herself to be sworn, then making statements about the matter at issue, and then refusing to answer questions about her statements.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2014, 05:04:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 04:44:16 pm

Once again fired for overbilling.

Next time have the clients view at least on your mind.

What in the world are you talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2014, 05:10:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 04:22:38 pm

Don't worry old white party. The youth of America know how white you are.

I just want to make sure I understand....  Is there now something WRONG with being white?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 06:29:49 pm

Not white, just being an olde white voter that YOU represent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 06:40:10 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 08, 2014, 04:42:37 pm

My apology.

I looked at your FIRST post on this subject and thought you were the original poster, the one to start the threat with the anonymous email.  That was actually packrat and not you.  My comments responding to you only made sense (or at least were only applicable) if you had also made the original post.  You did not.  As a result, my comments to you were mistaken, misguided, out of line and wrong.

You are ignoring your original post on which I was commenting.

no problem...honest mistake.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 07:00:46 pm

Some of the faces of Medicaid expansion in Arkansas


Tamara Williams is 40, a mother of three from North Little Rock, Arkansas. She had her first mammogram in February, where something wrong was spotted. After a follow-up biopsy, doctors diagnosed invasive ductal carcinoma—cancer. Her surgery was in March, and she'll soon begin chemotherapy. 
 
Hers is not such a remarkable story, except that Williams only had that mammogram because she'd just gained insurance after 10 years when Arkansas expanded Medicaid with its private option under Obamacare.

She has always worked, but never at a job that provided health insurance or paid enough that she could afford it on her own—she has hypertension, one of those pre-existing conditions that insurance companies would use to hike premiums out of reach of far too many working people.

Williams's story is just one of several the Arkansas Times tells, part of a series the paper is presenting to show the "faces of health care expansion."

peke, got any stories about some americans for proposerity ignorant dickhead that you can counter with...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2014, 07:12:09 pm

And, otto, you got anything with links you will include when you post them?

YOUR credibility is so non-existent that I generally don't even bother when you cut and paste crap from sources even you are ashamed to let the world know you read.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2014, 07:29:27 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/house-republicans-find-10-of-tea-party-donors-audi/

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2832443648/h6A3A1D8F/)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 08:47:53 pm

Quote

And, otto, you got anything with links you will include when you post them?

YOUR credibility is so non-existent that I generally don't even bother when you cut and paste crap from sources even you are ashamed to let the world know you read.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/the-faces-of-health-care-expansion-in-arkansas/Content?oid=3284892&showFullText=true (http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/the-faces-of-health-care-expansion-in-arkansas/Content?oid=3284892&showFullText=true)


Crap would be the sites that YOU repost from which the resident tacit racist also travels.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 08, 2014, 08:53:20 pm

You know for someone who calls other people racists, its YOU who is the racist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 08, 2014, 08:55:27 pm

Otto doesn't realize that calling people racist has lost its power

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 09:17:15 am

Center Ring at the Republican Circus


By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NY Times
MAY 8, 2014


The hottest competition in Washington this week is among House Republicans vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, also known as the Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into a Scandal. Half the House has asked to “serve” on the committee, which is understandable since it’s the perfect opportunity to avoid any real work while waving frantically to right-wing voters stomping their feet in the grandstand.

They won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration. On Thursday, they voted to create a committee to spend “such sums as may be necessary” to conduct an investigation of the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The day before, they voted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner, the former Internal Revenue Service official whom they would love to blame for the administration’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only they could prove there was a crackdown, which they can’t, because there wasn’t.

Both actions stem from the same impulse: a need to rouse the most fervent anti-Obama wing of the party and keep it angry enough to deliver its donations and votes to Republicans in the November elections. For a while it seemed as if the Affordable Care Act would perform that role, but Republicans ran into a problem when the country began to realize that it was not destroying American civilization but in fact helping millions of people.

Party leaders needed something more reliable, so they went back and revived two dormant scandals from last year, the embers of which were faithfully tended by Republican adjuncts on Fox News and talk radio. Their hope is to show that the administration is corrupt and untrustworthy, and if Hillary Rodham Clinton also gets roughed up in the process, so much the better.

Four Americans, including the United States ambassador, died in Benghazi, and their deaths have been crassly used by Republicans as a political cudgel, wildly swung in the dark. They have failed to provide proof for any number of conspiracy theories about the administration’s failures, including the particularly ludicrous charge from Representative Darrell Issa that Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, told the Pentagon to “stand down” and not help defend the American compound.

In fact, investigations by two congressional committees (including one run by Republicans) found that there was never any kind of “stand-down order” or request. But Mr. Issa and others keep repeating it because, for their purposes, the facts don’t matter.
 

Now Republicans are frothing about a newly released email message showing that the White House wanted Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations at the time, to go on television in 2012 and make the case that the attack was not a failure of administration policy. The message should have been turned over earlier because all it shows is a routine attempt to spin the news in the most favorable way to the White House. Though it is not the slightest evidence of a cover-up, it has become the foundation for the committee’s existence. Demonstrating the panel’s true purpose, Republican political operatives are already raising money by stoking donor anger on Benghazi.

Democrats who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a farce.

Similarly, the Justice Department should not press Ms. Lerner’s contempt citation before a grand jury. She invoked her Fifth Amendment rights at a hearing last year and refused to testify, but Republicans claim, without foundation, that she waived those rights by first proclaiming her innocence. Her refusal, they said, was contemptuous of Congress. Little nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s fury.


Enjoy your farce

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 09, 2014, 09:53:15 am

You actually believe that pile of manure? Just imagine had that been George Bush and not Obumma. Man you'd have been crying for his impeachment if Benghazi had happened on his watch. And if you try to lie out of that one you are really a criminal. Just a plain Obumma suck ass. I don't hold any hope that somehow you will ever wake up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 09, 2014, 10:00:27 am

wasn't it Otto that used to post how many deaths in Afghanistan we had almost daily?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 09, 2014, 10:08:51 am

Little nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s fury.


And what if you owned your land or your family owned their property before you and the government wants to take it from you? If that happened to you you'd be on the phone to the NAACP or some other "brother" to complain. Our rights in this country are quickly eroding and people like you don't care about century old rights.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 09, 2014, 11:07:31 am

Why pay any attention to that biased NY Time editorial? They have been an Obama cheerleader from the beginning and aren't about to change now. One would think that if there is truly nothing there they would welcome hearings in order to prove it and make the opposition look bad instead of writing snarky juvenile editorials.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 01:51:51 pm

Quote

You actually believe that pile of manure? Just imagine had that been George Bush and not Obumma. Man you'd have been crying for his impeachment if Benghazi had happened on his watch

19 people were killed in embassy events during the scrubs 8 years in office. Can you point to one kangaroo court like Benghazi  house of turds one that the Democratic side started?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 01:54:53 pm

Quote

wasn't it Otto that used to post how many deaths in Afghanistan we had almost daily?

It was for our War of Choice in Iraq and it was maybe once a week. But you can whine all you want since Democracy as the minions of bush wanted is in full display in the country, region and greater everywhere.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 01:58:38 pm

Quote

And what if you owned your land or your family owned their property before you and the government wants to take it from you? If that happened to you you'd be on the phone to the NAACP or some other "brother" to complain. Our rights in this country are quickly eroding and people like you don't care about century old rights.

Nice mix of old conservative stupid, tacit racism and general wingnut paranoia.

Are there any more questions about the future of the republic party?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 09, 2014, 02:14:35 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 01:51:51 pm

19 people were killed in embassy events during the scrubs 8 years in office. Can you point to one kangaroo court like Benghazi  house of turds one that the Democratic side started?

Can you point to one time that the administration created a false narrative about a video to cover up the details?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 09, 2014, 02:18:00 pm

I see Oddo the Homo is calling names again.

On the other hand, if he couldn't call names, he would have nothing to post.

It gets boring when you live in a hick town in a backwards state.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on May 09, 2014, 02:25:15 pm

DaveP, correct. Oddo is clueless.....he must get handouts from Obama....and he must be Obama's fluffer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on May 09, 2014, 02:31:54 pm

If there was nothing to hide from Bengahzi.........then why isn't the Nobama Admin releasing all of the documents?

Bunch of liars.

"If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 02:45:35 pm

Quote

Can you point to one time that the administration created a false narrative about a video to cover up the details?

This would explain why republics can fundraise off the dead bodies at Benghazi and not listen to reason and the 13 committee hears on the tragedy.

You have given rep. howdy dudy one email to work with. Good luck....


Has anyone at phaznews asked the families of the four dead people if they want the nrcc campaigning on their children?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 09, 2014, 02:51:05 pm

No Otto...your dems have given ONE email to work with and that was only obtained through a lawsuit. Every other document has been so thoroughly redacted as to be useless in any investigation...just as planned. What are you afraid of Otto?

The families have already been on TV many times saying they want the truth. Why don't you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 02:51:51 pm

Quote

I see Oddo the Homo is calling names again.

On the other hand, if he couldn't call names, he would have nothing to post.

It gets boring when you live in a hick town in a backwards state.

Somebody doesn't understand irony.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 09, 2014, 04:09:08 pm

I understand the irony of a racist such as you calling someone else a racist.  What I don't understand is why your second rate education in the second rate hick town in your third rate backwards state didn't teach you the difference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 09, 2014, 04:34:39 pm

The trouble with Oddo is that he labels everybody he thinks is white a racist or anyone black or white who espouses conservative views as racist which is just wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 09, 2014, 04:49:42 pm

Otto is just a typical intolerant liberal. Anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line is the enemy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 05:25:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2014, 08:47:53 pm

Crap would be the sites that YOU repost from which the resident tacit racist also travels.

I would diagram that sentence... but doing so wouldn't help it make any sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 05:27:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 09:17:15 am

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NY Times
MAY 8, 2014

Duhamn.... Imagine that.  The New York Times is supporting the Obama camp and criticizing Republicans.

Who would have imagined that one?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 05:29:56 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 09, 2014, 09:53:15 am

And if you try to lie out of that one you are really a criminal.

So now a person is a CRIMINAL if they are an Obama apologist?

Some folks would simply have been damn comfortable operating one of the guillotines right after the French Revolution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 05:33:42 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 09, 2014, 10:08:51 am

Little nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s fury.

And what if you owned your land or your family owned their property before you and the government wants to take it from you?

NOTHING in the Constitution prevents government from taking your property from you.

Nothing at all, and that taking can be for any reason, or no reason.  All that the Constitution assures is that if it is taken FOR PUBLIC USE, government has to compensate you for it.

Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 05:37:15 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 01:51:51 pm

19 people were killed in embassy events during the scrubs 8 years in office. Can you point to one kangaroo court like Benghazi  house of turds one that the Democratic side started?

Can YOU point to any effort by the Bush administration to:
a) Lie about how or why things happened in order to protect Bush's chance of re-election?
b) Conceal the lie?
d) Resist efforts by Congress to investigate matters to determine what should be done in the future?

Until you can find all of those present in the same incident, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 05:43:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 01:54:53 pm

But you can whine all you want since Democracy as the minions of bush wanted is in full display in the country, region and greater everywhere.

When the gears do not engage and otto writes things like this, you do have to wonder what in the world he is writing about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 05:45:29 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 09, 2014, 02:51:51 pm

Somebody doesn't understand irony.

True dat.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 07:16:00 pm

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/10256890_10152175827582971_2098750225779876592_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 09, 2014, 07:22:02 pm

So true Jes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 07:48:32 pm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html#affil-auth

.... a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.

Editor's summary:
Greenland and northeastern Canada experienced some of the most rapid warming of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, with human-induced climate change usually assumed to be in play. Qinghua Ding et al. show that about half of the observed warming can be attributed to changes in sea surface temperature in the equatorial Pacific Ocean which in turn influence the large-scale atmospheric circulation that moves warm air from the tropics to Greenland and northeastern Canada.

What is wrong with these guys?

Don't they know that all scientists agree we are experiencing man made Global Warming,  Climate Change, Climate Disruption?  Don't they read the scientific journals?  What are they doing writing in some rag like Nature?  Whoever even heard of that publication?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 09, 2014, 08:16:25 pm

Oddo

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2014, 08:24:15 pm

[psssst.... you need to adjust your sarcasm detector.... Nature magazine is a genuinely respected scientific journal.  The fact they are running the piece is an indication not just that cracks are developing in the "consensus" of scientists, but that we are now seeing major seismic faults.]

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 09, 2014, 08:36:34 pm

Just more right wing mentality. :D :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 09, 2014, 10:27:15 pm

Forgot that Ozone Hole that was supposed to have destroyed us all by now from the 80's.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 09, 2014, 11:29:27 pm

 
 I have to agree that the best plan to do anything about anything is to do nothing.
 
 I like it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 10, 2014, 12:31:10 am

OR....the best plan is to do nothing about nothing.....like that better.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2014, 03:45:18 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 09, 2014, 10:27:15 pm

Forgot that Ozone Hole that was supposed to have destroyed us all by now from the 80's.....

In the minds of much of the public, the only reason that didn't happen is because of bans on CFC's -- in other words, government moves saved us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2014, 08:07:02 am

If anyone ever needed an example of why we as a nation are often much better off with divided government than with Congress and the White House controlled by the same party, this is it: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/mitt-romney-minimum-wage-106524.html If Romney had been elected, we would have a higher minimum wage right now, because the Republicans in Congress would go along with him since they would be of the same party. So long as neither party controls both branches, counterproductive ideas such as raising the minimum wage are more likely to be opposed and defeated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2014, 08:29:27 am

The vanishing entrepreneur, crushed by red tape and regulations
It’s not the wealth gap to worry about, but the growth gap

Friday, May 9, 2014

President Obama focuses on the “wealth gap” as if that were the nation’s pressing economic issue. So long as there’s a disparity of ability, determination and luck, some people will be better off than others. The alarm to raise is not about the good fortune of some, but the bad fortune of the vanishing entrepreneur.

He’s rarely seen these days as hope for economic rebound fades. The bitter facts lie in the findings of a survey by the Brookings Institution that the nation’s entrepreneurial spirit is dying. The vision of Sam Walton, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and their kind has been punished to the point of extinction.

Strangled by endless spools of red tape and beaten down by taxes and government fees, businessmen are losing their zeal to convert an idea into a startup business or expansion of one already operating. It’s too much work and risk, to get approvals and comply with laws written by bureaucrats with no spirit or vision. Such rewards as there may be are consumed by taxes. That’s why there are fewer jobs to feed growth.

The Commerce Department had to borrow a microscope to see the minuscule 0.1 percent “expansion” in the economy in the first quarter. The Labor Department reported a productivity decline of 1.7 percent in the same period, meaning factories are less efficient, while unit labor costs rose 4 percent. Taken together, this means many businesses will continue to struggle to stay alive.

Brookings economists Ian Hathaway and Robert Litan measured the pace of new business creation across a wide swath of industries. It has been in the decline for some time, but the decline became a plunge in 2006, when the rate of entry of firms fell by half. At the same time, the rate of shuttered storefronts rose until reaching the critical point where “business deaths exceed business births” for the first time in three decades. The decline is nearly universal, with only a handful of metropolitan areas lucky enough to escape the dreaded malaise.

The blame for the situation falls squarely on Washington, where federal policies stifle innovation. Some 18,000 new federal regulations were imposed between 2008 and 2012, and many more are under consideration. Each one adds to the cost of doing business. Many firms have had no choice but to hire compliance experts to avoid running afoul of the increasingly complex maze of rules and requirements.

The tax system is oppressive and complicated. No other developed nation has a corporate-tax rate as high as America’s, and the global tax policy encourages companies to leave the United States for a friendlier tax climate, taking their profits with them.

Worst of all, the businessmen and entrepreneurs who provide the jobs and keep America’s economic engine running are vilified. “You didn’t build that,” says Mr. Obama, with a sneer, and he raises the rhetoric of redistribution against the “1 percent.” From Obamacare to the failed trillion-dollar stimulus schemes, where the government picks the winners and the losers, everything he does is antithetical to a dynamic marketplace.

Until the White House begins showing a little appreciation, the entrepreneurs will continue to disappear. Without them, there won’t be wealth to complain about.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/9/editorial-the-vanishing-entrepreneur/#ixzz31Jq3uzrV

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 10, 2014, 06:31:02 pm

This White House is one of the worst for darned near everything that has made this Country great....hard work, a solid moral code, faith and freedoms. We've taken so many steps back with this Administration it's frightening.....really.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2014, 06:57:28 pm

How did faith make our country great, and how does the Obama administration qualify as any more deficient of a moral code than prior administrations?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 10, 2014, 09:17:15 pm

Moral decay? Did somebody want moral decay...


The bush administration's regime of detainee torture was both a tragedy and a scandal. The use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, wasn't just a violation of U.S. and international law and a perversion of American values. Torture committed in the name of the United States is a national disgrace and a permanent stain that cannot be erased. And still there has been no accountability for those who ordered it, those who justified it and those who carried it out.


Sheldon scandal that

Also, you can read Tom Ridge's book on the terror manipulation leading up to the 2004 election.

Enjoy your washingtontimes stupidity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 10, 2014, 09:21:47 pm

Ted Cruz, the reckless accuser


By Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Published: May 9
 

Sen. Ted Cruz, in a speech to fellow conservatives at the Federalist Society this week, provided detailed evidence of what the right calls the “lawlessness” of the Obama administration.

The Texas Republican, in his latest McCar­thyesque flourish, said he had a list of “76 instances of lawlessness and other abuses of power.”
 
To his credit, Cruz made his list public. But perhaps he shouldn’t have. An examination of the accusations reveals less about the lawlessness of the accused than about the recklessness of the accuser.

Cruz was particularly agitated about President Obama’s use of signing statements, executive orders, recess appointments and unconfirmed “czars” — omitting the salient detail that this president has used four less than George W. Bush, for whom Cruz worked as a campaign adviser and administration official.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-ted-cruzs-dirty-laundry-list-of-lawlessness/2014/05/09/70bb03d8-d7b3-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-ted-cruzs-dirty-laundry-list-of-lawlessness/2014/05/09/70bb03d8-d7b3-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html)



Build that wall texas, keep em in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 10, 2014, 09:38:28 pm

Sheldon


The sky is falling....So dear Sheldon can you explain why the greatest decline in business entrepreneurs occurred in low tax and regulation Wyoming while the state which declined the least was New York. You know, the state with highest tax and business regulations.

Maybe your girlie little writers at the washintontimes can answer that for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 10, 2014, 11:52:45 pm

Uncle Joe says it's Clintons fault...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/205770-report-biden-takes-shot-at-clintons-in-sc

Biden, a potential 2016 candidate, said the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in "the later years of the Clinton administration," not under George W. Bush, CNN reported Saturday.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 06:19:56 am

otto, poor, otto.

This is a sports board.  One would think even someone as slow as you would be able to grasp the issue of sample size and understand that the aggregate numbers are far more important than the statistical blips and bleeps of a single game or a hot or cold week, on an aberrant image in a state or two.

One would think that, but that would simply once again be a result of underestimating your ignorance and blind partisanship.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 03:12:35 pm

GOP leaders reconsider Rand Paul
 By JAMES HOHMANN | 5/9/14 5:48 PM EDT

MEMPHIS, Tennessee — Not that long ago, most Republican leaders saw Rand Paul as the head of an important faction who, like his father, ultimately had no shot at becoming the party’s presidential nominee.

Now the question is no longer whether Paul can win the nomination, but whether he can win a general election.

The shift follows a year in which the Kentucky senator has barnstormed the country, trying to expand the party’s base beyond older, white voters and attract a following beyond than the libertarian devotees of his father, Ron Paul. Although the job is far from complete, Paul has made undeniable progress, judging from interviews with more than 30 Republican National Committee members meeting here this week.

That he has struck a chord with this crowd is all the more telling because it is heavy with GOP establishment-types who tend to prefer mainstream candidates.

“I don’t see how anyone could say it’s not possible he’d win the nomination,” Texas GOP chairman Steve Munisteri said. “His mission is to convince people of what his coalition would be in November” 2016.

During a speech Friday to the RNC gathering, Paul received a standing ovation after saying that the GOP didn’t need to dilute its message but that it had to communicate it better to non-traditional audiences — and suggesting implicitly that he’s the guy to do it.

“To paraphrase Captain Kirk, we need to go boldly to where Republicans haven’t been going,” he said. “We need to go from Harlem to Berkeley, to East Los Angeles and Laredo.”

Paul has not officially declared he’s running for president, he has plenty of critics and also has suffered a series of stumbles that could haunt him down the line. But the pervasive mood here at the RNC spring meeting was that there’s no frontrunner for the nomination, which means there’s an opening for the 51-year-old Paul.

The senator clearly understands this, and he has kept up as aggressive a travel schedule as any other likely candidate, and not just to early voting states.

Missouri Chairman Ed Martin said Paul quickly sold out the party’s Lincoln Day dinner in Springfield. Martin was amazed at how it was not just 500 libertarian true-believers who filled a ballroom, but people from every wing of the party.

“He’s a mainstream candidate,” Martin said. “A big question for 2016 is who can draw new people in. Rand has an attraction … My wife’s not a political person, but she likes Rand a lot.”

Paul, who was elected to the Senate on the tea party wave of 2010, has spent much of his time since schmoozing with the GOP establishment. Last weekend, he invited media mogul Rupert Murdoch (who owns Fox News and The Wall Street Journal) to the Kentucky Derby with him – then allowed a New York Times reporter to chronicle it.

The weekend before, he went to the Maine Republican state convention to call for party unity.

“We had some folks that are categorized as ‘establishment’ or whatever, who told me that if Rand Paul could speak at every convention, I think everyone would see him as a mainstream guy,” Maine national committeeman Alex Willette said.

The day before that Maine speech, Paul was in Boston to speak at the Harvard Institute of Politics. He squeezed in a lunch with several members of 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s brain trust.

At the same time Paul has made efforts to reach out to a variety of groups with which the GOP has struggled to find traction, including young people and racial minorities.

On Friday morning, for instance, he met for an hour with a group of African-American pastors. Afterward, Paul held a press conference to outline his push to get rid of mandatory minimum prison sentences, while advocating for school choice and the creation of economic opportunity zones.

“I want to compete for the African-American vote,” Paul said. “I’m about winning elections.”

Republican leader say the 2016 primary season calendar could favor Paul, especially the first four states.

Iowa holds caucuses that are likely to be friendlier to Paul than a primary. And in New Hampshire, Paul could benefit from the strong following there for his father.

In 2012, South Carolina handed a surprise win to Newt Gingrich over Romney. The state’s committeeman, Glenn McCall, said that was evidence Paul could win there if the cards fell right and “he comes and works.” And then there’s Nevada, where libertarian forces have controlled the state party since 2012 and would hold Paul-friendly caucuses.

Among the names being tossed about as potential contenders for the GOP nomination — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, among others — Paul is now considered in the top tier.

RNC committeeman Louis Pope, who chaired Romney’s campaign in Maryland, said Paul is likely to be in the final three, in large part because he would corner the libertarian bloc while building on it. “He’s broader than ‘the libertarian candidate.’” Pope said. ”I do see him going further in the process.”

But Paul has plenty of detractors, even among those who acknowledge he could win the nomination.

There’s a widespread expectation that major donors from the hawkish, pro-Israel wing of the party would pour millions into Stop Rand efforts. Part of this is due to comments Paul has made about cutting foreign aid and being less interventionist overseas.

One prominent GOP state chairman said he could envision Paul winning Iowa, but that the establishment would not let him win New Hampshire. Then, whoever won the Granite State would be the leading alternative to Paul going into South Carolina, and could end up stopping him, the chairman suggested.

Paul is certain to face more scrutiny than his father ever did.

There was hallway chatter here about Paul delivering plagiarized speeches (he blamed staff for ripping off Wikipedia), which critics say shows he’s not ready for prime time.

And there are worries about the sympathy he expressed for rancher Cliven Bundy’s battle with the Bureau of Land Management. Paul condemned the Nevadan’s racist remarks soon after they were reported, but other top-tier candidates never took the bait in the first place.

Ada Fisher, the North Carolina committeewoman, cited Paul’s expression of skepticism about the Civil Rights Act after he won the Senate nomination in 2010 — a stance he subsequently walked back.

“I thought, ‘Boy, this is really off the wall,’” recalled Fisher, who is black. “I hope he is not going to be the nominee for the party. We need a nominee who thinks bigger and bolder.”

Paul has been trying to show he’s more of a team player than his father, who never fully endorsed Romney, including after some moves questioned by the establishment.

For instance, he campaigned on Monday in North Carolina for tea party favorite Greg Brannon against establishment-backed Thom Tillis in the GOP Senate primary. Republican national leaders feared Paul’s last-minute trip could keep Tillis under the 40 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff.

But once Tillis cleared the threshold, Paul quickly released a statement urging Republicans to unite behind the nominee. This is not the kind of thing Ron Paul would have done.

During the RNC meeting, some of his dad’s **** supporters tried unsuccessfully to block moves to cut the number of primary debates in 2016. But Paul said Friday that he’s okay with the reduced schedule.

Indeed, one of Paul’s challenges is to keep the people who powered Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns from being turned off by his outreach to the establishment.

“There are Ron Paul purists who think he’s a sellout,” said Charles Curley, a Wyoming county chairman who was at the meeting as a proxy.

During his lunch speech here, Paul tackled a range of subjects, including his push to rein in the surveillance activity of the National Security Agency — a privacy issue he hopes will gain him youth support. A few tables with die-hard Paul supporters applauded constantly, while the rest of the ballroom was more subdued.

But the loudest applause by far came when Paul attacked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, for several minutes over her handling of the 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

This was clearly an issue that every GOP faction could get excited about.

Colorado party chairman Ryan Call said Paul’s success in catering to his base while reaching out to everyone else bodes well for his chances in 2016.

“Rand has been able, at least so far, to bridge that gap between the most strident absolutists on the libertarian side and a thoughtful, pragmatic approach to actively governing,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/gop-rand-paul-106536.html#ixzz31RFpRnNq

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 03:12:53 pm

http://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/08/quiz-do-you-know-rand-paul/001240-017465.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 11, 2014, 04:20:47 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 10, 2014, 11:52:45 pm

Uncle Joe says it's Clintons fault...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/205770-report-biden-takes-shot-at-clintons-in-sc (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/205770-report-biden-takes-shot-at-clintons-in-sc)

Biden, a potential 2016 candidate, said the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in "the later years of the Clinton administration," not under George W. Bush, CNN reported Saturday.

 The repeal of GLASS-STEAGEL happened on Clintons watch.
 
 The rest is history.
 
 The dudes who wanted it repealed are still calling the shots today no matter which party is in control.
 
 The DODD-FRANK law was a halfway attempt to get back to Glass -Steagel.
 
 The rest is current history.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 11, 2014, 05:07:25 pm

Scientists Slam Latest Doomsday Climate Report

Climatologists and other experts are blasting a new climate change report from the Obama administration, calling it a "litany of doom" that objective scientists won't take seriously.

The National Climate Assessment (NCA), an 840-page report compiled by 300 scientists and experts that was released at a White House event on Tuesday, warns that climate change is a clear and present danger.

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," according to the report.

Rising temperatures, it asserts, will be responsible not only for more drought, wildfires, flooding, and sea level rise, but also an increased risk of heat-related deaths.

The report states that the effects of climate change are evident in every region of the country, according to Gary Yohe, a Wesleyan University economist and vice-chair of the NCA advisory committee.

"One major take-home message is that just about every place in the country has observed that the climate has changed," he told the Guardian. "It is here and happening, and we are not cherry-picking or fear-mongering."

But that is exactly what the experts are seeking to do, critics charge.

Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James Taylor declared: "Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, the Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature. Few objective climate experts will take this report seriously.

"Even those scientists who are not overtly affiliated with environmental activist groups were almost uniformly on the record as global warming alarmists before being chosen to write this report."

Mark Morano offered a round-up of reactions to the global warming report on his Climate Depot website.

Former Colorado State University climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: "That much of the media accepted the NCA without questioning its findings and conclusions either indicates they are naïve or they have chosen to promote a particular agenda and this report fits their goal."

Dr. Judith Curry, chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology: "The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change.

"Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration."

Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis: The report is "designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes. Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom."

Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville: Part of the report "is just simply made up. There is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change."

Weather Channel Co-founder John Coleman: The report is a "litany of doom," a "total distortion of the data and an agenda-driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk."

Climate Depot's Morano said: "By every measure, so-called extreme weather is showing no trend or declining trends on 50-100-year timescales. Droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes are not increasing due to man-made global warming.

"Why does the report now call 'global warming' a new name, so-called 'climate disruption'? Simple answer: Due to earth's failure to warm — no global warming for nearly 18 years — another name was necessary to attempt to gin up fear.

"This report is predetermined science."

https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=4qucvnonfp731

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 05:15:09 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 11, 2014, 04:20:47 pm

 The repeal of GLASS-STEAGEL happened on Clintons watch.

True enough.

That was one of the good things done by his administration.

The repeal of Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with the the 2008 meltdown.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 05:18:33 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 11, 2014, 05:07:25 pm

"That much of the media accepted the NCA without questioning its findings and conclusions either indicates they are naïve or they have chosen to promote a particular agenda and this report fits their goal."

Gee, do ya think?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 11, 2014, 06:11:01 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 05:15:09 pm

True enough.

That was one of the good things done by his administration.

The repeal of Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with the the 2008 meltdown.

 When 2 cars slam into each other thats not called a car wreck.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 06:39:46 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 11, 2014, 06:11:01 pm

 When 2 cars slam into each other thats not called a car wreck.

It is called a car wreck.

But repealing Glass-Stegal didn't cause it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 11, 2014, 07:04:22 pm

I like Rand Paul,, I'd love to see him get the nomination..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 11, 2014, 08:07:02 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 11, 2014, 07:04:22 pm

I like Rand Paul,, I'd love to see him get the nomination..

I lost faith when he said no to voter ID's

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 11, 2014, 08:42:30 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 11, 2014, 07:04:22 pm

I like Rand Paul,, I'd love to see him get the nomination..

 

Quote from: Keysbear on May 11, 2014, 08:07:02 pm

I lost faith when he said no to voter ID's

 Being a pitchman is tough when you want to include everyone under the big tent.
 
 Sell ice cream for starters ... then move up from there.
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 11:10:55 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 11, 2014, 08:07:02 pm

I lost faith when he said no to voter ID's

Except that he has never said that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 11, 2014, 11:30:32 pm

Mark's blog:

http://investing.calsci.com/blog5-11-14.html

Don't bother trying to read this, oddo.  You don't have a chance at comprehending.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 12, 2014, 03:18:23 am

Speaking of Huffypost's site, ever try to post something on their comment section?? Appears they're pretty capable and willing to censor any little thing they don't like, including much against homosexuality, which they seem to love to push. Gotta love thought police, huh.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 12, 2014, 07:49:01 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 11, 2014, 11:10:55 pm

Except that he has never said that.

I know...he said don't make an issue of it because it offends some people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 12, 2014, 08:43:46 am

I think before the Pope starts blowing his mouth off about world governments redistributing their wealth he ought to start at home and set an example. Until the Pope begins opening up his war chest to the masses I don't feel any obligation to follow suit.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/michael-savage-pope-redistribute-income/2014/05/11/id/570688/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1568714_05122014&promo_code=4wc3n2qx

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 12, 2014, 10:57:10 am

The mainstream press has fallen in love with the new Pope, and are not going to call attention to his hypocrisy.  As you say, he has done absolutely nothing to distribute the wealth that the Catholic Church has piled up over the centuries.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 12, 2014, 11:05:37 am

It really ticks me off when people try to tell others what to do when they should set an example and do it themselves first.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 12:17:46 pm

Your upset the Michael savage is constipated?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 12, 2014, 12:22:38 pm

I'm qute sure Otto is outraged by this.....It all sounds perfectly legal given our goofy tax code but I do remember him blowing a gasket when conservatives took advantage of the tax code like this.


http://freebeacon.com/politics/wisconsin-democrats-bike-business-hasnt-paid-state-income-taxes-for-three-decades/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 12, 2014, 01:02:53 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 12:17:46 pm

Your upset the Michael savage is constipated?

No, but you obviously are which is a good thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 01:03:38 pm

I'm wondering why you use the term outrage?

Is that the "hip" thing that white older folks do since the t-bag party made yelling about govmit healthcare (outside of Medicare) a great distraction from golf.
 
I like every other person in the United States (that isn't a low information, poor, white, and high school educated usually from the South voter) would like corporations to pay taxes like the individuals that they are.

However, it seems that voters like you love to make up the tax roll difference in personal taxes or cutting services back to the 1890's....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 01:07:16 pm

Quote

No, but you obviously are which is a good thing.

Pathetic.


Wow, the Pope doesn't believe in massive income inequality and you go all limbaugh in yer pants.


How about you pay for his next hearing aid for drug addition.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 12, 2014, 01:13:45 pm

Whats drug addition??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 01:16:55 pm

Just search fatbaugh and oxycontin pasty olde white guy.

Then you will have your hearing loss due to drug addiction

Thanks for letting post that again.




In case anyone else needs to ask about drug addition...Just ask.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 01:21:55 pm

Ok, representative howdy guwdy wants his select redundant committee on the "trial" of Benghazi in the house of turds to transcend politics.


His hair already has...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 12, 2014, 01:50:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 01:03:38 pm

 
I like every other person in the United States (that isn't a low information, poor, white, and high school educated usually from the South voter) would like corporations to pay taxes like the individuals that they are.

Can I assume you will be telling that to your democrat governer candidate?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 12, 2014, 02:00:38 pm

As usual, you miss the point.

The Pope is a hypocrite. 

I have no problem with people being unhappy with income inequality and thinking that everyone should share what they have.

I have an extreme problem with people being unhappy with income inequality and thinking that everyone other than themselves should share share what they have.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2014, 03:06:36 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 12, 2014, 07:49:01 am

I know...he said don't make an issue of it because it offends some people.

Still not quite right, but you are closer this time.

He said focusing on that, and appearing to make it a primary issue, one always discussed, is foolish because it will alienate the very voters the party needs if it is to have any chance of winning in the future at the national level, and he is perfectly right on that.  That a matter "offends some people" is not quite the same as, "it alienates enough people that if you harp on the issue a great deal, you are going to shoot yourselves in the head and commit political suicide."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2014, 03:10:15 pm

Quote from: davep on May 12, 2014, 02:00:38 pm

As usual, you miss the point.

You are addressing otto.

Is it really necessary to say that he misses the point?

You are addressing otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 12, 2014, 03:34:07 pm

When Oddo was born and they were passing out brains, he thought they were saying trains and he has been tooting ever since.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 12, 2014, 04:26:28 pm

Filings Show Obamacare Premium Rises to Outpace Inflation

Monday, 12 May 2014 09:07 AM

By Melanie Batley

Consumers enrolled in Obamacare will see an increase in their insurance premium rates next year that will "easily" outpace inflation, with every insurer in at least one state opting for rate increases, The Wall Street Journal reported.
   
 According to official filings by insurance companies in Virginia for 2015, average rate increases range from 3.3 percent to as high as 16.6 percent for those enrolled in the online exchange, depending on the type of plan a consumer holds.

 The rate increases are directly related to the new costs insurers face under the Affordable Care Act due to the higher expense of insuring less healthy, previously uninsured enrollees, and also because of the new fees insurers are facing under the new healthcare law, one company, Anthem HealthKeepers Inc., told the Journal.

 Virginia is the first state to publicly release rate proposals for 2015, with other states expected to follow as early as this week, according to the Journal. In most parts of the country, figures will not be available until late summer.

 In 2014, insurers participating in Obamacare were required to charge the same premium to all customers, regardless of medical history, and were restricted to the amount they could vary premiums by age, with strict limitations to out-of-pocket maximums.

 Predictions of rate increases have varied widely, but the projections for Virginia fall short of some expectations. Speculation nevertheless continues about the rise of future premiums under the new healthcare law.

 Administration officials, including outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, have long said they expect rates to increase but believed provisions in the legislation designed to compensate insurers with higher medical claims would hold down rate increases.

 Virginia is one of the 36 states participating in the federal online insurance exchange through HealthCare.gov, and the Obama administration has estimated that 216,000 Virginians enrolled in the exchange by the March 31 deadline, the Journal reported.

http://www.moneynews.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-healthcare-Virginia-premium/2014/05/12/id/570768/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1568792_05122014&promo_code=cqfyivwc

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 12, 2014, 04:31:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 01:07:16 pm

Pathetic.


Wow, the Pope doesn't believe in massive income inequality and you go all limbaugh in yer pants.


How about you pay for his next hearing aid for drug addition.

 The medical company I used to work for invented Rush Limbaughs cochlear hearing implants that he uses.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 08:17:54 pm

Well, well and more well.

Quote

Tell me again what a great Sec of State Hillary was?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html#url=/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

Would John Campbell former scrub appointee to Nigeria count?

Why yes he would.


Former Bush Appointee Debunks Boko Haram Claim Used To Smear Clinton

May 11, 2014 3:22 PM EDT
CRAIG HARRINGTON


Fox News' attempt to connect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the brutality of extremist group Boko Haram was demolished by former United States Ambassador to Nigeria John Campbell, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

On the May 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace highlighted Fox's latest anti-Clinton smear, attacking the former Secretary of State for not officially designating the Nigerian group Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

This claim has already been thoroughly debunked. The State Department's initial decision not to issue an official FTO designation stemmed from a reluctance to elevate Boko Haram's profile among militant organizations, which experts say can embolden such groups. Under Clinton, State instead chose to put Boko Haram's top leaders on the terrorist list, offering a $7 million bounty for the organization's leader.

Responding to Wallace, Campbell further demolished the claim:

    WALLACE: Secretary Clinton has come under fire this week, because of the fact that back in 2011 she rejected calls by the FBI and the intelligence community to designate Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. As a Bush-appointee to be ambassador, do you think that's fair, the criticism of Secretary Clinton?

    CAMPBELL: No I don't think that's fair, and along with a good many other Nigerian experts, at the time, we all opposed designation.


Again knee-jerk comes to mind with t-baggers and their views on foreign policy, Hillary Clinton and Obama derangement syndrome.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 12, 2014, 08:58:19 pm

everything but the link...ashamed of the source?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 12, 2014, 09:03:23 pm

Oh wait...here it is...MEDIA MATTERS. No wonder Otto didn't want to post the link.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/11/former-bush-appointee-debunks-boko-haram-claim/199260

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2014, 09:46:41 pm

It is written just about as well as something otto would normally write.


Fox News' attempt to connect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the brutality of extremist group Boko Haram was demolished by former United States Ambassador to Nigeria John Campbell, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

On the May 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace highlighted Fox's latest anti-Clinton smear, attacking the former Secretary of State for not officially designating the Nigerian group Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

This claim has already been thoroughly debunked.

WHAT claim?

The folks at mediamatters are so geared toward carrying the water for the Dems that they can't even think straight.

The writer does not even refer to anything which would constitute a "claim" for there to have even been the possibility of it having been "debunked," neither thoroughly or to any degree at all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 09:52:58 pm

It must really be hard NOT to be your normal dickish libertarian self.




Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.


I'm sure randie paul has some semi-racist thing to say about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 13, 2014, 06:55:34 am

Guess Which Senators Want the Feds to Report Ammo Purchases?

Senators Jim Inhofe and Frank Lucas want to make sure that the U.S. government and its lower level agencies don’t get more ammunition than they need.

This development comes in light of massive ammunition purchases made by organizations like the USPS, DHS, Social Security administration, and even The National Weather Services, which have caused tremendous ammo shortages for the average retail buyer.

The proposed Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) Act would require all federal agencies other than the Department of Defense to file reports on their current ammunition stockpiles.

Another thing the AMMO Act would do is actively restrict the agencies from purchasing more ammo (for an additional 6 months) if their current stockpiles exceed more than their original monthly averages prior to the Obama administration.

Inhofe explained:


President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights. One way the Obama Administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition.

As the public learned in a House committee hearing this week, the Department of Homeland Security has two years’ worth of ammo on hand and allots nearly 1,000 more rounds of ammunition for DHS officers than is used on average by our Army officers. The AMMO Act of 2013 will enforce transparency and accountability of federal agencies’ ammunition supply while also protecting law-abiding citizen’s access to these resources.

Many within the federal government maintain that the stockpiling is for the next 2-5 years. Others say that the ammunition is being used to train their 70,000 employees.

Nonetheless, the $37 million dollars in taxpayer money that has resulted in continual shortages would be sharply curbed by the AMMO Act, along with the fears of many Americans that the ammo hoarding is meant for nefarious purposes.

http://preservefreedom.org/guess-who-wants-the-federal-government-to-report-ammo-purchases/?utm_source=140507PF2&utm_campaign=140507PF2

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 13, 2014, 07:50:03 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 12, 2014, 09:52:58 pm

It must really be hard NOT to be your normal dickish libertarian self.




Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.


I'm sure randie paul has some semi-racist thing to say about.

As someone referred to by Otto as a "pasty, olde white guy" I get a chuckle every time he tries to infer somobody else is racist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2014, 04:40:06 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 13, 2014, 07:50:03 am

As someone referred to by Otto as a "pasty, olde white guy" I get a chuckle every time he tries to infer somobody else is racist.

"Infer" does not mean "imply."

An inference is drawn from a listener, reader or observer.  An implication is made by a speaker, writer or actor.  otto might imply (or, as is more ofter the case baldly assert) someone is a racist, but he would only be inferring that if it were in fact a reasoned conclusion he drew about others based on their posts... as opposed to being a reflexive assertion he makes simply whenever he wants to try to slime someone because he has no argument or fact to support his position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2014, 04:44:06 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 13, 2014, 06:55:34 am

Many within the federal government maintain that the stockpiling is for the next 2-5 years. Others say that the ammunition is being used to train their 70,000 employees.

Considering that the purchases have sharply driven prices up and the federal government CONTINUES to make them, it is hard to believe that even federal employees could be stupid enough to think it it would make sense to build (and enlarge) such a stockpile at a time when prices were high.  The explanation the feds offer is, in the literal sense of the word, incredible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 13, 2014, 05:06:05 pm

sheldon

The paul families "reflexive assertion" on race is well documented.

Can you deny that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 13, 2014, 05:10:25 pm

Quote

Considering that the purchases have sharply driven prices up and the federal government CONTINUES to make them, it is hard to believe that even federal employees could be stupid enough to think it it would make sense to build (and enlarge) such a stockpile at a time when prices were high.  The explanation the feds offer is, in the literal sense of the word, incredible.

What actually do you know about federal ammunition purchases?






























































Yea, I thought so...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 13, 2014, 06:53:09 pm

The Obama Recovery: U.S. Economy May Have Shrunk In First Quarter Of 2014

May 13, 2014 by Ben Bullard

It will be May 29 before the U.S. Department of Commerce updates its estimate of how the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) performed during the first fiscal quarter of 2014, but it’s looking more and more likely that the worth of what the U.S. is producing has declined for the first time since the middle of 2009.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that fresh data from the Commerce Department on retail sales and business inventories, the latter of which grew slugglishly in March. That information, combined with an earlier Commerce GDP report of anemic 1st-quarter growth, set off a series of negative estimates from five major fund management firms, all of which anticipate an imminent announcement that the economy has, in fact, contracted.

“A couple weeks ago, the Commerce Department said U.S. economic output expanded at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.1% in the first three months of the year. A near-stall for the economy, for sure, but at least it wasn’t worse,” WSJ observed, before offering this:


Based on more up-to-date figures, including the March trade data released last week, private forecasters now expect gross domestic product contracted in the first quarter for the first time in three years.

The latest evidence came Tuesday, when the Commerce Department released reports on retail sales and business inventories. Retail sales in February and March were revised up, but business inventories grew less in March than the agency had assumed in its GDP calculations.

Incorporating the new data, J.P. Morgan Chase on Tuesday estimated GDP contracted at a 0.8% rate in the first quarter. Macroeconomic Advisers put the contraction at 0.7%. Barclays Capital predicted a 0.6% decline. Pierpont Securities estimated output fell at a 0.4% rate. Action Economics estimated a 0.2% decline.

Any of those estimates, if correct, will mark the first time the U.S. economy has contracted since President Obama’s first year in office.

The GDP shrank by 2.8 percent in 2009, and has “recovered” marginally since, with annual growth margins of 2.5 percent (2010), 1.8 percent (2011), 2.8 percent (2012) and 1.9 percent (2013). Under President Clinton in the 1990s, the GDP routinely saw annual gains in excess of four percent, followed by a roller coaster ride for eight years under President Bush, whose best year came in 2004, when the GDP grew by 3.8 percent.

http://personalliberty.com/obama-recovery-u-s-economy-may-shrunkin-first-quarter-2014/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 13, 2014, 07:58:48 pm

Did you get wet your undies wet olde man...


WTF are you going to do when the US economy grows at 3.8% second QTR.


**** yer pants?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2014, 08:01:44 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 13, 2014, 05:06:05 pm

sheldon

The paul families "reflexive assertion" on race is well documented.

Can you deny that?

otto, who are you addressing, and what are you asking?

Please try to use English this time.... or, if you were trying to use it last time, try to use it so it actually makes sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2014, 08:05:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 13, 2014, 05:10:25 pm

What actually do you know about federal ammunition purchases?

Yea, I thought so...

I know the federal government has bought far more than it needs, with massive purchases by agencies which have relatively little legitimate need for it.  And I know that the law of supply and demand applies to ammunition as to anything else and that such increased purchases have contributed to sharply increased prices and to making it very difficult in many parts of the country to find desired ammunition.

Nothing I have posted on the issue goes any further than that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 13, 2014, 08:08:15 pm

sheldon

Does randie paul still employ jack hunter?

Does randie still suffer from infamous Civil Rights Act skepticism?

The board needs to know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 13, 2014, 11:35:50 pm

I have no idea who Jack Hunter is so I don't know where he is employed.

However, if by Civil Rights Act Scepticism, you mean that he feels that it has run it's course and is no longer a force for good, I certainly hope so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 14, 2014, 05:04:59 am

Agree!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 14, 2014, 07:54:15 am

Coming to a neighborhood near you....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-36k-criminals-freed-while-awaiting-deportation/

The group of released criminals includes those convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated assault, according to the report, which cites a document prepared by the ICE.

A majority of the releases were not required by law and were discretionary, the organization says.

According to the report, the 36,007 individuals released represented nearly 88,000 convictions, including:

193 homicide convictions
426 sexual assault convictions
303 kidnapping convictions
1,075 aggravated assault convictions
1,160 stolen vehicle convictions
9,187 dangerous drug convictions
16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions
303 flight escape convictions
In a statement which accompanied the findings, Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, called the number of criminal aliens released "shocking."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 14, 2014, 08:29:07 am

SHOCKING - indeed - but will it be the top story on the news today?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 14, 2014, 10:31:19 am

They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English.
I can't even talk the way these people talk:
Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...
And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk.
And then I heard the father talk.
Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.
In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.

People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an Education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around.
The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.
These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids.
$500 sneakers for what?
And they won't spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics.

I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit.
Where were you when he was 2?
Where were you when he was 12?
Where were you when he was 18 and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol?
And where is the father? Or who is his father?
People putting their clothes on backward:
Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong?
People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something?

Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles [piercing] going through her body?
What part of Africa did this come from??
We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa .....

I say this all of the time. It would be like white people saying they are European-American. That is totally stupid.
I was born here, and so were my parents and grand parents and, very likely my great grandparents. I don't have any connection to Africa, no more than white Americans have to Germany , Scotland , England , Ireland , or the Netherlands . The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans as regards to Africa . So stop, already! ! !
With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap ......... And all of them are in jail.

Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem.
We have got to take the neighborhood back.
People used to be ashamed. Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' -- or men or whatever you call them now.
We have millionaire football players who cannot read.
We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We, as black folks have to do a better job.
Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us.
We have to start holding each other to a higher standard..
We cannot blame the white people any longer.'

~Dr.. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed..D.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 14, 2014, 11:55:30 am

that was good Dave, and confirmed by snopes.
I work with several successful, talented, well educated black professionals. They work hard and are highly productive, an asset to our company. I expect they would agree with Bill Cosby.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 14, 2014, 01:04:14 pm

Can't blame white people - but we can blame STUPID people...

They are breeding the smart ones out of existence

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2014, 04:26:07 pm

Quote from: davep on May 13, 2014, 11:35:50 pm

I have no idea who Jack Hunter is so I don't know where he is employed.

However, if by Civil Rights Act Scepticism, you mean that he feels that it has run it's course and is no longer a force for good, I certainly hope so.

You see, I don't even know who "randie paul" is, so I see no reason to respond to otto.

If he wants to pretend he is an adult and engage in an actual discussion, I will be happy to play along and also pretend he is an adult.

But if he can't even pretend to be one, I see no point in it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 14, 2014, 08:42:25 pm

Quote from: davep on May 14, 2014, 10:31:19 am

They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English.
~Dr.. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed..D.

 The MEDIA elevated the street thug to hero status in the mid 1980's as a way to MAKE MONEY.
 
 Of course the same thing was thought about Elvis ... and Al Capone.
 
 You are what you tune into ... if youre not tuning in ... someone else is. :o

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2014, 05:26:10 am

The first female managing editor of the liberal bastion the New York Times gets fired for demanding equal pay.  You just have to love liberal hypocrisy. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fired.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 15, 2014, 10:37:39 am

Judicial Watch: IRS Targeting of Conservatives Occurred in DC

Wednesday, 14 May 2014 08:43 PM

By Cathy Burke


The egregious IRS targeting of tea party and conservative groups was based in Washington, not just at a rogue agency office in Cincinnati, according to documents released by watchdog group Judicial Watch.

 In one July 6, 2012, email from Holly Paz, manager of Exempt Organizations Guidance (EOT), to IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky, Paz asked for an explanation of how tea party group applications were being handled.

 Grodnitzky replied that the cases were being handled in Washington, Town Hall reported Wednesday.

 "EOT is working the tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in D.C. and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases. [IRS lawyer] Chip Hull is working these cases in EOT and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the tea party applications are the subject of an [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob."

Judicial Watch thinks "Rob" is a reference to Rob Choi, who was then the IRS' director of rulings and agreements and was based at the agency's Washington headquarters, the Daily Caller reports.

 The Washington involvement is in sharp contrast to the Obama administration's narrative when the targeting scandal first erupted last year. Town Hall pointed out that Washington officials were quick to toss the Cincinnati office under the bus,
 but the newly released emails tend to prove directions on tea party application handling came straight from D.C.

 For example, Town Hall reported, an email from Lois Lerner details how "be on the lookout" lists – called BOLO – were created for tea party groups or those with issues related to government spending, debt, taxes, and "how the country is being run."

 The new email data from Judicial Watch also show the IRS' Washington headquarters targeting was owing in part to pressure from Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, The Daily Caller reports.

 Levin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations, wrote a March 30, 2012, letter to then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman about the "urgency" of the issue of possible political activity by nonprofit applicants, the Daily Caller reported.

Levin asked if the IRS was sending out additional information requests to applicant groups, citing an IRS rejection letter to a conservative group as an example of how the IRS should be conducting its business, the Daily Caller said.

 "Some entities claiming tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations under 26 U.S.C.&501(c)(4) appear to be engaged in political activities more appropriate for political organizations claiming tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C.&527," Levin wrote, the Daily Caller reported.

 "Because of the urgency of the issues involved in this matter, please provide the following information by April 20, 2012," he wrote.

 Then-IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller sent Levin a 16-page explanation of how IRS rules allow for the agency to "prepare individualized questions and requests."

 "There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities," Miller wrote. “Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization . . . Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/IRS-targeting-Washington-Judicial/2014/05/14/id/571406/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1569196_05152014&promo_code=oqnyc6ev

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 15, 2014, 10:39:45 am

Finally, the cat is out of the bag. Bet Oddo disagrees.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 15, 2014, 11:35:37 am

The IRS should be repealed or defunded

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on May 15, 2014, 12:24:16 pm

Oh yeah...absolutely...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 15, 2014, 02:23:57 pm

Nope, all the barf is still in the bag for you t-baggers.


Still nothing...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2014, 03:01:52 pm

Bill Russell -- Great basketball player, true unsung hero of the civil rights movement, very entertaining commentator, and a very bright guy, but, unfortunately, also a socialist: "All great fortunes are amassed with either cheap or slave labor," Russell said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/bill-russell-gay-athletes-_n_5128595.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports&utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_165747

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2014, 03:08:02 pm

As protesters in several U.S. cities demonstrate outside of McDonald's stores across the nation today demand a $15/hour minimum wage, they and the news media seem to be ignoring the story which clearly shows what such a move would bring.  Here it is: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/14/panera-bread-will-replace-cashiers-with-robots-by-2016/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2014, 03:19:41 pm

This is just so typical of this administration: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/13/obamas-operation-choke-point-and-the-new-american-legal-system/

Obama’s Operation Choke Point And The New American Legal System

Recently social media was ablaze with the news that adult entertainer, Teagan Presley, had received word from Chase Bank that they were closing her account.  Presley had just become the latest law-abiding citizen to be swept up in “Operation Choke Point,” an joint effort by the Departments of Justice, Treasury and a handful of other agencies to effectively shut-down industries that the federal government doesn’t like.  Here’s the catch – they have no legal authority to shutter them and most of the victims of this overreach are losing their banking relationships even though they’ve done nothing wrong.

Targeting the adult entertainment industry may have been a gross tactical error on the part of the federal government. Until now, Operation Choke Point had been focusing on easy targets: short-term lenders, check cashing businesses, and online ammunition sales. All of those are legal industries, but the attacks garnered little public attention and therefore even less sympathy. Not so when it comes to the adult entertainment industry.

Regardless of where you are on the ideological spectrum, Operation Choke Point should greatly disturb you. You may not like payday lenders, pornography, or guns and ammunition, but it should worry anyone that the power of the federal government could operate in a manner that circumvents due process and is exercised with almost no accountability.

Operation Choke Point works like this: the inter-agency group selects an industry target, let’s say, an at-home business that sells cosmetics. Agents working on Operation Choke Point then contact the financial institutions where these entrepreneurs both have their bank accounts and process their payments, informing them that the federal government considers this industry “risky” and potentially  “fraudulent.” The government then “encourages” these financial institutions to cease doing business with individuals within that industry, which are mostly independent small business owners. If the financial institution does not cease doing business with them, then the full weight of federal regulatory power (DOJ, Treasury, FDIC, CFPB) will be brought to bear on the bank or payment processor.

Not wanting to be buried under red tape, these financial institutions then close bank accounts and refuse to process credit card payments for the business even if no impropriety has ever been alleged by any agency or legal entity. The end result is that the flow of cash to and from these businesses is “choked off” and the business dies. Whole industries can be destroyed using this method.

This is the new American judicial system. No need for cumbersome new legislation or regulations. No need for a public debate on the merits, or an accounting of the impact of this operation through the normal regulatory processes. The federal government merely pushes a button and these businesses are destroyed.

This is especially troubling when the industries at issue have had their right to exist debated in both legislative and judicial arenas—and their rights have been upheld by the courts.

Whether it is the First Amendment and pornography or the Second Amendment and firearms and ammunition, Operation Choke Point circumvents the Constitution’s protections. But perhaps you don’t care about ****, guns, payday lenders, or any of the current targets of Operation Choke Point. In that case, what ought to be of deep and abiding concern is the lasting legacy — the precedent that creates a new reality for all of us.

If Operation Choke Point is allowed to grow unchallenged, then no industry is safe from an administration, Republican or Democrat, that has decided to support that industry’s destruction but doesn’t want to go to the trouble of the legal or legislative process.

So you may not like short-term lenders, but perhaps you are in favor of marijuana legalization. If Operation Choke Point stands, there is nothing to prevent the targeting of legal dispensaries and growing operations having their bank accounts canceled or payment processing shut down.

Should this extra-legal process go unabated, there is nothing that would prevent, for instance, the targeting of businesses that provide materials for home school education. There is no reason why an administration with this power would hesitate to use it to promote a particular ideology or special interests in the financial services or energy sectors. In fact, it’s already happening.

Liberty is derived from the diffusion of sovereign power — power that must be balanced and checked and limited. Operation Choke Point is vast and unbridled power, hurting real people and their ability to make a living. No matter where you stand, progressive or conservative, you should be deeply concerned about the legacy of Operation Choke Point, and should be calling for its cessation immediately.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2014, 03:54:09 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 15, 2014, 03:19:41 pm

This is just so typical of this administration: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/13/obamas-operation-choke-point-and-the-new-american-legal-system/
Obama’s Operation Choke Point And The New American Legal System

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2014, 07:22:07 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 15, 2014, 07:39:46 pm

http://www.cnsnews.com/video/national/oreilly-americas-race-problem

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2014, 07:50:19 pm

The FDA is now soliciting bids for a purchase of .40 caliber sub-machine guns.

You know, the kind with the 30-round drums that the government insists there is no reason for anyone other than the military to have.

Sometimes you just have to wonder about the folks in the White House... and sometimes the paranoid folks forecasting truly wild moves by government almost seem to be onto something.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9fc3a01217d03b0354e1e18b69aa7bad&tab=core&_cview=0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 15, 2014, 08:06:38 pm

It is **** scary what our government is doing and becoming. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 15, 2014, 08:49:39 pm

Paranoid pieces of crap.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 15, 2014, 09:07:43 pm

Living in Madison, he should know crap when he sees it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2014, 04:59:44 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 15, 2014, 08:49:39 pm

Paranoid pieces of crap.

otto, what is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for the Department of Agriculture ordering the very kind of firearms this administration has argued citizens should not be allowed to have and which should only be used by the military?

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for Homeland Security ordering millions of rounds of ammunition?

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for the IRS targeting conservative groups advancing positions at odds with the administration?

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for Obama ordering the release of 36 THOUSAND illegal aliens with criminal convictions  here, including more than a thousand murderers, rapist and **** (we are not even counting all of the illegals released and allowed to remain who have no criminal records)?

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for the administration working on plans to regulate or crack down on conservative talk show hosts or other critics?

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for Obama to unilaterally change ObamaCare?

None of these are the actions of a Constitutionally limited executive branch, and most of them involve the targeting of administration critics.

Do I think Obama intends to suspend elections and declare martial law and remain in power?

No.  I can't believe he would be so stupid as not to realize that he would be assassinated within days of doing so, that the military would turn against him, and that so many patriots would be lining up to shoot him at any public appearance that it would resemble a country turkey shoot.

But at the same time I do understand the paranoia.

Now, can you answer my questions to try to explain why the paranoia is unwarranted?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 16, 2014, 07:58:36 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 16, 2014, 04:59:44 am

Now, can you answer my questions to try to explain why the paranoia is unwarranted?

He will just call you an olde, pasty, racist white guy and consider the questions answered.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 16, 2014, 08:03:10 am

The Department of Agriculture needs body armor to go with those machine guns and 30 round magazines?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/15/Dept-of-Agriculture-Orders-Ballistic-Body-Armor

A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks "the commercial acquisition of ballistic vests, compliant with NIJ 0101.06 for Level IIIA Ballistic Resistance of body armor."
According to the solicitation, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General," seeks "Body Armor [that] is gender specific, lightweight, [having] trauma plate/pad (hard or soft), [and] concealable carrier." The order includes "tactical vest, undergarment (white), identification patches, accessories (6 pouches), body armor carry bag, and professional measurements."

"All responsible and/or interested sources may submit their company name, point of contact, and telephone number." The solicitation says those sources received in a "timely" manner "shall be considered by the agency for contact."

On May 15th Breitbart News reported on a Dept. of Agriculture solicitation for "the commercial acquisition of submachine guns" with 30-round magazines.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 16, 2014, 09:15:01 am

Was just coming here to post this nonsense and see you guys are way ahead.....what is this Government doing? Otts, are you that freaking blind to not see it? What is your spin on this?? I'm concerned, as are most folks I've talked with about this, either Dem or Reps! The freaking USDA has NO business buying submachine guns and ammo and vests!! If you think they need them, you're a big part of the problem in this land!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 16, 2014, 09:33:38 am

Just wrote my Reps demanding a answer to this.

Dear sir, we are very concerned with the recent notice by the USDA purchasing submachine guns, ammo and now vests. For what?? What possible reason do they have of purchasing said military hardware?!?? There are many in this land saying the Government is out of control and headed toward Tyranny and worse and most of us regular folks disregard that....but with continuing purchases by obscure Governmental agencies of massive amounts of ammo and weapons and now vests, these crazies aren't looking so crazy anymore!! Look, this is a situation where a response of 'oh, they need it to train, or to replace weapons' etc just isn't going to cut it! There is no need for the USDA to be purchasing these types of weapons or vests! We, the PEOPLE, are quite concerned and rightfully so that these weapons will be used on US eventually! So, as your boss essentially who gives you the power to govern us, we demand a answer to this! We put you guys in office to govern, not to rule over us and if the past is any example, Americans don't take too kindly to being 'ruled over'. There are plenty of examples in our own history where we've stood up to tyranny and if we encounter it again, we will once again stand. Please put a end to these nonsensical wastes of monies and frightening the populace with endless weapon/ammo purchases that cannot be easily explained away.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 16, 2014, 11:26:13 am

Sporty you just made the NSA's list...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 16, 2014, 12:01:04 pm

Pekin, he said he signed it with your name ;-)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:16:35 pm

Paranoid a-hole from TN

Quote

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for the IRS targeting conservative groups advancing positions at odds with the administration?

If conservative groups who sign up under 501 status as tax free to promote the social welfare really engage in tax free political activity they should be targeted and convicted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:20:44 pm

Paranoid dickhead from TN

Quote

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for Homeland Security ordering millions of rounds of ammunition?

I don't know...THEIR JOBS.


Origins:   An August 2012 Infowars.com post pointed to a Request for Quote (RFQ) issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the purchase of 174,000 rounds of ".357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition." The article opined that as the ammunition was to be sent to a number of major cities around the U.S., it was "not
outlandish to suggest that the Social Security Administration is purchasing the bullets as part of preparations for civil unrest."

In fact, the spreadsheet showing the destination locations of the ammunition to be purchased by the SSA indicated that it was for "duty carry" purposes and was being procured for Field Division locations of the Office of Investigations (OI), part of the SSA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OI "conducts and coordinates investigative activity related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in Social Security Administration programs and operations" and "conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies."

The OIG's Office of External Relations posted a notice explaining that the reason behind the ammunition procurement was to supply the nearly 300 special agents who work for the OIG and are armed while on duty:

Our office has criminal investigators, or special agents, who are responsible for investigating violations of the laws that govern SSA's programs. Currently, about 295 special agents and supervisory special agents work in 66 offices across the United States. These investigators have full law enforcement authority, including executing search warrants and making arrests.

Our investigators are similar to your State or local police officers. They use traditional investigative techniques, and they are armed when on official duty.

Media reports expressed concerns over the type of ammunition ordered. In fact, this type of ammunition is standard issue for many law enforcement agencies. OIG's special agents use this ammunition during their mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions, to ensure agent and public safety. Additionally, the ammunition our agents use is the same type used at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Our special agents need to be armed and trained appropriately. They not only investigate allegations of Social Security fraud, but they also are called to respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees, and customers.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp#a6kXx2AJ38KF6mGg.99 (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp#a6kXx2AJ38KF6mGg.99)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:23:09 pm

Ignorant reactionary from TN

Quote

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for the administration working on plans to regulate or crack down on conservative talk show hosts or other critics?

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for Obama to unilaterally change ObamaCare?

Just decided to play the idiot t-bag card here, eh.


Sloppy work olde tacit racist grandpa wannabe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:25:51 pm

A moron with limited proof will post this...usuall is from TN.

Quote

None of these are the actions of a Constitutionally limited executive branch

Of course, opinions are like ****...everyone has one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 16, 2014, 12:38:50 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 16, 2014, 07:58:36 am

He will just call you an olde, pasty, racist white guy and consider the questions answered.

damn...I was so close too.  Completely forgot that calling you a T-bagger would be included too.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:53:15 pm

And speaking of the PPACA sheldon


Can you articulate the conservative repeal and replace buffoonery?


Carpetbagger scott brown needs answer....as does tom cotton....and senator chinless in KY.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 16, 2014, 12:55:06 pm

Comrade Oddo will not change

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:06:33 pm

More complete stupidity from the horror in TN

Quote

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for Obama ordering the release of 36 THOUSAND illegal aliens with criminal convictions  here, including more than a thousand murderers, rapist and **** (we are not even counting all of the illegals released and allowed to remain who have no criminal records)?

Besides the fact that our President Barack Hussein Obama never ordered the release of any "illegal aliens" who had been convicted served their time and were released TO ICE FOR DEPORTATION.

Of course every t-baggger supports the xenophobic Center for Immigration Studies which would love to close our borders to everyone not white and wealthy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:10:54 pm

The Idaho republic sampler pack.

There's Anarchist-Leaning Tea Party Guy, there's Old West Sovereign Citizenish guy, there's Ideological Party Purist Peeved At Establishment Guy and there's Establishment Guy Peeved At Ideological Guy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OlZA4SBD6qM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OlZA4SBD6qM)


Brains, like trains....ticket not purchased.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:21:49 pm

Hey did any of you 0.1%ers catch the seasonally adjusted initial claims for unemployment compensation May 10 numbers?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 16, 2014, 01:25:53 pm

By 0.1%ers do you mean those that are smart enough to see through the manipulation and know that the important number is the labor participation rate?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:33:42 pm

Ok LFPR, what was the rate in 1948 and what is it now?


Unskew whatever numbers! Yah!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 16, 2014, 01:41:51 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:33:42 pm

Ok LFPR, what was the rate in 1948 and what is it now?


Unskew whatever numbers! Yah!

I have no idea what the number was 66 years ago nor do I care.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:44:27 pm

Hey republic marko rubio... can you even spell science?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:47:01 pm

Well keysbart

Quote

know that the important number is the labor participation rate?

Since it is important to you....seems a little flippant to blow it off when questioned.

Now why would that be?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 16, 2014, 01:49:05 pm

Brains, like trains....ticket not purchased.

You never so who are you crapping? You never purchaced any either. You cant think for yourself, you cant spell and cant even construct a discernible sentence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 16, 2014, 01:49:19 pm

Because it was long before I was born? I prefer to deal with the present. To compare a time when women were traditionally not in the workplace to current events seems a bit silly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 16, 2014, 02:05:47 pm

Oddo the Homo from the backwards state of Wisconsin.

Instead of calling demeaning names, can you quote facts instead?  Or is that all you got?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 02:08:51 pm

Now that conservative global cooling is happening...can one of you deniers inform the people of California?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 16, 2014, 02:26:21 pm

Are Droughts a symptom of global cooling? Droughts have been happening in time since Moses. Why are they an environmental issues? They didn't have carbon emissions then, they didn't have electricity manufacturers, they didn't have automobiles then and they didn't have cow dung to blame either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 16, 2014, 02:27:32 pm

You need to contact Bale to see what he'd do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 02:47:05 pm

An example of the type of guy most likely to go the liberty college and meet A girl thru their mother.

Quote

Are Droughts a symptom of global cooling? Droughts have been happening in time since Moses. Why are they an environmental issues? They didn't have carbon emissions then, they didn't have electricity manufacturers, they didn't have automobiles then and they didn't have cow dung to blame either.

Norman!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 02:49:22 pm

Wonder if they know/no jesus?

http://time.com/1032/australia-is-melting-under-a-horrifying-heatwave/ (http://time.com/1032/australia-is-melting-under-a-horrifying-heatwave/)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2014, 03:20:01 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 16, 2014, 09:33:38 am

Just wrote my Reps demanding a answer to this.

Dear sir, we are very concerned with the recent notice by the USDA purchasing submachine guns, ammo and now vests. For what?? What possible reason do they have of purchasing said military hardware?!?? There are many in this land saying the Government is out of control and headed toward Tyranny and worse and most of us regular folks disregard that....but with continuing purchases by obscure Governmental agencies of massive amounts of ammo and weapons and now vests, these crazies aren't looking so crazy anymore!! Look, this is a situation where a response of 'oh, they need it to train, or to replace weapons' etc just isn't going to cut it! There is no need for the USDA to be purchasing these types of weapons or vests! We, the PEOPLE, are quite concerned and rightfully so that these weapons will be used on US eventually! So, as your boss essentially who gives you the power to govern us, we demand a answer to this! We put you guys in office to govern, not to rule over us and if the past is any example, Americans don't take too kindly to being 'ruled over'. There are plenty of examples in our own history where we've stood up to tyranny and if we encounter it again, we will once again stand. Please put a end to these nonsensical wastes of monies and frightening the populace with endless weapon/ammo purchases that cannot be easily explained away.

When the boy is right, he is right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 16, 2014, 03:21:53 pm

Oddo the Homo -  We know it is hotter in Australia.  But since there has been no Global Warming since 1998, it must be colder in other places.  Can you give evidence that it is caused by mankind?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 03:27:19 pm

sheldon


Everyone of positive mental thought just passed on your reinstatement to the bar.


You can however, join the service industry as an entry level foxhole.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2014, 03:50:54 pm

Has ObamaCare created a shortage of the meds otto normally takes in order to faintly approach normalcy, or what is the problem here?

His latest cluster of posts is pretty out there even by his standards.

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:23:09 pm

Ignorant reactionary from TN

Just decided to play the idiot t-bag card here, eh.

Sloppy work olde tacit racist grandpa wannabe.

Who are you addressing?

WHAT are you addressing?

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:16:35 pm

Paranoid a-hole from TN

If conservative groups who sign up under 501 status as tax free to promote the social welfare really engage in tax free political activity they should be targeted and convicted.

Again, WHO are you addressing?

WHAT are you addressing?

You seem to be trying to justify IRS harassment of taxpayers based on your perceived need for criminal prosecution of those taxpayers, despite that the criminal prosecution would come from the Justice Department, and has not happened at all.

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:23:09 pm

Ignorant reactionary from TN

Just decided to play the idiot t-bag card here, eh.


Sloppy work olde tacit racist grandpa wannabe.

Again, WHO are you addressing?

WHAT are you addressing?

There certainly was nothing there remotely responsive to the questions I posed and which you quoted:
What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for the administration working on plans to regulate or crack down on conservative talk show hosts or other critics?

What is the rational, non-paranoid, justification for Obama to unilaterally change ObamaCare?


Would you like to try again, or is your lack of response an admission that there is no defense to this?

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:20:44 pm

Paranoid dickhead from TN

I don't know...THEIR JOBS.


Origins:   An August 2012 Infowars.com post pointed to a Request for Quote (RFQ) issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the purchase of 174,000 rounds of ".357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition." The article opined that as the ammunition was to be sent to a number of major cities around the U.S., it was "not
outlandish to suggest that the Social Security Administration is purchasing the bullets as part of preparations for civil unrest."

In fact, the spreadsheet showing the destination locations of the ammunition to be purchased by the SSA indicated that it was for "duty carry" purposes and was being procured for Field Division locations of the Office of Investigations (OI), part of the SSA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OI "conducts and coordinates investigative activity related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in Social Security Administration programs and operations" and "conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies."

The OIG's Office of External Relations posted a notice explaining that the reason behind the ammunition procurement was to supply the nearly 300 special agents who work for the OIG and are armed while on duty:

Our office has criminal investigators, or special agents, who are responsible for investigating violations of the laws that govern SSA's programs. Currently, about 295 special agents and supervisory special agents work in 66 offices across the United States. These investigators have full law enforcement authority, including executing search warrants and making arrests.

Our investigators are similar to your State or local police officers. They use traditional investigative techniques, and they are armed when on official duty.

Media reports expressed concerns over the type of ammunition ordered. In fact, this type of ammunition is standard issue for many law enforcement agencies. OIG's special agents use this ammunition during their mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions, to ensure agent and public safety. Additionally, the ammunition our agents use is the same type used at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Our special agents need to be armed and trained appropriately. They not only investigate allegations of Social Security fraud, but they also are called to respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees, and customers.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp#a6kXx2AJ38KF6mGg.99 (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp#a6kXx2AJ38KF6mGg.99)

Once more, WHO are you addressing?

WHAT are you addressing?

It is not the "job" of Homeland Security to do ANYTHING which would require enough ammunition to fight a war.  We have the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy for that.  Homeland Security was not set up to fight a war, and even if we were invaded, there would be no need for THEM to fight a war.  The only apparent reason is that they intend to be armed to fight a DOMESTIC war, in other words to deal with "domestic terrorism" in the even the administration so egregiously oversteps its bounds as to provoke its citizens to revolution.

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:25:51 pm

A moron with limited proof will post this...usuall is from TN.
Of course, opinions are like ****...everyone has one.

Yet again, WHO are you addressing?

WHAT are you addressing?

If that is you response to my point that the actions I asked about exceed the scope of power granted to the chief executive in a Constitutionally limited executive branch, I take it that you have nothing to support a contention otherwise.

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:06:33 pm

More complete stupidity from the horror in TN
Besides the fact that our President Barack Hussein Obama never ordered the release of any "illegal aliens" who had been convicted served their time and were released TO ICE FOR DEPORTATION.

Of course every t-baggger supports the xenophobic Center for Immigration Studies which would love to close our borders to everyone not white and wealthy.

And again, WHO are you addressing?

WHAT are you addressing?

What is the Center for Immigration Studies, how is it relevant to any discussion here or any defense of Obama's actions, and who here has ever suggested they would "love to close our borders to everyone not white and wealthy."  I have repeatedly stated my position that I would like to see immigration quotas eliminated and that ANYONE wanting to enter the U.S. be allowed to do so, so long as they have no troubling criminal record, have no communicable diseases, are not associated with any group supporting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, demonstrate a basic understanding of English and of our system of law, and have enough cash on hand to support themselves for a couple of weeks.  (I would add to that, however, that I now believe we should also limit immigration to those who are willing to stay here in the U.S., and that anyone leaving the U.S. before they become citizens should not be allowed to return.)

Your second sentence reads: Besides the fact that our President Barack Hussein Obama never ordered the release of any "illegal aliens" who had been convicted served their time and were released TO ICE FOR DEPORTATION.   I would like to respond to it, but unfortunately it is utterly incoherent.

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:53:15 pm

And speaking of the PPACA sheldon


Can you articulate the conservative repeal and replace buffoonery?


Carpetbagger scott brown needs answer....as does tom cotton....and senator chinless in KY.

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 12:53:15 pm

And speaking of the PPACA sheldon

Can you articulate the conservative repeal and replace buffoonery?

Carpetbagger scott brown needs answer....as does tom cotton....and senator chinless in KY.

One more time, who is "the PPACA sheldon"?

And what need is there to explain what would replace a program being eliminated when the program does more harm than good?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2014, 03:51:58 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 01:10:54 pm

The Idaho republic sampler pack.

There's Anarchist-Leaning Tea Party Guy, there's Old West Sovereign Citizenish guy, there's Ideological Party Purist Peeved At Establishment Guy and there's Establishment Guy Peeved At Ideological Guy.

Brains, like trains....ticket not purchased.

Unless those shown speaking on the video get some prominent share of the vote, the only thing the video would tend to show is that such candidates are rather soundly rejected.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 16, 2014, 05:50:41 pm

 
 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-11/business/chi-mcdonalds-ceo-pay-20140411_1_chief-executive-don-thompson-mcdonald-peter-bensen (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-11/business/chi-mcdonalds-ceo-pay-20140411_1_chief-executive-don-thompson-mcdonald-peter-bensen)
 
 Id be pissed if my pay was cut by 4MIL. Leaving only 9.5MIL.
 
 To be making ony $4567.00 per hour is an insult.
 
 What happened to the upward prosperity of AMERICA ?
 
 Well maybe I took it all and didnt give it to my workers.
 
 BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA !!!
 
 Now GET THE **** BACK TO WORK !!
 
 These fuckin ungratful son of a **** ... you give them a job and all they scream about is more money for their labor.
 
 It can be done to put a roof over your head and have car payments and raise kids and send them to college on $7.25 an hour ...
 
 in this day and age.
 
 Double check that Smithers and match the numbers until they work.
 
 If these people would stop wasting their money on medical payments and electricity and other non-esstentials they could get by easy.
 
 Why I remember back in my day as a lad growing up in The Hamptons
 servents had to light the candles for us before we could have dinner.
 
 Weve all had it tough at some time in our lives.
 
 And we made our lives better ! One year we could not put the yacht out to sea because of tough financial times ... a horrible year indeed.
 
 --- Mr. Burns
 
 Who is that young firebrand on the spy screen Smithers ?
 
 Ahh ... Homer Simpson ... a rather nobody in sector HA-Ic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 16, 2014, 10:12:46 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/16/climategate-ii-scientific-community-accused-muzzling-dissent-on-global-warming/

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 16, 2014, 10:16:29 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 16, 2014, 10:12:46 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/16/climategate-ii-scientific-community-accused-muzzling-dissent-on-global-warming/

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

No doubt about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2014, 10:28:38 pm

Some foxhole post something about the global climate...

We may not have felt it in the United States, but last month was the second-warmest April worldwide since scientists began recording temperature data, according to a preliminary report from NASA.

Around the planet, April temperatures averaged 58.5°F, which is 1.3°F above average temperatures. This is only a tad lower than than the warmest April ever recorded, a milestone hit in 2010 when NASA calculated global temperatures of 1.44°F above average, according to the data sheet.

The data announcement also marks this April as the 350th month in a row where the globe has experienced above-average temperatures, a phenomenon that scientists agree is largely caused by increases of man-made greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. Incidentally, April 2014 also marked the first month in human history when average carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached above 400 parts per million.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 16, 2014, 10:38:54 pm

 
 I dont believe any of you. Which makes me always right.
 
 Such an enormous burden to carry on ones shoulders.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 12:32:55 am

The earths climate has been changing long before we were here and will be changing long after we are gone. 

We need the EPA to be looking at companies who are polluting indiscriminately and not going after Obama's political enemies.  This administration has turned the entire country into dirty Chicago style political slime.  They attack anyone who does not agree with them with all the power they have. 

If lots of people do not go to jail over this then every single administration going forward will do the same.  This will destroy our country as it has many others.  This is why our founders wrote the constitution they did. 

I can't comprehend why liberals do not get that the pendulum will swing and at some point they will be on the other side.  I can only assume they really believe they have not over played their hand and they think they got it locked down forevermore. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2014, 08:02:44 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 12:32:55 am

We need the EPA to be looking at companies who are polluting indiscriminately and not going after Obama's political enemies.   

No.

We need the EPA to be eliminated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 17, 2014, 08:15:59 am

In our area, we've had the coldest four month period since the beginning of the year since records have been kept. So what? It gets warmer in one spot, colder in another. It's called 'weather'.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 12:07:23 pm

While you could do away with the EPA you have to have some government body going after polluters. Due to greed some companies would just dump hazardous waste wherever they felt like it if there were no penalties.

That being said the EPA has become way to powerful and needs to be done away with and replaced or reigned in significantly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 17, 2014, 01:12:11 pm

Definitely reigned in

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2014, 01:28:20 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 12:07:23 pm

While you could do away with the EPA you have to have some government body going after polluters. Due to greed some companies would just dump hazardous waste wherever they felt like it if there were no penalties.

That being said the EPA has become way to powerful and needs to be done away with and replaced or reigned in significantly.

Most, though perhaps not all, of the problems you mention could be dealt with far better through use of standard property right concepts, changing the rules on class action lawsuits to allow people who individually have relatively small injuries to act together in suing the responsible parties, and by changing public nuisance laws to allow collection of damages which take place in the future (after the lawsuit), without repeated lawsuits (which would be required under current law), so long as the activity causing the injury continues.

Other than that the sound approach would be the use of effluent discharge taxes, taxing polluters in an amount intended to roughly approximate the cost of their pollution, and then leaving to them the decision of whether to pay it without changing the conduct causing the pollution, or going out of business, or changing their conduct to reduce the pollution and thereby reduce their tax burden.  But it is a serious mistake to leave to the government the decision of whether certain economic activity will or will not be allowed, or what measures business must take to control or reduce pollution.  Those are simply not the kind of decisions government makes well, and are instead precisely the kind of decisions the free market makes well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 17, 2014, 01:38:38 pm

Nothing to see here (or Obama bootlickers hope).....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/328546c0-dd10-11e3-8546-00144feabdc0.html

Amid contrived outrage over Benghazi and the improving fortunes of its healthcare reform, the Obama administration could be facing a genuine scandal about its treatment of military veterans that has the potential to attract broad political condemnation of its competence.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is facing mounting evidence that some of the hospitals it runs have been keeping two sets of books to make it look as if they were reducing waiting times to see a doctor.

More damning, the department is investigating the claims of a whistleblower doctor in Arizona that dozens of patients at one hospital died while they were languishing on a hidden waiting list without ever being given an appointment.

Richard Griffin, the department’s acting inspector general, admitted on Thursday that its review could lead to criminal charges. In the first political casualty of the scandal, Robert Petzel, the department’s undersecretary for heath, resigned on Friday.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 02:59:35 pm

You would still need to have someone enforcing such rules Jes.  Businesses are not going to report the amount of pollution they are putting out honestly.  Anyway you slice it at some point some government agency has to be involved to police it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 17, 2014, 05:54:35 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 02:59:35 pm

You would still need to have someone enforcing such rules Jes.  Businesses are not going to report the amount of pollution they are putting out honestly.  Anyway you slice it at some point some government agency has to be involved to police it.

 So why not hire : Jackies Pollution Patrol Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil.
 
 We'll get the job done ... unless you have more money then who we are getting the job done for.  ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2014, 06:29:46 pm

The natural outgrowth of our current approach in dealing with those who are in this country illegally -- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/us/us-sets-up-crisis-shelter-as-children-flow-across-border-alone.html?_r=0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2014, 06:30:55 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 02:59:35 pm

You would still need to have someone enforcing such rules Jes.  Businesses are not going to report the amount of pollution they are putting out honestly.  Anyway you slice it at some point some government agency has to be involved to police it.

You rather clearly don't understand what I suggested.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 07:13:47 pm

You can't tax polluters if they are not reporting their pollution honestly.


As far as people taking them to court for pollution I don't feel like that is a cure.  If people are getting sick and don't know why, how can they go after the company making them sick?  For instance say a company is dumping waste.  No one knows they are dumping it.  However it is leaching through the soil and getting into the ground water.  People nearby with wells are drinking it.

How would they ever know?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 17, 2014, 08:22:53 pm

 
 

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 07:13:47 pm

You can't tax polluters if they are not reporting their pollution honestly.


As far as people taking them to court for pollution I don't feel like that is a cure.  If people are getting sick and don't know why, how can they go after the company making them sick?  For instance say a company is dumping waste.  No one knows they are dumping it.  However it is leaching through the soil and getting into the ground water.  People nearby with wells are drinking it.

How would they ever know?

 Jackies Pollution Patrol Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil.
 
 Trust us. We know whats best for you.
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 08:28:19 pm

Also maybe it doesn't make anyone sick right away.  Perhaps it takes years to build up in the system and causes cancer or something.  How would anyone even know why they got the cancer?

I know you used to be  a lawyer so you think they are the answer.  I think of lawyers as no better then politicians and in some cases even worse.  Although they are often one and the same.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 17, 2014, 08:50:34 pm

One month does not make a climate change.  Wasn't it you that asked the difference between weather and climate.

And, of course, climate has been changing for millions of years.  If there were a current change, as there was until 1998, that is not proof that the actions of mankind was causing it.  However, if it were actually caused by the actions of mankind, then there would be a correlation between the tremendous increase in global warming emissions since 1998 and an corresponding increase in temperatures.  There was no corresponding increase in temperatures during that time.

Nor would there be reason for the climate hacks at the Eastanglian climate center to falsify reports and conceal raw data.

But our resident Homo will now quote one of his lunny left publicatiions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2014, 09:02:15 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 07:13:47 pm

You can't tax polluters if they are not reporting their pollution honestly.

And why would you need to?

When people buy gasoline, they pay a gasoline tax which is intended to serve as a tax roughly approximating their use of the highways.  The tax is not collected from drivers based on self-reporting of miles driven.

With many polluters the pollution can be measured at the point of release.  There are many ways to do it other than self-reporting, though that can also be used as part of the picture.

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 07:13:47 pm

As far as people taking them to court for pollution I don't feel like that is a cure.

So the regulatory approach is better?

Really?

I also have not urged that the courts be used exclusively, but the regulatory approach is a total failure, often resulting in more harm than it prevents.

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 07:13:47 pm

If people are getting sick and don't know why, how can they go after the company making them sick?  For instance say a company is dumping waste.  No one knows they are dumping it.  However it is leaching through the soil and getting into the ground water.  People nearby with wells are drinking it.

How would they ever know?

Think just a moment about what you are saying here.

You would prefer to have government regulate things it does not know about, with the folks responsible for the regulation not even being directly interested in it, than trust those who are directly involved to advance their own interests.  You are concerned that sometimes a person will not know they are injured until much later, or not know the source of their injury, so you instead want government to regulate.... when government also will not know of the injury or the source of it.

A rather bizarre position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2014, 09:05:27 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 08:28:19 pm

I know you used to be  a lawyer so you think they are the answer.  I think of lawyers as no better then politicians and in some cases even worse.  Although they are often one and the same.

No.  I think individuals are the answer.  And I think the court rules need to be changed to make it easer for an individual, with or without an attorney, to pursue their interests and get compensated for their injury, instead of giving government more power to regulate things.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 09:27:25 pm

Certain industries use specific hazardous wastes.  You have to have records and proof of how you disposed of said wastes.  The EPA can and does check into this.

I am not asking for more regulation.  I believe we have to much regulation as it is.  I simply believe we need a government agency to watch over this sort of thing.  Much like we have government agencies to put out fires and to catch criminals.  While they are few and far between there are some things that are best left to the government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 17, 2014, 09:36:16 pm

 
 BOOM !! The Atomic Bomb. Made by White Castle.
 
 Buy em by the sack !
 
 Its a funny thing about goverment ... YOURE the goverment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 17, 2014, 09:45:49 pm

Jackie - I thought YOU were the Government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 17, 2014, 09:51:26 pm

Quote from: davep on May 17, 2014, 09:45:49 pm

Jackie - I thought YOU were the Government.

 Only on even days sweetheart ....
 
 on odd days I let your elected officials think they are running the show.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 17, 2014, 11:28:14 pm

No, he's the HAMBURGER man, ha ha haaa! I'm NOT sorry, I'm not, I'm not

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 18, 2014, 05:35:34 am

We need some government. People/industry won't police themselves. The problem is, government gets too bloated, too many reg's, something for every single squeaky wheel that squeaks.. Businesses have to streamline at certain points, government never does...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2014, 06:16:36 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 09:27:25 pm

Certain industries use specific hazardous wastes.  You have to have records and proof of how you disposed of said wastes.  The EPA can and does check into this.

No, you do not HAVE to have records and/or proof of how you dispose of certain wastes.  That is one approach, but far from the only approach.  The government does not count on self reporting when taxing gasoline use as a proxy for measuring highway use.  (As an aside, this does point to one of the problems of increasing the use of electric cars, since those cars would be using the roads without a corresponding tax on their consumption [use] of the roads.)

In Germany after WWII one of their major rivers (I think it was the Rhone, but I am a long way from sure), became what amounted to an open industrial sewer, causing major illness downstream.  Germany decided not to use a regulatory approach (telling businesses what and how much and when and how they could dump **** into the river), but to instead use a more free market taxation approach, commonly called an "effluent discharge tax."  With an effluent discharge tax, government (and here we have the correct role for government) determines what pollutants are a concern, determines how best to monitor their release or discharge, and imposes a tax which roughly approximates the cost which would be created from each unit of discharge of the pollutant, and then allows industry to determine what it is going to do.  Under that approach the polluter has an incentive to reduce pollutants released to the point reduction no longer makes economic sense -- in other words to the point where further reduction would cost more than the harm that pollution creates.  It is a dynamic approach, encourages innovation by the party directly responsible for pollution, and has a continual pressure for reduction, since reduction can increase profits.

The regulatory approach has a regulatory body determine how much pollution will be allowed or what approach will be used to reduce pollution, allows little to no innovation, and has the regulators determine what the level of pollution will be, without real regard to either the cost of the reduction, or whether it would make sense to reduce it further.  And to the extent regulators TRY to consider such factors, they are not in the same kind of position to be sensitive to costs or to innovate as the business.

Sometimes the pollution to be taxed would be measured by testing water at discharge points, sometimes by installing monitors on smokestacks, sometimes by monitoring how much of a given input factor (such as gasoline in highway use by vehicles driving on the road) is bought or used, and other times even other approaches might be used, but self-reporting is not a means high on the list of ways to determine the amount of effluent discharged.

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 09:27:25 pm

I am not asking for more regulation.  I believe we have to much regulation as it is.  I simply believe we need a government agency to watch over this sort of thing.

You also don't seem particularly receptive to alternatives to regulation, or to use of the marketplace to replace the functions government now serves very poorly.

Quote from: Pekin on May 17, 2014, 09:27:25 pm

Much like we have government agencies to put out fires and to catch criminals.  While they are few and far between there are some things that are best left to the government.

We also have government agencies like public schools and the National Weather Service.... but the existence of a government agencies does NOT mean the agency is essential, or is doing its job well, that alternative approaches would not do it better, or even that the government agency provides society with a net positive beyond the situation which would exist if the agency or function were completely eliminated AND the free market offered nothing in its place (and generally the free market will eagerly do so).

Let's look at public schools.  If they were COMPLETELY eliminated, the nation would likely be better off over all, AND we would likely be doing a much better job of educating our kids, and not just some of them, but the vast majority of them, within five years.  Private enterprise and private charity and home schooling (by parents and neighbors and community groups) and internet options, would replace what public schools now do and do it better.  But so long as public schools exist, it is very hard for any of those options to compete, so relatively few do.

I also mentioned the National Weather Service.  Eliminate it completely, and within 24 hours alternative private enterprise services would be operating and providing data and forecasts every bit as accurate, and within a year, they would be MORE accurate.  Daily newspapers, TV news and radio are so dependent on weather forecasts, and their accuracy, that private enterprise (which already has some inroads in the field), would provide the same service without missing a beat.

You mention police and fire fighting, even though either, or both, can be, and in some places are, provided by private enterprise, community action, or subscription services (often the subscription service for firefighting is currently provided by government, but only to those paying the subscription fees).  In some areas, such as major cities where a fire in one building can put large numbers of people or buildings at risk, government might even require that everyone have some firefighting coverage, perhaps requiring those providing subscription service to establish their ability to respond to a fire.  I also am not saying all government firefighting should be eliminated. But that is a long way from concluding government firefighting is the only way to do, or even the best way to go.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 18, 2014, 06:34:01 am

JJ, you catch that obscure Cheech and Chong reference, huh huh......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 18, 2014, 08:02:48 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 17, 2014, 01:28:20 pm

Most, though perhaps not all, of the problems you mention could be dealt with far better through use of standard property right concepts, changing the rules on class action lawsuits to allow people who individually have relatively small injuries to act together in suing the responsible parties, and by changing public nuisance laws to allow collection of damages which take place in the future (after the lawsuit), without repeated lawsuits (which would be required under current law), so long as the activity causing the injury continues.

........

seems like usually the only folks to benefit from class action lawsuits are the guys wearing suits.
Consider a 10M lawsuit amongst 1000 in a neighborhood where a polluter puts waste in the river.
The law firm gets what 30%? that leaves 7M over 1000 people or $7k each.
Increase that to 100M and it is still only $70k each which wouldn't pay medical bills for most cancer treatments.

There are times we need govt to watch out for us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 18, 2014, 09:22:15 am

Class action lawsuits are much worse then that.  Often times the person actually harmed only gets a few dollars (as in $1 to $10 sometimes) while the lawyers make millions because they get a percentage of the settlement and billable hours.  And if you agree to that you lose all rights to seek further compensation.  In the end you are getting screwed by the company that did you harm and the class action law firm that brought the case against the company.  I am sure this is not the case every single time but happens often enough for it to be a problem.

Why do you think we constantly see advertisements on TV looking for victims to add to class action lawsuits?

Jes in the end the German GOVERNMENT had to monitor the pollution that was being released into the river no matter how the information is obtained.  The government enforced the rules.  Sometimes you want to argue just for the sake of arguing when there is very little we disagree about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2014, 10:52:01 am

Quote from: navigator on May 18, 2014, 08:02:48 am

seems like usually the only folks to benefit from class action lawsuits are the guys wearing suits.
Consider a 10M lawsuit amongst 1000 in a neighborhood where a polluter puts waste in the river.
The law firm gets what 30%? that leaves 7M over 1000 people or $7k each.
Increase that to 100M and it is still only $70k each which wouldn't pay medical bills for most cancer treatments.

There are times we need govt to watch out for us.

You seem to have ignored my suggestion, which I believe was the very first one that I made, that the rules on class action lawsuits need to be changed.  You point out part of the change, but you also demonstrate a rather clear misunderstanding of the way settlements or judgments are reached, as well as of how the cases are settled.  It is very unusual for someone with $10K in medical bills to get a judgment of $10K.  Judgments tend to be MULTIPLES of documented losses (lost wages, medical bills or other out of pocket expenses).  The idea that cases are resolved at trial with nothing more than an award for the medical bills, unless the jury concludes the plaintiff was also at fault in causing their own injury, or that they failed to do enough to minimize or control their losses, is seriously in error.  And if a case settles, the plaintiff is agreeing to the settlement after factoring in the odds of getting more at trial, as opposed to the odds of getting far less at trial.  Additionally, in class action suits, plaintiffs who do not like the settlement have the option of dropping out of the class and pursuing litigation in their own name.

Again, NONE of that is offered to say the class action rules should not be changed.  They should be.  That is simply to point out that you do not really understand what you are commenting on, and that the concerns you raise are not the concerns society should have about the system.

Quote from: Pekin on May 18, 2014, 09:22:15 am

Class action lawsuits are much worse then that.  Often times the person actually harmed only gets a few dollars (as in $1 to $10 sometimes) while the lawyers make millions because they get a percentage of the settlement and billable hours.

Ah, yes, first ignorance.... and then ignorance on stilts.

A "percentage of the settlement and billable hours."  Exhibit one as ignorance on stilts.

Quote from: Pekin on May 18, 2014, 09:22:15 am

Jes in the end the German GOVERNMENT had to monitor the pollution that was being released into the river no matter how the information is obtained.  The government enforced the rules.  Sometimes you want to argue just for the sake of arguing when there is very little we disagree about.

Pekin, did I say there would never be any role for government?

No.

Did I say government would never monitor or measure emissions?

No.

You say *I* argue just to hear myself argue, but you argue against positions which I have not even taken, and which my posts make clear I have not taken.

I simply pointed out that it will not even close to all of the time be required for government to do any monitoring, and even offered an example, with the gasoline tax, in which a tax is imposed for the purpose of roughly imposing upon drivers a rough approximation of the cost their road use creates, and at no time does the government either ask for self-reporting of the number of miles driven, or even put on your car any monitoring advice for that purpose.  Will such an approach always be available?  No.  Nor have I ever suggested that it would.

Now, as to whether the government in Germany did or did not have to monitor emissions of individual polluters, I submit that you really have no idea, and, for that matter, neither do I.

Let me give you an example.

Let's suppose we have five heavy industrial plants each of which are dumping hydrochloric acid into a collective holding pond on property they jointly own, with the water from that pond then released into a river or a lake or other publicly used waters.

We COULD have government tell each polluter what it will or will not produce and how and when and how much it will release and what it will do with the pollutants released from the plants and how it will or will not treat those pollutants.  That is pretty much the current approach.

OR, we could use the approach used in Germany, with the polluters taxed based on the releases, and then with each of them sorting out what they will do about it, and so long as the tax roughly approximates the costs the pollutants would create, society will be better off as a result.  Now, at this point, you exhibit concern that the polluters can't be trusted to self-report accurately and say the government would have to monitor... to which I say perhaps, but only perhaps.  Those five companies could also jointly act to TREAT the waste released in the holding pond, either neutralizing it with a base, or running it through a treatment plant, or by using vegetation to naturally remove the toxins before it is released further.  Government then might monitor only the ultimate release, or, might even rely on the marketplace to assure that the ultimate release causes no harm, or at least no harm in excess of the compensation paid to the injured parties.

OR we could amend our property laws and litigation rules to make it easier for the injured parties, who are in the best position to deal with the problem and with the strongest interest in addressing it, to respond and force the polluter to bear the full cost of their pollution.  One way would be to assign property rights to things we as a society do not now assign property rights, including to air (or at least air basins) and water (or at least to ground water or to lakes or to rivers, even if not to ALL water).  While this may seem foreign, it certainly is no less foreign than the concept of ownership in dirt and real estate was to people who had for centuries lived under concepts of either communal ownership or of the Divine Right of Kings, in which it was accepted that the king actually owned everything, and did so because he was "chosen by god," and essentially simply allowed others to use some of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 18, 2014, 03:20:55 pm

 
 Sporty, Here ya go
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTLiG8UJHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTLiG8UJHA0)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on May 18, 2014, 03:31:47 pm

I have been told by one guy his album still had the paper in it when he bought it.  I don't believe him. "Ve haf vays of making you talk".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 18, 2014, 06:06:46 pm

http://www.tortreform.com/content/class-action-lawsuit-abuse-threatens-business-hurts-consumers

Recently, class action lawsuits have been filed against technology companies, a toothbrush maker, a utility and - the latest target - health care plans. Whether or not these lawsuits are successful, the end result will hurt the very people the personal injury lawyers involved claim to protect - the consumer.

A class action lawsuit against a Texas computer maker shows how: Under the terms of the settlement, each class member got a $13 rebate on new merchandise or $6 in cash. The lawyers pocketed $5.8 million in legal fees.


Southwestern Bell customers were told they would benefit from a class-action lawsuit. Instead they ended up with three optional phone services for three months or a $15 credit if they already subscribed to those services. The lawyers pocketed $4.5 million in fees.

In 1997, lawyers got nearly $2 million in fees in a settlement with Cheerios over a food additive where there was no evidence any consumer had been injured. That was nearly $2,000 an hour for the personal injury lawyers. Consumers received a coupon for a free box of cereal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 18, 2014, 06:19:28 pm

Quote from: 46 on May 18, 2014, 03:31:47 pm

I have been told by one guy his album still had the paper in it when he bought it.  I don't believe him. "Ve haf vays of making you talk".

 We got the album back in Chicago and tried to roll a doobie with the Big Bambu. Didnt have enough grass.
 
 I did see one rolled up at Chicago Circle Campus at a party.
 
 Luckaly I did not participate.  :)
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 18, 2014, 07:58:05 pm

Mark's blog:

http://investing.calsci.com/blog5-18-14.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 18, 2014, 08:52:08 pm

Quote from: packrat on May 18, 2014, 07:58:05 pm

Mark's blog:

http://investing.calsci.com/blog5-18-14.html (http://investing.calsci.com/blog5-18-14.html)

 Packy if I have to rely on someone else to do my thinking for me ...
 
 KILL ME !!!
 
 Terminate ... with extreme prejudice.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjB8z0Bvi14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjB8z0Bvi14)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2014, 09:22:32 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 18, 2014, 06:06:46 pm

http://www.tortreform.com/content/class-action-lawsuit-abuse-threatens-business-hurts-consumers

Without responding to any of the claims there, the point of the post is what?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 18, 2014, 09:50:58 pm

You tend to project on others your own faults.  You decide what others think so you can argue against it.  Then accuse them of doing the same.

I am sure you have been told this before even though, "you are not crazy your mother had you tested"...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2014, 10:04:38 pm

Amazing.

Truly amazing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 18, 2014, 11:40:03 pm

Jes a quick run down. 

I agree that big powerful government is bad but that we need a small government to take care of certain things.  Where do we disagree here?

I agreed that the EPA is to big and powerful yet we need a government body to oversee pollution because we can't just let people pollute with no oversight.  Where do we disagree here?

Perhaps you see bigger differences in our stances then I do.  I just see you picking a fight because you like to argue. 

I have no problem with the way Germany handled it.  However I am guessing the German government set the rules and then enforced them.  This type of **** is exactly why people think libertarians are a bunch of nut bags.  You may not mean that you want a free for all but it sure comes off that way.  Someone has to enforce the rules and monitor the results of pollution so said rules can be enforced fairly and correctly.  Who if not the government?

Private companies I suppose could do it but wouldn't the government be paying them to do it and just be a more efficient way of the government overseeing it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2014, 05:23:40 am

Pekin, I have explained things.  I can't help it that you do not understand them.

Instead of trying to understand or asking questions, YOU want to argue, and to do so while contending it is the other person who is arguing.

While there might be plenty of reason to discuss with someone else the ideas I have presented, I see no reason to discuss them further with you.

And when I ask you a question about one of your posts, and very narrowly restrict what I wrote to a question, without disputing anything of your post, you completely ignore the question.  http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg180308/#msg180308

As I have said, I see no reason to continue this with you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2014, 06:09:07 pm

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/10342924_10202590059290540_669521741631446284_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 19, 2014, 06:12:59 pm

Medicaid expansion...


How many deaths?


Will happen in non expansion red states?????

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2014, 06:16:40 pm

Fewer than in the states which embrace it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2014, 06:17:13 pm

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1558513_711463518913780_324083357_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2014, 07:17:12 pm

Jes I completely ignored the question because the answer is obvious.  You said I was ignorant on the subject and it took me all of 3 seconds to do a search and post a link that supported my claim which you had ridiculed.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2014, 07:28:41 pm

I can only assume you focused on the billable hours.  Which is not the point at all.  The point was that many class action suits benefit only the lawyers.  It matters little that the money comes from the percentage of the settlement and they don't bill anyone.  You could have said you agree or disagree but that they are not able to bill any of the people involved in the class action suit.  However you chose not to.

You just went straight to being a dick like usual.

The original post about this subject was talking about the lawyers getting millions while the people they represent got only a few thousand.  The whole point of my post was that it was much worse then that.  The lawyers get millions from the percentage of the settlement and the people they represent get a few dollars.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 19, 2014, 07:59:29 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 18, 2014, 08:52:08 pm

 Packy if I have to rely on someone else to do my thinking for me ...
 
 KILL ME !!!
 
 Terminate ... with extreme prejudice.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjB8z0Bvi14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjB8z0Bvi14)

Not happy with oddo's thinking?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 19, 2014, 08:26:54 pm

Hey Sheldon


What happened to the 10-30 million t-bagger american spring in America this last weekend?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2014, 08:59:42 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 19, 2014, 07:17:12 pm

Jes I completely ignored the question because the answer is obvious.  You said I was ignorant on the subject and it took me all of 3 seconds to do a search and post a link that supported my claim which you had ridiculed.

What claim did it support, since we were talking about class action rules for pollution cases?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2014, 09:01:19 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 19, 2014, 07:28:41 pm

The original post about this subject was talking about the lawyers getting millions while the people they represent got only a few thousand.

I would suggest that you are more than mildly mistaken, and challenge you to find, copy and post that "original post."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2014, 09:09:17 pm

navigator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1645
View Profile
 Email
 Personal Message (Offline)
 







Re: Politics, Religion, etc.

« Reply #825 on: May 18, 2014, 08:02:48 am »


Quote

 
Modify

 
Remove

 
Split Topic

 



Quote from: Jes Beard on May 17, 2014, 01:28:20 pm

Most, though perhaps not all, of the problems you mention could be dealt with far better through use of standard property right concepts, changing the rules on class action lawsuits to allow people who individually have relatively small injuries to act together in suing the responsible parties, and by changing public nuisance laws to allow collection of damages which take place in the future (after the lawsuit), without repeated lawsuits (which would be required under current law), so long as the activity causing the injury continues.

........




seems like usually the only folks to benefit from class action lawsuits are the guys wearing suits.
Consider a 10M lawsuit amongst 1000 in a neighborhood where a polluter puts waste in the river.
The law firm gets what 30%? that leaves 7M over 1000 people or $7k each.
Increase that to 100M and it is still only $70k each which wouldn't pay medical bills for most cancer treatments.

There are times we need govt to watch out for us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2014, 09:41:15 pm

https://www.beasleyallen.com/news/aftermath-of-anniston-ala-pollution-settlement-is-anger/

Here is a case where folks were dying from the pollution and they got an average of $7,725.  This is in line with what Nav was talking about.

So what would the pay outs be for ailments that are much less severe?  My guess would be similar to the cases in the link I gave.

If you get $7,725 for getting cancer due to pollution what does someone get for say asthma from pollution?  $7.25 and a free inhaler while the lawyers walk away with millions?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 20, 2014, 12:17:38 am

Quote from: packrat on May 19, 2014, 07:59:29 pm

Not happy with oddo's thinking?

 No the constant re running of marks blog. Hell you can do better then that with your own mind.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 20, 2014, 05:32:29 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 19, 2014, 09:41:15 pm

https://www.beasleyallen.com/news/aftermath-of-anniston-ala-pollution-settlement-is-anger/

Here is a case where folks were dying from the pollution and they got an average of $7,725.  This is in line with what Nav was talking about.

So what would the pay outs be for ailments that are much less severe?  My guess would be similar to the cases in the link I gave.

If you get $7,725 for getting cancer due to pollution what does someone get for say asthma from pollution?  $7.25 and a free inhaler while the lawyers walk away with millions?

Pekin, did you study math in school?

Do you understand the concept of averages?

If you have 300 plaintiffs in a class action, and 290 plaintiffs are found to have had no damages, and 5 are found to have had damages totaling only $50 each, and 3 are found to have had damages of $100 each and two died, and the total settlement was $2M, what was the AVERAGE each one got?  And in a settlement, both sides have to agree to the settlement, or there is no settlement.  I submit that those who are actual parties to the litigation might have a better idea of what their litigation was worth than you, or the writer at the link you cite.  A better idea of what their individual claim was worth that you, or the writer at the link you cite.  And that they also knew (which it seems neither you nor the writer at the link knew) that they could have withdrew from the class action at any time and taken their case to trial.

You find a few reports which feed your hatred of lawyers and you use that to support your position that instead of allowing the marketplace to deal with the problems of pollution, we should have government do it.... presumably because everywhere you look you see the government making great decisions with the power it holds over us.  Amusing, when the following are two links I saw on facebook just minutes ago which might indicate otherwise: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/19/feds-used-donations-intended-for-poor-for-massages-luxuries-for-themselves/  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/19/illinois-spending-1166-per-bird-to-bring-in-prairie-chickens/  Do you really need reference to the myriad abuses of government power in general, or even of government power in the area of pollution regulation?

In my very first comment on this, I made clear that the rules regarding class action lawsuits need to be changed.  You have never even asked why type of changes.  You instead have climbed onto your high horse in righteous opposition to anything or anyone connected with lawyers.... even though the lawyers are hired by the plaintiffs and could be fired by the plaintiffs at any time, and even though, without the lawyers, most of the plaintiffs would have had no recovery whatsoever and had no way whatsoever to influence the future conduct of those being sued.

You sound very much like the remarkably brilliant Shakespearean character Dick the Butcher.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 20, 2014, 08:35:18 am

We are damn lucky to have a President that watches television. Without it he would know nothing about what is going on in his administration...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2633103/White-House-says-Obama-learned-VA-wait-list-scandal-TV-just-like-IRS-Fast-Furious-reporter-snooping-scandals.html


A CNN reporter asked Carney on Monday when the president was 'first made aware ... of these fraudulent lists that were being kept to hide the wait times' at VA medical centers.

'You mean the specific allegations,' Carney asked, 'that I think were reported first by your news network out of Phoenix, I believe?'
'We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them and that is when I understand Secretary Shinseki learned about them, and he immediately took the action that he has taken.'

After the Operation Fast and Furious scandal broke, Obama responded to national outrage in an interview broadcast by CNN's John King on October 12, 2011, similarly saying he was out of the loop until he turned on his television.
'There have been problems, you know,' the president said then. 'I heard on the news about this story that – Fast and Furious, where allegedly guns were being run into Mexico, and ATF knew about it, but didn't apprehend those who had sent [the guns].'
A few months into his presidency, Obama's White House approved an unannounced New York City  flyover by Air Force One, with a fighter jet following closely, in order to capture a photograph of the iconic plane over the Statue of Liberty.
Some buildings were evacuated and emergency phone lines were jammed as panicked New Yorkers feared a terror attack was imminent.

'It was a mistake,' the president said on April 28, 2009, the day after the flight. 'It was something we found out about along with all of you. And it will not happen again.'
Last year on May 14, Carney told reporters that Obama had learned about his Department of Justice seizing two months' worth of Associated Press journalists' phone records 'from news reports yesterday, on the road.'
'We don't have any independent knowledge of that,' Carney insisted.
That punt came just one day after Obama himself told the Washington press corps during a joint press conference with UK Prime Minister David Cameron that he was in the dark – until it hit news reports – that the Internal Revenue Service had targeted conservative nonprofit groups for special inquisitions when they applied for tax-exempt status.
'I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this,' he said in the East Room of the White House on May 13, 2013. 'I think it was on Friday.  And this is pretty straightforward.'
'I've got no patience with it,' Obama said moments later. 'I will not tolerate it. And we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.'




White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer told Sunday morning talk show audiences the following weekend that Obama was first informed 'when it came out in the news.'
A year later, accused IRS targeting instigator Lois Lerner has been held in contempt of Congress and her fate rests with Attorney General Eric Holder. A criminal investigation in the Department of Justice, which has issued no findings, is being managed by an attorney who donated thousands of dollars to Obama's political campaigns.

Obama's reputation for using the news media as his own coal-mine canary reached comic proportions that week when 'The Daily Show' host Jon Stewart carped that 'I wouldn’t be surprised if President Obama learned Osama bin Laden had been killed when he saw himself announce it on television.'


Some Republicans are fearing déjà vu as the VA medical scandal gathers steam.
'This is becoming a pattern,' a senior Republican Senate aide told MailOnline on Monday. 'The president supposedly learns about it while channel-surfing, tells us how outraged he is, and then what? Buries it?'

'That might wash with the tea party, but not with veterans. No one around here is inclined to let that happen.'
The Veterans Affairs Department briefing given to Obama's transition team after his first presidential election victory warned specifically that its own medical appointment scheduling practices were putting lives in danger.

'This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data,' the transition report read; 'it affects quality of care by delaying – and potentially denying — deserving veterans timely care.'
It also recommended a series of tests that would compare doctor appointments in veterans' official medical records with appointment times recorded in the VA's computer system.
As the VA scandal gathers momentum, doctors are beginning to put a human face on the tragedy.
Dr. Margaret Moxness, a whistle-blowing psychiatrist, told the Fox News Channel on Monday that she believes a West Virginia VA hospital where she once worked had an appointment system so dysfunctional that at least two veterans took their own lives.
Bureaucrats, she said, 'don't really experience what the doctors and nurses are experiencing, which is the suffering and the pain and the death.'
Moxness explained that her patients often had to wait months for follow-up appointments after she prescribed antidepressant medications that require check-ups after 10 days.
Some couldn't wait out their psychological pain and committed suicide.

VA Undersecretary for Health Robert Petzel resigned on Friday a day after telling a congressional committee that he was aware of a 2010 memo warning about the problems, which materialized in a Phoenix, Arizona VA medical center when as many as 40 veterans died while awaiting critical care. Computer records indicated that the vets were not on a waiting list at all.

Carney hinted Monday that Obama is likely to address the new scandal.
'I'm sure you'll hear from him at some point on this issue soon,' he said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 20, 2014, 08:59:21 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 20, 2014, 05:32:29 am

.....
In my very first comment on this, I made clear that the rules regarding class action lawsuits need to be changed. .....

so who are the key players to get laws changed? I would expect lawyers to play a huge role in that. Do you actually expect lawyers to push to get the laws changed to cut their payouts? That would be like asking politicians to push for term limits.

I have a lot of respect for lawyers, in many cases they are the only support the average person has in matters that are way over their head. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 20, 2014, 09:19:11 am

Quote

instead of allowing the marketplace to deal with the problems of pollution, we should have government do it.... 

The 'marketplace' deal with pollution?!? Heck, if the 'marketplace' dealt with it, we'd have nothing BUT pollution! They don't want to spend a dime on something that doesn't bring them profit, believe me. This is one time where Government has to step in and regulate this or businesses would pollute us out of existence. It's all about greed. Now Government can take this to the extreme and over-regulate, which they are doing to the coal industry. Even though coal can be made cleaner burning, they want it gone altogether. Excessive regulation and under-regulation are two extremes to be avoided.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 20, 2014, 09:23:42 am

Don't have a high opinion of lawyers myself.....especially the ambulance chasers.....those stupid mesothelioma commercials are incessant. 'Contact us! We'll make sure you get every dime you're owed! (while the law firm collects the most....)....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 20, 2014, 10:14:05 am

The latest onslaught of lawyer commercials is a drug that was prescribed to BOYS - and has been found to cause MAN BOOBS now

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 20, 2014, 05:28:56 pm

 
 I heard somwhere that 1/2 of all lawyers with law degrees graduating in 2013 will never find a job as a lawyer because the market is oversaturated.
 
 I cant back up the statement ... anybody know about this ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 20, 2014, 05:30:00 pm

Quote from: navigator on May 20, 2014, 08:59:21 am

so who are the key players to get laws changed? I would expect lawyers to play a huge role in that. Do you actually expect lawyers to push to get the laws changed to cut their payouts? That would be like asking politicians to push for term limits.

I have a lot of respect for lawyers, in many cases they are the only support the average person has in matters that are way over their head. 

If voters, which includes you, want it, it will happen.

If voters do not, it will not.

Most voters do not even understand the issue.  Even here, with you and Pekin, two people who generally consider yourselves to be supporters of small and limited government, you resist the idea.

I have advanced it for more than 30 years in contact with politicians.  And the only one I have ever asked about it who did not have his eyes glaze over in a manner indicating he did not even begin to understand it was Jack Kemp.  One member of Congress who I helped get elected did ultimately understand it, and likely would have supported it if it would have ever reached the floor of the House, but he never adopted it as a cause or advanced it in any way, and never reached the point where he was even familiar enough with it to initiate any discussion of it on his own.

I will continue to advance it, until it either is adopted, or I die.  And if I had any way to make book on it, I would probably make my heirs rich.

Will lawyers support it or oppose it?

They would likely oppose it, but NOT for the reasons you think.  You think they would oppose it because it would reduce some of the very rare large payouts in environmental class action lawsuits (of which there are close to none).  I think they would oppose it because it would end the very lucrative law practice before regulatory bodies, and a lot of jobs for lawyers working for the regulatory agencies.

There ARE real problems with the rules regarding class action law suits in environmental cases, but attorneys fees in such cases are an exceedingly small part of that picture.  The real problems are rules which make it difficult for plaintiffs to effectively bring class action cases in environmental cases.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 20, 2014, 05:42:49 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 20, 2014, 09:19:11 am

The 'marketplace' deal with pollution?!? Heck, if the 'marketplace' dealt with it, we'd have nothing BUT pollution! They don't want to spend a dime on something that doesn't bring them profit, believe me. This is one time where Government has to step in and regulate this or businesses would pollute us out of existence. It's all about greed. Now Government can take this to the extreme and over-regulate, which they are doing to the coal industry. Even though coal can be made cleaner burning, they want it gone altogether. Excessive regulation and under-regulation are two extremes to be avoided.

Ah, yes, as is typical with Sportster, I see he has not bother at all to actually try to understand a discussion, but latches onto on phrase, which he thinks he understands (and does not) and then reacts not with reflective thought, but with reactive emotion.

Good job, Sport!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 20, 2014, 06:06:01 pm

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/10294395_10152098097320896_8550871422968047583_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 20, 2014, 06:14:27 pm

 
 Does anyone MAKE anything anymore in America?
 
 Or is it all just about pushing PAPER back and forth ...
 
 as to who is right and who is wrong ?
 
 Well, under those circumstances , the Lumberjacks are making money.
 
 Whens the last time this Country designed and built a cruise ship ?
 
 Better yet ... whens the last time this Country landed people on Mars?
 
 Oh ... wait ...
 
 Actually I could really give two **** about going to Mars or your childrens future or anything else other then increasing my financial portfolio.
 
 I got mine ... and if you didnt get yours ... tough ****.
 
 Its GOOD to be da ruling class !! NOW GET BACK TO WORK !!!
 
 Breaktime is over.
 
 BTW ... that $.30 markup on a cup of coffee at the vending machine is going straight to ... ME !
 
 JJ can find a profit for JJ on toilet paper ...
 
 which you are going to have to pay for from now on at work.  :) 
 
 Sorry ... only credit or debit cards excepted in the stalls.
 
 Or you can pay via smartphone or ipad.
 
 Only one flush allowed per visit or you pay more.
 
 We have to preserve water and protect the enviroment.
 
 Making money on EPA rules is JJ's way .  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 20, 2014, 07:19:09 pm

Conservative filmmaker pleads guilty in campaign case



By Associated Press,
Updated: Tuesday, May 20, 10:59 AM

NEW YORK — A conservative scholar behind a high-grossing film condemning President Barack Obama pleaded guilty Tuesday to making illegal campaign contributions to a U.S. Senate candidate in New York.

Dinesh D’Souza, 53, of San Diego, entered the plea in federal court in Manhattan on the day his trial was to begin, admitting he had two close associates each contribute $10,000 to Wendy Long’s campaign with the understanding that he would reimburse them.

Now which one of you conservative morons claimed that this was a wrongful prosecution brought by the Obama Administration?

Guess not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 20, 2014, 08:11:54 pm

Wrongful prosecution? Perhaps. Selective prosecution? definately

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 20, 2014, 10:14:01 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 20, 2014, 07:19:09 pm

Now which one of you conservative morons claimed that this was a wrongful prosecution brought by the Obama Administration?

Guess not.

Find it.  I don't recall anyone who argued that position here.  Even if it was the case, I don't recall anyone arguing it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 20, 2014, 11:30:11 pm

"I will continue to advance it, until it either is adopted, or I die. "

You shouldn't offer us choices like that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 21, 2014, 06:53:38 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 20, 2014, 05:30:00 pm

........ One member of Congress who I helped get elected did ultimately understand it, and likely would have supported it if it would have ever reached the floor of the House, but he never adopted it as a cause or advanced it in any way, and never reached the point where he was even familiar enough with it to initiate any discussion of it on his own.......

I would think since many of our politicians were also lawyers and many times have to eventually go back to work they would be reluctant to support the change as well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 21, 2014, 08:29:05 am

Gee...who saw this coming?

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-80263091/

 
Federal funds earmarked to offset Affordable Care Act insurer losses


 May 21, 2014, 6:00 a.m.The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.

Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.

They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn't need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.

But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 08:51:13 am

Blah, blah, blah risk corridors, blah, blah, blah.


Post something relevant loser.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 21, 2014, 08:53:57 am

Quote

  You just went straight to being a di** like usual.- Pekin 

Yep. Have to say I agree with Peke....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 21, 2014, 09:25:54 am

Free insurance for everybody. Yea, yea, yea..

Why work and have to pay for everybody else's insurance? Oddo doesn't pay for his why should we?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 21, 2014, 09:34:22 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 20, 2014, 07:19:09 pm

Conservative filmmaker pleads guilty in campaign case



By Associated Press,
Updated: Tuesday, May 20, 10:59 AM

NEW YORK — A conservative scholar behind a high-grossing film condemning President Barack Obama pleaded guilty Tuesday to making illegal campaign contributions to a U.S. Senate candidate in New York.

Dinesh D’Souza, 53, of San Diego, entered the plea in federal court in Manhattan on the day his trial was to begin, admitting he had two close associates each contribute $10,000 to Wendy Long’s campaign with the understanding that he would reimburse them.

Now which one of you conservative morons claimed that this was a wrongful prosecution brought by the Obama Administration?

Guess not.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/01/31/dershowitz-says-dsouza-case-smacks-of-selective-prosecution/

Alan Dershowitz may be phasing out his days as a Harvard law professor. But that doesn’t mean he’s stepping off the pedestal.

His latest topic of concern: Dinesh D’Souza. Mr. Dershowitz thinks the federal campaign fraud charges against the conservative filmmaker and author are an example of “selective prosecution.”

Weighing in on the case Friday in an interview with Law Blog, Mr. Dershowitz was withering in his opinion of the Manhattan U.S. attorney office’s prosecution of Mr. D’Souza, who pleaded not guilty last week to making illegal campaign contributions to a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in 2012.

“The idea of charging him with a felony for this doesn’t sound like a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “I can’t help but think that [D'Souza's] politics have something to do with it. . . . It smacks of selective prosecution.”

The professor, though, said he has a high regard for Manhattan U.S. attorney Preet Bharara, whose office under his watch has won corruption convictions against nearly a dozen Democratic lawmakers in New York. “I’m a big of supporter. I think he’s doing a great job, but this is a mistake,” Mr. Dershowitz said.

A spokesperson for Mr. Bharara’s office did not have an immediate comment.

Mr. D’Souza’s polemical 2012 film “2016: Obama’s America” — which is highly critical of the nation’s Democratic president — ranks among the highest grossing documentaries of all time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 10:09:59 am

Conservatives blame Dinesh D’Souza’s indictment on ‘Nazi Germany’-like conspiracy

By David Ferguson
Friday, January 24, 2014 15:52 EDT


Defenders of embattled conservative pundit Dinesh D’Souza are alleging that a far-reaching conspiracy on the part of angry liberals is to blame for his recent indictment for campaign fraud. Media Matters has published a round-up of some of the right-wing players who have gone to bat for D’Souza since it was announced that he was indicted on federal campaign finance charges.

Prosecutors allege that D’Souza illegally donated tens of thousands of dollars to a U.S. Senate candidate by asking friends to write checks to the candidate with a promise by D’Souza of reimbursement. The practice is expressly forbidden under U.S. law and the use of so-called “straw donors” to enrich the coffers of a particular candidate is considered a felony.

The New York Times speculated that the candidate in question is erstwhile New York Senate
hopeful Wendy Long, who attended Dartmouth College with D’Souza in the late 1980s and served alongside him on the staff of the college’s conservative newspaper, the Dartmouth Review.

Far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones announced on his show Thursday night that the Obama administration has begun its “purge” of critics.

“America is going over the edge,” Jones warned. “I actually am scared.”

The indictments against D’Souza and corrupt former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) are evidence that Obama is launching a nationwide putsch aimed at silencing opposing voices.

His words fairly running together with excitement, Jones declared that, “The issue is here, they can find a mistake in your checking account and claim that it was fraud or wire fraud. They can do it to anybody.”

“This is like Nazi Germany,” he insisted and that “once they’re done with these guys, they’re coming after you and I.” [sic]

Right-wing talk radio doyenne and fellow Dartmouth graduate Laura Ingraham also leapt to D’Souza’s defense, calling the charges against him “retribution justice.”

The felony charges against D’Souza, she alleged, are “more about stifling political dissent and intimidating other people from speaking out than it is about any real serious allegation of wrongdoing.”

D’Souza’s election-year, anti-Obama propaganda film “2016: Obama’s America” had made him into one of Obama’s “most effective critics” and therefore, charges had to trumped up by the government to take him down.

Ingraham failed to mention whether D’Souza’s forced resignation as president of a Christian college in 2013 over an extramarital affair with a much younger woman is part of the Obama administration’s plot to silence him.

Meanwhile, Matt Drudge of the website Drudge Report bemoaned via Twitter that the Obama administration is “unleashing the dogs” on its critics. Former Tea Party congressman and alleged deadbeat dad Joe Walsh tweeted, “First Christie, second McDonnell, after that, D’Souza, then they came for…?”

Fox News’ website called the charges against D’Souza “selective” enforcement of campaign laws and Rush Limbaugh chimed in on Thursday to say that the Obama administration is “trying to criminalize as many Republicans and conservatives as they can.”

Wonder which bus they are under now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 10:14:23 am

And then there is fox-hole sean handity.



Dinesh D’Souza Tells Hannity Indictment Could Be ‘Payback’ for Anti-Obama Film

by Matt Wilstein | 1:35 pm, February 1st, 2014

Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative commentator and filmmaker who was indicted last month on charges of campaign finance fraud spoke out for the first time about his legal troubles on fox-hole handity Friday night. His defenders have spent the last few weeks wondering aloud whether D’Souza’s indictment was some kind of retribution from the Obama Administration for his film, 2016: Obama’s America, but now it was his turn.

“Now, remember,” Handity said before introducing D’Souza, “his indictment comes after the IRS harassed conservative groups last year and after the disgraced tax agency recently placed extra scrutiny on a group of conservatives in Hollywood.” As CNN reported last June, the IRS also targeted “progressive” groups.

Asked by Handity if he believes he was targeted for his conservative beliefs, D’Souza said, “I will say that the film, 2016, was a film that does seem to have gotten under President Obama’s skin,” citing a “rant” against the film on Obama’s website, presumably referring to this repudiation of the film on by Obama’s 2012 Truth Team. “Whether this is a kind of payback remains to be seen.”

Before moving on, Handity said the Obama Administration is “certainly targeting conservatives,” adding that it’s “been pretty well proven.” The host did not ask D’Souza any questions about the nature or veracity of the campaign finance violations with which he has been charged


Wonder why shovel-face didn't ask the basic questions.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 21, 2014, 11:29:05 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 08:51:13 am

Blah, blah, blah risk corridors, blah, blah, blah.


Post something relevant loser.

Homo - have you ever posted anything relevant?

For that matter, have you ever posted anything that wasn't a copy and paste?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 21, 2014, 11:45:23 am

I haven't bothered to research where these recent Otto  cut and paste jobs are from but I would be fairly comfortable guessing Huffington Post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 21, 2014, 12:31:44 pm

Dem declares "Communism Works"....well...at least until he got caught saying it then he backtracks. Must not let the peasants know how we really feel and think.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/21/dem-congressman-weve-proved-that-communism-works/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 02:24:31 pm

Wow, must have gotten side tracked on that Huffington Post search and again went gutter serfin'.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 03:11:15 pm

Quote from: navigator on May 21, 2014, 06:53:38 am

I would think since many of our politicians were also lawyers and many times have to eventually go back to work they would be reluctant to support the change as well.

While they may, that will not be for the reasons you suggest.  It will be because there is more work, and much more PROFITABLE work, in dealing with the regulatory process than would result from doing away with regulation and reforming class action lawsuits to allow reliance on that approach.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 03:14:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 08:51:13 am

Blah, blah, blah risk corridors, blah, blah, blah.


Post something relevant loser.

He did, his post, showing the Obama administration again plans to essentially revise the law on its own, and further showing that ObamaCare simply will not work, and further showing that it will be vastly more expensive than was promised, is quite relevant.  And since the source was the LA Times, it is not something you can dismiss as coming from "some right wing" source.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 03:21:35 pm

Blah, blah, blah libertarian hope, blah blah, blah.


For fun why don't you post what the "vastly more expensive than was promised" is, since the CBO scores the law as saving the government on healthcare spending.


This should be fun.


And BTW stupid lawyer convicted of over billing....isn't this just another example of why you don't have an actual license....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 03:31:34 pm

The CBO scored what the PROMISES indicated the plan would cost government, not what it would cost consumers overall, nor did the CBO consider expenses which were not in the figures provided to the CBO.  For example, the CBO projections did not include $650M to design a web page.

And who is it that was "convicted of over billing"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 05:03:23 pm

So....you're not answering the question asked?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 05:08:08 pm

And you're just filling a pitiful response with ex-lawyer billable actions.


 Again. how actually did you hold a license to start with?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 21, 2014, 05:10:46 pm

And since when does Comrade Oddo answer questions posed to him?.....................Rare if ever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 05:17:00 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 05:08:08 pm

And you're just filling a pitiful response with ex-lawyer billable actions.

otto, sentences need subjects and predicates.  What is the predicate in that sentence?  Where does that sentence go?  What is it saying or asking?  Do you know?  If so, please back up and try again, and this time make some nominal effort at being coherent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 05:22:04 pm

Again, answer the question or just move on false English lawyer.

 What is so hard for you to justify your "obamacare" post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 05:27:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 05:03:23 pm

So....you're not answering the question asked?

Which question would that be?

Would it be this one, without a question mark?

Quote from: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 03:21:35 pm

For fun why don't you post what the "vastly more expensive than was promised" is, since the CBO scores the law as saving the government on healthcare spending.

Hard to think it really merits a response, since it is quite inaccurate to say "the CBO scores the law" anything.  Saying "the CBO scores the law" in any manner suggests that the CBO is currently, and in a continuing manner, scoring the law.  It does not.  Surely even you know that one.  The CBO scored the bill before it was passed, based on what the bill promised to do, and accepting those promises at face value.  Since then, we have seen the Obama administration effectively amend it at will, deciding not to collect some taxes (which would have seriously altered the CBO scoring), and deciding not to implement parts of it at all when the White House felt the implementation would be politically unpopular at the time.  The law as the White House has decided to implement it is already significantly different from what was passed, and significantly different in ways which would alter the scoring.

Now, that aside, as to the significant increases in cost, Obama promised that the bill would save the average family something like $2,500 a year in health care costs.  It has in fact increased average health care costs by about that amount.  Without even beginning to look at other costs exceeding what was promised, that alone clearly qualifies as "vastly more expensive than was promised."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 05:29:07 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 05:22:04 pm

Again, answer the question or just move on false English lawyer.

 What is so hard for you to justify your "obamacare" post?

Nothing at all, though it is difficult to do when I am away from the computer getting a haircut.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 21, 2014, 05:36:59 pm

Quote from: davep on May 20, 2014, 11:30:11 pm

"I will continue to advance it, until it either is adopted, or I die. "

You shouldn't offer us choices like that.

 Now Dave be respectful of others opinions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 05:39:54 pm

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/10365845_741282775931854_3837824421939457355_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 21, 2014, 06:08:35 pm

 
 Jes,
 
 What is it about lawyers that everybody ranks them right there with used car salesmen ?
 
 Like ... theyve got a good speil going on ... but nobody believes them.
 
 Why is that true since Shakespeare?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 06:18:54 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 21, 2014, 06:08:35 pm

Why is that true since Shakespeare?

Fish in a barrel....

So, what are you talking about with Shakespeare?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 21, 2014, 06:32:45 pm

Homo - have you ever posted anything relevant?

For that matter, have you ever posted anything that wasn't a copy and paste?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 06:42:15 pm

Quote from: davep on May 21, 2014, 06:32:45 pm

Homo - have you ever posted anything relevant?

The real question might be whether he has ever THOUGHT anything relevant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 21, 2014, 06:56:05 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 06:18:54 pm

Fish in a barrel....

So, what are you talking about with Shakespeare?

 You already said it : Dick the Butcher.
 
 You already know who made the quote in Shakespeare.
 
 And what did he say ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 21, 2014, 07:15:35 pm

Elbert Guillory:  Why I am a Republican:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/n_YQ8560E1w?autoplay=1

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 09:31:18 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 21, 2014, 06:56:05 pm

 You already said it : Dick the Butcher.
 
 You already know who made the quote in Shakespeare.
 
 And what did he say ?

By focusing on WHAT he said, and ignoring WHO said it, HOW it was said, the context of what was said, and how Shakepeare wrote, you only show you know enough to make a fool of yourself.

Once you check those things, get back with me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 22, 2014, 06:34:26 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 21, 2014, 02:24:31 pm

Wow, must have gotten side tracked on that Huffington Post search and again went gutter serfin'.

Nope...just playin' your game. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Aren't you the one that loves to point out every time an obscure republican player makes a gaffe?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 22, 2014, 09:29:33 am

I heard Rand Paul talking of ridding us of the hated IRS

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 22, 2014, 09:44:33 am

Isn't Rand a proponent of the Fair Tax?
That sounds like the ticket for me.
It would give tax breaks to companies but yet close loopholes for a lot of those that don't pay taxes and are here illegally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 22, 2014, 10:32:10 am

Ok, so which one of you fox-holes told fox-hole anchor gregg jarrett that you had the last round?

He's pissed and doesn't want to pay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 22, 2014, 10:39:54 am

Good Grief! Not that garbage. You always post stuff like that like its something important. If the rest of us posted stuff about your Commie friends you'd be pissed

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 22, 2014, 10:44:44 am

Homo has no Commie friends.

Homo has no friends.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 22, 2014, 10:46:46 am

In the House and Senate and the White House he does.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 22, 2014, 10:50:07 am

No problem Otto....I'm sure Chris "thrill up his leg" Matthews is running a tab.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 22, 2014, 11:31:59 am

Some more of Oddo's friends

TWISTED: NY Dems Trying to Pass Abortion Bill That Will Legalize Shooting Babies Through Heart With Poison!


TWISTED: NY Dems Trying to Pass Abortion Bill That Will Legalize Shooting Babies Through Heart With Poison!



Today's News   

By Eric Odom
   
9:13 pm May 21, 2014

When it comes to the radical killing of the unborn, New York is second to none. But being one of the worst offenders when it comes to killing babies apparently isn’t good enough for some Democrats in the State Senate. Several NY Dems want to take their appetite for abortion to a whole new level.

Life News has more.


A group of pro-abortion Democratic State Senators continued to push today for abortion-expansion, despite polls showing the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers oppose their dangerous agenda. And the bill has grisly consequences.

“How many times do New Yorkers have to reject this radical agenda that would legalize abortion for any reason through all nine months?” asked Lori Kehoe, New York State Right to Life executive director. “New York is already the abortion capital of the United States, with practically no oversight of the industry, but they would rather protect the abortion business than New York women. It’s wrong.”

Throughout the second trimester, late abortions can be completed by dismembering the developed unborn child, even when they can feel pain, pulling the baby out piece by piece until the mother’s uterus is empty. After the abortion, the abortionist must reassemble the child’s body to ensure nothing has been left inside the child’s mother.

In abortions that take place later in pregnancy, which would be legalized in New York by the abortion-expanding Women’s Equality Act, often babies are killed by sliding a needle filled with a chemical agent, such as digoxin, into the beating heart, before being delivered.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/twisted-ny-dems-trying-to-pass-abortion-bill-that-will-legalize-shooting-babies-through-heart-with-poison/?Ref_ID=26387#sthash.0acNpyO5.dpuf

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 22, 2014, 11:59:14 am

While Terrorists Sneak Across Our Borders, Homeland Security Goes After Who?
 
     

The Department of Homeland Security has taken to arresting flea market vendors instead of terrorists these days.

Infowars has reported that the DHS has begun investigations in Massachusetts, Maryland, Texas and New Hampshire to uncover which merchants at local flea markers are selling counterfeit merchandise.

Isn’t that the role of community police?

Clearly, the DHS thinks flea market sellers are a big threat to American freedom.

This past week DHS officials teamed up with police forces in Essex county, Massachusetts to help bust 40-some odd merchants for the sale of “bogus merchandise.”

This of course highlights the fact that not only is taxpayer money being used to support an agency that is piggybacking on the efforts of police to crackdown on petty crime… it’s actually detracting from the DHS’s ability to handle real threats to national safety.

In fact, recent revelations have indicated that not only is DHS ignoring their mission to stop terrorism, they’ve even helped facilitate the unlawful entry of suspected terrorists into the U.S. on multiple occasions.

As Paul Watson, contributor to Prison Planet noted:


“Perhaps the most egregious example emerged in 2012 when a leaked study produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, and funded by the DHS to the tune of $12 million, largely ignored Islamic terrorism while concentrating on the threat posed by Americans who are ‘reverent of individual liberty.’”

That’s right.

The DHS is ignoring one of the most vocal and militantly anti-U.S. forces on the planet, and is instead spending their time investigating freedom lovers and flea market vendors.

What’s even more peculiar: Not only is DHS going after the wrong targets, they’ve even created a de-facto “hands off list” allowing for the free movement in and out of the U.S. of individuals with known associations to terrorist groups.

As Republican Chuck Grassley was able to show:


“Documents pertaining to the [hands-off list] reveal that an Islamic leader with reported ties to several terrorist groups was removed from a watch list and given a visa despite officials suggesting that he endorsed and incited terrorist attacks.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t a revelation of ineptitude on the DHS’s part.

It’s actually a wanton display of misappropriations of both funds and efforts to pursue non-legitimate threats that aren’t even threatening our nation’s safety.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 22, 2014, 12:15:30 pm

DHS is totally out of control. This isn't the first time I've heard of this nonsense with them going after targets the police and FBI should be following up with. They have no business nor jurisdiction doing what they're doing. Their role is to keep the US safe from enemy combatants such as Al Qaeda at home, not to be policing crap like this. They are getting too big and who's monitoring them????

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 01:24:28 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 21, 2014, 09:31:18 pm

By focusing on WHAT he said, and ignoring WHO said it, HOW it was said, the context of what was said, and how Shakepeare wrote, you only show you know enough to make a fool of yourself.

Once you check those things, get back with me.

 All I asked was what did he say. Can you supply the quote ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 22, 2014, 02:18:38 pm

Nice wasfullofit


What rock of scary paranoia did you have move to source that last post?

Survivaljoeandmres.disorg?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 22, 2014, 03:58:02 pm

Whats the matter? You don't like to hear about Obumma mismanagement? Its all over the place if you just look somewhere other than the Huffingpot Patch

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 22, 2014, 04:20:32 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 01:24:28 pm

 All I asked was what did he say. Can you supply the quote ?

Without the context I mentioned, the quote itself doesn't even rise to the level of being meaningless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 22, 2014, 04:21:41 pm

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/10338866_742092082517590_4282587340594472570_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 22, 2014, 04:22:29 pm

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-9/1557461_638628966172783_1271454613_n.png)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 22, 2014, 04:31:23 pm

Ick, the unemployed lawyers is getting all fringe wingnut again....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 22, 2014, 04:34:12 pm

Women in the gop must be so proud....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5C-BxmwiDik (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5C-BxmwiDik)


The Dating Game music......seriously.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 04:55:46 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 22, 2014, 04:20:32 pm

Without the context I mentioned, the quote itself doesn't even rise to the level of being meaningless.

 All I stated was three sentences.
 
 And you never answered them.
 
 So I know who you are.
 
 And heres the importent thing Jes ... whos paying you to be here?
 
 Because clowns like you are being paid to support issues on the internet.
 
 To run down issues and create support for issues in your paid favor.
 
 Whos cutting your paycheck **** ? We all see thru you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 05:09:00 pm

 
 At least Otto in whatever convictions he espouses to is honest.
 
 He speaks from his some what atypical heart.
 
 Theres not a paycheck behind it.
 
 It is raw emotion however displayed that irritates everybody.  >:(
 
 And Otto : **** YOU TOO !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 22, 2014, 05:41:37 pm

Leave Homo alone.  At least until he answers my question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 22, 2014, 05:51:39 pm

Theres not a paycheck behind it.

There is where I disagree. Oddo is being paid whether its a check or welfare or some other kind of subsistence by somebody in Washington maybe even as high as the White House. Anybody that ignorant that they cant even compose an intelligent sentence has to be paid by somebody.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 22, 2014, 06:09:07 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 04:55:46 pm

 All I stated was three sentences.
 
 And you never answered them.
 
 So I know who you are.
 
 And heres the importent thing Jes ... whos paying you to be here?
 
 Because clowns like you are being paid to support issues on the internet.
 
 To run down issues and create support for issues in your paid favor.
 
 Whos cutting your paycheck **** ? We all see thru you.

You're a funny guy.

Not a very bright guy, but funny nonetheless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 22, 2014, 06:14:52 pm

JJ, I forget what is it you do for a living?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 22, 2014, 07:08:18 pm

Mark's Blog:

http://investing.calsci.com/blog5-18-14.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 08:20:46 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 22, 2014, 06:09:07 pm

You're a funny guy.

Not a very bright guy, but funny nonetheless.

 And you sir are a true lawyer ... a simple question was asked ...
 
 and no answer ever given.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 08:45:05 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 22, 2014, 06:14:52 pm

JJ, I forget what is it you do for a living?

 Im a pimp ... sell me your children!
 
 I could have been a lawyer but why trade down ?
 
 Thats Pee-Wee Hermen as the waiter.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLUiK2lbN2s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLUiK2lbN2s)
 
 Jes , if you dont agree to have a beer with me ...
 
 I will come to where you live for breakfast , lunch , and dinner ...
 
 can you imagine what the smell in your outhouse will be like ?
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 22, 2014, 10:01:00 pm

JJ, aren't you an engineer of some sort?  Takes a bit of brains to be a successful engineer I am guessing.

Not to say being in a less prestigious career makes one less bright.

I have always thought of you as eccentric, friendly, amusing and very bright.  I find it odd that Jes who I find eccentric, annoying and a dick for no reason but bright would assume you are not bright.

I can see someone accusing you of being hopped up on drugs or being flighty.  That I would understand.  But to say you are funny but not bright seems to be contradictive.  One must be bright to be funny. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 11:01:00 pm

 
 Duck,
 
 Its always been about having fun Bro !
 
 The only time you take this **** seriouslly ... is one foot in the grave.
 
 Theres NOTHING that anyone posts here EVER ...
 
 that you could apply in YOUR RIGHT MIND ...
 
 as to be takin serious.
 
 It is the ebb and flow of electrons ... and some dickheads views.
 
 And thats it.
 
 Who are the Dickheads ? We are posting to each other ...
 
 and being Dickheads as we post ...
 
 and the other Dickheads are waiting to respond to our posts.
 
 So that they can be Dickheads too.
 
 THIS IS YOUR INTERNET !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 11:15:59 pm

 
 Im BORED in the off season after the Draft ...
 
 should I go back to Africa and keep performing clitorectomies
 
 as a way to make money ?
 
 Its easy money ... a razor blade ... a good eye for detail ...
 
 and drown out the screams. Anybody got a Guiness Stout ?
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 22, 2014, 11:25:40 pm

Believe me I don't take this **** seriously or Phill would have disappeared a long time ago. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 23, 2014, 03:35:37 am

 
 We need more music.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E12YAuAYjLQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E12YAuAYjLQ)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 23, 2014, 12:15:10 pm

Great job Mississippi t-baggers!


Before even getting elected you get into an ethical/criminal problems. Great job mcdaniel!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 23, 2014, 02:47:15 pm

Yawn....so predictable.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nancy-pelosi-blames-george-w.-bush-for-veterans-affairs-scandal/article/2548784

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 23, 2014, 03:07:44 pm

Who could possibly have seen this coming?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/22/Restaurant-With-No-Weapons-No-Concealed-Firearms-Sign-Robbed-At-Gunpoint

A Durham, North Carolina restaurant with a sign on its front door reading, "No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms," was robbed at gunpoint on May 19.

Gunsnfreedom.com published a photograph of the sign on May 21, making "The Pit" restaurant a self-declared gun free zone--the same kind of zone Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America pressure other restaurants into becoming.

According to Durham's ABC 11, around 9 PM "three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor." The armed men "also assaulted two employees during the crime."

The suspects are still on the loose.

When Chipotle announced their intended gun ban by saying the sight of law-abiding citizens carrying guns caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," Breitbart News responded with a simple question:


If law-abiding citizens caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," what will those customers feel like when a criminal enters Chipotle, now confident that no victim in the restaurant is allowed to have a gun with which to fight back?

Perhaps the armed attack on "The Pit" can be of some help in answering this question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2014, 03:39:20 pm

One of otto's heroes has his air time further reduced -- http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/22/bye-bye-ed/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2014, 03:41:50 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2014, 08:20:46 pm

 And you sir are a true lawyer ... a simple question was asked ...
 
 and no answer ever given.

And as I responded, without context, the answer is less than meaningless.

I suggested how you might provide the context.  If you don't care enough to provide it, or are not capable of understanding its relevance, there is no point in responding.

But, like I wrote, you are a very funny guy, even if not when you are trying to be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 23, 2014, 05:04:15 pm

"If law-abiding citizens caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," what will those customers feel like when a criminal enters Chipotle, now confident that no victim in the restaurant is allowed to have a gun with which to fight back? "

I live in Florida most of the year, where they have a concealed carry law.  I don't own a gun, because I see no need for me to carry one, but if I did, how would any restaurant know if I had one in my pocket, or if my wife had one in her purse?

Signs like that are totally useless.  The restaurant owners can not possibly prevent concealed weapons, and thus criminals can not possibly rely on the signs to protect them from armed citizens.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 23, 2014, 08:22:46 pm

Larry Kudlow: VA Scandal Shows Perils of Socialized Medicine

Thursday, 22 May 2014


The scandal rocking the Veterans Health Administration should serve as a warning as to what can happen under the Affordable Care Act, renowned economist and syndicated columnist Larry Kudlow says.

 This is not simply a management problem," Kudlow, author of the CNBC blog "Kudlow's Corner,'' told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

 "This is about a pocket of government-run socialized medicine with rationing and price controls and the usual bureaucratic inefficiencies. That's the problem with the VA.''

 The VA is under fire for allegedly keeping chronically-ill patients on a secret-waiting list — resulting in the deaths of at least 40 veterans. Additionally, there are allegations of false record-keeping to cover up the scandal.

 "It is not a money problem. The money going to the VA has exploded in recent years. In fact, from 2000 to 2013, budget outlays tripled while the veterans' population being served has actually declined by four million,'' Kudlow said.

 "There's a problem with government-run healthcare and [this] should be a lesson to all of us about the dangers of Obamacare and single-payer insurance and so forth and so on."



 Kudlow also called on Republicans to back a "sensible'' immigration reform bill or risk losses at the polls.

 "Sensible immigration reform will really be pro-growth. It can really help America and can really help the Republican Party put a different face on and reach out not just to Latinos,'' Kudlow said.

 "This is symbolic, immigration reform — symbolic reaching out to Asians, to African-Americans, to young people, to women, and it says the Republican Party can in fact be a big tent.

 "Its policies don't have to echo the Democrats, but there's a reach-out factor here that I think is very, very important.''

 Kudlow said that doesn't mean unbridled citizenship or blanket amnesty.

 "What I am talking about is … the possibility of legal status so long as the immigrants who are living here illegally pay their back taxes, are checked for any criminal offense because criminals must be deported … learn English, learn civics, learn history, learn the constitution," he said.


 "They have to go through a process and I think that's very, very important. I don't want them put at the front of the line for citizenship. I'm not really even talking about citizenship right now. I'm talking about legal status.

 "[Sen.] Rand Paul [of Texas] has come out for legal status in a similar way, so has [Texas] Gov. Rick Perry, so has former [Florida] Gov. Jeb Bush. I like the direction here.''

 Kudlow said it is also important to attract immigrant "brainiacs" as well as students and blue-collar workers.

 "We need the high-tech electric engineers, all the Silicon Valley people. We need the foreign students we're educating. Why should we send them home? Why not keep them here?" he said.

 "We need the low-end workers. That's what the Farmers Association and the Retailers Association are telling us. In other words, we need legal immigration.

"We need legal visa increases. If we do that, the more population will expand and increase economic growth. It's real simple. Population times productivity equals growth.''

 Kudlow pointed to the low number of immigrants who supported Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

 "Twenty-seven percent of Asians voted for Mitt Romney, 27 percent of Hispanics voted for Mitt Romney. The GOP cannot win with those kinds of numbers," he said.

 "If the party has a sensible policy and puts its best foot forward with the kind of principles that I'm encouraging here, it will make an impact.

 "I am a conservative Catholic and all that goes with that, but I am willing to work in the same big tent as my friends from the Log Cabin Republicans. I believe that kind of attitude, which is an open inclusionary attitude, is missing from the GOP and must change.''

 With that, the negative perception of the GOP will change, he believes.

 "Right now, the GOP has a bad image. It’s an image of cranky white men and women. That image has to change,'' Kudlow said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/larry-kudlow-veterans-affairs-scandal/2014/05/22/id/572938/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1570265_05232014&promo_code=jfqyv395#

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 23, 2014, 09:30:31 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 23, 2014, 03:41:50 pm

And as I responded, without context, the answer is less than meaningless.

I suggested how you might provide the context.  If you don't care enough to provide it, or are not capable of understanding its relevance, there is no point in responding.

But, like I wrote, you are a very funny guy, even if not when you are trying to be.

  JJ ...1
 
 Copout ...0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 23, 2014, 10:13:11 pm

 
 There is a chatbox here ... any motherfuckers on this board LIVE !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2014, 12:33:04 am

Quote from: davep on May 23, 2014, 05:04:15 pm

I live in Florida most of the year, where they have a concealed carry law.  I don't own a gun, because I see no need for me to carry one, but if I did, how would any restaurant know if I had one in my pocket, or if my wife had one in her purse?

Signs like that are totally useless.  The restaurant owners can not possibly prevent concealed weapons, and thus criminals can not possibly rely on the signs to protect them from armed citizens.

Not really "useless" so much as counter-productive.

Such signs do rather effectively communicate the message that management is hostile to gun rights, and that does serve to discourage the patronage of a large number of supporters of gun rights, as well as to discourage the patronage of a large percentage of those who are perfectly law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons.

So such signs DO reduce the likelihood criminals are going to have to worry about being stopped by someone with a gun at those businesses, and the criminals seems to know it, just as the nutjobs shooting up schools know they are much less likely to be stopped by someone with a gun there... even though neither the posting of a "gun-free zone" sign, nor laws against guns, nor even metal detectors really assure that there will be no guns (after all, if those signs or the like REALLY meant there would be no guns, the nutjobs who shoot the places up would not be able to make it inside with guns).

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2014, 07:17:50 am

I love this story: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/kerry-says-wrongly-some-temps-week-broke-every-record-s-ever-been

Not just because Kerry was so wrong on his facts as to appear not just uniformed but sincerely ignorant, but also because it underscores the routinely seen hypocrisy from the reality-deniers who continue to predict Global Warming.  The reality-deniers look at anyone pointing to current temperatures or lack of storms or any of the things windbag Al Gore confidently predicted would be here by now, and the reality-deniers dismiss those observations with the comment that their critics don't understand the difference between weather and climate.  So what does Kerry do?  He loudly proclaims current WEATHER conditions help to establish his nutty claims about climate... and then is flat out wrong about the weather in the process.

Classic, both as an example of the average reality-denier, and also as an example of John Kerry.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2014, 07:20:32 am

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 24, 2014, 06:44:11 pm

Quote from: davep on May 23, 2014, 05:04:15 pm

Signs like that are totally useless.  The restaurant owners can not possibly prevent concealed weapons, and thus criminals can not possibly rely on the signs to protect them from armed citizens.

As they teach you in  the concealed carry class in Florida. Signs posted are policies of the business and not law. If they see your gun (which they never would if you are concealing properly) they can ask you to leave and that's about it. If you refuse to leave they can have you arrested for trespassing but if you leave when asked there is nothing they can do to you for carrying in their establishment. Of course that wouldn't apply if you were carrying in a place specifically forbidden by law such as a bar.(restaurants with a bar in them are legal to carry in  in Florida as long as you are not actually sitting at the bar).

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2014, 07:09:42 pm

Quote from: Slash_4x4 on May 24, 2014, 06:22:14 pm

The mans an ass. He and Mr Obama are a total embarrassment to the USA while Putin and Chinese officials make the USA look like idiots. Thanks Obama, you have set the USA back decades in regards to international respect, you liberal clown ****

Yes, and everyone loved us after the Bush administration.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2014, 07:11:07 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 24, 2014, 06:44:11 pm

If they see your gun (which they never would if you are concealing properly) they can ask you to leave and that's about it. 

I like open carry states.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 24, 2014, 07:14:32 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 24, 2014, 07:09:42 pm

Yes, and everyone loved us after the Bush administration.

The term he used was respect.  Love has nothing to do with it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 24, 2014, 07:23:34 pm

Jes, is Sarah going to run for US Senate in Alaska or is this just a PAC solicitation? I wish she would

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 24, 2014, 07:27:19 pm

We just got concealed carry here in Illinois.  The liberals in Chicago are freaking out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 24, 2014, 07:30:37 pm

And crying too. They wouldn't have had the law had the courts not ordered it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 24, 2014, 07:39:07 pm

They are still trying to get it reversed but it is the law of the land and so many people have their concealed carry license now and all of that.  How can it possibly be repealed.  :)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 24, 2014, 10:08:45 pm

They'll put so many restrictions on where you can carry, how you can carry, WHAT you can carry, how much ammo, what type, what color, who makes it, is it jacketed or HP's, etc etc that it'll drive the ones who want to carry away from carrying......Illinois is such a f'd up State.....run by liberal Demmys like Obaba.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 24, 2014, 10:33:39 pm

Crazy thing is Illinois is a red state except for the Chicago area.  Yet we have no voice.

I think we have a real good shot of getting a Republican Governor this time though.  We need one form downstate though so we can break the cycle of corruption and bring those who are breaking the laws (the Democrats from Chicago) to justice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 25, 2014, 04:54:48 am

 
 How do you build THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 25, 2014, 07:32:21 am

Quote from: davep on May 24, 2014, 07:14:32 pm

The term he used was respect.  Love has nothing to do with it.

They didn't respect us either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 25, 2014, 07:35:13 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 24, 2014, 10:33:39 pm

Crazy thing is Illinois is a red state except for the Chicago area.  Yet we have no voice.

I think we have a real good shot of getting a Republican Governor this time though.  We need one form downstate though so we can break the cycle of corruption and bring those who are breaking the laws (the Democrats from Chicago) to justice.

Illinois never would have had Obama in the Senate (meaning the nation would have avoided ever having him in the White House), had Illinois Republicans not been such idiots in 2004 and fielded a credible candidate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 25, 2014, 10:21:54 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 24, 2014, 07:23:34 pm

Jes, is Sarah going to run for US Senate in Alaska or is this just a PAC solicitation? I wish she would

Gee, "Sarah" must have forgotten to discuss that with me over Cheerios this morning.... and I have no idea what the "that" is which you reference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 25, 2014, 11:59:48 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 24, 2014, 10:33:39 pm

Crazy thing is Illinois is a red state except for the Chicago area.  Yet we have no voice.

I think we have a real good shot of getting a Republican Governor this time though.  We need one form downstate though so we can break the cycle of corruption and bring those who are breaking the laws (the Democrats from Chicago) to justice.

Back in the day when the downstate Republicans were well organized, it would take days for final election results to come in.  Each side was waiting for the other to give results, so they would know how much to cheat.  Races were always close in those days no matter who won.

But it comes down to numbers.  Almost as many people live in the Chicago area than live in the rest of the state.  And while the rest of the state comes in at about 65 % Republican, the Chicago area comes in at about 85 % Democrat.

Strong voter ID laws would cause the state to swing sharply Republican.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 25, 2014, 12:18:02 pm

dave I have no doubt that you are correct.  Where I live a Democrat can't win an election unless he is running unopposed.  To this day I can not find a single person who voted for Blagovich for his last term yet the man won easily.  Voter fraud is alive and well in Illinois.  I have zero doubt about this.  Chicago democrats have the whole thing rigged.

Jes, If Ditka would have ran he would have won easily.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 25, 2014, 02:52:31 pm

Even the dead vote in Chicago. Voter IDs in Chicago would stop that but the Democrats refuse to stop the fraud.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 25, 2014, 04:27:27 pm

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/71171/black-nba-owner-held-black-only-party-whites-turned-away-nba-did-nothing/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 25, 2014, 05:01:10 pm

 
 The bottom line is THIS :
 
 If you have to go to Burger King packing HEAT ...
 
 then somthings **** UP somwhere isnt it ?
 
 Whats **** up ? The mentally ill getting guns.
 
 They make all of us look bad.
 
 We are arming ourselves to fire back against them.
 
 Shouldent there be somplace as in the past where the mentally ill are taken care of ?
 
 Now they roam the streets or are in jail ... there used to be a place for this.
 
 Imagine this ... count the number of confused people in a NATION of over 300 million firearms owned does someone go crazy ?
 
 Everyone is going to be played up on the news that went nuts.
 
 How do you predict a dude driving a BMW at age 22 going off the deep end ?
 
 You never can.
 
 Because if it bleeds it leads on your local news feed.
 
 The other 300 + million that own firearms that do nothing with them that you dont hear about ... you dont hear about that.
 
 Is the news selecltive ? No. The news is headlines.
 
 "JACKIE MAKES PIZZA THAT AS YOU EAT IT YOU LOSE WEIGHT !!!"
 
 Film at 11:00. Therein is the absurdity as to why you need a gun when
 
 going to Burger King.
 
 ARE OTHER AMERICANS GOING TO KILL YOU ?
 
 And if sombody thats NUTS goes berzerk and starts shooting ...
 
 do you wish you had a gun to fire back ?
 
 Why did sombody thats INSANE have a firearm in the first place ?
 
 And heres the pisser ... we are not that good at judging when a person is insane.
 
 Thats it. So this is going to happen again.
 
 Arm yourselves ... there used to be a place to take crazys off the street ,
 
 its not there anymore .. so you will become a paranoid ... and armed.
 
 When you say hi to your neighbor .... make sure the safetys off.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 25, 2014, 06:17:28 pm

Dikta has said one of his biggest regrets is not having run against Obama. Had he done that, this nation would be in alot better shape than it currently is. It's not only one of HIS biggest regrets...it's one of the Countries, too....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 25, 2014, 06:21:27 pm

Shouldent there be somplace as in the past where the mentally ill are taken care of ?

Good question. There used to be mental hospitals for that. Now there seems to be a greater population who do have mental illness. Is it the diet today or the medicines they prescribe? I don't know.

And why is Oddo so freaking crazy? Somebody needs to answer that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 25, 2014, 07:44:43 pm

Homo doesn't seem to be crazy.  He is amazingly ignorant, and he seems to be proud of his ignorance.  But that isn't exactly crazy.  Stupid, yes.  But not crazy.

But Jackie made the exact point.  We are not able to tell if someone is crazy, or merely eccentric.  For every one that acts odd and then shoots a half dozen people, there are thousands that act the same and shoot nobody.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 25, 2014, 11:56:23 pm

 
 The tail is wagging the dog.
 
 The crazy no matter what the problem is or the agenda,
 
 causes us to react with packing heat.
 
 It shouldnt have to be that way.
 
 At age nine should you give your daughter her first handgun to carry to school? What about age six ?
 
 Somthing is totally wrong.
 
 Society doesnt have an answer.
 
 Maybe it does ... it knew about it in the past.
 
 The questions outweigh the answers in a free society.
 
 Will it ever be a topic that can be addresed and solved ?
 
 I dont know. Do you ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 26, 2014, 01:30:31 am

 
 Man I am totally **** as to why I am not a multi-millionaire yet.
 
 Just got this E-mail :
_______________________________________________________
 
 Hello

I am contacting you because I have sent you the first payment of 
$5,000 today from your winning funds total amount of $1.5Million, 
Therefore you need to contact the western union agent Mr. Tony Masinas 
for him to give you the transfer payment information and MTCN to pick 
up the money at WU Branch over there.

W.U Agent: Mr. Tony Masinas
Email: western_union180@163.com
Phone:  +22996509261

Please try to contact him today and ask him to forward the payment 
information to you, remember to indicate the funds registration code 
of EB-2520 to him when e-mailing or calling him, Also he will be 
sending you $5,000.00 daily as per our board discussion with him.

Please copy this email(western_union180@163.com) and paste before 
replying to him or simply call him at his number: +22996509261 and 
also send the following information as listed below.

Your Full Name:
Your Address:
Your Country:
Your City:
Your Phone Number:
Your Occupation:

Do get in touch with me once you have received the transfer.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Patty D. Cheffey
IMF Managing Director Benin.
_____________________________________________________
 
 There goes another million slipping away ... if only JJ was smarter ...  :-[

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2014, 06:47:26 am

Those e-mails are frauds. I have received hundreds. Just ignore it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2014, 11:45:00 am

No need to let it go to waste.  Give her Oddo's information.  He likes to get things for free.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2014, 12:40:13 pm

See they want your personal information. Even were you to get a check the check would bounce. The e-mail address is bogus too. Even were it to be legit the feds want tax money on it. Winning a foreign lottery is a crime. There is nothing free in this world anymore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2014, 01:53:23 pm

What you describe above is illegal.  I can't believe that anyone would use the internet for illegal purposes.

But just in case, give them Homo's information.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 26, 2014, 02:48:51 pm

Some how I can't help but think this won't be a big deal to the media...

http://news.msn.com/us/white-house-mistakenly-reveals-cia-officials-name

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration accidentally revealed the name of the CIA's top official in Afghanistan in an email to thousands of journalists during the president's surprise weekend trip to Bagram Air Field.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2014, 03:35:39 pm

Of course not.

This is the Obama administration.

Sort of makes the Valerie Plame affair laughable to everyone except Scooter Libby.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2014, 05:00:12 pm

I smell a court case coming



 
IRS Rules Employers Can't Dump Workers into Exchanges

Monday, 26 May 2014 08:14 AM

By Elliot Jager

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that employers cannot hand tax-free contributions to their workers and tell them to purchase health insurance, The New York Times reported.

 Employers who try dumping employees into the healthcare exchanges to avoid having to pay for their coverage are now on notice that the practice is prohibited. Employers who circumvent the law are subject to a $100 a day tax penalty, the newspaper said.

 The Affordable Care Act requires large employers to provide healthcare coverage to their full-time workers. Some companies figured it was less expensive to give each employee money to purchase their own coverage on an exchange rather than providing coverage through group policies.

 The ruling comes as a blow to many employers who gave their workers tax-free cash contributions to purchase coverage. Andrew Biebl, a tax partner at CliftonLarsonAllen in Minneapolis, said the idea of giving workers money to buy their own insurance preceded Obamacare.

 "For decades, employers have been assisting employees by reimbursing them for health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs," Biebl told the Times. "The new federal ruling eliminates many of those arrangements by imposing an unusually punitive penalty."

 Theoretically, an employer can still hike the salary of a worker and tell them to buy insurance with the additional money. However, the added compensation is taxable on both ends and may be challenged by the workers as a reduction in their benefits, said Christopher Condeluci, who previously served as a tax and benefits counsel to the Senate Finance Committee.

 The IRS says so-called employer payment plans — when a company reimburses a worker for premiums — do not satisfy the requirements of the Affordable Care Act which mandate that specified preventive services be offered without co-payments, the Times reported.

 The government wants employers to carry on providing coverage to their personnel and their dependents. "I don't think that an employer-based system is going to be, or should be, replaced anytime soon," President Barack Obama said in February.

 Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it would offer financial assistance to certain insurers who'd suffered losses because of Obamacare. The goal is to keep premiums from rising in an election year, the Times reported. Republicans say the policy amounts to a bailout in return for the industry's support of Obamacare.

 Separately, the department restricted states from establishing burdensome qualifications on insurance counselors or "navigators" whose job it is to assist enrollees registering for Obamacare if the requirements interfered with implementing the federal law, the Times reported.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2014, 05:35:28 pm

I thought it was the job of Congress to make tax law and not the IRS.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2014, 05:46:00 pm

Congressional laws are so vague that 90 % of our laws come through executive orders.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2014, 06:00:59 pm

Quote from: davep on May 26, 2014, 05:46:00 pm

Congressional laws are so vague that 90 % of our laws come through executive orders.

That is not even remotely close to accurate.

Now, if you had said 90% of our NON-criminal law at the federal level is the result of regulations adopted as part of the formal regulatory process, you might well be right, but the regulatory process is nowhere close to constituting executive orders.  (Please don't take this as a defense of the regulatory process, but simply pointing out that it is different from executive orders.)

As for whether a court case is coming, certainly it may, but that does not mean it has any real chance of success.  The question will be whether the agency adopting such rules was empowered under the legislation with the power to adopt such rules.  My bet is that it did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2014, 06:16:51 pm

Then it would be up to Congress to fix the problem

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2014, 07:03:43 pm

Saying Congress should fix the problem is an issue entirely independent of the question of whether the IRS has the authority to issue such a ruling (both of which are entirely independent of the question of whether the IRS SHOULD have the authority to issue such a ruling, or whether the ruling is a good thing or a bad thing).

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 26, 2014, 07:06:05 pm

Ouch....

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/triple-amputee-veteran-brian-kolfage-blasts-obama-powerful-memorial-day-letter-raised-hate-america/#Vmx2RTkq9yVeG0Jd.01

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2014, 08:00:58 pm

Veteran brain kolfage is a horrible piece of ****.


Who gave that imbecile a pen or a platform. Wonder what he and his backwards ass family thought of Walter Reed Hospital or haliburton electrocuting our soldiers in the showers in Iraq. Or how about t-bagger filibustering a VA bill just two months ago.

Idiot facists please that crap on your stupid websites.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2014, 08:04:45 pm

Or better yet, how about a letter that details rummy's army you go to war with rather than the army one wants....maybe he can search the army you have with under armored vehicles and oil revenues from the liberation of the fine folks in Iraq to pay for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 26, 2014, 08:20:57 pm

You edited and it is still that much of a mess?

Perhaps Obama should have spent more time fixing the VA instead of demanding the rest of us have the same terrible healthcare?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2014, 08:24:46 pm

While I am not one of those who worships Reagan, the guy really could deliver a speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt8y18YFH70

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2014, 08:31:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 26, 2014, 08:00:58 pm

Veteran brain kolfage is a horrible piece of ****.

Who gave that imbecile a pen or a platform. Wonder what he and his backwards ass family thought of Walter Reed Hospital or haliburton electrocuting our soldiers in the showers in Iraq. Or how about t-bagger filibustering a VA bill just two months ago.

Idiot facists please that crap on your stupid websites.

Certainly you are free to disagree with Kolfage, and even to call him a horrible piece of ****.

He volunteered for the combat duty which he knew might take his life, and which did take three of his limbs, for the expressed goal of protecting your freedoms, including your freedom to criticize him, and to make a fool of yourself.

I will not for a moment tell you to shut up, or to take your foolishness elsewhere.

I only hope that Kolfage is not a Cub fan, or that if he is, he is not one who visits here, because I would hate to have him read your posts and possibly come to regret his sacrifice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2014, 08:33:33 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 26, 2014, 08:04:45 pm

Or better yet, how about a letter that details rummy's army you go to war with rather than the army one wants.

Yes, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ all waited around for the army they wanted before going to war with the army they had.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2014, 08:35:10 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3jPgljRvzQw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3jPgljRvzQw)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2014, 08:37:09 pm

Idiot ex-lawyer


His service and his political opinion are two different things. Even he should know that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 26, 2014, 08:47:39 pm

But his opinion of our current president is not off the mark.  The man is a follower of Alinksy.  Hell his political career was launched by Ayers an ACTUAL domestic terrorist!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2014, 08:48:07 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 26, 2014, 08:35:10 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3jPgljRvzQw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3jPgljRvzQw)

You did not respond to my point, otto.

Once Congress either declares war, or "authorizes military action," and does so without knowledge of the nation's military readiness and without any conditions about preparing further, and once the president then directs troops into combat, are you actually suggesting the Secretary of Defense should keep the troops based in the U.S. until all imaginable equipment to make them safe is available?

Are you suggesting that is what has been done in the past?

Yes, Rumsfield said the words you suggested.  Not even any need for you to dig up the video.  No one was disputing it.  You seem so ignorant of history as to think what he said is morally wrong or at odds with what the U.S. (and every other nation on earth) has done when it has gone to war.  In short, you have once again demonstrated your blindly partisan foolishness.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2014, 08:51:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 26, 2014, 08:37:09 pm

Idiot ex-lawyer

His service and his political opinion are two different things. Even he should know that.

What an enlightening observation....  Now, can you point to anything which I wrote which indicates I ever thought otherwise?

His service does not entitle him to his opinion.  His existence entitles him to that.  His presence in the United States entitles him to express it.

His service merely provides him with a perspective, insight and experience, we as a nation would be foolish to ignore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2014, 08:52:02 pm

"haliburton electrocuting our soldiers in the showers in Iraq."

Homo, do you want to translate?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 26, 2014, 08:53:30 pm

If a country waited to go to war until it had the best military technological advantage it could possibly have no country would ever go to war.  However that is not how the real world works.  There will always be wars because there will always be some **** (usually someone who does not believe in personal liberties but feels government should be all powerful) that will start one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2014, 10:08:36 pm

Speaking of the subject lets just wait for the Iranians to get that nuclear bomb they are developing. That ought to make Oddo happy. Even the supreme Iranian recently said that the jihad would never end till the USA was no more. Smoke that Oddo. And Obumma sleeps while the USA burns

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 07:59:00 am

Lets try those responses again misinformed t-baggers.


Start of War/Occupation in Iraq: March 20, 2003

Rummy's army one has when you go to war comment: December 8, 2004


Your hero rummy was addressing soldiers going to Iraq a year and half after it started about issues apparently the bush administration was unconcerned with.

Support the troops, meh.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 08:02:11 am

peke


Deeply involved in conservative stupid aren't you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 27, 2014, 08:55:12 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 07:59:00 am

Lets try those responses again misinformed t-baggers.


Start of War/Occupation in Iraq: March 20, 2003

Rummy's army one has when you go to war comment: December 8, 2004


Your hero rummy was addressing soldiers going to Iraq a year and half after it started about issues apparently the bush administration was unconcerned with.

Support the troops, meh.

So, because of your opinion of the Bush administration you find it acceptable to denigrate a brave soldier who made such a monumental sacrifice because he dared to express his opinion? You are truly a class act Otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 27, 2014, 09:25:05 am

Like all liberals, Homo has no compassion for people who oppose his twisted ideas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 27, 2014, 09:34:22 am

That's why he supports Iran against the USA

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 02:19:56 pm

You guys are so predictability ignorant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 27, 2014, 02:43:51 pm

Homo - you have shown yourself to be the most ignorant poster on the board.  In addition, you seem to be inordinately proud of your ignorance.

If you disagree with the poster, why don't you refute him with facts and logic.

You can use a dictionary to find the meaning of the words "facts" and "logic"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 27, 2014, 02:55:57 pm

Liberals find name calling so much easier. The sad part is that they actually think they can change peoples minds by calling them names.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 27, 2014, 05:32:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 07:59:00 am

Lets try those responses again misinformed t-baggers.

Start of War/Occupation in Iraq: March 20, 2003

Rummy's army one has when you go to war comment: December 8, 2004

Your hero rummy was addressing soldiers going to Iraq a year and half after it started about issues apparently the bush administration was unconcerned with.

Support the troops, meh.

Fun logical non-sequitors in this are legion.

Here are a few, in no particular order:

* Though, as is generally the case, it is hard to tell exactly who otto is addressing (and I suppose part of that might be because in otto's mind all non-liberals are pretty much the same and therefore there is no reason to address them individually), NO ONE here has expressed even mild admiration for Rumsfield, let alone having elevated him to hero status.

* Nothing in anyone's comments here, nor in Rumsfield's rather simple observation, indicates any lack of support for the troops.

* As written, the following sentence

Quote

Your hero rummy was addressing soldiers going to Iraq a year and half after it started about issues apparently the bush administration was unconcerned with.

is saying that IRAQ "started about issues the bush administration was unconcerned with," a remarkable contention, even for otto.

* The time Rumsfield made the statement is irrelevant as to the statement's meaning, or whether it is accurate or whether it reflects a reality of war or not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 07:25:48 pm

A list of the most ignorant posters on this board.

1. The olde tacit racist grandpa rat
2. wasfullofit
3. davep
4. keysbart
4. peke
5. Sheldon

You all have homogenous white guy thought with a totally underserved sense of entitlement that derives from it.

Its not possible to have a discuss with any of you. like peke and his "silent voice" because more urban voters don't vote like him.

Or wasfullofit who thinks all African-American people "lay up" and suck on the teat of all I guess non-laying up white folks.

And that doesn't even touch on the anti-science clap trap you morons spout with idiotic regularity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 27, 2014, 07:44:30 pm

Homo is getting upset.  He gets that way when he can't find something he can copy and paste, and actually has to think for himself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 27, 2014, 07:56:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 26, 2014, 08:53:30 pm

If a country waited to go to war until it had the best military technological advantage it could possibly have no country would ever go to war.  However that is not how the real world works.  There will always be wars because there will always be some **** (usually someone who does not believe in personal liberties but feels government should be all powerful) that will start one.

 Actually there were some dudes who wanted to wait until they had everything they wanted before going to war ... the German generals and admirals in the late 1930's. They figured 1946 would be the jump off point to conquer everything they wanted with gobs of jet aircraft ,modern submarines,hemispheric bombers,guided missiles good for 1000's of miles and atomic bombs.
 
 We wouldnt have went from WWI to WWII ... we would have went from WWI to WWIII.
 
 If nothing happened 1939-1946 ,nobody in the rest of the world would have armed.
 
 Luckily for us we had the best weapon on our side to stop that from happening : Adolph Hitler and his ego. 8)
 
 Damn I didnt make it on Otto's list. :( Maybe I'll make it on a righty list. ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 27, 2014, 08:00:10 pm

I am honored the Commie has me in 2nd place. But you know what I notice about Oddo? He rails on Bush because of Iraq but no comment about Johnson's war or Truman's war or Roosevelt's war. Those are OK.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 27, 2014, 09:05:56 pm

Otto, I am against voter fraud.  Voter ID would fix a whole lot of fraud but of course Democrats are against that.  Why if they aren't the ones committing the fraud? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 27, 2014, 09:26:11 pm

No one seems to "get  it".  Reading otto's diatribes and responding to them merely encourage him to continue his infantile posts and imply that he actually has a brain.   Life flows along more pleasantly with no loss of intelligence by merely blocking his irrationalities.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 09:51:42 pm

The only thing that you "get" olde tacit racist is hair growing out of your ears and an overwhelming sense that your republic values of intolerance, religiously dictated ignorance and 1% worship don't transfer  well to the coming generations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 09:52:56 pm

The climate debate as it should be.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&feature=player_embedded)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 27, 2014, 10:02:59 pm

Man made global warming is a hoax.  Or is it global cooling?  That changes as often as the weather which has been changing way before man and will be long after we are gone. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 27, 2014, 10:39:07 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 27, 2014, 10:02:59 pm

Man made global warming is a hoax.  Or is it global cooling?  That changes as often as the weather which has been changing way before man and will be long after we are gone. 

 It doesnt matter either way. Because beef you aint getting anymore ,
 
 and fruits and vegtables ... uh oh.
 
 Is it caused by man ? Who gives a **** ?
 
 The fact is yer gonna run out of what you took for granted.
 
 Now I have talked about this in the past ... with the drawdown in Afghanistan ... where do you park the money for the U.S. ?
 
 Remember that COUNTRY that you live in without protecting the rest of the planet which doesnt give a **** whether you protect them or not ?
 
 Now its our turn ... Desalinization ... on a massive scale.
 
 Its time for us to take care of our own.
 
 Has it just occured to you that the people we have been protecting with our LIVES as AMERICANS...
 
 are **** ?
 
 I mean really dude ... would you want to marry an Afghanistan **** that doest bathe ?
 
 How would the parents take this at Thanksgiving ?
 
 OK ... like Green Bay fans ... but dont hold that against them !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 28, 2014, 05:53:55 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 07:25:48 pm

You all have homogenous white guy thought with a totally underserved sense of entitlement that derives from it.

otto's automatic assumption about anyone who disagrees with him on economic/politic issues is that they have an "undeserved sense of entitlement."

Entitlement to what?  What they earn?  Yes, guilty as charged.  I believe a person is entitled to keep what they earn, or at least the overwhelming majority of it.

Implicit in otto's comments is the belief that those with this "undeserved sense of entitlement" have been born to wealth and comfort and that whatever it is they have was handed to them, that ideas of self-investment, sacrifice and hard work are mere platitudes with no real application in life.

I have twice bought dog food when I had no dog... but it was much cheaper to buy and eat dog food than what otto was likely eating at the time.  And neither time did I ask anyone else to buy food for me.

otto's view of the universe is so distorted and perverse that he sees almost nothing around him, and understand even less of what he does see.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 28, 2014, 06:59:47 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 09:52:56 pm

The climate debate as it should be.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&feature=player_embedded)

That was stupid even for Otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 28, 2014, 07:29:22 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 27, 2014, 07:25:48 pm

A list of the most ignorant posters on this board.

1. The olde tacit racist grandpa rat
2. wasfullofit
3. davep
4. keysbart
4. peke
5. Sheldon

You all have homogenous white guy thought with a totally underserved sense of entitlement that derives from it.

Its not possible to have a discuss with any of you. like peke and his "silent voice" because more urban voters don't vote like him.

Or wasfullofit who thinks all African-American people "lay up" and suck on the teat of all I guess non-laying up white folks.

And that doesn't even touch on the anti-science clap trap you morons spout with idiotic regularity.

I am offended that I didn't make the list......
I thought liberals didn't like to offend people, oh that is right they don't mind offending white Christian pro-lifers!
 :P

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 28, 2014, 07:58:30 am

I thought liberals didn't like to offend people, oh that is right they don't mind offending white Christian pro-lifers!

And they don't mind having their babies aborted

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 28, 2014, 08:01:42 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 27, 2014, 10:02:59 pm

Man made global warming is a hoax.  Or is it global cooling?  That changes as often as the weather which has been changing way before man and will be long after we are gone. 

Keep up Peke..today it's climate change...oh wait no that was yesterday. Today it is climate disruption. Tomorow it will be something else. I think Otto calls it White Guy weather.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 01:27:43 pm

I'm just going to ignore your 3% opinion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 28, 2014, 01:37:28 pm

You ought to ignore a lot of sites you go to

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 01:39:01 pm

White Guy Weather

That no amount of severe record breaking heat, drought, rain, cold along with any polar ice melting or changing weather patterns mean jack **** because if james imhoff can point to one flake of snow in winter its all made up Liberal politics. Its not like having 400+ ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere means anything other than science is all wrong and dinosaurs existed at the same time as man and creation science is real and .....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 01:40:01 pm

Sorry wasfulofit, I don't strive to be right just 3% of the time like you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 28, 2014, 01:42:27 pm

3%? You are never right. Communism and Baalism don't work.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 02:01:22 pm

That is exactly why my preferring not to discuss anything with conservative t-baggers.

It far better just to continually point out the stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 02:23:39 pm

randy raul....moron.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/28/rand-pauls-claim-there-was-no-plane-for-special-ops-forces-in-benghazi/?hpid=z3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/28/rand-pauls-claim-there-was-no-plane-for-special-ops-forces-in-benghazi/?hpid=z3)


I'm sure rep howdy gowdy will put this in his already finished propaganda display which unlike all the other 8 investigations will ignore facts and just produce talking points of stupidity, like the one randy just spewed on fox-hole news.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 28, 2014, 03:02:14 pm

You know there is a scandal here its just the ignorant liberal Obama bunghole lickers that cant see it or even if they are smart enough to see it want it buried so that King Obumma wont look like the bungler he truly is and wont be exposed as a liar

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 28, 2014, 03:59:10 pm

Did anyone else look at the link otto just posted and sincerely wondered what the point of it was?

It looks as if it is simply a blogger saying, "Paul is wrong," and then thinking if he rambles long enough, with enough bullshit, idiots will conclude that there must be a point somewhere in his rambling, and that even if they couldn't really find it, by going on long enough, the simple-minded will believe he is right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 28, 2014, 04:03:46 pm

Of course it doesn't take a genius to figure out that liberals always find something wrong with Rand Paul despite him being right

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 04:42:14 pm

Ya sheldon, why would anyone need to bother a senator with presidential aspirations with facts.

Rand Paul still doesn’t understand what he doesn’t understand


    FOX HOST ERIC BOLLING: “So this is kind of startling news that the White House was on the phone with YouTube as the attacks were still taking place that night, saying, Hey, did you see what’s causing this? They were already being political at that moment.”
     
    SEN. RAND PAUL (R-Ky.): “You know, I’m appalled by it. One of the things that’s interesting is that very night, they were still struggling to get reinforcements. We had some more Special Operations forces in Tripoli. They couldn’t find a plane for them. So instead of calling to get a plane or to try to make arrangements to get a plane, they’re on the phone trying to create spin to say that, ‘You know what? This is about a video, which never had anything to do with this attack.’ So you know, it saddens me. Doesn’t surprise me, but does sadden me.”


It’s rather amazing to appreciate just how wrong this is.


First, the Republican senator seems to be under the impression that the national security team at the White House only has one telephone – instead of making plane “arrangements,” he said, officials called YouTube. (Note to Rand Paul: the Situation Room has fairly sophisticated communications equipment. They’re capable of making more than one call at a time.)
 
Second, though it’s really not up to the White House to coordinate Special Operations flights directly, even if it were, when the senator claimed officials didn’t try to find a plane for Special Operations forces, that’s clearly wrong.
 
In other words, the Kentucky senator is “appalled” and “saddened” by details Rand Paul doesn’t actually understand.

Of course that happens a lot with randy. Like this one...

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) sent out a newsletter to supporters last week claiming, “For every Kentuckian that has enrolled in Obamacare, 40 have been dropped from their coverage.”

sheldon can tell me if 16,520,000 million people even live in KY?


Could he find someone better to plagiarize?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 04:45:51 pm

sheldon


wasreallyfullofit

Quote

You know there is a scandal here its just the ignorant liberal Obama bunghole lickers that cant see it or even if they are smart enough to see it want it buried so that King Obumma wont look like the bungler he truly is and wont be exposed as a liar

No word from the English police on this run-on sentence?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 28, 2014, 05:41:37 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 04:45:51 pm

wasreallyfullofit
No word from the English police on this run-on sentence?

That's amusing, otto.

Any chance you think you could make the needed corrections to that sentence?

Make whatever revisions you like, so long as they are all correct, and preserve the original meaning, without changing the meaning.

Have a go at it.

I'm betting you can't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 28, 2014, 05:53:59 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 28, 2014, 04:42:14 pm

Ya sheldon, why would anyone need to bother a senator with presidential aspirations with facts.

  FOX HOST ERIC BOLLING: “So this is kind of startling news that the White House was on the phone with YouTube as the attacks were still taking place that night, saying, Hey, did you see what’s causing this? They were already being political at that moment.”
     
    SEN. RAND PAUL (R-Ky.): “You know, I’m appalled by it. One of the things that’s interesting is that very night, they were still struggling to get reinforcements. We had some more Special Operations forces in Tripoli. They couldn’t find a plane for them. So instead of calling to get a plane or to try to make arrangements to get a plane, they’re on the phone trying to create spin to say that, ‘You know what? This is about a video, which never had anything to do with this attack.’ So you know, it saddens me. Doesn’t surprise me, but does sadden me.”


It’s rather amazing to appreciate just how wrong this is.


First, the Republican senator seems to be under the impression that the national security team at the White House only has one telephone – instead of making plane “arrangements,” he said, officials called YouTube. (Note to Rand Paul: the Situation Room has fairly sophisticated communications equipment. They’re capable of making more than one call at a time.)
 
Second, though it’s really not up to the White House to coordinate Special Operations flights directly, even if it were, when the senator claimed officials didn’t try to find a plane for Special Operations forces, that’s clearly wrong.

Sorry, otto, but SAYING it was clearly wrong, does not mean that it WAS wrong at all.

I understand that some of the president's apologists in the administration claim that before the president went upstairs to dinner and then stopped paying any attention to what was happening that he told them to do everything to help.  They SAY that.  But what we know is that not only did no assistance arrive, no plane was ever even sent in that direction, despite the fact that the attack went on for a rather extended period.

Sure seems to me that Paul's statement is completely accurate.

But, of course there is really no need for you or any of the president's media apologists like Glenn Kessler to get your panties in a wad about this.  After all, haven't you already told us how the American people don't care about this, how they know there is no scandal or controversy or cover-up here, and how everyone knows criticism like Paul's comments is nothing but the shabbiest of partisan attacks?

If so, there really is no need to say anything about it.  Kessler really is making himself look foolish to waste so much time writing about such utterly insignificant matters.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 28, 2014, 07:27:31 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 28, 2014, 05:53:55 am

otto's automatic assumption about anyone who disagrees with him on economic/politic issues is that they have an "undeserved sense of entitlement."

Entitlement to what?  What they earn?  Yes, guilty as charged.  I believe a person is entitled to keep what they earn, or at least the overwhelming majority of it.

Implicit in otto's comments is the belief that those with this "undeserved sense of entitlement" have been born to wealth and comfort and that whatever it is they have was handed to them, that ideas of self-investment, sacrifice and hard work are mere platitudes with no real application in life.

I have twice bought dog food when I had no dog... but it was much cheaper to buy and eat dog food than what otto was likely eating at the time.  And neither time did I ask anyone else to buy food for me.

otto's view of the universe is so distorted and perverse that he sees almost nothing around him, and understand even less of what he does see.

 I did that too but I had a dog , who I ate first & then ate the dog food. ;)
 
 R.I.P Fido, in my belly ! Alpo and Kibbles N Bits ... not bad with tobasco.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 28, 2014, 08:48:59 pm

http://godfatherpolitics.com/15682/60-year-old-document-shows-va-used-civilian-hospitals/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 28, 2014, 10:51:58 pm

Homo is working up a sweat today.  He is copying and pasting at a very rapid rate.

Freeloaders in the backwards town of Madison in the hick state of Wisconsin usually don't have to work that hard.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 29, 2014, 08:09:26 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 28, 2014, 03:59:10 pm

It looks as if it is simply a blogger saying, "Paul is wrong," and then thinking if he rambles long enough, with enough bullshit, idiots will conclude that there must be a point somewhere in his rambling, and that even if they couldn't really find it, by going on long enough, the simple-minded will believe he is right.

Otto proves that he is correct in that assumption

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 29, 2014, 10:15:55 am

how do you folks feel about the Snowden guy that leaked all that NSA privacy info?
Is he a traitor or a patriot?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 10:35:30 am

What a hoot.

You circle jerk t-baggers all agreeing on your own "facts" to support a clearly wrong political assessment from randy paul.

What "facts" can you show which refute Glenn Kessler's rating?

Lets review

The Pinocchio Test

There are certainly a number of outstanding questions about the Benghazi incident, but it’s important to get the facts straight when asking such questions. Paul asserted that a plane could not be found for Special Operations forces in Tripoli, but that’s clearly incorrect. Moreover, it’s a bit ridiculous to assume that such a level of detail would be left to White House staff, or even the president, rather than the commanders on the ground.

Four Pinocchios

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 10:47:16 am

Ex-lawyer from TN

Quote

They SAY that.  But what we know is that not only did no assistance arrive, no plane was ever even sent in that direction, despite the fact that the attack went on for a rather extended period.

From the Interim Report House Armed Services Committee

"After the Benghazi attack began, six U.S. security personnel left the embassy in Tripoli on a chartered Libyan aircraft to lend assistance.  Two of these individuals were U.S. soldiers on a specialized assignment who took orders in such circumstances from authorities outside of AFRICOM and Special Operations Command-Africa (SOCAFRICA). These were the only U.S. military personnel who got to Benghazi before survivors arrived in Tripoli on a chartered plane, and they performed heroically…"

So, as to your "no assistance" arrived ploy...

Quote

Sure seems to me that Paul's statement is completely accurate.

Sure seems to me that supporters of the senator who doesn't understand what he doesn't understand, understand even less of what they don't understand.

Quote

But, of course there is really no need for you or any of the president's media apologists like Glenn Kessler to get your panties in a wad about this.  After all, haven't you already told us how the American people don't care about this, how they know there is no scandal or controversy or cover-up here, and how everyone knows criticism like Paul's comments is nothing but the shabbiest of partisan attacks?

If this statement of opinion was true the "scandal" would not just exist on fox-hole news for olde white weather watchers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 10:52:31 am

Quote

If so, there really is no need to say anything about it.  Kessler really is making himself look foolish to waste so much time writing about such utterly insignificant matters

Seriously? This was issue Number One for conservatives (which is why randy was bloviating about it) until the conservative sudden concern about the VA overtook it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 29, 2014, 11:40:05 am

Homo is up early this morning.  He must have to go cash his unemployment check.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 01:35:53 pm

davepbart

When are you going to stop being a Taker with that Medicare coverage and Social Security check?

When will your values meet your actions?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 29, 2014, 01:47:27 pm

I paid for both Medicare and Social Security.

Sorry, Homo.  Any time they want to refund all the money I paid in, including the interest I could have made on that money, I will be happy to opt out of the system.

My values have always met my actions.  I am not a Liberal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 29, 2014, 02:10:10 pm

I've been working above table for 25 yrs, I would opt out now and they could keep what I have paid in if that was possible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2014, 03:41:50 pm

Quote from: davep on May 29, 2014, 01:47:27 pm

I paid for both Medicare and Social Security.

Sorry, Homo.  Any time they want to refund all the money I paid in, including the interest I could have made on that money, I will be happy to opt out of the system.

My values have always met my actions.  I am not a Liberal.

And when you started paying in, any competent actuary would have told you that the odds were, you would not draw out anything close to what you paid in (after adjusting for compound interest/growth in what you paid in), and all along the way while you were paying in, Congress was happily spending the money paid in on any number of things OTHER than on Social Security benefits or using it in any way which would constitute an investment.

The system simply needs to be scrapped, with those who have paid in and not yet drawn out what they have paid in accepting the reality that the money is not there, that it was spent as part of a Ponzi scheme, and that the best thing to do is admit the fraud and move on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2014, 03:44:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 10:52:31 am

Seriously? This was issue Number One for conservatives (which is why randy was bloviating about it) until the conservative sudden concern about the VA overtook it.

You are damn straight I am serious.  If the issue is insignificant, ignore it.

Kessler's blog implicitly acknowledges the significance of it, while loudly proclaiming, "Nothing to see here.  Move along."  Yes.  He looks foolish.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 29, 2014, 03:45:11 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 01:35:53 pm

davepbart

When are you going to stop being a Taker with that Medicare coverage and Social Security check?

When will your values meet your actions?

Otto seriously equates Social security and medicare which we were forced into with an "entitlement program"?  He's even dumber (or more brainwashed) than I thought.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2014, 03:46:49 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 10:47:16 am

Ex-lawyer from TN
From the Interim Report House Armed Services Committee

"After the Benghazi attack began, six U.S. security personnel left the embassy in Tripoli on a chartered Libyan aircraft to lend assistance.  Two of these individuals were U.S. soldiers on a specialized assignment who took orders in such circumstances from authorities outside of AFRICOM and Special Operations Command-Africa (SOCAFRICA). These were the only U.S. military personnel who got to Benghazi before survivors arrived in Tripoli on a chartered plane, and they performed heroically…"

So, as to your "no assistance" arrived ploy...

Right.  NO ASSISTANCE ARRIVED.  Those under attack died without anyone coming to their assistance.  Are you really trying to contend that anyone arrived there on site to assist them before they died?  Someone was assisting them before they were killed?

That is a new narrative.  Lay that one out for us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 04:34:08 pm

Would somebody please explain the word Taker to keysbart...the idiot in him has taken control.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 04:36:16 pm

Ex-lawyer

This is a problem for you.

"After the Benghazi attack began, six U.S. security personnel left the embassy in Tripoli on a chartered Libyan aircraft to lend assistance.  Two of these individuals were U.S. soldiers on a specialized assignment who took orders in such circumstances from authorities outside of AFRICOM and Special Operations Command-Africa (SOCAFRICA). These were the only U.S. military personnel who got to Benghazi before survivors arrived in Tripoli on a chartered plane, and they performed heroically…"

Care to explain your lack of comprehension?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 04:42:52 pm

sheldon

I thought your offspring did not have internet access.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 29, 2014, 04:59:33 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 04:34:08 pm

Would somebody please explain the word Taker to keysbart...the idiot in him has taken control.

In my world "taker" is someone that has something that does not belong to them.  What is your definition? Care to explain how having a social security benefit that you paid into  for over 40 years doesn't belong to you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 29, 2014, 05:02:34 pm

Oddo doesn't explain.  He cuts and pastes.  If only he would first read what he cut and pasted, he could make some sense..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2014, 05:07:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 29, 2014, 04:36:16 pm

Ex-lawyer

This is a problem for you.
"After the Benghazi attack began, six U.S. security personnel left the embassy in Tripoli on a chartered Libyan aircraft to lend assistance.  Two of these individuals were U.S. soldiers on a specialized assignment who took orders in such circumstances from authorities outside of AFRICOM and Special Operations Command-Africa (SOCAFRICA). These were the only U.S. military personnel who got to Benghazi before survivors arrived in Tripoli on a chartered plane, and they performed heroically…"

Care to explain your lack of comprehension?

No, otto, I read it that passage.

I even understood what it states.

Nowhere does it say the "U.S. military personnel who got to Benghazi" arrived while the firefight was still underway.  Nowhere does it say they did anything when they arrived.  Nowhere does it say anyone one any plane was even dispatched while the firefight was still underway.

No comprehension problem whatsoever on my part.

If you think that passage DOES say any of those things, there is a reading comprehension problem here.  But it isn't me who has it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2014, 05:12:25 pm

Quote from: davep on May 29, 2014, 05:02:34 pm

Oddo doesn't explain.  He cuts and pastes.  If only he would first read what he cut and pasted, he could make some sense..

I strongly disagree, davep.

Reading things he does not understand will not help otto make any sense.

It is often apparent he reads things posted here, and sometimes even that he reads some of the tripe he cuts and pastes.  Actual understanding of what he reads, however, appears to be sorely lacking, as is the case in my exchange with him immediately above.  He has read it.  But for otto, the reading of the words is about like pouring water on a duck's back.  The duck never gets wet.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2014, 05:15:04 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 29, 2014, 03:45:11 pm

He's even dumber (or more brainwashed) than I thought.

I don't believe he could ever be dumber than I think he is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 29, 2014, 05:51:16 pm

On the other hand, he seems to have new competition in his field.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2014, 09:06:27 pm

You know, regardless how bad things might be with ObamaCare, the VA scandal, or any other mess involving the current administration, at least the economy is still chugging along in recovery.

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/140529082851-gdp-data-052914-620xa.png)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2014, 01:01:09 pm

Republicans were foolish to insist on the resignation of the VA Secretary.  The problem is not with the political appointees, but rather with the Civil Service employees farther down the line.  Appointing a new Secretary, Republican or Democrat, will accomplish nothing.

There are things that could be done immediately. 

Number one, investigate who received bonuses because of falsified paperwork, and immediately get reimbursement of those bonuses.

Number two, institute criminal charges against those that falsified the documents, and against those who lie to Federal Investigators.  What is good for Scooter Libby is good for Civil Service Employees.

Number three, immediately give vouchers to all that are on the waiting list for more than 60 days, allosing them to go to civilian doctors.

Number four, revamp the Civil Service laws to allow the firing of Civil Service workers who abuse their office, voiding any labor agreements to the contrary.

And if you think that the VA is bad, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is much worse, and has been for a century.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 02:09:23 pm

Number one, investigate who received bonuses because of falsified paperwork, and immediately get reimbursement of those bonuses.

Agreed, bonuses should not be paid to people who knowingly falsified work.

Number two, institute criminal charges against those that falsified the documents, and against those who lie to Federal Investigators.  What is good for Scooter Libby is good for Civil Service Employees.

What does scooter libby have to due with this case? Other than entering politics into your supposed not political VA fix. Are you defending Eric Snowden?

Number three, immediately give vouchers to all that are on the waiting list for more than 60 days, allosing them to go to civilian doctors.

The Veterans don't want to privatize the VA system. They want their politicians to fund it so that it works for them See republic votes on issue.

Number four, revamp the Civil Service laws to allow the firing of Civil Service workers who abuse their office, voiding any labor agreements to the contrary.

Ya, because as with every conservative republic solution Union busting and handing over government to corporate greed is a better solution.

And if you think that the VA is bad, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is much worse, and has been for a century.

I don't think the VA is bad. I think current republic lip service to our veterans is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 04:29:52 pm

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2014, 01:01:09 pm

There are things that could be done immediately. 

Number one, investigate who received bonuses because of falsified paperwork, and immediately get reimbursement of those bonuses.

I agree this should be done, but there is NO need that it should be done first.  It will do nothing to end the underlying problem, unless you see the primary problem here that of paperwork being falsified and unearned bonuses being paid.  (In most cases the ones falsifying the records were not even the ones getting the bonuses.  If you consider the primary problem being that if inadequate medical care being provided, the thing you feel should be done first will do nothing whatsoever to help.

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2014, 01:01:09 pm

Number two, institute criminal charges against those that falsified the documents, and against those who lie to Federal Investigators.

I could cut and paste here every word I wrote above.  (A large number of superiors need to be prosecuted for extortion [of the employees who DID falsify the records] and for RICO violations, since they were engaged in criminal conspiracies on an ongoing basis.)

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2014, 01:01:09 pm

Number three, immediately give vouchers to all that are on the waiting list for more than 60 days, allosing them to go to civilian doctors.

THIS is the one which should be done first, but it will not, because once vouchers are used, and the the vets get better care as a result, it will add to pressure to use the same approach to deal with the broken public education system, and the teacher unions are far too strong for that to make it past a Democratic president, particularly this one.

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2014, 01:01:09 pm

Number four, revamp the Civil Service laws to allow the firing of Civil Service workers who abuse their office, voiding any labor agreements to the contrary.

I disagree there.  The Civil Service laws essentially simply allow due process.  They allow a person who is fired to challenge the firing and assure it is not arbitrary or, even worse, the result of partisan politics (something folks familiar with Chicago should understand).

What SHOULD be done, however, is to eliminate civil service positions entirely by eliminating the multitude of government jobs performing tasks which government should not be performing in the first place... which would eliminate all VA hospitals entirely.

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2014, 01:01:09 pm

And if you think that the VA is bad, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is much worse, and has been for a century.

Quite true, but folks do not really care about the damb Injuns.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2014, 04:39:03 pm

Homo

Bonuses should be collected from those who didn't earn them, even if they were not the ones that falsified the information.  They were supposed to get a bonus if a criteria was met.  The criteria was not met.  Get the money back.  As far back as they can determine they were not earned.

Scooter Libby went to jail for lying to investigators.  I am trying to keep politics out of it.  Anyone that lies to Federal investigators should go to jail.

I don't want to privatize the VA.  But they have shown themselves to be incompetent.  Give out vouchers until the VA proves that they are able to do the job.

If you don't think the VA is bad, you just aren't paying attention.  As far as increasing funding is concerned, we will probably have to do that.  But funding is not the cause of this particular problem.  The VA has a 500 million dollar surplus this year.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2014, 04:45:26 pm

Jes - just because I listed it first does not mean that it is the most important priority.  You could figure that out yourself by looking at number three where I said IMMEDIATELY GIVE VOUCHER ........

I listed it first because it would IMMEDIATELY stop the falsification, and would not prevent action or interfere with any of the others.

There is nothing wrong with due process in firings, as long as it doesn't protect the incompetent.  In the case of civil service employees, that is exactly what it does.  That does not mean that every civil service employee is incompetent.  Just that it is extremely difficult and time consuming to get rid of one that performs badly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 04:47:59 pm

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2014, 04:39:03 pm

I don't want to privatize the VA.

I do.

What possible reason is there NOT tor privatize it?  (And "privatize" really is not the way to go.  Just eliminate the VA hospitals, and the free market will step in, even if the old facilities are leveled.)

I am not urging that military field hospitals should be eliminated, but that is a different issue entirely.

I simply see no justification whatsoever for VA hospitals, and the current mess is simply one more example of why we should not have them.

These were not RARE problems.  There were NOT problems limited to a couple of facilities with bad managers.

There were the perfectly predictable and close to unavoidable result of having the government run such programs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2014, 04:54:21 pm

I was talking about things to do IMMEDIATELY.  There is no way we could privatize the VA tomorrow with the political situation the way it is.  It is foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 05:07:35 pm

Using the expression, "It is foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good," suggests that the VA is a good.

It is not.

But, again, I did not suggest privatization, at least not in the way that term is normally used.  I suggested simply ELIMINATING the VA hospital system, and I did not say it should be done tomorrow.

THAT should have been done more than 60 years ago.  Another day or two, or even another year or two, will not make much more difference than a few more deaths of vets who would get better care from the private sector, and, really, what sort of difference does that make.

What I said should be done immediately, and the ONLY thing that should be done immediately, is the thing which would likely be resisted at least as much as total elimination of the VA hospital system -- allowing vets to use vouchers to seek care from any private providers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 05:41:59 pm

This is rich.

The head of the VA resigns, saying he has no real choice because he was lied to by dishonest underlings, and underlings who if they did not lie to him were less than competent in watching the store.

And the prez praises him, even while accepting the resignation, saying the fault is not really the outgoing head of the VA, because of those dishonest and incompetent underlings who did not serve him well.

And who does the prez name as the acting head of the VA?

The top underling.

Can not make this stuff up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 06:15:18 pm

It's sure a good thing that minimum wage increases do not really cost anyone their jobs.  Knowing that reassures me these folks are simply greedy, lying bastards.  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-ceo-minimum-wage-172542952.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2014, 07:55:04 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 05:07:35 pm

Using the expression, "It is foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good," suggests that the VA is a good.

I did not say that the VA is good.  I said that there were several things we can do that ARE good, while we argue about eliminating the
VA.  In this particular case, gridlock is NOT our friend.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 07:57:31 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 06:15:18 pm

It's sure a good thing that minimum wage increases do not really cost anyone their jobs.  Knowing that reassures me these folks are simply greedy, lying bastards.  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-ceo-minimum-wage-172542952.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-ceo-minimum-wage-172542952.html)

 Jbeard ,
 
 In 1964 my brother who has since passed away, made $1.85 an hour.
 
 Gasoline cost $0.25 cents a gallon.
 
 Minimum wage today is $7.25 an hour ...
 
 gasoline is about $3.50 a gallon.
 
 Jes I need your help , could you break down the percentage of what a minimum paid worker paid for fuel in 1964 as opposed to the minimum wage that, that worker was making ?
 
 i.e.: 1964 ... $1.85 an hour  ... gasoline $0.25 a gallon.
 
 2014 : $7.25 an hour ... gasoline $3.50 a gallon.
 
 And what a minimum paid worker pays for fuel in 2014 and the percentage of what is that today ?
 
 Thanx Bro ! I know you wont fail me !
 
 Im waiting to see your numbers. Because youll never lie to me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 07:59:43 pm

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2014, 07:55:04 pm

I did not say that the VA is good.  I said that there were several things we can do that ARE good, while we argue about eliminating the
VA.  In this particular case, gridlock is NOT our friend.

It is our friend if the alternative is patching the VA hospital system up so it survives.

Let's be serious.

While what has happened is disgraceful, it is not as if the vets who were stupid enough to wait on the VA hospitals to get them in and died as a result of not getting medical care were in any way PROHIBITED from using other health care providers.  Then CHOSE to rely on the VA and to wait.... and to die as a result of the wait.

I am not excusing what the VA did.  I am simply pointing out that eliminating the VA, or simply not fixing the VA hospital system, would be a far cry from preventing those vets needing medical help from getting medical help.

Yes, gridlock here is our friend.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 08:22:18 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 07:57:31 pm

 Jbeard ,
 
 In 1964 my brother who has since passed away, made $1.85 an hour.
 
 Gasoline cost $0.25 cents a gallon.
 
 Minimum wage today is $7.25 an hour ...
 
 gasoline is about $3.50 a gallon.
 
 Jes I need your help , could you break down the percentage of what a minimum paid worker paid for fuel in 1964 as opposed to the minimum wage that, that worker was making ?
 
 i.e.: 1964 ... $1.85 an hour  ... gasoline $0.25 a gallon.
 
 2014 : $7.25 an hour ... gasoline $3.50 a gallon.
 
 And what a minimum paid worker pays for fuel in 2014 and the percentage of what is that today ?
 
 Thanx Bro ! I know you wont fail me !
 
 Im waiting to see your numbers. Because youll never lie to me.

And in 1970 a 6 function, 10 digit calculator, electronic calculator, cost more than $200.  Today you can buy one for $1.

In 1985, 512K of RAM for a PC cost about $440.  Last year, you could buy a GIGABYTES for about $5.

In 1964, when your saintly brother was heroically slaving away for $1.85 an hour, standard hamburgers at Mickie Dee's were about 28 cents, meaning he could buy six of them after working an hour.  Today, working for $7.25 an hour, he could buy SEVEN double-cheezeburgers at Mickie-Dees after working for one hour if he simply bought off the value menu.

And for some reason I am willing to bet that, unless your brother was as stupid as you at least pretend to be with your posts here, your brother in rather short order (no pun intended) parlayed his minimum wage job into a series of jobs, each of which generally paid him more than before, with those new jobs depending on his success and experience and work history from the prior jobs.

Raise the minimum wage, eliminate the jobs for those who are entering the job market and they never acquire the skills allowing them to offer employers the value which allows an employer not just to earn a decent wage, but to successfully demand one.

The minimum wage hurts the poor, the less educated, the young, minorities, those with poor employment histories, anyone who might for any reason suffer from employment discrimination, and those living in economically depressed areas and in inner cities.  If you actually give a rat's ass about anyone fitting those descriptions, you should support entirely eliminating the minimum wage, not raising it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2014, 08:32:35 pm

Whether the people that died waiting for a doctor would have died anyway is not the point.

Whether the people that died could have saved their lives by going to another doctor is not the point.

The point is that we as a society promised to care for those who were injured serving our country.  We failed to do that.  We should do something immediately to insure that this particular omission does not happen again.

It is politically impossible at this point in time to eliminate the VA.  It IS politically possible at this point of time to do all those things I recommended.

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good.  You know that.  You are not as stupid as you try to make out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 09:00:15 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 08:22:18 pm

And in 1970 a 6 function, 10 digit calculator, electronic calculator, cost more than $200.  Today you can buy one for $1.

In 1985, 512K of RAM for a PC cost about $440.  Last year, you could buy a GIGABYTES for about $5.

In 1964, when your saintly brother was heroically slaving away for $1.85 an hour, standard hamburgers at Mickie Dee's were about 28 cents, meaning he could buy six of them after working an hour.  Today, working for $7.25 an hour, he could buy SEVEN double-cheezeburgers at Mickie-Dees after working for one hour if he simply bought off the value menu.

And for some reason I am willing to bet that, unless your brother was as stupid as you at least pretend to be with your posts here, your brother in rather short order (no pun intended) parlayed his minimum wage job into a series of jobs, each of which generally paid him more than before, with those new jobs depending on his success and experience and work history from the prior jobs.

Raise the minimum wage, eliminate the jobs for those who are entering the job market and they never acquire the skills allowing them to offer employers the value which allows an employer not just to earn a decent wage, but to successfully demand one.

The minimum wage hurts the poor, the less educated, the young, minorities, those with poor employment histories, anyone who might for any reason suffer from employment discrimination, and those living in economically depressed areas and in inner cities.  If you actually give a rat's ass about anyone fitting those descriptions, you should support entirely eliminating the minimum wage, not raising it.

 Sweetheart you are a TRUE MOTHERFUCKING LAWYER.
 
 Simple questions and your ANSWERS were supplied to you ...
 
 and you went off on a tangent either because you were too lazy to look up the FACTS ...
 
 or because  ...YOU ARE A TRUE MOTHERFUCKING LAWYER!
 
 I have to give you kudos for that ... its what your ilk is good at.
 
 I know who you are ... and I know who you work for.
 
 Imagine if you could have made it as a real lawyer ...
 
 instead of being a shill and cutting 1/4 of your expected pay.
 
 Sucks doesnt it ?
 
 All I ever did was ask for your help to run some percentage numbers ...
 
 and you couldnt get that right.
 
 Im suppossed to go to you as a lawyer and ask for legal advice ?
 
 Baby JJ's **** up but hes not that **** up.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 09:47:56 pm

 
 Now Jes here comes the good part :
 
 Dear Beloved,

You have been awarded $5M USD Private Donation for human empowerment and to encourage self-employment. You are therefore, require to contact me via email: ( mailyagogo@yahoo.com ) for more details.

Regards,

Derrick Sherwin
Telephone: +44-122-445-9457
 
 _________________________________________________
 
 Its a joke its always a joke !
 
 ______________________________________________________
 
 NOTE: If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is because of the restrictions implemented by your Internet Service Provider, we (BMW) urge you to treat it genuinely.

BMW LOTTERY DEPARTMENT
ROCKVIEW, ARKANSAS. 49812
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 Dear Winner,


 This is to inform you that you have been selected for a prize of a brand new 2014 Model BMW 7 Series Car and a Check of $500,000.00usd from international programs held on the 1st section 2013 in the UNITED STATE OF AMERICA.

      Your email address was picked from our international programs held on the 1st section 2014 in the UNITED STATE OF AMERICA.

 The selection process was carried out through random selection in ourcomputerized email selection system (ESS) from a database of over 250,000 email addresses drawn from all the continents of the world which you were selected.

 The BMW Lottery is approved by the British Gaming Board and also licensed by the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR).

 To begin the processing of your prize you are to contact our fiduciary claims department for more information as regards procedures to claim
 your prize.

 Name: Mr. Lambert Richard
 Email: lmbrtrichard@gmail.com

 Contact him by providing him with your secret pin code Number BMW:6743222009/13. You are also advised to provide him with the Under listed information as soon as possible:

 1. Name in full. 2. Address.
 3. Nationality. 4. Age.
 5. Occupation. 6. Phone/Fax.
 7. Present Country. 8. Email address.
 9. pin code Number BMW:6743222009/13

 Mrs. Katie Garibey
 THE DIRECTOR PROMOTIONS
 BMW LOTTERY DEPARTMENT
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
 
 _____________________________________________________
 
 DAMN ! There went JJ losing out again !
 
 Does anyone really take seriously what they post here ?
 
 Its an ENTERTAINMENT BOARD!
 
 It is what it is ... lets review :
 
 Nobody has converted anybody to their way of thinking.
 
 However the nature instinct is to go on forever.
 
 In an endless cycle as to this could be the day ...
 
 THIS  ...could be the day that I convert him ...
 
 convert who to what ?
 
 I WANT WATER FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !!
 
 Because with OUT it ...your arguments are moot.
 
 Youre just drying up dead people until it reaches you.

 And you think it aint going to happen to you when it rains ...
 
 that its never going to happen to us ... youll see.
 
 We've got the technology and the horsepower to get this done ...
 
 where do you want to put the U.S. money at ?
 
 BTW ... that create JOBS in OUR Country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 09:52:15 pm

No one really thinks they are going to change the mind of someone they are arguing against.  They are actually trying to change the minds of others who are reading the exchange. 

I suspect Otto has made more people become conservatives then anyone else on the entire internet!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 09:55:54 pm

Jes is not far behind in making people think libertarians are all nut jobs. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 10:07:56 pm

 
 OK **** the idea of creating jobs in the U.S.,
 
 I could see a war with Pakistan and Iran ... ;D
 
 Duck,
 
 Who is a conservative and what are liberals ?
 
 Arent we all on the same page as AMERICANS ?
 
 Some AMERICANS think they have higher values then other AMREICANS,
 
 and what the **** in the final end game has led to WHAT ?
 
 Jbeard in one of his posts puts it up to this :
 
 Whats the growth rate motherfucker ?
 
 Jbeard altho incapable of answering simple questions does manage to bullshitt his way around and throw up some numbers now and then. ;D
 
 You gotta love him for that.  8)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 10:12:50 pm

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2014, 08:32:35 pm

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good.  You know that.

Not at all.  As I wrote, "fixing" the VA, with any of the measures you have proposed, or which anyone else might propose, is not good.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 10:24:30 pm

 
 Well boys its time to get into evolution :
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1a12go43_0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1a12go43_0)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 30, 2014, 10:26:15 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 09:52:15 pm

No one really thinks they are going to change the mind of someone they are arguing against.  They are actually trying to change the minds of others who are reading the exchange. 

I suspect Otto has made more people become conservatives then anyone else on the entire internet!

But, done is done.  Enough is enough.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 10:33:51 pm

Quote from: packrat on May 30, 2014, 10:26:15 pm

But, done is done.  Enough is enough.

 Yes Packy but on the outside looking in is always kewl for laffs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 10:40:20 pm

 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjNqlhPFc4Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjNqlhPFc4Y)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 10:43:03 pm

Republic mythology

Quote

The minimum wage hurts the poor, the less educated, the young, minorities, those with poor employment histories, anyone who might for any reason suffer from employment discrimination, and those living in economically depressed areas and in inner cities.  If you actually give a rat's ass about anyone fitting those descriptions, you should support entirely eliminating the minimum wage, not raising it.

Can you ex-lawyer point to anytime in American history when any of that tripe was true.

Can you dear misguided ex-lawyer explain how pushing the vast majority of the benefits created by the economy to a very few at the top which decreases growth sustain our economy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 10:46:35 pm

JJ, I suspect most people believe their political views are correct and believe they will lead to the best possible outcome.  The difference is human nature does not allow for the liberals views to actually work as intended while conservative views have been proven over time to actually work time and time again.

There will always be winners and losers.  Shouldn't it be based on a persons intelligence and hard work?  Plus under capitalism anyone can go from nothing to the top in one generation, not so under socialism or communism (well unless they fight a revolution and kill their way to the top).  Oh and under capitalism even the poor live much better then the middle class under socialism or communism.  There is also a much greater divide between poor and rich under communism and socialism then there is under capitalism.  Way more have nots then haves in a communist nation

This has been proven time and time again yet jealousy and greed are used over and over to destroy a society for the benefit of a few and the detriment to the masses.  If someone tells you communism is the way to go they are either misguided or in it strictly for themselves because they intend to be the one who is more equal then others.

       

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 10:51:34 pm

Otto, with technology today I can pretty much guarantee you if the min wage was raised to $15 an hour the people he listed would have no shot at ever getting a job or moving up the ladder of wealth and job skills.

The people you claim to be wanting to help you would be keeping down.  Otto, are you and the rest of your ilk "the man"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 10:55:16 pm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/great-society-fifty_791175.html?page=1
The Great Society at Fifty
What LBJ wrought
May 19, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 34 • By NICHOLAS EBERSTADT

May 22, 2014, marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society” address, delivered at the spring commencement for the University of Michigan. That speech remains the most ambitious call to date by any president (our current commander in chief included) to use the awesome powers of the American state to effect a far-reaching transformation of the society that state was established to serve. It also stands as the high-water mark for Washington’s confidence in the broad meliorative properties of government social policy, scientifically applied.

No less important, the Great Society pledge, and the fruit this would ultimately bear, profoundly recast the common understanding of the ends of governance in our country. The address heralded fundamental changes​—​some then already underway, others still only being envisioned​—​that would decisively expand the scale and scope of government in American life and greatly alter the relationship between that same government and the governed in our country today.

In his oration, LBJ offered a grand vision of what an American welfare state​—​big, generous, and interventionist​—​might accomplish. Difficult as this may be for most citizens now alive to recall, the United States in the early 1960s was not yet a modern welfare state: Our only nationwide social program in those days was the Social Security system, which provided benefits for workers’ retirement and disability and for orphaned or abandoned children of workers. Johnson had gradually been unveiling this vision, starting with his declaration of a “War on Poverty” in his first State of the Union months earlier in 1964, just weeks after John F. Kennedy’s assassination. In LBJ’s words,  “The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that,” he said, “is just the beginning.”

The Great Society proposed to reach even further: to bring about wholesale renewal of our cities, beautification of our natural surroundings, vitalization of our educational system. All this, and much more​—​and the solutions to the many obstacles encountered in this great endeavor, we were told, would assuredly be found, since this undertaking would “assemble the best thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America.”

Memorably, Johnson insisted that the constraints on achieving the goals he outlined were not availability of the national wealth necessary for the task or the uncertainties inherent in such complex human enterprises, but instead simply our country’s resolve​—​whether we as a polity possessed sufficient “wisdom” to embark on the venture.

For a lesser politician, the Great Society speech might have amounted to little more than lofty rhetoric. For LBJ, it was an actual blueprint. With Johnson’s consummate legislative skills, honed over six years as Senate majority leader, and with the coming 1964 electoral landslide for his party, the Great Society vision would be swiftly implemented: through civil rights laws, a panoply of new social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and so forth), new federal agencies (the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation), and a vast array of other federal social projects.

What began under Johnson continued​—​or, more often, expanded​—​under all successive presidents. Not even Ronald Reagan managed to reverse the growth of government set in motion by that call for the Great Society. Thus, the American welfare state as we know it today is very largely the outcome of forces Johnson unleashed in the first half-year of his presidency. (The most appreciable addition to this apparatus over the past half-century is arguably Obamacare, the health care guarantees forged into law under the Affordable Care Act of 2010.)

Half a century later, how should we assess the Great Society? Any attempt at a comprehensive assessment would demand vastly more space than this essay, given the audacity and expanse of territory it laid claims to conquer​—​or, more precisely, to improve. Everywhere Johnson cast his eye, he seemed to find an America in need of improvement: Environmental protection, community development, the arts​—​all of these and more he flagged in this one short speech as legitimate new areas for federal government involvement under the banner of the Great Society. We will confine our assessment here to that enormous first pillar of the Great Society: “abundance” for all and the “end to poverty” to which Johnson committed us.

The War on Poverty was grounded in a set of presumptions about our economy and society that were widely shared at the time by the country’s opinion leaders and decision-making elites. American prosperity was, in this postwar era, finally here to stay​—​and continuing economic advancement could be all but taken for granted. Indeed, the helmsmen of our national economy​—​groups like the President’s Council of Economic Advisers​—​knew so much about how to manage the workings of the magnificent U.S. macroeconomy that they could seriously talk about fine-tuning its performance.

The problem of poverty amid general affluence, for its part, was mainly a technocratic question​—​to be answered boldly through straightforward, official redirection of national resources to fill the country’s “income gap.” Some special programs, however, were also required for addressing conditions in pockets of lingering social disadvantage (urban slums, Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and other blighted locales). Guided by experts from the academy and elsewhere, these social programs could, with time, systematically convert virtually all of the underprivileged into full participants in the American Dream.

The conceit that possessed the initial troop of Great Society poverty warriors, in short, was that the challenge inherent in the project of eliminating poverty in America was not in essence very different from that of the project for sending a man to the moon. Both tasks could be successfully engineered by a confident government with sufficient resources, know-how, and commitment behind it. This outlook exemplifies what Friedrich Hayek termed “scientism,” pure and simple: misapplication of techniques and theories from the natural sciences to other, patently unsuitable realms.

The scientistic fallacies that animated the original War on Poverty did not long survive their encounters with real, live human beings, as the fates of the Office of Economic Opportunity and other experiments would attest. Nevertheless, official antipoverty programs and policies went on to flourish—at least by the administrative metric of resource expenditures. In 2012, nearly $700 billion in means-tested transfers of money, goods, and services were obtained by recipients of antipoverty benefits. And this does not include the bureaucratic overhead and personnel costs for such programs. At this writing, annual government outlays for U.S. antipoverty programs may have reached, or even exceeded, the trillion-dollar mark.

And programs expressly devised for combating poverty were only one component within the overall schema of social policies intended to redress material want and economic insecurity. For the Great Society also added Medicare to the structure of the American welfare state and arguably prepared the way for more generous, and inventive, outlays from the existing Social Security program. All in all, inflation-adjusted government transfers for social welfare programs soared more than tenfold between 1964 and 2013, and real per capita welfare state transfers were six-plus times higher in 2013 than 50 years earlier. Numerous critics at home and abroad fault the contemporary U.S. social welfare system for what they take to be its punitive austerity. Nevertheless, the share of overall personal income from social welfare transfers jumped from 5.8 percent in 1964 to 17.0 percent in 2013; more than one dollar in six within the overall American household budget thus comes from government entitlement programs, redistributed through social welfare guarantees.

Since 1964, the welfare state has devoted considerable resources to assuring or improving the public’s living standards​—​something like $20 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars through antipoverty programs alone, by one calculation. What sort of effect have these programs had on deprivation and its attendant miseries?

If we were to judge the performance of our welfare state solely by the statistical measure invented to gauge national performance in the War on Poverty​—​the “poverty rate”​—​we would have to conclude the whole effort has been a miserable and unmitigated failure. The true picture, however, is rather more complex than that same poverty rate is capable of depicting, though not necessarily much more heartening.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 10:56:04 pm

[cont]
Acccording to the official poverty rate, the proportion of our population below the poverty line was dropping rapidly in the years immediately before the War on Poverty was fully underway. In the seven years between 1959 and 1966, according to the Census Bureau, the proportion of our country living in poverty dropped by about a third, from 22.4 to 14.7 percent. Since then, however, the official poverty rate has been essentially stuck. It reached an all-time low of 11.1 percent in 1973, in the Nixon era, then drifted uncertainly back upward. For the year 2012, the most recent such data available, the national poverty rate was 15.0 percent​—​slightly higher, in other words, than back in 1966.

The official poverty picture looks even worse the more closely one focuses on it. According to those same official numbers, the poverty rate for all families was no lower in 2012 than in 1966. The poverty rate for American children under 18 is higher now than it was then. The poverty rate for the working-age population (18-64) is also higher now than back then. The poverty rate for whites is higher now than it was then. Poverty rates for Hispanic Americans have been tracked only since 1972​—​but these likewise are higher today than back then. Shocking as this may sound, only a few groups within our society​—​most importantly, Americans 65 and older and African Americans of all ages​—​registered any appreciable improvement in poverty rates between 1966 and 2012.

If those official numbers reflected reality in America, all this would be cause for the gravest alarm. After all, the official poverty rate is meant to count the percentage of the population living on incomes below a threshold set back in the early 1960s and adjusted since then only to keep up with inflation. That threshold was meant to provide only a severe and stringent household budget​—​as stringency was envisioned half a century ago. But of course, America is a vastly richer society today. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real per capita disposable income in our country in 2012 was two and a half times the 1966 level. And according to data compiled by the Federal Reserve, private wealth grew even faster over that same period.

Taken together, these soundings would seem to conjure up the ghastly image of “immiserating growth,” that fatal tendency of modern capitalist systems, at least according to some postwar neo-Marxian theorists. But the proposition that a higher fraction of Americans are stuck in absolute poverty today than nearly half a century ago cannot be taken seriously. It is preposterous on its very face.

Consider that the health of Americans of all ages is markedly better now than then: life expectancy at birth rose by more than eight years between 1966 and 2010 alone and is higher at every age these days​—​even for centenarians. Americans are not only healthier, but also much more educated​—​in 1966, nearly a third of adults 25 or older had a grade school education or less, compared to just 5 percent in 2013. And Americans are more likely now to be working in paid jobs: Despite the terrible 2008 economic crash, the percentage of employed adults 20 and older was still higher in 2013 than in 1966 (61 percent versus 57 percent).

The idea that such a population would at the same time suffer a higher incidence of absolute poverty does not even pass the laugh test. This picture is an illusion, a distorted reflection from the statistical variant of a funhouse mirror, and the funhouse mirror in question is the poverty rate itself. The poverty rate is a highly misleading measure of living standards and material deprivation​—​incorrigibly misleading, in fact.

The central and irresolvable trouble with the official poverty rate is that it presumes an immediate and exact equivalence between income levels and consumption levels​—​so that any home in any year with a reported income level below the poverty line must perforce also be constrained to sub-poverty-line spending power. In real-world America, by contrast, income is a poor predictor of spending power for lower-income groups at any given point in time​—​and that predictive power has dramatically worsened over the course of our postwar era.

In 1960-61, according to the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, the bottom one-fourth of American homes spent about 12 percent more than their pretax reported incomes each year. By 2011, according to that same survey, those in the lowest quintile were spending nearly 125 percent more than their reported pretax incomes and nearly 120 percent more than their reported posttax, posttransfer incomes.

This growing discrepancy between income and expenditures on the part of the poorer strata in recent decades is by no means impossible to explain. Not least important, households are subject to greater year-to-year earnings swings than in the past and have greater wherewithal (through borrowing, asset drawdowns, and other means) to buffer their consumption when they hit a bad year, or even a couple of bad years. But this phenomenon also means that people reporting ostensibly poverty-level incomes are less and less likely to be consigned to poverty-level living standards, as that standard was originally conceived in the early 1960s. Increasing noncash transfers of means-tested public benefits (including, especially, health care) only further widen the gap between reported income and actual consumption for America’s “poverty population.”

Thus, the actual living conditions of people counted as living “in poverty” in America today bear very little resemblance to those of Americans enumerated as poor in the first official government count attempted in 1965. By 2011, for example, average per capita housing space for people in poverty was higher than the U.S. average for 1980, and crowding (more than one person per room) was less common for the 2011 poor than for the nonpoor in 1970. More than three-quarters of the 2011 poor had access to one or more motor vehicles, whereas nearly three-fifths were without an auto in 1972-73. Refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers, and many other appliances were more common in officially impoverished homes in 2011 than in the typical American home of 1980 or earlier. Microwaves were virtually universal in poor homes in 2011, and DVD players, personal computers, and home Internet access are now typical in them​—​amenities not even the richest U.S. households could avail themselves of at the start of the War on Poverty.  Further, Americans counted as poor today are manifestly healthier, better nourished (or overnourished), and more schooled than their predecessors half a century ago.

To be clear: The poor in America are not well-to-do. They are poorer than the rest of America. This has not changed. What has changed is their standard of living​—​which has risen markedly since the beginning of the War on Poverty, as have living standards for all the rest of us. Work by economists like Daniel Slesnick at the University of Texas, Bruce Meyer at the University of Chicago, and James X. Sullivan at the University of Notre Dame demonstrates that an ever-smaller share of our country subsists on consumption levels demarcated by our old, official, 1960s-era poverty line.

Consumption-focused assessments of the poverty problem are stunningly different from our official numbers. In a recent research paper, for example, Meyer and Sullivan indicate that such “consumption poverty” afflicted less than 4 percent of the population in 2008. In the wake of the 2008 crash, “consumption poverty” rose​—​but as of 2010, when postcrash conditions were possibly most dire, just 3.7-4.5 percent of America was subject to it, according to their calculations.

This research underscores a significant point, all too often misunderstood in both policy and intellectual circles today. Poverty in America​—​the sort of material deprivation people knew back in the 1960s​—​has been all but eliminated. This should not be a surprise, considering both the many intervening decades of general economic advancement and the tremendous outlays of government antipoverty funds, currently averaging about $9,000 in total expenses and $7,000 in transfer value per year for every person in our nation designated as a recipient in need.

We cannot say the War on Poverty was a necessary condition for the near-complete abolition of 1960s-style poverty, insofar as we cannot know what the rate of progress would have been without those efforts. But we can say that the War on Poverty has proved to be a sufficient condition for achieving this great objective.

III

So the long War on Poverty has indeed managed to eradicate 1960s-style poverty from our midst, or very nearly so​—​even if our federal authorities today are not competent to describe this accomplishment (or, seemingly, even recognize the accomplishment in the first place). This is an important fact in favor of the War on Poverty​—​but other important facts must be considered as well, all seemingly weighing on the other side of the ledger. For the institutionalization of antipoverty policy has been attended by the rise and spread of an ominous “tangle of pathologies” in the society whose ills antipoverty policies were intended to heal. Those pathologies appear to be conjoined with antipoverty policies; in some cases, antipoverty policies may possibly create them, but irrespective of the causality at work, they are clearly very largely financed today by antipoverty policies.

The phrase “tangle of pathologies” harks back to the famous Moynihan Report of 1965, which warned of the crisis of the family then gathering for black America.  That report was criticized, even viciously denounced, at the time, but in retrospect much of it seems positively prophetic.

The Moynihan argument also assumed that the troubles impending for black America were unique​—​a consequence of the singular historical burdens that black Americans had endured. That argument was not only plausible at the time, but persuasive. Yet today that same “tangle of pathology” can no longer be described as characteristic of just one group. Quite the contrary: These pathologies are evident throughout all of America today, regardless of race or ethnicity. Three of the most disturbing of these many entangled pathologies are welfare dependency, the flight from work, and family breakdown.

Welfare Dependency. Unlike, say, an old-age pension awarded after a lifetime of work, a bestowal of charity or aid to the indigent is a transaction that establishes a relationship of dependence. As a people who have prized their independence, financial as well as political, Americans throughout history have attempted to avoid dependence on “relief” and other handouts. Recovery from the Great Depression was corroborated by the great decline in the numbers of Americans on public aid: In 1951, the commissioner of Social Security was pleased to report that just 3.8 percent of Americans were receiving public aid, down from 11.5 percent as recently as 1940. But with the War on Poverty and its successor programs, such dependency has become routine. The United States today is richer than at any previous juncture​—​yet, paradoxically, more Americans than ever before are officially judged to be in need. Welfare dependence is at an all-time high and by all indications set to climb in the years ahead.

Perhaps tellingly, the U.S. government did not get around to collecting data and publishing figures on the proportion of the population dependent on need-based benefits on a systematic basis until nearly two decades after the start of the War on Poverty, during the Reagan era. By then (1983), nearly one American in five (18.8 percent) lived in a home taking in one or more means-tested benefits.

By 2012, according to one Census Bureau count, the proportion was almost one in three: 32.3 percent and “only” 29.4 percent if school lunches were excluded from the tally. This still left more than 90 million Americans applying for and accepting aid from government antipoverty programs. But only 33 million people from America’s “poverty population” were enrolled in those same means-tested programs. In other words, nearly twice as many Americans above the poverty line as below it were getting antipoverty benefits. Evidently, the American welfare state has been defining deprivation upward.

In the 1990s, a bipartisan political consensus enacted “welfare reform”​—​but it would be misleading to overestimate the effect of that adjustment on the long-term rise in dependency. That “welfare reform” took aim at just one especially controversial and unpopular program: aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a facet of the original Social Security legislation, but one that had been allowed to mutate into a vehicle for financing unwed motherhood and intergenerational dependency.

AFDC’s reach was always limited​—​in 1983 only 4.2 percent of Americans lived in homes receiving aid from it, according to Census Bureau estimates​—​and that fraction has been pared down to just 2.0 percent in 2011. On the other hand, most of the other means-tested programs have extended their reach over those same years: public housing, income transfers from AFDC alternatives, food stamps, Medicaid, and more. Since the advent of “welfare reform,” the proportion of the American population relying on at least some entitlement benefit from the government has jumped by another 10 percentage points.

By 2012, according to one Census Bureau count, significant demographic subgroups within the American population were well along the path to means-tested majorities​—​that is to say, toward the point where more members than not of the groups in question would be claiming benefits from government antipoverty programs. More than 47 percent of all black Americans and fully 48 percent of Hispanic Americans of all ages were reckoned to be taking home means-tested benefits (excluding subsidized school lunches from the tally, here and in the rest of this discussion). More than 60 percent of black and Hispanic children, and nearly 43 percent of all American children, were depending on antipoverty programs for at least some support. Dependency was less pronounced among children of Asian Americans and non-Hispanic whites, but only to a degree​—​for both those groups, the ratio was close to 30 percent. In all of the aforementioned cases, most of the beneficiaries drawing on government poverty program resources were men, women, and children not officially counted as poor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 10:56:46 pm

[conc]

In affluent democracies, children are not expected to be self-supporting​—​nor, necessarily, are their mothers. For men in the prime of life, expectations have always been different. In this sense, the most revealing measure of the spread of dependence is the declining financial independence of working-age American men. Among men 25 to 44 years of age, more than 25 percent lived in homes taking aid from antipoverty programs by 2012. For nonpoor men those same ages, the ratio was over 20 percent. While the proclivity was lower for working-age men living independently from families, nonetheless nearly 1 in 10 adult American men under 65 living alone were seeking and accepting need-based public aid by 2012.

The reach of dependence is perhaps best highlighted by its inroads into the parts of American society traditionally least ensnared by it. Historically, non-Hispanic whites have had the lowest dependence on public aid of any major racial or ethnic group delineated within official statistics​—​yet by 2012, nearly 1 in 5 nonpoor Anglo men ages 25-44, and about 1 in 11 under 65, nonpoor, and living alone, were on the government benefit rolls.

The Flight from Work. Although a higher fraction of Americans 20 and older are working today than at the start of the War on Poverty (61.2 percent in January 2014 versus 57.2 percent in January 1964), and though labor force participation rates are likewise higher today than 50 years ago, these overall figures mask two distinct tendencies.

On one hand, adult women are much more likely to be working or looking for work today than two generations ago. Labor force participation rates for women 20 and older are fully 20 percentage points higher today than in early 1964 (58.6 percent in January 2014 versus 38.5 percent in January 1964). A lifestyle that includes at least some paid employment has become the norm for American women over the past two generations.

On the other hand, men have been a diminishing presence within the workforce​—​and not only thanks to the rising share of women who seek to work. The proportion of men 20 and older who are employed has dramatically and almost steadily dropped since the start of the War on Poverty, falling from 80.6 percent in January 1964 to 67.6 percent 50 years later. No less remarkable: The proportion of adult men in the labor force​—​either working or looking for work​—​has likewise plunged over those same years, from 84.2 percent then to 71.9 percent today. Put another way: Our country has seen a surge of men making a complete exit from the workforce over the past 50 years. Whereas fewer than 16 percent of men 20 or older neither had work nor were looking for it in early 1964, the corresponding share today is more than 28 percent.

In purely arithmetic terms, the main reason American men today are not working is not unemployment. Rather, it is because they have opted out of the labor market altogether. For every adult man who is between jobs and looking for new work, more than five are neither working nor looking for employment.

Even in what should be the prime of work life, this male flight from work has been apparent. Between early 1964 and early 2014, the proportion of civilian, noninstitutionalized men completely out of the labor force nearly quadrupled​—​from 3.2 percent to 12.6 percent. By the same token, the corresponding share of nonworkers for men 35-44 years of age more than tripled over those same years, from 2.5 percent in January 1964 to 9.0 percent in January 2014.

The withdrawal of progressively greater proportions of men​—​including relatively young men​—​from the U.S. workforce seems especially paradoxical when we consider the major improvements in health (as reflected in life expectancy) and educational attainment (as reflected in mean years of schooling) for the cohorts under consideration over those same years. All other things being equal, one might have assumed these changes would make men more capable of working, not less.

It is noteworthy that the male flight from work for prime working-age groups, striking as it has been, did not proceed uninterrupted over the entire postwar period. No, it only took place after the War on Poverty commenced. Between early 1948​—​when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began the current system for tracking workforce data​—​and early 1964, a period stretching more than a decade and a half, the proportion of unworking men 25-54 years of age remained essentially unchanged. The same was true for men 35-44 years of age. For men 25-34, the labor force participation rate actually rose from 96.1 percent in January 1948 to 97.1 percent in January 1964. Only since the War on Poverty began to offer alternatives to work for able-bodied men have we seen a major migration of men in prime working ages out of the time-established path of work.

As long as such data have routinely been collected, labor-force participation rates have been lowest for black Americans and highest for Hispanic Americans; rates for Asian Americans and Anglos have been in-between, close to the national average. There may be many reasons for the poor labor force performance of black American men​—​among them, lower educational levels, collapse of work opportunities in urban centers, and possibly continuing variants of discrimination as well. But ever since the War on Poverty, the flight from work among African-American men has merely preceded the same flight for Anglos. Although the black American labor force participation rate for men of peak working age (25-54) was sharply lower than that of Anglos for 2013, it was a bit higher in 1973 than the Anglo rate would be 40 years later. The same is true for men in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. The strange and disturbing fact is that a lower share of Anglo men today are working or looking for work than was true for their African-American counterparts four decades earlier​—​notwithstanding all the disadvantages borne by their black counterparts in those earlier years.

Family Breakdown. In the early postwar era, the norm for childbearing and child-rearing was the married two-parent household. Norm and reality were not identical, of course—but for the country as a whole, the gap was not immense. Illegitimacy was on the rise in the early postwar era, but as late as 1963, on the eve of the War on Poverty, more than 93 percent of American babies were coming into the world with two married parents. According to the 1960 census, nearly 88 percent of children under 18 were then living with two parents. That fraction was slightly higher than it had been before World War II, thanks in part to improving survival chances for parents and the correspondingly diminished risk of orphanhood.

Unfortunately, the rise of the new welfare policies inaugurated by the War on Poverty coincided with a marked change in family formation patterns in America. Out-of-wedlock births exploded. Divorce and separation soared. The fraction of children living in two-parent homes commenced a continuing downward spiral. These new patterns are so pervasive, and so politically sensitive, that some today object even to describing the phenomenon as “family breakdown.” But the phenomenon has swept through all of American society over the past 50 years, leaving no ethnic group untouched.

Pre-Great Society statistics on birth outside marriage may understate the true extent of nonmarital child bearing, given the stigma that attached to illegitimacy in those days. Be that as it may, for the quarter-century extending from 1940 to 1965, official data recorded a rise in the fraction of births to unmarried women from 3.8 to 7.7 percent. Over the following quarter-century​—​1965 to 1990​—​out-of-wedlock births jumped from 7.7 percent of the nationwide total to 28.0 percent. Twenty-two years later (the most recent available data are for the year 2012), America’s overall out-of-wedlock birth ratio had surpassed 40 percent.

By 2013, nearly 32 percent of America’s children were living in arrangements other than a two-parent home. Moreover, given current trends in cohabitation, divorce, and remarriage, not all children living in two-parent homes nowadays are with both their biological parents​—​and even where they are, those biological parents are not always married. A Census Bureau study for 2009 reported just under 69 percent of America’s children lived in two-parent homes that year​—​but only 60 percent were biological offspring of both parents in their home, and only 57 percent were with both married biological parents. The corresponding percentages are presumably lower today.

The two-married-parent family construct has always been frailest among African Americans (though the reasons behind that fragility continue to be debated, sometimes rancorously). The reported illegitimacy ratio for nonwhites gradually rose from 17 percent in 1940 to 22 percent in 1959. In 1960, one in five nonwhite children was living with a lone mother. By 2012, more than 72 percent of black births were outside marriage, and in 2013 more than half of black children were living only with their mother​—​many more than the 37 percent who were in a two-parent home.

But out-of-wedlock birth ratios and living arrangements for children have been changing in the rest of America as well since the start of the War on Poverty​—​and radically. Among Hispanic Americans, more than 30 percent of children were in single-parent homes by 2013​—​and well over half were born out of marriage by 2012. By 2009, fewer than 60 percent of Latino children were living with both biological parents, and fewer than 55 percent lived with biological parents who were married. Corresponding data are not available for 1964, but these figures are much higher than for 1980, when 21 percent were in single-parent homes, and fewer than 25 percent were born outside of marriage.

The collapse of the traditional family structure has been underway among the majority population of non-Hispanic whites as well. For Anglos, there were few signs of impending family breakdown in the generation before the War on Poverty; between 1940 and 1963, the out-of-wedlock birth ratio increased, but only from 2 percent to 3 percent, and in 1960, just 6 percent of white children lived with single mothers. In 2012, the proportion of out-of-wedlock births was 29 percent​—​nearly 10 times as high as it was just before the War on Poverty. By 2013, more than 18 percent of Anglo children were in single-mother homes​—​three times the proportion before the War on Poverty​—​and over one-quarter lived outside two-parent homes. By 2009, less than two-thirds of Anglo children were living with both biological parents, and fewer than five out of eight were with biological parents who were married to each other. Thus, Anglo whites today register illegitimacy ratios markedly higher than those ratios were for African Americans when Moynihan called attention to the crisis in the black family​—​and proportions of single-parent children look eerily comparable.

The reason the Moynihan Report sounded an alarm about family trends for black America was that a very large body of research already existed in the 1960s concerning the manifold disadvantages conferred on children who grew up in what were then called “broken homes.” Over the intervening decades, a small library of additional studies have accumulated to corroborate and document the tragic range of disadvantages that such children face. This is not to say that children from alternative living arrangements cannot end up thriving​—​obviously, many do; it is, rather, that their odds of suffering adverse educational, health, behavioral, psychological, and other outcomes are much higher. These disadvantages are starkly evident even after controlling for socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and race.

One of the many risks children of broken homes confront is a much higher chance of becoming a violent offender in our criminal justice system​—​and, more broadly, a much higher risk of being arrested for crime. Since the launch of the War on Poverty, criminality in America has taken an unprecedented upward turn within our nation. Although reported rates of crime victimization​—​including murder and other violent crimes​—​have been falling for two decades, the percentage of Americans behind bars has continued to rise (though it appears to have peaked​—​or at least temporarily paused​—​since 2009).

As of year-end 2010, more than 5 percent of all black men in their 40s and nearly 7 percent of those in their 30s were in state or federal prisons, with additional numbers incarcerated in local jails awaiting trial or sentencing. For Latinos, the corresponding numbers were more than 2 percent and nearly 3 percent. Among Anglos, slightly more than 1 percent of all men in their 30s were sentenced offenders in state or federal prisons​—​a lower share than for these others, but a higher proportion than in earlier generations. This huge convict population may be described in many different ways​—​but one way to describe most of them is as children of the earthquake that shook family structure in the era of expansive antipoverty policies.

Surveying this new American landscape of dependency, voluntary male joblessness, and family decay, an unavoidable question confronts our society: How are these perverse features of our daily life related to the rise of the modern American welfare state? Is it simply a coincidence that welfare dependence, the male flight from work, and accelerated family breakdown all happened to coincide with the sustained domestic policy shift heralded by the Great Society? As philosophers and statisticians are careful to caution, conjuncture does not establish causation. But this broad and important conjuncture is surely thought-provoking and invites both deep reflection and careful examination. 

With respect to welfare dependency, cause and effect are least open to debate. In this particular instance, supply has seemingly created its own demand. Much greater proportions of Americans below the poverty line are seeking and accepting means-tested benefits today than in the past, irrespective of ethnicity or family structure. The culture has changed​—​or has been changed​—​by the availability of public benefits that can be obtained by, so to speak, pleading poverty. Moreover, a progressively greater share of Americans above the poverty line is becoming accustomed to applying for and obtaining money, resources, or services from government antipoverty programs. The stigma of depending on what used to be called “relief” is no longer as acute and widespread as it was before the War on Poverty: to which many might say, rightly so. “Entitlements” are benefits to which all citizens are in principle legally entitled. But the plain fact is that popular mores concerning the propriety of taking government help for the needy have shifted tremendously over the past 50 years.

Causality is much less clear-cut when it comes to the adult male flight from work and the erosion of the married two-parent family norm. In these two cases, it could be that the new welfare state was simply stepping into a void opened by social trends propelled by other, unrelated factors: among these, an increasing social preference for leisure, decreasing tolerance for the inconveniences demanded by child-rearing and long-term familial commitments, and changes in technology (including birth control technology). Nor is the fracturing of the modern family unique to postwar America. Far from it: As Francis Fukuyama, among others, has pointed out, almost every Western industrial democracy has undergone a similar sort of earthquake within the family since the 1960s. Only one of those societies was also witness to the War on Poverty: namely, ours.

For these and other reasons, the Great Society’s role in modern America’s social pathologies seems fated for endless and inconclusive debate. What is indisputable, however, is that the new American welfare state facilitated these trends by helping to finance them: by providing support for working-age men who are no longer seeking employment and for single women with children who would not be able to maintain independent households without government aid. Regardless of the origins of the flight from work and family breakdown, the War on Poverty and successive welfare policies have made these modern tendencies more feasible as mass phenomena in our country today.

Suffice it to say that none of these troubling mass phenomena was envisioned when the War on Poverty commenced. Just the opposite​—​President Johnson saw the War on Poverty as a campaign to bring dependency on government handouts to an eventual end, not as a means of perpetuating them for generations to come. He made this very clear three months after his Great Society speech at the signing ceremony for some of his initial War on Poverty legislation, when he announced:

    We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief rolls or welfare rolls. .  .  . Our American answer to poverty is not to make the poor more secure in their poverty but to reach down and to help them lift themselves out of the ruts of poverty and move with the large majority along the high road of hope and prosperity. The days of the dole in our country are numbered.

Held against this ideal, the actual unfolding of America’s domestic antipoverty policies can be seen only as a tragic failure. Dependence on government relief, in its many modern versions, is more widespread today, and possibly also more habitual, than at any time in our history. To make matters much worse, such aid has become integral to financing lifestyles and behavioral patterns plainly destructive to our commonwealth​—​and on a scale far vaster than could have been imagined in an era before such antipoverty aid was all but unconditionally available.

The Great Society was by no means a wholesale failure. America has two great achievements to celebrate and take pride in from the Great Society. That agenda finally, and decisively, brought an end to the long, hateful stain of legalized racial discrimination within our nation. And it has all but eliminated the sort of material deprivation that tens of millions of Americans in the early 1960s still suffered.

But the Great Society was a project that ended up at war with itself. Modern America has been shaped by the irreconcilable contradiction between its vision of human flourishing, on the one hand, and the particulars of the antipoverty programs that the Johnson administration and subsequent administrations promoted and financed, on the other. The former promised at long last to include all Americans, irrespective of race, as full citizens under the embrace of the exceptional legal and economic arrangements afforded through the American political tradition. The latter subverted that same promise by tacitly encouraging, and overtly subsidizing, an alternative to financial self-reliance, work, and intact family: the very social basis upon which the American experiment was built. Fifty years later, daily life in modern America continues to be shaped by the conflicted legacy of this fateful project.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 11:01:05 pm

peke

You don't even know what you think you barely know.

According to you and your ilk anyone who wants to make money should invest less and expect a greater outcome, right?

Does Grainger have that janitorial or shipping guy robot ready to ship yet?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 11:07:09 pm

jes

God you tediously depressing dull boring piece of crap. The bowtie crowd of conservative using Reagan's welfare queen myth to make a point how the good olde days of 1800's America were better.

Simply awful.


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 11:08:21 pm

You have no handle on how any of this works do you? 

You can have one person minding 12 self check outs.  You just cut out 11 min wage workers. 

Sure the public prefers to have face to face interaction with another human being (well they do if the person is competent at their job) but if it means they get to pay less they will self check out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 11:14:23 pm

Back in the day you had to hand write shipping labels, then you were able to type them in.  Then type them in and save them in memory and just type a bit to bring it up.

Now you simply scan a barcode and all the info goes in.  There will always have to be a human element involved but the amount of that will decrease with more automation.  The higher the cost of min wage labor the greater the incentive is to automate. 

The person who watches over the machines will not be a min wage person.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 11:29:11 pm

peke

You realize that greater machination and automation have been going on since four wheels replaced a horse. You seem to want to lock people into a low wage rate which doesn't allow the greater economy to grow.

Why is that?


BTW whose policies have caused the Great Depression and the Great Recession?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 11:38:21 pm

 
 Jes ,
 
 Youre a person who has found out at the end of the game where you are being used that you think you are in on things.
 
 Youre the tool that keeps the persons who are in on things controlling you.
 
 Three things you are never going to have but those that control you think you will :
 
 A private jet.
 
 A private yacht.
 
 A self flushing toilet.
 
 You are the putty in their hands ... you are what makes them work and you will never get anything compared to them.
 
 However you are led to believe that if you obey you will get candy.
 
 You will get a Hershey Bar ... and the scheme is to keep you thinking ...
 
 that you will get a private jet.
 
 Now how the **** old are you ? Where is your private jet by now ?
 
 Youve been played like a
  Stradivarius Violin. 
 The idea is to keep you a complete sucker ... and those at the top havent given you any sails for your yacht.
 
 Which is in port where ?
 
 Now which of those islands did you own again ?
 
 I KNOW im a fool ... but dig it brother ... do you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 30, 2014, 11:58:18 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 11:29:11 pm

peke

You realize that greater machination and automation have been going on since four wheels replaced a horse. You seem to want to lock people into a low wage rate which doesn't allow the greater economy to grow.

Why is that?


BTW whose policies have caused the Great Depression and the Great Recession?

 

Quote from: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 11:08:21 pm

You have no handle on how any of this works do you? 

You can have one person minding 12 self check outs.  You just cut out 11 min wage workers. 

Sure the public prefers to have face to face interaction with another human being (well they do if the person is competent at their job) but if it means they get to pay less they will self check out.

 This is whats going to happen and its already here :
 
 Automation will take your job ... however you will be paid.
 
 You will do nothing as automation does your job ...
 
 and you will get a paycheck.
 
 Because the alternative is you on the streets with a water pipe and an attitude.
 
 Will automation become more effcienct compared to you ?
 
 Yes it will. Can you be put to work elsewhere ... I dunno ... can you ?
 
 Be that as it may what is going to happen ... that as your job is automated , you will still get a paycheck ... but the profits of automation go to the company.
 
 You can go online today and find every legal brief that lawyers used to fill out ... and save yourself alot of money ... you have become the lawyer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 31, 2014, 12:19:45 am

 
 Why was a fireman required on a diesel locomotive ?
 
 Because he needed a paycheck although his job was obsolete.
 
 Is this starting to get clear to you yet ?
 
 You can take X amount of people out of the work force ...
 
 X amount of people still need to EAT!
 
 Now either KILL the son of a **** outright ...
 
 OR ...
 
 cut them a paycheck for what they used to do.
 
 As automation takes over their jobs and creates more productivity
 
 for the owners ...
 
 but owners have to worry about where they live and you dont want ex-workers storming the gates of where they live.
 
 Now maybe the ex-workers can go plant strawberrys ... or become internet Supastahs ... but lets be practicle here when your job is deceased.
 
 You know whats a good safe gig to get into ? Plumbing.
 
 Whats the rate of slope on a sewer line going from a house contecting to the city sewer ?
 
 Now any **** lawyer would know this.
 
 Cant get an answer out of the **** anywhere else ...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 31, 2014, 02:33:49 am

 
 This is so **** far out that 99.9% of you will never GET it!
 
 Otto just back to the bus. Jbeard make sure he moves there.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbkVYwS2-b0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbkVYwS2-b0)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 31, 2014, 07:22:57 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 11:07:09 pm

Reagan's welfare queen myth.....

I know I will regret this, but what in the world are you writing about?

Where is this reference?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 31, 2014, 07:24:19 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 30, 2014, 11:08:21 pm

You have no handle on how any of this works do you? 

Does he have any handle on how ANYTHING works?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 31, 2014, 07:38:18 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 11:29:11 pm

You seem to want to lock people into a low wage rate which doesn't allow the greater economy to grow.

Free markets allow growth.  Eliminate the freedom, and you will eliminate growth.  The more you restrict or limit freedom, including the freedom a person has to take a low paying job, and you restrict or limit growth, both of the larger general economy, and also of the individual's economy (in other words his or her earnings potential and options).  People are not "locked into" low wages, by a low minimum wage, or by eliminating the minimum wage.  They take a low paying job, acquire the work skills and history to justify a higher wage, OR to even start their own business, and then they leave the low paying job.  Those wanting to "lock people into" their current situations are liberals who want to regulate the economy, regulating wages and anything else they can think of, making it harder for the poor to find jobs to get themselves out of poverty, and also making it harder for them to start their own businesses to get themselves into wealth.

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 11:29:11 pm

Why is that?

It isn't.  The actual question ought to by why are you so foolish as to believe what you were claiming.

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2014, 11:29:11 pm

BTW whose policies have caused the Great Depression and the Great Recession?

The Great Depression and the Great Recession were both worldwide events.  No policies of anyone in the U.S. "caused" either of them.

Now the policies of liberal Democrats in the U.S. in the 1930's and today have exacerbated and lengthened both economic problems, but that is a different matter.  The rest of the world climbed out of the depression several years before the U.S. did, and foolish policies of FDR were largely responsible for that.  Much the same is true now with Obama's handling of things.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 31, 2014, 10:19:40 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 30, 2014, 10:12:50 pm

Not at all.  As I wrote, "fixing" the VA, with any of the measures you have proposed, or which anyone else might propose, is not good.

I recommended that the people that got money that they had not earned refund the money.

Can you tell me why you think that is not good?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on May 31, 2014, 12:04:13 pm

Otto's "myth"?

http://youtu.be/RBqjZ0KZCa0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 31, 2014, 01:13:49 pm

Quote from: davep on May 31, 2014, 10:19:40 am

I recommended that the people that got money that they had not earned refund the money.

Can you tell me why you think that is not good?

I agreed that should be done.  I also point out that it would not "fix" anything.

It is the "fixing" of the current system which would be a major mistake.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 31, 2014, 01:21:50 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on May 31, 2014, 12:04:13 pm

Otto's "myth"?

"Somebody needs to pay."

On that I could not agree more with the woman.

Of course, I think she would find that "somebody" if she looked in the mirror.

15 kids.  Apparently never married.  Apparently not one "baby daddy" in the picture at all.

Yes, somebody needs to pay.

Now, all of that said, that woman does not even approach being the "welfare queen" Reagan used to refer to in some of his speeches, where he was talking about someone who utterly gamed the system, drawing benefits to which the system did not even consider them entitled, living well, wearing furs and riding in Caddy's, often drawing benefits for children who did not even exist.

Now, all of that said, I am still waiting for otto to explain his reference to someone "using Reagan's welfare queen myth" for any purpose.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 31, 2014, 07:48:31 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg0Axyvlkm0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 31, 2014, 08:06:48 pm

Sheldon

Quote

Free markets allow growth.  Eliminate the freedom, and you will eliminate growth.

What the **** is this supposed to mean. Freedom, freedom blah blah blah..

Yesterday the family and I decided to play the game Monopoly, but I choose to play with freedom because the game rules eliminate freedom. Well hell, they decided that me, freedom-ly playing when I wanted too and taking all the money in the bank and stealing others property didn't lead to the type of freedom play my family liked. But I decided that since I had all the money they didn't deserve $200 when they passed go and that rents on all the property I owned were double or triple or more and that if they didn't like it they could just **** themselves since john galt didn't have to put up with this ****.

You want your freedom fries back?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 31, 2014, 09:09:55 pm

To stay with your analogy. 

Under communism monopoly would have the government be the banker.  Every time someone passed GO the banker took all the money.  All of the players were only allowed one piece of property and all proceeds went to the government.  It is all rather pointless, no reason to build houses or hotels and everyone would quit playing.  The only winners would be a very select few political elite who are in charge of the government.

Socialism is only slightly better but eventually leads to communism.

Capitalism is the only reason to even play the game.  That is the only way we have risk and rewards.

IMO government needs to be there to place rules on the players but they need to be the most basic rules and not changed on a whim constantly as the current administration does.  Very basic rules equally enforced on all of the players while allowing them to gain benefits based on their own skills and not biased in anyway to give people advantage even if they suck at the game.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 31, 2014, 11:59:55 pm

This is becoming a service economy based off of minimum wages. I personally believe yes the wages need to go up. To $15 is absurdity, but $10 would work. JJ is right about gas and wages. Those going to work obviously need enough wages to fill a tank of gas to GET to work. A hair over two gallons for a hours work is ridiculous. You start wondering WTH am I working for? To fill my tank or put food on my families table??? Anymore with the greedy %@#@% it's feed the tank. They don't care about your family or what food they have. They care about their McMansions and Yachts and bank accts and how much more can possibly fit in that account that's already f'ing overflowing with $$ from each and every sucker that fills his tank over and over and over. Got no sympathy whatsoever for those suckers....when it all falls on their greedy heads, it's Karma baby....it's coming....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 12:30:51 am

Min wage should not be on a federal level.  The cost of living is different in every state, city and county.  What works in one does not in another.  I personally abhor min wages and think they should be done away with entirely.  Especially considering the hand outs the governments gives to those who don't work.

Sporty, if a person can not afford to get back and forth to work for a wage they won't do it.  The wage will be increased or it will be automated if that is the cheaper alternative.

If there are riots over the economy it will end up being the middle class targeted as the ultra rich will be behind guarded gates with armed guards.  These will be the same politicians that did not want you and I to be able to own a gun.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 12:48:42 am

Sporty the service industry wages go up and the cost goes up for those of us not in the service industry and we quit going to said service industries.  Restaurants are hurting right now due to the higher cost of food and the bad economy.  Add on higher wages and they are done.

You get pissed over the price of gas.  Do you not also get pissed when the local restaurant raises the price of your favorite dish by a buck or two?  You may not quit going to the restaurant but you may not go as often to save money to put in your gas tank.

This is how the economy works and this administration has done more harm to the economy then any I can recall in my lifetime.  The regulations, and the constant changing of them along with selective prosecution and enforcement creates a cloud of confusion that makes it almost impossible to do business in.  Business owners are either closing up shop or in a holding pattern waiting for things to be concrete enough for them to make a plan and execute it.  This administration keeps moving the ball. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2014, 06:29:20 am

I guess now the U.S. WILL negotiate with terrorists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_print.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2014, 06:34:38 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 31, 2014, 09:09:55 pm

To stay with your analogy. 

Let's continue looking at the analogy, while staying more closely with his example.

Anyone trying to be the Monopoly banker as otto says he did would in a matter of minutes find he was playing alone.  Everyone else who had sat down to play with him would simply stand up, walk away from the game and do something else.

The same is true in a free market if you have someone try to do in the marketplace what otto says he was doing in the Monopoly game.

otto, I encourage you to read the Milton Friedman book, Free to Choose.... or, perhaps find it and have someone else read it aloud to you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2014, 06:38:07 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 31, 2014, 01:21:50 pm

I am still waiting for otto to explain his reference to someone "using Reagan's welfare queen myth" for any purpose.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2014, 08:45:55 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 01, 2014, 06:29:20 am

I guess now the U.S. WILL negotiate with terrorists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_print.html

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if Obama might be deliberately trying to get Congress to impeach him.  If so, this would be a remarkably good way to do it.  Not so much because it would assure Congress would finally have its institutional testicles descend, but because if this was much of an issue in the Articles of Impeachment, it would create considerable additional support for him beyond his **** base.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 01, 2014, 12:39:29 pm

We need a federal minimum wage because many companies, given their own discretion, would pay peanuts to workers, much less than any minimum we currently have, basically creating slave labor. We do not allow monopolies because companies, given their own discretion, would knock out all competition and raise rates to the moon. We have labor laws because companies, allowed their own discretion, would make slaves out of their workers, give them no benefits and work them to death.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 12:58:32 pm

There are plenty of laws on the books to keep that from happening.  The minimum wage is not needed.

If a company pays to little no one will work for them.  Or they will get only the worst workers who would move on to higher pay some where else as soon as they learned any skill what so ever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 01, 2014, 01:59:04 pm

I never said that it would "fix" anything, any more than sending someone to jail for **** will "fix" it.

But we should do it anyway.

And I never said that anything I recommended would "fix" the current system.  But we would be idiots if, being unable to end it, we didn't improve it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 01, 2014, 02:04:09 pm

We are indeed becoming more and more of a service industry economy.  But less than two million workers in our country make Federal Minimum wage.  We certainly do not have a service industry full of minimum wage workers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2014, 03:36:10 pm

Quote from: Sportster on June 01, 2014, 12:39:29 pm

We need a federal minimum wage because many companies, given their own discretion, would pay peanuts to workers, much less than any minimum we currently have, basically creating slave labor. We do not allow monopolies because companies, given their own discretion, would knock out all competition and raise rates to the moon. We have labor laws because companies, allowed their own discretion, would make slaves out of their workers, give them no benefits and work them to death.

Please identify in the real world a company and a real job where this would happen, and what employees they would attract to that job, and how those employs would then become "slaves," unable to leave that employer to go elsewhere or to start their own business.  Once you do, we might be able to have a meaningful conversation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2014, 03:38:27 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 12:58:32 pm

There are plenty of laws on the books to keep that from happening.

We already have a very effective law to keep it from happening, and it has been "on the books" a long time.

It is the law of supply and demand, which, as you explain below, works effectively regarding labor just as it does with anything else.

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 12:58:32 pm

The minimum wage is not needed.  If a company pays to little no one will work for them.  Or they will get only the worst workers who would move on to higher pay some where else as soon as they learned any skill what so ever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 03:59:54 pm

I fall in between you and Sporty.  I believe we need labor laws to make companies treat their employees at least somewhat fairly.

Just as we need laws to keep some humans from killing other humans or stealing or whatever.  Not that it stops it entirely but it is definitely a deterrent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 01, 2014, 05:22:31 pm

If anyone wants the truth of how companies would truly treat their employees minus worker laws, just look at China.....they are horrible for workers....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 07:46:34 pm

That is apples and oranges.  A communist nation that has an over population problem does not really compare to us.  They do not value human life.  Communism rarely does since everyone is the same in their eyes and others can take their place. 

The industrial revolution here in America makes your case better (although China is going through one of their own).  Lots of people had to die to get workers rights and human life is to important to wait for the free system Jes claims will work to take hold.  We need rules companies need to follow for employee safety.  I disagree that benefits and wages needs to be controlled by the federal government or any government.  If no one takes the job the wage will go up.  No one dies.



   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 09:43:57 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/01/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

This is why they saved that soldier by ignoring the law and bypassing congress.  They feel if they get away with doing that which is politically hard for Republicans to argue against then they have set the baseline and can get away with this.

The Obama administration never does anything for the benefit of the soldiers or any one for that matter other then themselves, their supporters and the detriment of America.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2014, 10:03:51 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 03:59:54 pm

I fall in between you and Sporty.  I believe we need labor laws to make companies treat their employees at least somewhat fairly.

Just as we need laws to keep some humans from killing other humans or stealing or whatever.  Not that it stops it entirely but it is definitely a deterrent.

WHAT labor laws?  Remember that what you are talking about is making illegal an agreement between two parties where they both WANT to do what is being made illegal.

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 07:46:34 pm

That is apples and oranges.  A communist nation that has an over population problem does not really compare to us.  They do not value human life.  Communism rarely does since everyone is the same in their eyes and others can take their place.

The problem in China is not that the workers do not value their own lives, and whether employers do or do not value it makes little difference.  The problem is that you have a government which essentially forces workers to stay on their jobs, and I suspect China also does not have a legal system allowing workers who are injured or families of workers who are killed on the job to force employers to bear the cost of the injury or death.

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 07:46:34 pm

The industrial revolution here in America makes your case better (although China is going through one of their own).  Lots of people had to die to get workers rights and human life is to important to wait for the free system Jes claims will work to take hold.  We need rules companies need to follow for employee safety.  I disagree that benefits and wages needs to be controlled by the federal government or any government.  If no one takes the job the wage will go up.  No one dies.

Pekin, while I know you hate lawyers, the reason for greater workplace safety is a result of greater workplace safety which simply evolved with time and experience, and also with lawsuits forcing employers to bear the costs of the injuries and deaths their workplaces created.  It was not OSHA, but lawsuits, which brought about meaningful improvements.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 11:15:44 pm

I am against min wage laws.  The labor laws I want are for time and a half pay after 40 hours, paying mileage for using your own vehicle for work purposes and that sort of thing.  Companies will and do abuse their employees on these sort of things whenever they can. 

Of course the Chinese workers value their own lives  I can only assume that was a mistake on your part or I am totally confused as to what you meant there.  The government and the business owners do not value human life in China.  Well at least not the people they think they are above.  If that was not clear from my statement then I apologize.

I do not hate all lawyers. I just believe we have so many more then are needed so they are creating work for themselves.  In a true free market system there would be no more jobs for lawyers.  However since lawyers also are politicians and judges the laws keep getting re-written to allow for more lawyers.  The free market system is all jacked up in this particular instance.

I am sure you will disagree but really how many lawyers do we need?  We have a country that has way more college educated idiots then we can take.  We need more machinists and other skilled labor where you need to actually have a brain to do the job.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 02, 2014, 12:47:30 am

Obama's war on fossil fuels is going to kill this economy even further. It's absurd that they are pushing coal out of the marketplace when we have such a huge abundance of it. The sooner this guy is out of office, the better. He's doing so much damage to this country it's unbelievable....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 01:53:50 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 11:15:44 pm

The labor laws I want are for time and a half pay after 40 hours, paying mileage for using your own vehicle for work purposes and that sort of thing.  Companies will and do abuse their employees on these sort of things whenever they can.

In other words, if I WANT to work more than 40 hours a week, and am perfectly willing to do so for something less than time and a half, and you, as my employer are willing to let me work more than 40 hours a week, but you either can not afford to pay time and a half or do not see any added value to my labor after 40 hours that was not there before 40 hours, I should not be allowed to work more than 40 hours.... because it offends you.

Not much difference between that and minimum wage laws.

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 11:15:44 pm

Of course the Chinese workers value their own lives  I can only assume that was a mistake on your part or I am totally confused as to what you meant there.  The government and the business owners do not value human life in China.  Well at least not the people they think they are above.  If that was not clear from my statement then I apologize.

There is no real reason to believe American businesses or government value life any more than the Chinese do, and even less reason to believe that any intrinsic valuing of life influences the business decisions here than there.  Business decisions are generally made on the basis of profit and loss.  Period.

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 11:15:44 pm

I do not hate all lawyers. 

I have read your posts.  There is not only no need to waffle now, doing so is not really credible.

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 11:15:44 pm

I just believe we have so many more then are needed so they are creating work for themselves.  In a true free market system there would be no more jobs for lawyers.  However since lawyers also are politicians and judges the laws keep getting re-written to allow for more lawyers.  The free market system is all jacked up in this particular instance.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and appear to be getting your "information" from popular jokes.

Quote from: Pekin on June 01, 2014, 11:15:44 pm

I am sure you will disagree but really how many lawyers do we need?  We have a country that has way more college educated idiots then we can take.  We need more machinists and other skilled labor where you need to actually have a brain to do the job.

Yes, a true supporter of free markets there... so long as you get to decide what occupation we need more of and what we need less of.

Just let the market sort it out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 02, 2014, 10:55:40 am

Allen West may be a bit too far right for some but he is correct on his point. I have seen nothing of this reported in the mainsyream media

http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/bombshell-first-words-bergdahls-father-white-house-arabic/



Clare Lopez is a former CIA operations officer, a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, WMD, and counterterrorism issues, and a friend of mine.

She emailed me this morning a very poignant analysis that only someone knowing language and Islam could ascertain. She wrote:

“What none of these media is reporting is that the father’s (SGT Bowe Bergdahl’s father Bob) first words at the WH were in Arabic – those words were “bism allah alrahman alraheem” – which means “in the name of Allah the most gracious and most merciful” – these are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except one (the chapter of the sword – the 9th) – by uttering these words on the grounds of the WH, Bergdahl (the father) sanctified the WH and claimed it for Islam. There is no question but POTUS knows this.”

Folks, there is a lot to this whole episode — like Benghazi — that we may never know. And this is not conspiracy theory, it is truth based upon Arabic and Islamic dogma and tradition.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 02, 2014, 11:16:40 am

Wonder why the mainstream media failed to report on this perfectly reaonabl and responsible position taken by the NRA? Doesn't fit the narrative?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nra-open-carry-texas-weird-statement

In a remarkably frank statement issued on Friday, the National Rifle Association said that gun activists in Texas had "crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness" with their demonstrations at fast food restaurants.

Activists, most notably those with a group called Open Carry Texas, have drawn attention to themselves recently for their attempts to get served at chain restaurants while carrying high-powered semiautomatic rifles. In response, several chains, including Chipotle, were compelled to ask customers to not bring guns to their restaurants. The backlash was such that the groups themselves felt compelled to issue a statement late last month asking their members to avoid carrying long arms into private businesses during demonstrations.

But in its statement Friday, the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, went further, publicly denouncing the tactics employed by Open Carry Texas and other groups as "weird" and even "scary."

"As a result of these hijinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises," the unsigned statement said. "To state the obvious, that's counterproductive for the gun owning community."

In denouncing the demonstrations, the NRA said that using guns "to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 02, 2014, 01:00:54 pm

Quote from: Sportster on June 02, 2014, 12:47:30 am

Obama's war on fossil fuels is going to kill this economy even further. It's absurd that they are pushing coal out of the marketplace when we have such a huge abundance of it. The sooner this guy is out of office, the better. He's doing so much damage to this country it's unbelievable....

It shouldn't be a surprise that they are trying to push coal out of the market place.  They have been doing the same thing with oil for decades.

Without government actions, gasoline would be a dollar a gallon, and going down.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 04:02:23 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on June 02, 2014, 10:55:40 am

Allen West may be a bit too far right for some but he is correct on his point.
“.... the father’s (SGT Bowe Bergdahl’s father Bob) first words at the WH were in Arabic – those words were “bism allah alrahman alraheem” – which means “in the name of Allah the most gracious and most merciful” – these are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except one (the chapter of the sword – the 9th) – by uttering these words on the grounds of the WH, Bergdahl (the father) sanctified the WH and claimed it for Islam.

You know, the first time I saw Pamela Anderson, you know, back on Baywatch 20 years ago, I said, "Holy hot mama!  That's for me!"  By uttering those words in my living room, I sanctified Pammies body and claimed her for myself.

And the first time I saw the Grand Canyon, when I flew over it in 1978, I said, "Damn.  All of that is mine!"  By uttering those words from that plane at 20,000 feet, I sanctified the Grand Canyon and claimed it for myself.

And the first time I saw the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, D.C., knowing full well that was where they controlled the printing off all of the U.S. currency in the country, I said, "Mine!!  All mine!!!"  By uttering those words from the street as I drove by, I sanctified all U.S. currency and claimed it for myself.

I am betting my claims are about as meaningful as the imagined claims of Bergdahl’s father.

What Alan West posted is nonsense.  They show rather clearly that whoever it is that beat him for his seat in Congress, we as a nation are better off having West gone.

He is not too far right.  He is too far gone, as in nuts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 02, 2014, 04:22:04 pm

The point I was referring to was his noting that there was no mention in other mainstream media.  He may very well be nuts but I'll bet he is correct in that no translation of the arabic was given in any other media...if they even reported the arabic at all. I know I haven't seen it anywhere else.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 02, 2014, 05:03:12 pm

No IRS scandal Oddo?

http://preservefreedom.org/obama-implicated-in-irs-scandal/?utm_source=140602PF1&utm_campaign=140602PF1

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 05:04:14 pm

Assuming it is true (and that is quite a leap), why would any news organization mention it?

Even if pappa said it, it would have no more significance than my examples.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 05:07:24 pm

http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/lawyers-per-capita.html

This site will set Jes off.  Anti-lawyer and religious.

At one point do we have enough lawyers?  How about we get rid of a lot of laws then we will no longer need as many lawyers.

As it is now politicians (which are mostly made up of lawyers) continue to add more laws and make our legal system more and more complicated. 

As someone who is against regulation you seem to have no problem with all the laws on the books which require the army of lawyers.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 05:10:50 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 02, 2014, 05:03:12 pm

No IRS scandal Oddo?

http://preservefreedom.org/obama-implicated-in-irs-scandal/?utm_source=140602PF1&utm_campaign=140602PF1

The key language from that link is the following: But the new emails show that Obama was far more familiar with the scandal than he indicated when it broke last May.

That would be extremely significant, IF it were true.  It would be so amazingly significant, you would sort of think the person who wrote it would find and quote from those "new emails" exactly what it was that indicated Obama was more familiar with the scandal, and how that language showed that.... but, unless I completely missed it, I don't find the link offering a single word from the emails which support the conclusion reached.

If I missed it, please point it out to me.

If I did NOT miss it, and it simply is not there, we need to dismiss this as crap.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 05:19:21 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 05:07:24 pm

At one point do we have enough lawyers?  281 lawyers per 100,000 in the USA.  How about we get rid of a lot of laws then we will no longer need as many lawyers.

Just as bright as Dick the Butcher.

Quote from: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 05:07:24 pm

As it is now politicians (which are mostly made up of lawyers) continue to add more laws and make our legal system more and more complicated. 

Factually wrong.  Start doing a nose count and you will find that most members of Congress are NOT lawyers.  Most members of state legislatures are NOT lawyers.  Most governors are NOT lawyers.

The reason politicians support more laws is that the voters generally support more laws.  They want folks in office who are going to "do something," even though the :something" done is quite routinely foolish and counter-productive.

Quote from: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 05:07:24 pm

As someone who is against regulation you seem to have no problem with all the laws on the books which require the army of lawyers.   

Pekin, please, PLEASE find anything I have ever written anywhere at anytime in the last 35 years (before my conversion from liberalism, you might find some such nonsense, so I will limit it to the last 35 years) where I have said I support MORE laws on the books or more government regulation?

If you want to fall back on what it "seems like" to you, that is not a commentary on my positions, but is instead a commentary on.... well, I will try to be polite today and not bother competing the sentence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 02, 2014, 05:21:31 pm

Here is the content of the referenced Email

Hillary,

I know all about the IRS scandal, and have known about it for years.

Remember, don't tell Fox News.

Regards,

Barak

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 02, 2014, 05:43:22 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 04:02:23 pm

And the first time I saw the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, D.C., knowing full well that was where they controlled the printing off all of the U.S. currency in the country, I said, "Mine!!  All mine!!!"  By uttering those words from the street as I drove by, I sanctified all U.S. currency and claimed it for myself.

For a lawyer, you don't know much about the law.

If you don't say it in Arabic, it has no legal significance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 06:02:52 pm

Quote from: davep on June 02, 2014, 05:43:22 pm

For a lawyer, you don't know much about the law.

If you don't say it in Arabic, it has no legal significance.

And how do you know I didn't say it in Arabic?

Huh?

Any day now I am going to knock on your door to demand all of the money of mine which you have illegally spent since my claim.

And I am not going to accept payment in White Castle sliders.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 06:08:21 pm

Jes, less laws and there would be less need for lawyers.  The massive amount of lawyers is a symptom.  The massive amount of laws is the disease. 

Name one other profession that is represented as much in political office as lawyers are?



http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu1_5.htm

The number of lawyers in public office in our history has been large


The U.S. Congress has long been dominated by lawyer-politicians. "From 1780 to 1930, two thirds of the senators and about half of the House of Representatives were lawyers; the percentage seems to have stayed fairly stable" (Friedman 1985: 647). . . . at the beginning of the 101st Congress in 1989, 184 members (42%) of the U.S. House of Representatives were lawyers (47% of the Democrats and 35 % of the Republicans). Sixty-three senators were lawyers, roughly equally distributed between the two parties (Ornstein, Mann, and Malbin 1990: 20-21, 26-27). At the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January, 1991, 244 of the 535 members of both houses (46%) claimed attorney as their profession

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 02, 2014, 06:18:47 pm

 
 Well since nobody got around to when I asked Jes to do the percentages for and he never got back to me ...
 
 Heres the numbers : 48% of what you make at minimum wage in 2014
 
 goes to buying a gallon of gas.
 
 13 % of what you make in minimum wage goes to buying a gallon of gas in 1964.
 
 Now you can take that dollar menu at McDonalds from 1964 to 2014 and shove it straight up your ass.
 
 Im talkin energy. Whats the CONCRETE cost of livin in the USA ?
 
 Theres some paid mouthpiece out there that is going to reply and tell all of us how rents and housing prices have gone down since 1964.
 
 OKaaaaaaaaay ... Henry Ford DID lower the price of a Model T since its inception.
 
 If people have more money they spend more money.
 
 Thats how the economy works.
 
 If you got a cheaper Ford ... you bought a Motorola radio.
 
 Or you could have gotten your kids teeth fixed.
 
 If thats not true then the minimum wage should be ... $0.01 an hour.
 
 Or somewhere where you decide. Whats a good price to set it at ?
 
 Youre the experts as economists ... let me know.
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 06:32:50 pm

JJ, the government is the reason for the high cost of energy.  They want it expensive.  Especially this administration.

Be pissed at the government for running up the cost of energy not for refusing to raise the min wage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 06:53:02 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 06:08:21 pm

Jes, less laws and there would be less need for lawyers.  The massive amount of lawyers is a symptom.  The massive amount of laws is the disease. 

Name one other profession that is represented as much in political office as lawyers are?

http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu1_5.htm
The number of lawyers in public office in our history has been large

The U.S. Congress has long been dominated by lawyer-politicians. "From 1780 to 1930, two thirds of the senators and about half of the House of Representatives were lawyers; the percentage seems to have stayed fairly stable" (Friedman 1985: 647). . . . at the beginning of the 101st Congress in 1989, 184 members (42%) of the U.S. House of Representatives were lawyers (47% of the Democrats and 35 % of the Republicans). Sixty-three senators were lawyers, roughly equally distributed between the two parties (Ornstein, Mann, and Malbin 1990: 20-21, 26-27). At the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January, 1991, 244 of the 535 members of both houses (46%) claimed attorney as their profession

Pekin, I would say that is interesting, if any of it were, but none of it addresses what we were discussing.

You claimed MOST politicians are lawyers.  You did not say CLOSE to half WERE lawyers.  You did not say that at some time before either of us were born most were lawyers.  You said most ARE lawyers.  And even the source you offer is exceedingly misleading since for more than the last 70 years most members of Congress are simply professional politicians.  They are not lawyers, they have no law practices, and for the handful who once did, once they leave Congress they are not going to return to handling legal matters, but will instead remain in D.C. as part of the professional governing class, simply becoming lobbyists.

Beyond that is your nonsense claim that I have or do now support increasing legislation or regulation in order to keep lawyers gainfully employed.  Nothing you offer supports that contention in any way, or even lends itself to extrapolating that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 02, 2014, 07:14:29 pm

 
 Jes I hate to say it but over the course of U.S. history some of the greatest minds that shaped this Country were lawyers.
 
 Thats just the facts. However what lawyers have turned into as to what they are today is probably what Duck alludes to.
 
 They just seemed to have lost their way in the publics trust.
 
 You tell me bro , why are lawyers ranked so low ?
 
 None of us did that to you ... you did that to you.
 
 BTW ... it was 48% of todays minmum wage is spent on a gallon of gasoline ... as compared to 13% in 1964.
 
 I suppose the best recourse of minimum wage workers would be to enroll in law school.  :D
 
 Just what AMERICA needs ... more people that can neither MINE nor GROW.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 02, 2014, 08:10:34 pm

Mark's blog:

http://investing.calsci.com/blog6-1-14.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 08:43:58 pm

Beyond that is your nonsense claim that I have or do now support increasing legislation or regulation in order to keep lawyers gainfully employed.  Nothing you offer supports that contention in any way, or even lends itself to extrapolating that.

I take you at your word when you said you do not.  I did the first time you said it.  I am just trying to figure out how I am wrong in your eyes if you agree with me.

Do you think there is any correlation between the number of laws and the number of lawyers?  Or how litigious our society is and the number of lawyers?  The numerous commercials running non-stop on TV and radio from lawyers looking for clients?

You say the market supports the amount of lawyers we have.  You are absolutely correct.  If there were fewer laws wouldn't there be a smaller market for lawyers?

Are we in agreement on all of this?  If so where do we disagree?

You believe the populace wants more laws so the politicians give them more laws. 

I disagree.  I think the politicians and the high percentage of them (not the majority wouldn't want you focusing on that again) who are lawyers want more power, influence and riches.  A small minority may want new laws but the majority of us think enough is enough.  Ask most people and they want fewer laws, simpler tax codes and less regulations.

We don't want to have to hire a lawyer for what should be a simple task.  We think it is ridiculous when someone spills hot coffee on themselves and sues (even more so if they win and a new stupid warning is put on a cup).  We think it is wrong that lawyers can make so much money in a class action lawsuit they can spend millions advertising on national TV constantly.

IMO, the amount of laws and regulations allows the market for lawyers to be much bigger then it should be.  The laws and regulations are the problem.  The massive amounts of lawyers are a symptom but certainly part of the problem as well.

           

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2014, 09:49:00 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 08:43:58 pm

Do you think there is any correlation between the number of laws and the number of lawyers?

The correlation goes in the other direction.  The number of laws creates a need for lawyers and people go to law school and practice law to fill that societal need.  You do not have idle lawyers sitting around and trying to come up with ways to make more laws so they are no longer idle.

 Or how litigious our society is and the number of lawyers?

Again, you are confusing cause and effect.

The numerous commercials running non-stop on TV and radio from lawyers looking for clients?

Some of those commercials, such as with drugs which have caused injury or death, or those seeking asbestos victims, do a wonderful job forcing business which caused injury to consumers or employees to bear the costs they created.  This is a social good.

But whether they are a social good or not, you seriously misunderstand what is happening.  The ads looking for clients in asbestos or product liability cases are almost always cases where the lawsuit has already been resolved, and the lawyers are essentially just looking for injured parties to assure that funds are distributed.  In other words, the prospective clients who call very, very rarely involve additional litigation.

The ads looking for clients in bankruptcy cases.... are you including those in your complaint about increased litigation?  The ads looking for clients in auto accident cases very rarely result in lawsuits, or at least not lawsuits going to trial, but instead generally simply involve an injured party using a lawyer in dealing with an insurance company (and the insurance company's lawyer or claims agent who handles such cases every day) instead of the injured party doing so directly.

The studies which have looked at the growth in litigation have found the actual growth (beyond the rate of population growth) in litigation tends to be in three narrow and specific areas:

1) Criminal cases, as society makes ever more conduct criminal, and reduces the possibility of meaningful plea agreements and forces more cases to go to trial.  This has brought a major increase in court cases, far beyond the rate of population growth.  And it is hard to imagine this growth is the result of any pressure by lawyers for more legal work, considering that criminal defense work is one of the poorest compensated areas of legal practice, and most cases end up handled by public defenders.

2) Domestic cases, as marriages have increasingly ended in divorce, and fathers have increasingly decided not to role over on custody/parenting issues, and as society has increasingly decided to pursue child support from baby daddies.  This also is in no way a result of the legal community pressing for more laws in the area to give them more work (it is again a very poorly compensated area of the practice of law), but is instead simply the result of social changes.  In many counties the domestic case portion of the court docket has doubled or even tripled in the last 40 years.

3) BUSINESS LITIGATION.  Yes, business litigation, as companies sue each other in contract disputes and other matters which do not directly involve either consumers or employees.

If you look at the law firms which advertise most heavily where you live, where-ever it is in the United States, the likelihood is that you will see the law firms advertising most heavily are firms where the lawyers may be so unfamiliar with the actual courtroom that they couldn't find the Men's Room without asking for directions if they were at the courthouse.  These guys tend to handle heavily volumes of cases, and make their money by settling them, not at all by virtue of shaking down insurance companies (the insurance companies keep close track of who does and who does not actually go to trial with plaintiff's cases -- it is a major factor in how they resolve the case), but but by processing paperwork (such as documenting claims and getting records together) which the average plaintiff would not know how to get if he handled his own claim.

You say the market supports the amount of lawyers we have.  You are absolutely correct.  If there were fewer laws wouldn't there be a smaller market for lawyers?

Are we in agreement on all of this?  We agree regarding the answer to the question in your prior paragraph.  If so where do we disagree?  I would hope I have made that clear, though much of it I have thought I have made clear before.

You believe the populace wants more laws so the politicians give them more laws. 

I disagree.  I think the politicians and the high percentage of them (not the majority wouldn't want you focusing on that again) who are lawyers want more power, influence and riches.  Think just a moment.  If lawyer/politicians passed such laws to help their law practices and get "more power, influence and riches" as lawyers, they would leave politics and return to practice law.... and that simply does not happen, or at least not often enough to even be statistically significant.  Those politicians who want "more power, influence and riches" simply remain in politics.  The problem is not with lawyers pursuing politics, but is instead politicians who become rich and powerful AS POLITICIANS doing what the voters who put them in office want them to do.  A small minority may want new laws but the majority of us think enough is enough.  The election returns from the last century do not support that, and when some politicians actually float the idea that some laws should be eliminated, voters tend to punish them for it.  For example, a politician saying he wants to legalize drugs and ****, to eliminate the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Open Housing laws, the Family Medical Leave Act, COBRA, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, would likely have voters strongly punish him in the polls.  I am HOPING such things are changing, but I am likely the most libertarian poster here, and I have no illusion but that most voters want the politicians they elect to DO SOMETHING, and to do it FOR THEM.  Ask most people and they want fewer laws, simpler tax codes and less regulations.  Really?  So where are those people on election day?  One candidate in the 2012 presidential election made such things the very core of his campaign, Herman Cain, and he got trounced.  The guy who pushed those issue next most often was my guy Ron Paul, and while Paul was not beaten as badly as Cain, dead is dead

We don't want to have to hire a lawyer for what should be a simple task.  We think it is ridiculous when someone spills hot coffee on themselves and sues (even more so if they win and a new stupid warning is put on a cup).  You think so about the McDonald's case only because you have no idea what you are talking about.  Research it some time.  We think it is wrong that lawyers can make so much money in a class action lawsuit they can spend millions advertising on national TV constantly.  Again, you illustrate your ignorance here, including the misguided assumption that lawyers in such cases always make money.  Many of them go broke handling such cases, or with their advertising campaigns.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 02, 2014, 10:38:02 pm

I think most politicians want more power, influence and wealth not just the lawyers who have become politicians.  They do this by making laws that help those who will help them gain those things.  The more laws the more work there is for lawyers.  Part of the reason there are very powerful lobbyists for lawyers and their interests.

As far as them leaving to practice law of course they aren't.  They are making more money and getting more power as politicians. Even after their career they are usually set for life no real reason to work again in any real meaningful way.

Herman Cain was doing pretty well until the scandal came out.  Ron Paul was painted as a loon by the media early and often and it stuck.  He also tended to step in it here and there to give them ammunition.  His son seems to be a better politician and has a shot.

I suspect that the problem with conservatism and libertarianism (is that a word?) winning elections is the way they are painted by the liberal main stream media much more so then by the way the populace feels about their ideals.  Also the Democrats are most definitely cheating at the polls.  Why else argue against photo ID to vote.  It is a no brainer if you aren't the one cheating.

By the way the old party in the Republican field is not a whole lot better.  They are doing anything and everything they can to destroy "tea" party candidates.

I concede that you have made a lot of valid points though.  Thanks for the last post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 02, 2014, 10:45:41 pm

 
 Jes ,
 
 Do you GROW anything or MINE anything ?
 
 Theres a reason why BEES kick out drones at the end of the life cycle season.
 
 Those fuckers just arent needed anymore. Thats a fact of nature.
 
 I didnt invent that ... sombody with a greater power than I did ...did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 03, 2014, 05:10:05 am

Do you think there is any correlation between the number of laws and the number of lawyers?  Or how litigious our society is and the number of lawyers?  The numerous commercials running non-stop on TV and radio from lawyers looking for clients?

Non stop is right. They make out like the lottery is waiting for you. This is no public service, it's made lawyers and insurance company's rich..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 03, 2014, 05:55:48 am

Quote from: chifaninva on June 03, 2014, 05:10:05 am

Non stop is right. They make out like the lottery is waiting for you. This is no public service, it's made lawyers and insurance company's rich..

Insurance companies generally are not the ones bearing the bulk of the cost in product liability lawsuits.  The company actually responsible for the injuries does.  And I am unaware of anyone claiming a "public service" was involved (though I am aware that phrase has little objective meaning but is instead used by those who want to load an argument the way a snake oil salesman sells snake oil).

What I had written was the following about commercials by law firms: commercials, such as with drugs which have caused injury or death, or those seeking asbestos victims, do a wonderful job forcing business which caused injury to consumers or employees to bear the costs they created.  This is a social good.

Many economic activities, whether by the individual at home or by a multinational conglomerate corporation, create costs which the actor taking the action do not fully bear, but which are instead forced off onto uninvolved, innocent parties.  Examples of such costs are death or injury or environmental harm.  When the economic actor (such as the business) is able to profit from the activity without bearing the full cost of the action, society ends up with more of that economic activity than is desirable and also more of the injury that activity creates.  Society is much better off if the economic actor is required to bear the full cost of their activity (they already in their sales price get a good indication of the full societal gross benefit of the activity, but if they are not forced to bear the full cost, they do not look at the NET cost or benefit).

Products liability lawyers help to impose the costs on those generating them.  And often the products liability lawyers doing this, just as with people playing the lottery you referenced, end up losing everything and having nothing to show for it.

In other words, you really have no clue what you are talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 03, 2014, 06:33:31 am

Businesses overload with insurance to protect themselves from frivolous and unwarranted law suits.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 03, 2014, 01:23:03 pm

I am sure that Homo was just too busy to get around to posting this, so I will post it for him.  It concerns the Democratic Mayor of Charlotte.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Former Charlotte Mayor Patrick Cannon pleaded guilty Tuesday to a public corruption charge, ending a remarkable rise for a man raised by a single mother in one of the city's poorest neighborhoods.

Cannon's guilty plea was on a single count of honest services wire fraud, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. An FBI sting recorded him accepting thousands of dollars in cash and airline tickets from undercover agents posing as businessmen, according to court documents.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 03, 2014, 02:00:07 pm

LOL

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 03, 2014, 04:02:57 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on June 03, 2014, 06:33:31 am

Businesses overload with insurance to protect themselves from frivolous and unwarranted law suits.

If a product you produce kills people, or causes them serious medical or health side effects, how in the world is that a frivolous or unwarranted law suit?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 03, 2014, 04:47:50 pm

davepeebart

Any word about the plea deal with rep michael grimm?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 03, 2014, 06:19:43 pm

Hey - did Homo acknowledge the article about the corrupt Democrat?  Usually, he somehow forgets to post the corppution on that side.

That's a lot to ignore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 03, 2014, 06:29:49 pm

All this talk about trying the POW for desertion is silly.  The hurdle to prove desertion is so high that it is almost impossible.

If the reports are true, they might get him on AWOL.  There have been guys that left the military for 15 years, and could not be found guilty of desertion because they claimed that they intended to come back some day.

It would require a letter signed by him that says "I am deserting the army and am never coming back.  Really, I mean it.  Never, ever."

And the letter would have to be notarized.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 03, 2014, 06:44:29 pm

Not quite.

You also need to remember that most criminal cases which result in convictions end up with the conviction because of the defendant's own words, often coming in the statements given to investigators.  In this case, IF the Obama administration choses to bring one (which it might want to avoid in order to prevent the administration from looking even more foolish than it already has in this mess) you can expect the following to play a central part: Bergdahl's statements to other soldiers before he left, and what he wrote at the time, and the statements he gives to investigators).

IF the administration is inclined to prosecute, prosecution for going AWOL (which would seem quite simple, but which is a minor offense), or for desertion, would might be the least of his concerns.  I believe conviction for providing material support to a terrorist organization, under the Patriot Act, carries a more serious penalty, and is an easier case to make.  For that matter, the case COULD be made quite easily against Obama himself for ordering the release of those five Taliban members.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 03, 2014, 07:51:28 pm

Quote from: davep on June 03, 2014, 06:29:49 pm

All this talk about trying the POW for desertion is silly.  The hurdle to prove desertion is so high that it is almost impossible.

If the reports are true, they might get him on AWOL.  There have been guys that left the military for 15 years, and could not be found guilty of desertion because they claimed that they intended to come back some day.

It would require a letter signed by him that says "I am deserting the army and am never coming back.  Really, I mean it.  Never, ever."

And the letter would have to be notarized.

Bull crap. Its the military who would bring charges. He deserted his post leaving the note. They sent soldiers to go after him and they were killed. There are his whole company who would testify against him. General Dempsey said they would look to bring charges against him. And remember this is wartime codes not peacetime.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 03, 2014, 09:57:28 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 03, 2014, 07:51:28 pm

Bull crap. Its the military who would bring charges. He deserted his post leaving the note. They sent soldiers to go after him and they were killed. There are his whole company who would testify against him. General Dempsey said they would look to bring charges against him. And remember this is wartime codes not peacetime.

Any decision on bringing charges against him would almost certainly require review and approval by Obama himself.  If Obama wants him charged, he will be.  If Obama opposes it, he will not be.  Considering that bringing charges would make Obama's decision to trade five leading Taliban figures for him look quite foolish, on top of being clearly illegal, I think we might not see any charges brought.  Not because they could not be made, but because they would likely make Obama look bad.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 03, 2014, 11:07:37 pm

Nothing here that concerns you, move along, move along....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZqROJZTf3c

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 04, 2014, 08:07:57 am

They had no problem with going out and immediately supporting Obama on the prisoner swap but now they don't have enough information to comment? Here's a suggestion for the future....keep your mouth shut until you have more information. Obamalov's dogs in action.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senate-democrats-go-awol_794287.html

On Sunday, Senator Claire McCaskill gave a full-throated defense of the president's decision to release five Taliban commanders from the Guantanamo prison in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. "We saved this man's life. The commander-in-chief acted within his constitutional authority, which he should have done," McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, told Fox News host Chris Wallace. "I'm very proud that we have no POWs left in Afghanistan and the president should be proud of it also."

But following multiple reports that Bergdahl deserted his post and soldiers died searching for him, McCaskill will no longer say she still supports the deal she was "very proud" of just 48 hours ago. "I'm not going to comment until I look at the brief," an annoyed McCaskill told THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "I'm not going to comment until I look at the brief," she repeated, referring to a classified briefing senators will receive tomorrow.

McCaskill was not alone in her reluctance to support the deal. More than a dozen Democratic senators questioned by TWS Tuesday afternoon declined to defend it. "I just don't know enough about it. I really don't," said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 04, 2014, 09:00:15 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 03, 2014, 09:57:28 pm

Any decision on bringing charges against him would almost certainly require review and approval by Obama himself.  If Obama wants him charged, he will be.  If Obama opposes it, he will not be.  Considering that bringing charges would make Obama's decision to trade five leading Taliban figures for him look quite foolish, on top of being clearly illegal, I think we might not see any charges brought.  Not because they could not be made, but because they would likely make Obama look bad.

I disagree, especially if Congress has hearings and the facts come out, but I can see Holder saying that the Justice Department wont prosecute him and its the military's job.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2014, 11:21:17 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 03, 2014, 06:44:29 pm

Not quite.

You also need to remember that most criminal cases which result in convictions end up with the conviction because of the defendant's own words, often coming in the statements given to investigators.  In this case, IF the Obama administration choses to bring one (which it might want to avoid in order to prevent the administration from looking even more foolish than it already has in this mess) you can expect the following to play a central part: Bergdahl's statements to other soldiers before he left, and what he wrote at the time, and the statements he gives to investigators).

IF the administration is inclined to prosecute, prosecution for going AWOL (which would seem quite simple, but which is a minor offense), or for desertion, would might be the least of his concerns.  I believe conviction for providing material support to a terrorist organization, under the Patriot Act, carries a more serious penalty, and is an easier case to make.  For that matter, the case COULD be made quite easily against Obama himself for ordering the release of those five Taliban members.

There are a lot of things he could probably be successfully accused of.  But I was talking about the charge of desertion, which is being thrown around in the press quite a bit right now. 

If he claims that he intended to come back someday "after the U. S. changed it's ways, unless he left something in writing that said that he was never going to return to the army.  Even subsequently giving aid and comfort to the enemy would not be proof that at the time he left, he intended to leave forever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2014, 11:34:23 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 03, 2014, 07:51:28 pm

Bull crap. Its the military who would bring charges. He deserted his post leaving the note. They sent soldiers to go after him and they were killed. There are his whole company who would testify against him. General Dempsey said they would look to bring charges against him. And remember this is wartime codes not peacetime.

Of course it would be the military who would bring the charges.  Your experience might be greater than mine, but on the three Courts Marshals that I sat on during the Viet Nam War, it was impossible to legitimately convict on charges of desertion.  The UCMJ is extremely explicit on the requirement that there must be absolute proof that, at the time he left, the person intended "never to return".

You mention a letter, but you don't say what the letter said.  If you give me the precise wording of it, perhaps we can decide on the charges.  You also mentioned comments by other soldiers.  There may be others out there that have other things to say, but not a single one  that I have seen said that he told them specifically that he intended never to return.

In our UCMJ class, the most famous case mentioned and stressed was one stemming from the Korean War in which a soldier left his barracks in Osan and resurfaced 14 years later in California.  He claimed that he intended to return because he had left an old pair of shoes and a couple pairs of sox in his room.  He was found guilty of several crimes, but found innocent of desertion.

Military officers tend to take their duties on Courts Marshal boards quite seriously.  They are not often a jury that can be swayed by rhetoric.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 04, 2014, 12:05:56 pm

I remember seeing the letter but not the contents.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2014, 01:22:21 pm

Before every Courts Marshal, the JAG officer would brief the members on the legal aspects of the case, even though they might have sat on dozens of cases before that.  When one possible finding was desertion, the JAG would go into what was necessary to find a man guilty of desertion.

In short, even if he told a friend that he was leaving and was never coming back, this was not necessarily proof of desertion.  The military had the concept of "pop off", where a person in time of stress might say something on the spur of the moment that he did not really mean, and would not have said in time of less stress.  The analogy usually used was that when you tell your kid that if he isn't back before ten o' clock, you will break his neck.  It should not necessarily taken as a literal and permanent intention.  A soldier telling his friend "if I get out of the gate, I am never coming back" would not be enough proof that this was his "considered" intention.  Since it is almost impossible to prove a negative, there have been very few successful charges of desertion since WWII.

By the way, "desertion" is not the same as "desertion under fire", which is a capital offense.  Even if it could be proven that he intended never to come back, he left from his barracks, which meant that it was not desertion under fire.

From what I have heard and read, the guy seems to be a scumbag, and might be guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  But from what I have seen, a charge of desertion just wouldn't stick.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 04, 2014, 05:52:42 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 04, 2014, 09:00:15 am

I disagree, especially if Congress has hearings and the facts come out, but I can see Holder saying that the Justice Department wont prosecute him and its the military's job.

One reason he might say that is because it is that case.  It would not be the Justice Department's job to prosecute him.  I don't think the Justice Department COULD prosecute him under the law even if it wanted to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 05:57:51 pm

Hopeful Change republic style

Traditional Code of the Military

Leave no man behind.

New republic code of the Military

We will leave you behind if we can find fault in any of your actions.


The Hippocratic Oath


Do no harm


The republic Hippocratic Oath


If you can't pay full price, we may do harm.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 04, 2014, 06:01:21 pm

More evidence of Global Warming. http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/06/02/lake-superior-winter-ice/9878461/

Endless winter: Yes, there's still ice on Lake Superior

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 06:04:29 pm

The following sums up republic care for our Vets.

The VA unfunded system

Rocket to the political moon over 40 Veterans who may have died due to delayed care.


The Lack of Medicaid expansion in red states that deny medical care to tens of thousand of Vets

Meh, not so much.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 04, 2014, 06:14:15 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 05:57:51 pm

If you can't pay full price, we may do harm.

Wasn't that the motto of Democrat Ray Nagin?

And Democrat Rod Blagojevich?

And Democrat Ray Blanton?

And Democrat Otto Kerner?

And Democrat William Jefferson?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 06:47:09 pm

Idiot

Quote

More evidence of Global Warming. http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/06/02/lake-superior-winter-ice/9878461/

Endless winter: Yes, there's still ice on Lake Superior

Yah know, ex-lawyer for a moron, Lake Superior only gets to around 55 degrees in the average summer because it is so deep. But hell, you found jim imhoffes flake of snow.

Nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 04, 2014, 06:49:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 06:47:09 pm

Idiot

Yah know, ex-lawyer for a moron, Lake Superior only gets to around 55 degrees in the average summer because it is so deep. But hell, you found jim imhoffes flake of snow.

Nice.

Can the great Midwest glaciers be far behind?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 06:53:51 pm

Sheldon

How many people did republic gov goerge ryan's license bribes kill?

How many **** did dave Vitter call?

How much money did rep mike grimm steal from his employees?

How many married aides has the kissing congressman screwed?

How wide is republic larry craig's stance in airports in Minneapolis?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 07:11:49 pm

America doesn't trade arms for hostages...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=40YNPwSf9P8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=40YNPwSf9P8)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 07:21:12 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3PDZTveY4uQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3PDZTveY4uQ)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 04, 2014, 07:26:44 pm

America doesn't trade arms for hostages...

We shouldn't but its OK to smuggle weapons to drug smugglers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2014, 08:15:48 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 04, 2014, 05:52:42 pm

One reason he might say that is because it is that case.  It would not be the Justice Department's job to prosecute him.  I don't think the Justice Department COULD prosecute him under the law even if it wanted to do so.

The Justice department could not prosecute, or block the prosecution, on any charges such as desertion, AWOL, or any other charges under the UCMJ.  (Of course, the President could).  I suspect that "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" might be a Federal law that would fall under Holder's jurisduction, but am not sure of that.  I am, quite sure however, that if charges are filed, it will be by the defense department under the UCMJ.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2014, 08:16:24 pm

I see Homi woke up.  His copy and paste fingers must be tired.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 04, 2014, 09:03:33 pm

I actually feel a bit bad for Otto. When you are so blindly partisan that you can never admit that your side ever does anything wrong and is perfect in every way  you really have to work hard to deflect attention when your side  screws the pooch like they did with this Taliban terrorist release fiasco. He's really working up a sweat tonight.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2014, 10:51:39 pm

I don't feel bad for any of you narrow minded science denying conservatives.

You all have worked hard to attain your level of gutter politics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2014, 11:59:09 pm

Homo has never offered any science to deny.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 12:55:57 am

Science denying? 

The man made global warming hoaxers are the science deniers.  They have no facts to back up their "science"  they fake data to keep the grant money rolling in from leftist organizations. 

Gutter politics is letting Americans die in Benghazi to win an election and keep the narrative that Al Qaeda has been defeated.  Obama is the worst president we have ever had in my lifetime.  Yep, even worse then Carter.

The good news is more then likely we will have years of conservative rule which will get the economy back on track.  Just like after Carter. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 05, 2014, 01:56:47 am

Agreed, Peke. Obama is horrible!! I was worried about Clinton when he got in office but he's superman compared to this character!! And he's got two more years left to do MORE damage with!! Imagine......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2014, 04:42:06 am

Quote from: davep on June 04, 2014, 11:59:09 pm

Homo has never offered any science to deny.

Quote from: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 12:55:57 am

The man made global warming hoaxers are the science deniers.  They have no facts to back up their "science"  they fake data to keep the grant money rolling in from leftist organizations. 

Generally speaking those "leftist organizations" are governments.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2014, 04:42:31 am

Quote from: davep on June 04, 2014, 08:15:48 pm

The Justice department could not prosecute, or block the prosecution, on any charges such as desertion, AWOL, or any other charges under the UCMJ.  (Of course, the President could).  I suspect that "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" might be a Federal law that would fall under Holder's jurisduction, but am not sure of that.  I am, quite sure however, that if charges are filed, it will be by the defense department under the UCMJ.

My understanding exactly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 08:55:03 am

Again, you low country rednecks prove that you're too ignorant to even discuss science much less understand it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 09:04:15 am

You necks' can go back to turning red states like Mississippi into brackish third world backwaters. Que the morally challenged chris mcdaniel who managed to get neck voters like peke to vote against their best interests.

I hope that he beats Thad Cochran and we taxpayers can stop sending $3.07 back to Mississippi for every dollar they send us.

From a Washington Post article

Quote

Indeed. “If Mississippi did what the tea party claims they want . . . we would become a Third World country, quickly,” said Rickey Cole, the state Democratic chairman. “We depend on the federal government to help us build our highways. We depend on the federal government to fund our hospitals, our health-care system. We depend on the federal government to help us educate our students on every level.”

Cole noted that the hospital he was born in “wasn’t built by the taxpayers of Mississippi, it was built with federal money that was collected from taxpayers in New York and Chicago and L.A. and San Francisco.”

Don't worry peke, a little salt on dirt makes it taste better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 09:14:41 am

peke

Quote

Science denying?

The man made global warming hoaxers are the science deniers.  They have no facts to back up their "science"  they fake data to keep the grant money rolling in from leftist organizations.

 


I can point to 97% of scientists, you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 09:27:24 am

Quote

Gutter politics is letting Americans die in Benghazi to win an election

Gutter politics is fund raising off a tragedy and lying about the facts surrounding it.

Low country neck, what has the military testified too in this case about "letting Americans die"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 09:38:11 am

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

   
    American Association for the Advancement of Science

    "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
   
    American Chemical Society

    "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."
   
    American Geophysical Union

    "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
   
    American Medical Association

    "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
   
    American Meteorological Society

    "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)
   
    American Physical Society

    "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)
   
    The Geological Society of America

    "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)



SCIENCE ACADEMIES

    International academies: Joint statement

    "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
   
    U.S. National Academy of Sciences

    "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."



U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

   
    U.S. Global Change Research Program

    "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)



INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

   
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

     *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


And you have the koch brothers, jimmy imhofe and fox-hole.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 10:24:56 am

Otto, I can list hundreds of articles and you will not believe any of them.  By the way we are in a cooling cycle right now not a warming one. 

Any scientist (and there are many) that says it is not happening or can't be proven is attacked.  You would simply say they are being paid off by big oil or some such bogey man.  When in fact any scientist who exposes the hoax loses out on money.  All the money is going to the guys who are faking the data not those who are pointing out the inconsistencies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 10:34:02 am

peke

Posting "articles" from individuals isn't proof of anything. I have listed scientific organizations in support of my position.

You can't do the same?

Telling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 05, 2014, 10:37:15 am

But those organizations are communist controlled. Their mission is to control everything, even the amount of manure that comes out of Oddo's mouth

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on June 05, 2014, 10:51:44 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 10:34:02 am

peke

Posting "articles" from individuals isn't proof of anything. I have listed scientific organizations in support of my position.

don't "scientific organizations" post the "findings" from individuals?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 11:23:44 am

They have been proven to have faked the data and yet the lemming keep on believing in it.  In the 70, we were headed to another ice age.  Then it was global warming and now they switched it to man made climate change because they can't prove it is warming.


At what point do you question anything Otto?  If Al Gore really believed any of this BS would he really have such a giant carbon foot print?

Why do all of the politicians spouting of about all of this live in big mansions, fly in private jets and get driven around in motorcades of gas guzzling vehicles?  The same politicians that don't think citizens should be allowed to own guns but they can have armed guards.

Stop believing all of the propaganda, take your head out of your ass and take a look around.  Follow the money. 

If after all of that you still choose to believe in it I guess there is only one solution.  After all even if you drive an electric car pollution was created when the electricity was made.

Get all of your like minded friends together and drink the Kool-Aid.  It will be fun and everyone is doing it...   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 05, 2014, 11:48:03 am

Poor Otto...Major problem for the administration over the deserter trade and all he can grasp onto is the tired old global warming...er climate change...er climate disruption discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 05, 2014, 11:52:30 am

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/relentless-incompetence-americans-giving-obama-100000019.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 01:28:46 pm

Peke

Let's start where you did. Show your proof of "faked data".


Until then I will assume you lie and expect us to believe it.


Ball is in your court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 01:40:31 pm

"Communist"


And you wonder why olde white idiot grandpas are not taken serious.


Dumb.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 01:45:40 pm

Sorry Keysbart



I stand by the motto of "leave no rman behind".


Can you list the ones that you conservatives would leave behind for clarity? The house of turds is calling for a vote.


Its part of their 10% approval rating.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2014, 02:02:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 08:55:03 am

Again, you low country rednecks prove that you're too ignorant to even discuss science much less understand it.

Isn't it cute that Homo, a guy from a hick town in a backwards state, would call someone else a redneck?

He seems to think that the tactics he learned from Joe McCarthy, his state's greatest hero, will still work today. 

Suppress alternate views. Give labels to your enemies.  Root out opposition.  Next he will be burning crosses on our lawns.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 02:11:27 pm

Wow, that would be considered a well thought out t-bag response.... but one that is confirmed laughable by everyone else.


BTW moron McCarthy was a republic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2014, 02:55:06 pm

True.  And the Democrats have adopted his tactics.  As demonstrated by Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 05, 2014, 03:12:04 pm

Can you list the ones that you conservatives would leave behind for clarity?

At the top of my list would be Obumma himself. He is the most anti-American president we have ever had. Probably next would be Reid and Pelozi

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 05, 2014, 03:21:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 01:45:40 pm

Sorry Keysbart



I stand by the motto of "leave no rman behind".


Can you list the ones that you conservatives would leave behind for clarity? The house of turds is calling for a vote.


Its part of their 10% approval rating.

Nice try Otto but you fail. People are not upset that the deserter was brought home. They are upset that we released 5 high ranking terrorists.  It's the price and not the action.  In your simpleton view of "leave no man behind" would you trade a nuke to them for a prisoner? It's all a  matter of perspectivre my friend your strawman be damned.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 05, 2014, 03:30:18 pm

Oh look...another Otto "scientist"....

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/06/05/gwyneth-paltrow-mean-words-hurts-water-feelings/?intcmp=features

“I am fascinated by the growing science behind the energy of consciousness and its effects on matter,” she wrote on her website GOOP. “I have long had Dr Emoto's coffee table book on how negativity changes the structure of water, how the molecules behave differently depending on the words or music being expressed around it.”

Her scientists friend Dr. Habib Sadeghi described an experiment where “Emoto poured pure water into vials labelled with negative phrases like 'I hate you' or 'Fear'. After 24 hours, the water was frozen, and no longer crystallised under the microscope: It yielded grey, misshapen clumps instead of beautiful lace-like crystals.”

In contrast, he wrote water labeled “'I love you' or 'Peace'” produced  “gleaming, perfectly hexagonal crystals.”

See – its science!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 03:30:28 pm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 03:31:09 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

In addition, the work of the UN’s IPCC is based on numerous climate models that attempt to project temperatures decades into the future. Those models are all based on the circular assumption that the theory of man caused global warming is true. As 16 world leading climate scientists recently reported in a letter to the Wall Street Journal,

“[A]n important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say that the theory is ‘falsified’ and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

“From the graph it appears that the projections [of the models] exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.”




Seems like the models have been falsified.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2014, 03:51:43 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 09:04:15 am

From a Washington Post article
“We depend on the federal government to help us educate our students on every level.”

We don't.  Federal regulations makes it much more difficult to educate kids and the federal government at this point does much more harm to education in this country than it does good.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2014, 03:52:37 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 09:14:41 am

I can point to 97% of scientists, you?

Start pointing.

Provide the source for that nonsense, bullshit figure, and let's dissect it.  It is utterly bogus.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 03:53:12 pm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breaking-global-warming-taboos-i-feel-duped-on-climate-change-a-813814.html

Vahrenholt: In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. In one case, a Greenpeace activist's absurd claim that 80 percent of the world's energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources was assumed without scrutiny. This prompted me to examine the IPCC report more carefully.

Vahrenholt: In terms of the climate, we have seen a cyclical up and down for the last 7,000 years, long before man began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been a warming phase every 1,000 years, including the Roman, the Medieval and the current warm periods. All of these warm periods consistently coincided with strong solar activity. In addition to this large fluctuation in activity, there is also a 210-year and an 87-year natural cycle of the sun. Ignoring these would be a serious mistake …

SPIEGEL: … but solar researchers are still in disagreement over whether the cycles you mention actually exist. What do you think this means for the future?

Vahrenholt: In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This "large solar maximum," as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2. But the sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can only expect cooling from the sun for now.



 
SPIEGEL: It is undisputed that fluctuations in solar activity can influence the climate. Most experts assume that an unusually long solar minimum, evidenced by the very small number of sunspots at the time, led to the "Little Ice Age" that began in 1645. There were many severe winters at the time, with rivers freezing over. However, astrophysicists still don't know the extent to which solar fluctuations actually affect temperatures.
 
Vahrenholt: Many scientists assume that the temperature changes by more than 1 degree Celsius for the 1,000-year cycle and by up to 0.7 degrees Celsius for the smaller cycles. Climatologists should be putting a far greater effort into finding ways to more accurately determine the effects of the sun on climate. For the IPCC and the politicians it influences, CO2 is practically the only factor. The importance of the sun for the climate is systematically underestimated, and the importance of CO2 is systematically overestimated. As a result, all climate predictions are based on the wrong underlying facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2014, 03:55:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 01:28:46 pm

Peke

Let's start where you did. Show your proof of "faked data".


Until then I will assume you lie and expect us to believe it.


Ball is in your court.

No, otto.  He challenged you, and your figures first.  The ball is in YOUR court.  You have not yet even passed it inbounds.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2014, 03:57:05 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on June 05, 2014, 03:21:21 pm

Nice try Otto but you fail. People are not upset that the deserter was brought home. They are upset that we released 5 high ranking terrorists.  It's the price and not the action.

Some are also upset that he violated federal law in doing this, the same federal law he SIGNED into law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2014, 04:08:08 pm

Will you guys leave Homo alone.  All he has left is McCarthy tactics, and you insist on his using facts.

Not fair.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2014, 04:49:40 pm

Quote

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

And you want me to take you seriously.

Why?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 05:02:35 pm

I will be proven correct as will all the rest of the man made climate warming skeptics.  Of course you and your ilk will just keep pushing back the dates and cherry picking the data like they have been doing since the 70's.  Cherry picking data to get the results you want is not good science.  Especially since it has been proven false time and time again.

You asked for links I gave you three and it took me all of a few minutes to find them.  The link you don't accept is just the first one I found.  Of course you won't accept the other two or next several hundred I post either so why bother.

You are as bad as the "scientists" faking man made climate change.  You are like a bunch of brain washed cult members.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2014, 05:59:24 pm

Leave Homo alone.  He is a product of the University of Wisconsin PS 132.  He is the best that that hick state can produce.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 07:45:44 pm

From Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”:

 “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. It also infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

 “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 08:07:09 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/holder-justice-department-accused-gun-grab-with-choke-point-program/?intcmp=obinsite

Citing internal Justice Department documents, the committee concluded that the administration used a program known as Operation Choke Point to target legal companies that it finds “objectionable.”

The program was started in 2013 to protect consumers by “choking” alleged fraudsters’ access to the banking system. The Justice Department essentially forces banks and third-party payment processors to stop accepting payments from companies that are considered “high risk” and are supposedly violating federal law.

However, the documents released by Issa’s committee show the federal government lumped the firearms industry in with other "high-risk" businesses including those dealing with pornography, drug paraphernalia, escort services, racist materials, Ponzi schemes and online gambling.

The committee also reported that Attorney General Eric Holder was informed the program has been shutting down legal businesses.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 08:18:54 pm

I believe we have a pattern here.  Targeting legal conservative groups with the IRS, targeting legal ammunition and firearm manufacturers with operation chokepoint.  Breaking the law to trade 5 terrorists for a deserter by not giving congress notice.

The media would be going ape **** if GW had done this to liberal groups and planned parenthood.

At what point is it time to start the process of impeachment?   Long past due imo.

However the Republicans will do nothing.  After all they are about to win big in November and don't want to mess it up.  I am not sure I can blame them since the media is totally in the bag for this administration and they would be vilified as racists if they attempted it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 08:35:47 pm

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3600199096001/is-the-climate-change-threat-exaggerated/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 05, 2014, 11:41:04 pm

Quote

  Vahrenholt: In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body.

BOY....what a surprise that is,huh....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 04:15:40 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 05:02:35 pm

Of course you and your ilk will just keep pushing back the dates and cherry picking the data like they have been doing since the 70's.  Cherry picking data to get the results you want is not good science.

Not good science, but great politics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 04:23:04 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 05, 2014, 08:18:54 pm

I believe we have a pattern here.  Targeting legal conservative groups with the IRS, targeting legal ammunition and firearm manufacturers with operation chokepoint.  Breaking the law to trade 5 terrorists for a deserter by not giving congress notice.

The media would be going ape **** if GW had done this to liberal groups and planned parenthood.

At what point is it time to start the process of impeachment?   Long past due imo.

However the Republicans will do nothing.  After all they are about to win big in November and don't want to mess it up.  I am not sure I can blame them since the media is totally in the bag for this administration and they would be vilified as racists if they attempted it.

It is not just the media villifying them as racist, but also what would happen in the minds of 90 of blacks even without any media complicity.

Beyond that, look at the current makeup of the Senate.  The House could send the Senate a Bill of Impeachment, but, in looking at the Constitution, I am not certain Harry Reid would even be required to schedule it for a trial and a vote.  And, if Reid did schedule it, there is no way a simple majority for vote for it.  You would have to have 6 Democrats cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans, IF every Republican in the Senate vote to remove, and that is a long way from a certainty.  The trial, if this summer or fall, would also so energize Obama's base, that the Republicans could forget about making gains this November.

I would LOVE to see Obama removed, not just because I dislike him, or because I believe he is harmful to the United States, but because the balance of power between Congress and the White House desperately needs to be restored.  It is just that trying it now would be counter-productive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 06, 2014, 07:31:29 am

Yes you need control of both houses to bring impeachment charges. And just a simple majority in the Senate wont be good enough. Hopefully this country is fed up with the Dumbos to go vote heavy Republican and that's not a sure thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 08:18:36 am

I'd be embarrassed to provide a link which was posted to cast doubt on Global Climate Change which had some dude from the heartland institute claiming artic ice has not retreated when 30 seconds later a NASA satellite time lapse clearly shows the ice melting over a 20+year duration.

But when one side only has a 3% opinion, fox-hole videos and the Norsk Sagas...Come on peke show some proof of "faked data".

Maybe you need more than a few seconds searching...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 06, 2014, 08:22:29 am

Embarrassed? You? No, you are just too stupid to post any link that might show that global warming is a fraud. Get real!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 06, 2014, 08:33:31 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 08:18:36 am

I'd be embarrassed to provide a link...

Now that's funny

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 08:36:16 am

fritz vahrenholt?

The German educated chemist turned sun spot climate denier after working for Dutch Shell?

Is that him sporty?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 08:41:45 am

wasfulofit

Go right ahead, show your embarrassment free climate denier links.

I'll wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 06, 2014, 09:29:08 am

Ah...the trials and tribulations of the poor working man. How this fraud has any credibility at all is beyond me. He's been laughing at you liberal fools all the way to the bank. I think his next project is "How to become a 1%er by bashing 1%ers".

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/Michael-Moore-divorce-476321

Moore and Glynn jointly own “multiple substantial residences and multiple companies,” including Dog Eat Dog Films, the production company behind hit movies like “Roger & Me” and “Bowling for Columbine.” The couple’s real estate holdings include a total of nine properties in Michigan and New York. The duo co-owns a Manhattan condo that was created through the combination of three separate units.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 09:37:25 am

And that posting proves what?


Anybody know what the Jobs report was today?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 06, 2014, 10:05:49 am

All posts don't need to prove anything. Sometimes it's just fun to post about the foolishness of the "occupier" types that rail at the rich while worshipping this clown

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 06, 2014, 10:07:05 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 09:37:25 am

Anybody know what the Jobs report was today?

I'm guessing very slow growth which would be much faster if not for the Obama administration.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 06, 2014, 10:55:23 am

I love the way Homo's mind works.  If you deny that mankind is causing the climate to change, you are wrong.  Why?  Because you are a dirty, rotten climate denier.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 06, 2014, 11:16:38 am

Apparently The liberal LA Times agrees...

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-80419059/

“Things are improving, but it’s happening agonizingly slowly,” said Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

“At the pace we are currently going, it will take nearly four more years to get back to prerecession labor market conditions.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:06:08 pm

The economy created 216,000 seasonally adjusted new private jobs in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, close to expectations. Add 1,000 public sector jobs for a total of 217,000. Both full-time and part-time jobs are included in the total. The official unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.3 percent.


Jobs grew to a total that is 97,000 above the pre-recession peak and an all time high.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:25:56 pm

Dirty rotten climate denier

Quote

If you deny that mankind is causing the climate to change, you are wrong.  Why?  Because you are a dirty, rotten climate denier.

No, you're not wrong because you are a dirty rotten climate denier. You're wrong because you ignore science and scientific consensus from people who studied the facts. My sources have been peer reviewed and are easily available to anyone. They include all the leading climate organizations, government (NASA, NOAA, Dept of Defense), international environmental committees (IPCC) and 97% of the leading scientists. Your side has jim imhofe and sandy hair.

You wrong because you have chosen to make scientific facts nothing more than political opinion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 06, 2014, 12:54:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:06:08 pm

The economy created 216,000 seasonally adjusted new private jobs in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, close to expectations. Add 1,000 public sector jobs for a total of 217,000. Both full-time and part-time jobs are included in the total. The official unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.3 percent.


Jobs grew to a total that is 97,000 above the pre-recession peak and an all time high.


Enjoy

It would have been far more enjoyable  had it happened sooner which it would have under real leadership. This snails pace recovery is still causing a lot of suffering. We could have pulled out of this in three years if we weren't choking the free market.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:55:19 pm

Ball just left the park!




Tea Party Dead-Enders

New York Times, Timothy Egan
JUNE 5, 2014

 
The Tea Party is five years old this election season, which means it’s done teething and spitting up on itself, but still prone to temper tantrums, irrational outbursts and threats to take its toys and storm off if it doesn’t get its way.

As a movement, it is down to a couple of former talk-radio hosts running for office in two states of the old Confederacy, Texas and Mississippi. And in the latter, the Senate candidate, Chris McDaniel, has given a keynote to a group that considers Abraham Lincoln a war criminal. It’s not hard to make the case that the Tea Party has been distilled down to it logical essence.

“They don’t want to go to the moon,” said the comedian Bill Maher. “They want to howl at it.” Still, the Tea Party has also been around long enough to have a record, of sorts. Let’s look at the legacy:

No significant legislation, no changes for the better in American life, and no compromise, of course, with the majority of voters who say in numerous polls that the Tea Party has been mostly a negative force in politics. One follows the other, since by the absolutist nature of their philosophy Tea Party members believe that any effort to govern with those they disagree with is traitorous.

But they did bring us — drumroll — the government shutdown! Remember last fall, an extortionate attempt to deprive millions of Americans access to health care through an established law? It was ruinous. The economy took a direct hit of more than $20 billion, and 800,000 people were without a paycheck. An extremist fringe of one party in one house of one branch of government brought the day-to-day functions of the United States to a standstill.

It could have been worse. Because the other big Tea Party idea is government default — walking out on your commitments. This is the debt ceiling, in which Congress validates the spending that it has already agreed to pay for. The Tea Party came up with the idea of making the government not unlike the rancher in Nevada who refuses to pay his bills for grazing cattle on the public range. A deadbeat. You can see why Cliven Bundy became a Tea Party hero, until his overt racism made him toxic.

So, no legislation. A shutdown that cost billions. A near-default that almost threw the United States back into recession. What else? Oh, science denial. Evolution, climate change, medicine — all a hoax, in one form or another.

But the Tea Party does have something to show for its five years of annoyance: Ted Cruz, senator from Texas. Cruz is probably best known for reading “Green Eggs and Ham” on the floor of the Senate during a 21-hour talkathon designed to ensure his place as the most hated man in that august chamber. But Cruz, in trying to kill funding for the Affordable Care Act, missed the point of the Dr. Seuss classic: don’t criticize something until you actually try it. And now that more than eight million Americans are trying insurance that won’t deprive them of health care just because they got sick, green eggs and ham is likely to be a dish served cold to Cruz.

Elsewhere on the personnel front, the Tea Party kept writers on “The Daily Show” busy. There was Christine “I’m not a witch” O’Donnell, routed in a Senate race the Republicans could have won in Delaware. They put forth Todd “legitimate ****” Akin in Missouri, and Richard “**** is something that God intended” Mourdock in Indiana, both gifts to the Democratic Party.

And don’t forget the soon-to-be-retired member of Congress Michele Bachmann, founder of the Tea Party Caucus. If Bachmann were to put out a greatest-hits compilation of her craziest statements, she would need a double album. Her most harmful outburst was a claim that a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer in young women was dangerous. She knows this because “a lady” told her that her child “suffered from mental retardation” after getting the vaccine.

 
Which brings us to the last Tea Partiers standing. All along, surveys have shown that the Tea Party is thick with aging white men, angry, fearful, in open revolt against the new American demography. And their ideas came not from Republican Party elites or conservative think tanks, but from the true fount of Tea Party philosophy — talk radio.

No surprise, then, that the leaders of the last skirmishes being fought in the Tea Party rear guard are people who came out of the fear-breeding hothouse of far-right broadcasting. The latest Tea Party star in Texas is Dan Patrick, the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor — not to be confused with the likable sports radio host of the same name.

The Texas Patrick is of course a climate-change denier, and he warns of a Mexican “invasion” by illegals who bring “third world diseases” with them, like polio. He keeps the fact-checkers fully employed. But he embodies other Tea Party heroes because of his glaring hypocrisy: This strong advocate for fiscal responsibility once declared personal bankruptcy, walking out on about $800,000 in debts in the 1980s. The people he stiffed are still angry.

In Mississippi, Chris McDaniel, the candidate who forced aging Senator Thad Cochran into a runoff later this month, is an even better distillation of Tea Party essence. For old whites, he can count on the support of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose members claim the Emancipation Proclamation was illegal, and have put up billboards wishing a happy birthday to “President Jefferson Davis.” McDaniel gave a keynote last summer to one of their affiliates.

He’s likely to be Mississippi’s next senator. The Tea Party could have been useful, in the way that some fringe groups bring new ideas into the system. Here, they just brought the fringe, looking in only one direction — backward.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 06, 2014, 12:56:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:25:56 pm

Dirty rotten climate denier

No, you're not wrong because you are a dirty rotten climate denier. You're wrong because you ignore science and scientific consensus from people who studied the facts. My sources have been peer reviewed and are easily available to anyone. They include all the leading climate organizations, government (NASA, NOAA, Dept of Defense), international environmental committees (IPCC) and 97% of the leading scientists. Your side has jim imhofe and sandy hair.

You wrong because you have chosen to make scientific facts nothing more than political opinion.

Your "facts" merely show that the climate has changed...none of those "facts" prove that it is man caused.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:58:32 pm

Dirty, rotten climate denier

Quote

We could have pulled out of this in three years if we weren't choking the free market.

Post one thing (like a source, link or other factual anything) which proves that statement.

Dare yah.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 01:03:36 pm

dirty rotten climate denier

Quote

Your "facts" merely show that the climate has changed...none of those "facts" prove that it is man caused.

They're NOT my facts. They are the facts that every organization of scientist's has established. I have merely chosen to believe them.

Every source that I can cite will show that it is human caused.

But thanks for proving my point about political opinion stupidity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 06, 2014, 01:46:33 pm

Every source you cite will SAY it is human caused. There is no proof.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 02:17:06 pm

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Open Letter to UN Secretary-General

 

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, NY

United States of America

December 8, 2009

 

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

 

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.

Signed by:

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 02:23:00 pm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/10/is_global_warming_a_hoax_117894.html

In fact, "global warming" has existed essentially only in computer models. According to satellite measurements, temperatures in the lower atmosphere in March were just 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than they had been in 1979, when James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies first raised alarm.

March temperatures were just 0.18 degrees Celsius (.32 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the average for the last 33 years, about 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than when warming peaked in 1997 -- well within the range of natural fluctuations. The difference in average temperature between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in March is much greater than that (3 degrees Fahrenheit).

Six assumptions in climate models he examined are at odds with meteorological science, said New Zealand chemist Vincent Gray, an "expert reviewer" for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since the first IPCC report in 1990. Among the goofs he spotted were a gross overestimation of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere; an assumption the sun shines in the same place 24 hours a day; and a failure to account for most mechanisms of heat transfer.

The computer models "are full of fudge factors," especially with regard to the role of clouds, said Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson.

These were honest mistakes made in good faith, Mr. Gray assumes. This isn't necessarily so. Shaun Marcott, an Earth scientist at Oregon State University, and colleagues published last month a study which, according to The New York Times, found that "global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at last 4,000 years."
Reporter Justin Gillis doubtless drew that conclusion from a graph that showed temperatures declining gradually over 5,000 years, followed by a sharp uptick in the 20th century. There'd been more warming in the last 100 years than in the previous 11,500, the graph indicated.

But the data Mr. Marcott et. al. collected showed no such thing. They'd created the "hockey stick" in the graph by arbitrarily changing the dates on some of the core samples they used as temperature proxies.

"The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes," Mr. Marcott admitted in an email March 31.

If this wasn't scientific misconduct, "it is far too close to that line for comfort," said Colorado State University climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr.


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/10/is_global_warming_a_hoax_117894.html#ixzz33t9u4ZVQ
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 06, 2014, 02:49:04 pm

Amen

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on June 06, 2014, 03:01:50 pm

Peke, you know you can't let facts get in the way of a good crisis.
That is the way liberals create jobs.
Develop a crisis, use tax dollars to hire folks to research the crisis.
Hire lobbyist to push for  regulations for the crisis and then hire regulators to keep tabs on them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 05:22:56 pm

Let me get this straight peke.


In response to my post about you proving your "climate realist" side you present a letter from 2009 to the UN Sec General requesting the 97% scientific consensus to make the denier case and a "article" from jack Kelley.


This sums up your "source"...
 
Douglas Anders wrote February 14, 2004, in the seeingToledo Blog:

"Every Saturday morning I look forward to the Jack Kelly column on the Op-Ed page of the Blade. As surely as things fall down, Kelly can be counted on to recycle half-informed (not to mention half-formed) arguments from the right side of the blogosphere, and dutifully march forth to make the GOP sanctioned argument of the week. His modus operandi is simple and unvarying: report the facts that support his thesis, ignore everything that undermines it and end with an overblown claim that Democrats (or the 'nay-sayers' or peacenicks or Bush-critics) are nothing more than unrepentant liars. I warn you, if you try to make pro-Republican arguments based on what you read in a Jack Kelly column, you will quickly establish that you are an easily hoodwinked fool. There are good honest conservatives out there, but Jack Kelly isn't one of them, he exists to regurgitate the GOP line of the day."

For more on jack see...  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm  (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm)


Typical of you and the member of your church.

Additionally, did you even read the original Times story Jackie boy sourced?

Try again

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 06, 2014, 05:46:14 pm

217,000 new jobs and 312,00 first time unemployment claims.

And the economy is improving?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 06:00:02 pm

Facts are not on your side.  You just keep name calling and claiming you are correct with zero evidence because there is no evidence.  Never has been.

I do not belong to any church and never have so I do not know what you are talking about and evidently neither do you.

Prove to me that man is causing global warming.  You can't because it has not been proven.  In fact the planet is currently cooling but will eventually warm again.

In the 70's they said man was causing a new ice age.  Then they said man was causing global warming.  Now they are calling it man made climate change because it stopped warming and started cooling.

I just call it weather which has lots of factors the biggest being solar activity.  Which by the way I don't need a bunch of scientist to tell me because it is common sense.  News flash the sun also brings us light in case you are wondering.  Night time is not caused by green house gases.

If you want to believe this nonsense then go right ahead.   But if you truly believe it you should just end it now.  There is no hope according to the "scientist" you believe.

Even they say the new EPA regulations will make no difference.  I guess you better start building an ark.  Oh and quit using electricity, driving, drinking milk or eating meat and well breathing because you are causing global warming.  Paying taxes on your carbon footprint does nothing to stop it.  The end is coming.

Idiot...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 06:05:45 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 06:00:02 pm

Paying taxes on your carbon footprint does nothing to stop it. 

Increasing the cost of anything will reduce the amount consumed.  That is as true of carbon as anything else, and taxing carbon emissions WOULD reduce emissions.

The problem is that there is no reason to reduce carbon emissions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 06:27:30 pm

Oh it would reduce pollution but not enough.  The new draconian EPA regulations will do nothing to stop it.  They have even said so.  If shutting down all of these coal plants won't stop it how is carbon taxes going to stop it.  China and Russia aren't going to stop polluting or put restrictions on their economy.  We are the only country destroying our economy with this nonsense.

We would have to either kill off a whole lot of people or start living like a third world country.  Even then would it be enough if the rest of the world doesn't follow suit?  Do you see China, Russia or India committing economic suicide for some false science?  I don't.

But if Otto is a true believer he should just put an end to himself and help with population reduction.  The rest of his liberal friends should do the same.  I mean if they actually believe this nonsense what other option do they have? The world is going to flood killing everyone anyway if they don't.  Besides a polar bears life is way to important for him to continue living and polluting.  Cows flatulence is a big green house gas.  I bet he drinks milk, eats cheese and beef.  I bet he even *gasp* farts himself.  Better tax that also.



 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 06:29:41 pm

OK peke

Debunk all the information from just this one source.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence)

Never been any evidence...and you so desperately want to be taken serious.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 06:45:58 pm

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1400/20130416/nasa-duping-washington-regards-global-warming.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/24/1287082/-Guardian-s-NASA-climate-story-false-flawed-misleading#

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.





Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 06:52:24 pm

Wow, that was easy.  One even from the daily kos one of your favorite sources.  Sorry I couldn't find one from Huffington Post but then I didn't look very hard.

Now prove man made global warming Otto.  You can't because it has not been proven by anyone.  They can prove the climate has warmed but not that it is caused by man.  The planet has been warming and cooling since long before man and will long after we are gone.

But if you truly believe then buy some rope (hemp preferably which you grew and braided yourself, we wouldn't want to use any kind that would add to pollution) and take care of the pollution your living is causing.  Even you don't really believe this BS you just want the rich taxed.  However carbon taxes actually hurt the poor much more then the rich.  You just think it will hurt the rich.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 07:17:40 pm

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

This is from the nasa site you posted Otto.  "Very likely" means they have no proof.   It means they think it is human induced and are kind of pretty sure but not really that they are right but really, really want to be because that is what Obama wants.  Also the chart shows CO2 levels not warming levels.  They are assuming high CO2 means massive global warming.  That assumption is false or their precious models would have us under water by now.

The planet is now cooling.  How is that possible with such high CO2 levels if that is the big driver of planet temperature? 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 06, 2014, 07:26:31 pm

 
 I love all of you guys and your opinions,
 
 however lets get somthing straight here,
 
 YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL AND NOR WILL YOU EVER BE,
 
 You are the hangerons in a BEARS board at the bottom of a CUBS board.
 
 Imagine how far you have sunk since the Tribune Board ?
 
 But that doesnt matter ... you know what matters ?
 
 We have become friends.
 
 The arguments of our personalitys and convictions is what sustains us to clarify back as to the last post.
 
 THE PEOPLE IN CONTROL ...
 
 are already deciding what your children are going to do ...
 
 and their children too.
 
 IF ... they are needed.
 
 Youve probably noticed by now that you are not the people in control.
 
 Because ... wheres your private island that you jet to **** ?
 
 Oh you mean you dont have one ?
 
 You'll get wise somday ... well maybe not you ... but your children.  ;D
 
 Keep thinking that what you are getting by on is the WAY its suppossed to be.
 
 Everybody loves a SUCKER that thinks THIS is all he should have while pumping out so much LABOR.
 
 What IS labor ? Labor is an attorney that has **** to show for it.
 
 Labor is a contractor that is humping his brains and sees the value of his work decrease.
 
 Labor is the worker ... no matter what catagory ... seeing his labor
 
 decrease in value ... when prices are increasing.
 
 That moneys going somwhere ... and its not going to labor.
 
 What YOU get ... is a credit card ! Where does the interest go to ?
 
 The situation that didnt give you a RAISE !
 
 Is this a COOL PROOF plan or what ?
 
 Uh ... STUDENT LOANS ? GOTCHA !!
 
 Before you even get STARTED ... YOU ALREADY OWE US !!!
 
 BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA !!!!
 
 Now get back to work.  >:(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 07:27:58 pm

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/

It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now. But he might be surprised to find out that Arctic ice coverage is up 50 percent this year from 2012 levels.

“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008.

The North Pole is still there, and growing. BBC News reports that data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft shows that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 9,000 cubic kilometers (2,100 cubic miles) by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 6,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) during the same time last year.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/#ixzz33uOdpOSq

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 07:29:12 pm

Jon Stewart even agrees with me Otto. 

All that ice with CO2 levels off the charts.  Mind boggling isn't it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 07:36:19 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 06:27:30 pm

Oh it would reduce pollution but not enough.

"Not enough" for what?  A high enough tax would dramatically reduce carbon emissions.... but the "for what" question remains.  Ending all carbon emissions will not prevent something which is not happening.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 07:45:33 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 06:52:24 pm

Now prove man made global warming Otto.  You can't because it has not been proven by anyone.

"Proof" is merely that which is required to convince.  And obviously neither side will be convinced by the other.  It may make sense to ask for EVIDENCE, but not proof.

Quote from: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 06:52:24 pm

Even you don't really believe this BS you just want the rich taxed.  However carbon taxes actually hurt the poor much more then the rich.  You just think it will hurt the rich.

You are mistaken here.  Those like otto pushing global warming nonsense are not simply wanting to tax the rich.  Thy already do that.  What they want to do is control all economic activity.  They want to usher the nation into socialism in a manner so folks do not even realize what is happening.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 07:52:46 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:06:08 pm

Jobs grew to a total that is 97,000 above the pre-recession peak and an all time high.

Enjoy

And what has happened to the population in that time?  And what has happened to workforce earnings, both aggregate and average?

Population is up, earnings are down.  We are much worse off as a nation than were were pre-recession, and also much worse off than we would have been today if Obama had kept his hands off the economy and allowed a real recovery.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 07:55:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:55:19 pm

Ball just left the park!
Tea Party Dead-Enders
New York Times, Timothy Egan
JUNE 5, 2014
 
The Tea Party is five years old this election season, which means it’s done teething and spitting up on itself, but still prone to temper tantrums, irrational outbursts and threats to take its toys and storm off if it doesn’t get its way.

As a movement, it is down to a couple of former talk-radio hosts running for office in two states of the old Confederacy, Texas and Mississippi. And in the latter, the Senate candidate, Chris McDaniel, has given a keynote to a group that considers Abraham Lincoln a war criminal. It’s not hard to make the case that the Tea Party has been distilled down to it logical essence.

“They don’t want to go to the moon,” said the comedian Bill Maher. “They want to howl at it.”

You have to love political commentary which considers Bill Maher an incisive, serious, political analyst.  In fact not just the first one quoted, but the only one quoted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 07:56:28 pm

Jes, I agree.

However the global warming scientists have said the new EPA rules do nothing to stop global warming.  If that is the case I can only assume that if only the US adds a carbon tax that would not be enough either.  Perhaps I am wrong but I have never read any global warming "scientist" or NASA saying that if the US and only the US has a high carbon tax it will be enough to stop global warming.  These are the folks Otto and his liberal buddies in Madison think are the second coming of Jesus but in big government form.

Pretty sure they feel it has to be reduced world wide after all their agenda is for the UN to mandate this and have ultimate control over all countries in this aspect.

After all this is a political almost religious movement that is not based on science.  I am trying to discuss this with Otto which of course means I have to converse on his level to some degree.  He believes in this like some believe in the bible.  He will never admit there is any chance at all he is wrong about this. 

I guess he has to stop getting his news from Jon Stewart and quit reading the dailykos.  He will have to settle for the Huffington Post and MSNBC from now on.

     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 07:56:51 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 08:18:36 am

But when one side only has a 3% opinion, fox-hole videos and the Norsk Sagas...Come on peke show some proof of "faked data".

Maybe you need more than a few seconds searching...

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 12:25:56 pm

My sources have been peer reviewed and are easily available to anyone. They include all the leading climate organizations, government (NASA, NOAA, Dept of Defense), international environmental committees (IPCC) and 97% of the leading scientists.

And for at least the 3rd time I challenge YOU, otto, to produce the original source for that 97% figure, just to allow us to critically look at it and examine its validity.  You now, a bit of "peer review."

You can do that can't you?

Maybe you need more than a few seconds searching, but it has been a few days now.

Still waiting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 06, 2014, 08:01:06 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 07:56:28 pm

I am trying to discuss this with Otto which of course means I have to converse on his level to some degree.

I don't think you can get that low.

Quote from: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 07:56:28 pm

He believes in this like some believe in the bible.   

No he doesn't.

Even otto is not that stupid.  He simply sees it as a route to socialism.

If he genuinely believed this **** he would take up my challenge about his 97% crap, which is one of the biggest lies around, and one any simply statistical analysis can show is utterly bogus.

Of course otto realizes that, and it is why I don't think he will ever accept my challenge.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 06, 2014, 08:41:37 pm

 
 I need to keep you fighting amongst yourselves so that I can steal your money.
 
 Thank You !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 08:53:56 pm

Yes, JJ.  Because if we all just accepted the BS we are being fed there would be peace and harmony in the world and everything would be peachy keen!

If enough people had stood up against the Nazis in Germany perhaps the holocaust would never have happened.  If the liberals get their way the cost of energy will be so high we will have people freezing to death during the winter, the cost of food will be so high people will be starving to death.  Unless of course we all give up our liberties and become communists...

Yeah this is that serious and people like otto are that **** stupid! 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 06, 2014, 08:59:42 pm

Peken - you are forgetting the two basic rules.

Never expect a Jackie post to make sense on a Friday or Saturday night.

Never expect a Homo post to make sense on a day that ends in a y.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 06, 2014, 09:53:39 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 08:53:56 pm

Yes, JJ.  Because if we all just accepted the BS we are being fed there would be peace and harmony in the world and everything would be peachy keen!

If enough people had stood up against the Nazis in Germany perhaps the holocaust would never have happened.  If the liberals get their way the cost of energy will be so high we will have people freezing to death during the winter, the cost of food will be so high people will be starving to death.  Unless of course we all give up our liberties and become communists...

Yeah this is that serious and people like otto are that **** stupid! 

 Stupidity has nothing to do with it ... when you are being **** up your ass and being told you arent has everything to do with it.
 
 The main thing is to keep you believing that you are not being **** up your ass.
 
 Here ... have another credit card without a pay raise ...
 
 go into debt to me more ... I own you.  8) 
 
 Although you think you own yourself.
 
 How much money will you pay into your 30 year mortgage over the price you bought the house for ? Do the math.
 
 We set you up to be **** since the day you were born.
 

Quote from: davep on June 06, 2014, 08:59:42 pm

Peken - you are forgetting the two basic rules.

Never expect a Jackie post to make sense on a Friday or Saturday night.

Never expect a Homo post to make sense on a day that ends in a y.

 Hey ... I'm stealing the money that you were entitled to and theres nothing you can do about it ... in fact you will defend my right to steal money from you ... I've got you trained.  :D
 
 Dave , you are one of my closest adherents to keep them beleiving.
 
 Dont let the torch fall muh man ... I need my yacht.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 10:32:01 pm

Quote

Population is up, earnings are down.  We are much worse off as a nation than were were pre-recession, and also much worse off than we would have been today if Obama had kept his hands off the economy and allowed a real recovery

.

I'll pass on that stupidity as it were were.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 06, 2014, 11:24:23 pm

 
 Well its the anniversary of D-Day June 6th 1944 ... and God bless them.
 
 But heres what I have been trying to find out for years :
 
 after the war was over they asked Generals and Admirals ,
 
 what was the four weapons we had that they didnt have that won WWII?
 
 All I have ever been able to find out was that Eisenhower said :
 
 The C-47 ... the Jeep ... the Landing Ship Tank (LST) ,
 
 I dont know the fourth one.
 
 All I ever heard from Patton was the M-1 Garand rifle.
 
 The rest of them I have no idea what they said or even where to find it.
 
 Im sure that Hap Arnold would have raved about B-17's and P-51's but I cant find it.
 
 Im sure that Chester Nimitz would have raved about aircraft carriers but I cant find it.
 
 Can any of you help me as to where to find any info on this ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 07:22:36 am

Quote from: davep on June 06, 2014, 08:59:42 pm

Never expect a Jackie post to make sense on a Friday.

I fixed that for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 07:26:12 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 06, 2014, 10:32:01 pm

I'll pass on that stupidity as it were were.

Yup.

Just like you will continue to pass on my challenge to provide the original source for your 97% nonsense.

Why not serve it up here to let us take a look at how the bozos pushing global warming came up with it in the first place?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 07:51:46 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 06, 2014, 07:27:58 pm

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/

It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now. But he might be surprised to find out that Arctic ice coverage is up 50 percent this year from 2012 levels.

“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008.

The North Pole is still there, and growing. BBC News reports that data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft shows that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 9,000 cubic kilometers (2,100 cubic miles) by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 6,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) during the same time last year.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/#ixzz33uOdpOSq

That's actually not that much ice.  2012 was the lowest ice cap minimum on record and, while there was improvement in 2013, it was still one of the lowest recorded (5th or 6th lowest, I can't remember).  The long term trend is that the average minimum is getting smaller.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 08:46:14 am

Perhaps while we were in a warming trend due to solar activity.  Now that we are going into a cooling trend the ice should continue to grow.  Even if it does not it is growing in the Antarctic.

How is it possible for global warming to be causing one to grow and the other shrink? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 08:56:13 am

Poor Otto things like facts keep getting in the way of his liberal religious fervor induced argument...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 09:45:12 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 08:46:14 am

Perhaps while we were in a warming trend due to solar activity.  Now that we are going into a cooling trend the ice should continue to grow.  Even if it does not it is growing in the Antarctic.

How is it possible for global warming to be causing one to grow and the other shrink? 

The Antarctic ice shelf is shrinking, too.  The East is growing but not enough to offset the overall loss. The West is really in trouble.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 09:53:43 am

Not according to NASA and we know they are on the global warming band wagon.

Using passive-microwave data from NASA's Nimbus 7 satellite and several Department of Defense meteorological satellites, Parkinson and colleague Don Cavalieri showed that sea ice changes were not uniform around Antarctica. Most of the growth from 1978 to 2010 occurred in the Ross Sea, which gained a little under 5,300 square miles of sea ice per year, with more modest increases in the Weddell Sea and Indian Ocean. At the same time, the region of the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Seas lost an average of about 3,200 square miles of ice every year.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html

A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006.

"There's been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic,” said lead author Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 10:02:46 am

That's sea ice and that's a different issue.  Sea ice has little to no impact on sea levels.  Land ice, however, does.  The collapse of the Antarctic ice shelf is not a good long term situation.  And, unfortunately, it's happening and will be very difficult to reverse at least in a time frame that is meaningful to humans.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 10:13:20 am

Increased sea ice is good since it reflects a lot of sunlight away from the Earth. However, the composition of the atmosphere will impact how much of that radiation escapes. Having 400 ppm of CO2 up there is certainly trapping some heat that would otherwise escape into space.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 10:17:40 am

So in other words there is nothing we can do about it.  As I said before the climate has been changing long before we were here and will be changing long after we are gone.  It has been both much warmer and much cooler then it currently is before we started polluting.

Now don't get me wrong I feel we need to cut back on pollution when we can but to do so in such extreme ways that harms people and hurts the economy is beyond stupid.  To hide behind the man made global warming hoax and claim it is settled science is ridiculous.  It is a political movement and a dangerous one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 10:25:43 am

There is no way to reverse the process in the short term but that doesn't mean we should just give up.  It is a fact that dumping carbon into the atmosphere at the rate we are doing and have been doing it has an adverse effect on the climate. It will take many generations to fix the damage that has been done (or, more accurately, stop doing the damage and let nature repair the damage) but it needs to be done and we should be the generation that makes the necessary changes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 10:44:53 am

It is not a fact.  The amounts we "dump" are negligible compared to natural CO2.  We have no proof they are causing temperatures to rise. 

Why did the planet used to be much warmer before we were adding CO2?

Even if it was causing temperatures to rise during a cooling cycle wouldn't that be a good thing?  An ice age (which we are long overdue for) would be devastating to the human population.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 11:02:19 am

What is the source of the natural CO2 that is introduced to the atmosphere that is so much greater than the CO2 that humans release from our industrial activity?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 11:15:20 am

Quote from: Cletus on June 07, 2014, 11:02:19 am

What is the source of the natural CO2 that is introduced to the atmosphere that is so much greater than the CO2 that humans release from our industrial activity?

Cletus, tell me if I am wrong in any of the following, and if so, where:

1) Trees trap carbon and use it in growth.

2) Trees release carbon back into the atmosphere when they are burned.

3) The amount of carbon which was trapped in the tree is not increased by burning it.

4) The carbon which was trapped in the tree will also be released if the tree falls to the ground and decays in the woods.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 07, 2014, 11:32:34 am

An ice age (which we are long overdue for) would be devastating to the human population.

It absolutely would be. There wouldn't be enough land not covered with ice and snow to grow crops on so we wouldn't be able to feed the Earths growing population.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 11:37:41 am

Yes, that happens on land and in the sea. It's the natural carbon cycle.  On average, the consumption and emission of carbon from nature (plants, oceans, volcanoes, etc) tend to be equal or a small net reduction.   When humans burn fossil fuels, we add something like 30 billion tons of carbon to the cycle annually which is a small fraction of the whole. But, the natural cycle can only process about 40% of that carbon so the rest goes into the atmosphere. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 12:11:23 pm

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Here you go Cletus.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 12:35:32 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 12:11:23 pm

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Here you go Cletus.

This is true, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.  What this article neglects to mention is that water vapor is a very short lived gas, is held in local equilibrium, and the concentrations vary greatly across the globe and according to the season.   Water vapor also imposes a positive feedback on the climate meaning it amplifies the impact of CO2 (and to a lesser extent, methane) on the climate.  This article explains this well:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 12:46:43 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 07, 2014, 11:32:34 am

An ice age (which we are long overdue for) would be devastating to the human population.

It absolutely would be. There wouldn't be enough land not covered with ice and snow to grow crops on so we wouldn't be able to feed the Earths growing population.

That is true if it happened overnight.  If it happened over decades or centuries, population would most likely contract on its own.  And even without an ice age, population growth from the net of births/deaths has slowed to the point that in many developing countries that it has reversed.  The United States would be included in that.  http://washingtonexaminer.com/women-are-having-fewer-kids-and-demographers-dont-know-why/article/2549445  The article may conclude that demographers do not know why, but if so, that would only indicate that demographers are not very bright.  They are having fewer kids simply because they CAN have fewer kids, and it is a trend seen pretty much worldwide.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 12:50:43 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 08:56:13 am

Poor Otto things like facts keep getting in the way of his liberal religious fervor induced argument...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up

Of course it doesn't stand up.

That is why I have been challenging otto for a few days  now to produce his original source for the nonsense figure so we can pick it apart.  It really is not hard to do, because the claim is such total bullshit.

Of course otto doesn't have the balls to post it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 01:08:06 pm

Cletus Table 4 shows man made CO2 is 3.225% of the total amount and the rest is natural.  That is what I would call negligible.  Especially since water vapor is the dominant green house gas.

Even though it is amplifying that 3.225% the other 96.775% it is amplifying is natural.  Even if we reduce CO2 emissions drastically it will do next to nothing (keep in mind the US is the only one doing this other big polluters will carry on as usual).  Well other then hurt our economy and cause real human suffering.

Even if the other countries followed suit (they won't) it still would do next to nothing.

Also keep in mind solar activity is the greatest driver of our planets temperature.  The green house effect is only a small part of the equation.  The man made part is a very small fraction of that.  I have seen the US be blamed from anywhere from 19 to 30% of the man made CO2 emissions.  We can only reduce our own emissions so much with out killing off people. 

Even the people pushing this agenda say reducing emissions will not help but darn it we have to do something!


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 07, 2014, 01:23:13 pm

It seems you don't understand how this greenhouse effect works.  Knocking CO2 out of equilibrium has a real impact on the amount of radiation that can escape. It probably seems counterintuitive that something that represents a small fraction of the whole atmosphere can have such a profound effect but it does.  This really isn't something that is in dispute. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 01:45:44 pm

Then why have the models been proven wrong time and time again?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 01:56:53 pm

Quote from: Cletus on June 07, 2014, 01:23:13 pm

It seems you don't understand how this greenhouse effect works.

That is a line you are absolutely assured you will hear from anyone pushing the global warming agenda if you question them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 01:57:21 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 07, 2014, 01:45:44 pm

Then why have the models been proven wrong time and time again?

Because they are wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 01:59:38 pm

Another absolutely obvious old white racist who will fortunately die before long.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/379738/d-day-veteran-politely-declines-obama-invitation-john-fund
A D-Day Veteran Politely Declines Obama Invitation
By John Fund  June 6, 2014 11:08 AM

Brix, France — Some of the veterans attending the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings here in France have fascinating stories.

Take George Ciampa, the most vibrant and spry 89-year-old I have ever met. In 1944, he landed in Normandy as a soldier assigned to the 84th Graves Registration Unit. “I spent the next few years going from France to Germany helping to bury people,” he told me. He was involved in setting up the temporary military cemeteries in Normandy that have now become stirring memorials to our fallen dead.

The experience transformed George, and he eventually became a filmmaker celebrating America’s heroes. His website tells the story of the four documentaries he has done on military valor. He is still making films today.

This week, George received a call from the White House, who said they knew he would be over in France during D-Day, and wondered if he would attend a private meeting the White House was arranging for veterans with President Obama.

George thought about it for awhile and concluded he just couldn’t. “I have so many issues with the president’s policies, including the most recent ones,” he told me ruefully.  “I just couldn’t convince myself to do it.”

He is not alone. The recent Bergdahl prisoner swap in which five hardened Taliban terrorists were released from prison is rubbing a lot of the military veterans attending D-Day events the wrong way.  “It’s not that we don’t want to respect the commander-in-chief,” one told me sadly. “It’s just that he makes it so hard to do so.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 02:01:35 pm

It is actually too bad, however, that the old guy did not go and in person voice his concerns and opinions to the Annointed One.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 07, 2014, 03:02:33 pm

You really think the anointed one would give a damn? He is not to be questioned...how dare you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2014, 03:15:11 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on June 07, 2014, 03:02:33 pm

You really think the anointed one would give a damn? He is not to be questioned...how dare you.

You think Obama will give a damn that the guy didn't accept the invite?

Presidents become isolated because they are surrounded by lackeys who applaud them as brilliant when they belch.  Direct exposure to a viewpoint from an individual a bit outside of the normal narrow range of sychophantic comment might do some good.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 07, 2014, 04:31:21 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on June 06, 2014, 11:24:23 pm

 Well its the anniversary of D-Day June 6th 1944 ... and God bless them.
 
 But heres what I have been trying to find out for years :
 
 after the war was over they asked Generals and Admirals ,
 
 what was the four weapons we had that they didnt have that won WWII?
 
 All I have ever been able to find out was that Eisenhower said :
 
 The C-47 ... the Jeep ... the Landing Ship Tank (LST) ,
 
 I dont know the fourth one.
 
 All I ever heard from Patton was the M-1 Garand rifle.
 
 The rest of them I have no idea what they said or even where to find it.
 
 Im sure that Hap Arnold would have raved about B-17's and P-51's but I cant find it.
 
 Im sure that Chester Nimitz would have raved about aircraft carriers but I cant find it.
 
 Can any of you help me as to where to find any info on this ?

the thing that won WWII was our unlimited manpower and resources compared to Japan.  When our planes and pilots were shot down, we could replace them.  Being able to replace them with even better planes and pilots certainly made it easier to win, but in the end, it was the manpower and resources.

If you are looking for weapons only, the fourth certainly should be the A bomb.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 08, 2014, 06:45:20 am

Hey, otto, still looking for the original source on that 97% claim so we can examine its validity?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 08, 2014, 11:59:58 am

Since Otto won't address it I will. It's a bogus figure and he knows it which is why he refuses to talk about it. Of course Obama being the liar that he is had no problem saying it...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/

Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 08, 2014, 01:56:54 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on June 08, 2014, 11:59:58 am

Since Otto won't address it I will. It's a bogus figure and he knows it which is why he refuses to talk about it. Of course Obama being the liar that he is had no problem saying it...

Sorry, Keys, but that makes it too easy.  I do not want to examine anything other than what otto is offering as his source, even if you and I both know what the source is.  I do not want to examine it until otto coughs it up.  And I don't want to depend on you, or anyone else to critique it.

*I* want to review it and offer my own critique of it, with otto taking part, and with that review starting with the question of what constitutes the scientific method, something which is central to any "peer reviewed" literature, since the global warming alarmists regularly want to talk about such things... even when they will not allow it to happen.  (****, otto doesn't even have the balls to tell us what "literature" is involved so it can be reviewed.)

So, otto, I ask again, where is your source for your 97% figure?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 08, 2014, 03:15:28 pm

Oh, and otto has signed on today.

He must be searching for that link.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 08, 2014, 03:55:08 pm

Remember how the selling points for ObamaCare included the promise it would reduce the number of people using emergency rooms for primary health care, since people would have insurance and be able to go to their own doctor?  How it would reduce the patient loads in ER's?  Well, that was also bull -- http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2014/06/07/patients-flocking-emergency-rooms-obamacare/10181349/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 08, 2014, 04:24:09 pm

ObamaCare compared to WalMartCare: http://washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-walmart-health-plan-is-cheaper-offers-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 08, 2014, 06:10:53 pm

Obama's immigration policy-basically fling the doors wide open to everyone and anyone-is going to seriously harm this country. I just cannot believe this idiot...and I really believe this guy is seriously a idiot....is bypassing the legal process of entering the country and flooding this Country with immigrants that are undocumented, unknown and looking for handouts. We are being totally overrun and the idiot that calls himself a president couldn't care less about the repurcussions. We need a SECURE border with a PROCESS for LEGAL entrance into this Country and bozo the president would rather worry about whether gays can marry. This guy is doing so much damage to this land.....it's sickening....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 08, 2014, 09:02:40 pm

Quote from: davep on June 07, 2014, 04:31:21 pm

the thing that won WWII was our unlimited manpower and resources compared to Japan.  When our planes and pilots were shot down, we could replace them.  Being able to replace them with even better planes and pilots certainly made it easier to win, but in the end, it was the manpower and resources.

If you are looking for weapons only, the fourth certainly should be the A bomb.

 Yeah Dave thats the problem I have been trying to find out ,
 
 what EXACTLY did they say ?
 
 Alotta of the five star Generals and Admirals thought the atom bomb wasnt that big of a deal in that they thought they could have won it in conventional means.
 
 I get conflicting reports that Eisnhower said atom bomb and bazooka ,
 
 but this is what I am trying to find out about the facts.
 
 Theres got to be a news paper article out there somwhere or news reels.
 
 It EXISTS ... its just trying to find this piece of history.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 08, 2014, 09:12:15 pm

We certainly could have won the war against Japan without the atom bomb.  But it would have been more expensive in terms of American lives.

Sorry.  I don't know what the Generals might have said.  But when it came down to it, when the American carriers left Pearl Harbor before the Japanese planes arrived, Japan lost the war.

When MacArthur insisted upon "returning to the Philippines, is slowed things down and cost tens of thousands of American lives, but it was just a matter of time.

It just occurred to me that had I been Eisenhower, I would have said that our fourth weapon against Germany was Hitler.  He did more to ensure the defeat of Germany than any weapon we had.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 08, 2014, 11:03:32 pm

Quote from: davep on June 08, 2014, 09:12:15 pm

We certainly could have won the war against Japan without the atom bomb.  But it would have been more expensive in terms of American lives.

Sorry.  I don't know what the Generals might have said.  But when it came down to it, when the American carriers left Pearl Harbor before the Japanese planes arrived, Japan lost the war.

When MacArthur insisted upon "returning to the Philippines, is slowed things down and cost tens of thousands of American lives, but it was just a matter of time.

It just occurred to me that had I been Eisenhower, I would have said that our fourth weapon against Germany was Hitler. He did more to ensure the defeat of Germany than any weapon we had.

 Yeah I posted that to Duck some posts back.
 
 Heres another thing that gets overlooked : Pattons two pronged approach about tank warfare ...
 
 Patton thought out U.S. tank warfare before WWII ... he knew it was going to be in europe , therefore the stratagy was short barreled medium velocity cannons on medium armored but fast tanks that could move into tight streets in europe and swivel the turret around in those streets.
 
 And be the assault force for infantry taking out bunkers and pillboxes.
 
 The M4 Sherman was never meant to fight other tanks unless it was in their favor.
 
 The follow up was light armored very fast moving tanks with bigger cannons. Those would take on the other sides tanks.
 
 The M-10 was designed for that.
 
 But theres the question that the British and Russians already with combat experience posed to the American stratagy about tank battle ,
 
 what the hell happens when your M-4 doesnt have an M-10 to back it up when it meets a german tank already built for both roles ?
 
 The result was the M-46 of which only 200 were in europe by the end of the war in europe.
 
 We learned it too late what the Brits and Ruskies already knew and told us about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 09, 2014, 04:38:38 am

Hitler's aggressiveness killed him. Had he not gone east against Russia, we might be speaking a different language today. It certainly would have been a much different war if nothing else. He failed to capitalize on his most innovative weapon, the Messerschmitt Me 262, the world's first jet fighter. He put his armies in bad situations and prevented them from falling back and replenishing and rearming. He made bad tactical moves. He could have destroyed much of the British army in Dunkirk but they stopped allowing them to escape and live to fight another day.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on June 09, 2014, 04:53:05 am

I work at a hospital in the Nashville area.  We over the last several years have a slowly growing ER volume that was projected to go to about 77,000 visits this year.  Based on our census numbers for April and May - which aren't historically our busier months post flu season, those two months would target us to move right past 80,000+, with an expectation that we will now see over 90K annually from that point forward.

It has absolutely taxed our system.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 09, 2014, 01:41:07 pm

According to a recent report from the UN Environment Programme, sea level is rising in the Pacific around the Marshall's at a much higher rate than elsewhere in the world. The rate of rise between 1993 and 2009 was 12mm per year, compared with the global average of 3.2mm.

Homo - can you explain how the ocean can rise in one part more than it does on all parts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 09, 2014, 03:04:45 pm

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

LiveScience.com
By By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor
48 minutes ago

 
Antarctica is a land of ice. But dive below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and you'll find fire as well, in the form of subglacial volcanoes.

Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

This melting could significantly affect ice loss in the West Antarctic, an area that is losing ice quickly.

"It's not just the fact that there is melting water, and that water is coming out," Schroeder told Live Science. "It's how that affects the flow and stability of the ice." [Images: See an Antarctic Glacier Calve an Iceberg]

Antarctic heat

Researchers have long known that volcanoes lurk under the ice of West Antarctica. This is a seismically active region, where East and West Antarctica are rifting apart. In 2013, a team of scientists even found a new volcano beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers. However, the timing of this retreat is still in question, Schroeder said — it could take hundreds of years, or thousands. It's important to understand which, given that meltwater from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contributes directly to sea level rise.

Scientists use computer models to try to predict the future of the ice sheet, but their lack of understanding of subglacial geothermal energy has been a glaring gap in these models. Measuring geothermal activity under the ice sheet is so difficult that researchers usually just enter one, uniform estimate for the contributions of geothermal heat to melting, Schroeder said.

Of course, volcanism isn't uniform. Geothermal hotspots no doubt influence melting more in some areas than in others.

"It's the most complex thermal environment you might imagine," study co-author Don Blankenship, a geophysicist at UT Austin, said in a statement. "And then, you plop the most critical dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It's virtually impossible."

Hotspots melting

To unravel the complexity, the researchers built on a previous study they published in 2013 that mapped out the system of channels that flows beneath the Thwaites Glacier, a fast-flowing glacier that scientists say is vulnerable to global warming.

Using radar data from satellites in orbit, the researchers were able to figure out where these subglacial streams were too full to be explained by flow from upstream. The swollen streams revealed spots of unusually high melt, Schroeder said. Next, the researchers checked out the subglacial geology in the region and found that fast-melting spots were disproportionately clustered near confirmed West Antarctic volcanoes, suspected volcanoes or other presumed hotspots.

"There's a pattern of hotspots," Schroeder said. "One of them is next to Mount Takahe, which is a volcano that actually sticks out of the ice sheet."

The minimum average heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is 114 milliwatts per square meter (or per about 10 square feet) with some areas giving off 200 milliwatts per square meter or more, the researchers report today (June 9) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (A milliwatt is one-thousandth of a watt.) In comparison, Schroeder said, the average heat flow of the rest of the continents is 65 milliwatts per square meter.

"It's pretty hot by continental standards," he said.

The extra melt caused by subglacial volcanoes could lubricate the ice sheet from beneath, hastening its flow toward the sea, Schroeder said. To understand how much the volcanic melt contributes to this flow — and what that means for the future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — glaciologists and climate scientists will have to include the new, finer-grained findings in their models. Schroeder and his colleagues also plan to expand their study to other glaciers in the region.

"Anywhere in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is going to be a candidate for high melt areas," he said. "And we have radar data covering much of it."

Follow Stephanie Pappas on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 09, 2014, 03:07:41 pm

Looks like the ice melting in the Antacrtic isn't the result of Global Warming. Hmmmm now where is Oddo to dispute that

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 09, 2014, 03:43:16 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2014, 03:07:41 pm

Looks like the ice melting in the Antacrtic isn't the result of Global Warming. Hmmmm now where is Oddo to dispute that

Did you skip this part of the article?:

West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 09, 2014, 04:31:22 pm

Quote from: Cletus on June 09, 2014, 03:43:16 pm

Did you skip this part of the article?:

West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers.

Well is it Climate Change... or is it Global Warming?

Get it straight and get back to us.

Whichever it is, here is more evidence of it: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/06/07/dnr-warden-spots-icebergs-on-lake-superior/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 09, 2014, 07:03:38 pm

Quote from: Cletus on June 09, 2014, 03:43:16 pm

Did you skip this part of the article?:

West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers.

Irrelevant.  Antarctica is growing instead of diminishing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 09, 2014, 07:14:05 pm

I already posted a link earlier where NASA (Obama's Global Warming Pushing Department) showed that the ice was growing there.  It was losing in some areas but growing faster in others. 

Anyone who still buys into the man made global warming theory is either pushing an agenda or is being willfully ignorant of the facts.  Perhaps Cletus has finally found a religion he can get behind. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 09, 2014, 07:52:47 pm

The land ice is shrinking rapidly. The continent is getting smaller. This is a fact.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 09, 2014, 07:57:12 pm

Mark's blog:

http://investing.calsci.com/blog6-8-14.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 10, 2014, 02:14:21 am

 
 OK , Im having a party and all of you are invited ,
 
 once you get to the party .. you have to be naked.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 10, 2014, 12:12:23 pm

I'm already naked.  Why bother going to your party?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 10, 2014, 01:24:28 pm

Quote

Perhaps Cletus has finally found a religion he can get behind.   

Preach it, Peke

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 10, 2014, 02:07:06 pm

(http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-06-05-85818bb9_large.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 10, 2014, 02:09:12 pm

(http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-06-10-a91bf3f5_large.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 10, 2014, 02:13:27 pm

(http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-06-10-99418794_large.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 10, 2014, 02:27:44 pm

(http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/106/10626/1062674.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 10, 2014, 10:51:20 pm

It is a shame that the Tea Party is no longer a factor in this day and age.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 10, 2014, 11:10:58 pm

Did anyone see that coming? 

I always hoped that a regular guy can just speak the truth and win but never really believed it was possible.  200 thousand against over 5 million.  And he beat him going away. 

It will be interesting to see if the Republican old guard backs him now since he is the Republican candidate.  After all they always ask the tea party types to back their guy after a win. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 11, 2014, 12:11:11 am

Not gonna happen.  Look what they did to the one running for Biden's seat, and the woman in Nevada when they could have beaten what's his name.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 03:50:53 am

Quote from: davep on June 11, 2014, 12:11:11 am

Not gonna happen.  Look what they did to the one running for Biden's seat, and the woman in Nevada when they could have beaten what's his name.

Times change.  I suspect actions also will.  Or those doing the acting will be changed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 03:51:46 am

This sounds about right.  http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/10/only-5-percent-of-americans-trust-msnbc/

otto, I suppose, would be one of the 5%ers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 04:36:07 am

Anyone concerned about the flood of illegal child immigrants across the border
with Mexico might be interested in reading what the folks down in Central
America are seeing and hearing about U.S. policy right now.

Here is a report from the largest newspaper in Nicaragua:
http://elmundo.com.sv/prorrogan-suspension-de-deportacion-a-estudiantes

And here is one from the largest newspaper in Hondoras:
http://elmundo.com.sv/prorrogan-suspension-de-deportacion-a-estudiantes

If your Spanish is a bit rusty, or was never good enough to translate anything
to start with, the essence of the two reports is that if someone less than 18
enters the U.S. illegally, they will be allowed to stay, and the good people
in the United States will even help them adjust to being here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 11, 2014, 04:59:03 am

In Virginia, you don't register as a Rep or Dem. so you can vote in both primary's.  I'm sure that the Dems came out in droves to defeat Cantor. They know this is the best way to insure a Dem gaining that seat.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 11, 2014, 05:04:02 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/11/david-brat-reveals-what-hed-like-to-say-to-eric-cantor-following-stunning-upset-to-eric-cantor-throughout-the-entire-race/

Read the last couple of lines. This guy will be portrayed as a far right religious nut case. Serious victory for the Dems..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 09:20:13 am

Here ya go Sheldon




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on June 11, 2014, 09:22:50 am

Professor of Ethics and Economics?

He'll never fit in in DC

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 09:38:08 am

Where is water vapor boy...

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html)


"Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 09:49:41 am

T-baggers who espouse a fundamentalist libertarian view point don't belong anywhere near governance. They belong at conservative wingnut universities like liberty fo-college.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 03:21:07 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 09:49:41 am

T-baggers who espouse a fundamentalist libertarian view point don't belong anywhere near governance. They belong at conservative wingnut universities like liberty fo-college.

Without essentially responding to this by engaging in what would amount to little more than name-calling, let me ask the following for you, otto:

1) What is your definition of a "fundamentalist libertarian"?

2) And what is wrong with that viewpoint?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 03:33:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 09:20:13 am

Here ya go Sheldon
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus)

While I do appreciate you finally trying to offer something in response to my question for the ORIGINAL source for your 97% figure, that link, which appears to be dated June 5th of this year, certainly is not it, since you were spouting the 97% figure before June 5th.

So please try again.  There is no point whatsoever in my bothering to review that, since it is not the ORIGINAL source for the figure.

Look a bit harder, actually come up with the link to the real source (and other folks here have already posted links to folks who analyzed what is almost certainly the original source for your figure, so you really shouldn't have to work too hard to find it -- I can find it myself, but I want it to come from YOU so there is no question but that we are all looking at and critiquing the same "academic research), and we can then try to have an adult conversation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 11, 2014, 05:52:23 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/cia-heard-benghazi-attackers-using-state-dept-cell-phones-to-call-terrorist/

The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.

The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.


And also...

Stahl also contended that given his crew’s alert status and location, they could have reached Benghazi in time to have played a role in rescuing the victims of the assault, and ferrying them to safety in Germany, had they been asked to do so. “We were on a 45-day deployment to Ramstein air base,” he told Fox News. “And we were there basically to pick up priority missions, last-minute missions that needed to be accomplished.”

“You would've thought that we would have had a little bit more of an alert posture on 9/11,” Stahl added. “A hurried-up timeline probably would take us [an] hour-and-a-half to get off the ground and three hours and fifteen minutes to get down there. So we could've gone down there and gotten them easily.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 11, 2014, 06:41:28 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=98KwPioW9LQ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 07:08:39 pm

Quote

"please try again"

No wonder you got disbarred.

A new paper by GWPF's Richard Tol accidentally confirms the results of last year's 97% global warming consensus study


Idiot ex-lawyer, what would last year be?


So either bother yourself or try again fundamentalist libertarian idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 07:15:05 pm

Can somebody explain why conservatives (george will) think that their daughters like to have **** victim status?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 07:20:40 pm

Yah know, since our current NRA inspired culture of guns has taken America, does anyone have the exact time gun violence will over take car accidents deaths nationwide?

I think it is around February next year as long as school shootings remain constant at about one a week.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 07:25:53 pm

Water vapor and Earth's tilt dude peke


Just how is democracy in Iraq doing today?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 07:28:52 pm

And in regard to eric cantor...even his own district thought that he was an arrogant piece of crap.

Next up paul ryan.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 11, 2014, 08:22:09 pm

Homo babbles again.

By the way, Homo.  How is the "impeach Scott Walker" campaign going?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 11, 2014, 09:12:16 pm

Quote from: davep on June 10, 2014, 12:12:23 pm

I'm already naked.  Why bother going to your party?

 Were talkin hot bitchs dave.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 09:19:17 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 11, 2014, 05:52:23 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/cia-heard-benghazi-attackers-using-state-dept-cell-phones-to-call-terrorist/

The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.

The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.

And how many of those responsible for Benghazi, whether terrorists or otherwise, has the Obama administration tracked down and held responsible?  I was trying to remember the answer to that one when I heard Secretary of State John Kerry tell folks how no one should be concerned that those released from Gitmo might again take part in terrorism against the U.S. because the U.S. could promptly track them down and deal with them.  That was so reassuring to hear from him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 11, 2014, 09:23:50 pm

Ex-border agents: Immigrant flood 'orchestrated'
'We are not gullible enough to believe thousands came without aid and assistance'
Published: 5 hours ago
author-image by Bob Unruh 


An organization of former Border Patrol agents Wednesday charged that the federal government, under the administration of President Obama, is deliberately arranging for a flood of immigrant children to arrive in America for political purposes.

“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at risk for purely political purposes,” said the statement released by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers.

“Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States government,” the officers said.

“Anyone that has taken two six- to seven-year-old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States.”

Republicans are blaming Obama’s immigration policies for enticing the illegals, particularly the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program launched in 2012, which recently was renewed.

More than 33,000 have been caught in Texas alone over the last eight months, the report said, overwhelming Border Patrol capabilities.

A federal judge even concluded the White House “has simply chosen not to enforce … border security laws.”

FoxNews.com reported this week Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer calls the situation a “creation” of the federal government, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., assigned blame for the “calamity” to Obama.

Fox News reported it had obtained a memo from an official with Customs and Border Protection who said the current policies are serving as an incentive for illegal aliens to sneak into the U.S.

“If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the U.S., the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries,” said Ronald Vitiello, a deputy Border Patrol chief.

Officials say among Obama’s policies that are attracting illegals is his instructions for “deferred action” for young illegals. Recently, the federal government said it was hunting for lawyers to provide legal help to children who are in the U.S. illegally.

The White House is asking for $1.4 billion more for the illegal-alien children, which by some estimates will grow to 150,000 next year.

The former Border Patrol agents said the campaign is a “political deception,” and the responsibility rests with the political leaders who support “a path to citizenship, regularization or any other form of amnesty for illegal aliens before providing for full protections for national security (jobs and economy) and public safety (the right of the people to be secure in their property and person).”

The officers argue that the non-enforcement of immigration laws is “the next step in becoming a failed state.”

“Yes, our leaders are guilty. However, we are responsible because it is the American voter [who] has placed untrustworthy people in positions of power and kept them there when they have clearly demonstrated that they have violated that public trust.

“These successful con artists are well dressed, attractive and charming,” the statement said.

The officers even questioned whether “this heartless criminal exploitation of Central American infants and children [will] finally awaken Americans to the ruse being foisted upon them by their government, the media and other interested parties.”

“Has America lost her ability to stand up against the tyrants and do what is right rather than what is easy? Obviously, this administration thinks you are as corrupt as they are and will vote them back into office or these young children would not be streaming into America to tug at your hearts and empty your heads of reason,” the statement said.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest this week said the Federal Emergency Management Agency is leading an effort to respond to the illegal alien children arriving in the U.S. He said many are “escaping abuse or persecution” and are being sent to locations in Texas and Oklahoma.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 09:26:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 07:08:39 pm

No wonder you got disbarred.

A new paper by GWPF's Richard Tol accidentally confirms the results of last year's 97% global warming consensus study

Idiot ex-lawyer, what would last year be?

So either bother yourself or try again fundamentalist libertarian idiot.

So I take it you will not even try to provide a link to the original source of your nonsense 97% claim.

Probably a pretty good idea.  Cowardly.  Dishonest.  And essentially admitting that it would withstand examination even from a "fundamentalist libertarian idiot," but pretty much what we have all come to expect from you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 09:36:45 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 11, 2014, 07:20:40 pm

Yah know, since our current NRA inspired culture of guns has taken America, does anyone have the exact time gun violence will over take car accidents deaths nationwide?

I think it is around February next year as long as school shootings remain constant at about one a week.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380108/lying-about-school-shootings-charles-c-w-cooke

The Post is admirably clear that the map includes both colleges and schools, that it counts “any instance in which a firearm was discharged within a school building or on school grounds,” and that the data isn’t “limited to mass shootings like Newtown.” This point has also been made forcefully by Charles C. Johnson, who yesterday looked into each of the 74 incidents and noted that not only did some of them not take place on campuses but that “fewer than 7 of the 74 school shootings listed by #Everytown are mass shootings,” that one or more probably didn’t happen at all, that at least one was actually a case of self-defense, and that 32 could be classified as “school shootings” only if we are to twist the meaning of the term beyond all recognition....

The truth?

    National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

    Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Don’t want to take Pew’s word for it? The Obama administration’s own Department of Justice agrees:

    According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 09:39:26 pm

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/06/11/libertarians-versus-conservatives/

Libertarians versus conservatives
By: John Stossel   
6/11/2014 06:00 AM

Both libertarians and conservatives want to keep America safe. We differ on how best to do that. Most libertarians believe our attempts to create or support democracy around the world have made us new enemies, and done harm as well as good. We want less military spending.

Some conservatives respond to that by calling us isolationists, but we’re not. I want to participate in the world; I just don’t want to run it. I’m glad Americans trade with other countries — trade both goods and people. It’s great we sell foreigners our music, movies, ideas, etc. And through dealing with them, we also learn from what they do best.

On my TV show this week, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton will tell me why my libertarian skepticism about the importance of a “strong military presence” is “completely irrelevant to foreign policy decision-making.”

Bolton thinks it’s dangerous and provocative for America to appear militarily weak. He supported the Iraq War and says that if Iran were close to getting nuclear weapons, the U.S should attack. “I will go to my grave trying to prevent every new country we can find from getting nuclear weapons,” because if they do, “it’s going to be a very dangerous world.”

He criticizes Presidents Barack Obama’s and George W. Bush’s failed attempts at negotiation with Iran, “negotiation based on the delusion from the get-go that Iran was ever serious about potentially giving up its nuclear weapon program.”

That kind of talk makes Bolton sound like a hard-headed realist. Who wants to be naive like Bush or Obama? But hawks like Bolton ignore parts of reality, too.

They are quick and correct to point out the danger of Iran going nuclear. They are not as quick to talk about the fact that Iran has a population three times the size of Iraq’s — and the Iraq War wasn’t as smooth or short as then-Vice President Dick Cheney and others assured us it would be.

If it’s realistic to acknowledge that America has dangerous enemies, it’s also realistic to acknowledge that going to war is not always worth the loss of money and lives, and that it makes new enemies. War, like most government plans, tends not to work out as well as planners hoped.

I asked Bolton if he thought the Vietnam War was a good intervention. “Obviously, the way it played out, it was not,” he said, but, “it’s always easy after the fact to second-guess.”

Bolton also acknowledges that the Iraq War did not go well, but then adds, “Where mistakes were made was after the military campaign.” The U.S. was unprepared for the civil war that broke out. The U.S. also failed to turn utilities and other state-run companies in Iraq over to the private sector, maintaining poorly run monopolies on energy production and other essential services, often squandering billions of dollars.

It might be seen as a harsh lesson in the importance of planning for the aftermath of toppling a bad regime. But we libertarians wonder: Why assume government will do better next time?

Occasionally government acknowledges mistakes in domestic policy — but that doesn’t mean it then becomes more efficient. It usually just spends more to try, and fail, to fix the problem. It’s the nature of government. Politicians don’t face the competitive incentives that force other people to make hard decisions.

Candidate Obama garnered support by criticizing Bush for costing money and lives through a protracted stay in Iraq. But that didn’t stop Obama from putting more money and troops into Afghanistan.

In his first term alone, Obama spent about three times as much in Afghanistan as Bush did in two terms. Did we win hearts and minds? I don’t think so. The Taliban may still retake the country.

Our military should be used for defense, not to police the world.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 11, 2014, 09:43:52 pm

Our military should be used for defense, not to police the world.

Nor to police the citizens here in the United States

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 09:51:40 pm

davep, considering the discussion here some time ago about "assault weapons," and whether current firearms are so different from those of 225 years ago that the clear language of the 2nd Amendment really does not prohibit limitations, I thought you might find this interesting, particularly the video.

http://bearingarms.com/thomas-jeffersons-assault-rifle/?utm_source=BearingArms1_7&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BearingArms1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dZLeEUE940#t=301

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 11, 2014, 10:07:40 pm

 
 If North Korea was North of the Mexican Border ...
 
 How many immigrints ... would be immigrints?
 
 Or would they decide to build their own Country ?
 
 Just as the U.S.A. did ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 11, 2014, 10:13:45 pm

Jes I replied to your e-mail

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 10:25:04 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 11, 2014, 10:13:45 pm

Jes I replied to your e-mail

Good for you.... though I truly have no idea what you are talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 11, 2014, 11:01:55 pm

I want a strong military.  I do not want the military used all over the world for stupid ****.  If we were not going to keep a base in Iraq then it was idiotic to go there in the first place.

I wanted a strong base in Iraq to counter Iran.  We needed to be able to deliver pain if needed when they did stupid ****.  Instead we pulled out completely.  Absolutely moronic.

Afghanistan we should have killed Taliban and Al Qaeda with air power as much as possible.  If anyone  starts talking about hearts and minds you know the war is lost already.

Go total war or just use air and strategic strikes.  Don't put a big presence on the ground because you are just asking for casualties for nothing.   

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 11:18:32 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 11, 2014, 11:01:55 pm

I want a strong military.  I do not want the military used all over the world for stupid ****.  If we were not going to keep a base in Iraq then it was idiotic to go there in the first place.

I wanted a strong base in Iraq to counter Iran.  We needed to be able to deliver pain if needed when they did stupid ****.  Instead we pulled out completely.  Absolutely moronic.

Might it not also have been absolutely moronic for us to have gone into Iraq in the first place then, since anyone with any understanding of our system of government would know that neither presidents nor members of Congress are in office forever, meaning national policies change, and further since anyone with a knowledge of American history would know that this nation does not have a taste for what amount to endless war, or even a situation in which U.S. troops, while not being "at war" are endlessly involved in attacks on them and searching out "insurgents?"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 11, 2014, 11:28:20 pm

We are still in Germany and North Korea.

If we are gaining a strategic military base (which by the way we could have and should have demanded from Iraq) then I have no problem with removing a dictator that crosses us.

In Iraq we did not need to put soldiers in harms way any more then we do in NK.  We won, we had the base, we had them on their way to providing security for themselves.  Then Obama like the fucktard he is **** it all up.  We won that war and then gave the rewards to Iran. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 11, 2014, 11:38:18 pm

 
 Boomers. SLBM.
 
 How the **** far out do you want to play the game when AMERICANS are killed ? Because we can do it. We can level this planet.
 
 Anytime any President wants to push the button at the White House.
 
 Now everyone as President has that trigger and they havent pushed it yet.
 
 You better thank GOD that the elected leader has more sense then you do ...
 
 because I wouldnt trust any of you motherfuckers with anything.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 11, 2014, 11:45:24 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 09:51:40 pm

davep, considering the discussion here some time ago about "assault weapons," and whether current firearms are so different from those of 225 years ago that the clear language of the 2nd Amendment really does not prohibit limitations, I thought you might find this interesting, particularly the video.

Do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own and possess nuclear weapons?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 11:57:08 pm

If a private citizen can carry one, yes, I believe they should be allowed to own, possess, and CARRY one.  If the weapon is one which no human can carry, then it would appear that the 2nd Amendment might not apply.

But that is irrelevant to the question which was actually at issue in our earlier discussion.

Clearly, since that weapon carrying 22 rounds existed in 1780, 9 years before ratification of the 2nd Amendment, it is disingenuous for anyone to argue that government today should have the power to limit gun magazines to 6 or 7 or 12 or even 15 rounds because guns with that capacity did not exist in 1789.  They did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 11:59:37 pm

Oh, and if you don't like the idea of private citizens owning such weapons, the amendment process exists to allow states and voters to empower the federal government to enact such restrictions.

At the moment, it would not only appear that the 2nd Amendment might prohibit that, but that nothing else in the Constitution would have granted Congress the power to have enacted such restrictions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 12, 2014, 12:16:59 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 11, 2014, 11:28:20 pm

We are still in Germany and North Korea.

If we are gaining a strategic military base (which by the way we could have and should have demanded from Iraq) then I have no problem with removing a dictator that crosses us.

In Iraq we did not need to put soldiers in harms way any more then we do in NK.  We won, we had the base, we had them on their way to providing security for themselves.  Then Obama like the fucktard he is **** it all up.  We won that war and then gave the rewards to Iran. 

 Why are we anywhere when China controls us ?
 
 Look at your underwear.
 
 What war did we win when they have your job ?
 
 Theres a repeat of history here :
 
 SLAVES=SUGAR=RUM !
 
 YOU ... are just along for the ride ...
 
 until youre not needed and your children will take over.
 
 Until they are discarded too.
 
 Youre a punk in a SEA of punks.
 
 Your ARE are the casualty ... in what once yours and taken away.
 
 I own your childrens debt when they go to college ...
 
 AND THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT !!!
 
 YOU OWE ME MOTHERFUCKER


 [/color]All I had to do was get some laws changed ...
 
 and then I owned your mothefuckin asses.
 
 
 BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA !!
 
IM THE LAW !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 12, 2014, 01:05:46 am

 
 Gentlemen ,
 
 You do have to come to grips with which side of your ass is being played.
 
 And how many of you have a private jet ?
 
 This question has to be asked :
 
 How much money were you born into ?
 
 Be that as it may ... how come you dont have any more money then what you have been working all of your life for ?
 
 Surely with your years of labor you should have had a Rolls-Royce by now.
 
 How come you dont have a Rolls-Royce ?
 
 Did someone convince you thru the media that they should have a Roll-Royce and you shouldnt ?
 
 Did you buy into that ? What made you think they were better then you?
 
 Dont you as a human has as much rights as they do ?
 
 If your father died and left you 20 BILLION as the inheritance ...
 
 at what fuckin point in time ... does that inheritance ...
 
 give you a CONSIENSE?
 
 Theres an ART MUSEAM in Arkansas ... for children ...
 
 when there could have been children clothed ... fed ... nurtured ...
 
 just being treated like children ...theres an evil in the world ...
 
 and it doesnt know its evil. It just thinks thats the way things are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 12, 2014, 05:56:50 am

We are still in Germany and North Korea.

Yes we are still in Germany and ....NO...we aren't in North Korea. We are in SOUTH KOREA a free country

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 12, 2014, 11:16:33 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 11:57:08 pm

If a private citizen can carry one, yes, I believe they should be allowed to own, possess, and CARRY one.  If the weapon is one which no human can carry, then it would appear that the 2nd Amendment might not apply.

But that is irrelevant to the question which was actually at issue in our earlier discussion.

Hardly irrelevant, since it is pointless to have a discussion without spelling out the basic assumptions each person uses.

If you actually believe that private citizens should have the right to own and carry a nuclear weapon if it is portable enough, they we have nothing else to say, since I don't wish to argue with an insane person.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 12, 2014, 11:18:24 am

It certainly is difficult to live in the world that the politicians and jackiejokeman have built, but I suppose that it would probably be worse if Jackie had built it alone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 12, 2014, 08:43:06 pm

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t1.0-9/10359923_10103328805269400_8687341866999930955_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 12, 2014, 08:47:05 pm

Quote from: davep on June 12, 2014, 11:16:33 am

Hardly irrelevant, since it is pointless to have a discussion without spelling out the basic assumptions each person uses.

If you actually believe that private citizens should have the right to own and carry a nuclear weapon if it is portable enough, they we have nothing else to say, since I don't wish to argue with an insane person.

As I have made clear, davep, I believe that we need to either live with the 2nd Amendment, or use the process set out in the Constitution to amend it.

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 11, 2014, 11:59:37 pm

Oh, and if you don't like the idea of private citizens owning such weapons, the amendment process exists to allow states and voters to empower the federal government to enact such restrictions.

At the moment, it would not only appear that the 2nd Amendment might prohibit that, but that nothing else in the Constitution would have granted Congress the power to have enacted such restrictions.

Your contention would seem to be that such a belief is insane.  If that is the way you define insanity, I proudly embrace it for the purpose of such a discussion with you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on June 13, 2014, 07:08:17 am

I would rather leave the 2nd amendment alone.
Making the Uranium nearly impossible to get should be enough deterrent.
If they start updating the 2nd amendment they will slip all kinds of other changes in there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:07:28 am

Sheldon

You have to ask yourself, why has gun violence been the laggard in the overall drop in crime?

Additionally, just when did our Supreme Court rule that the 2nd Amendment was just a right to guns and drop the "well regulated" part?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 13, 2014, 09:11:43 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:07:28 am

Sheldon

You have to ask yourself, why has gun violence been the laggard in the overall drop in crime?

Additionally, just when did our Supreme Court rule that the 2nd Amendment was just a right to guns and drop the "well regulated" part?

"well regulated" does not have the same meaning today as it did when the 2nd amendment was crafted. It did not have the meaning of the govertment conrtolling it through regulation but rather in colonial times "well regulated" meant well supplied.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:12:49 am

Hah, to all the good olde folks on the right (who have never been right in regard to Iraq) has anyone asked the shrub if he now knows a Sunni from a Shiite or a Kurd?


Everyone who had a pulse predicted sectarian civil war after we invaded, but wingnuts...


Peke

How is your prediction of democracy rolling across the Middle East working out?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 13, 2014, 09:16:50 am

But wait...Joe Biden said Iraq was one of Obama's greatest acheivements.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-once-called-iraq-one-obamas-great-achievments_794909.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 13, 2014, 09:18:36 am

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/isis-terror-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-was-released-by-obama-from-camp-bucca-in-2009/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:28:45 am

Well regulated certainly did not mean well supplied in colonial times.

Consider this.

From Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

Quote

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. 

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Quote

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
        --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

They did not mean supply just any olde, racist, white, rural t-bagger redneck bastard.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 13, 2014, 09:38:37 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:28:45 am

They did not mean supply just any olde, racist, white, rural t-bagger redneck bastard.[/color]

ooo....I think I hit a nerve

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on June 13, 2014, 09:43:35 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:12:49 am

Hah, to all the good olde folks on the right (who have never been right in regard to Iraq) has anyone asked the shrub if he now knows a Sunni from a Shiite or a Kurd?

Everyone who had a pulse predicted sectarian civil war after we invaded, but wingnuts...

Peke

How is your prediction of democracy rolling across the Middle East working out?

Most of us "wingnuts" predicted if we pulled out too early or if we set up a timeline to pull out that the Taliban would just bide their time and then invade again.  I expect if you look back at the archives you will see many gave Obama flak when he started talking about setting a timeline knowing this would happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:43:55 am

You can't hit anything, much less a nerve.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:45:16 am

navi

Are you an idiot?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:48:44 am

One question for you naviwingnut


Did Dick Nixon pull out of the Vietnam War too early?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 13, 2014, 12:56:59 pm

Homo is right.  We pulled out of the Viet Nam war too early and lost it.  And in spite of that example, Obama failed to learn the lesson.  Which wasted the time, effort and lives it took to gain it in the first place.

I didn't think that Homo would be that perspicacious.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 01:21:33 pm

Tell everyone again davepbart,


When did the Sunni's and Shia think that we had it won? At what point in the conflict?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 13, 2014, 02:52:39 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:48:44 am

One question for you naviwingnut


Did Dick Nixon pull out of the Vietnam War too early?

Clearly your father pulled out too late

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 13, 2014, 04:11:45 pm

Amen

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 13, 2014, 04:17:03 pm

We hadn't won it.  That is why we needed to leave a force in country.  But Obama blew it by trying to satisfy all the Homos of the world.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 13, 2014, 05:20:35 pm

My dog ate my homework.....

http://news.yahoo.com/irs-computer-crashed-erased-lois-lerner-emails-203605784.html

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claimed Friday that it cannot produce Lois Lerner’s emails to and from the White House and other administration departments due to a supposed computer crash.

The IRS previously agreed to hand over all of the ex-IRS official’s emails from 2009 to 2011 to the House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Dave Camp. But the IRS claimed Friday that it has Lerner’s emails to and from other IRS officials but it cannot produce emails to and from the Treasury and Justice Departments, the Federal Election Commission, or Democratic offices.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 13, 2014, 05:31:39 pm

Imagine that...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 06:24:24 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 13, 2014, 09:12:49 am

Everyone who had a pulse predicted sectarian civil war after we invaded, but wingnuts...

Not Barrack.

In 2007 he predicted that U.S. troops could pull completely out and that things would be fine, about the same thing his administration predicted when it bungled the status of force agreement which force the U.S. to pull all troops out of Iraq.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 06:24:41 pm

Nothing like blatantly buying possible political connections. Chelsae Clinton's actual value as a correspondent is less than non-existent. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/chelsea-clinton-nbc-600-k-salary-107827.html It is a negative. This should be embarrassing to to everyone: NBC viewers; NBC executives; NBC employees; and the Clintons. Of those, the ones LEAST likely to actually feel any shame are the Clintons. They know no shame.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 06:58:35 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on June 13, 2014, 05:20:35 pm

My dog ate my homework.....

http://news.yahoo.com/irs-computer-crashed-erased-lois-lerner-emails-203605784.html

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claimed Friday that it cannot produce Lois Lerner’s emails to and from the White House and other administration departments due to a supposed computer crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyp9fh-u4w8

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 13, 2014, 07:41:23 pm

Paul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 - June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals.
 
There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a socialist/communist state. The first is the most important.
 
1 – Healthcare: "Control healthcare and you control the people”
 
2 – Poverty: “Increase the Poverty level as high as possible."  Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
 
3 – Debt: “Increase the national debt to an unsustainable level."  That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.
 
4 - Gun Control: “Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government." That way you are able to create a police state - total local control.
 
5 – Welfare: “Take control of every aspect of their lives" (Food, Livestock, Housing and Income)
 
6 – Education: “Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.”
 
7 – Religion: “Remove faith in God from the Government and school.”
 
8 - Class Warfare: “Divide the people into the wealthy against the poor. Racially divide." This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with full support of the voting poor.
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 07:44:24 pm

Quote from: packrat on June 13, 2014, 07:41:23 pm

Paul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 - June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals.
 
There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a socialist/communist state. The first is the most important.
 
1 – Healthcare: "Control healthcare and you control the people”
 
2 – Poverty: “Increase the Poverty level as high as possible."  Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
 
3 – Debt: “Increase the national debt to an unsustainable level."  That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.
 
4 - Gun Control: “Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government." That way you are able to create a police state - total local control.
 
5 – Welfare: “Take control of every aspect of their lives" (Food, Livestock, Housing and Income)
 
6 – Education: “Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.”
 
7 – Religion: “Remove faith in God from the Government and school.”
 
8 - Class Warfare: “Divide the people into the wealthy against the poor. Racially divide." This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with full support of the voting poor.

I have trouble believing those things appear in his book "Rules for Radicals," or in anything else Alinsky wrote.

Do you have a source for that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 13, 2014, 08:06:03 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/13/us-defense-department-studying-protesters-prep-mas/#ixzz34ZF7bglh

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 08:26:46 pm

Quote from: packrat on June 13, 2014, 08:06:03 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/13/us-defense-department-studying-protesters-prep-mas/#ixzz34ZF7bglh

The military conducts studies on a great many things.  It is not only not surprising they are studying for a situation such as this, it would be irresponsible for them to fail to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 13, 2014, 08:36:04 pm

Otto, Obama had victory in Iraq and has managed to squander it.  His administration was to stupid (or possibly did not want) a base in Iraq.

They had chances to help democracy in the mid east and fumbled every single time.  They seemed to either back the wrong side, not do anything and just generally **** the bed.  I have come to the conclusion that Obama either hates America and wants to destroy it or is the most incompetent fucktard to ever become POTUS.  At this point it really does not matter which it is.

He has been told for months that this was brewing in Iraq and he has ignored it.  He is still ignoring it.  On top of it he will not pull the Americans still in Iraq out because it would be politically embarrassing.  Sounds a lot like Benghazi.  It will end the same way also if he does not either pull them out or send help.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 08:53:38 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 13, 2014, 08:36:04 pm

Otto, Obama had victory in Iraq and has managed to squander it.  His administration was to stupid (or possibly did not want) a base in Iraq.

They had chances to help democracy in the mid east and fumbled every single time.  They seemed to either back the wrong side, not do anything and just generally **** the bed.  I have come to the conclusion that Obama either hates America and wants to destroy it or is the most incompetent fucktard to ever become POTUS.  At this point it really does not matter which it is.

He has been told for months that this was brewing in Iraq and he has ignored it.  He is still ignoring it.  On top of it he will not pull the Americans still in Iraq out because it would be politically embarrassing.  Sounds a lot like Benghazi.  It will end the same way also if he does not either pull them out or send help.

pekin, while I generally agree with you on this, there is at least one other perfectly reasonable possibility, and that is that no matter what Obama would have done, or that McCain or Romney would have done had they been elected, the outcome would have played out more or less the same, and that the real mistake was the one made by the nation in 2001 and 2002 to go into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place.  If THAT is actually the case, are you also contending that Bush "either hates America and wants to destroy it or is the most incompetent fucktard to ever become POTUS"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 08:59:18 pm

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10458342_10152519988165432_4032817154271619738_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 13, 2014, 10:40:13 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 08:26:46 pm

The military conducts studies on a great many things.  It is not only not surprising they are studying for a situation such as this, it would be irresponsible for them to fail to do so.

The Air Force War College was studying similar things when I was there in 1972.  As Jes said, they just about have to.  I am sure they also have contingency plans on what to do if Canada invades us or if Aliens from outer space invade Madison Wisconsin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 13, 2014, 10:55:30 pm

Bush was incompetent and a fucktard on many things but not nearly as many as Obama.

In hindsight we should have never gone into Iraq.  I was for it at the time but I thought we were actually going to not only win but have a strong base there to have some influence on Iran.  We won that war then left.  So it was for absolutely nothing.

Obama pissed the victory away.  He should pull everyone out of Afghanistan immediately.  If you are not going to stay the course then get them out so no more Americans die. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 14, 2014, 12:01:47 am

Quote from: davep on June 13, 2014, 10:40:13 pm

The Air Force War College was studying similar things when I was there in 1972.  As Jes said, they just about have to.  I am sure they also have contingency plans on what to do if Canada invades us or if Aliens from outer space invade Madison Wisconsin.

Oddo is about as "Alien" as it gets.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 03:37:37 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 13, 2014, 10:55:30 pm

Obama pissed the victory away.  He should pull everyone out of Afghanistan immediately.  If you are not going to stay the course then get them out so no more Americans die. 

Well, I would only quibble over the "immediately" part.  The anti-west folks in Iraq are already getting troubling quantities of arms and equipment we left for the Iraqi army, we should at least take care to pack up and ship back what we have in Afghanistan instead of leaving that for the Taliban to use in the future.

This is as bad as the final days in Vietnam.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 14, 2014, 08:43:18 am

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lerner-emails-missing-IRS/2014/06/13/id/577011/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1573208_06142014&promo_code=2npkgcjq

Outrage as IRS Admits Huge Trove of Lerner's Emails Is Missing

Yeah strange isn't it. The lies out of this administration are like water flowing over Niagara Falls.
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 08:49:06 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 14, 2014, 08:43:18 am

Yeah strange isn't it. The lies out of this administration are like water flowing over Niagara Falls.

racist tea bagger.  This is nothing but a faux controversy from faux news.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 09:15:28 am

Quote from: Cletus on June 09, 2014, 03:43:16 pm

Did you skip this part of the article?:

West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers.

While it is accurate to point out that the ARTICLE said that, that is not close to being the same thing as that conclusion having been in the research study on which the article was based.

Here is a link to the study itself in pdf form, and while I may have missed it, I don't see anything in the study which attributed ANY of the Antarctic ice melt to Global Warming: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1405184111.full.pdf+html?sid=5859c342-ec49-4de6-a82a-9b2c2c826b3e

I am certain, Cletus, that if it is in fact there, you will eagerly find the exact language and post it here, along with the page and column where that language would be found.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 14, 2014, 09:28:46 am

Peke

Maybe just viewing everything thru your knee-jerk conservative just makes you wrong. You should really try a more fact based opinion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-who-lost-iraq-the-iraqis-did-with-an-assist-from-george-w-bush/2014/06/12/35c5a418-f25c-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-who-lost-iraq-the-iraqis-did-with-an-assist-from-george-w-bush/2014/06/12/35c5a418-f25c-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop)

"If the Bush administration deserves a fair share of blame for “losing Iraq,” what about the Obama administration and its decision to withdraw American forces from the country by the end of 2011? I would have preferred to see a small American force in Iraq to try to prevent the country’s collapse. But let’s remember why this force is not there. Maliki refused to provide the guarantees that every other country in the world that hosts U.S. forces offers. Some commentators have blamed the Obama administration for negotiating badly or halfheartedly and perhaps this is true. But here’s what a senior Iraqi politician told me in the days when the U.S. withdrawal was being discussed: “It will not happen. Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them.” He reminded me that Maliki spent 24 years in exile, most of them in Tehran and Damascus, and his party was funded by Iran for most of its existence. And in fact, Maliki’s government has followed policies that have been pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian."

Disprove any of that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 09:49:18 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 14, 2014, 09:28:46 am

Peke

Maybe just viewing everything thru your knee-jerk conservative just makes you wrong. You should really try a more fact based opinion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-who-lost-iraq-the-iraqis-did-with-an-assist-from-george-w-bush/2014/06/12/35c5a418-f25c-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-who-lost-iraq-the-iraqis-did-with-an-assist-from-george-w-bush/2014/06/12/35c5a418-f25c-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop)

"If the Bush administration deserves a fair share of blame for “losing Iraq,” what about the Obama administration and its decision to withdraw American forces from the country by the end of 2011? I would have preferred to see a small American force in Iraq to try to prevent the country’s collapse. But let’s remember why this force is not there. Maliki refused to provide the guarantees that every other country in the world that hosts U.S. forces offers. Some commentators have blamed the Obama administration for negotiating badly or halfheartedly and perhaps this is true. But here’s what a senior Iraqi politician told me in the days when the U.S. withdrawal was being discussed: “It will not happen. Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them.” He reminded me that Maliki spent 24 years in exile, most of them in Tehran and Damascus, and his party was funded by Iran for most of its existence. And in fact, Maliki’s government has followed policies that have been pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian."

Disprove any of that.

Tell us what you consider proof before anyone bothers to try.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 14, 2014, 09:57:26 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 08:49:06 am

racist tea bagger.  This is nothing but a faux controversy from faux news.

So Jes Beard and Oddo are one in the same or Oddo stole Jes's identity

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 14, 2014, 10:59:48 am

Sarcasm doesn't always translate well on message boards.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 14, 2014, 11:11:12 am

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-obama-lost-iraq-2014-6

"We had it won," McCain said. "Gen. [David] Petraeus had the conflict won, thanks to the surge. If we had left a residual force behind, we would not be facing the crisis we are today. Those are fundamental facts ... The fact is, we had the conflict won. We had a stable government ... But the president wanted out, and now, we are paying a very heavy price. And I predicted it in 2011."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 14, 2014, 11:20:00 am

Also my nephew was stationed in Iraq near the end.  He is a medic and spent most of his time treating Iraqi children (wellness type care) and US soldiers (for sports related injuries).

The war was won in Iraq. 

Both Bush and Obama have made mistakes in Iraq but the war was lost on Obama's watch.  At some point blaming Bush no longer works.  We are long past that point...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 11:57:07 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 14, 2014, 10:59:48 am

Sarcasm doesn't always translate well on message boards.

And some folks are simply not capable of detecting sarcasm.

But I thought I imitated otto pretty well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 14, 2014, 12:10:09 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 14, 2014, 12:01:47 am

Oddo is about as "Alien" as it gets.

Hence, the contingency plan.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 14, 2014, 12:15:01 pm

Why do people assume that Obama is lying when he says that he lost the Emails?  No one questioned it when Nixon said he lost the 19 minutes of recording.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 14, 2014, 03:05:34 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 13, 2014, 08:59:18 pm

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10458342_10152519988165432_4032817154271619738_n.jpg)

 Jes,
 
I'm Grokking on that.  8)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 14, 2014, 03:10:22 pm

Quote from: davep on June 14, 2014, 12:15:01 pm

Why do people assume that Obama is lying when he says that he lost the Emails?  No one questioned it when Nixon said he lost the 19 minutes of recording.

 Wasnt that the big deal at the time about the missing 18 minutes ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 14, 2014, 03:17:26 pm

Gee.  Then perhaps I was being sarcastic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 14, 2014, 03:45:32 pm

Quote from: davep on June 14, 2014, 03:17:26 pm

Gee.  Then perhaps I was being sarcastic.

 No. This is sarcasm ... O.J. Simpson was found innocent of murder.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 14, 2014, 06:27:27 pm

If this administration is not  tech savvy enough to backup emails then is now wonder they screwed up the Obamacare website so badly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 06:56:04 pm

Quote from: davep on June 14, 2014, 03:17:26 pm

Gee.  Then perhaps I was being sarcastic.

You were being sarcastic.... JJ was just being incoherent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 06:58:08 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on June 14, 2014, 06:27:27 pm

If this administration is not  tech savvy enough to backup emails then is now wonder they screwed up the Obamacare website so badly.

Actually, they would have to have at least a few people quite tech savy to avoid it having been backed up somewhere.  And then there are those massive data banks the NSA maintains to intercept ALL email.

It would be hilarious to see this administration brought down by its own illegal conduct proving other illegal conduct.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 14, 2014, 07:51:03 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 06:56:04 pm

You were being sarcastic.... JJ was just being incoherent.

 This is where two posters team up against one.
 
 Or at least one is trying to get the other on his side in a snide.
 
 Now whats going to be intersting here is if one falls for being the others ****.
 
 So far this hasnt happened ... but what both love is licking cum off JJ's enormous stud pole.
 
 Oh sure you can talk about politics here ... but you know what you want.
 
 JJ ... and enormus and licking , JJ closes his eyes and thinks of women.
 
 Y'wanna know why this is funny ? Because you have a lawn to mow ,
 
 and this forum is the relief from that.
 
 JJ is the relief for you. You missed a cum drop there sport , lick that up.
 
 Whats gauranteed is none of my **** will ever answer this post ,
 
 because that would mean you are my ****.
 
 So I can get away with anything. But let me ask you this ...
 
 why DONT you own a Rolls-Royce ?
 
 Who took the money you earned and kept it for themselves ?
 
 If you dont get that ... if you think it was all about a credit card instead of a real raise for your labor ...then come back to JJ's ****.
 
 Because you sure know how to suck.
 
 And I swear to GOD you'll pat yourself on the back and defend the PRICKS that stole your money.
 
 Because you are really that stupid.
 
 Hey ... I'll send your kid overseas to fight , and you'll **** endorse it while I'm on my yacht.
 
 I OWN YOU.
 
Do you know why  ? Because you let me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 14, 2014, 10:48:25 pm

I agree that if the NSA has the e-mails and produces them it would be awesome!  However the NSA is controlled by Obama, as is the IRS...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2014, 11:06:14 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 14, 2014, 10:48:25 pm

I agree that if the NSA has the e-mails and produces them it would be awesome!  However the NSA is controlled by Obama, as is the IRS...

I wonder if Snowden right now is combing thru what he still has....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2014, 12:20:12 am

Quote from: Keysbear on June 14, 2014, 06:27:27 pm

If this administration is not  tech savvy enough to backup emails then is now wonder they screwed up the Obamacare website so badly.

I don't know what everyone is worried about.  The DHS keeps copies of all of everyone's Emails.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 08:21:59 am

Putin is rolling tanks into Ukraine and ISIS is taking over Syria and Iraq and what's our President doing? Absolutely nothing. 'We're going to take days, weeks to consider what to do.' IOW, I'm not going to do squat now, too busy golfing and vacationing, again. This is basically Al Qaeda on the move in military formations and columns and Obama is vacationing. Please someone take the keys away from this idiot! We don't need a lost community organizer doing nothing!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 08:27:29 am

This President, so incredibly naive and confused and lost, made the ridiculous comment this week that "The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed than it's ever been. It is more educated than it's ever been."
He is clueless!! Just a couple days past making those ridiculous comments, ISIS takes over half of Syria and darned near half of Iraq. And now he's backpedaling and completely lost on what to do. Is anyone awake in this administration?!??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2014, 09:30:29 am

http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/16/why-the-hell-is-the-department-of-agricu?fb_action_ids=821608911185598&fb_action_types=og.likes


Why the Hell is the Department of Agriculture Buying Submachine Guns?
Matt Welch|May. 16, 2014 11:52 am

(http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/_external/2014_05/inspecting-the-living-****-out.jpg?h=174&w=290)
Inspecting the living **** out of some milk.

You may have seen this equipment order going around:

    May 07, 2014 2:03 pm
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, located in Washington, DC, pursuant to the authority of FAR Part 13, has a requirement for the commerical acquisition of submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burts trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe or folding, magazine - 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.

Bolding mine, to emphasize OMG WHY ARE WE MILITARIZING THE LETTUCE INSPECTORS?

This story has mostly drawn attention from the journalistic right: Breitbart.com's Big Government, The Drudge Report, Washington Times, Examiner.com, Guns Save Lives, Personal Liberty Digest, American Thinker, and so on. Last week on The Independents, we had two different Republicans—Rep. Thomas Massie (Kentucky) and Rep. Chris Stewart (Utah)—come on to bemoan the militarization of federal agencies. They are right to do so. But it's equally true that the GOP is heavily responsible for the arming of the executive branch in the first place, and has in its hands the power to change the bad underlying legislation.

OIGs weren't always in the submachine business. The Inspector General Act of 1978 was enacted not so that armed federal agents could kick in doors of raw milk farmers before dawn, but rather (in the words of the Inspector General inside the General Services Administration),
    to detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and violations of law while promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the Federal Government.
Italics mine, to illustrate the sour irony of it all.

So how did an internal government watchdog turn into an external projection of U.S. power against its own citizens? Because of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which amended the IG Act to grant inspectors "full law enforcement authority to carry firearms, make arrests and execute search warrants." The law was sponsored by then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), passed with a heavily Republican majority (207-10 in favor, versus 88-110 among Democrats), passed overwhelmingly in the Senate (90-9, with no Republicans voting against), and then signed into law by President George W. Bush. The blunt truth is that after 9/11, a vast majority of elected conservatives want to arm the bejeebus out of the feds, with little or no deliberation about long-term consequences.

If Republicans now belatedly loathe the creation of dozens of new police units within the federal government, here is what they can do about it: Draft a bill reversing the 2002 amendment to the IG Act, and then pass it.

According to Politico,

    USDA responded to POLITICO by explaining that there are more than 100 agents employed by the law enforcement division of the department’s Office of the Inspector General who carry such weapons because they are involved in the investigation of criminal activities, including fraud, theft of government property, bribery, extortion, smuggling and assaults on employees. From fiscal 2012 through March 2014, OIG investigations pertaining to USDA operations have netted more than 2,000 indictments, 1,350 convictions and over $460 million in monetary results, the OIG told POLITICO in a subsequent email.

More:

    USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe says the guns are needed by the more than 100 agents employed by the law-enforcement division of the department’s Office of the Inspector General. They’ve carried machine guns for 20 years, she notes. USDA OIG officers “are placed in very dangerous law enforcement situations,” another USDA official told POLITICO. “They make arrests, they serve subpoenas and they engage in undercover operations.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2014, 09:33:09 am

Quote from: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 08:27:29 am

This President, so incredibly naive and confused and lost, made the ridiculous comment this week that "The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed than it's ever been. It is more educated than it's ever been."
He is clueless!!

You are focusing on one location and on one day, and on only one of the claims.  His claims certainly are debatable, but those are a long way from unreasonable claims.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2014, 09:39:28 am

Quote from: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 08:21:59 am

Putin is rolling tanks into Ukraine and ISIS is taking over Syria and Iraq and what's our President doing? Absolutely nothing. 'We're going to take days, weeks to consider what to do.' IOW, I'm not going to do squat now, too busy golfing and vacationing, again. This is basically Al Qaeda on the move in military formations and columns and Obama is vacationing. Please someone take the keys away from this idiot! We don't need a lost community organizer doing nothing!

What would you have him do?

This is a civil war.  Have Obama's policies and actions contributed to it?

Certainly.  Just as the actions of the prior administration led to the situation which led to the conditions producing those policies and actions.  And the policies and actions of the administration before that led to the situation which led to the conditions producing THOSE policies and actions.  You can trace things back to George Washington's administration if you want, or back to Cain and Able if you are so inclined.

None of the finger-pointing changes the current situation or provides new options.

Of CURRENT available options, what would you do, and would you be able to get it by Congress and the American people?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 12:23:11 pm

Nah, Jessy, I'd just have him go on vacation.....he's less trouble that way as I'm sure he'd make the situation worse if he were involved......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 12:25:49 pm

The fact of the matter is he'll throw a few drones at tiny encampments of Islamic terrorists and kill one,two but when a whole invading column of them come storming into Iraq and taking over, he goes on vacation somewhere for the thirty second time this year. Good timing..... ::)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 12:31:00 pm

This is what he SHOULD be doing!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/08/article-2623330-1DAB230D00000578-622_634x454.jpg)
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623330/Is-Inter-Stellar-Assistance-Force-Mysterious-UFO-filmed-blitzing-Taliban-base-Afghanistan.html#v-3546130209001   (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623330/Is-Inter-Stellar-Assistance-Force-Mysterious-UFO-filmed-blitzing-Taliban-base-Afghanistan.html#v-3546130209001)




Think this is what he's doing....


(http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/prancercise-celebrity-endorsement.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2014, 02:48:59 pm

Quote from: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 12:23:11 pm

I'd just have him go on vacation.....he's less trouble that way as I'm sure he'd make the situation worse if he were involved......

That is true of government in general most of the time, but if your next post actually represents your view, who is it that you believe he should be blowing up?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2014, 03:12:28 pm

Canada

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 04:55:51 pm

Well, Canada, yea....how bout Al Qaeda militants? ISIS? I remember vividly a column of Iraqis that were violently disassembled when escaping Kuwait after attacking them in the Gulf War and there was a nicely lined up repeat version of ISIS going into Iraq that could represent a replay of the exact thing had a drone or three or a A10 Thunderbolt lined up with them. Boom! Bye bye ISIS or at least a sizeable chunk of em...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 15, 2014, 06:10:30 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 14, 2014, 10:48:25 pm

I agree that if the NSA has the e-mails and produces them it would be awesome!  However the NSA is controlled by Obama, as is the IRS...

Lots of luck with that.

http://preservefreedom.org/nsa-ignores-court-order-deletes-evidence-of-wrongdoing/?utm_source=140615PF2&utm_campaign=140615PF2

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2014, 07:12:06 pm

Quote from: Sportster on June 15, 2014, 04:55:51 pm

Well, Canada, yea....how bout Al Qaeda militants? ISIS? I remember vividly a column of Iraqis that were violently disassembled when escaping Kuwait after attacking them in the Gulf War and there was a nicely lined up repeat version of ISIS going into Iraq that could represent a replay of the exact thing had a drone or three or a A10 Thunderbolt lined up with them. Boom! Bye bye ISIS or at least a sizeable chunk of em...

The problem with that is that there are tens of thousands of refugees that are going south towards Bagdad and are intermingled with ISIS.  There is no way to differentiate the civilians from ISIS.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2014, 07:49:18 pm

Quote from: davep on June 15, 2014, 07:12:06 pm

The problem with that is that there are tens of thousands of refugees that are going south towards Bagdad and are intermingled with ISIS.  There is no way to differentiate the civilians from ISIS.

It is actually worse than that.  For many Moslems in the Arab world, every Arab Moslem we kill simply becomes another martyr, and makes it that much easier for ISIS or others like them to recruit more members wanting not just to kill some of their neighbors in ancient tribal wars, but to attack the U.S. and kill Americans.  And for us to go in there and kill them when they are not (at the moment) directly attacking us, would almost certainly only make it that much worse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2014, 07:55:54 pm

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/poverty-305-americans-18-64-lbj-declared-war-poverty

The percentage of 18- to 64-year olds who live below the poverty level has increased 30.5% since 1966, two years after Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty, according to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

(http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large/images/Poverty%20Since%20War%20on%20Poverty%281%29.jpg)

When looking at all ages, the House Budget Committee Report shows that, since 1965, the poverty rate decreased from 17.3%  to 15%.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 15, 2014, 10:05:36 pm

Mark's blog:

http://investing.calsci.com/blog6-15-14.html

Shocking.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 16, 2014, 01:27:38 am

 
 Everything in history today started in 1979 when the U.S.S.R. invaded ... who?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 16, 2014, 08:32:34 am

When ISIS takes control over half of Iraq and possibly more along with chunks of Syria and then begins to populate and export terror to the US like what happened with Al Qaeda and 9/11, the tune about fighting them and them, us will change......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 16, 2014, 03:47:29 pm

Yes, and when flying monkeys descend from the sky, I'll start looking out for witches.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 16, 2014, 03:53:04 pm

Of COURSE Al Qaeda isn't a threat to us.....welcome to the world, Mr. Clinton

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 16, 2014, 04:35:17 pm

Hey, Sportster, which was a GREATER threat to the U.S. --

1) The terrorist attacks which were are STILL being attempted, or

2) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Which has cost more American lives and more money?

Which is more likely to bring even more of the same?

Not everything in life as easy solutions, but when you are able to tally up rather clear costs and balance one set of ugly costs against another set of ugly costs, wouldn't it be a good idea to pursue the course of action which is least costly?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on June 16, 2014, 04:59:22 pm

sometimes I wonder if we aren't better off bringing them all home and working harder on securing our borders.

If we get attacked again carpet bomb each of the heathen's hometown and any training facilities we are aware of and get out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 16, 2014, 09:50:23 pm

Quote from: navigator on June 16, 2014, 04:59:22 pm

sometimes I wonder if we aren't better off bringing them all home and working harder on securing our borders.

If we get attacked again carpet bomb each of the heathen's hometown and any training facilities we are aware of and get out.

And if the "heathen's hometown" also happened to be your hometown?????  Carpet bomb you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 16, 2014, 10:22:28 pm

Who would god kill.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 17, 2014, 06:22:24 am

If you're asking which is better, to fight them on their soil or ours, I'll pick theirs any day....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 17, 2014, 07:12:30 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 16, 2014, 10:22:28 pm

Who would god kill.

Only teabaggers, leave the Muslims terrorists alone

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 17, 2014, 07:40:24 am

They just need NASA to explain their accomplishments in math for their self esteem, along with a few more apologies and love from our president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 17, 2014, 08:21:54 am

See that Sheldon

Even wasfulofit knows how to spell Muslims.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 17, 2014, 03:42:23 pm

Homo is giving spelling lessons?  Remember when he used to post his own thoughts, rather than the current copy and paste?  His third grade University of Wisconsin PS 137 really showed itself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 17, 2014, 03:44:59 pm

ahhh....the "**** happens" defense.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/lois-lerner-irs-hard-drive-crash-sometimes-stuff-j/



Lois G. Lerner, the employee at the center of the IRS tea party targeting scandal, wanted to recover files from her computer hard drive after it crashed in 2011, but when told it was impossible, she took a philosophical view.

“Sometimes stuff just happens,” she said in a 2011 email to the IRS tech staff that tried to recover documents from the hard drive

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on June 17, 2014, 03:54:25 pm

at the little pdiddly software company I am at our emails and hard drives get backed up. Remote employees like myself have carbonite to make sure we don't lose any sensitive info.

I would call BS on losing the emails.

I would expect that the govt has triple redundancy in place to prevent loss of data.

They can find an email on an erased hard drive they dig up out of the ocean but yet they can't find one backed up on one of their servers....BS.

They lose what they want to lose and make up what they want to find.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2014, 05:57:40 pm

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/1016239_663743330347822_143983363_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2014, 06:02:51 pm

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/10445554_794483980572641_5356485605053300381_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2014, 06:09:53 pm

Quote from: davep on June 17, 2014, 03:42:23 pm

Homo is giving spelling lessons?  Remember when he used to post his own thoughts, rather than the current copy and paste?  His third grade University of Wisconsin PS 137 really showed itself.

And, not surprisingly, otto gets things wrong when he tries to give a spelling lesson.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Moslem

Mos·lem  (mzlm, ms-)
n.
Variant of Muslim.
[Arabic muslim; see Muslim.]
Moslem adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2014, 06:11:43 pm

Quote from: navigator on June 17, 2014, 03:54:25 pm

I would call BS on losing the emails.

I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of Americans are making the very same call.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 17, 2014, 06:45:13 pm

 
 Boy that Islam is that a crackup religion or what ?
 
 It takes up all of our time and it never stops.
 
 Imagine if we just let Islam do what Islam wants to do ...
 
 kill each other. Wouldnt that solve alot of the worlds problems ?
 
 Christians,Hindus,Jews,Budhists, they all get along great with each other.
 
 Its when they bump up against Islam ... thats when the fun begins.
 
 Who are we to interfere with a family squabble ?
 
 Let em have at it. It makes great local 6:00 PM news.
 
 The only real Islam threat is Sub-Saharan Africa ... were they are punking on non-Islam people. Those you gotta take care of.
 
 What Islam is doing to Islam inside of their borders ...
 
 is none of our **** business.
 
 They dont know how to play and get along well with others ... oh well ,
 
 FUCKEM.
 
 Y'know ... you had to have your nose up their ass in the past because of
 
 OIL ... but those rules have been changed.
 
 Now you dont even have to give a **** about what they do ...
 
 unless you think you are the Country that is in charge of solving all of the other Countrys problems.
 
 And who the **** voted you in to be boss ? Yourself ? Why ?
 
 Youve got 20+ MILLION AMERICANS looking for full time work ...
 
 while allowing more immigrints into this Country then the rest of the world COMBINED allows immigrints into all Countrys.
 
 Theres a certain sense of common sense prioritys that must be adhered to:
 
 YOU LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN FIRST ......................................
 
 Then ... once thats been solved ...
 
 you can go rescue the rest of the motherfuckin ungratful PLANET.
 
 Theres enough AMERICANS BURIED overseas to prove we've done it more then once. The graveyards are there.
 
 Its time we took care of this COUNTRY. AND **** THE WORLD !!
 
 FTW!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 17, 2014, 07:35:07 pm

"The only real Islam threat is Sub-Saharan Africa ... were they are punking on non-Islam people. Those you gotta take care of."

They are doing the same thing to non-Islam people in Iraq.  What makes sub-Saharan Africa special?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 17, 2014, 07:55:14 pm

Quote from: davep on June 17, 2014, 07:35:07 pm

"The only real Islam threat is Sub-Saharan Africa ... were they are punking on non-Islam people. Those you gotta take care of."

They are doing the same thing to non-Islam people in Iraq.  What makes sub-Saharan Africa special?

Its their territory in Iraq and if they want to chase out non muslims then they pay the piper, because everyone else will shun them.
 
 Sub-Saharan Africa is where you dont want it to spread to.
 
 Islam is and will be a theology at war with itself. The idea is to keep it from spreading to non Islam areas.
 
 Kidnapping Christian girls is letting Islam spread and you see the results.
 
 The insanity is drawing in other religions that want no part of Islams quarrel with itself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 17, 2014, 11:25:18 pm

Hey chickenhawks


Anytime congress wants to declare war (again) in Iraq you can just hold s vote.


Put it out there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 17, 2014, 11:28:10 pm

Ya know, since you were so right the first time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 17, 2014, 11:57:43 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 17, 2014, 11:28:10 pm

Ya know, since you were so right the first time.

 Otto,
 
 Its a dead issue unless you want to relive the past.
 
 Now you would have to ask yourself ... whats happening now ?
 
 Now heres whats going to happen next :
 
 You are going to milk this for any political gain for your side.
 
 The other side is going to milk this for any political gain for their side.
 
 The end result is : Paralysis in goverment.
 
 Adults in charge of this Country behaving like name calling children.
 
 Remember this :
 
 When your pet bird sees you reading a newspaper,
 
 does he wonder why youre just sitting there staring at his carpet?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 18, 2014, 06:27:45 am

The Collapsing Obama Doctrine
By Dick Cheney And Liz Cheney
 

Updated June 17, 2014 7:34 p.m. ET
 
As the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threaten Baghdad, thousands of slaughtered Iraqis in their wake, it is worth recalling a few of President Obama's past statements about ISIS and al Qaeda. "If a J.V. team puts on Lakers' uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant" (January 2014). "[C]ore al Qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated" (August 2013). "So, let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding" (September 2011).
 
Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is "ending" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as though wishing made it so. His rhetoric has now come crashing into reality. Watching the black-clad ISIS jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America's enemies are not "decimated." They are emboldened and on the march.

The fall of the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Tikrit, Mosul and Tel Afar, and the establishment of terrorist safe havens across a large swath of the Arab world, present a strategic threat to the security of the United States. Mr. Obama's actions—before and after ISIS's recent advances in Iraq—have the effect of increasing that threat.

On a trip to the Middle East this spring, we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel, "Can you please explain what your president is doing?" "Why is he walking away?" "Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard fought gains you secured in Iraq?" "Why is he abandoning your friends?" "Why is he doing deals with your enemies?"
 
In one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, "They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don't the Americans care?"
 
Our president doesn't seem to. Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group and Mr. Obama is talking climate change. Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing. He seems blithely unaware, or indifferent to the fact, that a resurgent al Qaeda presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America.
 
When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge. Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
 
The tragedy unfolding in Iraq today is only part of the story. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent across the globe. According to a recent Rand study, between 2010 and 2013, there was a 58% increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist terror groups around the world. During that same period, the number of terrorists doubled.
 
In the face of this threat, Mr. Obama is busy ushering America's adversaries into positions of power in the Middle East. First it was the Russians in Syria. Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror.
 
This president is willfully blind to the impact of his policies. Despite the threat to America unfolding across the Middle East, aided by his abandonment of Iraq, he has announced he intends to follow the same policy in Afghanistan.

Despite clear evidence of the dire need for American leadership around the world, the desperation of our allies and the glee of our enemies, President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch. Indeed, the speed of the terrorists' takeover of territory in Iraq has been matched only by the speed of American decline on his watch.


The president explained his view in his Sept. 23, 2009, speech before the United Nations General Assembly. "Any world order," he said, "that elevates one nation above others cannot long survive." Tragically, he is quickly proving the opposite—through one dangerous policy after another—that without American pre-eminence, there can be no world order.
 
It is time the president and his allies faced some hard truths: America remains at war, and withdrawing troops from the field of battle while our enemies stay in the fight does not "end" wars. Weakness and retreat are provocative. U.S. withdrawal from the world is disastrous and puts our own security at risk.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent and they present a security threat not seen since the Cold War. Defeating them will require a strategy—not a fantasy. It will require sustained difficult military, intelligence and diplomatic efforts—not empty misleading rhetoric. It will require rebuilding America's military capacity—reversing the Obama policies that have weakened our armed forces and reduced our ability to influence events around the world.

American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine. Our security, and the security of our friends around the world, can only be guaranteed with a fundamental reversal of the policies of the past six years.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, "If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom." President Obama is on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.



Love Cheney. He was extremely demonized by the left but so was Churchill demonized.....before everyone realized he was right.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on June 18, 2014, 08:21:10 am

A MAN'S MAN!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2014, 10:30:10 am

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/capture-guantanamo-bay-interrogation/2014/06/17/id/577618/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1573631_06182014&promo_code=m44ergdo

And what does our President hope to accomplish here? By sending Khatalla to Washington? All that's going to happen with conviction is he goes to AMERICAN prison for the rest of his life. That's probably a lot better life than he had before. International law will probably prohibit the US from executing him which he deserves. And why should the American taxpayers have to pay the bill to incarcerate Khatalla? Senseless. A drone attack would have made more sense than capture and a Washington trial.

And lets talk about the Washington lawyer crowd fighting amongst themselves to successfully defend Khatalla against American brutality. Talk about a circus.

I cant believe how stupid this President is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on June 18, 2014, 10:46:54 am

Quick burial at sea is my preference

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 18, 2014, 11:22:13 am

International law couldn't stop his execution, but the whiney liberals in this country probably could.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 18, 2014, 04:33:33 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 18, 2014, 10:30:10 am

Khatalla....  International law will probably prohibit the US from executing him which he deserves.

How?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2014, 05:56:34 pm

Execution of a prisoner of war?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 18, 2014, 05:58:34 pm

As far as I know, he isn't a prisoner of war.  He is a criminal awaiting trial for murder, among other things.

We executed spies who we captured during WWII, and we executed a whole mob of them after the war ended, both German and Japanese.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2014, 06:01:40 pm

Wait till he gets to court. He will be a war criminal. He is a jihadist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2014, 06:04:00 pm

That's why you don't bring him to US court. You take him to Guantanamo Bay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 18, 2014, 07:01:48 pm

Conan O'Brien on Hillary Clinton.
 
http://conservativevideos.com/2014/06/conans-hilarious-parody-hillary-clintons-brain-damage-will-infuriate-liberals1/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 18, 2014, 07:42:52 pm

 
 Lets be done with our Mid-Eastern adventures , which has cost us how much in blood and money and has gotten us what?
 
 The same fuckin place we were at when we started.
 
 Why do you want to be in their neighborhood when they want to kill themselves ?
 
 Do you think we as a Nation are SLIGHTLY **** smarter then on :
 
 11-10-2001 ?
 
 HOW are these fuckers going to attack us ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 18, 2014, 11:10:39 pm

HOW convenient.....rotten to the core Administration......


Sources: Lois Lerner’s emails likely gone forever
   
By RACHAEL BADE | 6/18/14 9:59 PM EDT  Updated: 6/18/14 11:34 PM EDT

Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s crashed hard drive has been recycled, making it likely the lost emails of the lightening rod in the tea party targeting controversy will never be found, according to multiple sources.

“We’ve been informed that the hard drive has been thrown away,” Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a brief hallway interview.    
Two additional sources told POLITICO the same late Wednesday, citing IRS officials.

It may just be standard government procedure, but the revelation is significant because some lawmakers and observers thought there was a way that tech experts could revive Lerner’s emails after they were washed away in a computer crash in the summer of 2011. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), for example, subpoenaed her damaged hard drive earlier this week, when he asked for “all hard drives, external drives, thumb drives and computers” and “all electronic communication devices the IRS issued to Lois G. Lerner.”

“IT experts have weighed in and said yes — we can get those” emails, said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) earlier Wednesday.

The latest news suggests such professionals may never get the chance to try again — and the IRS has even said its criminal investigators who specialize in rebuilding hard drives to recover hidden information from criminals were unable to restore the data back in 2011. But this is only likely to further enrage Republicans, who are fuming over the matter and suspect Washington officials drove the selective scrutiny.

The IRS told congressional investigators on Friday that the emails of Lerner, the former head of the tax exempt division that was found to have singled out conservative groups for additional scrutiny, were lost from 2009 to 2011 in a computer hard drive crash in early summer 2011. IRS chief John Koskinen will face angry Republicans at a hearing on Friday.

The time frame is significant because the tea party targeting began in spring of 2010, and Republicans think if there was a smoking gun connecting the Obama administration to the IRS treatment of conservative groups, it could be found during that period.

“We believe the standard IRS protocol was followed in 2011 for disposing of the broken hard drive. A bad hard drive, like other broken Information Technology equipment, is sent to a recycler as part of our regular process,” an IRS spokesman said in response to a query from POLITICO.

On Wednesday, the White House retorted that for the time frame in which Lerner’s emails are missing, there are no direct communications between 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and the now-retired Lerner.

Earlier this week, Ways and Means Republicans said as many as six IRS employees involved in the scandal also lost email in computer crashes, including the former chief of staff for the acting IRS commissioner.

That’s because before May 2013, the IRS backed up emails only for six months on a tape, then recycled the tapes, so they essentially threw out the data. Many agencies do the same, transparency experts say.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which wrote the May 2013 report that uncovered the practice of IRS workers singling out some applicants for tax breaks with the words “tea party” for added scrutiny, is currently in possession of Lerner’s laptop and her new hard drive, according to an IRS letter.

The IRS has been able to retrieve about 24,000 of Lerner’s emails sent to other IRS employees by recovering them from other agents who received, sent or were copied on the emails.

However, Koskinen has acknowledged that the IRS wouldn’t be able to find emails Lerner sent outside the agency.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/irs-lois-lerner-emails-108044.html#ixzz353SQ1ycE

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 18, 2014, 11:15:30 pm

JJ, you didn't just say that did you? How are they going to attack us?!? Do you want to find out???  I sure as heck don't! I'd MUCH rather fight these wicked suckers on their turf than on ours! What if they somehow end up with a nuke and bring it to NY? Don't tell me it's not possible. No one dreamed anything like 9/11 and we got nailed badly. Well, one guy imagined it.....he ended up dying in the rubble of the towers. If we're foolish enough to let them take over parts of or all of Iraq, we then have a huge swath of land from Syria to Iraq a Al Qaeda state. A fricking Country of em! We gonna turn a blind eye when they start imagining going into Saudi Arabia or Israel or other neighbors in the area?? We don't need to send troops but we sure as hell need to be bombing the hell out of them and aiding those in the fight against them!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 19, 2014, 12:21:35 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 18, 2014, 05:56:34 pm

Execution of a prisoner of war?

Except that he is not one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 19, 2014, 12:22:02 am

I am about as computer illiterate as anyone, but I know that if someone sends me an email, it is stored on my computer (and I assume my server) as well as the sender's computer and server.  Why don't they just look at the computers of those suspected of receiving these emails?

Or, why don't they just ask the homeland security department.  Many people have complained that they keep every email and phone call that everyone makes.  Let's make good use of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 19, 2014, 05:05:07 am

My understanding is, emails never go away..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 19, 2014, 07:58:18 am

They said they would try to produce emails retrieved from the computers of others.  However there were supposedly  a number of other IRS computer crashes s well. 
Pretty sure the incriminating ones are gone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on June 19, 2014, 08:47:48 am

Maybe Snowden can help find them

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 19, 2014, 04:09:49 pm

June 19, 2014

Public Faith in Congress Falls Again, Hits Historic Low



by Rebecca Riffkin


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' confidence in Congress has sunk to a new low. Seven percent of Americans say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress as an American institution, down from the previous low of 10% in 2013. This confidence is starkly different from the 42% in 1973, the first year Gallup began asking the question.


Wingnuts must be so proud

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 19, 2014, 04:56:26 pm

Quote from: Sportster on June 18, 2014, 11:15:30 pm

JJ, you didn't just say that did you? How are they going to attack us?!? Do you want to find out???  I sure as heck don't! I'd MUCH rather fight these wicked suckers on their turf than on ours! What if they somehow end up with a nuke and bring it to NY? Don't tell me it's not possible. No one dreamed anything like 9/11 and we got nailed badly. Well, one guy imagined it.....he ended up dying in the rubble of the towers. If we're foolish enough to let them take over parts of or all of Iraq, we then have a huge swath of land from Syria to Iraq a Al Qaeda state. A fricking Country of em! We gonna turn a blind eye when they start imagining going into Saudi Arabia or Israel or other neighbors in the area?? We don't need to send troops but we sure as hell need to be bombing the hell out of them and aiding those in the fight against them!

 I sure did say it. How after being attacked and living the way we have since then are they going to do it? Dont you think our on guard status has gone thru the roof since then ?
 
 If they want to bother other people in their neck of the woods let those people they are attacking fight them. If they cant fight for themslves maybe Darwins law should apply.
 
 Anyway they are busy killing each other and that keeps them busy from attacking us. And once again how are they going to attack us?
 Where are they going to get a nuke from ? Pakistan ? We know everything about what Pakistan has.
 
 Could there be another incident like in Boston ? Sure,its possible despite everything done to stop it.
 
 Taking the leap that 8000 thugs with machine guns running around Syria and Iraq to nuking the U.S. is pushing it way out of bounds.
 
 Now that they have a place to hang out we know where they are.
 
 Remember when elquada took over fallujah back when we were in Iraq ?
 
 Even the Sunni's got sick of them and thats when they came over to our side to help drive them out.
 
 Whats going on in Iraq is a sunni/shite issue and we should be involved as much as we were involed in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants.
 
 If Maliki gave the sunni's more voice this wouldnt be happening.
 
 Its their issue to solve,not ours.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 19, 2014, 05:02:43 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 19, 2014, 04:09:49 pm

June 19, 2014

Public Faith in Congress Falls Again, Hits Historic Low



by Rebecca Riffkin


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' confidence in Congress has sunk to a new low. Seven percent of Americans say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress as an American institution, down from the previous low of 10% in 2013. This confidence is starkly different from the 42% in 1973, the first year Gallup began asking the question.


Wingnuts must be so proud

And what is the percentage that support the President? Maybe 35%. Lower than Bush? Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter. Even his own party is dwindling their support of him

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 19, 2014, 05:55:29 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 19, 2014, 05:02:43 pm

And what is the percentage that support the President? Maybe 35%. Lower than Bush? Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter. Even his own party is dwindling their support of him

While you could not tell it by listening to Fox News or Sean Hannity, with both of them regularly reporting the latest polling results (whatever they are) as further evidence that support for Obama is plummeting, the poll results do not come close to showing that.

Here are the result from Rasmussen, which is generally not considered to be a pro-Democratic polling organization: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

It shows Obama with 24% strong approval right now, and a 52% total disapproval right now.

That is only 3% more strongly disapproving of him than the percentage which strongly disapproved of him on the day he was re-elected.  And his strong approval rating right now is the same as it was just more than two years ago, which was 6 months before this schizophrenic nation re-elected him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 19, 2014, 06:25:36 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 19, 2014, 05:55:29 pm

While you could not tell it by listening to Fox News or Sean Hannity, with both of them regularly reporting the latest polling results (whatever they are) as further evidence that support for Obama is plummeting, the poll results do not come close to showing that.

Here are the result from Rasmussen, which is generally not considered to be a pro-Democratic polling organization: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history)

It shows Obama with 24% strong approval right now, and a 52% total disapproval right now.

That is only 3% more strongly disapproving of him than the percentage which strongly disapproved of him on the day he was re-elected.  And his strong approval rating right now is the same as it was just more than two years ago, which was 6 months before this schizophrenic nation re-elected him.

 Jes,
 
 Try this : Stop listening to schizophrenic stations like FOX and MSNBC,
 
 where multi-millionaires tell you how to love them.
 
 Make up your own mind without any other input ... youll love it !
 
 You, as the individual of thought without going along with the herd of masses inflamed by the media ... who need your money ...
 
 in a concept so unique ... as being yourself ?
 
 I think youve got the balls to do it.
 
 Of course you'll mark this off as being incoherent ...
 
 because that would have to make you think.
 
 And thinking is a scary thing on your own when you gave up guidence from those better connected then you.
 
 You can do it. You can do it babes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 19, 2014, 08:16:16 pm

 
 Gentlemen :
 
 The plight of THE UNITED SATES OF AMERICA :
 
 The past ...
 
 A little Afghan girl whose love of painting won the hearts of U.S. doctors who fitted her with a prosthetic arm returned to the United States on Thursday, after the group that sponsored her first visit said it learned her newfound celebrity made her a subject of death threats at home.
 
 Seven-year-old Shah Bibi Tarakhail arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on Thursday morning on the last leg of a journey from Kabul.
She has been granted a six-month visa, but Amel Najjar, executive director of the nonprofit Children of War Foundation, said her group is looking into permanent residency status for her, perhaps as a political refugee.
 
 Najjar said all the attention has made her a target of insurgents in Afghanistan, who railed against her exposure to Western culture.
 
 The father told the group that he and his daughter had been in hiding and separated from the rest of their family since her return to Afghanistan in April. Meanwhile, he said, the girl had grown so depressed that he had her hospitalized.

 
 "Her father called us a week ago, said she'd been in a hospital near the Pakistani border and her life was in danger," Najjar said. "Her father said, 'I can't care for her anymore and it's at a point where she needs to be out of here sooner rather than later."
 
 The little girl lost her right arm last year when she picked up a grenade following a firefight between U.S. and Taliban forces in her village near the Pakistan border. The explosion, which killed her brother, also destroyed her right eye.
 
 After doctors at Shriners Hospital For Children fitted her with a prosthetic arm she quickly adapted to it and resumed painting, something she revealed was her favored pastime in Afghanistan.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Future...
 
   Experts say it’s just a matter of time before a killer asteroid comes hurtling toward us – but NASA is making progress on plans to grab a space rock and test technologies that could someday save the world.
 
 The space agency’s Asteroid Retrieval Mission aims to net an asteroid by the mid-2020s so that scientists can run experiments on it.
 
 Lindley Johnson, who's in charge of NASA's Near Earth Objects Program, explained the connection between netting a speeding extraterrestrial boulder and averting Armageddon on Thursday during a televised update on the space agency's Asteroid Initiative.
 
 "Unfortunately, what you see in Hollywood is not always reality," he told NBC News. But he added that "the capabilities that we're looking at for demonstration by the robotic spacecraft are adding to our knowledge and techniques of what might be done for an asteroid that’s on a hazardous trajectory."

     
 There are mor (http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/09/29/8037955-astronomers-downsize-their-estimate-for-risky-asteroids)e than a million near-Earth asteroids out there (http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/09/29/8037955-astronomers-downsize-their-estimate-for-risky-asteroids), and experts estimate that about 20,000 of them have the potential to cause a city-sized catastrophe. Over the past 20 years, astronomers at NASA and other institutions have been making progress on cataloging the larger asteroids — but what if they find one that could pose a threat?
 
 That's where the Asteroid Retrieval Mission could make a start: The mission plan, which currently carries a price tag of $1.25 billion, calls for sending a solar-powered robotic spacecraft to snag a hunk of space rock — and bring it into a stable lunar orbit for study by astronauts.
 
 Option A would involve grabbing one self-contained asteroid that measures less than 32 feet (10 meters) wide.
 
 Option B would be to pluck off a piece of a bigger asteroid and carry it back. Johnson said Option B would be better for practicing planetary protection.

     In which the robotic vehicle deploys an inflatable bag to envelop a free-flying small asteroid before redirecting it to a lunar distant retrograde orbit.    For example, the spacecraft could serve as a "gravity tractor," passively using its gravitational force to shift the trajectory of the large asteroid ever so slightly over time. If the trick works, NASA could use it to "slowly tug" an asteroid out of Earth's path, Johnson said.
 
 The probe also could use its solar electric ion propulsion system on the asteroid, as part of either Option A or B. Johnson said the ion thrusters would blast against the space rock, to see how much force is required to move how much mass over how long a time.
 
 "We're supporting the ARM mission with our observation program, and in turn the ARM mission can support our planetary defense objectives," Johnson said.
 
 The Asteroid Retrieval Mission isn't just about saving the planet: It's also aimed at adding to our knowledge about the solar system's basic building blocks, and providing a deep-space test bed for future missions to Mars and its moons.
 
 Michele Gates, ARM's program director, said NASA will have to choose between Option A and Option B by the end of this year, with a mission concept review scheduled for February 2015.
 
 Launch of the robotic spacecraft is tentatively planned for 2019, with the asteroid rendezvous expected in the 2021-2024 time frame. The precise timing depends on which target is selected.
 
 So far, NASA has identified three valid targets for Option A and three for Option B so far, Johnson said. One of the Option A targets, asteroid 2011 MD, was revealed on Thursday. It could be snagged during a close encounter with Earth in 2024, said Paul Chodas, an asteroid researcher at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

      Spitzer's infrared observations helped scientists determine that the asteroid was lighter than water, probably because it's highly porous or rubble-like. 
 NASA expects to keep adding to the list, potentially right up to the time of launch. "It won't be dozens, but it may be 10 or so by the time we get to make the decision," Johnson said. That's because any slip in the launch date could force NASA to switch from one target to another.
 
 The Asteroid Retrieval Mission has come under sharp criticism from Congress and other quarters, on the grounds that the moon or Mars would be a more fitting target for exploration. In response, NASA has said the mission would serve as a warm-up for missions to Mars and its moons in the 2030s.
 
 Even as the debate continues, the space agency is committing more money to asteroid exploration.
 
 On Thursday, NASA announced that 18 projects would receive a total of $4.9 million (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-selects-studies-for-the-asteroid-redirect-mission/) to work on asteroid mission studies. Some of the studies, such as Altius Space Machines' (http://www.altius-space.com/) "Kraken Asteroid Boulder Retrieval System," would test prototype equipment for snagging a space rock.
 
 Other studies would focus on potential secondary payloads, such as the Planetary Society's (http://planetary.org/) LIFE on ARM experiment.
 
 In addition to the Asteroid Retrieval Mission, NASA is supporting a variety of citizen-science initiatives through its Asteroid Grand Challenge program.
 
 The space agency's collaborators include Planetary Resources (http://www.planetaryresources.com/2014/03/be-an-asteroid-hunter-in-nasas-first-asteroid-grand-challenge-contest-series/), Slooh (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/nasa-teams-with-web-tech-company-slooh-to-bring-universe-to-everyone-and-help-protect/) and Space Gambit (http://www.spacegambit.org/category/asteroids/asteroid-grand-challenge/).
 
 "There are great ways for the public to help with our work to identify potentially hazardous asteroids," Jason Kessler, program executive for the Asteroid Grand Challenge, said in a NASA news release (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/june/nasa-announces-latest-progress-upcoming-milestones-in-hunt-for-asteroids/). "By tapping into the innovative spirit of people around the world, new public-private partnerships can help make Earth a safer place, and perhaps even provide valuable information about the asteroid that astronauts will visit."
 
 ___________________________________________________________
 

          Its tough to be in two places at once when half of the past is stealing all of your future.    At what point do you say enough is enough, we've done all we can, we have to move foward and leave you behind because you're insane?    A dog with rabies is always put down and never saved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 19, 2014, 10:55:40 pm

 
 THE UNITED SATES OF AMERICA ...
 
 

• sate
• [ sayt ]
• • fully gratify desire: to satisfy completely somebody's hunger or some other desire
  • glut somebody: to provide somebody with more than enough, to the point of exhaustion or disgust

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2014, 05:44:39 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on June 19, 2014, 08:16:16 pm

At what point do you say enough is enough, we've done all we can, we have to move foward and leave you behind because you're insane?

That, Jackie, is a question many of us have asked after reading your posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2014, 05:52:45 am

http://online.wsj.com/articles/bradley-a-smith-and-david-keating-congress-abetted-the-irs-targeting-of-conservatives-1401751598

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 20, 2014, 09:22:47 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 19, 2014, 04:09:49 pm

June 19, 2014

Public Faith in Congress Falls Again, Hits Historic Low



by Rebecca Riffkin


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' confidence in Congress has sunk to a new low. Seven percent of Americans say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress as an American institution, down from the previous low of 10% in 2013. This confidence is starkly different from the 42% in 1973, the first year Gallup began asking the question.


Wingnuts must be so proud

You act as if there are no Dems in congress

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 20, 2014, 01:27:08 pm

The party of corruption strikes again.



House ethics committee fines Don Young


By Paul Kane
Washington Post, June 20 at 1:12 PM 



The House Ethics Committee ordered Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) to pay a nearly $60,000 fine for taking 15 inappropriate trips, using campaign funds for personal use and accepting other unethical gifts.

Young — who has battled a series of federal investigations and ethics panel probes for seven years — was hit with a "letter of reproval" rebuking him for the misconduct.

The ethics committee examined 25 trips that Young, his family and staff took to hunting lodges between 2001 and 2013, determining that 15 were inappropriate. The focus of the trips came during a four-year period — 2003 to 2007 — that was also the focus of a sprawling FBI investigation into inappropriate ties to an Alaska energy firm and the state's top elected officials.

Young must repay the money with personal funds to his campaign and to those that gave him the hunting trips and other gifts.

A former chairman of two House committees, Young is the chamber's longest-serving Republican. He won a special election in 1973 to fill the seat of the late Nick Begich, who died in a plane crash just before the 1972 election. Democrats have run one tough race against Young, in 2008, when Begich's son, Mark, won at the top of the ticket in the marquee Senate race, but Young hung onto his seat despite the lingering investigations.

He has won reelection comfortably ever since.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 20, 2014, 01:33:53 pm

As long as Charlie Rangel is in your party you just look like a fool posting anything about corruption...enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 20, 2014, 01:44:06 pm

How is this piece of smellin' turds.


Monkey Cage

How big could the Scott Walker scandal be?


And this doesn't include all the t-baggers locked in the courthouse after hours in Mississippi workin' on them votin' machines or nursing home photos...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 20, 2014, 01:52:44 pm

What Scott Walker scandal?  You mean the phoney one that's already been thrown out of court by 2 judges?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 20, 2014, 01:54:52 pm

How big could the Scott Walker scandal be?

Zero. I hope they counter sue the prosecutors

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 20, 2014, 01:57:19 pm

Oh, and how did the Scott Walker recall election go?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 20, 2014, 02:02:59 pm

Prosecutors said Walker, his chief of staff and others who worked for him were discussing illegal coordination with a number of national groups and prominent figures, including GOP strategist Karl Rove. Documents detail an email allegedly sent by Walker to Rove in May 2011.

"Bottom-line: R.J. helps keep in place a team that is wildly successful in Wisconsin.  We are running 9 recall elections and it will be like running 9 Congressional markets in every market in the state," Walker in an email to Rove.

"I don’t know what specifically they're talking about but I can't imagine that," Walker responded in Milwaukee when asked by a reporter if he had emailed Rove.

Two wingnut judges will be overturned (esp judge randa) and scottie will have to answer.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 20, 2014, 02:25:21 pm

Again...no link to the story. Wonder what else it says that doesn't support Otto's case?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on June 20, 2014, 02:32:46 pm

let us know when the democrat officials pay their taxes!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 20, 2014, 04:50:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 20, 2014, 01:44:06 pm

How is this piece of smellin' turds.

Smellin' turds is right.

The prosecutors placed charges in State Court, and lost.

The prosecutors placed charges in Federal Court, and lost.

So the prosecutors didn't place charges, but issued a statement that essentially said "we can't prove anything, but we really, really, really think he did something.

Life in the backwoods state of Wisconsin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 20, 2014, 05:16:02 pm

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/prosecutors-wisconsin-governor-in-criminal-scheme?ocid=ansnews11

Prosecutors had sought the release of the documents, and the Wisconsin Club for Growth did not object.

It's been known for months that the investigation focused on allegations of illegal coordination between the Wisconsin club, Walker's campaign and other conservative groups. But until Thursday, it was not clear that prosecutors saw Walker as having a central role.

Wisconsin Club for Growth attorney Andrew Grossman said the public has the right to see the documents.

The papers show how prosecutors "adopted a blatantly unconstitutional interpretation of Wisconsin law that they used to launch a secret criminal investigation targeting conservatives throughout Wisconsin," Grossman said Thursday in an email. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this is a story that needs to be told to prevent more abuses and to hold ... prosecutors accountable for violating the rights of Wisconsinites."

Prosecutors have defended the investigation as a legitimate probe into whether Wisconsin's campaign-finance laws were violated and denied that they were on a partisan witch hunt.

An attorney for prosecutors, Sam Leib, said the filings show that prosecutors were legally justified in their actions and "the process continues."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 20, 2014, 05:20:09 pm

They are just bringing it up again to try and hurt him politically.

It is just a bunch of political grandstanding and they are trying to smear him with dirt because he is so successful.  The prosecutors are the ones who should be hauled into to court to defend their actions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2014, 06:03:23 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/19/neanderthal-faces-spanish-cave


Neanderthal faces emerge from the gloom of a Spanish cave
Bones and skulls found in the cave show Neanderthal facial features appearing for the first time 430,000 years ago
    Ian Sample, science correspondent
    theguardian.com, Thursday 19 June 2014 14.00 EDT   
Ancient skulls recovered from a deep cave in northern Spain are the oldest known remains to show clear signs of Neanderthal facial features, researchers claim.

Scientists reconstructed 17 skulls from pieces of bone found in the mud at Sima de los Huesos, or the "Pit of Bones", in the Atapuerca mountains. The skulls had some Neanderthal-like features, but their appearance was otherwise far more primitive.

Juan Luis Arsuaga, professor of palaeontology at the Complutense University of Madrid, said the remains belonged to a "missing link" population that fell somewhere between the Neanderthals and a more archaic group of human forerunners.

The term "missing link" has fallen out of favour with many researchers, in part because it implies a simple, step-wise progression from one species to another. But the phrase is still used at times to describe species that bridge a divide between distinct ancestors and descendants.

The skulls come from a haul of bones that belong to at least 28 individuals who came to rest in a chamber at the bottom of a 14-metre-deep cave shaft. The bodies are thought to have been washed into the pit after they died elsewhere in the cave system.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/18/1403112699555/A-Neanderthal-skull-from--020.jpg)
A Neanderthal skull from the Sima de los Huesos cave in Spain A primitive Neanderthal skull from the Sima de los Huesos cave in Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain.

Measurements of the bones, which are around 430,000 years old, suggest that trademark features of Neanderthals did not emerge at the same rate, but that some evolved much earlier than others.

The skulls at Sima de los Huesos have Neanderthal-like teeth and jaw structures, and other similarities in the brow ridges and nasal apertures, or channels. But their braincases are small, unlike the elongated crania of the big-brained Neanderthals. Of the 17 skulls reported in Science, seven have not been studied before.

The Sima population, as they are known, probably developed Neanderthal-like jaws and teeth from chewing and the heavy use of their front teeth and incisors for other tasks. "We think it's related to the use of their mouths as a 'third hand', or as part of their behaviour to grasp and to pull things with the front teeth," Arsuaga told the Guardian.

"We can't say they are the direct ancestors of Neanderthals. All we can say is that the population are members of the Neanderthal lineage. They are a 'missing link' between the Neanderthals and a population that was much more primitive," he added.

The Spanish team believe the more primitive population could be an ancient human species called Homo antecessor, which lived in Europe around one million years ago. "They could be the stem group before the split between Neanderthals and modern humans," Arsuaga said.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/18/1403113042859/Neanderthal-skull-from-th-012.jpg)
Neanderthal skull from the Sima de los Huesos cave in Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain.  The population represented by the bones in the cave probably developed Neanderthal-like jaws and teeth from chewing and the heavy use of their front teeth and incisors for other tasks.

Neanderthals emerged around 400,000 years ago, and lived in Europe and Asia until around 35,000 years ago. They were replaced – though not before some interbreeding – by modern humans that evolved in Africa and colonised Eurasia 50,000 years ago.

In previous reports, the Spanish researchers had claimed the Sima de los Huesos remains were much older, around 600,000 years old, and that they belonged to an ancient group called Homo heidelbergensis. The latest study changes both of those interpretations.

"They now agree that the fossils belong to the Neanderthal lineage but not to the species Homo heidelbergensis. And they have revised the dating of the fossils to about 430,000 years, giving much more substantial agreement between our views," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London.

"The rich Sima de los Huesos material, with every part of the skeleton beautifully preserved, will continue to inform us about human evolution 400,000 years ago as research continues on this astonishing, and even beautiful, collection of human fossils," Stringer said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 20, 2014, 06:28:56 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 20, 2014, 05:20:09 pm

They are just bringing it up again to try and hurt him politically.

It is just a bunch of political grandstanding and they are trying to smear him with dirt because he is so successful.  The prosecutors are the ones who should be hauled into to court to defend their actions.

Absolutely. And maybe they ought to be smeared politically

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2014, 07:30:17 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 19, 2014, 07:28:41 pm

I can only assume you focused on the billable hours.  Which is not the point at all.  The point was that many class action suits benefit only the lawyers.  It matters little that the money comes from the percentage of the settlement and they don't bill anyone.  You could have said you agree or disagree but that they are not able to bill any of the people involved in the class action suit.  However you chose not to.

You just went straight to being a dick like usual.

The original post about this subject was talking about the lawyers getting millions while the people they represent got only a few thousand.  The whole point of my post was that it was much worse then that.  The lawyers get millions from the percentage of the settlement and the people they represent get a few dollars.

I have deliberately delayed responding to this for some time, and, by virtue of delay, am probably completely ignoring what I was originally inclined to address, but with that said, I do still want to respond to part of this.

The point was that many class action suits benefit only the lawyers.
True.  Many class action suits benefit only the lawyers.

Those are the class action suits where the plaintiffs lose, and there are many of them.  When the plaintiffs lose, the only folks who benefit at the DEFENSE lawyers.  The defendants do not benefit, because they had to pay their lawyers.  The plaintiffs do not benefit, because they get nothing. 

What you seem to miss is that the plaintiff's lawyers in personal injury actions (and that would include nearly all class action cases, and it is the same with any class action for pollution) not only get nothing when the plaintiff loses, the plaintiff's lawyer is on the hook for all of the court costs, costs of discovery, mailing (or the obnoxious TV ads), case administration, expert witness fees, investigation, and you name it.  It is not even particularly unusual in such cases for a plaintiff's lawyer to get hit with the defendant's legal fees.  Such cases have resulted bankrupted many lawyers, and even law firms.  It is why many plaintiff's law firms refuse to even allow any attorney in the firm to touch those cases.  They are easy to mishandle and lose, and if the evidence is not there, they also end up lost, and sometimes even if the evidence is there, juries will reject the claim because the plaintiffs are not sympathetic, or jurors do not really understand the evidence.


It matters little that the money comes from the percentage of the settlement and they don't bill anyone.

REALLY?  How does it matter "little"?  Plaintiff's lawyers are quite routinely the only remote possibility an injured party has of recovering ANYTHING.  The only chance they have of having medical bills paid, the only way they have of getting the rehabilitation therapy or treatments they need to have anything remotely resembling a quality of life. 

 You could have said you agree or disagree but that they are not able to bill any of the people involved in the class action suit.  However you chose not to.

I don't even have a clue what you meant here.  I suspect there was a typo, and perhaps I would have earlier felt comfortable in guessing what you meant, but at this point I do not.

The original post about this subject was talking about the lawyers getting millions while the people they represent got only a few thousand.  The whole point of my post was that it was much worse then that.  The lawyers get millions from the percentage of the settlement and the people they represent get a few dollars.

And the whole point of my post is that you have frighteningly little understanding of what you are talking about.

Such cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, with the attorney's contingent fee generally ranging from 20% to 50% of the total plaintiff's recovery, with that fee depending on the complexity of the case, the odds of success (or failure), and the expertise required to handle it.  The fee then has to be approved by the court as reasonable, and it is not at all unheard of (though I suspect YOU have never heard of it) for courts to reject fees being charged and to force plaintiff's attorneys to accept a lower fee.  The only way the plaintiffs are going to "get a few dollars" while the plaintiffs' attorneys get millions is if there are millions of plaintiffs and each plaintiff suffered a small loss, meaning it is precisely the kind of case where the absence of class action suits would mean that A) the plaintiffs would not get a "few dollars," they would get absolutely nothing for their loss; and B) the defendants who cause the injury to consumers would have little (to no) financial incentive to clean up their act and stop causing such injuries to consumers.  In other words, even when plaintiffs only get a "few dollars," those plaintiffs and consumers in general, are all better off than they would have been in the absence of the class action suits.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 20, 2014, 08:04:25 pm

Class action suits are a good idea, but they need to be completely overhauled to make them even sensible, let alone reasonable.

I was involved in a class action suit of airline price fixing.  My class won the case.  I got a coupon for a 10% discount off a full fare ticket from the guys that were price fixing.  This was at a time when almost no one paid full fare, and deep discounting was common.  The lawyers received their pay in cash, not in discounts off full fare tickets.  I can only speak for this instance, but I have read that a great many cases are resolved in just this way - the lawyers get cash and the class gets largely useless discounts on purchases they might never wish to make.  As a beginning, the law should require that the lawyers get paid in the same currency as the class they represent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 20, 2014, 08:18:53 pm

Wow, Jes you must be bored.  That was posted ages ago.

I have received at least three or four different times mail from lawyers asking me to be part of a class action suit.  Each time it was something absolutely ridiculous and I would have gotten a dollar or two.  I never responded to them or the phone calls.

I have no doubt since you were a lawyer you know more about how lawsuits work then I do.  I also know this probably makes you more sympathetic to lawyers.

As I said it was ages ago when we were discussing this but I believe my point was we have way to many lawyers then are actually needed so they make work for themselves.  I believe in the free market system but when the lawyers are writing the laws, have strong lobbys in Washington,  and a ton of them are politicians they are stacking the deck for themselves.

Is every class action suit frivolous?  No.  I am sure some have benefited folks greatly as I am sure they have helped the whole population in bringing about safety rules and perhaps some common sense.  A lot are just **** stupid!

I don't think every lawyer is some bottom feeding scum.  There are lots that are adding benefits to society.  However there is a portion of lawyers that are scum and bring about real harm to society.  This portion is all about greed and has no morals.  There are scum in every occupation but lawyers have a greater ability to do harm or good.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2014, 09:07:37 pm

Quote from: davep on June 20, 2014, 08:04:25 pm

Class action suits are a good idea, but they need to be completely overhauled to make them even sensible, let alone reasonable.

That was the first comment I made in this discussion.

Quote from: davep on June 20, 2014, 08:04:25 pm

I was involved in a class action suit of airline price fixing.  My class won the case.  I got a coupon for a 10% discount off a full fare ticket from the guys that were price fixing.

And as a plaintiff you had the option of accepting that settlement (and what you describe is a SETTLEMENT, not a case which was "won"), or rejecting it and leaving the class and pursuing your claim on your own.

You chose not to do that, and now seemingly are critical of the settlement which you accepted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 20, 2014, 09:26:17 pm

States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates
 (Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)

1 Louisiana 45.6 percent 18.91
 2 Mississippi 54.3 percent 17.80
 3 Alaska 60.6 percent 17.41
 4 Wyoming 62.8 percent 16.92
 5 Montana 61.4 percent 16.74

States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates
 (Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)

50 Rhode Island 13.3 percent 3.14
 49 Hawaii 9.7 percent 3.56
 48 Massachusetts 12.8 percent 3.84
 47 New York 18.1 percent 5.11
 46 New Jersey 11.3 percent 5.46

http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart14.htm (http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart14.htm)


The nationwide gun death rate was 10.38 per 100,000. The total number of Americans killed by gunfire rose to 32,351 in 2011 from 31,672 in 2010.

America’s gun death rates — both nationwide and in the states — dwarf those of most other Western industrialized nations. The gun death rate in the United Kingdom in 2011 was 0.23 per 100,000 while in Australia it was 0.86 per 100,000.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2014, 09:42:23 pm

otto, eliminate the second amendment, and then we can bother to discuss whether eliminating guns would be good for us or bad for us.

Until then, I don't give a rat what figures you dredge up, and won't bother to point out what they do or do not actually mean.

And good luck getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 20, 2014, 09:58:57 pm

I would rather get rid of oddo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 20, 2014, 11:49:03 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 20, 2014, 09:07:37 pm

That was the first comment I made in this discussion.

And as a plaintiff you had the option of accepting that settlement (and what you describe is a SETTLEMENT, not a case which was "won"), or rejecting it and leaving the class and pursuing your claim on your own.

You chose not to do that, and now seemingly are critical of the settlement which you accepted.

Don't be silly.  My damages were about 75 dollars.  I neither accepted nor rejected the settlement.  I threw away the coupon when I got it because it was as worthless.  No lawyer would have handled my case on contingency, so it would have cost me tens of thousands of dollars to go after my 75 bucks.

But that is not the point.  One major idea of a class action suit is to allow groups of people that could not realistically sue individually to go together in one large suit.  I have no problem with that concept, as long as the lawyers who handle the suit accept the same type of payment that the class does.  The lawyers should be reimbursed for their costs, and should get a percentage of the dollar amount of the settlement.  But they should not get their portion in cash when everyone else get's theirs in coupons that are only good if they purchase something they might not want from the losing company.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 20, 2014, 11:53:33 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 20, 2014, 09:26:17 pm

States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates
 (Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)

1 Louisiana 45.6 percent 18.91
 2 Mississippi 54.3 percent 17.80
 3 Alaska 60.6 percent 17.41
 4 Wyoming 62.8 percent 16.92
 5 Montana 61.4 percent 16.74

States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates
 (Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)

50 Rhode Island 13.3 percent 3.14
 49 Hawaii 9.7 percent 3.56
 48 Massachusetts 12.8 percent 3.84
 47 New York 18.1 percent 5.11
 46 New Jersey 11.3 percent 5.46

http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart14.htm (http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart14.htm)


The nationwide gun death rate was 10.38 per 100,000. The total number of Americans killed by gunfire rose to 32,351 in 2011 from 31,672 in 2010.

America’s gun death rates — both nationwide and in the states — dwarf those of most other Western industrialized nations. The gun death rate in the United Kingdom in 2011 was 0.23 per 100,000 while in Australia it was 0.86 per 100,000.

Those are quite impressive statistics, Homo.  But there is information that for some reason you left out.

What percentage of those gun deaths were the result of suicide.  And what percentage was the result of conflict with police or potential victims while committing a crime?  If you gave us that information, someone must have deleted it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 05:14:18 am

Quote from: davep on June 20, 2014, 11:49:03 pm

Don't be silly.  My damages were about 75 dollars.  I neither accepted nor rejected the settlement.  I threw away the coupon when I got it because it was as worthless.  No lawyer would have handled my case on contingency, so it would have cost me tens of thousands of dollars to go after my 75 bucks.

But that is not the point.  One major idea of a class action suit is to allow groups of people that could not realistically sue individually to go together in one large suit.  I have no problem with that concept, as long as the lawyers who handle the suit accept the same type of payment that the class does.  The lawyers should be reimbursed for their costs, and should get a percentage of the dollar amount of the settlement.  But they should not get their portion in cash when everyone else get's theirs in coupons that are only good if they purchase something they might not want from the losing company.

I am not being silly.  Your memory is being faulty.  You had to CHOOSE to be a member of the class action, and then you had to CHOOSE to accept the settlement.  It is possible that after you returned something to become a member of the class that you ignored mail allowing you to opt out of the proposed settlement, but that still acted as a choice to accept it.

And when the plaintiffs in that case decided to accept coupons, they also were agreeing to the "currency" used to pay the attorneys.

Additionally, the attorney who handled your case DID accept it on a contingency... but only did so when it was as a class action and the legal costs could be spread over numerous plaintiffs and the size of a potential recovery made it worthwhile for a lawyer to handle it.  And you keep referring to the "losing company."  The defendant did not LOSE in your case.  The defendant SETTLED.

Your complaint here is what is silly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 08:50:31 am

Barrack Obama... the living definition of "weasel."  http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/who-pulled-troops-out-of-iraq-suddenly-the-president-doesnt-know/


Who Pulled Troops Out of Iraq? Suddenly the President Doesn’t Know
Author: Rusty Weiss
Posted: June 20, 2014

In 2011, President Obama was crowing to anybody that would listen about an arrangement he had facilitated to completely withdraw troops from Iraq. He did so while crediting so many others for their help in bringing that agreement to fruition.

Just kidding, it was all about Obama:
    As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end…. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. … So, today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.

“The rest of our troops.”

You can watch the video on how Obama single-handedly brought the remainder of our troops home from Iraq here.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or91bVVZTPI

The Washington Post summarizes the benefit to the President making this claim:  “… the fact he had withdrawn all U.S. forces from the country was a problem solved and a political chip to be cashed in come November.”

What the President was referring to was a Status of Forces Agreement, ratified by Iraqi lawmakers in November 2008 which stated in part, “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”

Now that Iraq is burning, with major territories falling to Islamic insurgents, President Obama has suddenly remembered that agreement and placed the blame for having no troop presence in the country squarely on the shoulders of those Iraqi lawmakers.

Via the Washington Post:
    Q: Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011? 

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government. We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces. We had a core requirement, which we were require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is — is that they are provided immunity at the — since they are being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they’re not somehow hauled before a foreign court. That’s a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity.

Here’s the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS__hLWBc-8

Even the Washington Post noted the President’s hypocrisy, saying the statement was surprising and reminding readers that Obama had taken full credit for pulling troops out of Iraq during his 2012 campaign.  In fact, the Post went so far as to point out that the President was lying.

    President Obama surprised a few people during a news conference Thursday by claiming that the 2011 decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq, a politically popular move on the eve of an election year, was made entirely by his Iraqi counterpart. The implication ran counter to a number of claims that Obama has made in the past, most notably during a tight campaign season two years ago, when he suggested that it was his decision to leave Iraq and end an unpopular war.

Referring to it as an “implication,” when as the video demonstrates it was an accusation or a definitive statement, is just a media device to avoid flat-out accusing the President of lying.

Here is the story’s transformation, summarized:
    (2011):  “I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.”
 
    (2014):  “Any regrets about that decision in 2011?” a reporter asked.  “Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,” Obama said.

Perhaps the President should heed his own words when changing the facts surrounding foreign policy events.  During the third Presidential debate in 2012, Obama reflected on one thing he had learned as commander in chief. 
“You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 11:41:38 am

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10464125_766136483446483_5256295334813701591_n.jpg?oh=720ec4fa21840375dce529cad3287684&oe=54142BA8)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 21, 2014, 04:44:34 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 20, 2014, 05:44:39 am

That, Jackie, is a question many of us have asked after reading your posts.

 Thats all youve got ? Youre slipping.
 
 Liked your post on Neanderthals btw.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 06:23:13 pm

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10320406_10152202080437690_8782910685192240439_n.png?oh=4820e520626efba18b99275489161b87&oe=54165CB0)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 21, 2014, 06:37:03 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 06:23:13 pm

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10320406_10152202080437690_8782910685192240439_n.png?oh=4820e520626efba18b99275489161b87&oe=54165CB0)

 Gotta love P.J. O'Rouke when he wrote for National Lampoon!  ;D :D :o :)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 21, 2014, 06:50:04 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 05:14:18 am

I am not being silly.  Your memory is being faulty.  You had to CHOOSE to be a member of the class action, and then you had to CHOOSE to accept the settlement.  It is possible that after you returned something to become a member of the class that you ignored mail allowing you to opt out of the proposed settlement, but that still acted as a choice to accept it.

And when the plaintiffs in that case decided to accept coupons, they also were agreeing to the "currency" used to pay the attorneys.

Additionally, the attorney who handled your case DID accept it on a contingency... but only did so when it was as a class action and the legal costs could be spread over numerous plaintiffs and the size of a potential recovery made it worthwhile for a lawyer to handle it.  And you keep referring to the "losing company."  The defendant did not LOSE in your case.  The defendant SETTLED.

Your complaint here is what is silly.

No.  You ARE being silly.  I assume deliberately so.

I CHOSE to become part of the group because if I did not do so, I would have received nothing, since no lawyer would take my individual case on contingency and paying a lawyer would have been silly in this case.

But you like to play with words rather than address the situation.  Many class action suits are not benefiting anyone but the lawyers because the lawyers do not have to look out for the benefit of their clients.  This could be helped greatly by requiring that the lawyers receive their pay in the same kind as their clients.  The net results would certainly be a substantial reduction in these suits, which would be in general good for both the business and the customers.

What does the fact that I used the word "lose" instead of "settle" have to do with the discussion.  Like most of your responses, it was meaningless to the point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 21, 2014, 06:57:36 pm

 
 Well he did have a good post about the Neanderthals and I wish he would do more of that instead of being in a non stop pissing contest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 07:37:42 pm

Quote from: davep on June 21, 2014, 06:50:04 pm

But you like to play with words rather than address the situation.  Many class action suits are not benefiting anyone but the lawyers because the lawyers do not have to look out for the benefit of their clients.  This could be helped greatly by requiring that the lawyers receive their pay in the same kind as their clients.  The net results would certainly be a substantial reduction in these suits, which would be in general good for both the business and the customers.

davep, you understand economics far too well to post such foolishness.

The only way to require many defendants to bear the full economic cost of their activity is thru class action lawsuits which impose upon them costs which they otherwise would very gleefully shift from their activity to consumers unaware of the cost at the time of the purchase or to members of the public at large or to employees.  The idea that the cases only benefit lawyers (and by that I assume you mean the plaintiffs' lawyers who quite often LOSE the cases and also all of the time and money they invested in them) is nonsense, and, as I mentioned, you understand economics well enough that I would be quite surprised if you are not already perfectly aware of that.

Quote from: davep on June 21, 2014, 06:50:04 pm

What does the fact that I used the word "lose" instead of "settle" have to do with the discussion.  Like most of your responses, it was meaningless to the point.

No, it has a good deal to do with the discussion.  It points out that you SETTLED.  You AGREED to the outcome, though now you appear to be complaining about it.  The fact that you SETTLED is quite relevant to the discussion.... but if it were not, and if the distinction was actually meaningless, then your response to point it out was meaningless compounded.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 21, 2014, 08:02:19 pm

 
 Now you learned that importent lesson diditya dave ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 21, 2014, 08:47:28 pm

Wonder what got Otto back on the gun control bandwagon? Don't recall any new news that would prompt a post....unless he just wants to avoid talking about the IRS or Iraq.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 21, 2014, 08:50:39 pm

Definitely likely

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 09:03:26 pm

Or ObamaCare.

Or the economy.

Or what's happening in Iran, Syria or the Ukraine.

Or Obama's public opinion ratings.

Or Hillary's bang-up book tour and book sales.

Or the efforts of Congressional Democrats to regulate politocal speech.

Or the mess on the Southern border.

Or how Obama is defying the Constitution by essentially ruling by fiat.

Or Holder's Contempt of Congress.

Or the need for a special prosecutor.

Or any other number of things that are actually legitimate issues.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 21, 2014, 10:30:35 pm

Bravo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 22, 2014, 11:02:37 am

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2014/06/20/what-you-are-not-being-told-about-the-invasion-of-america/

What You Are Not Being Told About the Invasion of America
Published June 20, 2014
By: TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges.
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2014/06/immgration-the-beast-train.jpg
Rome burned as Nero fiddled. Today, the American-Mexican border is going up in smoke. America is being invaded and successfully occupied. Obama is fanning the flames of border violence and artificially contrived human destitution through his unyielding attitude of corporate servitude resulting in providing the globalists with an endless supply of cheap, illegal alien labor regardless of the cost to the American people and their safety as well as the safety of the immigrants themselves. And on a more grand scale, this crisis is one more nail in the coffin in America and Obama knows exactly what he is doing.

In the video clip below, documentary filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch warns that the invasion is only the beginning of the crisis being created by the Obama administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMqYLsShZgU

    “It’s about to get worse. . . Entire villages are emptying out and coming from Central America through Mexico to the United States. They’ll be hitting in the next couple weeks. What you are seeing right now is the tip of the iceberg.”

The Daily Caller reports, “a leaked estimate by a top official in the Department of Homeland Security says the 12-month inflow will reach 90,000 by October, and then grow by another 142,000 in the next 12 months before October 2015.” That’s over 230,000, nearly a quarter million that the Democrats hope to dump on US taxpayers. Soon, this number will have grown by millions.

A Phoenix TV station reported June 6, DHS program that buses immigrants to AZ, no signs of stopping. The story follows the script of “humanitarian crisis” rather than a created crisis, but again, make no mistake about it, this administration is following script to undermine this country.

Playing the Race Card
If you oppose the current and dramatic increase in illegal immigration, some will ask you, “What are you afraid of? Don’t you like people that speak Spanish and have brown skin”? The race card is the default position of this administration. Let’s consider the fine work of a Lis-Marie Alvarado, an immigrant from Nicaragua, who presently resides in the Miami suburb of Homestead, FL. Last year for a documentary produced by Al Jazeera America TV series, “Borderland“, she rode the train that they refer to as the” Beast”. Alvarado and five other Americans traced the journey of immigrants who died while making their way to America on a train that departs from Nicaragua and heads north to the United States. The train illegally brings an estimated 500,000 people per year to the United States. Alvarado described the circumstances aboard the train as being very dire and life-threatening. Scores of people die on this train. Alvarado states that “… Not only with the sun, but also the water. There’s very limited water, and that’s a constant, you know. People are taking the journey because you do want a better future and you’re willing to do whatever it takes, there are a lot of people who aren’t going to make it.” Where is Obama in all of this?
(http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2014/06/immigration-the-beast-part-2.jpg)

Many Beast riders have suffered physical injury or death falling off the train or getting sucked into the wheels trying to board it in motion. In some areas, that’s the only way on. Most of these future illegal immigrants are making this 1,450-mile trek are not from Mexico, but rather from countries like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, which has the world’s highest murder rate.

Both Alvarado and Dannemiller expressed shock about how many children were riding the train. But you see, this constitutes the main part of the Obama plot. Get the children inside of the United States and the authorities will have no choice but to permit the parents to come to this country as well. Again, entire villages are coming to America under the most dangerous of conditions. The governments of the countries of origins buy bus ticket for the immigrants to travel to the Beast. Poor people are dangerous to an authoritarian regime and these leaders are all too happy to see them leave.

immigration dhs warning
I live in Arizona and I see the manifestation of this inhumane immigration program. Very large segments of the central corridor of my State are under the control of the Mexican drug cartels. The citizens of Pinal County, which is adjacent to metropolitan Phoenix, are under siege by these former Mexican army soldiers turned drug runners. Their penchant for violence is well documented. For example, Pinal County Deputy Louie Puroll was ambushed and shot as he tracked six drug smugglers near Casa Grande, Arizona. In the Phoenix suburb of Chandler, Arizona, a drug cartel rival was beheaded. Citizens have been terrorized and many of these have been victims of crime from the cartels. In a drug cartel related activity, Phoenix leads the country in kidnappings most of which are related to the sex slave and labor slave trafficking practices of the Zeta and Sinola drug cartel gangs. These events are the byproduct of this insane Obama plan.

NAFTA, CAFTA and How America Got the SHAFTA
By applying the perspective of history, it becomes clear that the agenda of the original SPP which was to bring us the concept known as CANAMEXAMERICA was to be employed and made legal by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The plan called for the creation of an international corridor of highways, controlled by the globalists, but paid for by the American taxpayer. The plan was designed to erase all national boundaries between Canada, Mexico and the United States. SPP, often referred to as the North American Union, was designed to promote the free movement of all people in Central America to the United States. This is precisely what we are witnessing as this was codified into law by the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

What is going on at our southern border is not merely a series of spontaneous events, culminating in a humanitarian crisis. This is a manufactured crisis in which specific short-range and long-range political and economic goals are being carried out.
The Goals of the Present Border Crisis

If these policies are not good for the people on either side of the border, then it must be good for someone else.

This administration needs a new influx of potential democrats as Americans are waking up the tyranny and recklessness coming out of Washington. Washington wants democrats that don’t understand when their rights are being violated. They want Democrats who do not understand that the Bill of Rights is for them and protects them against a growing tyrannical government. They want Democrats who will be thrilled to embrace the specter of Obamacare, because where they come from, there is no healthcare for most people.

Can you name even one thing the Obama administration has done to help the middle class? … I am waiting, please name just one thing….. The fact remains that this “President” is on a mission to bring this nation into the North American Union and overwhelming the nation with lower socio-economic immigrants is Obama’s primary tool of subjugation.

One question that you will never hear asked on CNN is “How many third world immigrants does it take coming into America, before America is a third world nation?

If Obama truly wanted to be a humanitarian, he would enforce a humanitarian immigration policy. He would demand processing and screening of immigrants to keep out the felons and the drug cartels. That is not happening. If Obama wanted an immigration policy in which tens of thousands of immigrants did not die trying to get into America, we would have naturalization programs for successful applicants. The naturalization program would contain a requirement to pass a test on American History and Constitution to make certain the new citizens understand their rights and how our system is supposed to work. Further, successful immigration applicants should be provided with English speaking lessons in a naturalization process which would take seven years. Such an immigration program would promote Constitutional liberties, but Obama and his handlers want none of it. Yet, this is what we used to do as a country. We successfully processed 13 million immigrants at Ellis Island without computers. Obama has the ability to do the same. He has the tools to shut down the border, streamline the immigration process to months needed to apply instead of the decades as is presently the case! The solutions are within reach, but Obama has a different agenda.

immigration-undocumented-democrats
What is going on at the border is no more than a cheap false flag event. If enough immigrant children are deliberately imperiled by this administration, of course Americans are going to open their hearts and wallets to these people. The fact remains is that we have 146 million Americans receiving some form of federal assistance. We simply cannot afford this. When millions of immigrants arrive under Obama’s “friends and family” plan, where are we going to find the infrastructure to take care of these people? Where will we find the water? Where will we find the money to build the schools to educate the children of these people? Asking these questions does not make one a bigot, it makes one a realist. And how many immigrants can a country take on before the country is stripped of its culture and traditions? Historically, when Americans have lost employment, they could find work further down the economic ladder in order to put food on the table. Increasingly, because of unchecked immigration, these opportunities are disappearing.

Conclusion
Those of you who think Obama is crazy, you are correct. Obama is crazy like a fox. He is merely the facilitator of a plot that was hatched more than a generation ago.

Yes, these Latin American immigrants are indeed children of God and do not deserve to be abused or taken advantage of. None of them should have to die as they attempt to enter our country. Their blood can squarely be placed on the Obama administration. This is a totally manufactured crisis and these people are the unwitting pawns.

America cannot afford to maintain our own social structure, let alone Latin America’s. What Obama is doing is by design and he is abusing people on both sides of the border. A sensible and reasonable immigration plan, such as the one we had nearly a 140 years ago is what is needed, not the contrived undermining of our country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 22, 2014, 11:04:58 am

Though I posted the above because it is worth reading and considering, the author's perspective is made rather clear in the last sentence, when he harkens back to the "good old days" of immigration policy "nearly 140 years ago," which was a time when our immigration laws were openly and unarguably racist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 22, 2014, 10:11:25 pm

http://amac.us/watch-democrat-invited-witnesses-react-asked-raise-hands-agree-obamas-big-global-warming-claim

Watch How Democrat-Invited Witnesses React When Asked to Raise Their Hands If They Agree With Obama’s Big Global Warming Claim

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 22, 2014, 10:33:35 pm

Yes, they were Democratic-invited witnesses... but they were also all former EPA agency chiefs appointed by Republican presidents.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 23, 2014, 03:49:31 pm

Mark's blog:

http://investing.calsci.com/blog6-22-14.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 23, 2014, 03:57:55 pm

 
 Imagine what 300 Special Forces could do on the U.S.-Mexican border instead of in Iraq.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 23, 2014, 04:11:09 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on June 23, 2014, 03:57:55 pm

 Imagine what 300 Special Forces could do on the U.S.-Mexican border instead of in Iraq.

Yeah, they could probably wipe out an entire battalion of infants without suffering any losses.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 23, 2014, 04:31:28 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 23, 2014, 04:11:09 pm

Yeah, they could probably wipe out an entire battalion of infants without suffering any losses.

 They could probably wipe out the drug cartels that are smuggling kids.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 23, 2014, 05:33:40 pm

They could probably wipe out the drug cartels that are smuggling kids.

That would be a blessing from heaven if they did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 23, 2014, 05:47:01 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 23, 2014, 05:33:40 pm

They could probably wipe out the drug cartels that are smuggling kids.

That would be a blessing from heaven if they did.

If the drug cartels are causing the illegal immigration (a scenario which makes no sense whatsoever), then it is one more reason to legalize the drugs the cartels are smuggling for delivery to eager buyers in the U.S.  It is not a reason to kill people.  And thinking that 300 special forces troops could effectively patrol a border stretching more than 2,000 miles is an amusing fantasy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 23, 2014, 06:28:39 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 23, 2014, 05:47:01 pm

If the drug cartels are causing the illegal immigration (a scenario which makes no sense whatsoever), then it is one more reason to legalize the drugs the cartels are smuggling for delivery to eager buyers in the U.S.  It is not a reason to kill people.  And thinking that 300 special forces troops could effectively patrol a border stretching more than 2,000 miles is an amusing fantasy.

 They are being smuggled up thru eastern mexico, under the control of the Zetas drug cartel which imposes a tax on them riding the train.
 
 Certain ones are picked off for ****.
 
 Although called a "drug" cartel ... they operate in human smuggling also.
 
 Legal drugs make the most sense since those that are into it are already into it and making it legal wont increase drug use.
 
 The same thing was found out 82 years ago with alcohol. 82 years ago.
 
 This nation is less drunk today then it was in 1790.
 
 If not 300 then 3000 Special Forces on the southern border.
 
 30000 would end it forever. They dont have to all be Special Forces.
 
 Now you have to ask yourself : Where is the Mexican goverment in all of this ? Thats whos giving the wink of an eye.
 
 Hold them accountable and stop pulling this far left hand wringing bullshit about kids on our doorstep and its up to us.
 
 No its not. If it is ... then drop the borders and let in the world.
 
 Theres far lefties who actually think this way in this Country.
 
 I would not call them liberal ... but far far left.
 
 Liberals and Conservatives have always had the ability to meet in the middle and design a consensus for what is best for the Nation.
 
 Far left and far right never will. The result is what you have ...
 
 a NATION with so much promise plodding instead of exciting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 23, 2014, 06:59:19 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 21, 2014, 07:37:42 pm

davep, you understand economics far too well to post such foolishness.

The only way to require many defendants to bear the full economic cost of their activity is thru class action lawsuits which impose upon them costs which they otherwise would very gleefully shift from their activity to consumers unaware of the cost at the time of the purchase or to members of the public at large or to employees.  The idea that the cases only benefit lawyers (and by that I assume you mean the plaintiffs' lawyers who quite often LOSE the cases and also all of the time and money they invested in them) is nonsense, and, as I mentioned, you understand economics well enough that I would be quite surprised if you are not already perfectly aware of that.

No, it has a good deal to do with the discussion.  It points out that you SETTLED.  You AGREED to the outcome, though now you appear to be complaining about it.  The fact that you SETTLED is quite relevant to the discussion.... but if it were not, and if the distinction was actually meaningless, then your response to point it out was meaningless compounded.

I was wrong when I said you were being silly.  You are merely being deliberately obtuse.

I understand economics well enough to understand that the company being sued only bears a portion of the damages they inflict, since the opposing lawyers are the only ones to be paid in actually cash.  And the plaintiffs gain nothing of economic value whatsoever when given a coupon that gives them a discount off their next purchase that they likely will not make.

Punishing the offending company is only one part of the equation.  The other is making the defendants whole.  In a great many cases this is not done.  You keep harping on the fact that I AGREED with the settlement.  That implies that I had a viable alternative.  I could opt out of the class and get nothing, or I can remain in the class and get nothing.

But we have lost sight of the solution.  If lawyers had to receive their compensation in the same form as the "class" they represent, then the "class" would receive the 75 dollars each, or whatever the damage was.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 07:50:36 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/23/earth-has-warmest-may-on-record-may-signal-warmest-year-in-pipeline/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/23/earth-has-warmest-may-on-record-may-signal-warmest-year-in-pipeline/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost)


How can this possibly be since according to you climate deniers we are entering a cooling period.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 23, 2014, 07:58:19 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 07:50:36 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/23/earth-has-warmest-may-on-record-may-signal-warmest-year-in-pipeline/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/23/earth-has-warmest-may-on-record-may-signal-warmest-year-in-pipeline/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost)


How can this possibly be since according to you climate deniers we are entering a cooling period.

 Otto,
 
 Do you have a way to solve this ? Be specific. We want answers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 23, 2014, 08:06:49 pm

Until they can find a way to control the sun I think we are **** out of luck.  It will heat or cool the planet however the **** it wants...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 08:07:07 pm

Tax carbon.

Just like British Columbia did 6 years ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 08:08:16 pm

So peke, our pollution is climate neutral?


You are a moron mr. sun spot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 23, 2014, 08:12:32 pm

Will if they did it was fixed right?  I mean if a carbon tax cures it they did it.  Problem solved.  Just move there and you will be safe from global warming.

Government can not fix everything Otto.  In fact it often makes things worse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 08:20:41 pm

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 08:23:47 pm

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."


- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 23, 2014, 08:29:46 pm

Great quotes Otto.  Describes you to a tee.

The science is not settled except in the minds of zealots like you.  There is no proof it is man made.  NONE!!!

If it was the models would be close or at least sometimes correct they have all been wrong time and time again. 

Use facts and logic.  You are blindly following a hoax. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 23, 2014, 08:53:56 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 08:20:41 pm

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

Don't you love it when otto approvingly quotes a small government libertarian who would oppose virtually everything otto supports?  Even more amusing in this case since in 1776 often the best way to increase you chance of death is to do as George Washington did just more than 20 years later and to allow the liberal administration of the medicine of the day.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 23, 2014, 08:55:33 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 23, 2014, 08:29:46 pm

Great quotes Otto.  Describes you to a tee.

The science is not settled except in the minds of zealots like you.  There is no proof it is man made.  NONE!!!

If it was the models would be close or at least sometimes correct they have all been wrong time and time again. 

Use facts and logic.  You are blindly following a hoax. 

Again, I disagree.  Even otto is not stupid enough to be blind to the hoax and to be following it.

He KNOWS it is a hoax and is pushing it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 23, 2014, 08:56:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 08:07:07 pm

Tax carbon.

Just like British Columbia did 6 years ago.

 You realize until the rest of society catches up with you ,you are pissing in the wind right ?
 They are not going to buy it.
 

Quote from: otto105 on June 23, 2014, 08:08:16 pm

So peke, our pollution is climate neutral?
You are a moron mr. sun spot.

There you go with the name calling again right away.
 
 Cant you get over that ?
 
 

Quote from: Pekin on June 23, 2014, 08:06:49 pm

Until they can find a way to control the sun I think we are **** out of luck.  It will heat or cool the planet however the **** it wants...

 Actually the Sun is a pretty much constant. Despite the solar flares
 
 The pivetal axis of the Earth is what makes things interesting.
 
 Lets be real ... both sides are right in their thinking, however,
 
 where do you see it going to for your offspring in 100 years ?
 
 Theres no fossil fuel in space ... theres a hellova lot of Hydrogen.
 
 What makes the Sun fusion ? What is dark energy ?
 
 Why do I even give a **** ? I wont be alive. Whats in it for me NOW?
 
 PLANET EARTH EXPANDING. Do I want a Superbowl on Mars ?
 
 You better **** believe it. Final score :
 
 MARS BEARS 46
 
 MARS PACKERS 31
 
 VENUS LIONS 0
 
 There have been some issues with the teams from Venus about transmission of video feeds due to solar flares.
 
 All three Venus teams have no choice but to forfeit according to INFL
 
 interplanetary rules.
 
 They are PISSED and rioting in the streets of Venus Chicago about barametric pressure rules and why they are left out of it on Venus!
 
 And theyve got a point about predjudice.
 
 Its been an issue in the INFL for awhile now :
 
 Should barametric pressure apply to all teams although some have to wear space suits to play in any on going enviroment ?
 
 Its going to be yet another year for the Commish to take up this issue,
 
 although what year on what planet has always been the dodge.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 23, 2014, 09:13:23 pm

Quote from: davep on June 23, 2014, 06:59:19 pm

I understand economics well enough to understand that the company being sued only bears a portion of the damages they inflict, since the opposing lawyers are the only ones to be paid in actually cash.  And the plaintiffs gain nothing of economic value whatsoever when given a coupon that gives them a discount off their next purchase that they likely will not make.

In terms of internalizing the negative externality of the defendant's operating costs, whether the plaintiffs gain anything is actually of no relevance.  And when you are addressing the question of how to get economic actors to make decisions which are in society's best interests the goal is to internalize the negative externality; it really is NOT compensating the injured party (though compensating the injured party may be a social justice goal, it really is not a goal involved in having the right economic actions taken).

Quote from: davep on June 23, 2014, 06:59:19 pm

Punishing the offending company is only one part of the equation.  The other is making the defendants whole.  In a great many cases this is not done.

From an economic perspective (economic being the study of the efficient allocation, use and consumption of resources and productive potential) only that first part of the equation matters.

Quote from: davep on June 23, 2014, 06:59:19 pm

But we have lost sight of the solution.  If lawyers had to receive their compensation in the same form as the "class" they represent, then the "class" would receive the 75 dollars each, or whatever the damage was.

I have not lost sight of the solution.  You seem not to understand it, or you are seeking a "solution" to something which from an economic perspective is not really a problem.  Though I support making injured parties whole, if only to provide them some incentive to pursue the economic actors who force the costs of their economic activity onto unwilling parties (through negative externalities), in looking at the economic factors involved, making them whole will actually at time perversely operate to encourage them to tolerate or expose themselves to the externalities which cause them harm.  As an example, if every cigarette smoker believed that any injuries they suffered from smoking would be fully compensated (either to them or their families), you would have fewer of them stop smoking.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 23, 2014, 09:43:46 pm

Hey Oddo if you continue believing in your God Baal you can control the sun too. Baal could control the weather.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 23, 2014, 10:25:22 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 23, 2014, 09:43:46 pm

Hey Oddo if you continue believing in your God Baal you can control the sun too. Baal could control the weather.

 Didnt they have to feed Baal ? And what the **** was up with that antenna in that one guys head?
 
 Is the U.S.S. Enterprise the most conquered and taken over ship ever?
 
 Every other episode.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 24, 2014, 07:06:18 am

Some breakfast reading for Otto...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10920198/Greenpeace-executive-flies-250-miles-to-work.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 24, 2014, 03:01:15 pm

Sorry keysbart, but anything from the murduch regime should never be clicked on.

And anyway, how about this bit o news.


In Florida, no insurance company on the state's exchange has asked to increase its rates next year. Not one, so far.

Something unprecedented may be unfolding in Florida's individual health-insurance market: None of the nine companies that have filed their 2015 rate requests so far wants an increase.

In fact, two of the companies—Molina Healthcare of Florida and Sunshine Health—actually requested a price cut.

"The fact is, an overall pattern of insurers not seeking rate increases—and even seeking rate decreases—is unheard of," said Greg Mellowe, policy director for the consumer advocacy group Florida CHAIN.

The price cuts Molina and Sunshine are requesting are actually pretty significant, and average of 11.6 percent for Molina and 7.9 percent for Sunshine.

Damn govmit heathcare.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 24, 2014, 04:07:58 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 24, 2014, 03:01:15 pm

Sorry keysbart, but anything from the murduch regime should never be clicked on.

And anyway, how about this bit o news.


In Florida, no insurance company on the state's exchange has asked to increase its rates next year. Not one, so far.

Something unprecedented may be unfolding in Florida's individual health-insurance market: None of the nine companies that have filed their 2015 rate requests so far wants an increase.

In fact, two of the companies—Molina Healthcare of Florida and Sunshine Health—actually requested a price cut.

"The fact is, an overall pattern of insurers not seeking rate increases—and even seeking rate decreases—is unheard of," said Greg Mellowe, policy director for the consumer advocacy group Florida CHAIN.

The price cuts Molina and Sunshine are requesting are actually pretty significant, and average of 11.6 percent for Molina and 7.9 percent for Sunshine.

This is beautiful.

While otto dismisses anything from "Murduch" as not even being worth clicking on, he offers alleged factual information without any sources whatsoever, other than himself... as if we are supposed to believe HIM, or think that anything he writes is worth reading.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 24, 2014, 06:24:35 pm

 
 What is goverment ? Well lets take a look at what keeps **** up :
 
 over and over and over and over again ...
 
 Religion ... Business ... Politics.
 
 If you were a really smart planet ... youd replace them with :
 
 Medicine ... Science ... Engineers.
 
 Think about whose running you ... and whats in it for them.
 
 And what have you gotten so far,when you should have gotten so much more?
 
 NOW GO BACK TO WORK AND DONT THINK! Thinking is dangerous.
 
 Its not in your best interest ... we know whats best for you.
 
 Dont think you are being a paranoid ... youre just being normal.
 
 Trust us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 25, 2014, 07:19:51 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 24, 2014, 03:01:15 pm

Sorry keysbart, but anything from the murduch regime should never be clicked on.

And anyway, how about this bit o news.


In Florida, no insurance company on the state's exchange has asked to increase its rates next year. Not one, so far.

Something unprecedented may be unfolding in Florida's individual health-insurance market: None of the nine companies that have filed their 2015 rate requests so far wants an increase.

In fact, two of the companies—Molina Healthcare of Florida and Sunshine Health—actually requested a price cut.

"The fact is, an overall pattern of insurers not seeking rate increases—and even seeking rate decreases—is unheard of," said Greg Mellowe, policy director for the consumer advocacy group Florida CHAIN.

The price cuts Molina and Sunshine are requesting are actually pretty significant, and average of 11.6 percent for Molina and 7.9 percent for Sunshine.

Damn govmit heathcare.

Poor Otto...such a buffoon.

Here is the link to his article. A publicly funded radio station.

http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/no-rate-increase-can-it-be

AND HERE IS THE REAL STORY

http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/it-was-too-good-be-true

The information posted by health insurers on a state website indicating they would not seek a rate increase for 2015 in Florida's individual market was "incorrect" and has been taken down, the Office of Insurance Regulation said late Tuesday afternoon.


 
Unfortunately, the false information came to light only after Health News Florida published an article on Tuesday with the headline: "No Rate Increase? Can It Be?"

The answer, it turns out, is no.

Some of the insurers that had listed "zero" for their requested rate increase were fibbing to keep their real intentions secret, OIR's spokesman Harvey Bennett said. It is legal for them to do that under a "trade secrets" statute, he said.

The companies provided the actual rate requests to OIR, but the agency will not make them public for several weeks, Bennett said. OIR will prepare a report later in the summer.

"We do have some decreases (in premium rates) but we also have some increases," he said.

The mix-up occurred on the "I-File" system, where companies can post their filings to OIR directly. In the part that the public can see -- including the rate request -- some of the companies put incorrect information.

The site has been taken down for "unscheduled maintenance," he said. "It's my understanding that we're going to put a disclaimer on the site. This was unanticipated."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 25, 2014, 03:11:52 pm

You mean otto posted something which was utter bullshit?

I'm shocked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMIyDf3gBoY

otto's credibility is so non-existent I don't even read his posts if it is apparent he is making factual claims without offering a source to allow checking on it.  Your effort in checking his latest post simply helps establish my approach makes sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 25, 2014, 05:24:55 pm

Move along.... nothing to see here.

http://news.yahoo.com/emails-irs-official-sought-audit-204035386.html;_ylt=AwrBEiKHOqtTER4ARUnQtDMD


Emails: IRS official sought audit of GOP senator
Emails show that former IRS official in tea party probe sought audit involving GOP senator
Associated Press  By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional investigators say they uncovered emails Wednesday showing that a former Internal Revenue Service official at the heart of the tea party investigation sought an audit involving a Republican senator in 2012.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 25, 2014, 05:37:46 pm

Blah, blah, blah what kind of tea's company event was it? Was it a Uncle Tom's for Grassley?

Your proof lacks it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 25, 2014, 06:07:19 pm

Boehner says he will bring charges against the president in court

http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-says-house-plans-sue-obama-172552521--politics.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 25, 2014, 06:10:44 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 25, 2014, 05:24:55 pm

Move along.... nothing to see here.

http://news.yahoo.com/emails-irs-official-sought-audit-204035386.html;_ylt=AwrBEiKHOqtTER4ARUnQtDMD


Emails: IRS official sought audit of GOP senator
Emails show that former IRS official in tea party probe sought audit involving GOP senator
Associated Press  By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional investigators say they uncovered emails Wednesday showing that a former Internal Revenue Service official at the heart of the tea party investigation sought an audit involving a Republican senator in 2012.

IRS should be done away with constitutionally

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 25, 2014, 06:47:24 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 25, 2014, 05:37:46 pm

Blah, blah, blah what kind of tea's company event was it? Was it a Uncle Tom's for Grassley?

Why would it matter?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 25, 2014, 07:20:04 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on June 25, 2014, 06:47:24 pm

Why would it matter?

It wouldn't... but why would THAT matter to otto?

Grassly is a repuglican, so anything that happens to him, including tar and feathering, or a lynching, is okay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 25, 2014, 08:24:48 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/crime-belief-stay-drive-migrants-us-040255091.html


Crime, belief they can stay drive migrants to US
Associated Press  By ALBERTO ARCE 18 hours ago

ARRIAGA, Mexico (AP) — On the last day of school Gladys Chinoy memorized her mother's phone number in New York City and boarded a bus to Guatemala's northern border.

With nothing but the clothes on her back, the 14-year-old took a truck-tire raft across the Naranjo River into Mexico and joined a group of five women and a dozen children waiting with one of the smugglers who are paid $6,000 to $7,000 for each migrant they take to the U.S.

The women and children waited by the train tracks in this small town in the southern state of Chiapas until the shriek of a train whistle and the glare of headlights pierced the night. Suddenly, dozens of teens and mothers with young children flooded out of darkened homes and budget hotels, rushing to grab the safest places on the roof of the northbound freight train and join a deluge of children and mothers that is overwhelming the U.S. immigration system.

The number of unaccompanied minors detained on the U.S. border has more than tripled since 2011. Children are also widely believed to be crossing with their parents in rising numbers, although the Obama administration has not released year-by-year figures. The crisis has sparked weeks of bitter political debate inside the U.S., with the administration saying crime is driving migrants north from Central America and congressional Republicans saying Obama's policies is leading migrants to believe children and their mothers will be allowed to stay.

In interviews along the primary migrant route north to the United States, dozens of migrants like Gladys indicated that both sides are right.

A vast majority said they were fleeing gang violence that has reached epidemic levels in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador in recent years. The migrants also uniformly said they decided to head north because they had heard that a change in U.S. law requires the Border Patrol to swiftly release children and their mothers and let them stay in the United States.
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/lqg40Xeul0ipeLu6P0bdrA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyMTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz03NDk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/838c6d1dc9640b18580f6a70670009c8.jpg)
In this Friday, June 20, 2014 photo, Guatemalan migrant Gladys Chinoy, 14, waits along with more than 500 other migrants, after the freight train they were traveling on suffered a minor derailment, leaving them stranded for more than 12 hours in a remote wooded area outside Reforma de Pineda, Chiapas state, Mexico. On the last day of middle school, Chinoy memorized her mother's phone number in New York City and boarded a bus to Guatemala's northern border. Once across the river into Mexico, she joined a group of women and children traveling with a smuggler paid to take migrants to the U.S. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

The belief that women and children can safely surrender to authorities the moment they set foot in the U.S. has changed the calculus of tens of thousands of parents who no longer worry about their children finishing the dangerous trip north through Mexico with a potentially deadly multiday hike through the desert Southwest.

"The United States is giving us a great opportunity because now, with this new law, we don't have to try to cross the desert where so many people die. We can hand ourselves over directly to the authorities," Gladys said, adding that she hopes to become a doctor.

The smiling teenager with long black hair said she was more excited about seeing her mother again than she was scared about the trip. Her mother said she was aware of the dangers but finally decided the risk was worth it after five years apart.

Reached by phone at home, the mother said she decided to send for her daughter because "if she gets across she can stay here, that's what you hear."

"Now they say that all children need to do is hand themselves over to the Border Patrol," said the mother, who declined to provide her name because she is in the U.S. illegally.
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/tvEGNSX9GIZOtmR7mslbxQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyMTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz03NDk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/4e18db53c9640b18580f6a7067008d79.jpg)
In this Friday, June 20, 2014 photo, Central American migrants hang out around the northbound freight train they had been traveling on, after it suffered a minor derailment in a remote wooded area outside Reforma de Pineda, Chiapas state, Mexico. The train remained stuck for a day and a half, exposing the migrants to the possibility of attacks by criminal gangs. The Beta squad, a governmental group dedicated to the protection of migrants, brought water to the stranded travelers and offered medical care. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

The migrants' faith isn't totally misplaced. While Mexicans generally are returned across the border quickly when they're caught, overwhelmed border facilities leave the government with no way to care for most Central American children and their parents. The Central American minors who cross the border alone have generally been released into the care of relatives already in the U.S., while mothers with children are let go with a notice to appear later in immigration court.

While many children and families may eventually be ordered out of the U.S., many are reporting in calls back home that they're free to move around the U.S. while their cases wend through a process that can take years.

The Obama administration estimates that between October 2013 and September 2014 it will have caught 90,000 children trying to illegally cross the Mexican border without their parents. Last year, the U.S. returned fewer than 2,000 children to their native countries.

"The story is that you have to give yourself up to the Border Patrol, provide a contact in the United States and you'll be freed even though they give you a court date far in the future," said Ruben Figueroa, a member of the Mesoamerica Migrant Movement, who works in a shelter for migrants crossing the southeast Mexico state of Tabasco. "If you combine this information with the violence in the streets and extortion keeping people from living their lives, the result is a massive exodus."

Rocio Quinteros worked selling snacks in front of a school in San Miguel, 80 miles outside the capital of El Salvador, until gangsters' demands for a percentage of her income made it impossible to make a living.

She said that when she could no longer afford to pay, members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang threatened to recruit her 14-year-old son instead. This month, she told local gang members she was taking her four children, ages 11 to 17, to see their sick grandmother in another city. Then they abandoned their packed-dirt home on the northeastern edge of the city and headed north.

"They ask you for 100 and you give it, then they ask for 200, and they suffocate you until you have to hand over everything, even your house," she said as she waited with her youngest child in the women's section of Arriaga's migrant shelter. "If we had stayed in El Salvador, I already would have had to bury one of my sons."

With no toys to entertain them, the children in the women's section watch TV until their parents hear the train is on its way. As she waited, Quinteros spoke to her older children through the bars of the metal door of the men's section of the shelter.

In Carmensa, the neighborhood that she and her children abandoned, dozens of homes sit empty because their owners have gone to the United States. The remaining residents described daily lives marred by constant fear.

Gonzalo Velasquez, 66, said he had fled the countryside for San Miguel when El Salvador's 1980s civil war forced him off his small farm in the countryside.

"I lived through the war but this is different," he said. "Before, we knew who was shooting. Today nobody knows ... If you have little kids, young ones, it's better to go so they don't go into the gangs . the stores are closing because they get asked for payoffs and can't pay, so it's better to close."

Quinteros said she believed she was saving her children by fleeing to a place where they wouldn't be subject to gang recruitment.

"On the way north you have the hope of living and the risk of death," she said. "Back home death is certain."

The Obama administration said Friday that it was opening family detention centers on the border to reduce the number of women and children that are released. Vice President Joe Biden flew to Guatemala the same day to emphasize the dangers of the northbound journey and the low chances of staying in the U.S. for good.

It's a tough sell for Central American migrants who say life at home has simply become intolerable.

As Gladys and her companions boarded the train Thursday night, Natanael Lemus, a 30-year-old mechanic from El Salvador, dragged his 10-year-old son, Edwin, and 12-year-old daughter, Cynthia, by the hands as he ran alongside, asking those already aboard for help getting them onto the roof.

(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/eZ1z0y0ls71CxbCH_zprbA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyMTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz03NDk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/c7031029c9630b18580f6a706700603c.jpg)
In this Thursday, June 19, 2014 photo, Cynthia Lemus, 12, waits with her family and other Central American migrants, for the arrival of a northbound freight train, in Arriaga, Chiapas state, Mexico. Cynthia's father, mechanic Natanael Lemus explained that he wanted to leave San Salvador because extortion made it impossible to earn a living. "If you buy a car, they come to extort you. A machine for the workshop, they come to extort you. If they see you put on some nice pants or sneakers, they come to extort you," said Lemus. "You can't work like that. You go bankrupt." (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

On the crowded and slippery roof, Lemus cut black plastic trash bags into raincoats for his wife and kids and tied them to the train with ropes so they wouldn't fall off. He explained that he wanted to leave behind his workshop in the capital, San Salvador, because extortion made it impossible to earn a living.

"If you buy a car, they come to extort you. A machine for the workshop, they come to extort you. If they see you put on some nice pants or sneakers, they come to extort you," Lemus said. "You can't work like that. You go bankrupt."

He said that after taking his wife and children safely north he would wait in Mexico for a chance to cross on his own and hopefully not get caught.

But most important, he said, was getting his wife and children into the hands of the Border Patrol, the first step in what he hoped would be a new and better life.

___

Associated Press writers Marcos Aleman in San Miguel, El Salvador; Sonia Perez in Guatemala City; Alicia Caldwell in Washington and Michael Weissenstein in Mexico City contributed to this report.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 25, 2014, 09:10:46 pm

Two more years of this ****.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 25, 2014, 09:56:36 pm

All because Obama thinks they will vote Democrat and he wants to transform America into a third world country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 26, 2014, 06:02:42 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 25, 2014, 09:56:36 pm

All because Obama thinks they will vote Democrat and he wants to transform America into a third world country.

That's what I believe

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 26, 2014, 07:36:41 am

This is what happens when both congress and our peerless leader are vague as to enforcing the law.

In 2006 congress passed a bill to complete the border fence (and funding) that would stop most of this.

In 2013 the Senate stopped the construction.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 26, 2014, 09:34:25 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 25, 2014, 09:56:36 pm

All because Obama thinks they will vote Democrat and he wants to transform America into a third world country.

Mission Acomplished

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 26, 2014, 09:38:34 am

Apparently EPA has a homework eating dog as well....

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/210564-epa-says-hard-drive-crashed-emails-lost

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 03:39:00 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 25, 2014, 09:56:36 pm

All because Obama thinks they will vote Democrat and he wants to transform America into a third world country.

Even I think claims like this are a bit nutty.

Obama has no desire to "transform America into a third world country."  Contending he does is, well, nutty.  It would serve no purpose any reasonable person could conclude he actually desires.  There is no reason to believe he would desire it.  And no honest examination of his policies would allow a sane person to conclude Obama's major policy moves would do so, or at least not in anything resembling the foreseeable future, and certainly not nearly so effectively as many other alternative policy moves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 03:40:14 pm

Quote from: davebear on June 26, 2014, 07:36:41 am

In 2006 congress passed a bill to complete the border fence (and funding) that would stop most of this.

In 2013 the Senate stopped the construction.

There was not a whole lot of construction to stop.  Even under Bush, not much of anything was done.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 03:50:35 pm

Jes, He wants all country's equal.  The only way to make us equal with third world countries is to drag us down to their level or to raise them to ours (which is pretty much impossible).

He feels we only got this wealthy and powerful as a nation from taking from others.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 04:26:01 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 03:50:35 pm

Jes, He wants all country's equal.  The only way to make us equal with third world countries is to drag us down to their level or to raise them to ours (which is pretty much impossible).

He feels we only got this wealthy and powerful as a nation from taking from others.

There is nothing he has ever said or done to allow that conclusion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 04:28:23 pm

And, even if he HAS, you have offered none of it here.  You have presented your conclusions, and repeated them, but you offer nothing resembling evidence to support those conclusions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 05:12:53 pm

He is an anti-colonialist.

Did you watch the movie "2016 Obama's America"?  I did when it came out and thought ok I don't like the guy either but that is stretching it a bit.  However it now seems to be pretty much dead on correct.

There is no other explanation for what he has been doing.  It all lines up. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2014, 05:29:25 pm

Just more inane posts from a guy wrong about the Iraq war, conservative economic principles (after 12 years of Reagan/bush a recession, after 8 years of the scrub the great recession, after 8 years of republic rule in the 20's The Great Depression) and the function of government in general.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 05:33:12 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 05:12:53 pm

He is an anti-colonialist.

Did you watch the movie "2016 Obama's America"?  I did when it came out and thought ok I don't like the guy either but that is stretching it a bit.  However it now seems to be pretty much dead on correct.

There is no other explanation for what he has been doing.  It all lines up. 

Then start listing the evidence supporting your conclusion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 05:34:50 pm

Ever wonder why it might be that so many of those crossing the southern border and claiming refugee status seem to be saying exactly the right things?

(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AlienCheatSheet1-620x348.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 06:59:08 pm

Either he hates America or is absolutely incompetent.  I can't seem to comprehend how someone so incompetent could become president of the United States.    He is either hurting this country on purpose or through sheer incompetence.

Perhaps that is the answer but it doesn't seem to add up to me. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 07:00:02 pm

Why stop the keystone pipeline but give money to Brazil for oil production?  Doesn't seem to make sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 26, 2014, 07:19:01 pm

 
 The richest man in the world  (well outside of Putin) is in
 
 telecomunnications in Mexico, I forgot his name.
 
 But youd think there would be TV cameras in Mexico reporting on all of this movement of kids thru Zetas drug cartel territory in easten Mexico headed to Texas.
 
 Maybe its because TV cameras are to scared to go there.
 
 What does that tell you about Mexico ?
 
 If you want to play an analogy : Who was running Chicago in the 1920's ?
 
 Why ?
 
 Drugs ,in that case alcohol.
 
 Same difference.
 
 Nothings changed in Human nature from then to now.
 
 This problem dumped on our doorstep could be solved tomorrow morning at 8:00 AM EST.
 
 Thats not going to happen ... chickens have to be plucked for republicans and votes have to be garnered for democrats.
 
 This is where it gets interesting ... what makes you think once they have majority status they are going to vote for either of you ?
 
 Maybe thats why TV cameras in Mexico dont cover this.
 
 Its in their vested interest to widen their TV audience.
 
 Move over.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 07:44:01 pm

Legalize drugs.  All of them.  Get it over with. 

If someone wants to kill themselves let them.  Making it illegal makes no difference anyway.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 07:51:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 07:44:01 pm

Legalize drugs.  All of them.  Get it over with. 

If someone wants to kill themselves let them.  Making it illegal makes no difference anyway.
 

Making it illegal actually makes considerable difference, though virtually all of the difference is negative.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 07:52:48 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 06:59:08 pm

Either he hates America or is absolutely incompetent.  I can't seem to comprehend how someone so incompetent could become president of the United States.    He is either hurting this country on purpose or through sheer incompetence.

Perhaps that is the answer but it doesn't seem to add up to me.

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 07:00:02 pm

Why stop the keystone pipeline but give money to Brazil for oil production?  Doesn't seem to make sense.

Wow.  Not even really worth wasting the time to respond to such overwhelming evidence as that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 08:02:09 pm

There is a list a mile long we can go through as to what he is doing or isn't and none of it really makes sense unless he is either trying to harm this country or is totally 100% incompetent.  Do you deny this?


Why advertise in Central America that they can come here and stay if they are children?  Why did they put out a request for companies to bid on moving illegal immigrants in January?  They created this problem and knew they were doing it.  Why?  Certainly for Democratic voters but they had to know it was going to strain our resources.

He flooded the country with illegals on purpose.  He is not deporting them on purpose.  He does not have another election so he doesn't care that his numbers are plummeting.  He is doing exactly what he wants to do. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 08:52:33 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 08:02:09 pm

There is a list a mile long we can go through as to what he is doing or isn't and none of it really makes sense unless he is either trying to harm this country or is totally 100% incompetent.  Do you deny this?

How am I to agree or deny your claim of unarguably strong evidence supporting your conclusion, when you refuse to meaningfully address that evidence?

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 08:02:09 pm

Why advertise in Central America that they can come here and stay if they are children?

Let's pause a moment to address that claim.

Where is ANY evidence that the administration "advertise(d) in Central America that they can come here and stay if they have children"?

Simply question, but if you can not answer it, you might want to reconsider the claim.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 09:23:42 pm

Didn't you just post something showing they are all giving the same verbage?  Not that it matters under Obama they all get to stay.  Really does not matter how or why they came here.  You get here you get to stay.  Obama has said so, his policies say so and to me that is advertising. 

You can see film where they cross the border and wait to get picked up by the border patrol.  They know that once they get here they are home free.  Obama has told them in speeches and the word has spread.  They advertise to sign up for welfare in spanish in this country.

I am all for legal immigration.  In fact I think it should be much easier to migrate here legally.  It would cut down on the illegal immigration.  Illegal is the operative word here.

The list of things Obama has done to hurt this country is longer then I can even begin to type.  How about you watch the movie or read the book then we can have a conversation about how much you agree or disagree.  I don't think you truly disagree that Obama has been a disaster for the United States.  Hell even liberals know he is but just argue to argue.  Oh then there is that...   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 26, 2014, 09:44:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 26, 2014, 05:29:25 pm

Just more inane posts from a guy wrong about the Iraq war, conservative economic principles (after 12 years of Reagan/bush a recession, after 8 years of the scrub the great recession, after 8 years of republic rule in the 20's The Great Depression) and the function of government in general.

Don't you have some more false news stories to post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2014, 09:45:29 pm

So sad keysbart, but at the time I posted the Florida story it was true. Any correction was made after.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 10:03:38 pm

Posting a story that was false does not make it the truth at the time it was posted.    It was false when you posted it and is still false.  Did you know it was false?  Perhaps not, but your record shows you do not care one way or another if it fits your agenda.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 26, 2014, 10:05:55 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 26, 2014, 09:45:29 pm

So sad keysbart, but at the time I posted the Florida story it was true. Any correction was made after.

No, the story was never true. You just were so gleeful to see that nonsense you didn't apply any common sense before you posted it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2014, 10:11:09 pm

Wrong as usual.

You posted a correction to the original story, right?

Ya know, this part...


The information posted by health insurers on a state website indicating they would not seek a rate increase for 2015 in Florida's individual market was "incorrect" and has been taken down, the Office of Insurance Regulation said late Tuesday afternoon.


 
Unfortunately, the false information came to light only after Health News Florida published an article on Tuesday with the headline: "No Rate Increase? Can It Be?"

The answer, it turns out, is no.

Some of the insurers that had listed "zero" for their requested rate increase were fibbing to keep their real intentions secret, OIR's spokesman Harvey Bennett said. It is legal for them to do that under a "trade secrets" statute, he said.

The companies provided the actual rate requests to OIR, but the agency will not make them public for several weeks, Bennett said. OIR will prepare a report later in the summer.

"We do have some decreases (in premium rates) but we also have some increases," he said.

The mix-up occurred on the "I-File" system, where companies can post their filings to OIR directly. In the part that the public can see -- including the rate request -- some of the companies put incorrect information.

The site has been taken down for "unscheduled maintenance," he said. "It's my understanding that we're going to put a disclaimer on the site. This was unanticipated."


Spin away wingnut.

Wouldn't it be nice to go back to the old insurance system nuts want? Where insurance companies can lie like crazy...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 26, 2014, 10:15:20 pm

Anyone with even a little common sense would have thought to question the validity of that story given the source.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 27, 2014, 12:15:29 am

Quote from: Keysbear on June 26, 2014, 10:15:20 pm

Anyone with even a little common sense would have thought to question the validity of that story given the source.

What does that have to do with the Homo?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2014, 05:35:11 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2014, 09:23:42 pm

Didn't you just post something showing they are all giving the same verbage?  Being given a "cheat sheet" on what to say in order to say is not even remotely close to "advertising" (your claim) that they could stay, nor is it any indication whatsoever that the source of that sheet was the Obama administration, which was your claim, that the Obama administration was "advertising" such information in Central America in order to help make the U.S. a 3rd world nation.  Not that it matters under Obama they all get to stay.  Stay on the topic, please.  The discussion is over what evidence you have used to conclude Obama INTENDS to make the U.S. a 4rd world nation.  Whether immigrants get to stay here or not certainly would not qualify. Really does not matter how or why they came here.  You get here you get to stay.  Obama has said so, his policies say so and to me that is advertising.  Actually, his stated policies do NOT say they will be allowed to stay, and even if they did, it would not amount to "advertising."  It would appear that bit of "evidence" can be dismissed.

What else ya got?

You can see film where they cross the border and wait to get picked up by the border patrol.  They know that once they get here they are home free.  Obama has told them in speeches and the word has spread.  All of his speeches, every last one of them, is archived at whitehouse.gov  So find one where he tells them this.  They advertise to sign up for welfare in spanish in this country.  Please also find something credible to support this claim.

I am all for legal immigration.  In fact I think it should be much easier to migrate here legally.  It would cut down on the illegal immigration.  Illegal is the operative word here. To maintain the focus of the discussion, I will ignore this paragraph entirely.

The list of things Obama has done to hurt this country is longer then I can even begin to type. And I never asked you to type the entire list.  But so far you seem not to have offered ANY of it.  You are sounding a lot like otto here. How about you watch the movie or read the book then we can have a conversation about how much you agree or disagree.  I don't think you truly disagree that Obama has been a disaster for the United States.  THAT is irrelevant to this discussion, unless you somehow believe that everyone who opposes Obama should simply accept without challenge any cockamamie claim someone might make which is critical of Obama. Hell even liberals know he is but just argue to argue.  Oh then there is that...  zzzStarting to look like a rather cowardly way to avoid offering anything to support your claim.  Just pick a few of the highlights from that "long list."  That is all I have asked for.  I never asked you to list everything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 27, 2014, 09:49:37 am

Hey Otto...I think this  is more likely true than your fantasy of "not a single insurer raised premiums in Florida...not one"...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/michigan-obamacare-premium-hikes-up-to-20-percent/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2014, 09:50:38 am

All because Obama thinks they will vote Democrat and he wants to transform America into a third world country.

Jes Beard
"Even I think claims like this are a bit nutty.

Obama has no desire to "transform America into a third world country."  Contending he does is, well, nutty.  It would serve no purpose any reasonable person could conclude he actually desires.  There is no reason to believe he would desire it.  And no honest examination of his policies would allow a sane person to conclude Obama's major policy moves would do so, or at least not in anything resembling the foreseeable future, and certainly not nearly so effectively as many other alternative policy moves."

Maybe you think its a bit nutty but there are some things which are questionable to me. The only reason I can see besides more ignorant Dumbocrat votes (just pull the donkey lever, that's all you have to do to get paid) is that you lower the standard of living. There is no upward mobility. That tends to make this country like a 3rd world country. That appears to be what Obama is trying to do. That seems to coincide with goals of the "New World Order".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 27, 2014, 10:52:49 am

I think the fantasy of believing the daily caller is on display.


http://www.freep.com/article/20140624/OPINION05/306180016/obamacare-michigan (http://www.freep.com/article/20140624/OPINION05/306180016/obamacare-michigan)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 27, 2014, 11:17:43 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 27, 2014, 10:52:49 am

I think the fantasy of believing the daily caller is on display.


http://www.freep.com/article/20140624/OPINION05/306180016/obamacare-michigan (http://www.freep.com/article/20140624/OPINION05/306180016/obamacare-michigan)

Hmmm...I read that entire propaganda piece and not once does it mention the rate hikes.  I wonder why?  Nice try but it doesn't change the fact that premiums are rising despite the promises that they would go down. Just because you close your eyes to it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2014, 03:13:08 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 27, 2014, 09:50:38 am

The only reason I can see besides more ignorant Dumbocrat votes (just pull the donkey lever, that's all you have to do to get paid) is that you lower the standard of living. There is no upward mobility. That tends to make this country like a 3rd world country. That appears to be what Obama is trying to do. That seems to coincide with goals of the "New World Order".

You appear to share the economic viewpoint of many union members, folks who by their economic perspective are close to being socialists or communists, and who fail to understand that economies are dynamic.  It is pretty much the Paul Krugman view of the world.  The idea there is "no upward mobility," or that allowing more people to enter the country to work is likely to "lower the standard of living," is right in line with that way of thinking.  It ignores reality and what happens in a free market.  It also at the moment ignores the demographic reality of the U.S. birthrate having declined to the point that the birth of children to U.S. citizens no longer is even keeping pace with the deaths of U.S. citizens.  If you do not allow immigrants, we will in relatively short order (a few decades) be a nation filled with folks in nursing homes without enough workers to take care of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 27, 2014, 04:05:50 pm

By Greg Stohr  Jun 26, 2014 4:06 PM C

The U.S. Supreme Court curbed the president’s power to make temporary appointments without Senate approval, backing congressional Republicans and dealing a blow to President Barack Obama.

The justices ruled unanimously that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority when he appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. Four Republican-appointed justices would have gone even further in limiting the appointment power.

The case was the court’s first look at a constitutional provision that lets the president make temporary appointments to high-level posts during Senate recesses. The decision means the Senate can all but nullify the recess-appointment power by holding brief “pro forma” sessions every few days.

“We must give great weight to the Senate’s own determination of when it is and when it is not in session,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

Obama caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:14:11 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/14/Omnibus-spending-bill-continues-funding-food-stamp-ads-in-Mexico-despite-Appropriations-Committee-claims-of-prohibition


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/obama-partners-with-mexico-to-boost-us-food-stamp-use/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:17:44 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:22:00 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-poe-children-border-crisis/2014/06/09/id/576038/


The sudden influx of illegal immigrant children and the humanitarian crisis the federal government is facing due to insufficient supplies and poor conditions for them was caused by President Barack Obama, says Rep. Ted Poe of Texas.

 "This humanitarian crisis has been caused by President Obama and the uncertainty about the enforcement of the law," Poe told J.D. Hayworth on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV Monday.

 "Children are told, 'Go to America and cross the border illegally, America will rescue you, they will take care of you, after a period of time they will give you legal status and we will join you in America,'" Poe claims.

 "That's why kids are making this dangerous trip from Central America through Mexico to the United States," he added. "It's going to continue because everyone knows in the United States and in foreign countries that we have an administration that doesn't enforce the rules. Doesn't enforce the law. So they hope that this humanitarian crisis will cause a result of more people coming into the United States, thanks to the president of the United States."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-poe-children-border-crisis/2014/06/09/id/576038#ixzz35sg20k2D
 Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:25:24 pm

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/14/obama-tells-cops-enforcing-immigration-laws-is-not-smart-118763

Speaking to representatives of local sheriffs offices, police departments and federal agencies at the White House, President Obama said Tuesday that street-level immigration law enforcement – arresting illegal aliens because they’re illegal aliens — is more trouble than it’s worth.
 
“You’ve got to spend time dealing with somebody who is not causing any other trouble other than the fact that they were trying to make a living for their families,” Obama said, according to the Daily Caller.

“That’s just not a good use of our resources. It’s not smart. It doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Unfortunately for Obama’s logic, that’s more or less what law enforcement is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:28:47 pm

So Jess if we are advertising in Mexico do you think it is in English?

Hell, the signs at the post office are both in English and Spanish.  Do you think it is any different wherever you sign up for welfare?   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:40:33 pm

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/12/usda-uses-spanish-soap-operas-to-push-food-stamp-participation-among-non-citizens-citizens/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 06:31:38 pm

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/06/27/undocumented-immigrant-children-spurred-by-reuniting-with-families-not-just/

The crisis is taking its toll. Judd told Congress some 40 percent of agents on the Southwest border are off line, changing diapers and babysitting instead of patrolling.

Chris Crane, union representative for Immigration Customs and Enforcement, said 60 to 120 agents daily escort unaccompanied children who have crossed the border on airplanes to see relatives. Though administration officials say they're hiring more judges, removal proceedings typically take up to 5 years.

"If the administration continues current policies, it can expect the crisis to escalate and other problems to potentially emerge," Crane told the House Judiciary Committee. "Desperate people in impoverished countries don’t read our laws or policies and pay no heed to cut off dates. Continued talk in the U.S. of legalization without proper law enforcement safeguards first in place will continue to draw millions like a magnet to our southern border."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 27, 2014, 06:42:19 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:28:47 pm

So Jess if we are advertising in Mexico do you think it is in English?

Hell, the signs at the post office are both in English and Spanish.  Do you think it is any different wherever you sign up for welfare?   

 WTF !?!?
 
 Im born in this nation of 1/2 Swedish 1/4 Martian and 1/4 Zombie
 
 parentage.
 
 Wheres the signs for MY people at the Post Office ?
 
 Blatent racizzzzim and not "caring " for people of my breeds concerns.
 
 Shame on you America for not accomodating moi.
 
 Sure I was born here and still like to knaw on a human skull to eat its brain, but thats no reason to discriminate against my kind or my language at the Post Office.
 
 If language at the post office is good enough for Spanish,
 
 its good enough for Zombie along with English.
 
 Did I mention that I was also 1/4 Martian ?
 
 That language is not printed either at the Post Office.
 
 I think a lawyer is needed for a class act discrimination suit.
 
  Does anybody know where I can find a good lawyer on this board,
 
 willing to handle an obvious discrimination suit ?
 
 The payout will be enormus.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 07:51:53 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/27/va-hospitals-fund-solar-panels-while-veterans-wait-for-doctors/?intcmp=latestnews

Veterans Administration hospitals have spent at least $420 million on solar panels and windmills while vets wait months — or even lay dying — to see a doctor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 27, 2014, 09:12:54 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 07:51:53 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/27/va-hospitals-fund-solar-panels-while-veterans-wait-for-doctors/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/27/va-hospitals-fund-solar-panels-while-veterans-wait-for-doctors/?intcmp=latestnews)

Veterans Administration hospitals have spent at least $420 million on solar panels and windmills while vets wait months — or even lay dying — to see a doctor.

 And what does that tell you ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 09:45:01 pm

It tells me Obama cares more about green energy then actually taking care of our vets.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2014, 09:47:04 pm

Militant Islamic Group ISIS Trained at U.S. Base in Jordan

http://americanprosperity.com/militant-islamic-group-isis-trained-at-u-s-base-in-jordan/

More scandals and incompetence

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 27, 2014, 10:34:52 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 09:45:01 pm

It tells me Obama cares more about green energy then actually taking care of our vets.

 Thats interesting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 27, 2014, 11:42:37 pm

Quote from: packrat on June 27, 2014, 04:05:50 pm

By Greg Stohr  Jun 26, 2014 4:06 PM C

The U.S. Supreme Court curbed the president’s power to make temporary appointments without Senate approval, backing congressional Republicans and dealing a blow to President Barack Obama.

The justices ruled unanimously that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority when he appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. Four Republican-appointed justices would have gone even further in limiting the appointment power.

The case was the court’s first look at a constitutional provision that lets the president make temporary appointments to high-level posts during Senate recesses. The decision means the Senate can all but nullify the recess-appointment power by holding brief “pro forma” sessions every few days.

“We must give great weight to the Senate’s own determination of when it is and when it is not in session,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

Obama caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

The decision is important because it gives the president a slap on the wrist, but it has no practical effect on future appointments, since the Senate no longer requires 60 votes for cloture on appointments.  As long as the Democrats control the Senate, Obama needs no recess appointments.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 28, 2014, 09:38:16 am

I heard a physician recently retired interviewed who said in private practice through his career he saw an average of 8 patients per day.

He went to a VA hospital the last years of his career and was only allowed to see 3 patients per day.

The problem isn't funding, the VA has nearly doubled in funding in recent years.  The problem is the the horrible government employee culture and waste.

Spent 1.5 B$ on a computerized record system then scrapped it.  Giving them more money doesn't solve the problem.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 11:14:13 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:17:44 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.

Please explain how that supports your suggestion that the Obama administration has been running ads in Central America encouraging folks to come to the US to get welfare benefits.  So what if the administration is running ads in Spanish.  They also run them in English.  The problem is not that benefits are provided to people who speak Spanish, or that people who speak Spanish are being informed of the benefits.  The problem is the existence of the benefits.... but that certainly does not smell like the nature of your complaint.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 28, 2014, 11:15:34 am

The problem is the the horrible government employee culture and waste.

For sure, throughout the government..

I dealt with the VA first hand for my Dad. My Dad was second wave at Normandy. They purposely shuffle paper work, have you chase after useless ****, you wait for responses. The whole thing, a ploy in hopes that the vet dies. Sadly enough, my Dad died and never saw a single dime. He'd ask me daily, "heard from the VA?". It's tragic the way we treat our vets, yet we hand money out to worthless bastards...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 11:19:10 am

Quote from: davebear on June 28, 2014, 09:38:16 am

I heard a physician recently retired interviewed who said in private practice through his career he saw an average of 8 patients per day.

Only 8 patients a day?  I would bet that 95% of the physicians in private practice see more than twice that, and that more than 98% of the VA physicians see more that that, let alone see 3 a day.  Sounds as if you either misunderstood the interview, he was pulling the interviewer's leg, or he practices in a very unusual specialty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 28, 2014, 11:20:32 am

Obama isn't the whole problem (I **** about him as well, terrible leader). It's the culture that's been created, and Obama is fanning the flame... with a jet motor..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 11:28:27 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2014, 05:28:47 pm

So Jess if we are advertising in Mexico do you think it is in English?

Hell, the signs at the post office are both in English and Spanish.  Do you think it is any different wherever you sign up for welfare?   

I have missed it.  Where is it even alleged that the administration is advertising in Mexico?  And then, where is it established?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 12:33:27 pm

In a July 18, 2012, letter to Vilsack, for instance, Sessions wrote that the USDA has not complied with oversight requests from his staff on this matter – and that the advertising of U.S. food stamps programs in foreign countries like Mexico represents a gross departure from food stamps’ original purpose.

Similarly, during the Senate Budget Committee markup of the Democratic budget that Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) offered last year, Sessions offered an amendment that would have ended the USDA’s partnership with Mexico on food stamp advertising in that country. Senate Democrats unanimously voted against that Sessions amendment.

I have already posted the link and the information in several posts Jes.  It is not my fault you did not read them.  Here is an excerpt from one of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 01:55:50 pm

Sessions isn’t simply concerned that the USDA has eschewed transparency with their Mexican partnership or that legal immigrants are encouraged to get on the government’s handout rolls — he is also worried about the lack of protections against undocumented immigrants receiving benefits for which they are not qualified.

As the senator detailed in his letter to Vilsack, and the USDA’s 2011 Guidance on Non-Citizen Eligibility for SNAP explains, although undocumented immigrants are usually not eligible to enroll in SNAP, illegals may enroll their eligible children.

It is up to the states to determine if applicants or households are qualified aliens. In some circumstances, SNAP benefits can be conferred upon people who merely state, upon penalty of perjury, that they are in the country legally.

“Applicants need only attest that they are citizens of the United States, and the state must accept that attestation as conclusive,” Sessions explained in his letter. “Some states currently voluntarily participate in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which allows administrators to run a simple check to determine if non-citizen applicants are eligible for benefits. States that do not use SAVE to verify alien status may simply accept the applicant’s attestation of legal status as a substitute for verification, or, alternately, may accept submitted documents without checking their veracity.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/2/#ixzz35xgTIiDZ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 03:26:31 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 12:33:27 pm

In a July 18, 2012, letter to Vilsack, for instance, Sessions wrote that the USDA has not complied with oversight requests from his staff on this matter – and that the advertising of U.S. food stamps programs in foreign countries like Mexico represents a gross departure from food stamps’ original purpose.

Similarly, during the Senate Budget Committee markup of the Democratic budget that Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) offered last year, Sessions offered an amendment that would have ended the USDA’s partnership with Mexico on food stamp advertising in that country. Senate Democrats unanimously voted against that Sessions amendment.

I have already posted the link and the information in several posts Jes.  It is not my fault you did not read them.  Here is an excerpt from one of them.

You post lots of ****, and much of it, as with yout post at issue at the moment, is posted the way otto does, without any indication as to what you are posting it with reference to.  You posted links, without ANY indication what the links dealt with, and then you say it is not your "fault" I did not read them?

Forget about trying to affix fault.  I asked simple questions.  If you want me to know when your posts constitute a response to a question, would it be too much to ask that you include the question... or at least SOME indication as to what your post is in response to?  Or do you enjoy **** like this more than discussing the substantive issue which might be involved in a discussion?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 03:31:29 pm

davebaerbart

Quote

I heard a physician recently retired interviewed who said in private practice through his career he saw an average of 8 patients per day.

He went to a VA hospital the last years of his career and was only allowed to see 3 patients per day.

The problem isn't funding, the VA has nearly doubled in funding in recent years.  The problem is the the horrible government employee culture and waste.

Spent 1.5 B$ on a computerized record system then scrapped it.  Giving them more money doesn't solve the problem.

otto105

Objection...hearsay.

Judge

Sustained

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 03:36:36 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 01:55:50 pm

Sessions isn’t simply concerned that the USDA has eschewed transparency with their Mexican partnership or that legal immigrants are encouraged to get on the government’s handout rolls — he is also worried about the lack of protections against undocumented immigrants receiving benefits for which they are not qualified.

It appears from your last post that Sessions has set out an allegation, but it does not appear remotely close to him having established the accuracy of the allegation.

The fundamental problem is not one of who is informed of the existence of the program, or how, nor even to whom the benefits are paid.  The fundamental problem is the EXISTENCE of a program which forcibly takes the earnings or assets of one person and gives them to another without the recipient having provided anything of value to the person from whom the earnings or assets are forcibly taken.  I am not particularly concerned with the national origin or language or skin color of the recipient.

Can you explain why any of those should make any difference to the fundamental unfairness at issue?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 03:42:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 03:31:29 pm

davebaerbart
otto105
Objection...hearsay.
Judge
Sustained

How about an objection based on fantasy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 03:45:50 pm

Quote

The fundamental problem is not one of who is informed of the existence of the program, or how, nor even to whom the benefits are paid.  The fundamental problem is the EXISTENCE of a program which forcibly takes the earnings or assets of one person and gives them to another without the recipient having provided anything of value to the person from whom the earnings or assets are forcibly taken.  I am not particularly concerned with the national origin or language or skin color of the recipient.

You clearly don't understand how government works, but you seem to think it has something to with indentured servitude or individual loan agreements.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 04:11:44 pm

Jes, I agree that the welfare system should be done away with.  However it is never going to happen.  Just like a whole lot of other libertarian views that are never going to happen.   

It matters little if his allegations are true as far as what we were discussing.  The migrants think it is true and think they are going to get to come to America, get a free ride and get to stay.  You seem to feel this massive influx of illegals especially children and their mothers has nothing to do with Obama and his administrations policies.  I believe I have showed that is false.

This problem was here before Obama came to office but he has exacerbated it.  His actions are flooding the system with illegals.  Do you feel it is on purpose or because he is incompetent or do you think it is perfectly fine?

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 04:15:11 pm

Otto,

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/27/why-cant-be-both-economist-and-liberal

Economists should be bound ​by ​facts and reason. And I can't do that and embrace liberal positions on the minimum wage, climate change and gender discrimination.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 04:58:24 pm

from olde peter's opinion piece.

Quote

Past increases in the federal minimum wage did not have large impacts on employment, because those were in line with inflation, and businesses adopted strategies expecting such periodic adjustments.

peter, if today's minimum wage (1968 baseline) wage kept up with inflation it would be $10.10/hr. The CBO report which he sites in his piece claims no overall job loses because the rise in the MW would create more jobs from increased economic activity.

Quote

The erosion of the Antarctic ice shelf and glaciers elsewhere should confirm to even casual observers that global temperatures are rising. Scientists arguing that CO2 emissions contribute to this are not quacks but their prescriptions, and those of the president, have a naïve quality bordering on willful and malicious ignorance.

Wow, he asserts global climate change is real and we should not provide any leadership on it. What a moron. China is already facing massive health related issues from pollution and its effects on the public. Public opinion in country is changing to a more progressive direction of increased regulations and reductions in emissions.

Quote

Universities are under constant pressure to ensure wider opportunities for women and as a matter of policy have programs to encourage enrollment, hiring and promotion of women that discriminate against men.

Misogynist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 05:04:15 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 03:45:50 pm

You clearly don't understand how government works, but you seem to think it has something to with indentured servitude or individual loan agreements.

Can you explain that bit of nonsense?  How does the position I expressed have anything to do with indentured servitude or individual loan agreements?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 05:20:30 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 04:11:44 pm

Jes, I agree that the welfare system should be done away with.  However it is never going to happen.  Just like a whole lot of other libertarian views that are never going to happen.   

A short 20 years ago the same thing was said in response to libertarian positions supporting legalization of marijuana, or the libertarian position that government should not prohibit gays from marrying (or should not treat those in a gay marriage any differently than it treats those in a straight marriage), or the crazy-assed idea that the Unites States would ever elect a black president.

Instead of limiting discussions to what we believe is or isn't politically acceptable (which often is little other than a mask for our own bigotries), let's focus on what is right or wrong (and why) and what should or should not be done (and why).

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 04:11:44 pm

It matters little if his allegations are true as far as what we were discussing.

Excuse me.  Whether his allegations are true or not is EXACTLY what we are discussing.

THIS discussion results from my questioning you as to whether there was ANYTHING to support your allegation, and then also anything to establish the truth of such an allegation.

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 04:11:44 pm

The migrants think it is true and think they are going to get to come to America, get a free ride and get to stay.  You seem to feel this massive influx of illegals especially children and their mothers has nothing to do with Obama and his administrations policies.

If it "seems" that way to you, that impression has more to do with your perception than with objective reality.  That is NOT my feeling, nothing I have posted would indicate I have that feeling, and at least some of my posts, such as the photo of the cheat sheets found on some of the immigrants, would indicate to an objective person, that my position is the very opposite.

In case you have forgotten:

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 26, 2014, 05:34:50 pm

Ever wonder why it might be that so many of those crossing the southern border and claiming refugee status seem to be saying exactly the right things?

(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AlienCheatSheet1-620x348.jpg)

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 04:11:44 pm

Do you feel it is on purpose or because he is incompetent or do you think it is perfectly fine?

I didn't know those were my only options.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 05:30:45 pm

According to a new survey of Fox News viewers by Reuters, this is what Fox News viewers believe:

67% Believe Barack Obama’s name sounds suspicious.

45% Believe that homosexuals are polygamists

2% Believe that science is more important than faith

90% Believe that all of the Founding Fathers were born in the United States of America, even though it had not yet been created when the Founding Fathers were born.

56% Believe Sarah Palin went to an Ivy League Law school.

99% of Fox News viewers who were Medicare recipients said they opposed “socialized medicine.”

94% Believe Reagan lowered the National Debt.

15% Believe that George Washington defeated the King of England in a duel for America.

88% Believe that Bill Clinton failed as a President, because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

75% Believe that people on welfare are lazy.

24% Believe Santa Claus is real.

36% Believe the “Bill of Rights” is legislation introduced by the Republican Party to stop “Barack Obama’s socialist agenda.”

99% Believe that communism, socialism, fascism and tyranny are all the same.

70% Believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya

38% Believe Barack Obama was born in Indonesia

85% Don’t think Hawaii was even a state when Barack Obama was born

76% Believe Sarah Palin has an “Alaskan accent.”

92% Believe that Bill Clinton left Barack Obama with a surplus, which he spent.

96% Believe the economy was doing great when Barack Obama took office.

84% Believe the Tea Party is a grassroots movement without any corporate sponsorship.

94% Believe the Constitution mentions Jesus Christ as America’s savior.

23% Believe FEMA is building concentration camps.

63% Believe Glenn Beck is a healthy weight

37% Believe Nancy Pelosi is a witch, and that she can cast spells.

25% Believe Hillary Clinton’s resignation was good for the economy.

74% Believe that unemployment is higher now than it was during the Great Depression.

92% Couldn’t find Iraq on a map.

9% Believe that homosexuals are trying to take over America with glitter.

93% Couldn’t name the 7 continents.

12% Believe John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father.

99% Believe that the Government doesn’t create jobs, but 95% of those surveyed credit Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) with creating 1 million jobs as Governor of Texas.

While some of these might seem comical, the most shocking result from the study was this:

100% of Fox News viewers said they wouldn’t care if the entire country fell apart as long as Barack Obama doesn’t get anything he wants.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 05:38:54 pm

Quote

EXISTENCE of a program which forcibly takes the earnings or assets of one person and gives them to another without the recipient having provided anything of value to the person from whom the earnings or assets are forcibly taken

First, explain the meaning of that. It sure reads like servitude or a prostitute's pimp.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 06:18:41 pm

Jes, I responded to your posts directed at me.  If you want to change the discussion tell me so I can respond accordingly.  I have simply been defending my posts you attacked.  I feel I have done so quite well with facts.  Apparently you disagree but then the target keeps moving so perhaps you are correct...

In case you have forgotten you attacked my posts where I said Obama was to blame for the immigration crisis and that we are advertising welfare in Mexico.  You called me a coward (which was uncalled for and baseless) and asked for some sort of proof.  I believe I have provided what you asked for.   

Instead of being obtuse how about you give me your position. 

As far as libertarian views where I know your stance I can respond accordingly.  I actually believed all of those things would come to pass eventually.  Even twenty years ago.  Those are a whole lot different then welfare.  The only way welfare and for that matter social security (unless they are dumped into welfare) are going away is if our government collapses.  They will both be adjusted and changed over time but they will not go away.  To many people are dependent on them.

It simply will not happen unless or until our government does not have the ability to provide those programs.  Which is a possibility but it is not going to be popular and will result in riots and a lot of lives lost.  Not enough politicians in our form of government is ever going to advocate getting rid of them.  Reform is possible if we find another leader like Reagan but not getting rid of them entirely.

How do you foresee welfare being gotten rid of come to pass?  I just don't see it.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 06:21:23 pm

By the way I find it much more likely that social security will be done away with then welfare.  I could see a time when senior citizens are simply expected to go on welfare once they go through their savings.  In fact I expect that is exactly where we are headed if we do not do something to cut back on spending. 

But that will only be able to come to pass after the baby boomers are out of the picture and have bankrupted SS.  That is way to many voters to **** off right now.  Down the road yeah I can see it happening.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 08:00:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 05:38:54 pm

First, explain the meaning of that. It sure reads like servitude or a prostitute's pimp.

Your question has nothing whatsoever to do with mine, nor would any answer I might provide in response to your question help you answer the question I posed to you.

I asked you my question first.

Once you answer it, I might consider yours.

But whether I answer your question or not, I just want to mention that I will take your word for how a prostitute's pimp reads.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 08:02:14 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 06:21:23 pm

By the way I find it much more likely that social security will be done away with then welfare.

Social Security SHOULD be eliminated, and I fully expect it to be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 08:06:58 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 05:30:45 pm

According to a new survey of Fox News viewers by Reuters, this is what Fox News viewers believe:

Here is what I would bet ALL readers of this forum (other than you) believe -- that unless you provide a link to an original source, your claims on such matters have less credibility than you might be expected to give to Fox News.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 08:15:39 pm

Jes they may do away with Social Security but they will still expect us to pay those taxes.  They will claim they need that money to continue to give us the welfare fall back.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you they shouldn't be taking our money to provide for our retirement.  The private sector can do it so much better.  If I had all the money the government took from me for SS I would be set.  However the government is going to keep taking that money in some form of tax and dump senior citizens into the same pool as people who are perfectly capable of working but choose not to.  At least that is my guess as to where it is headed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2014, 08:23:29 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 06:18:41 pm

Jes, I responded to your posts directed at me.  If you want to change the discussion tell me so I can respond accordingly.  I have changed nothing of the discussion, though you have tried to do so.  I have simply been defending my posts you attacked.  I feel I have done so quite well with facts.  Not really.  You really offered nothing to support your claims, beyond telling me there is a list too long for you to post, and to contend that the allegations made by Senator Sessions amount to evidence that something happened other than Sessions making claims.   Apparently you disagree but then the target keeps moving so perhaps you are correct...  No movement of anything here, Pekin.

In case you have forgotten you attacked my posts where I said Obama was to blame for the immigration crisis and that we are advertising welfare in Mexico.  You called me a coward 
I did?  Would you cut and paste the language where I did so?  (which was uncalled for and baseless) and asked for some sort of proof.  I believe I have provided what you asked for.   Not only have you failed to do so, each time I have explained the shortcoming of what you offered.  You have not come close.

Instead of being obtuse how about you give me your position.  Obtuse?  Please explain how.

[Ending welfare programs] simply will not happen unless or until our government does not have the ability to provide those programs.  We already lack the ability to provide them without borrowing trillions of dollars. Which is a possibility but it is not going to be popular and will result in riots and a lot of lives lost.  Not enough politicians in our form of government is ever going to advocate getting rid of them.  Reform is possible if we find another leader like Reagan but not getting rid of them entirely.  You might want to stop the worship -- Reagan EXPANDED the programs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 10:19:16 pm

 Post 1630.  Not quite sure how I am being cowardly in anything I posted. 

This originally was about Obama hurting America. 

So advertising welfare in Mexico and here in the US and saying Mexican children that are here should be able to stay had nothing to do with the massive influx of Mexican children we are currently dealing with?  Seriously?  Even though Obama has never said come and we will take care of you, hasn't him not enforcing immigration laws helped bring about this avalanche of illegal immigrant children which is causing a humanitarian crisis on our borders?

Then instead of deporting them he puts them on an airplane or sends them by bus to other states.  Pretty sure it would be less expensive to send them right back over the border then to fly them to another state in the US.  The word spreads and the influx grows... 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 10:40:20 pm

Quote

So advertising welfare in Mexico and here in the US and saying Mexican children that are here should be able to stay

I fail to see where you have established this as a fact yet. Especially, since this was announced today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-ask-for-2-billion-in-emergency-funds-to-stem-immigration-influx/2014/06/28/f532babe-ff2e-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html?hpid=z3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-ask-for-2-billion-in-emergency-funds-to-stem-immigration-influx/2014/06/28/f532babe-ff2e-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html?hpid=z3)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 10:50:03 pm

This is no different then the IRS scandal.  He says what he wants done and his sycophants do it. 

There will probably never be an actual trail.  People get rewarded for doing what he wants done. 

There is no doubt the Obama administration is damaging the Unites States.  We are discussing if he is doing it on purpose, is incompetent, doesn't care either way or thinks what he is doing is actually helping (goes back to incompetent).

While contemplating this I have finally decided he is doing it on purpose.  I believe if he is an anti-colonialist or just your run of the mill liberal American hater communist it makes no difference he is harming the US on purpose.  I actually believe he is a mixture of both.  He not only wants to bring equality to the people inside the US he also wants to bring equality to all nations.  This guy has a messiah complex. 

I have no proof other then what we all have seen but imo he is a narcissistic **** who thinks he can not only transform America but the entire world with his personality alone.

I thought all the right wing attacks about this were just BS.  Glenn Beck, Rush so on and so forth were just trying to drum up business.  After he was elected I argued with Sporty that he would move to the center who was sure he was the anti-Christ or damn close .  Boy was I wrong.  A win for Sporty. 

This guy is either trying to harm the US or is so dis-engaged that the assets we have in place aren't able to function.  We are constantly caught flat footed, unaware and unable to do anything every time some crisis happens.

So Jess in conclusion could you give me your opinion on this instead of attacking mine. Because at this point I am looking for any answer as to how we can turn this around.

Personally I think we have two more years of someone trying to harm the country he is supposed to be protecting.       

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 10:57:53 pm

Otto, by this presidents track record that money will be used to house and feed them. The deportations will never come.  We have Katrina Superdome type crisis happening all over our border where we are housing these people.  The conditions are terrible and that is the reason no pictures or video are allowed.  Any government employee who takes picture or video and releases it gets fired if they are caught.   

I am all for legal immigration.  We bring in lots of people from other countries and educate them and give them jobs then when they are assets to our country we deport them.  It is **** stupid.

We have an over abundance of uneducated unskilled labor.  If we need more at some point fine let more immigrants that can fill those jobs in legally.  Of course the only reason we will ever need unskilled uneducated labor forces is due to our welfare program.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 11:04:16 pm

I used to think that you had common sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2014, 11:12:07 pm

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas," Barbara Bush said in an interview on Monday with the radio program "Marketplace." "Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality."

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 11:16:13 pm

Otto, Honestly I care about these people.  They are people after all not just statistics.  However the more we do for them the more that will come and the more that we have to take care of or turn away after they risked their lives coming here and gave up lots of money.

How many are dying coming here?  How many children are being grabbed and forced to become sex slaves?  The drug cartels are the ones taking money to get them here.

Aren't they better off staying where they are?  At least they have parents. 

What happens to them once they are here?  They are being crammed into facilities that aren't designed to hold that many people.  My understanding is that the smell is so bad that people walking in for the first time puke.  Every place?,  probably not and I am sure it is being exaggerated but I am guessing it is pretty bad.

Do you think this is a good thing?

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 29, 2014, 07:19:49 am

If they eliminate SS what happens to the people getting SS checks. They would be rounded up and sent to FEMA camps for euthenization? Think Nazi death camps here. Personally I don't believe they eliminate SS. They need to fix it for sure.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 09:49:37 am

Wshful they will just give them welfare.  It will be less money and not enough to live out their retirement like they had hoped but it will allow them to live in public housing and not starve. 

I am not saying it is right but it is where it is headed imo.  That is if the out of control spending is not brought into check.  Which I doubt will ever happen.     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 29, 2014, 11:33:56 am

Ottoad and Jes could not resist commenting on my post about the light work load of many VA doctors despite their clear lack of any knowledge on the subject.

So here you go...

U.S. News
05.18.14
Exclusive: VA Scandal Hits New Hospital

Secret waiting lists may not be the only problems at the Albuquerque VA, in fact they may only be an accounting trick to mask the deeper issues.

Veterans with heart problems are waiting an average of four months to see a cardiologist at the Albuquerque VA, according to the doctor there who has access to patient records.

There are eight physicians in the cardiology department. But at any given time, only three are working in the clinic, where they see fewer than two patients per day, so on average there are only 36 veterans seen per week. That means the entire eight-person department sees as many patients in a week as a single private practice cardiologist sees in two days, according to the doctor.

For perspective, 60% of cardiologists reported seeing between 50 and 124 patients per week, according to a 2013 survey of medical professionals’ compensation conducted by Medscape. On the low end, the average single private practice cardiologist who participated in the study saw more patients in a week than the Albuquerque VA’s entire eight-person cardiology department.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 01:03:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 10:19:16 pm

Post 1630.  Not quite sure how I am being cowardly in anything I posted.  Boy do you need help with reading comprehension.  I wrote that when you wrote the "list of things Obama has done to hurt this country is longer then I can even begin to type," while repeatedly refusing to set out even the hi-lights on that list, it was "starting to look like a rather cowardly way to avoid offering anything to support your claim."  You STILL have not really offered up the hi-lights of that list, unless it is such an incredibly weak list I didn't even notice them.  And, whether you are offended by the point being made or not, it now looks even more as if the reason you have failed to do so is because you are afraid of having it pointed out that your list is either non-existent, or is so weak as to be entirely unpersuasive to any sane person who did not already believe it even in the absence of any evidence.  But I guess that technically you might still be right -- it is not that you were being cowardly in anything you had written -- just in what you had FAILED to write.

This originally was about Obama hurting America. Nope.  Not at all.  THIS discussion, the exchange between you and me here, has NOT been about whether Obama is or is not hurting America.  THIS discussion has instead been entirely about whether you can point to anything Obama has ever said or done which would allow a sane person to reasonably conclude that Obama "wants to transform America into a third world country."  Those were your words, and it was that claim, and the presence or absence of any evidence you have to support it, which we have been discussing.  And, in that context, yes, your failure to present the hi-lights of your supposedly long list would certainly appear to be rather cowardly.   

So advertising welfare in Mexico and here in the US and saying Mexican children that are here should be able to stay had nothing to do with the massive influx of Mexican children we are currently dealing with?  You talk about ME moving the goal posts?  I don't believe I have ever, anywhere, at any time even suggested that the current influx of illegals is unrelated to the things you mentioned in your last sentence.  Seriously?  Even though Obama has never said come and we will take care of you, hasn't him not enforcing immigration laws helped bring about this avalanche of illegal immigrant children which is causing a humanitarian crisis on our borders?  See my last comment here.

Then instead of deporting them he puts them on an airplane or sends them by bus to other states.  Pretty sure it would be less expensive to send them right back over the border then to fly them to another state in the US.  The word spreads and the influx grows...   See my last comment here.

So, is there any chance we could get back to what THIS discussion is actually about (and that discussion  is not whether your comments are or are not cowardly)?  I eagerly look forward to you offering up the hilights of your supposedly long list of evidence which might lead a reasonably sane person to conclude that Obama "wants to transform America into a third world country." Pekin on June 25, 2014, 09:56:36 pm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 01:22:56 pm

Quote from: davebear on June 29, 2014, 11:33:56 am

Ottoad and Jes could not resist commenting on my post about the light work load of many VA doctors despite their clear lack of any knowledge on the subject.

So here you go...

U.S. News
05.18.14
Exclusive: VA Scandal Hits New Hospital

Secret waiting lists may not be the only problems at the Albuquerque VA, in fact they may only be an accounting trick to mask the deeper issues.

Veterans with heart problems are waiting an average of four months to see a cardiologist at the Albuquerque VA, according to the doctor there who has access to patient records.

There are eight physicians in the cardiology department. But at any given time, only three are working in the clinic, where they see fewer than two patients per day, so on average there are only 36 veterans seen per week. That means the entire eight-person department sees as many patients in a week as a single private practice cardiologist sees in two days, according to the doctor.

For perspective, 60% of cardiologists reported seeing between 50 and 124 patients per week, according to a 2013 survey of medical professionals’ compensation conducted by Medscape. On the low end, the average single private practice cardiologist who participated in the study saw more patients in a week than the Albuquerque VA’s entire eight-person cardiology department.

I just hi-lighted what I had problems with, and, assuming your report (without a link) is accurate, it does nothing to support your contention that this is representative of what is seen with "many" VA doctors.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 01:50:25 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2014, 10:50:03 pm

So Jess in conclusion could you give me your opinion on this instead of attacking mine. Because at this point I am looking for any answer as to how we can turn this around.

First, I have not been "attacking" your opinion so much as challenging you to provide examples from your terribly long list of evidence supporting your conclusion.  I STILL have not seen it, which would tend to indicate you are one of those predisposed to believe such claims, and not really needing much in the way of evidence, since we are only talking about you believing what you already wanted to believe.  I won't bother wasting time on WHY you might have wanted to believe it.

As to what to do:

1) Wait 19 months and his administration will truly be history, even in the absence of anything else happening.
2) Get a strong Republican majority in the Senate and encourage them to block anything and everything he does, including naming any new Supreme Court Justices, and elect a Republican (hopefully a truly libertarian minded Republican, such as Rand Paul, or possibly Ted Cruz) and have them undo much of what he has done, and thru them put a truly conservative majority in control of the Supreme Court.  If that Court then followed up on the Commerce Clause issue language in the ObamaCare decision from last year, you will have seriously restricted the power of the federal government in the future to be so governmentally adventuresome.
3) Get enough of a Republican majority in the Senate to allow a meaningful hearing on articles of impeachment early next year (this approach would institutionally be most desirable because it would help restore the originally intended balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, though we would still need to repeal the 17th Amendment [direct election of members of the Senate] to restore the balance between the states and the federal government).
4) Just shoot the bastard.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:05:46 pm

Jes, It appears to me that Obama is using the Cloward-Piven strategy.  He wants to overwhelm the system, make people so desperate they cry for more government to save them.  This helps him create the socialist nation he dreams of.  He has said himself he wants to fundamentally transform the United States of America.   

The massive amount of debt is not sustainable.  Obama's ludicrous budgets couldn't even get passed when the Democrats owned both houses.

It is only going to get worst as we add millions to the welfare rolls.  All of these illegal children will need to be taken care of.   It is obvious Obama is not going to have them deported since they are sending them to other states.  All of this while the economy is in shambles due to his policies. 

All of your suggestions are fine except number 4.  You might want to edit that one even if you are joking.

There is a good chance the Republicans will win the Senate.  However I think the chances of a conservative president getting elected is remote.  The liberals in the Republican party still control the party and are not going to allow a true conservative to win the nomination.  Even though I don't believe they will win another presidential election until they do.  They just keep nominating liberal after liberal.  They keep giving us Democrat light candidates like McCain and Romney.

We need a true conservative that can articulate why conservative principals work and why they are what is best for the US.

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:18:03 pm

Jes here is a list.  Knock yourself out.

http://spectator.org/articles/35614/list-could-be-longer

The List Could Be Longer

Fifty ways the Obama Administration has hurt the economy and job creation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 05:22:07 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:18:03 pm

Jes here is a list.  Knock yourself out.

http://spectator.org/articles/35614/list-could-be-longer

The List Could Be Longer

Fifty ways the Obama Administration has hurt the economy and job creation.

Stop imitating otto.

Unless you want to embrace as your own every item on the list, and you also view all of them equally, I see no reason to bother to look at it, particularly if after I look at it and discredit half the list as idiotic you then claim THOSE were not the ones that impressed you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:22:51 pm

Here is one about national security.  It is old but accurate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/30/five-ways-obama-weakened-america-in-2011/

GORDON: Five ways Obama weakened America in 2011

Foreign-policy flaws leave national security in shambles

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:27:35 pm

Jes, what actions of his have helped get the economy rolling?  I think we both know we would be better off today if he had simply done nothing. 

If his actions are harming the economy why does he continue to do so if it is not on purpose?

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 05:28:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:05:46 pm

All of your suggestions are fine except number 4.  You might want to edit that one even if you are joking.   

I was not suggesting, or urging, or supporting any of them, but merely responding to your question of how to end Obama's influence.  Thru history, #4 has frequently been used to get rid of those viewed to be despots.  Julius Caesar was neither the first nor the last.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 05:53:53 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:05:46 pm

Jes, It appears to me that Obama is using the Cloward-Piven strategy.  If so, he had a better chance to have accomplished that, and to have done so rather quickly, right after taking office in 2009, when the economy was still in free fall, and he did not do so... so that theory, despite how often Bleck advances it, is not really credible.  He has said himself he wants to fundamentally transform the United States of America.   And if anyone was really honest about it, and also made anything remotely resembling a serious effort to do so, I have no doubt but that they could find similar quotes from most presidents before they took office, including your vaunted Ronald Reagan.

The massive amount of debt is not sustainable.  Obama's ludicrous budgets couldn't even get passed when the Democrats owned both houses.  The fact that the budgets were not supported by Democrats is not a reflection of whether they were financially responsible.  Don't get me wrong, I am not contending they HAVE been financially responsible, but neither were those of Bush, either one of them, or Clinton (he had one budget which balanced, and that was NOT the budget he presented, just the one Congress passed, and passed over his loud objections) or Reagan.  In fact, as a percentage of GDP, some of Obama's budgets have been lower than some of Bush the younger.  They have BOTH been financially irresponsible... but, for some reason, you have not contended that Bush was trying to destroy the nation.

It is only going to get worst as we add millions to the welfare rolls.  All of these illegal children will need to be taken care of.   It is obvious Obama is not going to have them deported since they are sending them to other states.  He could not deport the children without their required administrative hearings even if he wanted to, and because of the length of time involved in getting the cases heard, if he did NOT send the kids (and the adults, it is not as if all of those crossing have been kids) to other states, the available facilities in the border states would be absolutely overwhelmed (which might be exactly the sort of thing which might be desired if someone was trying to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy).  All of this while the economy is in shambles due to his policies. The economy simply is not IN shambles, though it clearly was when he took office.  I would agree that the recovery has not been remotely close to being as strong as it would have been absent Obama's foolishness, but that is not the same as saying it is in shambles, a claim which causes you to lose credibility... even with those such as me who has virtually no use for Obama.

I think the chances of a conservative president getting elected is remote.  The liberals in the Republican party still control the party and are not going to allow a true conservative to win the nomination.  Even though I don't believe they will win another presidential election until they do.  They just keep nominating liberal after liberal.  They keep giving us Democrat light candidates like McCain and Romney.  Amazing that the same system used today, which you appear to believe leaves everything in the hands of the "liberals in the Republican party," produced Reagan as a nominee, and you appear to worship the guy.  Who did you support in 2008 and in 2012?  Who did you end up voting for in the general election?  And if you are so opposed to the existing "power structure," and you would also like to eliminate the social welfar programs and make any other of the several social changes you have advocated, would it be accurate to say you want to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 06:04:47 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:27:35 pm

Jes, what actions of his have helped get the economy rolling?  I think we both know we would be better off today if he had simply done nothing. 

If his actions are harming the economy why does he continue to do so if it is not on purpose?

What actions by Bush the younger helped the economy?  Was he also TRYING to harm the economy?

I have no desire to move off the orginal topic and try to debate what polcies of Obama's were or were not good for the economy.  I have criticized him on that front loudly and repeatedly.  The difference is that you ascribe intent to his foolishness, and that is the essence of this discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 29, 2014, 06:13:24 pm

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2014-06-28-EU--Global%20Gay%20Rights/id-f4106f0eb3bf4cdd9927d7f4f04ce7bb
Jun. 28, 2014 2:13 PM ET

US takes gay rights global, despite unsure welcome

By VANESSA GERA, Associated Press THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
     
Sometimes U.S. advice and encouragement is condemned as unacceptable meddling. And sometimes it can seem to backfire, increasing the pressure on those it is meant to help.

With gay pride parades taking place in many cities across the world this weekend, the U.S. role will be more visible than ever. Diplomats will take part in parades and some embassies will fly the rainbow flag along with the Stars and Stripes.

The United States sent five openly gay ambassadors abroad last year, with a sixth nominee, to Vietnam, now awaiting Senate confirmation. American diplomats are working to support gay rights in countries such as Poland, where prejudice remains deep, and to oppose violence and other abuse in countries like Nigeria and Russia, where gays face life-threatening risks...

A-hole.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 06:27:25 pm

Jes, he could of done absolutely nothing and the economy would be better off.  I am not sure about where you live but where I live the economy is still terrible.  The price of damn near everything continues to rise as wages stay stagnant.  The middle class is being squeezed.  While people are not losing their jobs as fast there are still a lot of people not working that want to be.  Or they are working for much less then they were and or working part time jobs instead of full time.

What exactly did he have the power to do in 2009 that would have toppled the country's economy?  Doing nothing would have been better then what he did for the economy.

Bush was a liberal fiscally.  Everything I disagreed with Bush about Obama seems to have doubled down on.  Reagan was bankrupting the USSR and winning the cold war.  No he did not walk on water but he was the best president in my adult life.  Even though at the time I was not a fan.  Of the presidents mentioned I would rank them Reagan, Clinton, Bush then Obama at the bottom of the list by a long shot.



 

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 06:36:59 pm

The economy was doing quite well under Bush.  It did not come crashing down until the housing market bubble burst which was in large part due to banking practices being pushed by liberals.  Bush did not do enough to stop it but he did urge action on it.  He was ignored by the Democrats.

I can not prove Obama is hurting the country on purpose no more then you can prove he isn't.  There is no way for us to read his mind and I doubt he will ever admit he is incompetent to be President or doing it on purpose. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 06:43:30 pm

Who is the "A-hole" here.  Are you contending Obama is an "A-hole" for trying to end violence and other abuse toward gays, including death in some countries, simply as result of their having been gay?

Was Bush the younger an "A-hole" for naming Condi Rice his secretary of State and putting her in a position to deal directly with heads of state from nations where women are still not treated on a par with men?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 07:49:00 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/23/editorial-rigged-science/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 29, 2014, 07:50:17 pm

 No one would suit you, Jes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2014, 08:24:10 pm

packrat, whether anyone would or not, I am not going to criticize someone when it is unwarranted, or with bogus claims or arguments, simply because I dislike them... nor am I going to give anyone a pass from deserved criticism simply because I do like them generally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 30, 2014, 08:06:08 am

Antarctic Sea Ice Growing Despite Global Warming Warnings
 
 
 

Sunday, 29 Jun 2014 10:37 AM

By Sandy Fitzgerald


The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of global warming.

 The new record was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere Today, early Sunday morning.

 It's not apparent if the record actually occurred on Friday or Saturday, says Harold Ambler on his blog, Talking About the Weather.

 Ambler is a journalist and author of the book "Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change."

 "The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007," said Ambler. Meanwhile, he pointed out, global sea ice area on Sunday was standing at 0.991 million square kilometers above average, a figure he arrived at by adding anomalies for the North and South hemispheres.

 While early models predicted the sea ice would decrease because of global warming, other models are showing that the opposite is happening around Antarctica, where sea ice growth is increasing.

 "A freshening of the waters surrounding the southernmost continent as well as the strengthening of the winds circling it were both theorized as explanations for the steady growth of Antarctica’s sea ice during the period of satellite measurement," said Ambler.

 However, he pointed out that climatologists have discounted the importance and growth of the Antarctic sea ice.

 According to Walt Meier, formerly of the National Snow and Ice Data Center and currently of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most of the Antarctic sea ice does not survive between years, and it's less significant to the Earth's climate than is the ice around the Arctic.

 Meanwhile, Ambler said that the growth of the Antarctic sea ice is providing "a public relations problem, at a minimum, for those warning of global warming’s menace."

 During the past 18 months, global sea ice "has seen its most robust 18-month period of the last 13 years, maintaining, on average, a positive anomaly for an 18-month period for the first time since 2001," he wrote.

 In addition, Ambler said, the South Pole's temperature has been dropping over the past 40 years.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/antarctic-sea-ice-growing/2014/06/29/id/579853/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1575318_06302014&promo_code=eexbjxdw

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 30, 2014, 09:21:50 am

SCOTUS deals blow to unions. Can't force workers that are not union members to pay.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_UNION_FEES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-08-45

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says public sector unions can't collect fees from home health care workers who object to being affiliated with a union.

The justices on Monday said collecting the fees violates the First Amendment rights of workers who are not union members.

The ruling is a financial blow to labor unions that have bolstered their ranks in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of home health care workers.

The case was brought by a group of Illinois in-home care workers who said they didn't want to pay fees related to collective bargaining. They claimed the "fair share fees" violate their constitutional rights by compelling them to associate with the union.

Lower courts had thrown out the lawsuit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 30, 2014, 09:59:34 am

SCOTUS delivers blow to Obamacare. Hobby Lobby wins.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby-lobby-wins-contraceptive-ruling-supreme-court/story?id=24364311

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2014, 01:36:10 pm

Americans' confidence in the Supreme Court stands at 30% in the survey - the lowest since 1973 when Gallup started tracking confidence in the institution.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/30/poll-confidence-in-supreme-court-at-record-low/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/30/poll-confidence-in-supreme-court-at-record-low/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)


The consistent placement of corporations over workers, money over democracy, deserves our lack of faith in this Court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 30, 2014, 01:57:41 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 30, 2014, 01:36:10 pm

Americans' confidence in the Supreme Court stands at 30% in the survey - the lowest since 1973 when Gallup started tracking confidence in the institution.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/30/poll-confidence-in-supreme-court-at-record-low/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/30/poll-confidence-in-supreme-court-at-record-low/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)


The consistent placement of corporations over workers, money over democracy, deserves our lack of faith in this Court.

Yet still higher than confidence in Obama according to your link...

But now, confidence in the executive branch is the lowest it's been in Obama's tenure as commander in chief. Six years into his presidency, just 29% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in his elected office.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2014, 02:10:37 pm

Considering how activist conservative the court has become the 7% legislative bar is attainable.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2014, 03:01:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 30, 2014, 02:10:37 pm

Considering how activist conservative the court has become the 7% legislative bar is attainable.

Confidence in the Supreme Court will most likely rise after these decisions, not fall.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2014, 03:30:24 pm

Because corporations are people my friend?

Good luck with that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on June 30, 2014, 05:57:24 pm

What do corporations have to do with the rulings today? People can't be forced to pay fees to a union they don't want to belong to? Few people would have a problem with that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 30, 2014, 06:31:27 pm

Really Otto?  This lady just wanted to take care of her own son.  Why should she have been forced to follow union rules and pay the union dues?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/illinois-mom-elated-after-defeating-powerful-union-in-supreme-court/

Pam Harris, the lead plaintiff in the landmark Harris v. Quinn case, in which the high court ruled people who care for loved ones in their home can't be compelled to join the Service Employees International Union, said the ruling was a victory for her son Josh, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder.

"It means no third party intrusion, it means that there's not going to be a union contract inserted between my son and I, there's not going to be union rules and regulations dictating how I can provide the care that Josh needs," she said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 30, 2014, 07:22:45 pm

WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?
Do you think the war in Iraq was costing us too much each year? We have been hammered with the propaganda that it was the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I hope the following 11 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1.  $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare To illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify At: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8
2.  $22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify At: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
3.  $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
4.  $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt....0.HTML
5.  $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML
6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML
7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN..com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt...01.HTML
8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn..com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01..HTML
9.  $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI
10.  In 2006, Illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at:.<http://www//..rense.com/general75/niht.htm >
11.  The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States.
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2014, 07:59:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 30, 2014, 03:30:24 pm

Because corporations are people my friend?

Good luck with that.

Congress established the definition by statute.  The Court is merely following it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2014, 08:25:27 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 30, 2014, 03:30:24 pm

Because corporations are people my friend?

Good luck with that.

All the Court did was apply the definition established by Congress.  See the Dictionary Act at 1 USC 1, the very first section of the US code.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2014, 08:31:44 pm

packrat, your list is bull, starting with the suggestion that STATE expenditures are a reason the FEDERAL government is in debt, but far more glaringly because the billions in your list do not match the TRILLIONS spent on the war.  It was pretty clearly put together by someone not particularly concerned with logic or facts, but who knows there are plenty of other haters out there who also don't care about either of those two details who will latch onto a "list" like that and wave it around as if it means something.  My bet is that at least half of the links are either dead or do not support the claim for which they are offered (this is what I have found with multiple other such lists in the past, and I am quite confident that YOU did not bother to check any of them since the list supports your mindset to start with).

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2014, 08:33:53 pm

Yup, the first three links I checked are all dead.

These things just make you look bad, as if facts and logic don't matter, so long as the claim supports your pre-existing bias.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 30, 2014, 09:20:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 30, 2014, 08:25:27 pm

All the Court did was apply the definition established by Congress.  See the Dictionary Act at 1 USC 1, the very first section of the US code.

It is true that the act created the definition that a corporation has many of the rights of a person.  But the decision that Homo constantly whines about was not about the corporation being defined as a person.  The question was whether people that banded together to form a corporation lost their free speech rights because they banded together.

The case came before the court because the Federal Government tried to restrict the airing of political speech by a corporation.  If they had ruled against Citizens United, it would have effectively eliminated the ability of Labor Unions, who, by the way, are also corporations, to air the same type of political films.

Which would have effectively hamstrung the Democratic Party.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2014, 10:42:03 am

Finally some news otto can love: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-exec-talks-50-715660

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 01, 2014, 08:15:49 pm

 
 In the year of our Lord on July Fourth SEVENTEEN SEVENTY SIX ...
 
 there were no political partys ... only AMERICANS.
 
 What hath God wrought ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 01, 2014, 11:34:48 pm

 In the year of our Lord on July Fourth SEVENTEEN SEVENTY SIX ...

There were the Sons of Liberty,

who dealt with the Torries that didn't agree with them

by pouring boiling hot tar over them,

sprinkling them with feathers

and sending them off into Canada,

keeping their property as a penalty.

What God hath wrought, he wrought centuries ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 05:26:01 am

Pekin will love this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/

“They’re going to crush the system,” the nurse told me. “We can’t sustain this. They are overwhelming the system and I think it’s a travesty.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 05:40:11 am

If it is okay for these protesters to block efforts to move illegals into their community to be detained there, will it be any less wrong when those on the other side block efforts to remove illegals FROM their community? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-immigrants-murrieta-20140701-story.html#page=1

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 05:55:08 am

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/64199

Horror stories like the one at the link here (and this is nothing compared to what we can expect in the months ahead), whether they are true, wild exaggeration, or outright lies, will savagely hurt the Obama administration and the Democratic party in the November elections.  In 1980 one of the main reasons Bill Clinton lost re-election as governor in Arkansas (he lost in 1980, but regained the office in 1982) was because Clinton allowed the Carter administration to detain hundreds of Mariel boat lift detainees from Cuba in Arkansas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 06:04:48 am

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/01/HHS-Report-1-295-571-Obamacare-Enrollees-May-or-May-Not-Be-Legal-Citizens
A devastating new Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General report released on Tuesday reveals that the Obama administration has yet to determine whether 1,295,571 of the over 8 million Obamacare enrollees are U.S. citizens lawfully in the country.

The finding, located on page 11 of the report, states that 44% of the remaining 2,611,780 application "inconsistencies" are related to verifying "Citizenship/national status/lawful presence." Another 960,492 application inconsistencies were related to verifying whether subsidy applicants provided accurate income information.

Moreover, the Inspector General report only covered the federal Obamacare exchanges to determine how the Obama administration resolved verification problems through December 2013. As for the 15 state-run Obamacare exchanges, the report says four--Oregon, Nevada, Vermont, and Massachusetts--are simply "unable to resolve inconsistencies."

As the Washington Post reported in May, as many as one million Obamacare enrollees may be receiving incorrect taxpayer-funded subsidies due to Obamacare's continued technical failures and inability to properly verify income and citizenship eligibility.

For the HHS Inspector General report itself: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-14-00180.pdf

For the Washington Post article from May mentioned above: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-health-care-subsidies-may-be-too-high-or-too-low-for-more-than-1-million-americans/2014/05/16/8f544992-dd14-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 06:39:23 am

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1063578#.U7GCVqiJ1Xw

Swine flu virus detected among immigrants
by Ashly Custer
Posted: 06.28.2014 at 12:57 PM

Two cases of the H1N1 virus have been confirmed among immigrants caught in the Rio Grande Valley.

Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council #3307 Chris Cabrera confirmed the cases late Saturday morning.

Cabera told Action 4 News that one case was confirmed at the Brownsville Border Patrol Station and another at the Fort Brown Border Patrol station, also located in Brownsville.

Cabera said both cases involve juveniles and both were confirmed on Friday by medical personnel located at both facilities.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 04:25:23 pm

Remember how ObamaCare was going to end people "dying from not having health insurance"?

Well.... not for this woman: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/woman-class-action-lawsuit-against-xerox-dies


Time ran out for Linda Rolain.

The Las Vegas woman died Monday, less than two weeks after her family went public with details about Nevada Health Link insurance exchange enrollment troubles that kept her from treatment in January for an aggressive brain tumor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 02, 2014, 04:33:43 pm

Obama/Oddo will have an excuse for that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 02, 2014, 05:42:54 pm

Otto,  From MSN no less.

http://news.msn.com/us/us-poll-more-voters-see-obama-as-worst-president-in-modern-times

Two years into President Barack Obama's second term, more voters say they are dissatisfied with his administration's handling of everything from the economy to foreign policy, giving him the worst marks of any modern U.S. president, a poll on Wednesday said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 02, 2014, 05:49:33 pm

We should have the national guard on the Mexican border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.  More are showing up every single day with no end in sight.  As long as we keep doing what we are currently doing (nothing) it is not going to stop or even slow down.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 06:28:23 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 02, 2014, 05:49:33 pm

We should have the national guard on the Mexican border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.  More are showing up every single day with no end in sight.  As long as we keep doing what we are currently doing (nothing) it is not going to stop or even slow down.

Agreed... but, based on my viewing of MSNBC for about 6 hours today (something I have not done in at least 4 years.... and which was enough to make me want to gag, but, since MSNBC is completely in bed with Obama, watching them can give a good idea of what the White House may be wanting to try to do politically), I am afraid Obama will not do that in the hope that the growing conflict and backlash to the flow of illegal immigration may operate to the advantage of the Democratic base, by whipping up the base in reaction to the strong opposition largely conservatives are voicing to the current wave of illegals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 02, 2014, 06:55:30 pm

In the minds of Democrats these are future Democrat voters.  Even if they don't get amnesty their kids will be US citizens, who they assume will be on welfare and be permanent Democrat voters.  We become a socialist state even quicker then was already happening.

It matters little to them that a lot of these people are infested with lice, scabbies and some have more serious contagious diseases.  If it causes some pain to the migrants (there are reports of **** happening where they are being held as well as horrendous conditions)  or even Americans so be it.  They want power and they are hell bent on getting it.

       

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 07:26:30 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 02, 2014, 06:55:30 pm

In the minds of Democrats these are future Democrat voters.  Even if they don't get amnesty their kids will be US citizens, who they assume will be on welfare and be permanent Democrat voters.  We become a socialist state even quicker then was already happening.

It matters little to them that a lot of these people are infested with lice, scabbies and some have more serious contagious diseases.  If it causes some pain to the migrants (there are reports of **** happening where they are being held as well as horrendous conditions)  or even Americans so be it.  They want power and they are hell bent on getting it.     

I am always amazed at the concern some people will voice in the welfare of others while doing their damnedest to deny those others the opportunity to improve their own welfare.

But they want to come here to improve their own welfare NOT be drawing welfare benefits, but instead by working and by enjoying the improved standard of living coming from a much more stable government and a much more developed infrastructure.  Most welfare benefits are not even going to be available to them.  That is NOT the reason many of them are coming.  They come here to work and to raise families.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 02, 2014, 07:48:36 pm

We need to make it easier to migrate here legally.  Period!

I have a problem with illegal immigration not legal immigration.  We need to be plucking the best and brightest from other nations that want to come here and live, not sending them back after their work visas expire.  That is not to say a migrant needs to be college educated, just willing and able to be a productive member of our society.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 03, 2014, 12:25:41 am

Without a doubt, Obama is the absolute worst President I can remember all the way back to Carter, even worse than him! He is invisible on nearly every important issue, preferring to golf instead of tackle issues. He is the worst President we've had in 70 years indeed.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 03, 2014, 01:51:19 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 02, 2014, 07:26:30 pm

I am always amazed at the concern some people will voice in the welfare of others while doing their damnedest to deny those others the opportunity to improve their own welfare.

But they want to come here to improve their own welfare NOT be drawing welfare benefits, but instead by working and by enjoying the improved standard of living coming from a much more stable government and a much more developed infrastructure.  Most welfare benefits are not even going to be available to them.  That is NOT the reason many of them are coming.  They come here to work and to raise families.

 i dont have any problem with 500 000 000 Chinese coming to this Country to improve their lot in life. They come here to work and to raise families.
 
 _______________________________________________________
 
 A guy meets a babe at a bar and says to her :
 
 "Would you sleep with a man you didnt know for 1 million dollars?
 
 The babe reflects and says :
 
 "Well yes for that kind of money I think I would."
 
 The man replies :
 
 "Would you give me a blow job for a dollar?"
 
 The women is shocked!
 
 "What kind of women do you think I am ??"
 
 The man replies:
 
 "We know what kind of women you are, now we are just haggling over the numbers."
 
 _________________________________________________________
 
 The metaphor is there for you deep thinkers.  :D
 
 50 000 is ok but 500 000 000 ?
 
 They come here to work and raise families ... all of them.
 
 All should be given a fair chance once they get here ,
 
 according to the logic.
 
 SEE : Alaric, King of the Visigoths.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 03, 2014, 07:30:37 am

They absolutely should be gven the opportunity to come here and improve their life. I just want them to get in line behind all those that are doing it legally and have been waiting for years for their opportunity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 07:52:25 am

Keys, when you say you want them getting in a line behind those who HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS, you are saying you oppose allowing them to come.

The system needs massive reform.  The problem is that the gatekeepers of the border, and I made that gatekeeperS (plural) for a reason,  have done such a miserable job of maintaining the border, and of deporting those who cross it illegally, that an absolutely toxic environment exists, with many having no confidence whatsoever that those responsible for implementing any reform will do so.

The very first thing which needs to be done has to be securing the border.

Until that is done, and there is confidence that it will be continued, I see no real hope of reform, and no real hope of fixing the problem.

When reform does come there are at least five different things that have to be addressed:
1) Who will be allowed to enter;
2) The conditions under which entry will be allowed (some support guest-worker status without a path to citizenship and no eligibility for any of our social welfare programs, others support no such restrictions on either citizenship or social welfare programs, while I support the opposite -- NO guest-worker status AND no eligibility for ANY social welfare programs other than public school and instead limiting entry to those who plan to stay and are going to pursue citizenship);
3) The circumstances under which those entering will be allowed to return to their homeland and continue coming back to the U.S. (i.e. as guest-workers, with no real allegiance to the United States);
4) The degree to which money earned in the U.S. can be sent back to the immigrant's homeland;
5) What will trigger deportation.

How the U.S. will actually go about securing the border is a separate concern, but UNTIL that is done, I don't see much of any chance of reform.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 03, 2014, 08:12:51 am

Securing the border is not all that complicated.

Simply build the system that was passed through congress and funded 10-12 years ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 09:31:56 am

The problem we have is there aren't enough quality jobs for the native born Americans we already have in this country. Adding more to the list of those seeking work is the wrong thing to do.  In the law of supply and demand increasing the labor supply decreases the price of labor which then decreases the standard of living. This is what Obummaski is trying to do, think 3rd world country here which was poo pood as nonsense

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 09:46:24 am

Quote from: davebear on July 03, 2014, 08:12:51 am

Securing the border is not all that complicated.

Simply build the system that was passed through congress and funded 10-12 years ago.

The fact that most people do not view it as very complicated combines with the fact that it has not been done, and not even really tried, to help create the toxic situation of absolute distrust of anyone promoting immigration reform.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 10:18:44 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 09:31:56 am

The problem we have is there aren't enough quality jobs for the native born Americans we already have in this country. Adding more to the list of those seeking work is the wrong thing to do.  In the law of supply and demand increasing the labor supply decreases the price of labor which then decreases the standard of living. This is what Obummaski is trying to do, think 3rd world country here which was poo pood as nonsense

You write as if you believe there is a fixed an unalterable supply of jobs, which is akin to the standard socialist line that there is a fixed and immutable quantity of wealth.

Both are dynamic and not static.

An increased number of people available to work will spontaneously result in more jobs, so long as we have a free economy.  As those people get jobs and earn wages, they will also consume more and increase demand for the goods and services they and others provide.

But as troubling as the economic ignorance of your post might be, the nativism (and as I am using it hear I mean the implicit idea that natives are somehow more worthy than non-natives, a sentiment which was at the very heart of the nativist Know-Nothing political movement in the U.S. 165 years ago, largely then in reaction to those terrible Irish who were then "invading the nation and stealing jobs from good native-born Americans."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 11:00:26 am

You write as if you believe there is a fixed an unalterable supply of jobs, which is akin to the standard socialist line that there is a fixed and immutable quantity of wealth.

What I actually believe is that due to the governmental controls on business the number of quality jobs available doesn't equal the number of people who want to work. Examples are the environmental controls on the power industry and the use of coal. Also the controls on the Keystone pipeline and drilling for new oil in this country. This is artificial constriction of the availability of jobs. And there is no new industry to absorb the unused labor force we have NOW without further increasing the labor suppy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 11:03:36 am

That is a reason to support ending the restrictions, but not to oppose immigration.  The economy remains dynamic and the idea that there is a static number of "good jobs" or of any kind of jobs is nonsense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 03, 2014, 12:26:13 pm

Jes,

The border fence was built in San Diego in 1998 and works very well.

If you research it you will find other places where is has been completed and is also working.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 01:00:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 11:03:36 am

That is a reason to support ending the restrictions, but not to oppose immigration.  The economy remains dynamic and the idea that there is a static number of "good jobs" or of any kind of jobs is nonsense.

But the restrictions are going to get worse not less. Labor restrictions on mgt aren't going to lessen either. And the economy isn't dynamic anymore, in fact its dieing. There are no new jobs and markets being created.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 03, 2014, 01:51:16 pm

Securing the borders is only a small part of the problem.  A great many people come here quite legally on temporary visas and simply stay, becoming illegal.

Those already hear can be dealt with quite easily with systems currently in force.  With the exception of a few gardners and nannies, when a person gets a job they have to present their Social Security number, which is then sent to the Social Security Administration.

It is quite easy to forge a Social Security card, but it is not possible to forge a Social Security number.  They can either make up a number, or use another person's number.  There is no other way.

If they make up a Social Security number, when it goes to the Social Security Administration, that Administration sends a letter to the company advising them that the number is not legitimate.  But no one has to follow up on it.  There are currently about 12 million "inaccurate numbers" currently out there, which is the number used to estimate the number of illegal aliens currently in the country.  All they would have to do is pass a law forbidding any company, under penalty of massive fine, from paying that person until they have gone to the SS office and straightened it out.  Essentially, they would be denied a way to make a living here, and would have little choice but to return to their country of origin.

No deportations.  No arrests.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 03:55:00 pm

Quote from: davebear on July 03, 2014, 12:26:13 pm

Jes,

The border fence was built in San Diego in 1998 and works very well.

If you research it you will find other places where is has been completed and is also working.

No need to research it, I am aware of the fact that PARTS of the border are fenced, and it certainly is better than nothing, but they are a long, long way from perfect, and I have seen videos of dozens of people crossing the fences at the same time.  But I am NOT arguing against a fence, nor suggesting that the existing fences can not be improved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 03:57:44 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 01:00:33 pm

But the restrictions are going to get worse not less. Labor restrictions on mgt aren't going to lessen either. And the economy isn't dynamic anymore, in fact its dieing. There are no new jobs and markets being created.

That is a good reason to oppose the economic restrictions, not to oppose immigration.  Oh, and you need to look up the meaning of the word "dynamic."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 05:31:36 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 03:57:44 pm

That is a good reason to oppose the economic restrictions, not to oppose immigration.  Oh, and you need to look up the meaning of the word "dynamic."

Opposing restrictions does as much good as urinating on a 5 alarm fire. And dynamic is not what I'd call an economy with millions unemployed and on welfare and just barely above 1930's levels. So to solve this unemployment problem we just open the borders and let everybody in and put them on welfare too. Now that's got to be the most progressive idea I've heard in a while. I think you need to reassess your opinion

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2014, 07:21:24 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 05:31:36 pm

Opposing restrictions does as much good as urinating on a 5 alarm fire. And dynamic is not what I'd call an economy with millions unemployed and on welfare and just barely above 1930's levels. So to solve this unemployment problem we just open the borders and let everybody in and put them on welfare too. Now that's got to be the most progressive idea I've heard in a while. I think you need to reassess your opinion

And now there is no question at all that you need to check the definition of "dynamic."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 07:57:23 pm

dynamic/shynamic, it still sucks whatever the definition is. And who cares. Surely the Dumbocrats don't care. And protesting doesn't make any difference either. And when educated people don't care how many are on welfare or are unemployed then it'll be the working class that pays for them.

And just compare the final days of the Roman Empire to the current Obummaski Administration.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 03, 2014, 08:25:34 pm

 

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2014, 01:51:16 pm

Securing the borders is only a small part of the problem.  A great many people come here quite legally on temporary visas and simply stay, becoming illegal.

Those already hear can be dealt with quite easily with systems currently in force.  With the exception of a few gardners and nannies, when a person gets a job they have to present their Social Security number, which is then sent to the Social Security Administration.

It is quite easy to forge a Social Security card, but it is not possible to forge a Social Security number.  They can either make up a number, or use another person's number.  There is no other way.

If they make up a Social Security number, when it goes to the Social Security Administration, that Administration sends a letter to the company advising them that the number is not legitimate.  But no one has to follow up on it.  There are currently about 12 million "inaccurate numbers" currently out there, which is the number used to estimate the number of illegal aliens currently in the country.  All they would have to do is pass a law forbidding any company, under penalty of massive fine, from paying that person until they have gone to the SS office and straightened it out.  Essentially, they would be denied a way to make a living here, and would have little choice but to return to their country of origin.

No deportations.  No arrests.

 Dave,
 
 You get it.  Its that easy.
 
 

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2014, 07:57:23 pm

dynamic/shynamic, it still sucks whatever the definition is. And who cares. Surely the Dumbocrats don't care. And protesting doesn't make any difference either. And when educated people don't care how many are on welfare or are unemployed then it'll be the working class that pays for them.

And just compare the final days of the Roman Empire to the current Obummaski Administration.

 Sombody read up on Alaric , King of the Visigoths.
 
 What did Alaric do ?
 
 He sacked Rome once he was let inside of the Roman borders.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 03, 2014, 10:38:44 pm

 You don't have to go all the way back to Alaric.

Go back to the Pilgrims.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2014, 05:50:58 am

Jj, just in case your history books left out this fact, Alaric did not sack Rome with unarmed children.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 04, 2014, 07:20:59 am

So what does that have to do with the price of green cheese on the moon? The discussion is on the effect of illegal aliens in the American job market and how to correct the situation. Clown central here says open the border and let them all in. Are there any more sensible solutions to the problem?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 04, 2014, 08:02:43 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 02, 2014, 07:48:36 pm

We need to make it easier to migrate here legally.  Period!

I have a problem with illegal immigration not legal immigration.  We need to be plucking the best and brightest from other nations that want to come here and live, not sending them back after their work visas expire.  That is not to say a migrant needs to be college educated, just willing and able to be a productive member of our society.

If they will come here and work, pay taxes and stay out of trouble, I have no problem with them coming here.  If they get arrested for a serious crime or a series of minor scuffles with the law or won't work then boot them out. If the conservatives could come up with a plan for them to do that, they would get much of the Latino vote. I wouldn't care if you got them all to sign up on a "list", give them a green card or something,  make them learn English, get a job, pay taxes and if they have not been convicted of a crime after 4yrs they become citizens.

Right now we make it to hard for them to follow the legal process and our rules encourage them to do it illegally.

Move to a fair tax system where folks that get paid under the table still pay taxes and if they aren't here legally and paying taxes they don't get the "rebates".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2014, 09:31:44 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 04, 2014, 07:20:59 am

So what does that have to do with the price of green cheese on the moon? The discussion is on the effect of illegal aliens in the American job market and how to correct the situation. Clown central here says open the border and let them all in. Are there any more sensible solutions to the problem?

The "problem" is your identification of what the problem is, just as Jj saw the "problem" as one of a barbarian invasion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2014, 09:49:31 am

Quote from: navigator on July 04, 2014, 08:02:43 am

If they will come here and work, pay taxes and stay out of trouble, I have no problem with them coming here.  If they get arrested for a serious crime or a series of minor scuffles with the law or won't work then boot them out. If the conservatives could come up with a plan for them to do that, they would get much of the Latino vote. I wouldn't care if you got them all to sign up on a "list", give them a green card or something,  make them learn English, get a job, pay taxes and if they have not been convicted of a crime after 4yrs they become citizens.

Right now we make it to hard for them to follow the legal process and our rules encourage them to do it illegally.

Move to a fair tax system where folks that get paid under the table still pay taxes and if they aren't here legally and paying taxes they don't get the "rebates".

Government welfare programs are not "rebates," and should simply be eliminated, but without disagreeing with the core of your post, the idea of allowing citizenship in four years for those who have come here illegally, while requiring longer than that for those who have entered legally seems a bit misguided.

I strongly support a fence and a truly secure border, while also making it much, much easier for those wanting to enter legally to do so, including eliminating quotas.  We simultaneously need to increase the penalties for those who do enter illegally.  We also need to resist the calls for expanding work permits, allowing people to enter the U.S. without having any intention of staying.  We would be far better off severely restricting the number of those who are allowed to enter for any meaningful length of time without a true intention of remaining and becoming citizens.  We do NOT want a significant population of people in this country who do not have an alliegance to this country, and guest worker programs virtually assure that.  Large populations of non-citizens in a country create inherently unstable situations.  I want to allow entry to those who not only want to be IN the United States, but who also want to become PART of the United States.  Those who are going to identify more with some other nation we are better off without.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 04, 2014, 11:27:19 am

I agree with both of you.

A lot of those who come here currently on a work visa want to stay and become citizens.  However when the visa expires we tell them they have to go home.  We are talking about highly intelligent, educated people who have a high paying job we are turning away.

How is it a bunch of yahoos on a football message board can figure out what the problem is and how to fix it in no time yet our government continues to **** it up?

My conclusion is because this is the way they want it.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 04, 2014, 12:38:53 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 04, 2014, 09:31:44 am

The "problem" is your identification of what the problem is, just as Jj saw the "problem" as one of a barbarian invasion.

Well essentially he is correct. It is a barbaric invasion. During Roman times slaves were brought into the empire. The Romans were the privileged class and essentially did no work. Even their military became more of a mercenary force. THAT is what this country is going to become.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 04, 2014, 03:52:22 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 04, 2014, 09:49:31 am

Government welfare programs are not "rebates," and should simply be eliminated, but without disagreeing with the core of your post, the idea of allowing citizenship in four years for those who have come here illegally, while requiring longer than that for those who have entered legally seems a bit misguided.

I strongly support a fence and a truly secure border, while also making it much, much easier for those wanting to enter legally to do so, including eliminating quotas.  We simultaneously need to increase the penalties for those who do enter illegally.  We also need to resist the calls for expanding work permits, allowing people to enter the U.S. without having any intention of staying.  We would be far better off severely restricting the number of those who are allowed to enter for any meaningful length of time without a true intention of remaining and becoming citizens.  We do NOT want a significant population of people in this country who do not have an alliegance to this country, and guest worker programs virtually assure that.  Large populations of non-citizens in a country create inherently unstable situations.  I want to allow entry to those who not only want to be IN the United States, but who also want to become PART of the United States.  Those who are going to identify more with some other nation we are better off without.

Jes, I agree with your solution.
Secure the border
make it easier for folks that want to be here and contribute, to do it legally.
I wouldn't care if the folks "already in line" only have to wait 2 yrs and the illegals wait 4 years, just make a decision and do something because what they are doing now (nothing) isn't working.

the "rebate" is a key of the fair tax program, I haven't looked at it in a few years so my memory is foggy.....
you tax all new items at something like 23%, this includes necessities(food, clothes etc).
The rebate is basically to refund you the taxes you paid on necessities based on your family size etc.
If someone is here illegally, they can't get the rebate even though they paid the tax.
If some rich guy is throwing a huge party for all of his friends and spends 10k on food,  he has paid taxes on it yet he only gets a rebate based on his family size.

In this case items get only taxed once.
A used car has no tax.
The price of things actually come down because they are only taxed once.
The tax code is simpler.
You aren't taxed for making money, or saving money or investing money or building a business, only if you buy a new item.
I don't think services are taxed either, only new goods.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2014, 04:40:48 pm

navigator, put me down as fundamentally opposed to any approach which would intentionally give more tax revenue to Congress in the expectation that they will actually give it back.  Beyond that is the fact that even if you COULD rely on the federal government to do that, a significant loss in funds would result from administrative costs of the program, even if it worked perfectly.  It is about like playing poker with the house taking a 15% rake.  Let a couple of few big pots pass back and forth across the table and then count what is left on the table.  Your proposal would have administrative costs on EVERY transaction.  Not a good idea.  Screw the "rebates" notion and simply let me keep my money instead of taxing it in order to give it back to me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 05, 2014, 12:22:31 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 04, 2014, 08:02:43 am

If they will come here and work, pay taxes and stay out of trouble, I have no problem with them coming here.  If they get arrested for a serious crime or a series of minor scuffles with the law or won't work then boot them out. If the conservatives could come up with a plan for them to do that, they would get much of the Latino vote. I wouldn't care if you got them all to sign up on a "list", give them a green card or something,  make them learn English, get a job, pay taxes and if they have not been convicted of a crime after 4yrs they become citizens.

Right now we make it to hard for them to follow the legal process and our rules encourage them to do it illegally.

Move to a fair tax system where folks that get paid under the table still pay taxes and if they aren't here legally and paying taxes they don't get the "rebates".

It isn't quite that simple.  There simply is no way we could absorb everyone that wants to come here.  We should substantially raise the number of people we grant citizenship to, but there has to be some limits to the total amount of immigrants per year if we wish to keep the U. S. anything like it has been.

Whatever number we decide upon, that number should be allocated proprotionally among all the countries in the world, rather than only to Mexico and Latin America.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 05, 2014, 12:27:30 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 04, 2014, 09:49:31 am

I strongly support a fence and a truly secure border, while also making it much, much easier for those wanting to enter legally to do so, including eliminating quotas.  We simultaneously need to increase the penalties for those who do enter illegally. 

Just out of curiosity, if we eliminate quotas, how could anyone enter illegally?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2014, 05:08:20 pm

Quote from: davep on July 05, 2014, 12:27:30 pm

Just out of curiosity, if we eliminate quotas, how could anyone enter illegally?

Very simply.  At least three approaches require no quotas:

1) The approach I favor is likely the one you would most strongly oppose -- eliminate all governmentally imposed limits.  In other words, allow the marketplace to determine its own levels, with people allowed to move where they want to move, just as is allowed within the United States, despite some areas such as Tucson and San Diego (both places where I have lived) where locals might strongly oppose allowing increased population growth as many of them (the locals) complain that the areas "can' absorb everyone" who wants to move there.  Miraculously, the market does exactly what those supporting limits says it can't do.

2) Set standards for immigrants to meet, but without quotas, such as requiring a college degree, and being fluent in English BEFORE moving here.  You can set the standards wherever you want, and, move them up or down however is desired, depending on how many more immigrants ae desired.

3) Put a cap on the number to be allowed at any one time, and then auction off the slots allocated.  While I do NOT support this approach, it might be a nice way to whittle on the national debt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2014, 05:21:52 pm

Quote from: davep on July 05, 2014, 12:22:31 pm

It isn't quite that simple.  There simply is no way we could absorb everyone that wants to come here.  We should substantially raise the number of people we grant citizenship to, but there has to be some limits to the total amount of immigrants per year if we wish to keep the U. S. anything like it has been.

That is a conclusion sorely looking for facts to support it.

And, not to be offensive, davep, but the fact that it is a conclusion so clearly at odds with general free market thinking (something you have often shown you embrace) and so clearly at odds with general economic principles related to supply and demand and the idea that things will reach their own level (another concept you have shown you understand and accept), and that conclusion is reached without facts to support it, but is instead simply asserted as a basis to exclude entry into the United States of people who are, for whatever reason "undesirable," lends itself to the idea that a degree of xenophobia might be more strongly at play than anything else in your position.  SO does your comment that you could not imagine any way of handling immigration without some sort of quotas.

Yes, I know you have denied anything of the kind is at all a factor in your position, and insist that you are not xenophobic, and have criticized me when I have raised the issue.  At the same time, if I see something which looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the mere fact what it SAYS is that it is a dog and not a duck is not always convincing.

And, just to make things clear at the moment, I am NOT contending you are xenophobic.  You have said you are not.  I am merely trying to point out how a rational person might think that you are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 05, 2014, 08:08:00 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 04, 2014, 04:40:48 pm

navigator, put me down as fundamentally opposed to any approach which would intentionally give more tax revenue to Congress in the expectation that they will actually give it back. 

You don't give them more tax, one of the main keys of the Fair Tax is you have to pass a constitutional amendment that prohibits the Federal govt from collecting income tax.

With Fair Tax, Sales tax is the only tax.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2014, 08:39:33 pm

Sorry, navigator, if the idea is of the government collecting more than it requires to operate in order to allow it to "rebate" (your word, not mine) anything back to the taxpayers, everything I wrote still applies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 05, 2014, 08:50:57 pm

so you wouldn't be in favor of taxes going down? For items being taxed only one time? For collecting taxes from all those folks getting paid under the table that don't pay taxes today?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2014, 08:55:50 pm

Why not also ask if I wouldn't be in favor of ice cream or beer?

Both of those are equally related to the points I made.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 05, 2014, 11:33:20 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 05, 2014, 05:21:52 pm

That is a conclusion sorely looking for facts to support it.

And, not to be offensive, davep, but the fact that it is a conclusion so clearly at odds with general free market thinking (something you have often shown you embrace) and so clearly at odds with general economic principles related to supply and demand and the idea that things will reach their own level (another concept you have shown you understand and accept), and that conclusion is reached without facts to support it, but is instead simply asserted as a basis to exclude entry into the United States of people who are, for whatever reason "undesirable," lends itself to the idea that a degree of xenophobia might be more strongly at play than anything else in your position.  SO does your comment that you could not imagine any way of handling immigration without some sort of quotas.

Yes, I know you have denied anything of the kind is at all a factor in your position, and insist that you are not xenophobic, and have criticized me when I have raised the issue.  At the same time, if I see something which looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the mere fact what it SAYS is that it is a dog and not a duck is not always convincing.

And, just to make things clear at the moment, I am NOT contending you are xenophobic.  You have said you are not.  I am merely trying to point out how a rational person might think that you are.

So you are saying that if every person in the world came to the US, it would cause no problems at all?

I am in favor of free markets within our national boundries in the majority of cases.  It is not my religion, and I do not think it is the only factor to be considered when forming and maintaining a nation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 05, 2014, 11:41:17 pm

Now don't start picking on Jes for his libertarian "religion".  Facts must not get in the way.  He has an agenda and he is not budging off of it no matter what.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 08:43:27 am

Quote from: davep on July 05, 2014, 11:33:20 pm

So you are saying that if every person in the world came to the US, it would cause no problems at all?

The fact that you even ask that question underscores my basic point.

You understand economics, which means you understand that you would never have a situation in which "every person in the world (would try) to come to the US," and yet you ask the question as if it were a possibility, or even as if the answer to it somehow going to make your point.  The question no more makes your point that a similar question from environmentalist when they ask questions such as "What will we do when we run out of oil if the government does not first invest in alternative fuels?"  Well there is no reason to believe we EVER will "run out of oil," and I have seen you point that out.  You understand the concepts.... but you still ask such foolish questions when we are addressing immigration.  And that is what is troubling about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 08:49:44 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 05, 2014, 11:41:17 pm

Now don't start picking on Jes for his libertarian "religion".

The very essence of libertarianism is the belief that it is morally wrong to initiate force against someone, to force someone to do something against their will, unless to deal with a problem that individual has created.

And, yes, I quite proudly will accept that as my "religion" if you want to call that idea a "religion."

What I always find amusing is the rationalization others give for straying from or ignoring such a simple concept, which is not at all far from the Golden Rule.  You want to offer your moral argument against it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 01:35:54 pm

The very essence of libertarianism is a belief in just enough government to protect private property and personal safety (a glorified police force resembling security at solderfield).

The only problem for libertarians is that they cannot point to even a single current or historical example of a government that functions as they imagine it should. They have no concrete, real world examples, so they ply their arguments in a theoretical construct.


Can you point to an example of one minutia boy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 02:29:37 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 01:35:54 pm

The very essence of libertarianism is a belief in just enough government to protect private property and personal safety (a glorified police force resembling security at solderfield).

The only problem for libertarians is that they cannot point to even a single current or historical example of a government that functions as they imagine it should. They have no concrete, real world examples, so they ply their arguments in a theoretical construct.


Can you point to an example of one minutia boy?

otto, when with your first sentence you have demonstrated you don't know what you are talking about on this either, and that after I have in fact just explained to you what libertarianism is about, what possible reason is there to discuss it with you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 02:31:42 pm

Or, better yet, could you respond to the question I posed and offer your moral argument against libertarianism, as I explained it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 02:46:04 pm

The moral argument against libertarianism? How about you prove that "your version" of it by pointing to an example of it in the real world.

Better yet, explain why Somalia isn't an example of what happens when a central government is replaced by one that you envision.

Ever hear of feudalism?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 02:57:36 pm

Tell me why minutia boy, how under your version of libertarianism people would act for the common good rather than their own self interest?

Are you that naïve?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 02:57:51 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 02:46:04 pm

The moral argument against libertarianism? How about you prove that "your version" of it by pointing to an example of it in the real world.

Better yet, explain why Somalia isn't an example of what happens when a central government is replaced by one that you envision.

Ever hear of feudalism?

otto, let's go back to what you are challenging me on.

I wrote as follows: "The very essence of libertarianism is the belief that it is morally wrong to initiate force against someone, to force someone to do something against their will, unless to deal with a problem that individual has created."

There is no real vision of government in there.  It instead is, as Pekin pointed out, as much a moral precept as it is anything else.  So your question is about like asking me to point to an example of libertarian water which has worked.  Your question is nonsense.

Now, I ask you again, can you offer your moral argument against libertarianism, as I explained it?

In other words, can you explain your moral justification for initiating force against another person, your moral justification for forcing another person to do something when they have not initiated the use of force against you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 06, 2014, 02:58:13 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 08:43:27 am

The fact that you even ask that question underscores my basic point.

You understand economics, which means you understand that you would never have a situation in which "every person in the world (would try) to come to the US," and yet you ask the question as if it were a possibility, or even as if the answer to it somehow going to make your point.  The question no more makes your point that a similar question from environmentalist when they ask questions such as "What will we do when we run out of oil if the government does not first invest in alternative fuels?"  Well there is no reason to believe we EVER will "run out of oil," and I have seen you point that out.  You understand the concepts.... but you still ask such foolish questions when we are addressing immigration.  And that is what is troubling about it.

You love to reduce the opponent's argument to the absurd, but don't like it when done with yours.  Could we handle it if half the people in the world came here?  A quarter of the world?  Give me a number above which we could not handle it, but below it would have no problems.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 03:00:44 pm

otto, as for the "common good," read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith sometime, or read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 03:04:18 pm

Quote from: davep on July 06, 2014, 02:58:13 pm

You love to reduce the opponent's argument to the absurd, but don't like it when done with yours.  Could we handle it if half the people in the world came here?  A quarter of the world?  Give me a number above which we could not handle it, but below it would have no problems.

That is still the same as applying the idea to oil in the ground.

The free market works.  There is absolutely on reason to think it does not work with respect to migration.  Were those loons I mentioned from Tucson or San Diego who wanted to limited population growth in their communities because you could not possibly allow every person in the nation to move there going to be any less loony by saying you could not allow HALF of the people in the nation to move there, or one quarter of the nation to move there?  Your question is absurd, and you know it is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 03:29:43 pm

Quote

as for the "common good," read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith sometime, or read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.

You are that naïve.

Did good olde Adam Smith update his Wealth of Nations with the sequel Wealth of Corporations yet?

You should read John Maynard Keynes and stop believing and praying for your brand of libertarianism utopia.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 06, 2014, 03:30:01 pm

The free market works.  There is absolutely on reason to think it does not work with respect to migration.  Were those loons I mentioned from Tucson or San Diego who wanted to limited population growth in their communities because you could not possibly allow every person in the nation to move there going to be any less loony by saying you could not allow HALF of the people in the nation to move there, or one quarter of the nation to move there?  Your question is absurd, and you know it is.

Bull crap

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 04:07:35 pm

On taxes

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

--Adam Smith


Sounds like Adam supported a progressive tax.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 04:49:15 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 03:29:43 pm

You are that naïve.

Did good olde Adam Smith update his Wealth of Nations with the sequel Wealth of Corporations yet?

You should read John Maynard Keynes and stop believing and praying for your brand of libertarianism utopia.

One of the differences between us, otto, is that I not only have read Smith, and Friedman, but I also have read Keynes.  Are you really going to try to tell me that you have read ANY of them?

And are you ever going to bother trying to respond to my question as to when you believe it IS appropriate to initiate force against someone?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 05:21:13 pm

Well, how nice and condescending of you. I don't doubt that you have read Adam Smith, but you surely don't understand him or his writings. You have just become a parrot of the modern day dogma that surrounds him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 05:27:05 pm

I think you should better explain "force" and stop being the LA Police dept in it's use.

Is "force" compelling people to pay their share of taxes? If so, you are a lunatic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 06:44:56 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 05:27:05 pm

I think you should better explain "force" and stop being the LA Police dept in it's use.

Is "force" compelling people to pay their share of taxes? If so, you are a lunatic.

So you have given up on the rather simple challenge of trying to explain when you believe it is appropriate to initiate force against someone.

Not surprising.

I doubt that anyone here expected you to try.  No reason to alter anyone's opinion of you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 06:57:12 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 05:21:13 pm

Well, how nice and condescending of you. I don't doubt that you have read Adam Smith, but you surely don't understand him or his writings. You have just become a parrot of the modern day dogma that surrounds him.

So I take it that while you urge me to read Keynes, you have not.  Again, much as I suspected.

As to Smith, I suggested that you read him for one point, and that was to answer the question you posed about the common good.  Smith is generally considered the first person to have addressed how a multitude of individuals, all acting in their own narrow self interests, will effectively advance the common good far more than if they act thru government direction.  Friedman explains the point far better, and is easier to read, but Smith at least deserves a mention because the concept is generally thought to have originated with him.  You may consider it condescending to have your lack of understanding pointed out to you, but you really shouldn't.  Even if you are the only one unaware of the breadth of your ignorance, that doesn't mean you have to remain ignorant.

Ignorance is generally a choice.  All you have to do is to CHOOSE to stop being ignorant and avail your self of the material to change it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 06, 2014, 08:18:43 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 03:04:18 pm

That is still the same as applying the idea to oil in the ground.

The free market works.  There is absolutely on reason to think it does not work with respect to migration.  Were those loons I mentioned from Tucson or San Diego who wanted to limited population growth in their communities because you could not possibly allow every person in the nation to move there going to be any less loony by saying you could not allow HALF of the people in the nation to move there, or one quarter of the nation to move there?  Your question is absurd, and you know it is.

There is absolutely NO reason to believe that free markets would work with respect to immigration.

In a free market, people would come here because wages are higher here than there.  This would result in real wages raising there, since the labor force decreases, and wages would decline here as the labor force increases.  I have no desire for real wages to decline here.  And I don't much care what happens there.

But using the free markets to control immigration WOULD result in the US ultimately becoming equal to third world nations.  If Pekin is right, that might be why Obama is in favor of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 06, 2014, 08:24:19 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 04:07:35 pm

On taxes
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

--Adam Smith


Sounds like Adam supported a progressive tax.

Don't you love it when Homo actually posts his own thoughts. 

Even if you restrict your knowledge to what Homo said, you know that Adam Smith was NOT in favor of a progressive tax structure.

that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

In other words, a Flat Rate tax.  Not a Progressive Rate tax

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 08:49:36 pm

Quote

Smith is generally considered the first person to have addressed how a multitude of individuals, all acting in their own narrow self interests, will effectively advance the common good far more than if they act thru government direction.

Can you provide for all on this board one country which has embraced your libertarianism?

Because usually your version ends in one of the following.

1) The central police force turns into a right-wing military dictatorship invested in stamping out all leftist thinking, then appropriating the country's wealth for themselves and their friends (e.g., Chile under Pinochet);

or

2) All central authority and protection break down completely as power localizes into the hands of local criminals and feudal/tribal warlords with little compunction about abusing and terrorizing the local population (e.g., feudal France, Afghanistan, Somalia, western Pakistan, etc.)


And congratulations on being the most insufferable bastard in any social situation that includes anyone in addition to you.

Now please define your continued use of the "force" as it relates to your minutia based posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 09:02:51 pm

Sorry davepeebart

That was a direct quote from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations manifesto. Nice to see that you still have the idiotic clarity of a true believer. Say again how taxation is based on ones economic group status. So, if the top 1% of earners garner 60% of the income that they would be taxed at that level.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 09:04:41 pm

Quote from: davep on July 06, 2014, 08:18:43 pm

There is absolutely NO reason to believe that free markets would work with respect to immigration.

Absolutely no reason other than real life experience, and also standard economic theory.

Yeah, absolutely no reason other than that.

I offered the examples of San Diego and Tucson, where similar predictions were made about quality of living and about earnings.  Similar predictions were also made for the entire state of California during the dust bowl when the "Okies" moved there.  The predictions proved wrong.  Just as yours is.

Quote from: davep on July 06, 2014, 08:18:43 pm

In a free market, people would come here because wages are higher here than there.  This would result in real wages raising there, since the labor force decreases, and wages would decline here as the labor force increases.  I have no desire for real wages to decline here.  And I don't much care what happens there.

You seem to be sharing the impression that the marketplace is static and that there are only a set number of jobs.  You know better, you have repeatedly shown in your discussion of economic issues that you know better, and yet you make that kind of claim here, which, as I have commented before, makes me wonder if your actual opposition to immigration is something other than what you claim, and perhaps something other than what you are even willing to admit to yourself.

Quote from: davep on July 06, 2014, 08:18:43 pm

But using the free markets to control immigration WOULD result in the US ultimately becoming equal to third world nations.

You seem to acknowledge that government does a terrible job determining how much of anything else society needs, and oppose having government do so because it does such a terrible job.... but you seem to trust government here.  Again, this is so at odds with both reason, and your normal thinking, that I have to wonder what the real reason is for your position.

Quote from: davep on July 06, 2014, 08:18:43 pm

  If Pekin is right, that might be why Obama is in favor of it. 

So would that also be why I favor opening up immigration?

I want the U.S. to collapse and embrace the Cloward/Piven strategy as a means of achieving socialism in the U.S.?

davep, beyond all of that, beyond the economic theory or the economic observable experience or the demographic shifts creating a NEED for population growth, I have to ask you why you believe you and government should be able to prohibit me from employing who I want to or determining who I will have living in my home.  I agree that you should have every right to determine who lives on or even crosses your property or who you employ or do business with, but you should have no power to restrict my decisions in any similar manner.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 09:08:55 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 08:49:36 pm

Can you provide for all on this board one country which has embraced your libertarianism?

Obfuscation and misdirection.

Still nothing remotely resembling a response to a very simple question as to when you believe it is appropriate to initiate the use of force against someone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 09:10:25 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 09:02:51 pm

Sorry davepeebart

That was a direct quote from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations manifesto. Nice to see that you still have the idiotic clarity of a true believer. Say again how taxation is based on ones economic group status. So, if the top 1% of earners garner 60% of the income that they would be taxed at that level.

Not surprising, davep, it appears otto does not understand the basic concept of a progressive tax system. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 09:12:45 pm

You dear minutia boy appear to be unable to follow the posts.

Try again.


And you're admitting failure to name a country which can make real your libertarian theory.

Nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 06, 2014, 09:13:24 pm

He also seems to think there are only right wing dictatorships...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 06, 2014, 09:17:17 pm

Obama is leading a left wing dictatorship. If you doubt that just look at the armed agencies of the current federal government

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 09:18:59 pm

I would cite Iraq as a country which has followed your libertarianism theoretical construct rather nicely.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 09:20:14 pm

wasfullofit


Adding your brand of stupid to the thread doesn't help.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2014, 09:39:18 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 06, 2014, 09:13:24 pm

He also seems to think there are only right wing dictatorships...

I strongly disagree with your comment.

I don't believe otto thinks at all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 06, 2014, 10:06:53 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 09:20:14 pm

wasfullofit


Adding your brand of stupid to the thread doesn't help.

And what does your brand of turdism do? It sure does stink up the place.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 10:15:05 pm

Sheldon

How many people have you bored to death in your lifetime of endless words? How many times have you while droning on over some lost point watched the person your lecturing just turn and walk away?

Are you still trying to figure an argument over the "force"?

Start with Star Wars.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 10:19:39 pm

It really doesn't surprise me that a tediously boring guy like yourself would idolize an absent minded bachelor would lived with his mother until her death.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2014, 10:42:12 pm

Sheldon

Since you "know" Adam Smith so well....what did he think of corporations? IE buyers or sellers who were not large enough to corrupt the "satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers" in terms of the market price. A local market place in which capital was controlled by its owners who resided in the local community for moral direction.

He have anything on that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 06, 2014, 11:59:51 pm

Homo, try not to be too dense.

He is saying that everyone should pay the same percentage of their income.  If that rate is 20 percent, the person that makes 10,000 should pay 2 thousand.  The person that makes 1 million should pay 200 thousand.

Remember back when you were at the University of Wisconsin and they taught you about fractions?  You shouldn't have slept through the class.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 07, 2014, 03:56:29 pm

 
 THE SUN RISES ... THE SUN SETS.
 
 In this forum those words can be twisted to suit the responders agenda.
 
 Thats six words, imagine what you can do with a whole paragraph
 
 reshaped to get your point across.  ;D   :D   ;)   ::)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: octagon on July 07, 2014, 07:13:47 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 07, 2014, 07:29:54 pm

Quote from: octagon on July 07, 2014, 07:13:47 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Are you going to believe those discredited climate deniers?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 07, 2014, 07:54:54 pm

 
 THE SUN SHINES ... pretty obvious.
 
 But let us pause when it comes to MONEY.
 
 Because MONEY is more important than any HUMAN LIFE.
 
 We have proven that over and over in any endevor to sustain MONEY,
 
 I will put your children on the chopping block to protect my interests.
 
 I need you to believe that you will sacrifice them for my interests.
 
 You have never failed me if the paycheck is right.
 
 Thats why I am alway right. PERIOD.
 
 You have a retirement condo ... I own Islands.
 
 You will never see those Islands in your life ...
 
 because I know how to play you, I will lie to you,cheat you,
 
 and you will reward me. You will defend me as I **** you over.
 
 Because you dont know how else to behave .. training is a state of mind.
 
 Youve always been trained and you dont even know it.
 
 I do. I trained you.
 
 BTW ... Jackie is looking to hire yacht hands ... and stewards on jets.
 
 JJ does his best to keep the economy growing.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2014, 09:33:58 am

Remember those great jobs numbers reported last week?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/64381#.U7vbvX6Yg20.facebook

A deceptive jobs report obscures the dark truth about the Obama economy
Part-Time Nation

By Arnold Ahlert  July 8, 2014

Last Thursday, an Obama-centric mainstream media trumpeted the creation of 288,000 jobs and the reduction in the unemployment rate from 6.3 percent to 6.1 percent. Lost in the manufactured euphoria are the sobering details: America is well on its way to becoming a nation where millions of workers can only find part-time, lower-paying jobs.

On the surface, the numbers are impressive. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the aforementioned 288,000 jobs gain, while the household survey reported a gain of 407,000. Yet those numbers pale in comparison to the rise in the number of voluntary and involuntary part-time jobs, coming in at 840,000 and 275,000, respectively. Since the BLS uses seasonally-adjusted figures to calculate jobs data, one cannot subtract the total number of part-time jobs from full-time jobs. However, data regarding seasonally-adjusted full-time jobs can be compared on a month-to-month basis and therein lies the true tale of woe.

A whopping 523,000 full-time jobs were lost in June.

As the graphs here indicate, this is the second largest decline of full-time jobs in the past year, but by far the largest addition of part-time jobs. So far this year the economy has created 926,000 full-time jobs and 646,000 part-time jobs. Overall, America now has 118 million full-time jobs compared to 28 million part-time jobs, according to the BLS. Thus, 23.7 percent, or nearly one-out-of-every four Americans, is working part-time.
523,000 full-time jobs were lost in June

Just over a year ago, it was reported that economist Scott Anderson analyzed employment gains since January 2009 and found that in June part-time jobs accounted for 19.5 percent of total employment, amounting to “exactly the average share ... since January 2009.” One might think an increase of nearly 18 percent in that average share might be cause for concern amidst the euphoria.

One would be wrong. For those uninterested in the details, the quantity of jobs rather than the quality of jobs is all that matters.

Yet it is precisely that quality that should concern every American. As the Wall Street Journal noted while June jobs gains were broad-based, “lower-wage sectors continued to account for the bulk.” While there was an increase of 67,000 jobs in the professional and business services sector, they were offset by the more than 40,000 jobs in the retail industry and 30,000 jobs in leisure and hospitality businesses. “Higher-paying sectors continued to lag behind in the jobs recovery,” the paper reported. “Manufacturing added 16,000 new jobs and construction added 6,000.”

As for the “official unemployment rate” of 6.1 percent, the number listed under BLS’s “U-3” heading, more and more Americans are becoming aware of the bogus nature of this particular statistic, given that it doesn’t account for such realities as the number of part-time workers who want full-time jobs, or the number of people marginally attached to the workforce. The more accurate U-6 number, which takes these factors into account, puts the unemployment rate at 12.1 percent.

Yet both of those numbers would be even higher if they took into account the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force altogether. While the economy ostensibly surged, the number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force really surged to a record-setting 92,120,000 in June. That number represents a jump of 111,000 since April, and the labor force participation rate of 62.8 percent matched a 36-year low. In other words, job growth isn’t keeping up with population growth.

Another factor that skews the job numbers is something called Performance Enhancing Estimates (P.E.E.). They are little more than educated guesstimates regarding the aforementioned seasonal adjustments as well as birth/death estimates determining how many companies were created or destroyed. In ominous context, a Brookings Institution study released last month reveals that the U.S.‘s economy is less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last 30 years. Moreover, from 2009-2011, the last three years the study looked at, businesses were dying faster than they were being born—a dubious first time achievement. Thus, unless one assumes there has been a radical turnaround in the last three years, the long-term trend for job creation will be what the authors contend is “a continuation of slow growth for the indefinite future.”

The Federal Reserve seemingly concurs. While Fed policy-makers have insisted a growing economy will lead to higher interest rates, 12 of the 16 members of the policy committee expect those rates to rise only as high as 1.5 percent by the end of 2015, and a majority expect a rise to 2.5 percent or less a year after that. For comparison sake, the interest rate in 2007 was more than double, at 5.25 percent. Anemic interest rates portend an economy like that of Japan’s, which has remained largely stagnant for more than two decades. Such conditions will more than likely exacerbate income inequality as well, because low interest rates favor corporate borrowers and the stock market, even as they crush those who want a decent return on their savings.
Great Leap Forward in the Obamanomics transformation of the American economy into a shrunken, underemployed workforce

Does ObamaCare figure into the part-time employment mix? In March, the Huffington Post was sure the dire predictions made a year ago were overwrought and that the “opposite seems to be happening” because the number of part-time workers had fallen to 27.3 million in February. The addition of 700,000 part-time jobs since then is inconclusive, but the Obama administration’s grim determination to unilaterally postpone the implementation of the so-called business mandate—twice—in the last year is at least somewhat indicative. So is a 2013 Duke/CFO magazine survey indicating that 38 percent of the 60 percent of businesses that increased their proportion of part-time workers cited ObamaCare as a reason. And a regularly updated chart complied by Investors Business Daily shows that 429 mostly public employers have cut hours of employment (when they’re not eliminating jobs outright) below the 30-hour “full time employee” threshold that would subject them to the healthcare mandate.

Human Events staff writer John Hayward has a far more Machiavellian view of the “Great Leap Forward in the Obamanomics transformation of the American economy into a shrunken, underemployed workforce.” He contends the American left has figured out a way to eliminate the inevitable tension between the Makers and the Takers that thwarts their quest for a social utopia. “The true Middle Class is defined by its independence,” he writes. “Get them hooked on government subsidies, and they lose that independence.  Make enough of them truly dependent on those subsidies for the necessities of life, and their political threat is permanently neutralized.” (Italics in the original.) Part-time jobs and ObamaCare produce such hybrid Maker/Takers who ultimately come to believe that “prosperity is something the government must seize and redistribute.”

One can choose to believe or dismiss Hayward’s assessment, but there is little doubt the economy remains as fragile as ever. Even if one buys into the media-anointed “jobs surge” it is impossible to dismiss the gargantuan number of part-time workers that drove it.
The US middle class and low-income workers are broke

And that’s while the stock market remains at or near record highs that may be as illusory as our so-called economic recovery. “The US middle class and low-income workers are broke,” contends Chadwick Financial Advisors CEO Mike Chadwick. “They are leveraged up to the hilt.” Corporate earnings remain stagnant and sales remain flat. “Corporations are squeezing more out of workers, outsourcing jobs, whatever they can do—everything except generating additional sales,” says Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Capital IQ.

And finally, Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist of the Economic Outlook Group, sees a shift in the way employers view employees that may indicate where the full-time vs. part-time jobs picture is really headed. “Companies view labor more as inventory that is to be hired when they need it and let go when they don’t need it,” he said.

One hopes for better days ahead. But an economy where more businesses are dying than are being born—and human being are viewed as “inventory”—does not inspire anything resembling enduring confidence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 08, 2014, 11:39:08 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 08, 2014, 09:33:58 am

Remember those great jobs numbers reported last week?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/64381#.U7vbvX6Yg20.facebook

A deceptive jobs report obscures the dark truth about the Obama economy
Part-Time Nation

By Arnold Ahlert  July 8, 2014

Last Thursday, an Obama-centric mainstream media trumpeted the creation of 288,000 jobs and the reduction in the unemployment rate from 6.3 percent to 6.1 percent. Lost in the manufactured euphoria are the sobering details: America is well on its way to becoming a nation where millions of workers can only find part-time, lower-paying jobs.

Hasn't this already been sold as a wonderful thing which gives Americans the freedom and time  to be creative or fly kites or some other such nonsense. They are free from the binds on their creativity that a job burdens them with. Oh wait....maybe it was Obamacare that they said that about. In any case they now have the time to go out and discover a new green energy source like butterfly farts or something. Clearly this is good news and we are on the right path.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on July 08, 2014, 12:00:39 pm

And the radio commercials for car dealerships keep saying the economy has turned for the better... they wouldn't deceive me would they?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 08, 2014, 01:41:27 pm

Yet both of those numbers would be even higher if they took into account the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force altogether. While the economy ostensibly surged, the number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force really surged to a record-setting 92,120,000 in June. That number represents a jump of 111,000 since April, and the labor force participation rate of 62.8 percent matched a 36-year low. In other words, job growth isn’t keeping up with population growth.

This is why we need to go to all these Central American countries and drag or hog-tie everyone we can find and just drag them, kicking or screaming into this country. We need more unemployment and government dependents.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 08, 2014, 03:33:57 pm

the really cool thing about part time jobs is the employer doesn't have to pay for health care.....
Looks like they found a loophole....
I think Obama knew this and more folks would get pushed back to the exchanges, moving again towards universal healthcare.
Just like I said before, just look at the VA, now consider if there was no competition for those Drs to drive up pay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 09, 2014, 07:36:50 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 08, 2014, 01:41:27 pm

While the economy ostensibly surged, the number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force really surged to a record-setting 92,120,000 in June. That number represents a jump of 111,000 since April, and the labor force participation rate of 62.8 percent matched a 36-year low. In other words, job growth isn’t keeping up with population growth.

The GDP contracting by almost 3% sure says the economy "ostensibly surged" to me. Who writes this crap?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 09, 2014, 07:56:07 am

Maybe we Do need moats and alligators Mr. President....

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-chapman/flashback-obama-mocks-gop-border-security-they-ll-want-moat-and

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on July 09, 2014, 08:41:43 am

os·ten·si·bly
äˈstensiblē,əˈsten-/
adverb
adverb: ostensibly

    apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.
    "portrayed as a blue-collar type, ostensibly a carpenter"
    synonyms:   apparently, seemingly, on the face of it, to all intents and purposes,

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 09, 2014, 09:10:17 am

Quote from: BearHit on July 09, 2014, 08:41:43 am

os·ten·si·bly
äˈstensiblē,əˈsten-/
adverb
adverb: ostensibly

    apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.
    "portrayed as a blue-collar type, ostensibly a carpenter"
    synonyms:   apparently, seemingly, on the face of it, to all intents and purposes,

So how is a 3% contraction even  "apparently" surging?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on July 09, 2014, 09:38:24 am

in the downward direction... maybe

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 09, 2014, 02:48:22 pm

 
 Im sending out credit cards to my employees instead of a raise.
 
 They are issued by the bank I own and only charge 32% interest.
 
 -- Jackie (always caring) Jokeman Inc. , Caymen Islands LLP

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 09, 2014, 03:03:37 pm

I always wanted to visit the Caymans.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2014, 03:09:26 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on July 09, 2014, 09:10:17 am

So how is a 3% contraction even  "apparently" surging?

I quite genuinely have a sometimes, such as now, have a very poor memory with such things, but who was it a few days ago who had trouble understanding the meaning of "dynamic"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 09, 2014, 04:59:10 pm

 
 The Mayor who let us know what a shitty job Bush did for New Orleans:
 
 
 Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was sentenced Wednesday to 120 months in prison. U.S. District Judge Helen Berrigan also ordered Nagin to pay $84,000 in restitution.
 
 "What Ray Nagin did was sell his office over and over again," lead prosecutor Matt Coman said after the sentencing. "The damage that C. Ray Nagin inflicted on this community ... is incalculable." He will report to a minimum security prison in September.
 
 Nagin, 58, was convicted (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/former-new-orleans-mayor-ray-nagin-guilty-corruption-n28666) on Feb. 12 of accepting more than $500,000 worth of bribes and free trips from contractors in exchange for helping them clinch millions of dollars in city work when he was mayor of New Orleans, both pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina.
 
 He was found guilty of 20 out of 21 counts in the indictment. Nagin, a Democrat who was mayor for two terms from 2002 to 2010, denied he took any bribes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2014, 05:27:16 pm

At a time when the White House tells us Obama doesn't have teh time to take a look at the problems on the border, even though he is in Texas today, THIS is the image found up as the main paige background image at this moment at whitehouse.gov:
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/denverhero_0.jpg)
How tone deaf can this White House be?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2014, 05:42:40 pm

It's sure a good thing the border actually is secure.  After all, the president as told us it is... and we know he wouldn't lie.  This is from 3 years ago: "First, we know that government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders and enforce the law.  And that’s what Janet and all her folks are doing.  That’s what they’re doing....   The most significant step we can now take to secure the borders is to fix the system as a whole so that fewer people have the incentive to enter illegally in search of work in the first place....  But over the last two years, thanks to the outstanding work of Janet and Alan and everybody who’s down here working at the border, we’ve answered those concerns.  Under their leadership, we have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible."  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/10/remarks-president-comprehensive-immigration-reform-el-paso-texas

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2014, 05:44:33 pm

(http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/07/08/obama_s640x978.jpg?7ee0450bc2484402b19de0aa2dcb0c28efc4e836)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 06:58:45 pm

I used to think this administration was incompetent, then I thought it was either incompetent or trying to destroy America on purpose and it did not matter which.  I have now decided they are doing it on purpose and it does matter.

Some people would say it is just chickens come home to roost due to the incompetence.    I am not buying it.  The disasters and crisis are happening quicker and quicker.  I believe he is doing more harm each day with his pen and phone.

We have illegals flooding into the US and there can be no way they can be checking for and curing communicable diseases before they are trucking them all over the country.  We can not take in every single uneducated non-English speaking illegal that comes here.  We simply can not support them all. 

Why has the national guard not been sent to the border to secure it?  It is unbelievable to me that we continue to let this happen.  This is being done on purpose.

Our own congressman are not allowed access to where they are housing the illegals.  They have to ask permission and wait weeks.  Then they are not allowed to take any pictures or ask any questions.  WTF?  Most transparent administration my ass! 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 07:00:16 pm

On top of all that they are not even checking to see if the family members they are releasing them to are here legally. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2014, 08:18:55 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 07:00:16 pm

On top of all that they are not even checking to see if the family members they are releasing them to are here legally. 

And you see what harm in that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 09, 2014, 09:04:21 pm

I suppose some people could make the argument that someone that is here illegally themselves might be less likely to turn over someone for coming here illegally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2014, 09:25:00 pm

And others might argue that someone here illegally, and subject to deportation, might not view screwing with ICE as the best way to improve their chance or remaining.... but I was asking for Pekin's response, no one else's.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 09:32:57 pm

Do you really think they will take the children to a deportation hearing if they are illegals themselves?

This whole thing is so screwed up I don't even know where to begin. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2014, 09:44:06 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 06:58:45 pm

We have illegals flooding into the US and there can be no way they can be checking for and curing communicable diseases before they are trucking them all over the country.  While I agree it would be a good idea to test everyone entering the U.S. for infectious disease, I am betting that none of on this discussion board had ancestors who were tested on entry, and I doubt that greatly upsets you.  We can not take in every single uneducated non-English speaking illegal that comes here.  Why?  We have thousands of new immigrants every day who are uneducated, speak no English, and have no job skills whatsoever.  They are the children born here every day.  None are educated.  None speak English.  None have ANY job skills.  And none of them enter the U.S. with any real desire to be here.  The immigrants you demean, even those entering illegally at least rather clearly have demonstrated their desire to be here.  We simply can not support them all.  We, as a nation, shouldn't support ANY of them.

Why has the national guard not been sent to the border to secure it?  Others here may have a better knowledge of such things, but I believe each state's governor is the commander in chief of that state's National Guard unless units are are activated and called up by the White House.  In other words, your question may be one for the governors of the border states, not really for Obama.

Our own congressman are not allowed access to where they are housing the illegals.  They have to ask permission and wait weeks.  Then they are not allowed to take any pictures or ask any questions.  WTF?  Most transparent administration my ass!   Congress has the authority to call for hearings on almost anything, and there is no requirement that the hearings be held in the Capitol.  Like you, I am also offended by the secrecy of the refugee camps, and the efforts by the administration to block inspections by members of Congress, BUT if Congress actually wants to investigate things, their authority to do so is beyond question, including bringing cameras with them and looking at anything, and talking to anyone, they desire.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2014, 09:50:19 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 09:32:57 pm

Do you really think they will take the children to a deportation hearing if they are illegals themselves?

This whole thing is so screwed up I don't even know where to begin. 

You are really looking at the wrong thing.  Instead of looking at whether the administration does or doesn't check the immigration/citizenship status of those the children are released to, all you really need to do is look at the track record for how many of the children in the past who have had hearings scheduled showed up for them -- I believe the government's own figures show it is something in the ballpark of one in one thousand.  I think the more troubling aspect of the placement of the children is that they are being placed with families with less in the way of background checks than is required for child day care center workers.  The horror stories which will result from this offer the opportunity for some excellent journalism... but I am less than confident we will see much of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 10:01:01 pm

They did in fact check for disease at Ellis island.

I don't think we should be taking care of anyone who can take care of themselves.  If an able bodied person refuses to work for a living let them starve to death.  I could give a **** because they are worthless piece of ****. 

Although if it came to that it would be amazing how many would suddenly find the ability to work.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 09, 2014, 10:08:08 pm

I am waiting for the moat and alligators at the border

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 10:15:56 pm

There are going to be plenty of horror stories from this.  There already are.  Many were **** or sold into sex slavery that were making their way here.

There will be more that made it here that also meet this fate. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 10:41:23 pm

Doing a quick search the governor can call up the guard if he issues a state of emergency.  I did not however find anything about who pays for it.  My guess is that is the issue.  Follow the money or lack there of. 

Plus the Obama administration sued Arizona when they tried to control immigration.  The Feds say it is their responsibility.

If I was a border state governor I would secure my border.  **** the costs.  I would fine any company using illegals massive amounts of money to pay for it.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 08:24:03 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 10:01:01 pm

They did in fact check for disease at Ellis island.  Let's be real.  They used a SIX SECOND MEDICAL INSPECTION.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island#Medical_inspections Contending they meaningfully tested for disease, in the way you or I would use that phrase, is either dishonest or ignorant.  I'll let you pick which one applies.

I don't think we should be taking care of anyone who can take care of themselves.  If an able bodied person refuses to work for a living let them starve to death.  I could give a **** because they are worthless piece of ****. 

Although if it came to that it would be amazing how many would suddenly find the ability to work.

Your last sentence underscores the problem.  If you establish government programs to take care of the "truly needy," you will exponentially increase the number of people who are "truly needy," and if you entirely eliminate such programes, you will dramatically reduce the number of people who are unable to take care of themselves.


The ONLY way you can achieve the goal you indicate you have to to entirely eliminate such government programs, entirely eliminate government social welfare programs, foodstamps, housing subsidies, tax refunds to people who have not paid taxes, WIC, subsidized lunches, you name it.  Government is simply institutionally incapable of making appropriate distinctions between those needing help and those gaming the system.  Private individuals and private charity are not going to do close to a perfect job, but they are going to do infinitely better than government.

But you seem to support only the half measure of ending assistance to those who don't need it.

An utterly worthless position.

****, Obama and Nancy Pelosi would end up supporting that.

Unless you have the balls to call for ending the programs entirely, and strongly encouraging your representative and Senator to do the same thing, and calling for this kind of change publicly to give it greater credibility and public acceptance, you are not doing a damn thing.  You might as well support continuing things exactly as they are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 08:34:00 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 10:41:23 pm

Doing a quick search the governor can call up the guard if he issues a state of emergency.  I did not however find anything about who pays for it.  My guess is that is the issue.  Follow the money or lack there of. 

Plus the Obama administration sued Arizona when they tried to control immigration.  The Feds say it is their responsibility.

So are you going to start directing your criticism on THIS issue at Perry and Brewer and Governor Moonbeam and whoever is governor of NM, or are you going to continue to limit it to Obama?

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 10:41:23 pm

If I was a border state governor I would secure my border.  **** the costs.  I would fine any company using illegals massive amounts of money to pay for it.   

And where do you think you would get the authority to "fine" them?  You think governors have the authority to unilaterally fine someone for anything he wants?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 08:41:47 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2014, 10:15:56 pm

There are going to be plenty of horror stories from this.  There already are.  Many were **** or sold into sex slavery that were making their way here.

There will be more that made it here that also meet this fate. 

I never suggested there would not be horror stories.  I predicted the horror stories would end up being very poorly reported.  And they will.  The fact that there are now news reports saying such things happen is a long way from reporting on the horror stories.  Hopefully some news reporters with gonads will track things down, document things, find living , breathing examples and truly bring things to light.... AND do so with a news organization which allows the opportunity for the story to actually see the light of day.  I am not holding my breath on that one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 11:11:49 am

Thank goodness for global warming.

Without it, we would probably be entering an Ice Age by now.

http://www.local2.ca/ssm/viewarticle.php?id=15416

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on July 10, 2014, 11:41:42 am

Can't wait for that cool spell

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 11:44:09 am

davep, a serious question for you, and this is based on your repeated insistence that you believe ALL government documents or communication with to or from government agencies in the U.S. should be in the English.

If someone in the U.S. may be here illegally. and only speaks Spanish, and they are given a hearing date to appear for a deportation hearing, should the documents telling them where and when to appear and perhaps what their rights might be at the hearing and information such as that ALSO only be in English?  And if that person is also given documents on possible health concerns and perhaps where they should go for treatment of a possible medical condition or perhaps how to reduce their risk of exposure to some infectious disease which might have appeared among the local population, but for which they are so far asymptomatic.... should those documents ALSO be given only in English?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 10, 2014, 01:30:56 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 11:44:09 am

davep, a serious question for you, and this is based on your repeated insistence that you believe ALL government documents or communication with to or from government agencies in the U.S. should be in the English.

If someone in the U.S. may be here illegally. and only speaks Spanish, and they are given a hearing date to appear for a deportation hearing, should the documents telling them where and when to appear and perhaps what their rights might be at the hearing and information such as that ALSO only be in English?  And if that person is also given documents on possible health concerns and perhaps where they should go for treatment of a possible medical condition or perhaps how to reduce their risk of exposure to some infectious disease which might have appeared among the local population, but for which they are so far asymptomatic.... should those documents ALSO be given only in English?

if we could stop them at the border that wouldn't be an issue ;-)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 10, 2014, 01:35:33 pm

Who is to say what the legal language the illegal has or speaks, maybe its Arabic or Poetuguese. So then are you suggesting that the legal deportation hearing orders be in Spanish? If someone gave me deportation hearing order papers in Spanish I wouldn't understand them. The point here is that this is an English speaking country. All legal documents are in our native language. So are you saying that our legal language be changed to Spanish? And another point is that even the Hispanic immigrants coming here don't read or write their own legal language.

I cant remember the details where this item was from, Arizona or New Mexico where some person was elected to an office and they didnt  read or write English which is against the legal requirements for the job. You are going to have a lot of such issues to deal with in the future.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 10, 2014, 01:36:17 pm

Since you remember my previous position on the subject, then I assume you remember that I said that in court situations, lawyers and translators should be provided to help the accused understand their rights and responsibilities, and what is going on.  The same would apply to legal instructions, which should be explained to them by translators.  I have no problems with medical situations being treated in the same way.

Of course, some of your statement assumes that illegal aliens should be released upon their own recognizance.  If this is not done, there is no reason for reporting instructions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 02:40:23 pm

Once again some idiot posts about local weather verses global climate and proves a general lack of understanding.

How unsurprising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 03:31:49 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 10, 2014, 01:30:56 pm

if we could stop them at the border that wouldn't be an issue ;-)

I agree, or at least that it would be an insignificant issue.

I fully support a secure, walled border, and while I oppose immigration quotas and would allow entry without regard to the immigrant's job skills, I would limit entry to those who could demonstrate some reasonable minimal command of the English language, spoken and written.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 03:36:19 pm

Quote from: davep on July 10, 2014, 01:36:17 pm

I have no problems with medical situations being treated in the same way.

So if a publis school teacher had a student in the classroom who appeared to be fluent in Spanish, but understood virtually no English, would the teacher be prohibited from using Spanish to explain things, including explaining English, to the student?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 03:39:26 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 02:40:23 pm

Once again some idiot posts about local weather verses global climate and proves a general lack of understanding.

How unsurprising.

This coming from someone who pointed to Hurricane Katrina and said IT was further proof of Global Baloney.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 10, 2014, 04:02:53 pm

Think he'll win?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/10/obama-zach-galifianakis-between-two-ferns-health-care/12472293/

Obama's appearance this year on Between Two Ferns — a Web-based parody talk show hosted by comedian Zach Galifianakis — was nominated for an Emmy in the category of Outstanding Short-Format Live-Action Entertainment Program.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 04:31:16 pm

Just consider the voting pool.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 05:15:11 pm

Sheldon

I'm going to need you to post proof of this.

Quote

This coming from someone who pointed to Hurricane Katrina and said IT was further proof of Global Baloney.

Until then, you're just a common ex-lawyer with a lying problem.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 05:30:21 pm

APNewsBreak: No 'stand down' order in Benghazi

   
 
 By BRADLEY KLAPPER and DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press
 Published: July, 10 2014


 
 WASHINGTON (AP) - The testimony of nine military officers undermines contentions by Republican lawmakers that a "stand-down order" held back military assets that could have saved the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed at a diplomatic outpost and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.

The "stand-down" theory centers on a Special Operations team of four - a detachment leader, a medic, a communications expert and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast - who were stopped from flying from Tripoli to Benghazi after the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, had ended. Instead, they were instructed to help protect and care for those being evacuated from Benghazi and from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

The senior military officer who issued the instruction to "remain in place" and the detachment leader who received it said it was the right decision and has been widely mischaracterized. The order was to remain in Tripoli and protect some three dozen embassy personnel rather than fly to Benghazi some 600 miles away after all Americans there would have been evacuated. And the medic is credited with saving the life of an evacuee from the attacks.

Transcripts of hours of closed-door interviews with the military leaders by the House Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform committees were made public for the first time on Wednesday. The Associated Press had reviewed the material ahead of its release.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the Oversight panel, has suggested Hillary Rodham Clinton gave the order, though as secretary of state at the time, she was not in the military chain of command.


Enjoy

Despite lingering public confusion over many events that night, the testimony shows military leaders largely in agreement over how they responded to the attacks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 05:41:06 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 05:15:11 pm

Sheldon

I'm going to need you to post proof of this.

You don't believe what YOU did?

Not surprising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 05:43:39 pm

Wow, the incredible shrinking ex-lawyer posts nothing again.

press conference is called off...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 05:47:59 pm

Meanwhile...more southern bumpkin blathering.


Kentucky Republican refutes global warming, citing Mars’ climate


 
By Jane C. Timm
July 10, 2014 NBC News


Republican state Sen. Brandon Smith of Kentucky has a new theory on why climate change couldn’t possibly be slowly warming the earth’s temperature, resulting in legions of effects to the environment and its inhabitants.

The reason, according to alternative paper LEO Weekly, seems to be that since Mars and Earth have identical temperatures, Earth’s climate cannot possibly be the result of human activity.

“As you sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that,” said the senator in a video posted by the weekly publication. ”Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”

Smith sits on the Interim Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and serves as Kentucky’s Republican majority whip.

Despite the state senator’s statement, academia does not in fact agree that the temperatures on Earth and Mars are the same: According to NASA, the average temperature on Mars is -58 degrees Fahrenheit, while the average temperature on Earth is 58 degrees Fahrenheit. Mars’ climate is notably uninhabitable to life as we know it.

**** idiot
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2014, 06:16:00 pm

Jes, you forgot to mention that at Ellis island anyone turned away had to be shipped back on the shipping companies dime.  Therefore the shipping companies did multiple exams at clinics all along the way.  Most immigrants would have gone through two to four medical exams before ever setting foot on Ellis Island.  Also back then they did not have the medical knowledge we have today so could only go with what they had which was watching, marking those suspected of disease and then examining them further.  1 to 2% were turned away depending on the source you read.  How many were never brought here in the first place because the shipping companies did not want to lose money?

Since that is using the free market to take care of a problem I would think you would have been all over it.   

Our current law requires a physical exam in their country of origin.  The illegals are skipping this process.

To conclude we have much better medical knowledge and the ability to check for diseases much better then we did then.  To allow those breaking the law to be relocated within the US with out doing a proper medical exam is ludicrous.  They should all be fed and cared for and sent home as quickly as possible.  PERIOD!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2014, 06:21:39 pm

The border governors should be calling up the guard to close the borders.  It is insane they are not.  Obama wants this to happen he is not going to do anything about it.  The states need to act. 

I fear the Republicans are so worried about the Hispanic vote they are not doing what is right for the country.  I got news for them do the right thing for the country because the people coming in are never going to vote Republican anyway.  They are all future Democrat voters.  Which is why Obama wants them here.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 06:32:02 pm

What exactly are you claiming the National Guard would do? The children coming here are not avoiding our border guards now. They are surrendering to them and entering the legal process.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 06:33:34 pm

President Barack Hussein Obama's signature healthcare law signups to date.

8.6 MILLION

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 06:43:09 pm

Wow, texas does have a pol dumber than Louie Gohmert.


According to [Texas Republican congressional nominee Larry Smith], Barack Obama's handling of the child refugee crisis along the Mexican border suggests the president is suffering from Münchausen syndrome by proxy, a rare psychological condition that causes caretakers to abuse kids.

"Today, we hear of reports that children are being abused, being used by drug cartels, and even dying," Smith said in a statement on his website last Thursday. "If a high school administrator prompted such mass abuse, that person would quickly be without a job and perhaps even found behind bars. The mental stability of the school administrator would be in question. Is a President of the United States who does such horrific acts deserving of less scrutiny and accountability?…People who intentionally hurt children for attention can be accused of Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy."

There ya go. Good ol' fashioned Texas Dumb Republican

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 10, 2014, 07:22:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 06:33:34 pm

President Barack Hussein Obama's signature healthcare law signups to date.

8.6 MILLION

stop the stupid Otto....signups don't equal paid policies. Also, getting people whose coverage was cancelled to sign up is no great feat. How many of those are brand new enrollees that never had coverage before? I'll give you a hint. It's less that 60%. Could you possibly set the bar any lower?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 07:37:38 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 10, 2014, 01:35:33 pm

Who is to say what the legal language the illegal has or speaks, maybe its Arabic or Poetuguese. So then are you suggesting that the legal deportation hearing orders be in Spanish? If someone gave me deportation hearing order papers in Spanish I wouldn't understand them.  The point here is that this is an English speaking country. All legal documents are in our native language.[/color]   That would be what is called wrong.  It might be that you WANT all legal documents to be in English in this country, but it is not the case.  In fact there have been communities in the U.S. where another language was so dominant, ALL school classes were taught in the dominant language, city council meetings were conducted in the dominant language, and local business was conducted in the dominant language.  And it was not English.[/color]   So are you saying that our legal language be changed to Spanish?  I not only did not SAY such a thing, nothing I wrote would lead a sane person to think I was suggesting it.  One thing you might want to know, however, is that in the United States, in part perhaps because of the First Amendment, and in part because moments of sanity do appear from time to time in Washington and put down such foolishness, but in the United States there is no "legal language," nor is there any "illegal language."  (Where do folks even GET such ideas?) And another point is that even the Hispanic immigrants coming here don't read or write their own legal language. 

I cant remember the details where this item was from, Arizona or New Mexico where some person was elected to an office and they didnt  read or write English which is against the legal requirements for the job.  I'm calling bullshit on that one, and I feel comfortable in calling bullshit because elected offices do not have "legal requirements" as you describe.  They have minimum qualifications, such as residency or age, or the like, but voters are pretty much free to elect whomever they want, and that would include being illiterate, deaf, mute or blind.  You are going to have a lot of such issues to deal with in the future.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 10, 2014, 07:58:07 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 03:36:19 pm

So if a publis school teacher had a student in the classroom who appeared to be fluent in Spanish, but understood virtually no English, would the teacher be prohibited from using Spanish to explain things, including explaining English, to the student?

Absolutely.  the child should first learn fluent English before being put in any academic classes.  Spanish should only be used in classes who's sole purpose is to teach the child English.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 09:46:51 pm

Quote from: davep on July 10, 2014, 07:58:07 pm

Absolutely.  the child should first learn fluent English before being put in any academic classes.  Spanish should only be used in classes who's sole purpose is to teach the child English.

So you would have the Federal government dictate not only the approach to be used by local school districts, but the approach to be taken by individual teachers?  Prohibiting a teacher from using a Spanish language word or phrase to assure that an individual student understood something?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 10:17:21 pm

Keysbart

The only low bar here is the one Sheldon failed.


As for your misguided sense of PPACA stupid. Chew on this ...

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/jul/Health-Coverage-Access-ACA (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/jul/Health-Coverage-Access-ACA)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 10:20:09 pm

peke

Still working on your "What's the National Guard gonna do, threaten to shoot kids as they turn themselves in?" border policy from stupid Pekin, IL.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 10, 2014, 10:25:15 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 10, 2014, 09:46:51 pm

So you would have the Federal government dictate not only the approach to be used by local school districts, but the approach to be taken by individual teachers?  Prohibiting a teacher from using a Spanish language word or phrase to assure that an individual student understood something?

After a constitutional amendment, yes.  Just as the Federal Government dictates that states can not allow slavery, the Federal Government should dictate that states should require English as the official language, subject to the very few exceptions that you have mentioned, and possibly a few others that I have not yet thought of.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 10, 2014, 11:26:06 pm

 
 KIDS! Nobody in MEXICO noticed this ever going on.Mexico always alert.
 
 A. Let em all in and why the **** ever stop.
 
 B. You raise them and cloth them at YOUR house now that they are here.
 
 Well that idea went out the door pretty motherfuckin fast didnt it?
 
 C. Pet food! Grind em up and ship them to Purina. Meow im hungry.
 
 D. Train em ! Three COMBAT Divisions to be sent overseas ...
 
 with a one way ticket... should kick some major ass somwhere.
 
 ANGOLA as the 51st state with Airborne trained troops from central america refugees deployed?
 
 it could happen. Angola has OIL reserves ...
 
 WE have an excess of refugees,
 
 that want to do somthing in this great Nation of ours.
 
  Make them earn the way to citizenship.
 
 OIL !
 
 I figure the cutoff date when thet GET IT about coming here will be : about when we deploy the first 3 COMBAT divisions to Angola.
 
 HOLY **** !! I get to AMERICA and get trained and sent to ANGOLA ??
 
 What the **** happened to the free welfare ride ?
 
 All I ever wanted to do was a raise a FAMILY in my Country of ORGIN,
 
 but some fuckers took it over,
 
  and I DIDNT FIGHT BACK FOR MY COUNTRY!
 
 SO........... LIKE THE THIRTEEN COLONIES ... I split my ass to CANADA!
 
 Rather then FIGHT for what was mine ...
 
 You see, I always had an ESCAPE VALVE .
 
 I could have fought my ass off for my COUNTRY ...
 
 but CANADA was easier, a mellow place to flake out at without trying.
 
 Damn good welfare benefits too.
 
  But my people will overun it and make it irrelevant in the very short future because I will outrun the ability to pay for me.
 
 Yeah you are saying I should have stood my own ground and fought back like THE THIRTEEN COLONIES did and MAKE SOMTHING of my country ...
 
 BUT I HAVE YOU TO TAKE CARE OF ME !
 
 I dont know what country I am in ...
 
 BUT IS THIS A GREAT FUCKIN COUNTRY OR WHAT ??
 
 Estados Unidos ? Canada ?
 
 Doesnt matter. GREAT benefits.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 11, 2014, 08:25:03 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 10:17:21 pm

As for your misguided sense of PPACA stupid. Chew on this ...

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/jul/Health-Coverage-Access-ACA (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/jul/Health-Coverage-Access-ACA)

I find those stats underwhelming at best. Very little benefit for blowing up our entire system flawed as it was.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 11, 2014, 08:50:43 am

Quote from: Keysbear on July 10, 2014, 07:22:31 pm

stop the stupid Otto....signups don't equal paid policies. Also, getting people whose coverage was cancelled to sign up is no great feat. How many of those are brand new enrollees that never had coverage before? I'll give you a hint. It's less that 60%. Could you possibly set the bar any lower?

my father in law retired from what is now Duke Energy with great benefits, as a retiree they paid his medical insurance for him and his wife.
He got word recently they were cancelling his insurance but would provide a stipend so he could buy his own insurance.
I heard yesterday this same company also going to stop covering spouses and kids of current employees and they will have to seek outside coverage for those as well.
When you have companies that start dropping coverage, they have to sign up somewhere.
Keep in mind in a lot of cases these power companies are in areas where they are the top jobs in the area and there isn't a lot of competition so it isn't likely that the company will suffer because it isn't like folks are going to quit and go to other high paying jobs.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/17/3204246/duke-energy-becomes-latest-employer.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 11, 2014, 10:24:23 am

What most people think when Duke Energy is mentioned...buying of republic pols in state and coal ash spills.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 11, 2014, 10:26:49 am

Underwhelming?

Just how is that repeal and replace with the old system going for the republic t-billies?

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 11, 2014, 11:04:34 am

Set the bar low enough and you can declare anything a success...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 11, 2014, 11:33:39 am

Like the goals of the republic party since 2008.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 11, 2014, 11:47:28 am

Why would I discuss the goals of the republican party? I haven't been republican since the first Bush presidency. You seem to have difficulty understanding that not everyone who disagrees with democrats is a republican or supports all republican ideas. I am not a slave to any political party. Try it you'll like it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2014, 04:38:11 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 10, 2014, 10:17:21 pm

Keysbart

The only low bar here is the one Sheldon failed.

I only took the bar exam once, nine years after law school, and without taking a bar review course.

And there was no failure.

Disbarred AFTER being licensed, but no failing the bar.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2014, 04:42:20 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on July 11, 2014, 11:47:28 am

Why would I discuss the goals of the republican party? I haven't been republican since the first Bush presidency. You seem to have difficulty understanding that not everyone who disagrees with democrats is a republican or supports all republican ideas. I am not a slave to any political party. Try it you'll like it.

You have seen otto for a while here.

Do you REALLY think otto would be capable of thinking for himself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 11, 2014, 07:29:45 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 11, 2014, 04:42:20 pm

You have seen otto for a while here.

Do you REALLY think otto would be capable of thinking for himself.

I fixed it for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2014, 07:39:14 pm

Agreed.

Once again, when a mistake is pointed out to me, I readily admit it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2014, 06:22:42 am

(http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Figure1small.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 12, 2014, 06:28:38 pm

 
 Illegal Immigracian! Why us ? Why now ? Why Always?
 
 Heres a unique thought : STAND YOUR GROUND ! FIGHT BACK !
 
 Make your country yours ...
 
 you have only to fight for what other Countrys have done to be Countrys.
 
 I think in another post I mentioned 3 COMBAT divisions trained by ...
 
 Estados Unidos. As to what to do with 50 000 illegal teenagers.
 
 My first thought was Angola with this spread of volunteers, OIL!
 
 BUT ...
 
 Its better to train them and send them back to take over their own Countrys.
 
 What the hells going on in these countrys anyways that kids are fleeing ?
 
 The spread of the Los Angeles gang culture. By deportation.
 
 Not only to other states but to other countrys also.
 
 As a result 18th street and ms13 have become players in economys in central america.
 
 Think : POL POT Think : IDI AMIN
 
 GOVERMENTS no matter what their situation, have allowed an inbred group of crimminals to take over the goverments ...
 
 or almost.
 
 Think : Al CAPONE ... CHICAGO.
 
 By fleeing from the situation you only make it worse.
 
 If trained and armed ... 50 000 KIDS can take back their countrys.
 
 FIDAL CASTRO took over Cuba with 200 fighters.
 
 Would you send KIDS into combat ?
 
 The fuckin KIDS are already IN combat ...
 
 why the **** do you think they are coming here ?
 
 At least train them to take their countrys back.
 
 Because nobody wants this **** ... most of all them that are refugees.
 
 I suppose the better left wing answer would be to let everyone in ...
 
 but then that would depopulate the rest of the planet of humans wouldnt it ?
 
 BAMBI !! You get to roam free because no humans live there anymore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 12, 2014, 07:09:52 pm

 
  Whos paying for this ?
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTHdC7k4uY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTHdC7k4uY)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 12, 2014, 07:28:56 pm

 
 Whats best about Humans ? Theres a morals clause.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 12, 2014, 10:32:45 pm

The party of anti-science, anti-intelligence and base ignorance strikes again.

I give you Norwood Young America businessman and republic candidate Bob Frey.

But when questioned about his position on social issues, Frey added that it “does certainly need to be addressed for what it is. It’s not about the gay agenda but about the science and the financial impact of that agenda. It’s more about sodomy than about pigeonholing a lifestyle.”   

Frey then explained his view: “When you have egg and sperm that meet in conception, there’s an enzyme in the front that burns through the egg. The enzyme burns through so the DNA can enter the egg. If the sperm is deposited anally, it's the enzyme that causes the immune system to fail. That’s why the term is AIDS – acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.”

(This explanation of AIDS has no scientific validity, but it may strike a familiar chord: It is essentially the same one given by Bob's son, Mike Frey, in testimony given before the House Civil Law Committee last year during the debate over gay marriage.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aE8U-p0t97I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aE8U-p0t97I)

http://www.minnpost.com/party-politics/2014/07/minnesota-house-candidate-makes-aids-gay-agenda-campaign-issues (http://www.minnpost.com/party-politics/2014/07/minnesota-house-candidate-makes-aids-gay-agenda-campaign-issues)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 13, 2014, 10:53:24 am

You actually spent time in your life to scour the internet for something like this....some obscure political candidate for what????   to imply he represents other conservative thought.

You seriously need to get a life, find something productive to do with your time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 13, 2014, 09:36:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 12, 2014, 10:32:45 pm

The party of anti-science, anti-intelligence and base ignorance strikes again.

I give you Norwood Young America businessman and republic candidate Bob Frey.

I will see that bet and raise it by Hank Johnson.... not a Democratic CANDIDATE, but a four term INCUMBENT, running for re-election.  Democratic voters in his district love the guy.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 14, 2014, 04:55:27 am

You'd hate to see an Island tip over... WTF??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 05:28:39 am

Of course, Johnson's comment does not compare to some of the dogma routinely coming from the mouths of liberals -- that welfare HELPS people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 14, 2014, 09:27:17 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gUm2k-a7tfc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gUm2k-a7tfc)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 14, 2014, 10:01:21 am

Bill Maher? really?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 14, 2014, 10:19:16 am

Now we know why the DOJ hasn't had time to look into the VA issue or the IRS scandel. Much more important work to do.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/13/doj-investigates-obama-presidential-library-parade/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 14, 2014, 11:30:13 am

Watched a minute of Maher, what a **** joke that guy is. He's slamming Republicans over no death panels (the republicans said there would be). Really? He said the law passed 4 years ago and there is no sign of death panels. The implementation just began, does he really believe there will be no rationing? This clown must be desperate..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 14, 2014, 12:41:09 pm

The t-billy party can kill you.


 Just ask the family of Mark Mayfield.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 14, 2014, 12:47:19 pm

The Hillbilly democrats policies can kill you also.

Just ask the family of Willem Schlitter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 14, 2014, 02:14:01 pm

Mankind without true Christian virtues are just highly intelligent animals capable of extreme atrocity. Germans in Hitlers era were no different than we are today.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 14, 2014, 02:27:09 pm

Christian virtues are not much different from Muslim virtues or Buddhist virtues.  The problem is that many that call themselves Christians do not have Christian virtues, just as many that call themselves Muslims and Buddhists do not have Muslim or Buddhist values.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 03:18:23 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 14, 2014, 02:14:01 pm

Mankind without true Christian virtues are just highly intelligent animals capable of extreme atrocity. Germans in Hitlers era were no different than we are today.....

True Christian virtues?

You mean like the ones which were used to justify slavery and the Crusades and the genocide of the American indigenous peoples and the witch trials and the Inquisitions and sex slavery?

You mean THOSE Christian virtues?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 14, 2014, 03:54:20 pm

Jes, you know the difference between true virtues and those masquerading around in the name of religion.
You know like "thou shalt have no other gods before Me" and "love thy neighbor as thyself".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 14, 2014, 04:42:08 pm

Well, it had to happen.  Archie Andrews dies in the next issue of his comic book, saving the life of his gay friend who is about to be assassinated.  I hope he at least got into Betty's pants first.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 06:27:37 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 14, 2014, 03:54:20 pm

Jes, you know the difference between true virtues and those masquerading around in the name of religion.
You know like "thou shalt have no other gods before Me" and "love thy neighbor as thyself".

Neither of those are "virtues," but instead commands, and the first five of the Commandments do not even command virtuous behavior, but instead simply command people to bow down and pay tribute to someone who threatens to kill them (or at least severely punish them otherwise).  Doing so, in order to avoid such punishment is not what I would call virtuous, but instead what I would call cowardly.

But, that said, please tell me how any of the Ten Commandments would prevent or even discourage believers from producing slavery and the Crusades and the genocide of the American indigenous peoples and the witch trials and the Inquisitions and sex slavery.

Now, even more important for Christians, which of the Ten Commandments did Jesus call for from his followers?  And in what passage of The Bible?  What was it that JESUS commanded his followers to do?

Christians often seem remarkably ignorant of what it is their religion calls for, because those who would actually follow his teachings would never have owned slaves, taken part in the Crusades, had sex slaves (which the "god" of The Bible demanded Jewish men to take in Numbers 31), taken part in the Inquisitions, burned witches, or committed genocide of the American indigenous people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 14, 2014, 08:54:50 pm

I would also like to know when god told his supporters to observe his birthday....

And light Christmas trees.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 14, 2014, 09:29:48 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 14, 2014, 08:54:50 pm

I would also like to know when god told his supporters to observe his birthday....

And light Christmas trees.

He didn't.  He also didn't tell them to go to work on time and be nice to their grandmothers.

Somethings are done just because they are good to do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 14, 2014, 09:38:46 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 14, 2014, 08:54:50 pm

I would also like to know when god told his supporters to observe his birthday....

And light Christmas trees.

Another shining example of that famous liberal tolerance. You know...respect for cultures and beliefs that differ from you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 09:51:53 pm

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10371894_811378242220660_4294612575850905624_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 09:53:12 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on July 14, 2014, 09:38:46 pm

Another shining example of that famous liberal tolerance. You know...respect for cultures and beliefs that differ from you

What about his comment was either intolerant or displayed any lack of respect for any culture or belief?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 15, 2014, 04:54:00 am

Oh,,, I don't know, the sarcasm?   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 15, 2014, 07:42:05 am

or the condescension?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 15, 2014, 07:56:13 am

Jes, I wouldn't expect you to understand true Christian virtue, like loving God with all your heart, mind and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself or not bearing false witness or not lying, stealing or murdering. You bring up OT items because you have no understanding of them or how they related to Israel at the time. You bring up the Crusades as if God Himself commanded those men to do what they did. Mankind alone cannot eradicate evil from this world. That takes God on His timetable alone. Imperfect people do imperfect things. Christians are not perfect people. King David had a man killed for his wife but paid a awful price for his sins the rest of his life, beginning with losing a child. You think bringing up events that were caused by the Catholic church or even believers will excuse your own sins because 'Hey, they sinned! Look at them!' It does not and will not....you will either allow Christ through His death on the cross to be the bearer of your sins and let His death and suffering be credited to your account and you be set free, or you will bear your own sins and the results of it yourself eternally.....your choice....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 15, 2014, 09:57:26 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 06:27:37 pm

Neither of those are "virtues," but instead commands, and the first five of the Commandments do not even command virtuous behavior, but instead simply command people to bow down and pay tribute to someone who threatens to kill them (or at least severely punish them otherwise).  Doing so, in order to avoid such punishment is not what I would call virtuous, but instead what I would call cowardly.

treating your neighbor well would be a virtue.

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 06:27:37 pm

But, that said, please tell me how any of the Ten Commandments would prevent or even discourage believers from producing slavery and the Crusades and the genocide of the American indigenous peoples and the witch trials and the Inquisitions and sex slavery.

you mean the ones about :
Do not murder
do not covet (be content with what God has blessed you with)
do not have sex with someone you are not married to
don't lie
don't steal
those cover a lot of bases

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 06:27:37 pm

Now, even more important for Christians, which of the Ten Commandments did Jesus call for from his followers?  And in what passage of The Bible?  What was it that JESUS commanded his followers to do?

from Matthew 22
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 14, 2014, 06:27:37 pm

Christians often seem remarkably ignorant of what it is their religion calls for, because those who would actually follow his teachings would never have owned slaves, taken part in the Crusades, had sex slaves (which the "god" of The Bible demanded Jewish men to take in Numbers 31), taken part in the Inquisitions, burned witches, or committed genocide of the American indigenous people.

people often misrepresent/misquote the Bible to further their agenda.
You can't always take a single passage out of the Bible and use it for a reference without understanding the history. In Numbers 31 from what I understand, God instructed the Israelites to wipe out the Midianites because they were perverting the Israelites and leading them away. The midianite women were drawing the Israelite men into sexual immorality and idolatry. God told the Israelites to destroy them. The men disobeyed the instruction and saved the women and children. In verse 18 Moses tells him to kill all the ones that are left except for the young girls that had not been violated.

When he says keep alive for yourselves, I don't think that means as sex slaves as you imply.

I see this as if there were a crime boss down the street from you engaged in criminal activity(drugs, stealing, ****, human trafficking) and trying to lead your children into a life of crime.  If you had permission/instruction from the "Law" to go wipe them out and protect your children you would/should do so.

God was trying to project His children, that is what Fathers do for their children.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 15, 2014, 10:01:58 am

God was very vehement in His desire to keep the Israeli bloodline clean for the Messiah. Satan's desire was to corrupt that bloodline to prevent the coming of the Messiah. Had God allowed certain people's to co-mingle with the bloodline and corrupt it, none of us would have the chance to be saved. A little leaven leavens the whole lump....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 15, 2014, 10:36:00 am

Jes, if you really want to understand the Bible, read it along with a commentary like Matthew Henry's.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/toc/

Folks like that have spent a good part of their life studying the scripture and the actual greek and hebrew texts along with the history of that day to tie it all together for those of us who don't/won't/can't spend the time to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 15, 2014, 11:46:54 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 15, 2014, 10:01:58 am

God was very vehement in His desire to keep the Israeli bloodline clean for the Messiah. Satan's desire was to corrupt that bloodline to prevent the coming of the Messiah. Had God allowed certain people's to co-mingle with the bloodline and corrupt it, none of us would have the chance to be saved. A little leaven leavens the whole lump....

You really have to be a spectacular moron to believe any of this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 15, 2014, 12:10:04 pm

Quote from: Cletus on July 15, 2014, 11:46:54 am

You really have to be a spectacular moron to believe any of this.

the fact that many different peoples of the world hate and have tried to annihilate the Jews and yet they still survive and even thrive should show you that there is something special about them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 15, 2014, 12:14:26 pm

Quote from: Cletus on July 15, 2014, 11:46:54 am

You really have to be a spectacular moron to believe any of this.

You would have to be an even greater moron to discount it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 15, 2014, 01:31:17 pm

http://cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx?bcid=3675493712001

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 03:06:18 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 15, 2014, 10:36:00 am

Jes, if you really want to understand the Bible, read it along with a commentary like Matthew Henry's.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/toc/

Folks like that have spent a good part of their life studying the scripture and the actual greek and hebrew texts along with the history of that day to tie it all together for those of us who don't/won't/can't spend the time to do so.

I have no problem understanding the Bible, and I don't believe I asked anyone here to explain the Bible to me.  I have at times asked people to explain THEIR understandings of the Bible, but those are rather different things.  You seem not to even offer an understanding of the Bible, but instead want to defer to someone else's interpretation or understanding of it, which you are certainly free to do just as Catholics did for centuries when they went to church services which were even delivered in a language none of them spoke, allowing representatives of the church to tell them what their religion meant and what they were supposed to think about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 03:19:01 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 15, 2014, 09:57:26 am

people often misrepresent/misquote the Bible to further their agenda.
You can't always take a single passage out of the Bible and use it for a reference without understanding the history. In Numbers 31 from what I understand, God instructed the Israelites to wipe out the Midianites because they were perverting the Israelites and leading them away. The midianite women were drawing the Israelite men into sexual immorality and idolatry. God told the Israelites to destroy them. The men disobeyed the instruction and saved the women and children. In verse 18 Moses tells him to kill all the ones that are left except for the young girls that had not been violated.

First, Numbers 31 is not exactly a passage, it is a chapter.  And your explanation of it, and claiming (as in your next post) that the command that the Israelites commit genocide was part of a plan to keep the bloodline pure, seems to ignore a very important part of that chapter -- that the Jewish mean were ordered to take the virgin Midianite women and the young girls as sex slaves, which is not exactly something that would be ordered if the concern was to keep a bloodline pure.  Try again to come up with some way to rationalize your beliefs, because this one doesn't work.

As to your quote from Matthew, you actually got it right.... and in that passage it is pretty clear that Jesus was saying the rest of the Ten Commandments no longer really matter, despite your effort to extol them as "Christian virtues."  Now, as for your contention that any of the last five commandments would in fact prevent someone from committing murder or some of the other fun stuff mentioned, let's look again at Numbers 31, where your god, the one who supposedly did not want folks killing or lusting or stealing or the like, ordered the Israelites to do exactly those things to the Midianites, AND to take more than 30 THOUSAND of the Midianites as sex slaves, and did so AFTER handing down the Ten Commandments.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 03:25:38 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 15, 2014, 07:56:13 am

Jes, I wouldn't expect you to understand true Christian virtue....

Quite okay.  I wouldn't expect you to be able to explain them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 15, 2014, 03:39:50 pm

The problem isn't my explaining them as it comes directly out of the Bible itself and is easily enough understood. The true problem is your stone cold, hardened heart that refuses to understand....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 15, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 03:19:01 pm

that the Jewish mean were ordered to take the virgin Midianite women and the young girls as sex slaves,

Can you quote the verse that tells them to take the Midianite woman as sex slaves?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 06:12:57 pm

Numbers 31:15-18.  Read down a bit further and you will find it was 32 thousand of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 15, 2014, 06:23:17 pm

I don't see the phrase "sex slave" in it.  Can you post it for us?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 07:54:56 pm

Look closer.

They were young women being taken for the exclusive use of the men.

I suppose you think they were to be used exclusively as cooks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 15, 2014, 08:16:58 pm

Or wives.  The Jewish society was polyamous at that point in time.  Soloman had a thousand wives.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 08:37:09 pm

No, Dave, while Solomon may have had a thousand wives, his conduct was not exactly accepted or approved of, and the Bible makes quite clear before Numbers that Jewish men were not to take non-Jews as wives.

In fact right here we have had no less a Bible-scholar than Sportster point out to us the tremendous importance of  "keep(ing) the Israeli bloodline clean for the Messiah."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 15, 2014, 09:23:35 pm

No Jes.  Jacob had several wives, and David almost as many as his son.  Polygamy was common in Israel all the way through the time of Jesus, when the Chief Priest of the temple had two wives.

Jewish men were not to take non-Jewish wives, except when directed otherwise by God.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 05:30:51 am

If it was both common AND accepted (**** is also common, and probably also was then, but is not exactly accepted) up until Jesus, what of his teachings changed that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 16, 2014, 08:04:12 am

In the old testament time conquered people were pretty commonly taken as slaves.

That the women were sex slaves is something you've implied on your own.

A lot has changed since Old Testament times so not sure why that is relevant anyway,  The Jews were given laws and orders in the Old T. that were only for that specific situation and were  changed later.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 03:19:01 pm

First, Numbers 31 is not exactly a passage, it is a chapter.  And your explanation of it, and claiming (as in your next post) that the command that the Israelites commit genocide was part of a plan to keep the bloodline pure, seems to ignore a very important part of that chapter

Keep your Bible Thumpers straight, Sporty referred to the bloodline ;-)

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 15, 2014, 03:19:01 pm

let's look again at Numbers 31, where your god, the one who supposedly did not want folks killing or lusting or stealing or the like, ordered the Israelites to do exactly those things to the Midianites, AND to take more than 30 THOUSAND of the Midianites as sex slaves, and did so AFTER handing down the Ten Commandments.

God basically declared war on the Midianites, it is my understanding they were to kill them all. It was mainly because they were perverting His people. It was man's disobedience that let the girls live. You are implying they were sex slaves but the scripture doesn't say that. Nowhere does it imply that God wanted them to be allowed to live. It is easy to understand scripture when you make it mean what you want it to mean. It can be more difficult at times when you want to understand what God meant in a difficult passage. The neighboring Moabites were just as bad or worse than the Midianites but God left them alone because they weren't perverting the Israelites at the time.

If you think about other times God showed his wrath (Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood) lots of kids were killed because God who is omniscient knew the kids would grow up to be just like their parents.

People disobey God all the time and there are consequences. Just consider for a moment how things might be different if Abraham had trusted God to give him a son through Sarah instead of having one through Sarah's maid Hagar (as was a custom then). As I understand it Hagar's son Ishmael was the father of the Ishmaelites, one of the ancestors to many of the Muslims today.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 16, 2014, 10:14:14 am

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

If you think about other times God showed his wrath (Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood) lots of kids were killed because God who is omniscient knew the kids would grow up to be just like their parents.

People disobey God all the time and there are consequences. Just consider for a moment how things might be different if Abraham had trusted God to give him a son through Sarah instead of having one through Sarah's maid Hagar (as was a custom then). As I understand it Hagar's son Ishmael was the father of the Ishmaelites, one of the ancestors to many of the Muslims today.

FYI - none of this actually happened.  If you want to be a functioning 21st century adult, you need to understand this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 16, 2014, 10:45:06 am

People disobey God all the time and there are consequences. Just consider for a moment how things might be different if Abraham had trusted God to give him a son through Sarah instead of having one through Sarah's maid Hagar (as was a custom then). As I understand it Hagar's son Ishmael was the father of the Ishmaelites, one of the ancestors to many of the Muslims today.

The problem was that first born rights weren't obeyed. Its why we are still at war with Muslims. IMHO the problem wont be rectified until Jesus returns

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 16, 2014, 11:01:46 am

Quote from: Cletus on July 16, 2014, 10:14:14 am

FYI - none of this actually happened.  If you want to be a functioning 21st century adult, you need to understand this.

I've been married to the love of my life for almost 18yrs, have 3 great kids one of which is grown, married and they are doing well.
I have a rewarding career that pays well and allows me to spend a lot of time with my family.
Our family has relatively good health.
I have no problem going to sleep at night.
I am an active member of a local church where we spend a lot of time helping others.
I've been truly blessed.
I seem to function pretty well, I even get along with heathens in real life ;-)

That isn't to say everything is peachy, we have had sickness in our family, my wife was almost killed in a car accident about 2yrs ago, my mother is undergoing chemo for colon cancer. My in-laws have had heart and cancer issues as well. With all those issues though, we have a strength and peace though that only comes from God that helps us through those tough times.

I'm happy, I have it good.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 16, 2014, 11:56:41 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 05:30:51 am

If it was both common AND accepted (**** is also common, and probably also was then, but is not exactly accepted) up until Jesus, what of his teachings changed that?

Do you consider marriage to be ****?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 16, 2014, 12:04:21 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 05:30:51 am

If it was both common AND accepted (**** is also common, and probably also was then, but is not exactly accepted) up until Jesus, what of his teachings changed that?

Nothing in his teachings changed that.  Monogamy and poltgamy are a societal norm, not a religious norm.  Religions often adopt (and later drop) societal norms.

Paul was not a fan of marriage at all.  He rather grudgingly said that it is better to marry than to burn, and he said that a minister should only have one wife.  Not a lot to build a doctrine on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 16, 2014, 12:26:18 pm

This was from a Christian publication but I thought this might be interesting to the pro-evolution crowd.
http://todaychristian.net/world-famous-chemist-tells-truth-evolution-dealt-death-blow/#_

here is a link to his thoughts on his own website, if you don't have time to read it all, search for macroevolution. He basically says that  even with all his scientific experience he doesn't understand how macroevolution happens and when he gets his peers alone, they don't understand it.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 16, 2014, 03:08:26 pm

 
 I hope GOD lets me see the universes he has created when I pass on.
 
 Because these man made religions on Earth ... whew !
 
 I go thru LIFE and EARTH religions are the top of the FOOD CHAIN ???
 
 Imagine if thats all there was ... WHAT A GYP !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 03:31:54 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 16, 2014, 10:45:06 am

People disobey God all the time and there are consequences. Just consider for a moment how things might be different if Abraham had trusted God to give him a son through Sarah instead of having one through Sarah's maid Hagar (as was a custom then). As I understand it Hagar's son Ishmael was the father of the Ishmaelites, one of the ancestors to many of the Muslims today.

The problem was that first born rights weren't obeyed. Its why we are still at war with Muslims. IMHO the problem wont be rectified until Jesus returns

So much for loving your neighbor, but then I suppose when Jesus returns he will tell us that God changed his mind yet again (amazing how often that is done for a being which is omniscient, and omnipotent, but, what the hey....).

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 16, 2014, 04:10:39 pm

Ishmaelites, if they still exist as a people, are an incredibly tiny portion of Muslims.  Our dispute with the Muslims has nothing to do with Sarah or Hagar.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 04:10:56 pm

Quote from: davep on July 16, 2014, 11:56:41 am

Do you consider marriage to be ****?

Marriage to non-Jews was prohibited for Jewish men, so the question is irrelevant.... BUT, if it HAD been allowed, if the marriage is non-consensual, then, yes, it can be ****, and slaves are not really in a position to "consent," are they?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 16, 2014, 04:20:38 pm

In that case, just about every marriage for thousands of years was ****, since the vast majority of marriages were arranged marriages.  Christianity had nothing to do with that.

By the way, we get monogamy from the Romans, not the Jews.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 04:29:19 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 12:26:18 pm

He basically says that  even with all his scientific experience he doesn't understand how macroevolution happens and when he gets his peers alone, they don't understand it.

.... or he doesn't understand his peers, which would certainly appear to be the case.

Tour is a synthetic organic chemist, focusing on nanotechnology.  Fortunately for him, that is a position in which there really is no requirement that he understand evolution.  He writes that he accepts microevolution, but has difficulty understanding macroevolution.  The sad part of this is that the two are essentially the same damn thing, though they involve different time scales.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 04:51:20 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

Keep your Bible Thumpers straight, Sporty referred to the bloodline ;-)

I apologize.... but you all look alike to me.

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

God basically declared war on the Midianites,

Not really.  He instead supposedly directed Moses to have the Israelites do so.  Some real difference there.
Numbers 31:2  “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the children of Israel.”

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

it is my understanding they were to kill them all....

Have you read Numbers recently?

Numbers 31:7  "And they warred against the Midianites, just as the Lord commanded Moses, and they killed all the males."

Not all of them, but all of the MALES, "just as the Lord commanded Moses."

Numbers 31:25-36  "Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Count up the plunder that was taken—of man and beast—you and Eleazar the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; 27 and divide the plunder into two parts, between those who took part in the war, who went out to battle, and all the congregation....” 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.  32 The booty remaining from the plunder, which the men of war had taken, was six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, 33 seventy-two thousand cattle, 34 sixty-one thousand donkeys, 35 and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of women who had not known a man intimately."

That is rather clearly NOT killing them all.

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

You are implying they were sex slaves but the scripture doesn't say that.

Of course they didn't say that.  You wouldn't really have expected those words to be used, would you?

But, beyond the fact that if men take young women as slaves, and are not marrying them, it is not only reasonable to infer they will be sex slaves, it is nuts to think they will NOT be sex slaves, we also KNOW the following (if we accept the Bible as anything remotely resembling an accurate source):
1) All of the Midianite men, and male children, AND not virgin females, WERE killed;
2) Jewish law did not allow Jewish men to marry non-Jewish women;
3) Years after Numbers, at a time when the Midianite people would have vanished from the face of the earth if those 32,000 Midianite slave girls, who entered into slavery as virgins, there were enough Midianites to have force the Jews out of Israel (Judges 6).

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

Nowhere does it imply that God wanted them to be allowed to live.

Ah, okay, you HAVEN'T read Numbers recently.

Numbers 31:25-29   25 Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 26 “Count up the plunder that was taken—of man and beast—you and Eleazar the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; 27 and divide the plunder into two parts, between those who took part in the war, who went out to battle, and all the congregation. 28 And levy a tribute for the Lord on the men of war who went out to battle: one of every five hundred of the persons, the cattle, the donkeys, and the sheep; 29 take it from their half, and give it to Eleazar the priest as a heave offering to the Lord.

According to the story, God gave Moses orders on how to divy up the booty, and exactly what God's take of it was, including a take of the PERSONS who had been taken.  Contending that such a god who wanted his share of the slaves did not want any of them taken alive is, well, enough to make a head spin.

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

It is easy to understand scripture when you make it mean what you want it to mean.

I am biting my tongue.... I am biting my tongue.... I am biting my tongue....

Ah, screw it.  It appears you have just described yourself.  YOU, and many Christians, have a tremendous investment in what the Bible means.  And you want it to comport with your idea of what the god you have created and worship is like.  I have no such investment.  I don't give a rat what it means.  Because I believe most of it is nonsense, what it is intended to mean makes little difference to me.  YOU, on the other hand....

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 09:45:52 am

The neighboring Moabites were just as bad or worse than the Midianites but God left them alone because they weren't perverting the Israelites at the time.

Nothing in Numbers suggests that all, or even most, Midianites were perverting the wonderfully pure and chaste Israelite young men.  But the Bible DOES describe the Moabites in general of doing exactly as you say they were not: Numbers 25:1 "Now Israel remained in Acacia Grove,[a] and the people began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab."

The Bible only refers to ONE Midianite woman, Cozbi, who was causing any concern.  Numbers 25.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 04:54:23 pm

Quote from: davep on July 16, 2014, 04:20:38 pm

In that case, just about every marriage for thousands of years was ****, since the vast majority of marriages were arranged marriages.  Christianity had nothing to do with that.

By the way, we get monogamy from the Romans, not the Jews.

An arranged marriage is something quite different from "marrying" a slave.  Also we do not get monogomy from the Romans.  We instead get it from evolution and biology.  A book which I believe you would enjoy deals with precisely this issue.  It is called "The Sexual Contract," by Helen Fischer.  Great book.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 16, 2014, 05:24:19 pm

Numbers 31
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I think above notes Moses was angry that they didn't kill them all. It would seem that he did allow the young girls to live as to which we don't know why.

When they later divided the spoil the soldiers got 1/2 and the rest of the people split the other 1/2.  God got 1/500 of the soldiers spoil and 1/50 of the people's spoil which was given to the Priests and Levites.
This reminds the people that God provides everything and they should give back to Him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 16, 2014, 05:30:56 pm

 
 Remember when AMERICA used to MAKE things?
 
 Its not about religion ... its not about politics.
 
 Its about AMERICA !
 
 Every fuckin argument you can find to hate each other comes back to the common basic ...
 
 JOBS!!
 
 If everybody has a JOB ... MAMAS HAPPY !
 
 If MAMAS HAPPY ... Evereeeebodys happy !
 
 You dont sit at that dinner table until MAMAS HAPPY !
 
 DID YOU CLEAN YOUR ROOM ??
 
 Did you clean your room because if you didnt you aint gettin no dinner!
 
 Now get up there and clean that room because you aint gettin no dinner until you do !
 
 Boy dont you look at me like that or I'll take this belt to your behind !
 
 Now you clean your room before you get dinner !
 
 AMERICAS HAPPY when MAMAS HAPPY !
 
 Its a funny thing about AMERICA ...
 
 its not about MONEY .. its not about BANKS ... Its not about GDP ...
 
 its about MAMA !
 
 Because if MAMA aint happy then nobodys happy!
 
 MAMA aint happy right now.
 
 Because MAMA doesnt know what Wall Street is ...
 
 MAMA wants to cook and put food on the table ...
 
 but this system is being set up to take that away from her ...
 
 which in any religion book you look at ... IS A SIN.
 
 AMERICA ...
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk3sURDS4IA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk3sURDS4IA)
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 06:31:15 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 16, 2014, 05:24:19 pm

I think above notes Moses was angry that they didn't kill them all. It would seem that he did allow the young girls to live as to which we don't know why.

To quote an occasionally wise poster, "It is easy to understand scripture when you make it mean what you want it to mean."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 16, 2014, 09:21:10 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 16, 2014, 04:54:23 pm

An arranged marriage is something quite different from "marrying" a slave.  Also we do not get monogomy from the Romans.  We instead get it from evolution and biology.  A book which I believe you would enjoy deals with precisely this issue.  It is called "The Sexual Contract," by Helen Fischer.  Great book.

If we get it from Biology and evolution, it didn't evolve until the Romans enforced it within their empire.

A slave that became a concubine had the same legal rights as a second or third wife.  They WERE married.

If monogamy came about through evolution, things didn't evolve until the Romans enforced it in their empire.

All the books I have read seem to believe that monogamy is something forced upon males through culture, overriding their evolution tendency to spread their seed among as many females as possible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 04:05:06 am

Read the book and learn something.

Human culture is not now and as far back as it is possible to study it has never been remotely as close as you seem to suggest in your first sentence, and yet monogamy has been the norm in most of the world for thousands of years, dating back well before either Romulus or Remus ever sucked a wolf's tit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 17, 2014, 06:18:03 am

I believe those women were meant to be kept as slaves, serving the Israelis. Not 'sex slaves', but simply slaves. God judged wicked nations surrounding Israel because of things such as this; being sexually perverted. Does this mean this never happened in Israel? No, it does not. God judged Israel as well for at times being WORSE than the heathen nations surrounding her. Remember, this is a fallen world and people still sin. God never told Solomon take a thousand women. In fact it vexed him doing so. God never told David to take Bathsheba. God never told Jacob to lie. God never told Samson to take Delilah but he did and it cost him greatly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 17, 2014, 08:50:13 am

There is a lot of truth in what this guy says.

http://personalliberty.com/murder-middle-class/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 17, 2014, 09:38:47 am

God only intended for man to have one wife and again man (at times) decided to do what he wanted anyway.
God made Adam a "helper" not helpers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2014, 11:43:50 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 04:05:06 am

Read the book and learn something.

Human culture is not now and as far back as it is possible to study it has never been remotely as close as you seem to suggest in your first sentence, and yet monogamy has been the norm in most of the world for thousands of years, dating back well before either Romulus or Remus ever sucked a wolf's tit.

I have read more books in my lifetime than you will dream about.  If you think I should read this particular book, give a rundown of his thesis and rationale and I will be able to decide if it is worth it.

Monogamy has been the exception for as long as we have recorded history.  Egyptians were polygamists, as were the celts, Israelites and the entire middle east, mongols, chinese and every single american indian tribe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2014, 01:48:37 pm

wasfullofit


The Middle Class has been assaulted since the Reagan branding of the republic party. Your little piece of **** "article" must have blown out your ass.

Did you wash your hands after reading?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 17, 2014, 01:57:12 pm

I see the commie woke up

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2014, 02:44:03 pm

Are you dating Wayne or just servicing him?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2014, 02:56:42 pm

More stupid from the t-bagger party...



'Do you know that was a bus with YMCA kids?'



Adam Kwasman, a Republican state representative and congressional candidate in Arizona, apparently thought it'd be a good idea to lead a protest near Tucson yesterday against a bus full of children. The kids, the GOP candidate assumed, were undocumented minors on their way to a housing facility, and as the bus approached, Kwasman tweeted, "Bus coming in. This is not compassion. This is the abrogation of the rule of law."

 

He even boasted to a local reporter that he was "able to see some of the children" and "the fear on their faces."

 

Why anyone, least of all a congressional candidate, would brag about protesting against scared children is a bit of a mystery, but the story took an unfortunate turn soon after.


There was no fear on their faces. Those weren't the migrant children in the school bus. Those were children from the Marana school district. They were heading to the YMCA's Triangle Y Camp, not far from the Rite of Passage shelter for the migrants, at the base of Mt. Lemmon.

 

12 News reporter Will Pitts, who was at the protest scene, says he saw the children laughing and taking pictures of the media.

Initially, Kwasman's fellow protestors assumed it was a trick. Sure, the folks on the bus claim to be headed to a YMCA camp, but maybe this is an elaborate ruse intended to help undocumented children. But in this case, there was no trick -- these really were YMCA kids the right-wing activists were protesting.

 

Kwasman soon after deleted his tweet -- though it was too late -- and later admitted he had no idea what he was talking about. When a local reporter asked, "Do you know that was a bus with YMCA kids?" Kwasman replied, "They were sad, too. OK I apologize. I didn't know."

 

Enjoy the hate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 03:48:16 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 17, 2014, 09:38:47 am

God only intended for man to have one wife and again man (at times) decided to do what he wanted anyway.

And you base that on.... what, exactly?

Perhaps our natural human repulsion at the very idea of having sex with anyone other than our marital spouse?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 03:53:48 pm

Quote from: davep on July 17, 2014, 11:43:50 am

I have read more books in my lifetime than you will dream about.  If you think I should read this particular book, give a rundown of his thesis and rationale and I will be able to decide if it is worth it.

Monogamy has been the exception for as long as we have recorded history.  Egyptians were polygamists, as were the celts, Israelites and the entire middle east, mongols, chinese and every single american indian tribe.

Telling you to read a book to learn something, particularly when your comments make clear that the idea developed in the book is foreign to you, is in no way condescending.

I don't think the same could be said about the first sentence of your post.  Nor, other than the fact that you are a bit more superannuated than I am, is there anything resembling a reasonable basis for you to make the claim.

As to selling the book to you, check it out from your library.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 03:56:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 17, 2014, 01:48:37 pm

wasfullofit


The Middle Class has been assaulted since the Reagan branding of the republic party. Your little piece of **** "article" must have blown out your ass.

Did you wash your hands after reading?

otto, is that actually the best you can do to refute a point you disagree with?

Can you actually explain any way in which anything the guy said is wrong?  What fallacies are there in his argument?  What mis-statements of fact does he make?  What are the faulty premises?

Or are such things beyond you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 04:04:51 pm

Did someone relatively recently (last few weeks) either post a link here to official data on what percentage of different ethnic groups were recipients of various government benefit programs, or perhaps cut and past it to the forum?

And if so, is there any chance you could repeat it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2014, 04:06:20 pm

Sheldon

Unlike you, when I see **** I do not attempt to make a sandwich out of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: ISF on July 17, 2014, 04:15:34 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 03:56:28 pm

otto, is that actually the best you can do to refute a point you disagree with?

Yes.

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 03:56:28 pm

Can you actually explain any way in which anything the guy said is wrong?  What fallacies are there in his argument?  What mis-statements of fact does he make?  What are the faulty premises?

No.

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 03:56:28 pm

Or are such things beyond you?

Yes.


I'm pretty sure those were rhetorical questions, since there's plenty of experience with otters to know the answers to them.
But we might have a few newbies that aren't accustomed to otters, so I felt compelled to give the answers....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2014, 04:18:35 pm

 
 Can anyone find the article about what it costs the U.S. to take care of each of the central american kids per day ?
 
 The article was just posted today but I lost where it came from.
 
 I think it was the Senate on CSPAN.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2014, 04:35:56 pm

I see Homo has come out of hiding.  Wish I could say I missed him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2014, 04:53:27 pm

I heard on the radio it is costing $250 to $1,000 per day per child.  Not sure why the big variance or why so much.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 05:08:26 pm

I heard on the morning news today here in Texas, where it is a huge local story, that it is running from $250-$500/day.  I also heard some co-workers here talking about people locally who are taking some of the children in as essentially foster parents are getting $5,000 a month to take the children.  And as outrageous as $5,000 a month sounds, it is still less than the more than $7,500 a month it would cost at the $250/day rate.

The figures are absurd.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 05:14:37 pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-16/bubble-paranoia-setting-in-as-s-p-500-surge-stirs-angst.html

Combine that with anxiety over a ground war in Israel, and the downed airline in the Ukraine, and it might have been a good time to have bought some deep puts today, particularly as we head into the weekend.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2014, 06:01:22 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 17, 2014, 04:53:27 pm

I heard on the radio it is costing $250 to $1,000 per day per child.  Not sure why the big variance or why so much.

Some kids eat more than others

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 06:14:33 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/07/exclusive-feds-struggling-to-cope-with-medical-breakdown-at-the-border/

The federal government is so overwhelmed by the current tide of migrants crossing the border it can’t provide basic medical screening to all of the children before transporting them – often by air – to longer-term holding facilities across the country, ABC News has learned.

It's a good thing reports like that are only coming from nutty tea-party organizations with no credibility and not from some real news source.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2014, 06:35:18 pm

 
 Defining the U.S. economy ...
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY5phD_INE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY5phD_INE)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2014, 06:50:30 pm

I give you America's dumbest congressman...

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert (R) asserted this week that the crisis of women and children refugees seeking protection inside U.S. borders was so serious that it put “our continued existence at risk.”

During a speech on the House floor on Tuesday, the Texas congressman renewed his call for border states to invoke their rights under the 10th Amendment, and to declare war against an “mass invasion” of refugees.

“Our continued existence is at risk with what’s going on at the southern border,” Gohmert explained, adding that the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security was complicit because it had “actually assisted the criminal conspiracy in achieving its illegal goals” by not enforcing the law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 07:05:50 pm

Nope.  I will see your Louie Gohmert (whose comment is simply a statement of opinion, and with the rhetoric involved in the comment guite open to debate, with which you disagree) and raise you a Hank Johnson.... who sincerely fears the island of Guam might "capsize" as a result of the U.S. military presence there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2014, 08:33:56 pm

Not fair.  Democrats are expected to be stupid.  Gohmert doesn't stand out among Democratic Congressmen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 17, 2014, 09:18:19 pm

$5k per month, I think we could foster 2 kids at least :-)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2014, 10:07:23 pm

Tribute To America's Dumbest Congressman Louie Gohmert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAdGnvMKEYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAdGnvMKEYM)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2014, 10:32:57 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 17, 2014, 07:05:50 pm

Nope.  I will see your Louie Gohmert (whose comment is simply a statement of opinion, and with the rhetoric involved in the comment guite open to debate, with which you disagree) and raise you a Hank Johnson.... who sincerely fears the island of Guam might "capsize" as a result of the U.S. military presence there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg)

 Wasnt the island of Guam towed down the St. Lawrence Seaway to Duluth Minnisota some years back as an eventual stadium for the Minnisota Vikings?
 
  I think it was ...
 
  arent they already building a Six Flags theme park on it ?
 
  And a smaller version of The Mall Of America ?
 
  Did they ever get rid of those snakes ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2014, 11:38:47 pm

Second dumbest republic pol...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHLOfA4hfjM&feature=player_detailpage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHLOfA4hfjM&feature=player_detailpage)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 17, 2014, 11:53:26 pm

Our wonderfully absent President in stride again today after news of the tragedy...in sum: 'A plane crashed. It may be tragic. We're trying to see if US citizens were on board. Hey, great to be in Delaware!' Idiot.....man I despise this guy, I really do. He is easily the worst President I've ever seen, back to Carter...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696366/It-looks-like-terrible-tragedy-Obama-briefly-addresses-Malaysian-plane-crash-emerges-23-U-S-passengers-board.html#ixzz37nCrNctI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696366/It-looks-like-terrible-tragedy-Obama-briefly-addresses-Malaysian-plane-crash-emerges-23-U-S-passengers-board.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 18, 2014, 12:26:07 am

 
 Otto ,
 
 Back in the days when we first knew each other , you used to have a sense of humor. What happened ?
 
 I never bought into any political shill ****.
 
 How come you did ?
 
 Whats interesting Otto is that you ... and your perceived opponents,
 
 are all on the same page.
 
 The difference between you and anybody that opposes you ...
 
 is nothing.
 
 All of you are ****.
 
 Going nowhere in a media that plays you against one another to keep you under control.
 
 Of course you will deny that ... you afterall have free will ...
 
 but I will use you ... and I am using you ... to keep you under control.
 
 Its about MONEY motherfucker ... the absoulute ... the pure ...
 
 the greatest invention that GOD has made on this planet ...
 
 if you will sell me your SOUL in return ...
 
 I can make you RICH motherfucker.
 
 I am that power. Come to me.
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 18, 2014, 02:57:03 am

 
 Blueberrys entwined with Cheerios in a solution with milk,
 
  mixed in a bowl, is that one step closer to GOD.
 
 Detune your upper E string ...  ;D  D sharp.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 18, 2014, 09:12:23 am

Detune your upper E string ...

...or is that G-string?  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 18, 2014, 08:14:40 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/18/white-house-leadership-reagan-on-kal-007-vs-obama-on-mh17/

IMO Obama will sit on his hands and do nothing.  As he will with the border.  WORST US PRESIDENT EVER!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 19, 2014, 01:05:25 am

Just saw Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' tonight and it's a excellent film. Highly recommended....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 06:16:47 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 18, 2014, 08:14:40 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/18/white-house-leadership-reagan-on-kal-007-vs-obama-on-mh17/

IMO Obama will sit on his hands and do nothing....  WORST US PRESIDENT EVER!!!

What SHOULD he do?

Unless there is something which he SHOULD do, there is nothing to complain about if he does nothing.

Look at 1983.  The Soviet Union directly shot down a Korean airliner carrying a U.S. Congressman.

Korea was a very clear ally of the U.S.  Not the case with Malaysia or the Ukraine.

The loss of a U.S. Congressman far outweighs the U.S. losses on this flight in the Ukraine.

And an act by some Ukrainian rebel, even one supported by Putin, or even directly armed by Putin or assisted by advisors sent there by Putin, in the middle of an actual war, is vastly different from the KAL 007 incident, where it was shot down by a Soviet fighter pilot, and presumably with direct orders from the Kremlin to shoot it down.

And what did Reagan do as a result?  Have I forgotten the troops he sent in to invade the Soviet Union as a result of that incident in 1983?

I have no use for Obama, but criticism which is so untethered to reality makes it that much easier to dismiss criticism which is well-founded, PARTICULARLY when it is combined with what would appear to be praise of the response of another president who faced a similar situation... and essentially did nothing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 10:40:04 am

Reagan increased defense spending, and bankrupted the USSR.  He won the cold war.  Did nothing my ass.

I do not expect Obama to send in troops to the Ukraine nor do I want him to.  He could help bolster our allies in the region and put in place the defense missle shield he tore down.

As far as our border **** secure it already.  Send the national guard to support the border patrol.  Send the illegals away at the border instead of allowing them in then, taking them in.  A leader would work with congress to get **** done instead of saying "my way or the highway" then blaming the congress for not doing anything. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 11:33:41 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 10:40:04 am

Reagan increased defense spending, and bankrupted the USSR.  He won the cold war.  Did nothing my ass.

Forgive me.  I had forgotten that BEFORE KAL 007, Reagan had been playing footsie with the Soviet Union, was best buds with Andropov, and had been reducing military spending.  I stand corrected and apologize.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 10:40:04 am

I do not expect Obama to send in troops to the Ukraine nor do I want him to.  He could help bolster our allies in the region and put in place the defense missle shield he tore down. 

While those may or may not be desirable policy moves, neither appear to be sensible reactions to what happened this week with the airliner.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 10:40:04 am

As far as our border **** secure it already.  Send the national guard to support the border patrol.  Send the illegals away at the border instead of allowing them in then, taking them in.  A leader would work with congress to get **** done instead of saying "my way or the highway" then blaming the congress for not doing anything. 

You can not under current law simply send illegals away once they have set foot on U.S. soil.  And I suspect that you would not even want that, since if you did so you would effectively have border patrol agents determining who was here legally and who was not.  If YOU were found by a border patrol agent who didn't accept your claims of citizenship, he could send you "home," even though forcing you across the border would not be sending you home.

You seem to want the Obama to follow the law and become very upset with the administration's lawlessness... except when YOU want them to ignore the law and to act in a lawless manner.  While you complain Obama is not a "leader," the inconsistency of your won positions would seem to underscore part of the problem.  With a great many of his critics, it doesn't matter what he does, to them it is wrong.  It doesn't matter what positions he takes, to them those positions are wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 11:40:38 am

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/18/two-third-illegal-immigrant-children-okd-asylum/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 19, 2014, 12:56:12 pm

I'd build the fence and electrify it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 01:46:25 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 19, 2014, 12:56:12 pm

I'd build the fence and electrify it.

I would have no problem with that, except there is no way such a project could be funded and completed in less than a year, even if Obama WANTED to do that, and there is no indication whatsoever that he would allow completion of such a fence even if legislation were on the books for it and there were funding.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 02:00:14 pm

Jes, Reagan increased it even more after the incident.

People with out passports are turned away all the time or turned away due to a crime in their past.  As they should be.   It is perfectly legal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 03:57:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 02:00:14 pm

Jes, Reagan increased it even more after the incident.

NOT as a result of KAL 007.  There was NOTHING meaningful Reagan did as a result, and that was a much more significant attack than the incident in the Ukraine.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 02:00:14 pm

People with out passports are turned away all the time or turned away due to a crime in their past.  As they should be.   It is perfectly legal.

Yes, they are "turned away" at entry points, before they enter the U.S.

The folks crossing illegally quite eagerly are turning themselves in because they know that the Boarder Patrol can not do as you would like them to do.

The Boarder Patrol knows that.

The illegals know that.

I suspect that even YOU know that, but you can't acknowledge that your criticism of Obama on THIS point is unreasonable and not based on reality.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 04:30:53 pm

I said turn them away at the border not let them in.  If they do not make it on to American soil your argument is moot.

This could be done fairly quickly with fencing, electric fencing and barbed wire in most places with guards patrolling it until walls could be made more permanent.  Oh and change the stupid **** laws that allow this bullshit.  Sick of politicians from both parties more worried about the Hispanic vote then doing what is right for everyone involved.

Make immigrating here legally much easier and take less time.  Make migrating here illegally a total pain in the ass and a permanent ban from ever becoming a US citizen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 04:40:51 pm

Pekin, your "if" is an absurdity.  You sound as if the Boarder Patrol is helping them cross, of as if there were a single point of entry which could be blocked in 15 minutes by putting up a gate.

It took the Soviet Union two months to build the Berlin Wall.  And that was less than one 20th the length of the US border with Mexico, and on much, much better terrain.

Additionally, those who would pose the most danger to the U.S. would scarcely be deterred by a fence on the southern border, since we would still have more than 5,000 miles of coastline, and an even longer northern border allowing entry by those would would pose the most danger.

It would only keep out some of those who want to come here to work.

For some strange reason I actually LIKE people who want to work.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2014, 05:05:39 pm

Some of the children that are coming here are not coming to get a job.

But I like them anyway.  The question is not whether or not they are likable.  The question is whether or not they are legal.

And I agree that the law does not allow them to be sent back immediately when they have crossed our borders.  But releasing them on their own recognizance and ask them to report for a court date that may be more than a year in the future is silly.  Most never report, and there is no way to find them.

We should appoint enough judges to hold trials in a reasonable time frame (a few weeks at most) and hire enough public defenders to give them a fair trial and build facilities to hold them until the trial.  If the law does not allow this, then change the law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2014, 05:07:15 pm

 
 Any good lawyer that knows his **** will bring forth an argument ...
 
 and argue against it.
 
 Thats just called keeping on your toes.
 
 The main thing is you need a sucker to play the game.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2014, 05:15:01 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 05:05:39 pm

Some of the children that are coming here are not coming to get a job.

But I like them anyway.  The question is not whether or not they are likable.  The question is whether or not they are legal.

And I agree that the law does not allow them to be sent back immediately when they have crossed our borders.  But releasing them on their own recognizance and ask them to report for a court date that may be more than a year in the future is silly.  Most never report, and there is no way to find them.

We should appoint enough judges to hold trials in a reasonable time frame (a few weeks at most) and hire enough public defenders to give them a fair trial and build facilities to hold them until the trial.  If the law does not allow this, then change the law.

 Kick their motherfuckin asses back over the fuckin border ...
 
 PERIOD !
 
 Build your own Country. STAND UP !
 
 We wil help you as much as the French and Spanish did for us.
 
 WE did a pretty good job ... now its your turn.
 
 FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 05:26:20 pm

The Border Patrol is playing nurse maid and do not have the man power to do their job because of it.  We need the National Guard there to help in the detention centers so the border patrol can do their job.

We need to build walls where they need to be built and fences in other areas to stem the flow.  Start now so a year from now we don't hear excuses that it will take to long.

As dave said the hearing should be taking place in a matter of weeks while they are still detained not releasing them with a notice to appear months to a year later.

And all of our politicians need to shut the **** up about amnesty.  They are just advertising to the world if you get here you get to stay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2014, 05:44:06 pm

As a practical matter, a fence would be meaningless, regardless of how secure (and they are not secure.  They already have flatbed trucks with portable bridges on them that allows hundreds to get over in minutes).  And as Jes said, they can just get in a motorboat and take a 10 minute around the fence from Tiajuana or Brownsville.  And a large portion of illegal aliens come her on valid visas anyway and come in by plane.

The way to stop them is to prevent them from getting the jobs they came here for.  It would be an extremely simple thing, and cost almost nothing.  You wouldn't even have to worry about those already here.  If they can't earn a living, they will selfdeport.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 05:47:46 pm

I have said here before they need to hit employers hiring them with massive fines.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2014, 06:00:32 pm

Not that simple.  The employers would have to have a reasonable way to determine if someone was illegal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2014, 06:06:12 pm

 
 If they are here ... then train them to take their Countrys back.
 
 The AMERICAN REVOLUTION which later became ...
 
 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...
 
 is the example of how to claim your own turf.
 
 You stand your ground ... and you **** FIGHT and DIE for it.
 
 If you dont get that ... you will be immigrints ... instead of Citizens ...
 
 IN YOUR COUNTRY.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 06:15:57 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 05:44:06 pm

As a practical matter, a fence would be meaningless....

Not really.

It would make folks like Pekin FEEL real good.

Wouldn't do too much to keep any true dangerous folks out, but, damn, Pekin would feel good about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2014, 06:23:11 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 06:15:57 pm

Not really.

It would make folks like Pekin FEEL real good.

Wouldn't do too much to keep any true dangerous folks out, but, damn, Pekin would feel good about it.

 Problem is Duck's right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 06:37:58 pm

dave, you can not tell me with all the technology we have today that it would be that hard.  All employers now are supposed to send a copy of a photo ID and a social security number.  It is the governments job to make sure the SS number does not belong to a dead person.  Hell we can clean up a lot of voter fraud while we are at it.  But the Democrats don't want that...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 06:52:35 pm

Jes really being the biggest Dbag possible today aren't you?

There are areas where a wall makes sense, in other areas fences will do.  Some areas it makes more sense to have watch towers.  Of course if we are going to just give the people a notice to appear and send them on their merry way inside the US what is the **** point of any of it?  The stupidity of our government and politicians is mind boggling to me. 

dave and jes both, do you two honestly believe we are doing everything we should to stop this?  Certainly we can do better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 06:53:13 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 05:05:39 pm

Some of the children that are coming here are not coming to get a job.

But I like them anyway.  The question is not whether or not they are likable.  The question is whether or not they are legal.

Well, that is a legitimate question, but really not the one Pekin and I had been discussing.

Of course what is being discussed here (or anywhere) quite often changes, so, have at it.

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 05:05:39 pm

And I agree that the law does not allow them to be sent back immediately when they have crossed our borders.  But releasing them on their own recognizance and ask them to report for a court date that may be more than a year in the future is silly.

And HOLDING them, at taxpayer expense, for more than a year, when it is costing more than $500 a day to do so, is even sillier.

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 05:05:39 pm

We should appoint enough judges to hold trials in a reasonable time frame (a few weeks at most) and hire enough public defenders to give them a fair trial and build facilities to hold them until the trial.  If the law does not allow this, then change the law.

I agree, and the law DOES allow it.

Unfortunately, it can't really be done to meaningfully help what is happening now... and part of it is not needed.

You (and even non-citizens and even illegals) have a right under the Constitution to an attorney to represent you at trial, and you have the right to have an attorney appointed for you and paid for at government expense for any criminal offense which poses even a remote possibility of incarceration as punishment.

None of these folks are charged with criminal offenses in their deportation hearings.  They are civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings.  They have a right to HIRE an attorney and bring the attorney along to represent them, and, despite your insistence that all government business in the U.S. should be in English, they have the right to have an interpreter present if they can't speak or read English.  They do  NOT have the right to have government pay for their attorneys, and that is a big part of what Obama is asking funds for.  Congress certainly needs to scrap that part of the budget request.

But even before current problems began in the last several months, the administrative law judges handling deportation cases were so overloaded that it often took a year or more to get a hearing.

So if Congress voted to double the number of administrative law judges handling such cases, and approved the funding for them, and then held expedited hearings to approve all of the appointments for them after the administration made an expedited effort to find folks to fill all of the positions and who were willing to accept the appointments, you then have a learning curve involved which is not wildly different from the learning curve for minor league baseball prospects working their way to the majors.  Just as it make take 1500 or more at bats for the typical prospect with the talent to actually succeed in the majors, it also takes quite a few cases before most judges really know what they are doing and can actually dispose of cases in anything resembling a reasonable process.

The problem now is already so incredibly ugly it would not be surprising if it didn't get its own page or two in high school American history textbooks 50 years from now.

What Obama has allowed to happen is simply incredibly stupid, and in no way helps his agenda, or his party or his political ideology.  It will result in Democrats being shellacked in November, will cause anyone closely tied with him to be toxic in the 2016 presidential election, and has completely changed the immigration reform debate.  He will be unable to get thru what he wants, and when real reform come it will end up being delivered by Republicans, who will likely reap the political benefit of it, a truly incredible outcome.

At the moment, just to apply a tournequet on slow the bleeding, while I am NOT opposed to a fence or increasing the number of administrative law judges, the scheduling and assignment of the judges and of their hearings needs to be wildly revised, with a true "surge" of the judges down to the border, even if it means hearings now scheduled in other parts of the country get put on hold indefinitely for several months and with thousand of their currently scheduled hearings reset.  Put them on the border so there are judges there around the clock.  Have those picked up crossing the border IMMEDIATELY taken in front of a judge and have a hearing right then.  And after they are FOUND to be hear illegally, load them up on buses and DRIVE them by the busload back to their home countries to be dumped off in their home country.

Until folks in the countries they are coming from start seeing very quickly that their neighbors who spent their life savings to go to the U.S. are actually returned with nothing, and with their savings gone, they will continue to come.

Once that is done, the tide will slow and should return to a somewhat manageable level.

Until large numbers of those arriving NOW are actually returned, those where they came from are going to continue to believe what they see -- that those who go to the United States are allowed to stay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 07:02:12 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 06:52:35 pm

Jes really being the biggest Dbag possible today aren't you?

And you are being, well, the way you normally are, resorting to name-calling when someone points out that something you have written is false, not well thought, or just downright stupid.

Some people address the ideas others present.  Others focus their attention on ad hominem attacks.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 06:52:35 pm

There are areas where a wall makes sense, in other areas fences will do.  Some areas it makes more sense to have watch towers.

As I have said at least twice before, and to which you have not yet responded, fences, walls and watch towers will virtually nothing to keep out those who pose the greatest risk of harm to the U.S.  It will make you, and those who think like you feel very good, but not much more.

I am NOT opposing them, but merely trying to point out their limitations.  At NO time have I even suggested I oppose them.  Of course at no time have you responded to the points raised about their limited value.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 06:52:35 pm

dave and jes both, do you two honestly believe we are doing everything we should to stop this?  Certainly we can do better.

Have you even bothered to read what dave and I have posted?

It is hard to imagine you could ask that question if you had read it.

Perhaps you would want to read it again.

Or, of course, you could toss out a few more "****" insults without actually reading or trying to understand what anyone else has written.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

*sigh*

Jes, I could take a poll here and I am guessing 80% or higher of those taking the poll would agree you are indeed a ****.  You go out of your way to insult people instead of just talking about the issues.  Then when they insult you back you say they are name calling instead of debating the issues.   Did you learn that from Phill?   

They all pose a risk.  Some greater then others but they all pose a risk.  If they are carrying a disease or simply a drag on resources they are a risk.  I do however concede that anyone who wants to get into any country bad enough will find a way to do it.  It does not mean however we should make it easy for them.  Especially since our biggest problem at the moment is massive amounts of people simply walking or taking jet skis across the border and turning themselves in.  The massive amount of innocents is what makes it difficult to weed out the truly dangerous. 

I have either posted your and his ideas about the border before or agreed with them.  We don't disagree (not sure where we disagree about much of anything here) as much as we agree but yet you feel the need to be a dick about it. 

As far as the original discussion which I did not lose track of, Obama is to blame because he is the POTUS.  He is not solely to blame.  All of our politicians have failed badly for ages in this department including Bush.  However when the Dream Act failed he made a big speech and used an executive order to make it easier for children to stay that had been here.  While the order does not apply to the children flooding the borders currently it did lead to the current scenario because the coyotes used it to advertise their services.  Just as any politician talking about amnesty (no matter that they stay away from the word but mean the same thing) add to the problem.

I feel this makes my position clear.  However I am quite certain you will come back with some argument because that is what you do.  Get your license back and go argue in court.  You obviously need the stimulation.

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2014, 08:51:29 pm

 
The LAWS of this NATION are being used to **** us up our wide open ****. That non citizens take advantage of ... thats why they come.
 
 BUT ...
 
 These are the laws. ADOPTED 1868. They never saw this **** coming.  ;D
 
 
 The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:
 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
 
 
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
 
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
 
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
 
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, has generated more lawsuits than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution.
 
 Section 1 of the amendment has been the centerpiece of most of this litigation. It makes "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside.
 
 This section also prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws.
 
 The Supreme Court has ruled that any state law that abridges Freedom of Speech (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech), freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the Right to Counsel (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+Counsel), the right against Self-Incrimination (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Incrimination), the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right against cruel and unusual punishments will be invalidated under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
 This holding is called the Incorporation Doctrine (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Incorporation+Doctrine).
 
 Sections 2 to 5 have been the subject of far fewer lawsuits. Some of these sections seem anachronistic today because they reflect the immediate concerns of the Union's political leadership following the North's victory over the South in the Civil War (1861–65).
 
 Section 2, for example, penalized any state that attempted to abridge the voting rights of its black male residents by reducing the state's representation in Congress (no female resident of any race was afforded the constitutional right to vote in the United States until 1920).
 
 Section 3 prohibited from holding state or federal office any person who engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" or otherwise gave "aid or comfort to the enemies" during the Civil War.
 
 Section 4 reaffirmed the United States' commitment to pay its Civil War debt, while declaring all debts and obligations incurred by the Confederate government "illegal and void."
 
 Section 5 enabled, and continues to enable, Congress to pass "appropriate legislation" to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
 The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to alleviate several concerns harbored by many U.S. citizens prior to its ratification. The most obvious concern related to the status of the recently freed slaves.
 
 Five years before hostilities commenced in the Civil War, the Supreme Court declared that people of African descent living in the United States were not "citizens" of the United States, but merely members of a "subordinate and inferior class of human beings" deserving no constitutional protection whatsoever (dred scott v. sandford, 60 U.S. [19 How.] 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 [1856]).
 
 The Fourteenth Amendment vitiated the Supreme Court's holding in Dred Scott by making all blacks "born or naturalized in the United States" full-fledged citizens entitled to the same constitutional rights provided for every other U.S. citizen.
 
The Fourteenth Amendment vitiated the Supreme Court's holding in Dred Scott by making all blacks "born or naturalized in the United States" full-fledged citizens entitled to the same constitutional rights provided for every other U.S. citizen.
 
The Fourteenth Amendment vitiated the Supreme Court's holding in Dred Scott by making all blacks "born or naturalized in the United States" full-fledged citizens entitled to the same constitutional rights provided for every other U.S. citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment vitiated the Supreme Court's holding in Dred Scott by making all blacks "born or naturalized in the United States" full-fledged citizens entitled to the same constitutional rights provided for every other U.S. citizen.
 
IT NEVER SAID in 1868 making lawbreakers over the border to have their kids in this country to be U.S. citizens.
 
it was pretty specific ...
 
no more predjudice against African-Americans born in the U.S.
 
 It didnt say anything about Germans while visiting,
 
dropping a kid in the U.S. and that kid is a U.S. citizen.
 
But heres the kicker motherfucker ...
 
 and this is where they get you ... and you pick up the tab.
 
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
 
GOTCHA !
 
We done **** ourselves in a good way in 1868 but we never saw people taking advantage of us.
 
That came later when lawyers read the loopholes.  ;)  
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 19, 2014, 09:16:58 pm

Peke, of course there's things we could and should be doing to prevent this nonsense. It's people like Jes that are shrugging their shoulders and 'oh well, nothing we can do' bs. And that's exactly what it is. Every illegal that steps foot on this land should be sent back or charged for trespassing. We've done this for years, sending them back, but because of the Obama nightmare of a frigging administration now we've got one helluva mess. He swung the doors wide open and these illegals think they have the 'right' to just come on over. That's what caused this mess. We have the means to secure this border, but the admin doesn't want to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2014, 09:42:16 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 06:37:58 pm

dave, you can not tell me with all the technology we have today that it would be that hard.  All employers now are supposed to send a copy of a photo ID and a social security number.  It is the governments job to make sure the SS number does not belong to a dead person.  Hell we can clean up a lot of voter fraud while we are at it.  But the Democrats don't want that...

The technology is there.  It is the law that is lacking.

When you get a new job, you give your employer a social security number.  The employer sends the number and your name to the Social Security Administration.

It is easy to forge a Social Security card.  It is impossible to forge a Social Security NUMBER.  Your number is registered to your name.  If someone invents a Social Security number, when the Administration received it from your new employer, they send a letter telling them that the Social Security number is not a valid one.  There are currently about 12 million invalid Social Security numbers in the system, which is where the estimate of 12 million illegal aliens comes from.

The law does not require your employer to do anything.  The Social Security Administration is not required by law to do anything.

All that would be necessary would be for Congress to pass a law forbidding any employer from paying any employee until that employee goes down to the Social Security Office and straightens out the problem, and fining the employer 100,000 dollars if he does so illegally.  If the employee can not straighten out the problem because he HAS no valid number, he has little choice but to deport himself, or go totally underground as a nanny or gardener or similar job. 

I have no problem with that .  No system is perfect.  But there are not enough of those jobs to take care of 12 million aliens plus the ones that are already doing such jobs.  There would be little need for a fence.

The problem, however, is that Congress will not pass such a law, and the President would not sign such a law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2014, 09:54:02 pm

Jes - the problems you mention can be solved.  I don't care if we have to hire 100 thousand judges and 100 thousand lawyers, the cost would be worth it, as would be the cost to retain them until they are processed.

Of course, many laws would have to be changed, as they should be. 

Make it a criminal act to cross the border illegally, and try them in a criminal court. 

Do not release them on their own, with or without bail, since they are certainly flight risks. 

Make knowingly aiding and abetting an illegal alien a felony and prosecute those that do. 

Do not offer or grant political asylum to illegal aliens.

I'm sure that other laws would be required, and there would be the need to hire the people necessary to enforce the laws, such as police, judges, lawyers, etc.  The cost would be well worth it.  Fund it by legalizing and taxing recreational drugs, which would solve many other border problems.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 10:35:32 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 09:54:02 pm

Jes - the problems you mention can be solved.  I don't care if we have to hire 100 thousand judges and 100 thousand lawyers, the cost would be worth it, as would be the cost to retain them until they are processed.

Of course, many laws would have to be changed, as they should be. 

I never suggested the problems could not be solved.  I even set our HOW they could be solved, AND solved within the current law, and with minimal expense.  We do not need an additional 100 thousand lawyers -- a person is not entitled to a court appointed attorney at a deportation hearing.... just as I explained before.  And we do not need an additional 100 thousand judges, but could address the immediate problem simply by re-assigning existing judges.

I am not saying there are no laws needing to be changed (though you and I disagree on many of the changes needed in the law).

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 10:39:54 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 19, 2014, 09:16:58 pm

Peke, of course there's things we could and should be doing to prevent this nonsense. It's people like Jes that are shrugging their shoulders and 'oh well, nothing we can do' bs.

Sportster, please find ANYWHERE where I have written there there is nothing we can do.

I have simply pointed out the errors in some of what has been proposed.  Pointing out the problems of an idea is more than mildly different from saying nothing can be done.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 10:43:39 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 09:54:02 pm

Do not offer or grant political asylum to illegal aliens.

If a modern day Hitler were running Mexico, and sending millions off to death camps.... no political asylum.  If one of those sent to a death camp escaped and made it to the U.S. before being stuck in an oven, it is reassuring to know that you would not only support rounding him up to deliver him for the oven, you would make it a felony for anyone in this country who tried to help him stay here to survive.

Nothing like good Christian compassion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2014, 11:02:06 pm

 
 Howd you end up staring at this thing anyways ?
 
 Good question.
 
 The first I.C. ... Integrated Circuit, was bought by the Pentagon in 1962.
 
 A whopping investment of $4 000 000.00 at $50.00 a chip.
 
 By 1968 it was $312 000 000.00 for both the Pentagon and private industry, the price per chip had dropped to $2.33.
 
 You should have bought stocks.
 
 Who knows what it would be worth today ?
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 11:02:43 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

They all pose a risk.  Some greater then others but they all pose a risk.

YOU also pose a risk, and that is a greater risk than most of those currently entering illegally.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

I do however concede that anyone who wants to get into any country bad enough will find a way to do it.  It does not mean however we should make it easy for them.

Did I propose we make it easy for them?  Do you enjoy erecting straw men to argue with?

You are focused on building a wall, which will do virtually nothing to make us more secure (something you have finally grudgingly acknowledged) and which will take far too long to effectively deal with the immediate problem at hand.... but you still want to do it, despite the cost, and an existing deficit of more than 17 TRILLION, and you want to do it simply because it will make you feel good.

There are far less expensive ways to achieve your immediate goal (curbing the current flood), and to do so much more quickly.  I set out one such way.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

I have either posted your and his ideas about the border before or agreed with them.

No, you haven't responded at all to mine... other than to disagree with them.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

We don't disagree (not sure where we disagree about much of anything here) as much as we agree but yet you feel the need to be a dick about it.   

And for the second consecutive post, you engage in name calling... while contending that *I* am the one being the "dick about it."

Project much, Pekin?

Is the problem that Phil hasn't been posting lately so you have to find someone else to call names?

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

As far as the original discussion which I did not lose track of, Obama is to blame because he is the POTUS.

Sorry, but the position that Obama is to blame for everything simply because he is president is as absurd as your original post was on this, or any number of posts since then.  As one example, you wanted to blame Obama for not calling out the National Guard, and you seemingly  assign no blame to the border governors for failing to do the same thing (calling out the Guard), even though they also can do that.

You want to blame Obama for anything and everything, because he is president, despite the fact that you do not seem to give him credit for anything simply because he is president.  It is an absurd position, and one which seems to involve more than partisan animus, or personal, individual animus.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

However when the Dream Act failed he made a big speech and used an executive order to make it easier for children to stay that had been here.  While the order does not apply to the children flooding the borders currently it did lead to the current scenario because the coyotes used it to advertise their services.

FINALLY, a coherent and reasonable, fact-based criticism of Obama on the issue.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

I feel this makes my position clear.  However I am quite certain you will come back with some argument because that is what you do.

The problem at no time has been a lack of clarity of your position.  The problem has been, and remains, a lack of sense in your position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2014, 11:16:37 pm

By the way, three times you have mischaracterized my view of requiring government activity be conducted in English.  Each time you said that I do not believe defendants that do not speak English should be given translators when in court. 

Three times, I have told you that I DO believe that defendants that do not speak English should be given translators in court.

I will say it again.  Defendants that do not speak or understand English should be given translators in court.

We can save time in the future if you write it on your wrist so you can refer to it when necessary.  It isn't brain surgery.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2014, 11:20:51 pm

 
 If you were 2 miles north of the Rio Grande River and you were sighting in your rifle to stop invaders, what would be better, a head shot or a heart shot ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2014, 11:24:01 pm

A head shot would probably look worse before a jury, but either one should get you 20 years or so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 11:27:42 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 11:16:37 pm

By the way, three times you have mischaracterized my view of requiring government activity be conducted in English.  Each time you said that I do not believe defendants that do not speak English should be given translators when in court. 

Three times, I have told you that I DO believe that defendants that do not speak English should be given translators in court.

I will say it again.  Defendants that do not speak or understand English should be given translators in court.

We can save time in the future if you write it on your wrist so you can refer to it when necessary.  It isn't brain surgery.

But I did characterize your compassionately Christian position on political asylum accurately, didn't I.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 11:31:07 pm

Alrighty then!

Jes, get over yourself.   Did I ever suggest the border patrol was helping illegals cross the border?  Nope, yet you suggested I did.  Straw man much right back at you.

I personally do not feel walls and fences are useless.  I bet you don't either.  I do not think we need to build a concrete wall across the entire border.  We need to put up barriers at the point where they are crossing.  As they adjust so should we.

I have always said we need to go after employers of illegals hard and that was the easiest way to take care of the problem. 

The president takes the blame for what happens under his watch right or wrong.  Don't blame me that is just the way it is.  Since Obama did actually help cause this problem then I don't think I am out of line for blaming him.  His inaction continues to fuel the fire.  He is to blame because he has not fixed the problem and it is his job to fix it.  The "give me billions or I will do nothing" is another example.  The guy is bleeding us dry.

As far as your solutions I don't disagree with any of them just as I don't disagree with dave.  We are pretty much in agreement except you think walls and fences are useless unless you don't.  **** if I know what you think, you are to busy playing lawyer and trying to win an argument to have an honest discussion with.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2014, 11:35:30 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 11:24:01 pm

A head shot would probably look worse before a jury, but either one should get you 20 years or so.

  Would it go before a civilian or military court depending on what state the U.S. is in ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 12:11:37 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 11:31:07 pm

Did I ever suggest the border patrol was helping illegals cross the border?  Nope, yet you suggested I did.  Straw man much right back at you.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 08:47:42 pm

I do however concede that anyone who wants to get into any country bad enough will find a way to do it.  It does not mean however we should make it easy for them.

Pekin, *I* never suggested that you said anything about the border patrol helping illegals cross the border.

What you DID do, however, was make the comment immediately above, that your concession on those for those posing the greatest risk not being deterred by a wall, "does not mean however we should make it easy for them."  That comment, made to me in a direct response to my position and setting out why you differed with my position did amount to you suggesting *I* said we should make it easy for them.  I never did so.  Nothing in what I wrote suggested you contended that the Border Patrol was making it easy for them.

Is the problem here that you simply have difficulty following a discussion, even when you are in the middle of it?

Your response to a position I had not made was erecting a straw man to knock down.  I did not respond to any position you did not make.  Your, "Straw man much right back at you," comment simply makes no sense.

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2014, 11:31:07 pm

**** if I know what you think, you are to busy playing lawyer and trying to win an argument to have an honest discussion with.

Or perhaps THAT is the problem, you want to view everything as an argument, with a winner or a loser, or, alternatively, simply as a bullshit session discussion where you essentially are looking for an Amen choir.

My comments have dealt very little with any effort to persuade you as to what should or shouldn't be done, or to try to assign blame.  My posts have instead focused on trying to point out fallacies in your reasoning and your comments.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble with that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 20, 2014, 12:26:08 am

Pekin, your "if" is an absurdity.  You sound as if the Boarder Patrol is helping them cross, of as if there were a single point of entry which could be blocked in 15 minutes by putting up a gate.


You have from the beginning made straw man arguments you could shoot down.  When I sit back and look at things we all pretty much agree.  You just like to argue and win.  If it means that much to you take the win.  I really do not care.  I care more about fixing the problem.  Which starts and ends in Washington.  Obama is the guy taking the blame right now.  It will be someone else in a few years. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 12:38:33 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 20, 2014, 12:26:08 am

I care more about fixing the problem.

No. Your posts make pretty clear that you care almost entirely about blaming Obama, and little else, whether the blame is reasonable or absurd, whether on this issue or any other.

I believe this will now be the third time that I have pointed out that while you have blamed Obama for not calling out the National Guard, that is a decision which each governor in the affected border state could also make.  But I don't recall your criticism of any of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 20, 2014, 01:03:25 am

I think Obama has plenty of blame to take for the mess we are all in.  I don't need to make anything up.

As I said before it comes down to money.  Who is paying for the national guard to be their?

If I were a governor of a border state I would spend the money.  If I was president I would.  I am not making excuses for any of the politicians in this mess.  They are all scum.  Some just more then others. 

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 07:14:58 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 20, 2014, 01:03:25 am

I think Obama has plenty of blame to take for the mess we are all in.  I don't need to make anything up.

You are correct that you don't need to make anything up.

So stop doing so.

Stop overstating your case.

The case against Obama as a poor president is incredibly strong.  Stop trying to oversell it.  Stop blaming him for things for which he genuinely does not deserve blame.  Stop criticizing him for things which either make no logical sense or which seem incredibly partisan because you ignored them when done by other presidents (or if you did not ignore them, you at least did not complain about then to anything close to the level you are with Obama).

And stop screaming that he is the worst ever, or that he actually has some grand plan to ruin the United States.

ALL of those things lessen your credibility on the issue and make it much, much easier for people to simply dismiss your comments as the rantings of a lunatic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2014, 10:09:15 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 19, 2014, 11:27:42 pm

But I did characterize your compassionately Christian position on political asylum accurately, didn't I.

I didn't notice you mention my Christian position on political asylum.  Your posts are often so long that I seldom read them all the way through.  But since you mention it in this post, I will respond to what you say in this post.

There IS no "Christian Position" on political asylum.

There are ethical positions on political asylum.

There are moral positions on political asylum.

There are political positions on political asylum.

But there is no Christian Position on political asylum.

God made it quite clear that he is more interested in our spiritual activities than our earthly activities.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2014, 10:29:56 am

I went back to check on your post on Christian Asylum.  I assume it is this one.

If a modern day Hitler were running Mexico, and sending millions off to death camps.... no political asylum.  If one of those sent to a death camp escaped and made it to the U.S. before being stuck in an oven, it is reassuring to know that you would not only support rounding him up to deliver him for the oven, you would make it a felony for anyone in this country who tried to help him stay here to survive.

Nothing like good Christian compassion.

If one person in the above circumstances came across the border, I would allow him to stay.

If one hundred persons in the above circumstances came across the border, I would probably allow them to stay.

If one million persons in the above circumstances came across the border, I would refuse them entry.

At some point, I would review the circumstances and decide whether it were best to send US troops in to try to eliminate the cause of the problem.  There would probably be dozens, if not hundreds of factors that would influence my decision (all of this under the assumption, of course, that it WAS my decision to make.

Whatever my decision, it would be a Political Decision.  It would be a Moral Decision.  It would be an Ethical Decision.  But it would not be a Christian Decision.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 11:51:54 am

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2014, 10:29:56 am

I went back to check on your post on Christian Asylum.  I assume it is this one.

If a modern day Hitler were running Mexico, and sending millions off to death camps.... no political asylum.  If one of those sent to a death camp escaped and made it to the U.S. before being stuck in an oven, it is reassuring to know that you would not only support rounding him up to deliver him for the oven, you would make it a felony for anyone in this country who tried to help him stay here to survive.

Nothing like good Christian compassion.

If one person in the above circumstances came across the border, I would allow him to stay.

If one hundred persons in the above circumstances came across the border, I would probably allow them to stay.

If one million persons in the above circumstances came across the border, I would refuse them entry.

At some point, I would review the circumstances and decide whether it were best to send US troops in to try to eliminate the cause of the problem.  There would probably be dozens, if not hundreds of factors that would influence my decision (all of this under the assumption, of course, that it WAS my decision to make.

Whatever my decision, it would be a Political Decision.  It would be a Moral Decision.  It would be an Ethical Decision.  But it would not be a Christian Decision.

Sorry about the five lines of my original post being, "so long that (you could not) read... all the way through."

But you do appear now to have grasped and answer the question.  It is not whether your position is or is not compassionate or is or is not "Christian," and it certainly did not ask you to characterize what a "compassionate Christian position" would be.

Of course your answer is a 180 degree departure from your earlier post in which you wrote:

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2014, 09:54:02 pm

Make knowingly aiding and abetting an illegal alien a felony and prosecute those that do. 

Do not offer or grant political asylum to illegal aliens.

Are you able to reconcile the difference in your positions, or is consistency or logical coherence something which does not concern you?


I didn't actually say there was.  I was referring to YOUR compassionate Christian position.

I understand you to profess to be a Christian.  I sarcastically referred to your position as compassionate.

The real question was whether I accurately characterized your position when I wrote as follows (and this is the entire post -- I apologize if five line are too long for you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2014, 02:35:44 pm

Sure.  In one case I was recommending a change in the law. 

In the other case, I was saying what I would do if I were the decision maker, in the absence of a law to the contrary.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 20, 2014, 04:00:55 pm

I think a barrier, wall, fence of some sort would slow down a lot of illegals. Many times you have to stop the bleeding before you can solve a problem.

We are sending a lot of manufacturing jobs to China, could we not do the same in Mexico? Have them build our little widgets/trinkets for cheap, that would curb the flow of illegals here.

It should be much cheaper to ship stuff here from Mexico than from China.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 04:52:43 pm

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2014, 02:35:44 pm

Sure.  In one case I was recommending a change in the law. 

In the other case, I was saying what I would do if I were the decision maker, in the absence of a law to the contrary.

So you are recommending a change in the law to something you would not follow, or to something you do not believe should be the law?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 05:00:01 pm

Quote from: navigator on July 20, 2014, 04:00:55 pm

We are sending a lot of manufacturing jobs to China, could we not do the same in Mexico? Have them build our little widgets/trinkets for cheap, that would curb the flow of illegals here.

It should be much cheaper to ship stuff here from Mexico than from China.

It might be possible for the federal government to make the decision you suggest if we had a true command economy where the federal government truly controlled such things and got to tell businesses what they would produce and where they would produce it, but fortunately we do not yet have that.

We still have several features of a free market economy left, and efforts by the federal government to even influence such decisions invariably result in far more negative unintended consequences than they ever produce the intended result.

But beyond that, the current immigration flood is not coming from Mexico, but from Central America, the group of nations just south of Mexico, and Mexico treats those folks far more harshly if they try to stay in Mexico than we do when they get here, so even if the United States COULD do as you suggest, it would do absolutely nothing to deal with the current problem... and that assumes that such a policy change could be put in effect tomorrow, with new production plants in Mexico opening this week, instead of several years from now, which is how long it would take for something like that to result in any changes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 20, 2014, 05:06:49 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 04:52:43 pm

So you are recommending a change in the law to something you would not follow, or to something you do not believe should be the law?

 Dave made two different points.
 
 Neither of which has to do with each other.
 
 You cannot tie the two together.
 
 Jes Beard,
 
 Nice wordology, it would confuse anybody. Isnt that the goal ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 05:24:56 pm

We have discussed the backlog of cases for deportation hearings --
BEFORE the current flood, according to reports from the Department of Justice, it was taking up to THREE YEARS for a hearing (remember how long it took for Obama's aunt to have her deportation hearing?); there are currently a total of 243 administrative law judges handling deportation cases, and more than 375,000 such cases.

While it would likely take a year to get the number meaningfully increased if Congress tomorrow sent to the President the legislation he has asked for, without a single change, the fact that what he is asking for are court appointed attorneys to represent the folks facing deportation, and the time required to find folks to take the appointments and get them approved, would do nothing whatsoever to even slow the current flow for more than a year.

On the other hand, Obama this evening could have the assignment of administrative law judges shuffled so they were virtually all sent down to the border right now, hearing cases around the clock, having them set immediately on someone crossing the border, and then loading them up and sending them back before they had time to **** in a toilet on U.S. soil.  The other deportation cases could be put on hold for the time being.

Have folks sent back very quickly, and the U.S. could put an end to the current flood.

Building a fence would not do it.

Obama's proposal would not do it.

Having Obama say publicly that people in Central America have the wrong impression about what will happen once they get here will not, and has not done it.

Threatening to put them in prison, will not do it.

Calling out the National Guard would not do it.

And requiring employers to verify legal status would not do it.

Each of those things may (or may not) be desirable or helpful in dealing with long term problems.

None of those would do anything at all to stem the current flow.

That does not mean there is nothing which can be done.  I just explained what could be done, done very quickly, rather inexpensively, and start changing things within a week.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 05:51:56 pm

Lost in the headlines over the border problems, the passenger plane shot down in the Ukraine, and looming war in Israel --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYrQmuOa5qQ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 20, 2014, 05:56:30 pm

 
 If you have a really good attorney ...
 _______________________________________________________
 
 A Brooklyn jury has awarded more than $500,000 to a man who sued the city for a broken ankle he suffered during an arrest for shoplifting.
 
 The jury awarded Kevin Jarman $510,000 on Wednesday for the injury.
 
 The 50-year-old Jarman had filed the suit after pleading guilty to shoplifting at a Queens Pathmark in 2011.
 
 The New York Post  reports that Jarman has received other payouts from the city.
 
 In 2005, he sued the NYPD for false arrest after a drug sale charge was dropped. The city settled for $15,000.
 
 Last month, the city settled for $20,000 after Jarman sued police for false arrest in another drug case.
 
 The city's Law Department says it intends to challenge Wednesday's verdict.
 _________________________________________________________
 
 Jes Ive fallen and cant get up ! Help me sue!
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2014, 10:56:50 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 20, 2014, 04:52:43 pm

So you are recommending a change in the law to something you would not follow, or to something you do not believe should be the law?

Nope.  I am recommending a law that does not allow discretion because I do not trust politicians with discretion in this situation.  Such discretion has made political refugees out of lesbians, and would result in every person with a sob story being given asylum.

I do, however, trust my own discretion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 20, 2014, 11:47:19 pm

Jes gets so caught up in phraseology and parlance and part and participle and just common snidery that it is so incredibly annoying to deal with the guy in any fashion. I find myself ignoring the guys reply more and more.....just extremely unpleasant individual to deal with....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 03:02:54 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 20, 2014, 11:47:19 pm

I find myself ignoring the guys reply more and more.

Good.  Now, if I can just get it to 100 percent....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 03:17:01 am

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2014, 10:56:50 pm

Nope.  I am recommending a law that does not allow discretion because I do not trust politicians with discretion in this situation.  Such discretion has made political refugees out of lesbians, and would result in every person with a sob story being given asylum.

I do, however, trust my own discretion.

Lesbians in some parts of the world face incarceration, **** and being stoned to death.

You and I differ wildly on what should be done on this front because I favor free markets in migration as well as anything else, but at least there is a rich national history in the United States of taking precisely the approach you urge regarding political asylum.  So I will concede you have that going for you.

Voyage of the Damned

By MARILYN HENRY

As the St. Louis steamed toward Havana from Hamburg, Germany, with nearly 1,000 Jews fleeing the Nazis aboard, Recha Weiler desperately nursed her dying husband, Moritz. While other passengers enjoyed the elegance of the civilized cruise after the repressions and humiliations of Germany, Weiler spent most of the voyage in her cabin with Moritz. But her efforts failed. The university professor died aboard the ship and was buried at sea.

An estimated half of the passengers were to die later, after both the US and Cuba rejected their pleas for refuge and the cruel 40-day journey sent them back to Europe to face the Nazis. Some 59 years after the St. Louis's desperate passage back and forth across the Atlantic, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and its Survivors' Registry are trying to trace the fates of its passengers, including Recha Weiler, the 61-year-old widow originally from Cologne.

The St. Louis left Germany on May 13, 1939. Its passengers, most of them from Germany, had expensive documents - some bogus - for entry into Cuba. When the ship arrived, however, Havana - and the US - refused to admit them. The St. Louis sat in the harbor for days. Desperate relatives packed motorboats and approached the anchored liner, shouting messages to loved ones. All awaited the outcome of frantic international negotiations to allow the refugees to disembark.

Ultimately, only 29 passengers were permitted to land in Havana. Then the ship was ordered to leave - maneuvering slowly and tantalizingly near the coast of Florida before turning back to Europe. On June 17, 1939, the St. Louis docked at Antwerp: 214 passengers remained in Belgium, 224 went to France and 181 to the Netherlands. Another 288 passengers went ashore in Britain on June 21.

But, the end of that journey was, for its passengers, the beginning of the Holocaust. "The fate of the 963 is a microcosm of the Holocaust," said Scott Miller, a researcher at the American museum who is organizing the St. Louis project.

Belgium, France and the Netherlands proved to be only temporary havens, as they were quickly overrun by the Nazis. A large number of the passengers who sought sanctuary there were deported and perished in the camps. Some went into hiding. Others apparently fled Europe, most likely before 1941.

Miller estimates that as many as 450 of the St. Louis passengers survived - most of them emigrating to the United States. However, Miller knows of at least eight who subsequently went to England. Another eight migrated to Israel, two went to Germany, four to Canada, three to Australia, two to France, one to the Netherlands, one to Argentina, and four to Chile.

Miller's estimates do not necessarily reflect the whereabouts of St. Louis passengers today; many have died, while others may have moved on. One passenger, for example, hid in Belgium during the war, emigrated to the US, and then quickly resettled in Palestine. It seems extraordinary that, after being turned away once, the overwhelming majority of the St. Louis survivors still came to the US after the war. Many must have felt the same sense of betrayal that haunted passenger Wilhelm Sydower.

Sydower had boarded the ocean liner intent on finding refuge for his family - a wife and daughter he left behind - and had planned to bring them over when a sanctuary was secured. Instead, he was returned to Europe and he and his loved ones hid out the war in Belgium, says his daughter, Renee Schifter of Tel Aviv. After the war, the family returned to Germany. Sydower died within five years, but not before telling his daughter of the journey.

"He told me about the problems they faced to get to a safe shore and how the United States of America, the great nation of immigration, was unable to take in 1,000 people who were in danger of being murdered," Schifter said. "He told me that the Americans were not much better than the Germans. They did not kill people with their own hands - however, they did not help them in time."

Schifter, who now works on behalf of survivors, refused to emigrate to the US. "Instead I went to Israel, because I never wanted to stay in Germany," she said. Miller suggests that others did go to the US after the Holocaust because it may have been easier than entering Palestine in 1946-47. Those who migrated to Israel went at different times, from different places and under different circumstances, he said. "It was not the original intent of any of them to go to Palestine," said Miller, who did graduate work at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Before Miller's project, little was known about the fates of the St. Louis passengers, in part because the voyage was only the beginning of their Holocaust experiences. Much of what is known about the survivors is where they were at the war's end, not at its start.

Today, many passengers of that tragic voyage hold the American policy of 60 years ago responsible for the death of their family members. Michael Barak of Ramat Hasharon is one of them. Barak was two days shy of his fourth birthday when he boarded the St. Louis with his parents. At the end of the journey, his family disembarked in the Netherlands. In 1943 they were deported to Theresienstadt. Michael's father, Manfred Fink, later died en route to Auschwitz.

Barak came to Israel in 1946 as part of the youth aliya program. His mother, Herta Fink, followed in 1948. To document the fate of each of the St. Louis passengers, Miller has scoured archives in Israel, the US and Europe. At this stage, he says, the project is nearly complete. Among the Israeli institutions consulted were the Jewish Agency's Missing Persons Bureau, known for its postwar efforts to locate family members of those who came to Palestine; Yad Vashem; and the Jerusalem branch of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, which did extensive relief and resettlement work after the war.

Only 70 passengers remain unaccounted for, says Miller, who has appealed to the public for information. It is assumed that the 70 survived, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Their names do not appear in memorial books or on shipping manifests, or on lists for deportations, concentration camps or displaced persons camps. Miller says that the project is central to the mission of the Holocaust Museum and the Survivors Registry, partly because it will assemble information about the US role in the Holocaust. Miller hopes to trace the remaining passengers by next May, the 60th anniversary of the St. Louis' tragic journey, which became known as "the voyage of the damned."

It is believed that a commemoration of the St. Louis voyage could open an international discussion on the American and European refugee policy during the World War II. An independent Swiss panel of international historians, known as the Bergier Commission, is expected to release a report at year's end about Switzerland's wartime refugee policy. Switzerland admitted about 28,000 Jewish refugees, but has drawn international condemnation for turning away another 30,000.

The United States, which also turned away refugees, has yet to be strongly criticized. Its policy on Jewish refugees during the war seems to have been swept under the rug. Only 29 percent of all Americans know that the US did not admit all European Jews who sought refuge before or during the war, according to a survey of the American public conducted for the museum and released last spring, The survey found that 34 percent were unaware of the American refugee policy, while 37 percent thought the US admitted or probably admitted the Jewish refugees.

However, acknowledgement of the US's not so admirable role during the Holocaust came recently from US Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat. In two separate reports on the financial ties between the Nazis and neutral states during World War II, Eizenstat talks about the cold response given the St Louis. In the June report, Eizenstat admitted that "America's response to the early stages of the slaughter of European Jews was largely one of indifference." Eizenstat noted that the United States accepted only 21,000 refugees from Europe and did not significantly raise or even fill its restrictive quotas, accepting far fewer Jews per capita than many of the neutral European countries and fewer in absolute terms than Switzerland.

"No country, including the United States, did as much as it might have or should have done to save innocent victims of Nazi persecution - Jews, Gypsies, political opponents and others," Eizenstat said in an earlier report in May 1997. "Restrictive US immigration policies kept hundreds of thousands of refugees from finding safety in the United States, most tragically exemplified by our refusal to allow the St. Louis to dock with its cargo of refugees - many of whom perished when the ship was forced to return to Europe."

©Jerusalem Post - July 1998
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/voyageofthedamned.htm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 21, 2014, 12:51:56 pm

Why is turning back the USS America any different than turning back Central American children fleeing violence in their countries now?

Wingnuts don't know and don't care to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 21, 2014, 01:21:42 pm

What would Ronald Reagan do?

In 1983 a Russian fighter pilot shot down Korean Airlines flight 007...for all the t-billies here..


What did Ronnie do?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 03:20:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 21, 2014, 12:51:56 pm

Why is turning back the USS America any different than turning back Central American children fleeing violence in their countries now?

Wingnuts don't know and don't care to.

Does anyone have any idea what otto is talking about with his reference to the USS America?

I would ask him, but it appears he doesn't really speak English so his explanation would likely be pointless.

And it is clear he does not actually think if he believes the claims that the children from Central America are fleeing violence.  The violence in Central America is actually at slightly lower levels now than the last several years, and definitely lower than at other times in the past, but the number of them coming here has increased by a factor of about a thousand.  That increase is not as a result of violence, but a result of foolish policy statements and decisions from the White House attracting them here like a magnet.  If they were actually fleeing violence, their parents would have an even better chance of making out the claims needed for asylum and the parents would come with them.  The parents have not come with them because it is not about violence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 21, 2014, 03:38:26 pm

Hard to decipher these Commies sometimes

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 21, 2014, 03:39:19 pm

Wonder if he remembers this?

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071114-708428-eric-holder-deported-alien-minor-elian-gonzalez.htm?ven=rss

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 21, 2014, 04:47:23 pm

What is there to remember?  Gonzalez's mother had died, and his father in Cuba wanted him returned.  The father had every right to demand this, and every right to have his son returned.  Eilia Gonzalez was not "sent" by his parents.

Regardless of what we think of Cuba and of Communism, we don't have the right to keep a child against his parent's will.  With Gonzalez, there wasn't even the pretense that his life was in danger back home.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 21, 2014, 04:47:34 pm

Texas Gov. Perry to Deploy 1,000 National Guard Troops to Border

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Texas-Rick-Perry-National-Guard-border-crisis/2014/07/21/id/583961/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1578261_07212014&s=al&dkt_nbr=erpy4njq

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 21, 2014, 04:48:49 pm

Its about time somebody with guts did something. Better than President Nero has done.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 06:06:40 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 21, 2014, 03:38:26 pm

Hard to decipher these Commies sometimes

Actually, I used to carry Mao's Little Red Book around with me.  I have no trouble understanding communists or communism.  It is otto's incoherent stupidity that baffles me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 06:09:31 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 21, 2014, 04:47:34 pm

Texas Gov. Perry to Deploy 1,000 National Guard Troops to Border

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Texas-Rick-Perry-National-Guard-border-crisis/2014/07/21/id/583961/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1578261_07212014&s=al&dkt_nbr=erpy4njq

Perry may be doing a great deal to burnish his credentials for the Republican nomination.  And hopefully it will be long enough since his back surgery that he no longer virtually forgets his name during debates.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 21, 2014, 07:59:18 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 06:06:40 pm

Actually, I used to carry Mao's Little Red Book around with me.  I have no trouble understanding communists or communism.  It is otto's incoherent stupidity that baffles me.

 "Power comes thru the end of a broken condom."
 
 Look it up in Maos book Jes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 21, 2014, 08:28:01 pm

http://nationalreport.net/msnbc-anchor-resigns-admits-spreading-lies-behalf-obama/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 21, 2014, 08:42:06 pm

Quote from: packrat on July 21, 2014, 08:28:01 pm

http://nationalreport.net/msnbc-anchor-resigns-admits-spreading-lies-behalf-obama/ (http://nationalreport.net/msnbc-anchor-resigns-admits-spreading-lies-behalf-obama/)

 Good goof Packy ! We need more humor as "the dead time" is about to end.
 
 Here comes training camp !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 08:59:17 pm

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10464020_829973537013339_9152371269186597645_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 09:03:41 pm

Quote from: packrat on July 21, 2014, 08:28:01 pm

http://nationalreport.net/msnbc-anchor-resigns-admits-spreading-lies-behalf-obama/

packrat, are you aware that is a spoof?  It is a made up story.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 21, 2014, 10:03:10 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 21, 2014, 09:03:41 pm

packrat, are you aware that is a spoof?  It is a made up story.

 Ol' Jes is damn quick on the trigger.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 21, 2014, 10:15:03 pm

 
 
       SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Netflix's second-quarter earnings more than doubled as new episodes from a hit series helped the Internet video service surpass 50 million worldwide subscribers for the first time.
 
 The gains announced Monday include an additional 570,000 U.S. subscribers, slightly more than Netflix's management predicted.
 The quarter is typically the company's slowest of the year, as people spend more time outdoors instead of watching video.
 
 Investors applauded the second-quarter results, pushing Netflix's stock up $4.05 to $456 in extended trading.
 The shares have surged by 23 percent this year, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index has increased 7 percent.
 
 The second quarter featured one of Netflix's marquee attractions, "Orange Is The New Black," which returned for its second season in early June.
 As with Netflix's other original series, all 13 episodes of "Orange Is The New Black," were released simultaneously so subscribers could watch the story unfold at their leisure.
 
 "Consumers are enjoying more than ever being in control of their own schedules, able to click and watch whenever they want," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said in a Monday interview.
 
 Without breaking down the specific viewership numbers, Hastings said "Orange Is The New Black" became Netflix's most-watched series during the first month after the June 6 release of the second season.
   
 "Orange Is the New Black," set in a women's prison, received 12 of the 31 Emmy Award nominations bestowed upon Netflix programming for this year's awards. Netflix's Emmy nominations eclipsed the 24 garnered by longtime pay-TV channel Showtime, which collected 24, but lagged far behind HBO's pace-setting 99 nominations.
 
 Netflix Inc. ended June with 36.2 million subscribers in the U.S. and another 13.8 million customers in roughly 40 other countries.
 
 The Los Gatos, California, company picked up 1.1 million subscribers outside the U.S. in the second quarter, a figure that also topped management's projections.
 
 The company said it expects to add another 3.7 million subscribers worldwide in the current quarter ending in September, including 1.3 million U.S. customers.
 
 It also plans to start selling its Internet video service in six more European countries in September, including Germany and France.
 
 Netflix's long-term goal is to reach as many as 90 million U.S. subscribers and more than 100 million internationally.
 
 The second-quarter performance will likely alleviate any concerns that a price increase imposed in early May would undercut Netflix's growth.
 
 Netflix raised its rates by $1 to $9 per month for Internet video streaming in the U.S., but the company eased the blow by allowing existing subscribers to continue paying the old price for at least two years.
 
 As Netflix's video-streaming service steadily grows, the DVD-by-mail rental business that once was the company's foundation is slowly crumbling.
 
 The DVD rental service shed another 391,000 subscribers in the second quarter to end June with fewer than 6.3 million customers.
 
 That's a decline of 55 percent in less than three years.
 
 Netflix earned $71 million, or $1.15 per share, during the April-June period. That compared to income of $29.5 million, or 49 cents per share, at the same time last year.
 
 This year's earnings per share were a penny above the average estimate among analysts surveyed by FactSet.
 
 Revenue climbed 25 percent from last year to $1.3 billion, matching analyst projections.
 
 Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 22, 2014, 05:19:51 pm

Have tried Netflix a couple times. They just don't have what I want soon enough.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 22, 2014, 07:08:11 pm

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/21/video-obama-signs-new-executive-order-restricting-religious-freedom/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 22, 2014, 07:33:00 pm

That should IMMEDIATELY be sent to the Supreme Court for reversal. There is such a thing as religious freedom in this land and that includes not being forced to do something that violates ones faith!! Each day I am more and more disgusted with this "President"......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 22, 2014, 07:39:43 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 22, 2014, 05:19:51 pm

Have tried Netflix a couple times. They just don't have what I want soon enough.

 Sporty whats amazing is these guys started off in DVD rentals and saw the increased bandwidth on the internet and knew they could clean up on that action in live streaming.
 
 Talk about a 180 degree switch of a company in a matter of a few years.
 
 Netflix when it first got going was offered to Blockbuster for $50 Mil.
 
 Blockbuster turned down the deal. BAD IDEA !
 
 Sometimes its just there in front of your face and you just dont **** see it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 22, 2014, 07:53:11 pm

Thomas from Milwaukee, WI

Do you think Colin Kaepernick or Cam Newton can become the best quarterback in the NFL with the gifts they have? Or do you think they lack that rare acumen for the position that you have mentioned that Rodgers and Brady have?

Kaepernick and Newton have that rare talent for the position known as extreme athletic ability. In other words, they can run. The problem with those types of quarterbacks is they tend to have a shorter shelf life than the pocket guys. Legs don’t get better as we get older. If Kaepernick and Newton are going to get it done with their legs, it better happen soon. In my opinion, the degree to which they can more fully develop their skills as pocket passers will more likely define the length and success of their careers. Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady represent unfairly high standards. What you must remember is the Packers and Patriots may never be quarterbacked again by men of their talent. You may be watching the best quarterback you’ll ever see. I covered last Saturday’s Packers Hall of Fame banquet, at which Jordy Nelson was honored as the Packers’ 2013 MVP. A highlight video featuring Nelson’s many memorable catches was shown, and what struck me is that every one of those passes was put in the only place the ball was catchable only by Nelson. Rodgers is the last great quarterback I’ll cover. What a way to go out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 22, 2014, 07:59:07 pm

Brad from Minnetonka, MN

I appreciated your comments on broadcasters in general and about Howard Cosell in particular. One of my real pet peeves is announcers’ overuse of the words “almost intercepted.” Troy Aikman is probably the worst of the offenders. When an incomplete pass goes whizzing past the head of a receiver or off the fingertips of a diving receiver, is the appropriate commentary “almost caught”? I have not heard that. Am I missing something? “Almost intercepted” is a naive effort to build excitement that simply is not there. What do you think?

I think training camp is almost here. I think we’re almost nuts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 22, 2014, 08:07:13 pm

Quote from: packrat on July 22, 2014, 07:08:11 pm

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/21/video-obama-signs-new-executive-order-restricting-religious-freedom/

How does that executive order restrict anyone's religious freedom?  How does it stop you from believing whatever you want to believe?

And how is it that the executive order was "relatively unreported" when I heard it on the major network news this morning?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 22, 2014, 09:05:25 pm

 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zknq-p5x6c4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zknq-p5x6c4)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2014, 09:32:48 pm

What would Reagan do....


http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/xne6vj/cover-up-in-the-air---what-would-reagan-do- (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/xne6vj/cover-up-in-the-air---what-would-reagan-do-)


Poor little pathetic repugs...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2014, 09:40:58 pm

Why is turning back the USS St Louis any different than turning back Central American children fleeing violence in their countries now?

Wingnuts don't know and don't care to.


Fixed it for you ex-southern bumpkin lawyer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 22, 2014, 10:00:22 pm

Oddo what has the price of tea in China have to do with the USS St Louis?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 22, 2014, 10:02:54 pm

As I pointed out, otto, there is no real reason to believe the claims that those coming from Central America are fleeing violence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 22, 2014, 10:10:46 pm

House investigators:
IRS tech experts say Lerner’s hard drive only 'scratched,' not destroyed
Published July 22, 2014

House investigators said Tuesday that the computer hard drive of ex-agency official Lois Lerner -- a key figure in the IRS targeting scandal -- was only “scratched,” not irreparably damaged, as Americans have been led to believe.

GOP-led Ways and Means Committee investigators, in their quest to recover missing Lerner emails, learned her hard drive was damaged but recoverable by talking to IRS information-technology experts, after the government originally refused to make them available, according to the committee.

“It is unbelievable that we cannot get a simple, straight answer from the IRS about this hard drive,” said committee Chairman Dave Camp.

The Michigan Republican said the new information also raises more questions about potential criminal wrongdoing at the IRS because the committee was told no data was recoverable and the physical hard drive was recycled and potentially shredded.

In addition, learning that the hard drive was only scratched also raises questions about why the IRS refused to use outside experts to recover the data.

“In fact, in-house professionals at the IRS recommended the agency seek outside assistance in recovering the data,” the committee said Tuesday in a release.

House investigators said they also are trying to determine whether the scratch was accidental or deliberate.

“If the IRS would just come clean and tell Congress and the American people what really happened, we could put an end to this,” Camp said. “Our investigators will not stop until we find the full truth.”

Lerner was the IRS’s exempt organizations director during the period of 2009 to mid-2011 -- when applications for tax-exempt status from Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations were held up for extra scrutiny.

The committee also said the information gleamed from the new interviews conflicts with a July 18 IRS court filing that states the data on the hard drive was unrecoverable -- including years of missing emails.

On June 13, more than one year into the investigation, and one month after the committee was promised it would receive all of Lerner’s emails, Congress learned that potentially thousands of them, over roughly two years, were destroyed as a result of a 2011 computer crash.

The recent interviews are bolstered by former federal law-enforcement and Defense Department forensic experts also telling investigators that most of the data on a scratched drive should be recoverable, the committee said.

A declaration filed Friday by the IRS stated the agency tried but failed to recover the data. The agency also said it is not sure what happened to the hard drive, other than saying they think it was recycled, which according to the court filing means “shredded.”

The committee also said a review of internal IRS documents found Lerner’s computer was actually described as “recovered.”

The targeting to the groups applying to the IRS was made public in May 2013 by Lerner. She has since refused to testify before Congress, invoking the Fifth Amendment, and resigned in September 2013.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/house-investigators-irs-tech-experts-say-lerners-hard-drive-only-scratched-not/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2014, 10:13:31 pm

Yea, other than the level of violence on their countries and the desperation of their parents for a better life for them.

Of course the Holocaust wasn't reason to except a change in immigration policy either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2014, 10:17:20 pm

Tired, dreary and stupid.

Anybody find those 22 MILLION lost emails from the bush regime in regard to the AG firings?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2014, 10:20:41 pm

Maybe southern bumpkin ex-lawyer you can hire some undercover Meechigan college kids find them....


http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140716/POLITICS02/307160078/Video-Republicans-caught-using-spy-glasses-Schauer-campaign-fundraiser (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140716/POLITICS02/307160078/Video-Republicans-caught-using-spy-glasses-Schauer-campaign-fundraiser)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2014, 11:29:15 pm

Oddo the Homo comes out of hiding to copy and paste.

The Backwards State, Hick town idea of intellectual excellence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 23, 2014, 04:51:33 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 22, 2014, 10:10:46 pm

House investigators:
IRS tech experts say Lerner’s hard drive only 'scratched,' not destroyed
Published July 22, 2014

House investigators said Tuesday that the computer hard drive of ex-agency official Lois Lerner -- a key figure in the IRS targeting scandal -- was only “scratched,” not irreparably damaged, as Americans have been led to believe.

GOP-led Ways and Means Committee investigators, in their quest to recover missing Lerner emails, learned her hard drive was damaged but recoverable by talking to IRS information-technology experts, after the government originally refused to make them available, according to the committee.

“It is unbelievable that we cannot get a simple, straight answer from the IRS about this hard drive,” said committee Chairman Dave Camp.

The Michigan Republican said the new information also raises more questions about potential criminal wrongdoing at the IRS because the committee was told no data was recoverable and the physical hard drive was recycled and potentially shredded.

In addition, learning that the hard drive was only scratched also raises questions about why the IRS refused to use outside experts to recover the data.

“In fact, in-house professionals at the IRS recommended the agency seek outside assistance in recovering the data,” the committee said Tuesday in a release.

House investigators said they also are trying to determine whether the scratch was accidental or deliberate.

“If the IRS would just come clean and tell Congress and the American people what really happened, we could put an end to this,” Camp said. “Our investigators will not stop until we find the full truth.”

Lerner was the IRS’s exempt organizations director during the period of 2009 to mid-2011 -- when applications for tax-exempt status from Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations were held up for extra scrutiny.

The committee also said the information gleamed from the new interviews conflicts with a July 18 IRS court filing that states the data on the hard drive was unrecoverable -- including years of missing emails.

On June 13, more than one year into the investigation, and one month after the committee was promised it would receive all of Lerner’s emails, Congress learned that potentially thousands of them, over roughly two years, were destroyed as a result of a 2011 computer crash.

The recent interviews are bolstered by former federal law-enforcement and Defense Department forensic experts also telling investigators that most of the data on a scratched drive should be recoverable, the committee said.

A declaration filed Friday by the IRS stated the agency tried but failed to recover the data. The agency also said it is not sure what happened to the hard drive, other than saying they think it was recycled, which according to the court filing means “shredded.”

The committee also said a review of internal IRS documents found Lerner’s computer was actually described as “recovered.”

The targeting to the groups applying to the IRS was made public in May 2013 by Lerner. She has since refused to testify before Congress, invoking the Fifth Amendment, and resigned in September 2013.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/house-investigators-irs-tech-experts-say-lerners-hard-drive-only-scratched-not/

If ya aint hidin something why all the cloak and dagger stuff?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2014, 05:34:06 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 22, 2014, 10:17:20 pm

Tired, dreary and stupid.

Anybody find those 22 MILLION lost emails from the bush regime in regard to the AG firings?

Absolutely nothing which would have been illegal about replacing political appointees.

Rather different from deliberately creating tax problems for your political rivals, which is clearly illegal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2014, 05:36:21 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 22, 2014, 10:13:31 pm

Yea, other than the level of violence on their countries and the desperation of their parents for a better life for them.  Of course the Holocaust wasn't reason to except a change in immigration policy either.

otto, there is simply no reason to believe that there IS a higher level of violence in Central America right now, and there are considerable reasons to doubt the claims that the reason for the immigrant surge is a result of any increase.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2014, 04:35:52 pm

Disgusting.  At least three cops need to have their mail forwarded to a prison for a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92toXdu2KR0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 23, 2014, 04:51:47 pm

And more should at least be fired if internal affairs saw that tape and reported nothing wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2014, 06:35:32 pm

DAMN!  Who would have seen this coming?  http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140722-migrant-children-are-no-shows-at-dallas-immigration-hearings.ece

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 23, 2014, 07:36:08 pm

Kevin from La Crosse, WI

Mike Pereira recently said illegal contact and defensive holding calls will be emphasized this upcoming season. Do you think this is a positive for the Packers?

It’s more bad news for defenses; more good news for offenses. I think it favors the Packers because the Packers favor offense. The Packers are more likely to win a game 35-34 than they are to win a game 17-14.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 23, 2014, 07:55:39 pm

And the Packers Oline hold and get away with it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 23, 2014, 07:57:48 pm

If defensive end Datone Jones plays as well in his second season as nose tackle B.J. Raji played in his, the Packers will be really happy.

In 2009, Raji was hampered by an ankle sprain early in the season. Jones had a similar experience last year when he sprained an ankle in the first preseason game.

An ankle sprain for a defensive lineman hurts in a number of ways. Obviously it affects your leg strength and your quickness. It also makes it much tougher to get leverage over an offensive lineman.

Raji had a so-so rookie season in 2009, as he had 25 tackles and just one sack. However, with one year under his belt in the 3-4 defense utilized by Dom Capers, Raji had 39 tackles and 6.5 sacks in 2010. That was also the year the Packers ended up winning Super Bowl XLV.

The Packers hope the same thing occurs with Jones. No. 95 looked excellent and was causing havoc in the trenches in the OTAs, minicamp and early in training camp last summer. Then came the ankle sprain versus the Cardinals in the first preseason game.

The injury definitely hindered his play for a while. When it was all said and done, Jones had just 10 tackles and 3.5 sacks in 2013.

Much more was expected from Jones, to be sure.

Jones certainly caught my eye with his performance at the 2013 Senior Bowl. I was impressed so much by Jones that I had the Packers taking the former UCLA star in my final mock draft last year.

It wasn't just Jones' performance at the Senior Bowl, either. Jones had a great senior year with the Bruins, where he had 62 tackles, a whopping 19 tackles for a loss, 6.5 sacks, one forced fumble and two blocked kicks.

Add to that his great performance at the 2013 NFL Scouting Combine, where he ran the 40-yard dash in 4.8 seconds and put up 29 reps on the bench press.

The Packers were thrilled that they were able to draft Jones.

General manager Ted Thompson was quite pleased with the selection, as he talked about Jones via Packers.com:

We added another good athlete and a guy with a little bit more speed. When you can add a little speed to the defense, we feel it's a good idea."

"That speed can come in handy. He's explosive off the line of scrimmage. He's got the ability to close on the ball. He's a good-looking kid. He's an athletic guy.
”
The Packers want to see that same explosiveness from Jones in 2014. And Jones might just be able to show it to them, too.

The key is staying healthy. The Packers will also have a number of players who can assist Jones in rushing the passer. That list includes Julius Peppers, Clay Matthews, Mike Neal, Mike Daniels, Nick Perry and Carl Bradford. 

Peppers, Neal, Perry and perhaps Bradford will also be used as hybrid players—players who can play on the defensive line and at outside linebacker.

The depth at defensive end and at outside linebacker appears to be good, so the players should be able to stay fresh while being used on a rotational basis.

Not counting Bradford, the other five players I mentioned had a combined 30 sacks last season. There would have been more had Matthews and Perry not missed five games apiece.

So the Packers should be able to do what all successful defenses under Capers do, which is rush the passer with effectiveness.

With good health and some help from his teammates, Jones looks to have a very nice sophomore year in the NFL doing just that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 23, 2014, 10:13:02 pm

can anybody say Bovine excrement?

http://news.msn.com/us/senator-says-he-had-ptsd-when-he-wrote-thesis

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 24, 2014, 01:20:02 am

 
 What is it about a babes sharp fingernails scratching your balls ?
 
 Wasnt that the perfect plan in life ?
 
 And the rest was just a means to get there ?
 
 Isaac Newton said it best :
 
 "You give me a babe tickling my balls ... I'll give you Calculus."
 
 The result was the answer to land a man on the Moon.
 
 Which has not been done since Isaac Newton passed away in 1976.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 24, 2014, 10:57:41 am

PR, you're posting in the wrong forum

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 24, 2014, 11:27:03 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 24, 2014, 01:20:02 am

 What is it about a babes sharp fingernails scratching your balls ?
 
 Wasnt that the perfect plan in life ?
 
 And the rest was just a means to get there ?
 
 Isaac Newton said it best :
 
 "You give me a babe tickling my balls ... I'll give you Calculus."
 
 The result was the answer to land a man on the Moon.
 
 Which has not been done since Isaac Newton passed away in 1976.

Once again, Jackie is ranting foolishness.  Isaac Newton did not pass away.  I saw him and Elvis having lunch in the food court in our mall last week.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 12:34:32 pm

Useless ex-lawyer

Quote

there is simply no reason to believe that there IS a higher level of violence in Central America right now, and there are considerable reasons to doubt the claims that the reason for the immigrant surge is a result of any increase

Please contact the original straw man for his/her post to which you responded to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 12:36:35 pm

Jobless claims improve to eight-year low
 

The last time the Labor Department published a report on initial unemployment claims this good, the Great Recession hadn't even started yet.

The number of people who applied for regular state unemployment-insurance benefits in the week that ended July 19 tumbled by 19,000 to 284,000 -- the lowest level since February 2006 -- signaling that companies have further slowed down the pace of layoffs and are letting go of few workers, according to government data released Thursday.

Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected initial claims of 310,000 in the most recent weekly data. The average of new claims over the past month declined by 7,250 to 302,000 -- the lowest level since May 2007, the U.S. Labor Department reported.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 24, 2014, 12:45:52 pm

Good news Otto. When do you think we can expect the corrosponding reduction in people collecting food stamps?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 12:51:37 pm

Probably around the time walmart decides to stop using the government as part of it worker compensation package.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 01:01:10 pm

This is what global cooling doesn't look like...


2014 has been a record-breaking year for global temperatures. On July 21, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association announced that the average global temperature for the month of June was the hottest experienced for 134 years of records. This finding follows the hottest May on record, the hottest March to June period on record, and the third hottest first half of the year on record. The average ocean surface temperatures for the month of June were the warmest on record for any month of the year.

NOAA's climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt explained succinctly to the Associated Press -- the only top U.S. print source* that reported on the findings in the context of global warming -- stating that the planet is in the "steroid era of the climate system." Climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck added: "This is what global warming looks like."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 24, 2014, 01:33:39 pm

This Jonathon Overpeck?

http://www.iceagenow.com/Hacked_files_reveal_global_warming_is_a_deliberate_fraud.htm

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote,

     “With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient
       credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change.
      They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science
      in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard
      down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global
      warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the
      Medieval Warm Period.” 

The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how (this small elite community of scientists) controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 24, 2014, 02:16:25 pm

This is what Global Warming looks like?  The coldest winter in memory?

Oddo the Home should read his own posts that remind us that there is a difference between climate and weather.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 03:03:29 pm

I love it when ignorant conservatives judge global climate change by the conditions in their backyard.

So davebart, it was cold this winter in your backyard so naturally you think it was cold everywhere?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 03:05:54 pm

Anytime keysbart you can provide this forum with your "evidence" that the IPCC panel on global climate was wrong, but you know that you can not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 24, 2014, 03:44:12 pm

Nor can Oddo the Homo without a doubt prove that those in charge of putting out this information saying that there is global warming haven't distorted the facts to furthrer their opinion and agenda.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 04:07:56 pm

Simply not true. The IPCC reports are peer reviewed and unquestioningly excepted as fact by nations, the scientific community and people who are not idiots.

The onus is on the idiots who choose not to except factual information to present their case.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 24, 2014, 04:45:28 pm

A "peer review" is only as good as the peers doing the reviewing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/science/science-journal-pulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 04:51:24 pm

A check is in the mail for 6.8 million people
 
Thank the Affordable Care Act for the windfall

Author: By Katie Lobosco
New York CNN Money
Published On: Jul 24 2014 02:44:50 PM CDT 


More than 6.8 million Americans will get a refund from their health insurer this summer.

Total value of the rebates will be $332 million, with an average of $80 going to each family. They'll be issued by Aug. 1.

Thank the Affordable Care Act for the windfall. Under one of the law's provisions, insurers must issue refunds if they spend more than 20 percent of what customers pay in premiums on administration and marketing expenses, instead of medical care.

Insurers were first required to issue these refunds in 2012, shelling out a total of $1 billion to consumers. The total dollar amount of refunds has decreased each year since then, as insurers have adjusted to charging less for premiums and operating more efficiently. Insurers paid back $504 million to customers in 2013.

The market for individual insurance policies has made the biggest gains in efficiency, spending 11.5 percent of premiums on overhead costs last year, down from 15.3 percent in 2011.

Individuals will either receive a check in the mail, a direct reimbursement to a bank account, or as a discount to future premiums.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 04:56:53 pm

keysbart


What percentage of all peer reviewed scientific papers does that incident cover?

And how does it change the findings of the IPCC?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 05:11:01 pm

keysbart

Since you brought up Americans collecting food stamps (is that like postage stamps?) I need to fact check your knowledge on the issue.

Which President increased food stamp beneficiaries more, Obama or gwb?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 24, 2014, 05:25:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 04:56:53 pm

keysbart


What percentage of all peer reviewed scientific papers does that incident cover?

And how does it change the findings of the IPCC?

The Eastanglican Institute for Climate Study gathers raw data and disseminates only finished data.  They do not allow anyone to peer review the raw data.  As long as this is done, anything can be proven by their manipulated data.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 05:34:37 pm

Again not true.

Just where do you get such dumb ideas?


http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 05:49:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 12:34:32 pm

Please contact the original straw man for his/her post to which you responded to.

otto, I was responding to YOUR post, and what YOU wrote in YOUR post.  You included no indication you were quoting anyone, nor any indication you were even responding to anyone in particular.  YOU are the to whom I was responding, and if YOU dispute my point, YOU need to respond.  So I point out again: there is simply no reason to believe that there IS a higher level of violence in Central America right now, and there are considerable reasons to doubt the claims that the reason for the immigrant surge is a result of any increase.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:03:51 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on July 23, 2014, 10:13:02 pm

can anybody say Bovine excrement?

http://news.msn.com/us/senator-says-he-had-ptsd-when-he-wrote-thesis

I don't know about saying Bovine excrement, but I can certainly ask Who Cares?

Who cares about whether some insignificant Senator from Montana failed to completely cite everything in a college thesis?  It might make some minor difference in his next election, but what does it matter?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 06:04:31 pm

Minutiaboy

Where in my post did I refer to increasing violence?

I will repost here.

Quote

Yea, other than the level of violence on their countries and the desperation of their parents for a better life for them.

As for your misguided and ignorant post I offer this.

Honduras' homicide rate of 90.4 per 100,000 is the highest in the world ... by far. The country's gang violence and penetration by drug cartels puts its murder rate at almost double the next most dangerous country in the world.

El Salvador's murder rate in 2012 was 41.2 per 100,000, the fourth largest in the world.

Guatemala, with 39.9 murders per 100,000 in 2012, still struggles to contain the violent legacy of a 36-year civil war.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579495863883782316 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579495863883782316)

You can now return to your previously high level of ignorance with the understanding I tried to help you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:11:32 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 12:51:37 pm

Probably around the time walmart decides to stop using the government as part of it worker compensation package.

Walmart provides better health care coverage than ObamaCare, and any Walmart employee who is dissatisfied with their job is perfectly free to take one of those abundant jobs you seem to be boasting of.  If, on the other hand, you want to claim that the wages and benefits Walmarts gives its employees is only remotely acceptable because government benefits allow them to survive when they otherwise would not be able to do so.... well, you will have sort of made the point advanced by many of us here.  If the only way someone is able to survive is a result of government benefits, and without them they would be forced to find employment somewhere they find less desirable than their current situation is, many of us would conclude it is perfectly clear the benefits need to be eliminated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:12:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 01:01:10 pm

This is what global cooling doesn't look like...


2014 has been a record-breaking year for global temperatures. On July 21, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association announced that the average global temperature for the month of June was the hottest experienced for 134 years of records. This finding follows the hottest May on record, the hottest March to June period on record, and the third hottest first half of the year on record. The average ocean surface temperatures for the month of June were the warmest on record for any month of the year.

NOAA's climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt explained succinctly to the Associated Press -- the only top U.S. print source* that reported on the findings in the context of global warming -- stating that the planet is in the "steroid era of the climate system." Climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck added: "This is what global warming looks like."

Bull.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 24, 2014, 06:12:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 05:11:01 pm

keysbart

Since you brought up Americans collecting food stamps (is that like postage stamps?) I need to fact check your knowledge on the issue.

Which President increased food stamp beneficiaries more, Obama or gwb?

Again with the same foolishness. What is the relevance today of what GWB did in the past? Not everyone who disagrees with you thinks GWB was a good president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:14:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 05:11:01 pm

keysbart

Since you brought up Americans collecting food stamps (is that like postage stamps?) I need to fact check your knowledge on the issue.

Which President increased food stamp beneficiaries more, Obama or gwb?

Obama.

Next stupid question, please.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 06:16:59 pm

When it comes to the issues facing the VA and the republic response which declines any ability to fix them I quote Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"What it does not concede is that the cost of war is expensive and that the cost of war does not end when the last shots are fired and the last missiles are launched. The cost of war continues until the last veteran receives the care and benefits that he or she has earned on the battlefield."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:17:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 04:51:24 pm

A check is in the mail for 6.8 million people
 
Thank the Affordable Care Act for the windfall

Author: By Katie Lobosco
New York CNN Money
Published On: Jul 24 2014 02:44:50 PM CDT 


More than 6.8 million Americans will get a refund from their health insurer this summer.

Total value of the rebates will be $332 million, with an average of $80 going to each family. They'll be issued by Aug. 1.

Thank the Affordable Care Act for the windfall. Under one of the law's provisions, insurers must issue refunds if they spend more than 20 percent of what customers pay in premiums on administration and marketing expenses, instead of medical care.

Insurers were first required to issue these refunds in 2012, shelling out a total of $1 billion to consumers. The total dollar amount of refunds has decreased each year since then, as insurers have adjusted to charging less for premiums and operating more efficiently. Insurers paid back $504 million to customers in 2013.

The market for individual insurance policies has made the biggest gains in efficiency, spending 11.5 percent of premiums on overhead costs last year, down from 15.3 percent in 2011.

Individuals will either receive a check in the mail, a direct reimbursement to a bank account, or as a discount to future premiums.

So there is a redistribution of wealth under which 6.8 MILLION more people who did nothing to earn it are going to be sent the earnings forcibly taken from other Americans who DID earn it.... and you somehow consider that to be positive?

Fortunately, those checks are likely to be quite short lived.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:20:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 03:05:54 pm

Anytime keysbart you can provide this forum with your "evidence" that the IPCC panel on global climate was wrong, but you know that you can not.

Other than you, otto, "this forum" needs no more evidence than we have already seen.

The claims of global warming are a fraud.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:23:42 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 06:16:59 pm

When it comes to the issues facing the VA and the republic response which declines any ability to fix them I quote Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"What it does not concede is that the cost of war is expensive and that the cost of war does not end when the last shots are fired and the last missiles are launched. The cost of war continues until the last veteran receives the care and benefits that he or she has earned on the battlefield."

Amazing.

The Republicans are responsible for the failings of the V.A. under Obama.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:51:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 06:04:31 pm

Minutiaboy

Where in my post did I refer to increasing violence?

I will repost here.
Yea, other than the level of violence on their countries and the desperation of their parents for a better life for them.

As for your misguided and ignorant post I offer this.

Honduras' homicide rate of 90.4 per 100,000 is the highest in the world ... by far. The country's gang violence and penetration by drug cartels puts its murder rate at almost double the next most dangerous country in the world.

El Salvador's murder rate in 2012 was 41.2 per 100,000, the fourth largest in the world.

Guatemala, with 39.9 murders per 100,000 in 2012, still struggles to contain the violent legacy of a 36-year civil war.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579495863883782316 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579495863883782316)

You can now return to your previously high level of ignorance with the understanding I tried to help you.

otto, I'm genuinely sorry that you are not sharp enough to follow the logic of your own argument, but let me try to explain it here.

The flow of illegal juvenile immigrants has jumped sharply in the last 10 months, with the increase being exponential, an increase at this point by a factor of more than a hundred times what it was in mid 2013.  The contention of the immigrants after having been given directions on what to say, and the contention of the Obama supporters who gave the immigrants those directions (and also YOUR contention), is that the juvenile immigrants are coming here because of violence in their home countries.

That contention only explains dramatic increases in such illegal immigration if it is either accompanied by or rather quickly follows some remotely corresponding increase in the violence which you claim explains the increase in the illegal immigration.

So, I ask again, where is the evidence of such an INCREASE in violence there?

If the violence is terrible there now, but no greater than in past years, the violence in no way explains the increase in immigration.

Now, I can understand the typical liberal response of, "Huh?" when they want to pretend they do not understand something which points out their position is nonsense, but is that going to be the best you have here?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 24, 2014, 07:41:11 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 24, 2014, 10:57:41 am

PR, you're posting in the wrong forum

 I was going to remind him but not when he's flyin on that crack pipe.  ;)
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 24, 2014, 07:42:58 pm

Quote from: davep on July 24, 2014, 11:27:03 am

Once again, Jackie is ranting foolishness.  Isaac Newton did not pass away.  I saw him and Elvis having lunch in the food court in our mall last week.

 Dave when you see Elvis again get his autograph , I'll pay good money for it.  :)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 24, 2014, 08:46:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 04:51:24 pm

......

Total value of the rebates will be $332 million, with an average of $80 going to each family. They'll be issued by Aug. 1.
.....

so because of the "affordable care act" my insurance goes up $40 per month as well as my co-pays and deductibles  and I might get a check for $80?
Sounds like a bad deal on my part.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 24, 2014, 09:15:37 pm

Oh stop trying to rain on Otto's parade with facts...he hates that. Getting **** is the patriotic thing to do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 24, 2014, 09:32:07 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 24, 2014, 07:42:58 pm

 Dave when you see Elvis again get his autograph , I'll pay good money for it.  :)

Good news Jackie.  Elvis says he will sign as many as you want for 10 bucks each.

He said to warn you though.  He got into a fight with Isaac Newton and hurt his hand.  His signature might look different.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 25, 2014, 12:46:21 am

Quote from: davep on July 24, 2014, 09:32:07 pm

Good news Jackie.  Elvis says he will sign as many as you want for 10 bucks each.

He said to warn you though.  He got into a fight with Isaac Newton and hurt his hand.  His signature might look different.

 Get them to me and hand them to me thru the screen as before,
 
 I'll hand you the money back likewise.
 
  BTW ... in the future that wont seem outlandish ...
 
  that will seem practicable.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:01:56 pm

More from the weak soap of minutia...

Quote

Walmart provides better health care coverage than ObamaCare

I'll wait for the proof of the baseless assertion first.

You have any?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:03:49 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 01:01:10 pm

Quote

This is what global cooling doesn't look like...


2014 has been a record-breaking year for global temperatures. On July 21, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association announced that the average global temperature for the month of June was the hottest experienced for 134 years of records. This finding follows the hottest May on record, the hottest March to June period on record, and the third hottest first half of the year on record. The average ocean surface temperatures for the month of June were the warmest on record for any month of the year.

NOAA's climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt explained succinctly to the Associated Press -- the only top U.S. print source* that reported on the findings in the context of global warming -- stating that the planet is in the "steroid era of the climate system." Climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck added: "This is what global warming looks like."

Response from the minutiaboy

Quote

Bull.

That response would constitute what, exactly?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:11:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 05:11:01 pm

Quote

keysbart

Since you brought up Americans collecting food stamps (is that like postage stamps?) I need to fact check your knowledge on the issue.

Which President increased food stamp beneficiaries more, Obama or gwb?

Response from minutiaboy

Quote

Obama.

Facts as the failed lawyer misses them.

The increase in food stamp beneficiaries is due partly to economic pressures, and partly to liberalizations in both benefits and eligibility under Obama and also under his predecessor. The number of food stamp beneficiaries increased by 14.7 million during Bush’s two terms in office, which exceeds the current increase under Obama of 14.1 million. Numbers provided by the Dept. of Agriculture.

For the next stupid response see any thing posted by the minutiaboy.

As in next post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:16:27 pm

Like this response to a healthcare fact that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of the premiums collected on (ya know) patient care or refund the difference back to the premium payers.

The minutiaboy

Quote

So there is a redistribution of wealth under which 6.8 MILLION more people who did nothing to earn it are going to be sent the earnings forcibly taken from other Americans who DID earn it.... and you somehow consider that to be positive?

Fortunately, those checks are likely to be quite short lived

And one wonders why America outside of the south consider them slow and uneducated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:17:48 pm

Quote

Other than you, otto, "this forum" needs no more evidence than we have already seen

.


What "evidence" have we  seen so far?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 25, 2014, 01:18:30 pm

The next bull to come out of the Commie's mouth will be that global warming has caused an increase in the food stamp allocations

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 03:10:35 pm

Wasfullofoot


What does our military advise about global climate change?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 25, 2014, 03:26:27 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 03:10:35 pm

Wasfullofoot


What does our military advise about global climate change?

So you are saying that the official position of the military is in line with the Commander-in-chief? I have not heard of any official position of the military but I would be surprised if the official line was different than what the Commander-in-Chief dictates. Not really news there Otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 05:08:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:01:56 pm

Walmart provides better health care coverage than ObamaCare

I'll wait for the proof of the baseless assertion first.

You have any?

It has already been posted here once.  How many times do you want?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 05:14:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 03:10:35 pm

Wasfullofoot

What does our military advise about global climate change?

Tell me, otto, is "our military" monolithic?  In other words, does "our military" have one single, uniform view, held by everyone in it?  Is "our military" a military institution, a scientific institution, or a political institution?  And, other than what the White House decides it wants to release about the advice of "our military," or what the White House wants to claim "our military" has advised the prez, just how is it we are going to know what was in fact advised or by whom?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 25, 2014, 05:39:03 pm

 
 One thing the DOD does not want to have is a hand wrapped around an empty dick.
 
 The DOD already knows the oil shale is the last gasp of old oil.
 
 What the DOD wants is new oil at its source ...algae.
 
 Renewable  ... always there.
 
 As a short term feeder to other energy.
 
 I dont know what else youve been told ...
 
 but this is what the **** is going on motherfucker.
 
 You have to ask yourself this very importent question :
 
 is electricity obsolete?
 
 Think: Photons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 06:23:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:16:27 pm

Like this response to a healthcare fact that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of the premiums collected on (ya know) patient care or refund the difference back to the premium payers.

The minutiaboy
"So there is a redistribution of wealth under which 6.8 MILLION more people who did nothing to earn it are going to be sent the earnings forcibly taken from other Americans who DID earn it.... and you somehow consider that to be positive?"

And one wonders why America outside of the south consider them slow and uneducated.

otto, forgive me for not understanding you, but I am going to take a guess at what you are trying to say and respond, with the last point first.

It appears your awkwardly worded sentence, with a non-defined indefinite pronoun (just who is the "them" you reference?), is trying to contend that I am "slow" and "uneducated" because I am "of the south."  I grew up and was educated (public school and college) in Indiana and then earned an advanced degree in California.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but neither of those states are now or ever have been considered part of "the south."  Do you have so much as a high school degree?  And if so, considering your posts, have you suffered some sort of serious brain damages since then?  As to the "slow" part, would you like to compare ANY standardized academic test scores?  Any at all.

Now, as I try to make sense of the earlier part of your post, it appears you are disputing the following QUESTION from me: "So there is a redistribution of wealth under which 6.8 MILLION more people who did nothing to earn it are going to be sent the earnings forcibly taken from other Americans who DID earn it.... and you somehow consider that to be positive?"  The way I worded it, there were two different yes or no questions, neither of which you answered in anything resembling a yes or no manner.  Instead it appears you tried to dispute a question, and to do so with what seems to be a contention that what you have mentioned does not constitute a redistribution of wealth under which 6.8 MILLION (your figure) more people who did nothing to earn it are going to be sent the earnings forcibly taken from other Americans who DID earn it.

And yet you seem to be trying to dispute that by pointing out that premium payers who did not earn the "rebates" by anything they did are being sent the rebates by American health insurance companies which earned the money are forced to send the "rebates."

In other words, it would appear that although you have not directly answered either of my questions, you have answered both in the affirmative.

Thanks for the response, though if I have misunderstood anything you have written and want to clarify anything, please feel free.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 06:29:19 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:11:20 pm

The increase in food stamp beneficiaries is due partly to economic pressures, and partly to liberalizations in both benefits and eligibility under Obama and also under his predecessor. The number of food stamp beneficiaries increased by 14.7 million during Bush’s two terms in office, which exceeds the current increase under Obama of 14.1 million. Numbers provided by the Dept. of Agriculture.

Without disputing your figures in the least, otto, the number of foodstamp users has increased in 5 and a half years under Bush, nearly as much as in 8 years under Bush, and if you would provide a link to your source and we looked at the date for the figures you use for Obama, and then adjust the total to reflect the current date and the number of new leeches drawing benefits, Obama is likely not only clearly adding them faster, but likely has added more in the grand total.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 06:36:13 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 24, 2014, 06:51:10 pm

Now, I can understand the typical liberal response of, "Huh?" when they want to pretend they do not understand something which points out their position is nonsense, but is that going to be the best you have here?

Considering that otto has posted six time since I posed my question as above, without anything remotely resembling a response, it appears that we do have an answer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 25, 2014, 07:01:48 pm

 
 When it comes to **** ...
 
 I'm sorry but CHICAGO compared to LOS ANGELES ...
 
 the beauty of Chicago meeting strange was none of the babes expected other then who they were.
 
 You **** their fuckin brains out.
 
 In Los Angeles its about can I have your business card before I give you a blow job ?
 
 Its not the same ... its not the same random **** you got from Chicago girls.
 
 Los Angeles girls are about Hollywood. Chicago girls were about ****.
 
 I miss that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:18:59 pm

Well I'm just a poor country ex-lawyer

Quote

It has already been posted here once.  How many times do you want?

Must be easy to provide proof again then.

Bring it on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:35:46 pm

Using haley barbour's best **** in mouth southern way of communicatin'

Quote

Tell me, otto, is "our military" monolithic?  In other words, does "our military" have one single, uniform view, held by everyone in it?  Is "our military" a military institution, a scientific institution, or a political institution?  And, other than what the White House decides it wants to release about the advice of "our military," or what the White House wants to claim "our military" has advised the prez, just how is it we are going to know what was in fact advised or by whom?

Yeah I suppose in your limited world the Dept. of Defense only covers part of the institution.

Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large.
As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are
increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other
global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial
economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and
infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food
costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing
additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.
These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty,
environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable
terrorist activity and other forms of violence.

Read up bumpkin.

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf (http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:39:18 pm

Quote

otto, forgive me for not understanding you, but I am going to take a guess at what you are trying to say and respond, with the last point first.

It appears your awkwardly worded sentence, with a non-defined indefinite pronoun (just who is the "them" you reference?), is trying to contend that I am "slow" and "uneducated" because I am "of the south."  I grew up and was educated (public school and college) in Indiana and then earned an advanced degree in California.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but neither of those states are now or ever have been considered part of "the south."  Do you have so much as a high school degree?  And if so, considering your posts, have you suffered some sort of serious brain damages since then?  As to the "slow" part, would you like to compare ANY standardized academic test scores?  Any at all.

Now, as I try to make sense of the earlier part of your post, it appears you are disputing the following QUESTION from me: "So there is a redistribution of wealth under which 6.8 MILLION more people who did nothing to earn it are going to be sent the earnings forcibly taken from other Americans who DID earn it.... and you somehow consider that to be positive?"  The way I worded it, there were two different yes or no questions, neither of which you answered in anything resembling a yes or no manner.  Instead it appears you tried to dispute a question, and to do so with what seems to be a contention that what you have mentioned does not constitute a redistribution of wealth under which 6.8 MILLION (your figure) more people who did nothing to earn it are going to be sent the earnings forcibly taken from other Americans who DID earn it.

And yet you seem to be trying to dispute that by pointing out that premium payers who did not earn the "rebates" by anything they did are being sent the rebates by American health insurance companies which earned the money are forced to send the "rebates."

In other words, it would appear that although you have not directly answered either of my questions, you have answered both in the affirmative.

Thanks for the response, though if I have misunderstood anything you have written and want to clarify anything, please feel free.

Where do you actually make a point in that mess?

Are you incapable of making one?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:43:41 pm

Quote

Without disputing your figures in the least, otto, the number of foodstamp users has increased in 5 and a half years under Bush, nearly as much as in 8 years under Bush, and if you would provide a link to your source and we looked at the date for the figures you use for Obama, and then adjust the total to reflect the current date and the number of new leeches drawing benefits, Obama is likely not only clearly adding them faster, but likely has added more in the grand total.

So you missed the Dept. of Agriculture...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:48:50 pm

Quote

So, I ask again, where is the evidence of such an INCREASE in violence there?

Please show me where that assertion was made.

Then you can go back to your minutia, which bores me greatly.

Also, please show your links which prove your assertions behind this part.

Quote

The flow of illegal juvenile immigrants has jumped sharply in the last 10 months, with the increase being exponential, an increase at this point by a factor of more than a hundred times what it was in mid 2013.  The contention of the immigrants after having been given directions on what to say, and the contention of the Obama supporters who gave the immigrants those directions

I'll wait to be bored.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:59:34 pm

"was educated (public school and college) in Indiana and then earned an advanced degree in California"


"fair and balanced"


If you have to tell people what you think you are, your not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 10:34:37 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:18:59 pm

Well I'm just a poor country ex-lawyer

Must be easy to provide proof again then.

Bring it on.

Proof, as I have pointed out, is what is required to convince someone of something.  You have made quite clear you are a true believer in the Annointed One and all he touches.  You need no proof to persuade you that you are right, and none can be presented which will convince you that you are wrong.

There is no "proof" for you.  So, as long as you are asking for "proof" there is no reason to present anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 10:40:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:59:34 pm

If you have to tell people what you think you are, your not.

The word "your" is the possessive form of the word "you."

The word "you're" is the one you use when you male a contraction of the words "you" and "are," putting them together in one word and using an apostrophe to replace the deleted letter "a."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 10:42:25 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:48:50 pm

Please show me where that assertion was made.

Then you can go back to your minutia, which bores me greatly.

Also, please show your links which prove your assertions behind this part.

I'll wait to be bored.

Be honest, otto.  It is not minutia which bores you.  It is thought and facts, both of which are beyond your grasp.

I showed you where the claim of an increase in violence is implicit in your position.

What we get from you in response is exactly as I predicted, a "Huh?"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 10:55:37 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 08:43:41 pm

So you missed the Dept. of Agriculture...

I missed nothing.

As is routinely the case with your posts, you provided no link.

Just to make clear, this was what you posted:

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2014, 01:11:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2014, 05:11:01 pm
Response from minutiaboy
Facts as the failed lawyer misses them.
The increase in food stamp beneficiaries is due partly to economic pressures, and partly to liberalizations in both benefits and eligibility under Obama and also under his predecessor. The number of food stamp beneficiaries increased by 14.7 million during Bush’s two terms in office, which exceeds the current increase under Obama of 14.1 million. Numbers provided by the Dept. of Agriculture.
For the next stupid response see any thing posted by the minutiaboy.
As in next post.

No link, which obviously means there is no date on the data, and that is assuming the accuracy of the data.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 25, 2014, 11:07:55 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 25, 2014, 10:34:37 pm

Proof, as I have pointed out, is what is required to convince someone of something.  0

Using that definition of proof, then you agree that liberals have proven mankind-caused Global Warming exists.  World wide, the vast majority of people that have an opinion on the subject, take it for granted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 06:24:54 am

No, davep, you need to re-read what I wrote, and then perhaps put it it context by considering what I have written on it many other times.

I have never equated "proof" with whether something is or isn't "proven," though you could do so simply by recognizing something which your post implicitly ignores: that something can be "proven" to one person when it is not remotely close to being proven to another.

Whenever you use the word "proven" you need to also address to whom it has been "proven" since there is no objective and generally accepted measure by which anything can be established as "proven" or "disproven," unless we talk about something having been "proven" for every sentient being in existence, and I don't think that is even possible.

But you would be correct if you were to say that for many believers, liberals have proven mankind caused (or anthropogenic) Global Warming exists.  Of course for others it has been equally proven that Global Warming is a hoax.

You seem not to like my definition of "proof."  Other than the definition in which "proof" is used simply to mean "evidence," however weak or strong, do you have any other definition which is workable?  And would some minor adjustment to that definition also cover the definition of "prove," as in "prove it"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 26, 2014, 08:49:59 am

Quote

Proof, as I have pointed out, is what is required to convince someone of something.  You have made quite clear you are a true believer in the Annointed One and all he touches.  You need no proof to persuade you that you are right, and none can be presented which will convince you that you are wrong.

There is no "proof" for you.  So, as long as you are asking for "proof" there is no reason to present anything.

So, you don't have any proof.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 26, 2014, 08:52:44 am

Pretty thin soap of responses poor olde ex-country lawyer.

What schools educated you again?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 08:59:47 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 26, 2014, 08:52:44 am

Pretty thin soap of responses poor olde ex-country lawyer.

What schools educated you again?

As I have pointed out, at least one which encouraged the use of an apostrophe in "you're" in order to distinguish it from "your."

And you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 09:01:13 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 26, 2014, 08:49:59 am

So, you don't have any proof.

That is not at all what I wrote.

Perhaps you should try reading my post again.

You might ask a friend to help with any of the "big words."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 26, 2014, 09:08:39 am

Quote from the olde ex-country lawyer

Quote

Of course for others it has been equally proven that Global Warming is a hoax.

Proof however, is something only the people he bores to death should provide.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 26, 2014, 09:14:17 am

A ex-country run thru the proof.

Quote

No link, which obviously means there is no date on the data, and that is assuming the accuracy of the data.

Then consider his offer of nothing for this assertion.

Quote

Of course for others it has been equally proven that Global Warming is a hoax.

The ex-country says that he doesn't have to provide any. So, by his measure there is no proof on the assertion.

Case lost, again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 26, 2014, 09:22:47 am

Commie cant win in a debate class. He has no reliable proof and when he is proven wrong, he waits a while then drags up the same rubbish as proof. And talk about discrediting someone's intelligence and education, look who is doing the trash talking? YOU, of all people a person who cant write a literate or coherent sentence. Just plain garbage. See ya!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 10:06:07 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 26, 2014, 09:08:39 am

Quote from the olde ex-country lawyer

Proof however, is something only the people he bores to death should provide.

otto, while you likely have not noticed, since there is little which you do seem to notice, I only ask someone to "prove" something, or ask them for any evidence supporting their position at all, when I do still have an open mind on the issue.  Perhaps not open wide, but still open.

You will notice that I have never once asked you to "prove" global warming exists, or is caused by man if it were to exist, or even that if it did exist that it would be harmful, or that if it did exist and were harmful and that it were caused by man, that mankind would either know how to stop it or reverse it, or that if mankind did have such knowledge that government could be trusted with the power to do so.

I haven't asked any of those questions because to my satisfaction each of them has been proven, and it makes no difference what you or those like you might offer in response to any of them.

I likewise have never asked any of the Bible thumpers here to "prove" there is a god who hears them when they thump the Bible, nor have I tried to "prove" to them that there is not.

Now, as I mentioned, for a great many things, my mind is not closed.  And one such occasion would be your contention about more food stamp users having been added during the 5 and a half years of Obama than under the 8 years of Bush.  So far you have provided none.  To me that is an indication that you have no credible link to support your claim.  Just to make things clear, I am asking for it.

In reviewing your posts I notice that you have asked me for links supporting my post as follows: The flow of illegal juvenile immigrants has jumped sharply in the last 10 months, with the increase being exponential, an increase at this point by a factor of more than a hundred times what it was in mid 2013.  The contention of the immigrants after having been given directions on what to say, and the contention of the Obama supporters who gave the immigrants those directions

Which part of that is it that you want to challenge, or for which you want some supporting link?  You challenge that the flow of illegal immigrants is up?  Or that you, others supporting Obama, and the illegals, all claim that they have come to the U.S. because of violence?

You set out exactly what you are challenging in what I wrote, and I will be more than happy to provide support for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 01:34:37 pm

This is just absolutely amusing because it is so clearly completely off base, and one of the reasons you can tell that is by looking at the source.  Conservative, tea-bagger, wingnut sources like this always spit out nonsense like this, even when no one would actually believe it.  Here goes:

The Typical Household, Now Worth a Third Less
By ANNA BERNASEKJULY 26, 2014
 
Economic inequality in the United States has been receiving a lot of attention. But it’s not merely an issue of the rich getting richer. The typical American household has been getting poorer, too.
The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation. Those are the figures for a household at the median point in the wealth distribution — the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially.


Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to include a link to the source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/business/the-typical-household-now-worth-a-third-less.html?_r=0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 02:21:20 pm

Finally, someone who understands!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfXoK68YXFc

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 02:43:47 pm

Utterly incredible, in the most literal sense of the word.

Of course, as otto will tell us, nothing to be concerned about there... no reason to think anyone is hiding anything....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INjCNwZ2QXY

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 26, 2014, 03:47:52 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/26/report-chicagos-emanuel-wants-city-to-house-1000-more-young-illegal-immigrants/?intcmp=latestnews

If the kids are trying to escape violence and gangs is Chicago the best place for them?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 26, 2014, 04:04:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 06:24:54 am

No, davep, you need to re-read what I wrote, and then perhaps put it it context by considering what I have written on it many other times.

I have never equated "proof" with whether something is or isn't "proven," though you could do so simply by recognizing something which your post implicitly ignores: that something can be "proven" to one person when it is not remotely close to being proven to another.

Whenever you use the word "proven" you need to also address to whom it has been "proven" since there is no objective and generally accepted measure by which anything can be established as "proven" or "disproven," unless we talk about something having been "proven" for every sentient being in existence, and I don't think that is even possible.

But you would be correct if you were to say that for many believers, liberals have proven mankind caused (or anthropogenic) Global Warming exists.  Of course for others it has been equally proven that Global Warming is a hoax.

You seem not to like my definition of "proof."  Other than the definition in which "proof" is used simply to mean "evidence," however weak or strong, do you have any other definition which is workable?  And would some minor adjustment to that definition also cover the definition of "prove," as in "prove it"?

I am neither happy or unhappy with your definition.  As long as I understand what your definition is, I can deal with it.  There is not "correct" definition of any word.  It is merely a convention for conveying information between two or more people.

Of course, using your definition, since the vast majority of people in the world believe that God exists, that would mean that God's existence has been proven.

Interesting that you believe that words in a post should be taken in context.  That isn't a principle you always adhere to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 04:36:30 pm

Quote from: davep on July 26, 2014, 04:04:33 pm

Of course, using your definition, since the vast majority of people in the world believe that God exists, that would mean that God's existence has been proven.

After reading that, it is pretty clear that you do NOT understand what my definition is.

Just to reduce the emotion in the discussion, replace the word "God" with "Yeti" or "space alien" or anything else, and it will work the same.

If everyone on the planet truly and genuinely believed in the existence of Yeti, that would not mean Yeti existed, nor would it mean Yeti's existence would have been "proven," in the abstract sense, even though for those believing there was no need for "proof" and anything at all could be taken as sufficient "proof" of his (or "it's" or "her," since I am not really sure of the gender involved in a Yeti) existence, including if someone tried to DISprove his existence.  The existence or nonexistence of a fact can be proven to one person, without having been proven to another person, or without having been "proven" at all in anything resembling an abstract manner addressing the quality or quantity of the evidence or or any contrary evidence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 26, 2014, 04:48:54 pm

And since 500 years ago a great many people were convinced that the world was flat, that was proof that the world was not round.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 05:22:31 pm

It was to them, though it may not have been to anyone else.

Proof is merely that which is required to convince.  For those who believe without any proof, their belief itself is sufficent proof to convince.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 26, 2014, 06:04:13 pm

I understand. Proof is that which is required to convince.  But if someone is convinced, that isn't proof.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 26, 2014, 06:54:58 pm

Yeah, like Oddo and his global warming crap. 50 years from now the world will be round and Oddo will still be saying the world is flat

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2014, 07:32:22 pm

For those who are already convinced, their belief is itself proof.    For someone not completely convinced, but very strongly inclined to believe, it may take no more than a mere shred of evidence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 27, 2014, 01:45:52 am

 
 Its like watching a race as to who can be extinct faster.
 
 Two people can join hands and keep it from happening ...
 
 but nope ... thats not going to happen ...
 
 because two people in a lifeboat ...
 
 will have to decide who is the captain and who is ordered to row ...
 
 and in the end ... since neither rowed as a team ... both are dead.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 27, 2014, 11:55:05 am

Two people in a lifeboat can starve to death before they reach land.

One can kill and eat the other, and make it to land safely.

Should both become extinct, or just one?

And do they decide it with a vote?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 27, 2014, 12:50:49 pm

Or do they look for another solution?

Two people on a lifeboat can do things, when working together, which neither can do as effectively alone, and which will improve the chance both will survive.  Neither can possibly know with certainty what the future holds, but with two minds, and two sets of hands, they are much more likely to increase their recognized options than with just one mind and one set of hands.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 27, 2014, 02:23:49 pm

Assuming they are at sea, water would be a much bigger concern then food.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 27, 2014, 09:24:56 pm

No.  The monsoon is coming in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 28, 2014, 01:26:48 am

Quote from: davep on July 27, 2014, 09:24:56 pm

No.  The monsoon is coming in.

 A monsoon would indictate they are in Hudson Bay,or somewhere south,
 
 if given the right attitude and frame of mind ...
 
 two people working together in a rowboat could get to Iceland ...
 
 or ... Gary Indiana.
 
 In which case you might want to start rowing north again.
_________________________________________________________
 
 A blonde babe was out rowing a boat in a wheatfield ...
 
 Another blonde babe pulled up from the side of the road and yelled at her:
 
 "What the hell are you doing ??"
 
 The first blonde babe replied :
 
 "I am rowing in a sea of wheat."
 
  The second blonde babe replied :
 
  "You know youre what gives blondes a bad name,
 
  and if I could swim I'd come out there and kick your ass !" 
 
 _________________________________________________________
 
 
 These two men are in a rowboat on the ocean ... stranded.
 
 The first one says to the other: "How long has it been ? "
 
 The second one replies :
 
 "Thats a pretty goddamn personal question since we've only been stranded at sea for two days!"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 28, 2014, 07:51:07 am

Read 'Unbroken" an you'll have your answer

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 28, 2014, 11:30:53 am

Obama, Hilary and Holder are in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean.

The boat springs a leak.

Who will be saved?



The United States.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 12:04:34 pm

The republic party, teabillies and 1% willard are in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean.

The boat springs a leak.

Who will be saved?



The World.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 28, 2014, 12:24:59 pm

From Newsmax through Yahoo


2. Global Warming? 2014 Coolest Since 1993

The average temperature for the 48 contiguous U.S. states in the first half of 2014 was 47.6 degrees F. — just one-tenth of a degree above the 20th century average.

A new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also disclosed that the six-month period marked the coldest first half of any year since 1993.

The average maximum daytime temperature for the first six months of 2014 was slightly higher than the 20th century average, but the average minimum nighttime temperature was three-tenths of a degree below the century average.

Below-average temperatures were widespread east of the Rocky Mountains, and "two regions, the western Great Lakes and the southern Mississippi River Valley, had much-below-average temperatures during the six-month period," NOAA reported.

Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Wisconsin each had a six-month period that ranked in the state's top 10 for cold temperatures.

The report also noted that the national precipitation total for the six-month period was a miniscule 0.02 inches below average, while above-average precipitation was recorded across the Northern tier and parts of the Southeast.

And drought conditions improved in the Midwest and Central and Southern plains.

The NOAA report is not likely to deter global warming alarmists, however. As the Insider Report disclosed in June, a prominent climate science professor was removed from his post as an Associate Fellow at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies days after a newspaper published his op-ed piece calling manmade global warming an "unproved science."

Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University was told that his views on climate science made his relationship with the institute "untenable."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 28, 2014, 12:27:26 pm

From Newsmax through Yahoo

 
Click here to view this email as a web page
Newsmax.com




Insider Report from Newsmax.com

Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Growth of Part-Time Jobs a 'Burgeoning Disaster'
2. Global Warming? 2014 Coolest Since 1993
3. Rep. Wolf: ISIS Targeting Christians 'For Extinction'
4. Russian News Site: MH17 Was Malaysian Jet That Disappeared
5. Structures Built Under FEMA Codes Suffer More Storm Damage
6. 80 Years Ago: Gangster Dillinger Helped Create the FBI








Why You’re Tired All the Time
 



1. Growth of Part-Time Jobs a 'Burgeoning Disaster'

The Obama administration trumpeted the report that the United States gained 288,000 jobs in June. In fact, the nation LOST 523,000 full-time jobs last month.

What the economy actually gained was about 800,000 part-time jobs in June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

These jobs offer lower pay, few benefits, and little job security, notes Mortimer Zuckerman, editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report, in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal.

Less than half of American adults, 47.7 percent, are now working full time, and the number working part time due to their inability to land a full-time position grew to 7.5 million in June, up from 4.4 million in 2007.

"Way too many adults now depend on the low-wage part-time jobs that teenagers would normally fill," Zuckerman writes.

He cites a statement by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen in March that the "large pool of partly unemployed workers is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate."

One reason for the increase in part-time jobs is the slow growth rate of the recovery. But also to blame is the Affordable Care Act's mandate to provide healthcare insurance to employees working at least 30 hours a week, which encourages employers to hire part-time help — the "unintended consequence of President [Barack] Obama's 'signature legislation,'" according to Zuckerman.

In addition, employers are increasingly using part-time and temporary workers to handle short-term projects, Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist of the Economic Outlook Group told USA Today.

Baumohl added that the shift toward part-time work is a major reason that wage gains remain modest.

Low-paying jobs now account for 44 percent of all employment growth since employment hit bottom in February 2010.

Zuckerman opines: "The lack of breadwinners working full time is a burgeoning disaster. There are 48 million people in the U.S. in low-wage jobs. Those workers won't be able to spend what is necessary in an economy that is mostly based on consumer spending, and this will put further pressure on growth.

"We are not in the middle of a recovery. We are in the middle of a muddle-through."
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 12:28:46 pm

What part about global climate change are you not understanding?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 28, 2014, 12:33:33 pm

What part of bullcrap don't you understand

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 28, 2014, 12:36:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 12:04:34 pm

The republic party, teabillies and 1% willard are in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean.

The boat springs a leak.
Who will be saved?

The World.

If all those people died, who would work and actually pay taxes so the remaining folks could get their check?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 12:41:36 pm

Think 5 week vacation for the House of Turds starting this week...whose working?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 12:46:55 pm

Did some climate moron mention NOAA? Why yes they did.

Global Highlights
•The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2014 tied with 2010 as the highest on record for the month, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F).
•The global land surface temperature was 1.35°C (2.43°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5°F), marking the third warmest April on record. For the ocean, the April global sea surface temperature was 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F), also the third highest for April on record.
•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–April period (year-to-date) was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 12.6°C (54.8°F), the sixth warmest such period on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/4 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/4)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 12:50:14 pm

navbart

I did not know that you consider a teablilly moving the couch on his front yard work.

The more you know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 28, 2014, 01:24:32 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 12:41:36 pm

Think 5 week vacation for the House of Turds starting this week...whose working?

Certainly not Obama...our AWOL leader. Unless of course fundraising and golf are considered work

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 28, 2014, 01:34:15 pm

it would be interesting to see what percentage of folks that get welfare are democrats.
Otto, why don't you dig up the answer to that question and see if more democrats get govt assistance or the more conservative parties.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 28, 2014, 01:38:04 pm

I fail to listen to whiners whining about the House of Representatives taking a 5 week vacation when King Obama has been on an 8 yr vacation at tax payers expence

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 02:02:05 pm

I fail to see where your posts are relevant to anything.

President Barack Hussein Obama has been in office for 8 years?

And if getting paid for doing nothing...this House of Turds is the best. They have "produced" the least amount of legislation of any congress before it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 02:14:45 pm

navbart

How many white, rural, southern and lowly educated conservative voters for the likes of the teabilly aren't on public assistance of some sort? How many conservative low tax, low wage, low education and worker benefit states receive more Federal money than they pay in?

Offered for your education.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/)

Figure 3 is a good one for you to pander on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on July 28, 2014, 02:47:00 pm

otto, again you redirected the question.
What percentage of folks that receive welfare vote democrat?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 28, 2014, 02:48:07 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 02:14:45 pm

Figure 3 is a good one for you to pander on.

He may be able to ponder it but pandering is best left to the experts....liberal democrats

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 04:21:04 pm

Pandering is all you guys do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 04:23:07 pm

Ok navbart,

First define "welfare" so I would know what the **** you're asking.

Second, are you in your 70's?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 04:39:43 pm

Of course for you this "bad" welfare...


http://kypolicy.org/evidence-benefits-medicaid-expansion-starting-come/ (http://kypolicy.org/evidence-benefits-medicaid-expansion-starting-come/)


From one of the "taker" red states.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2014, 05:11:48 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 28, 2014, 12:28:46 pm

What part about global climate change are you not understanding?

otto, it has long appeared that you are about the only one here who does not understand climate change.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 28, 2014, 08:05:12 pm

Mark's Market Blog
7-27-14: Stagflation: It's Baaaaack.
by Mark Lawrence
Yet Another Flat Week. The market cannot break S&P 2000 and won't go down. My take: soon we'll break 2000, then there will be released upwards pressure that takes us quickly to 2100. This market reflects neither fundamentals nor technical pressures - this is all 100% pure Fed. IMHO.

 
S&P 500 January 18 2014 to July 18 2014
There's an abandoned Russian military base in Cuba that was built for the missiles in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Except it's no longer abandoned. Russia has made an agreement with Cuba to re-open it and staff it with signal intelligence people - the Russian equivalent of the NSA. Apparently Putin thinks he can do anything and Obama will just talk. I think I agree. However, very harsh words have been spoken: VP Joe Biden says he told Putin "Mr. Prime Minister, I'm looking into your eyes and I don't think you have a soul." Gosh, why do we seem to be having trouble getting along with Russia?

Argentina is now officially against the wall. The have one week to either pay their back debts, negotiate a settlement with the "vulture hedge funds," or default. If Argentina pays the hedge funds then a clause in the settlement with their other creditors says they have to pay everyone in full, which will more or less bankrupt them - they have just barely enough foreign reserves to pay everyone off, then they need more credit or to start heating their homes with wood stoves. Cars, airplanes, electricity are out. If they don't pay the hedge funds and go into default, that will most likely bankrupt them as they get cut off from international credit sources. And the hedge funds have no interest in negotiating - they want to bankrupt Argentina then buy up the country at fire sale prices. Personally, if I were running Argentina I would default and pass a bunch of laws that foreigners can't buy land or major companies or large blocks of stock. I would announce it's time someone stood up to Wall Street. But then if I were running Argentina it would look a lot more like stable profitable Chili and lot less like nearly bankrupt Argentina. The problem here is that you need a conservative government for about 4 years out of every 16-20 to put things on the right track, then the liberals can mess everything up the rest of the time. Argentina has no conservative party. Anyways, I expect to be announcing some exciting news about Argentina in the next week or three, one way or another.

And now, coming soon to a store near you, genetically modified salmon. AquAdvantage salmon is undergoing FDA approval, expected to take another couple of years. They took the growth hormone gene from a pacific salmon and the gene that turns it on from an Ocean Pout and grafted them into n atlantic salmon. The result is the growth hormone gene is always on and the fish grows really fast. Like ready for market in 16 to 18 months, half the required time for natural atlantic salmon. And after your teenagers eat a bunch of this stuff, perhaps they'll grow really fast too. Also natural salmon eats other fish, about 3 pounds of fish for every pound of salmon. AquAdvantage can grow quickly on a half plant half fish diet and overall require 25% less food. There are concerns about the GMO fish escaping into the wild and crowding out other species, but AquaBounty assures us that this is impossible. I do not think that word means what they think it means.

A new virus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), is emerging in Saudi Arabia. MERS causes fever, shortness of breath and eventually pneumonia, and being a virus can't be cured by antibiotics. MERS appears to be a camel flu virus that has adapted to humans. To date there are 850 known cases resulting in 327 deaths, a rather sobering death rate. Now MERS virus has been found in air samples in a barn housing an infected camel, raising the possibility that this virus can be transmitted through the air - a rare and deadly trait for a virus. HIV is transmitted only through blood to blood contact, making avoiding HIV relatively straight forward. The flu is transmitted through the air and we all get that from time to time. In any case, if you're traveling to Saudi Arabia, try to keep your distance from camels. And people who cough. And barns. Maybe best just keep your distance from Saudi Arabia.

Obamacare on life support! The DC court of appeals has ruled that subsidies can only be given to obamacare policies that were bought on state exchanges. 38 states use the federal website, and in those states the 5m people getting subsidies are suddenly going to have their average policy cost leap from $85 to $343 per month. Later the same day a Virginia appeals court found the same provision was legal. This isn't over. We can expect an appeal to the DC court of appeals where there are 7 democrats, 4 of them appointed by Obama, and 4 republicans. Then no matter the ruling we can expect an appeal to the supreme court. Curiously, the liberals are screeching that medical costs will explode if this decision is upheld. Curious 'cause when I took economics the first thing they taught me was the more money you throw at a market, the higher prices go; the less money the lower the prices. You know, you have one gallon of lemonaid at your stand and 20 people in line, you raise your prices. Or maybe I remember that backwards. You know, you got one doctor and 20 people in line, then you give more people more money to wait in line. And make sure you don't let any foreign medical school graduates stay in the country, it's far better to have disease ridden illiterate immigrants.


Detroit, in bankruptcy court for a year now, just negotiated a pension cut with retirees and employees. Pensions are cut 4.5% and cost of living increases wiped out. Except cops and firefighters, they get no cuts to their pensions and keep half their cost of living increases. I dunno why cops are special. And in my city all firemen do is rush to car accidents and shake down local businessmen for fire permits for various individual industrial tools. Charities and auto makers have chipped in nearly a billion dollars to keep Detroit from selling off their art work. It's now hoped that Detroit can exit from bankruptcy soonish.

San Francisco housing just hit the million dollar mark - a 2 bedroom apartment with no view, the median home, now averages $1m. Money is flooding into San Francisco from all directions - IPOs, Chinese buyers, overflow from Silicon Valley - and now real businesses are being priced out of the city. Companies like pInterest, armed with hundreds of millions in cash and a business plan that doesn't even dream of profits, bid on large buildings forcing rents through the sky. Dozens of smaller real companies are packing up and leaving Oz to return to Kansas, or where ever reality draws them. Industrial properties have had their rents triple in the last year; landlords are lovin' it. Will it continue on forever? Sure, real estate prices never go down. . .

In the 50s and 60s it was well known that you could not have inflation, low growth and high unemployment at the same time. In the 70s we had just that: stagflation. What caused it? We humans like to think things have simple causes, but still today, 40 years later, we're still debating what the problem was. One contributing factor was oil prices: oil jumped up in price in the early 70s as OPEC formed, and suddenly everything that needed energy or organic molecules was more expensive. Some think it was oil prices that caused the stagflation. I think it was more than that; Nixon had his ill-fated WIN - Whip Inflation Now - campaign, and the FED was too accommodating. However I have never been satisfied with the explanation that Volker took over the Fed, raised interest rates for a year, and 10+ years of inflation just stopped dead in its tracks. It's noteworthy that oil prices dropped at the same time. Anyway, in the 90s we were talking about the Great Moderation where growth was good, inflation invisible, employment high, recessions few and shallow. It was thought that this would go on forever. It was also thought that you could not have inflation and deflation at the same time. Today we look back and we think that this was a period when oil prices were low, computers were increasing in power exponentially, and China was producing massive amounts of cheap goods for American consumers keeping inflation down. Now oil prices are high and it seems likely that as Indians and Chinese demand more and more cars oil prices will only go up. China is facing their own list of problems including wage inflation, a real estate bubble and a poor consumer market; China is no longer nearly as good at exporting lots of cheap stuff. And computers have stalled out - the $600 laptop you buy today has very comparable performance to the $600 laptop you bought 10 years ago; certainly it's not one hundred times faster as Moore's law would have you guess. And we're seeing inflation and deflation in our economy at the same time. Energy, gas, food - these things are skyrocketing, with prices inflating at perhaps 5% or more a year and the rate increasing. Wages are stagnating so that standards of living are dropping. The consumer market is stalled with very little growth, meaning industry has little growth. And the Fed is printing money at obscene rates making easy profits for Wall Street and inflationary pain for the rest of us. Will this get better? Not as I see it. Oil prices are likely to stay high and get higher. Computer led productivity gains are now competing for jobs instead of making employees more productive. The latest generation of 20-something men are going largely without educations and have little interest in careers. And the 20-something women are going to college and preparing for an economic life like women never have before, but almost none of them are getting degrees in math, engineering, hard science. Bernanke tells us the Fed will keep rates low for the rest of his life. We had a great run in this country - from WWII to 2000 our per capita GDP rose at an average of about 2.5% and things seemed clearly better each decade. I think that's over. I think for the rest of my life wages will be stagnant, GDP growth will be more like 1.2%, unemployment will stay high (when measured the good old fashioned way: if you don't have a job, you're unemployed.) And the stock markets will stall out in the long run due to low GDP growth and boomers retiring and living off their stocks instead of adding to their investments. Japan has now gone 25 years with very little GDP growth and a stock market that bounces up and down 35% but hasn't set a new high since 1990. This, I think, is now our future. From 1950 to 1990 there was a Japanese Miracle - in forty years Japan went from a nation of hunger to, briefly, a nation with a higher per capita income than the US. Some think this will be China's century, that there will be a similar Chinese Miracle. I don't agree. Europe, Japan and the US did it during a time of low world population by current standards, oceans full of fish, cheap oil, lots of available farm land and fresh water. China is trying to replicate that during a time of oceans in crisis, expensive oil, declining farm yields, shortage of fresh water, and increasing populations everywhere. I think their period of 8%+ growth is nearly over.

Fun fact: Bangladesh has more people than Russia - 157m v. 144m. This is why I think the world is headed for a Malthusian crash. It's simply insane to put 157m people in a country the size of New York state and then tell them that Allah wants them to have lots of children. The boys grow up worthless, the girls grow up to have six (muslim) kids and sew t-shirts for $68 per month. And more than half their water comes from the Brahmaputra river, which is glacial melt starting in Tibet, running through water-starved China then draining through India and Bangladesh into the Indian ocean. Imagine if more than half of Mexico's historic water supply had come from the Colorado river - we no longer let any of that water make its way into Mexico. How long until China diverts the Brahmaputra northwards?


Here's a fun little list. The most dangerous cities in the world. Note the complete absence of European and Asian cities. In fact, except for a couple South African cities these are all in our hemisphere, all in the New World.

City Murders /
100,000
 City Murders /
100,000
54 Baton Rouge, United States 29.00
 53 Brasilia, Brazil 29.73
52 Monterrey, Mexico 30.85
 51 Durban, South Africa 30.94
50 Birmingham, United States 31.00
 49 Oakland Ca, United States 32.00
48 Macapá, Brazil 32.06
 47 San Salvador, El Salvador 32.48
46 Oakland, United States 33.10
 45 Newark NJ, United States 34.00
44 Curitiba, Brazil 34.08
 43 Baltimore, United States 35.03
42 St. Louis, United States 35.39
 41 Maracaibo, Venezuela 35.44
40 Jackson MS, United States 36.01
 39 Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa 36.02
38 Pereira, Colombia 36.13
 37 Victoria, Mexico 37.78
36 Port-au-Prince, Haiti 40.10
 35 Goiânia, Brazil 42.01
34 San Juan, Puerto Rico 43.25
 33 Chihuahua, Mexico 43.49
32 Valencia, Venezuela 43.87
 31 Recife, Brazil 44.54
30 Santa Marta, Colombia 45.26
 29 Cuiabá, Brazil 45.28
28 Cape Town, South Africa 46.04
 27 Belém, Brazil 48.23
26 Kingston, Jamaica 48.48
 25 Medellin, Colombia 49.10
24 Sao Luis, Brazil 50.16
 23 Cucuta, Colombia 54.29
22 Detroit, United States 54.63
 21 Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela 55.03
20 Juarez, Mexico 55.91
 19 Cuernavaca, Mexico 56.08
18 New Orleans, United States 56.13
 17 Vitoria, Brazil 60.40
16 Flint MI, United States 62.00
 15 Culiacán, Mexico 62.06
14 Salvador (and RMS), Brazil 65.64
 13 Fortaleza, Brazil 66.39
12 Guatemala, Guatemala 67.36
 11 Manaus, Brazil 70.37
10 João Pessoa, Brazil 71.59
 9 Barquisimeto, Venezuela 71.74
8 Nuevo Laredo, Mexico 72.85
 7 Cali, Colombia 79.27
6 Maceió, Brazil 85.88
 5 Torreón, Mexico 94.72
4 Distrito Central, Honduras 101.99
 3 Caracas, Venezuela 118.89
2 Acapulco, Mexico 142.88
 1 San Pedro Sula, Honduras 169.30

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 02:46:56 pm

Quote

otto, it has long appeared that you are about the only one here who does not understand climate change.

Post from an ex-country lawyer who lets politics determine his scientific facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 05:11:57 pm

Current PPACA signups to date.

8.92 MILLION

Current PPACA signups that have paid.

7.92 MILLION


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 29, 2014, 05:30:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 02:46:56 pm

Post from an ex-country lawyer who lets politics determine his scientific facts.

Good Lord.  Pot, meet kettle.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 07:07:42 pm

North Carolina Republicans put ideology above lives


Dana Milbank
Washington Post Opinion
July 28 at 6:39 PM 
 

On July 1, the hospital in rural Belhaven, N.C., closed — a victim, in part, of the decision by the state’s governor and legislature to reject the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare.

Six days later, 48-year-old Portia Gibbs, a local resident, had a heart attack. The medevac to take her to the next-nearest hospital (as many as 84 miles away, depending on where you live) didn’t get there in time.

“She spent the last hour of her life in a parking lot at a high school waiting for a helicopter,” Belhaven’s mayor, Adam O’Neal, said outside the U.S. Capitol on Monday, holding a framed photograph of Gibbs.

A week after Gibbs’s death, O’Neal began a 15-day, 273-mile walk to Washington to draw attention to the outrage in Belhaven, which he blames on the combination of an “immoral” hospital operator and the failure of Republican leaders in his state to accept the new Medicaid funding the hospital needed to stay afloat.

What makes the mayor’s journey all the more compelling is he’s a white Southerner and a Republican officeholder who has conservative views on abortion, taxes, guns — “you name it,” he told me. But ideology and party loyalty have limits. “I’m a pretty conservative guy, but this is a matter of people dying,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-north-carolina-republicans-put-ideology-above-lives/2014/07/28/724081cc-169e-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-north-carolina-republicans-put-ideology-above-lives/2014/07/28/724081cc-169e-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html)

republic put politics ahead of healthcare...Why would pulling politics ahead of scientific facts on global climate change be any different?

It's not.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 29, 2014, 07:09:15 pm

No, davep, otto would never have been able to become a lawyer, country or otherwise.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 07:55:01 pm

Au contraire, my unemployed southern country ex- lawyer.

I can answer the in the affirmative to the question which trips up over 90% you rural types. Which is, do you have most of your adult teeth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 29, 2014, 08:35:15 pm

otto, as soon as your tooth count becomes relevant to passing the bar exam, your comment might be responsive.  Until then, I stand by my point that you would never have been able to become a lawyer, country or otherwise.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 29, 2014, 08:49:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 07:55:01 pm

I can answer the in the affirmative to the question which trips up over 90% you rural types.

Is this English?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 09:00:43 pm

Well then little southern bumpkin ex-lawyer, how do you explain the following economic facts. Facts which show Democratic Presidents outperform republic ones in every major economic measure since WWII.

We begin in Section 1 by documenting this fact, which is not at all “stylized.” The U.S.
economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic
versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate,
generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns.

Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics. By some measures, the
partisan performance gap is startlingly large--so large, in fact, that it strains credulity, given how
little influence over the economy most economists (or the Constitution, for that matter) assign to
the President of the United States.

http://papers.nber.org/tmp/78854-w20324.pdf (http://papers.nber.org/tmp/78854-w20324.pdf)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 09:01:57 pm

keysbart

When you have nothing, go English NAZI.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 29, 2014, 09:05:46 pm

That's all I have left to do with you. You keep posting the same tired old crap over and over...I read that stuff the first hundred times you posted it.  Global warming, Obamacare signups, evil republicans...rinse and repeat

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 09:16:46 pm

Then comment on the results from the economic paper that I just posted. Then try to rinse and repeat your response which will include buzz words like "Liberal" and "anti-conservative bias in higher education".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 29, 2014, 09:26:28 pm

If that paper is correct in your mind why would you leave out this part? And yet you hate tax cuts?


The third Eisenhower recession (1960-1961) paved the way for the election of President
John F. Kennedy, and subsequently for the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts--the first example of
deliberate countercyclical fiscal policy in U.S. history. Those tax cuts ushered in a long boom,
raising the growth rate under Kennedy-Johnson far above Eisenhower levels.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 09:52:23 pm

Don't know much beyond republic tax slogans do you keysbart.

Same olde rinse and repeat from conservatives about Liberals hating tax cuts...redundant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 29, 2014, 09:59:25 pm

The paper you posted was a "republican slogan"? I'm betting you never bothered to read it before you posted it. Are you claiming that the liberals supported tax cuts to recover from the Bush recession? I don't remember it that way.Refresh my memory...which dems were calling for tax cuts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 10:12:45 pm

I'm betting that you missed the point of the paper and my post by focusing sooooo hard on the tax reductions in the early 1960's. I'm also betting that you don't even understand the era enough to take away any context regarding them.

But back to the point of my post. How do you explain the poor performance of your republic presidents compared to the Democratic ones?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 29, 2014, 10:18:09 pm

diversion alert....I ask again...which dems called for tax cuts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 10:31:07 pm

How do you explain the poor performance of your republic presidents compared to the Democratic ones?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 29, 2014, 11:33:47 pm

English?  You expect a homo from a hick town in a backwards state to speak anything resembling English?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 12:00:45 am

Great, the troll under the bridge is still up

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 30, 2014, 01:38:40 am

Honestly, how anyone can say this "President" resembles a actual sitting President in any way, shape or ACTION is beyond me. This guy is incredibly incapable of the job. He is barely a community organizer! Heck, when he was a Senator the guy barely showed up to vote, what did these idiots that elected the guy think he would do as President???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 30, 2014, 02:38:53 am

 
 If you dont pay people enough to buy the products they make and sell,
 
 well ... youre a genius ... answer that.
 
 Then what happens ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 30, 2014, 03:07:42 am

Well, JJ, take one rich guy for example. He goes out to Viking and buys a fridge and stove, something like $15k. Then he goes out and buys some expensive handmade furniture, say a couple huge couches, a couple sitting chairs, throw in a dining set. Then he buys a new washer/dryer combo. And then he finishes his little shopping trip with a nice dinner out and a few more odds and ends to round things out. Total spent- $30k.

Now, let's look at a well paid workforce. Let's say there's a couple hundred of em. THEY go out to Sears and buy fridges, stoves no not Viking quality but GE, Whirlpools, KitchenAid, etc. They also go out and buy furniture, couches, chairs, dinette sets, etc and also new washer/dryers. Then they also go out to eat and pick up a few more odds and ends. Their shopping total= $1,320,000.00 Their buying power has kept untold hundreds, maybe thousands of workers busy making those things they purchased or ate. We, this Country, needs well paid workforces to keep the economy humming. The reason we are not where we were is we've lost buying power and we've lost too many well paying jobs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2014, 05:10:45 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 29, 2014, 09:00:43 pm

Well then little southern bumpkin ex-lawyer, how do you explain the following...

I explain the fact that the "following" was grammatically correct by pointing out that you cut and pasted it.  Nothing else in it needs explanation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 09:58:59 am

Sheldon

Always finding new ways to bore the message board.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 10:01:53 am

Well then GDP bear, why not chew on this bit of cut and paste.



U.S. economy bounces back in a big way

 

By any measure, the U.S. economy was unusually weak in the first quarter of the year (January through March), though most in the economic, financial, and political sectors were untroubled by the data. Indeed, for most, the winter drop was something of a fluke, caused by unusually harsh weather conditions and an unexpected drop in health spending.

The U.S. economy grew by a 4% annual pace in the second quarter, bouncing back from a revised 2.1% decline in the first three months of the year, according to a preliminary government estimate. Economists polled by MarketWatch predicted GDP would grow by a seasonally adjusted 3.2%. Consumer spending, the main source of economic activity, accelerated to show a solid 2.5% gain after a meager 1.2% rise in the first quarter.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 30, 2014, 10:26:07 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 10:01:53 am

Well then GDP bear, why not chew on this bit of cut and paste.



U.S. economy bounces back in a big way

 

By any measure, the U.S. economy was unusually weak in the first quarter of the year (January through March), though most in the economic, financial, and political sectors were untroubled by the data. Indeed, for most, the winter drop was something of a fluke, caused by unusually harsh weather conditions and an unexpected drop in health spending.

The U.S. economy grew by a 4% annual pace in the second quarter, bouncing back from a revised 2.1% decline in the first three months of the year, according to a preliminary government estimate. Economists polled by MarketWatch predicted GDP would grow by a seasonally adjusted 3.2%. Consumer spending, the main source of economic activity, accelerated to show a solid 2.5% gain after a meager 1.2% rise in the first quarter.


Enjoy

The link to Otto's propaganda

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/us-economy-bounces-back-big-way

The Rachel Maddow show....yawn

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/cnn-overtakes-msnbc-july-as-722127

What's most disconcerting for MSNBC might be its total day average among the news demo of adults 25-54. Dropping 33 percent from July 2013, it actually ranked below HLN by 16,000 viewers for No. 4 status.

And in the evening, Rachel Maddow was only marginally improved from her lowest month ever in June, averaging 181,000 viewers in the key demo. (FNC's Megyn Kelly, by contrast, enjoyed her second-highest-rated month since launch with an especially strong 386,000 adults 25-54.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 10:35:59 am

Well keysbart, how about this one...





U.S. economy bounces back sharply
 
Economy grew 4% in 2nd quarter

By Annalyn Kurtz
Jul 30 2014 07:37:58 AM CDT   

 
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)


New data released Wednesday show the U.S. economy bounced back in the spring, growing at a 4% annual pace in the second quarter. That was even better than the forecast of 3% growth, according to a consensus of economists surveyed by CNNMoney.

Consumer spending, which alone accounts for about two thirds of U.S. economic activity, strengthened, as did exports to foreign countries and business investments.


CnnMoney good for you deniers of all things related to knowledge?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 30, 2014, 11:19:23 am

4% if true is great. Just curious why I didn't see any huge font announcements and confetti when last quarter came in negative 2.9? Guess you passed on that "knowledge"? You're nothing more than a bandwaggoner that shows up when things look positive but disappears when things are not so good and then expects to be taken seriously.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 11:23:33 am

It was revised to minus 2.1% and it's cause was the extremely cold winter, which you knowledge deniers chose to overlook for political reasons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 30, 2014, 11:35:06 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 11:23:33 am

It was revised to minus 2.1% and it's cause was the extremely cold winter, which you knowledge deniers chose to overlook for political reasons.

Doesn't change my point about your absense when -2.9% was announced one bit. You ran and hid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 30, 2014, 12:29:24 pm

Furthermore now you bring up the cold winter as an excuse for the poor economy yet you still adhere to the stupidity that the climate isn't changing. Global warming is a hoax.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 30, 2014, 12:30:35 pm

And your economy is great BS is just more communist propaganda

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 05:16:34 pm

keysbart

What "absence" are you referring too? I was right here posting about the severe winter and the rebound second quarter.

And again, cold weather regionally doesn't make your anti-science anti-global climate change argument.

You know the difference right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 05:53:06 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDL4Bs3NbB0&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDL4Bs3NbB0&feature=player_embedded)

Deny some more anti-knowledge republics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 06:27:38 pm

More from the people who really hate America.


Republicans fight to keep tax breaks for companies moving jobs overseas


By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press
 
   
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican senators blocked an bill Wednesday to limit tax breaks for U.S. companies that move operations overseas.

The bill would have prohibited companies from deducting expenses related to moving their operations to a foreign country. It also would have offered tax credits to companies that move operations to the U.S. from a foreign country.

The Senate voted 54-42 to end debate on the bill, six short of the 60 votes needed to advance it. The White House says President Barack Obama supports the legislation.

"Today in the United States, any time an American company closes a factory or plant in America and moves operations to another country, the American taxpayers pick up part of that moving bill," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Frankly, a vote against this bill is a vote against American jobs."


Putting America maybe second crowd strikes again.

Enjoy
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 06:41:30 pm

Apparently, ex-governor from VA bob McDonnell and his (broken) wife walk the Appalachian trail of republic martial bliss.


Nice

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on July 30, 2014, 06:58:43 pm

WORST PRESDENT EVER!!! IT'S OFFICICAL!!!! The moronic teleprompter president. A community is clearly missing it's organizer!!!!!!!

1. "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage!!!!'"

2. "Russia is not a threat"

3.Obamacare? WAIT TIL miilions get TAXED for not having healthcare. S H I T WILL hit the fan.

4. They ram-roded NobamaCAre down our throats - Nancy Paelosi = "We have to pass the bill so oyu can know and read what's in it" LIAR

5. Benghazi COVER-UP

6. ILLEGAL IRS Audits - some 10,000 of them - Google Lois Lerner.

7.  NSA Sying

8.  GSA

9.  AP scandal

10 FIXING Unemployment #s

11. The VA scandal

12.  Bergdahl and his parents in the Rose garden - a TRAITOR

13. The MASSIVE Mess in the middle east......theis JOKER won the Noble Peace prize?

14. Our borders are a mess....we have a marine in jail in Mexico

Endless

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2014, 07:02:06 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on July 30, 2014, 11:19:23 am

4% if true is great.

Not really.  We SHOULD have been having 4% quarterly gains nearly every quarter for the last 5 years, and would have if not for president numbnuts.  Even just this year, 4% growth after a 2.1% decline is a less than 2% improvement for the year.

Yawn.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 07:04:30 pm

Bumpkin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2014, 07:12:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 07:04:30 pm

Bumpkin.

You think a 4% quarter following a 2.1% decline is a net growth of more than 2%?

Is math another subject you failed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 30, 2014, 07:34:41 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 30, 2014, 05:16:34 pm

keysbart

What "absence" are you referring too? I was right here posting about the severe winter and the rebound second quarter.

And again, cold weather regionally doesn't make your anti-science anti-global climate change argument.

You know the difference right?

Bullshit....you were long gone when the -2.9% was originally announced. You only showed up and mentioned it today when it was announced that it had been revised and was ONLY -2.1%  Are you drunk? I never mentioned cold weather or climate change in any of my posts today.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 30, 2014, 08:38:26 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 30, 2014, 03:07:42 am

Well, JJ, take one rich guy for example. He goes out to Viking and buys a fridge and stove, something like $15k. Then he goes out and buys some expensive handmade furniture, say a couple huge couches, a couple sitting chairs, throw in a dining set. Then he buys a new washer/dryer combo. And then he finishes his little shopping trip with a nice dinner out and a few more odds and ends to round things out. Total spent- $30k.

Now, let's look at a well paid workforce. Let's say there's a couple hundred of em. THEY go out to Sears and buy fridges, stoves no not Viking quality but GE, Whirlpools, KitchenAid, etc. They also go out and buy furniture, couches, chairs, dinette sets, etc and also new washer/dryers. Then they also go out to eat and pick up a few more odds and ends. Their shopping total= $1,320,000.00 Their buying power has kept untold hundreds, maybe thousands of workers busy making those things they purchased or ate. We, this Country, needs well paid workforces to keep the economy humming. The reason we are not where we were is we've lost buying power and we've lost too many well paying jobs.

 Thank you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 31, 2014, 02:43:40 pm

Insurers, hospitals enjoying the profit from the PPACA


HCA Holdings Inc. (HCA), the largest for-profit hospital chain, yesterday raised its forecast and reported a 6.6 percent drop in uninsured patients at its 165 hospitals, a reduction that grows to 48 percent in four states that expanded Medicaid, a top initiative of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. WellPoint Inc. (WLP), which made the biggest commitment of any publicly traded insurer to the PPACA markets, raised its guidance today after handily beating analyst estimates for the quarter on rising membership linked to the overhaul.

“Obamacare’s turned out to be quite good for health-care companies,” said Les Funtleyder, a portfolio manager at Esquared asset management, in a telephone interview.

LifePoint Hospitals Inc. (LPNT), another for-profit chain, also raised its forecast yesterday while the largest insurer, UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), said earlier this month it added 635,000 people to its Medicaid plans and was expanding into two dozen PPACA exchanges in 2015, from five this year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-30/obamacare-dividends-pile-up-for-hospitals-as-patients-pay.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-30/obamacare-dividends-pile-up-for-hospitals-as-patients-pay.html)

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 31, 2014, 03:15:20 pm

So Oddo the Homo thinks that something that is good for corporations is good for the country.  What ever happened to his complaints about corporate welfare?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 31, 2014, 03:26:40 pm

You think the PPACA is corporate welfare?

I think the people and insurance companies benefitting from the act will express their beliefs to the party of anti-knowledge during the 5-week vacation campaign just started.

Also, love the mess that is the House of Turds. Whiffed on the highway and immigration bills.

Worst congress ever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 31, 2014, 04:15:38 pm

The House is pretty good.  The obstructionist Senate has pretty much handcuffed any possible reforms so far.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 31, 2014, 04:19:41 pm

Of course she is a republic pol.


The most frightening candidate I’ve met in seven years interviewing congressional hopefuls


By David Wasserman
For the Cook Political Report, July 30   


As a House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, I’ve personally interviewed over 300 congressional candidates over the course of seven years, both to get to know them and evaluate their chances of winning. I’ve been impressed by just as many Republicans as Democrats, and underwhelmed by equal numbers, too. Most are accustomed to tough questions.

But never have I met any candidate quite as frightening or fact-averse as Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney, 55, who visited my office last Wednesday. It’s tough to decide which party’s worst nightmare she would be.

Whitney, a graduate of Nicholls State University who is running for Louisiana’s open 6th District, owned a dance studio in Houma, La., for 34 years and also worked in sales for small telecommunications and oilfield equipment companies. She clearly relishes poking Democrats in the eye, cites Minnesota’s Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) as a political role model, and takes kindly to the nickname “Palin of the South.”

Whitney has only raised $123,000 to date (fourth in the GOP field), but she has sought to boost her profile and appeal to conservative donors with a slickly made YouTube video entitled “GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX” (84,000 views so far). In the video, Whitney gleefully and confidently asserts that the theory of global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of mankind” and that “any 10-year-old” can disprove it with a simple household thermometer.

Whitney’s brand of rhetoric obviously resonates with some very conservative (anti-knowledge) Louisiana voters who view President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency as big-city elitists directly attacking the state’s energy industry and their own way of life. And she would hardly be the first “climate denier” elected to Congress. But it’s not unreasonable to expect candidates to explain how they arrived at their positions, and when I pressed Whitney repeatedly for the source of her claim that the earth is getting colder, she froze and was unable to cite a single scientist, journal or news source to back up her beliefs.

She must have been the only thing getting colder.

To change the subject, I asked whether she believed Obama was born in the United States. When she replied that it was a matter of some controversy, her two campaign consultants quickly whisked her out of the room, accusing me of conducting a “Palin-style interview.”

It was the first time in hundreds of Cook Political Report meetings that a candidate has fled the room.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0BzItCPk5j4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0BzItCPk5j4)


Ha, can't you just feel the bachmann/palin stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 31, 2014, 05:47:06 pm

And Oddo the Homo is an expert on being stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2014, 05:49:42 pm

I don't know, otto, but I will trust you when you are talking about feeling stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on July 31, 2014, 06:22:19 pm

"Whitney has only raised $123,000 to date (fourth in the GOP field), but she has sought to boost her profile and appeal to conservative donors with a slickly made YouTube video entitled “GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX” (84,000 views so far)."

I guess when you are as desperate as Otto is to distract from the failure and scandal of the Obama administration posting what the person running 4th in the field  thinks makes sense. I wonder what the 5th, 6th or 7th leading candidates think? Oh well....at least she isn't claiming to be Native American.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 31, 2014, 07:29:27 pm

Lee is Back!







Would you believe that Lee Iacocca is 94 years old and is still kickin' butt? Check out his latest rant. Just as true today as it was when his book first came out. He was, and still is, a brilliant businessman! Often we need to be reminded of Iacocca's words.Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 94 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone'?
Lee Iacocca Says:



Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so-called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car.



But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'trust me, the economy is getting better... 'Better? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic.'



I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out, along with Obama!'



You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.



The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Afghanistan, Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do. The liberal press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions.



That's not the promise of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?



I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis!  (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)



Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with thumb up your butt and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.



On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes.



We're immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. But our soldiers are dying daily. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it's getting worse every day! We've lost the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.



Gas prices are going to sky rock again, and nobody in power has a lucid plan to open drilling to solve the problem. This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the tree-hugging environmentalists. Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers' union. Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegals amnesty and free healthcare. The middle class is being squeezed to death every day. These are times that cry out for leadership.



But when you look around, you've got to ask: Where have all the leaders gone? Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.



Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?



We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that's just crazy. Deal with life.



Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it.



Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.



I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?



Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . . .



In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' World War II,' 'the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 31, 2014, 08:50:13 pm

Josh from Milwaukee, WI

Haven’t heard much about Bulaga. Is he progressing well in his rehab? I know linemen take more time to come back from leg injuries.

He’s stoning everybody. He must’ve gotten the Adrian Peterson ACL surgery.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 31, 2014, 08:50:25 pm

Josh from Milwaukee, WI

Haven’t heard much about Bulaga. Is he progressing well in his rehab? I know linemen take more time to come back from leg injuries.

He’s stoning everybody. He must’ve gotten the Adrian Peterson ACL surgery.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 31, 2014, 08:52:08 pm

Vic, what are you seeing thus far from Davon House? Could this be his breakout year? He looks so good every year in OTAs, and then the injury bug slows him down. I really like what he’s done when he’s gotten on the field.

I’m seeing the same things I saw in the 2012 OTAs and training camp. House is talented. He reminds me of Lester Hayes in size and style of play. Hayes was 6-0, 200; House is 6-0, 195. Also, Hayes began his career as a special teams star; I remember covering a game in which he blocked a punt. House has done the same. It didn’t happen right away for Hayes, either. Once he hit his stride, however, he was as good as there was in the league. If you’re going to be about draft and develop, you also have to be about patience.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 31, 2014, 08:56:06 pm

Ryan from Sycamore, IL

The Ted Thompson extension is as big, in my opinion, as any player signing. He has the right idea about the team’s direction and I feel this team is going to stay competitive for a very long time. Thoughts?

The Packers couldn’t be positioned more perfectly than they are. They have a roster of young, ascending players, led by a quarterback in his prime. They have a general manager and a coach who work in coordination with each other; no power plays there. The Packers have one of the league’s healthiest salary caps and a front office led by Mark Murphy that is providing the revenue required to stay competitive with the big-market, high-revenue teams. None of that is by accident.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 31, 2014, 09:05:07 pm

Wow, Lee Iacocca. Somebody get that man one of his Pintos and rear end him and see if he still believes "safety doesn't sell".

But hell before I post more stupid republic stuff from meechshell Bachmann I'll field a couple of those blathering's by an old man.

Quote

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so-called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car.

I'm not sure where A fits into B or what C and D are, but this is an argument only a senile old bastard would make at a family get together at the olde tacit racists house.

Quote

But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'trust me, the economy is getting better... 'Better? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic.

Old dude, the teabilly party got mad what did it get them? And I would love to hear how America now is in the same situation it was during the Great Recession.

Quote

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

Yes, yes you are. I'd love to hear what you think America was and why we as a nation should remain there. The Amish have chosen some time from the 1800's. What decade do you want to remain in?

Quote

That's not the promise of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

A lot of children have travelled across Mexico with that same belief in the promise of your 'America'. What is your answer to them?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 31, 2014, 09:12:21 pm

Offered from one of the Three Congressional Stooges today.

Meechshell Bachmann, what is on your mind?

"Now President Obama is trying to bring all of those foreign nationals, those illegal aliens to the country and he has said that he will put them in the foster care system," Bachmann said. "That's more kids that you can see how - we can't imagine doing this, but if you have a hospital and they are going to get millions of dollars in government grants if they can conduct medical research on somebody, and a Ward of the state can't say 'no,' a little kid can't say 'no' if they're a Ward of the state; so here you could have this institution getting millions of dollars from our government to do medical experimentation and a kid can't even say 'no.' It's sick".

I gotta believe fellow Stooges louie gobermert and steve king will not let stand...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 31, 2014, 09:20:04 pm

Highlight-reel catch feature attraction of Thursday practice


GREEN BAY—The last two days have provided a boost to the Packers outside linebacker corps.

Nick Perry took the field on Thursday for the first time since last January’s playoff game. Perry’s return from extensive rehab of his foot and knee injuries came one day after Mike Neal got his first training camp action following a recurrence of an abdominal strain.

Both were immediately getting their share of reps behind starters Clay Matthews and Julius Peppers in team and one-on-one drills. That kind of depth at the key pass-rushing positions has been the vision for 2014, and it might begin coming to fruition now.

“We’re just getting them out there and getting them in sync, what we’re doing and how we’re using them,” Head Coach Mike McCarthy said.

Neal has slimmed down to the mid-260-pound range, one year after dropping from around 300 to 275 to transition from playing defensive lineman. Perry made the position change as a first-round draft pick in 2012, but injuries have marred his first two seasons as a pro.

Knee and wrist injuries sidelined Perry after only six games his rookie season. Then last year, just as he was coming on with three sacks over a game and a half, he broke his foot and was out again.

He returned to play down the stretch last season, but it was easy to see he wasn’t fully healthy. Sitting out the entire offseason program and the first four practices of training camp further underscored that.




“I’m to the point now where I can just focus on football,” Perry said. “I’ve been working my tail off to get to where I’m at now.”

Neal’s career started similarly, with injuries galore for two seasons. Mostly healthy over the last two years, Neal has produced 9½ sacks and an interception.

When healthy, Perry has made an impact. In 18 career games, including last January’s playoff contest, he has recorded seven sacks and forced three fumbles.

“I know the defense, I have a good foundation, so now I don’t really have to worry about plays anymore,” Perry said. “I can really study my opponent and anticipate things. That’s part of being a pro now. I’m staying ahead of those things.”

Thursday’s practice was the most spirited and energetic of camp thus far. With starting safety Morgan Burnett (ankle) out, Sean Richardson snagged his second interception in three days, this one off a deflection by cornerback Davon House. At 6-2 and 216 pounds, Richardson is known as a run-support safety but has certainly shown up in pass coverage.

“We were having a conversation yesterday and he said he knows a lot more of the playbook this year than he did last year, and you can tell,” fellow safety Micah Hyde said. “He’s out there being confident with his calls, making plays. Him being so big and being able to come up and support the run, he’s like another linebacker that can move.”

The offense later countered with Aaron Rodgers’ patented play-action deep ball to Jordy Nelson, who outfought Casey Hayward for the catch. Defensive linemen Datone Jones and Josh Boyd flashed penetration in the one-on-one and team run drills, respectively, but then the offense again got even as each was drawn offside by hard counts in the pass-under-pressure drill.

The most eye-catching play of camp to date was made by receiver Alex Gillett, an undrafted rookie a year ago who spent time on the practice squad last season and is taking another shot at cracking the roster.

Running a go route down the sideline against rookie cornerback Demetri Goodson, Gillett looked as though he had no chance to catch Matt Flynn’s pass until he jumped over Goodson’s back and somehow tumbled down with it. The play fired up everyone on the offense and served as major redemption for Gillett, who moments earlier had dropped a short pass from Rodgers on a crossing route.

“Especially when Aaron’s in there and you drop a ball, that’s one you’re like, I need to make up for it,” he said. “So that definitely crossed my mind.”

Gillett, a converted college quarterback from Eastern Michigan, has a tough row to hoe in climbing a deep depth chart at receiver, but highlight-reel plays like that don’t go unnoticed.

“Big plays are huge in the National Football League,” said McCarthy, explaining the Packers consider big-play production one of five fundamentals they preach. “You look at the statistics, big plays play a huge part in your success as a football team. When you see a play like that, yes, it has a lot of magnitude to it.”

If all those injured players from last year come back healthy this season the team will definitely look a lot better on Offense and Defense this season.  Look for some very good rookie WRs to be cut.  ;-(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 31, 2014, 09:24:00 pm

(http://prod.images.packers.clubs.nflcdn.com/image-web/NFL/CDA/data/deployed/prod/PACKERS/assets/images/imported/GB/photos/clubimages/2014/07-July/temp140729-speak-with-your-cap-1-2--nfl_mezz_1280_1024.jpg?width=960&height=720)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 31, 2014, 09:42:47 pm

deckerrl - Today at 5:46 PM -

I would not be surprised if we do not see a lot of Janis this preseason, so there isn't a lot of film on him. No doubt they will try to stash him on the practice squad for the year. He just isn't going to add much this season, but long term the athletic combo of speed, size and strength is rare, and he is a definite top notch prospect. If he does see action and looks good in the preseason games, don't be surprised if he doesn't come down with an injury and lands on IR for the season.

I hope that the Pack can stash this guy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2014, 09:45:43 pm

Packrat you are posting all this Packer stuff in the Politics thread.

Just giving you a heads up before someone gives you a hard time about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2014, 10:50:48 pm

Quote from: packrat on July 31, 2014, 07:29:27 pm

Lee is Back!....

Without a link, offering at least some minimal opportunity to check its veracity, why should I read that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 31, 2014, 11:18:39 pm

Kaiser Family Foundation: 3.4 million uninsured Californians now covered


Of those Californians who were uninsured prior to open enrollment, 58 percent now report having health insurance, which translates to about 3.4 million previously uninsured adult Californians who have gained coverage, and 42 percent say they remain uninsured.1 The most common source of coverage was Medi-Cal with 25 percent of previously uninsured Californians reporting they are now covered by Medi-Cal. An additional 9 percent of California’s previously uninsured say they enrolled in a plan through Covered California, resulting in about a third reporting new coverage from the two sources most directly tied to the ACA. Twelve percent say they obtained coverage through an employer and 5 percent report enrolling in non-group plans outside of the Covered California Marketplace; some enrollment in these types of coverage may have been motivated by the ACA’s requirement to purchase insurance and some may be the result of normal movement within the marketplace.


http://kff.org/uninsured/report/where-are-californias-uninsured-now-wave-2-of-the-kaiser-family-foundation-california-longitudinal-panel-survey/ (http://kff.org/uninsured/report/where-are-californias-uninsured-now-wave-2-of-the-kaiser-family-foundation-california-longitudinal-panel-survey/)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 01, 2014, 02:20:00 am

 
 TERROR !! You'll actually think in a different way the way you are used to thinking ...
 
 thats an adult concept to understand ...
 
 is it better to understand it or bypass it?
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKh_N90iHAc&list=PL1C5BB95033F49960&index=2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKh_N90iHAc&list=PL1C5BB95033F49960&index=2)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 01, 2014, 07:11:01 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2014, 09:45:43 pm

Packrat you are posting all this Packer stuff in the Politics thread.

Just giving you a heads up before someone gives you a hard time about it.

People want something refreshing in this thread instead of commie trash from Oddo. At least there is something intelligent to read now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on August 01, 2014, 09:44:40 am

Where?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 01, 2014, 10:47:53 am

So you are saying Oddo's commie trash is readable? You do know there is an old saying that if you tell a lie often enough that people believe it as the truth. That's why its propaganda

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 01, 2014, 10:52:03 am

Another debunker: 97% of all poor counties in the nation are in red states (Dumbocrat states) and yet the Dumbos put out this propaganda that the GOP hates poor people and loves rich people

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on August 01, 2014, 12:02:30 pm

Otto DOES realize that his internet browser (yahoo etc.) "sculpt" the items he sees based upon past usage?  So, if all he reads are sites for the dems, he'll get,
guess what? Items about the heroic dems. (sigh), the people in D.C. are all the same, just different sides of the same coin

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2014, 05:29:05 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 31, 2014, 11:18:39 pm

Kaiser Family Foundation: 3.4 million uninsured Californians now covered

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama made a major political mistake by lying about the details of his health care plan, according to former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled -- I don't understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis," Frank told HuffPost during a July interview. "But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/barney-frank-obama-lie_n_5642132.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 01, 2014, 08:21:18 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 31, 2014, 11:18:39 pm

Kaiser Family Foundation: 3.4 million uninsured Californians now covered


Of those Californians who were uninsured prior to open enrollment, 58 percent now report having health insurance, which translates to about 3.4 million previously uninsured adult Californians who have gained coverage, and 42 percent say they remain uninsured.1 The most common source of coverage was Medi-Cal with 25 percent of previously uninsured Californians reporting they are now covered by Medi-Cal. An additional 9 percent of California’s previously uninsured say they enrolled in a plan through Covered California, resulting in about a third reporting new coverage from the two sources most directly tied to the ACA. Twelve percent say they obtained coverage through an employer and 5 percent report enrolling in non-group plans outside of the Covered California Marketplace; some enrollment in these types of coverage may have been motivated by the ACA’s requirement to purchase insurance and some may be the result of normal movement within the marketplace.


http://kff.org/uninsured/report/where-are-californias-uninsured-now-wave-2-of-the-kaiser-family-foundation-california-longitudinal-panel-survey/ (http://kff.org/uninsured/report/where-are-californias-uninsured-now-wave-2-of-the-kaiser-family-foundation-california-longitudinal-panel-survey/)

The same Kaiser Foundation says people still don't like it.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-opposition-spikes-time-high-154826720.html

Opposition to the health care law skyrocketed in July to reach the highest point ever, according to a Friday tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The pro-Obamacare health care nonprofit found that 53 percent of Americans view the health care law unfavorably right now, up from 45 percent in June. It’s the largest majority that viewed Obamacare negatively in Kaiser’s monthly polls since the health care law was passed in 2010.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 02, 2014, 09:59:25 am

wait til the subsidies stop.. You'll really see some unhappy folks then..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 02, 2014, 11:18:16 am

Did Kaiser mention how many of the 53% who disapprove of the Landmark law who are Liberals that oppose the law because they support a single payer option?

And brietbartinVA, just think of the people who have signed up for insurance (and enjoy its benefits) that will hold the republic judges/pols to account for the loss of subsidies if the Supreme Court rules against.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 02, 2014, 11:49:46 am

Really Sheldon

Quote

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama made a major political mistake by lying about the details of his health care plan, according to former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled -- I don't understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis," Frank told HuffPost during a July interview. "But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people.

Work much anymore

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 02, 2014, 11:54:13 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 02, 2014, 11:18:16 am

And brietbartinVA, just think of the people who have signed up for insurance (and enjoy its benefits) that will hold the republic judges/pols to account for the loss of subsidies if the Supreme Court rules against.

Damn, imagine that.  People who are leeches on society possibly complaining when they no longer have government giving them the earnings of other people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 02, 2014, 12:00:46 pm

Calling people "leeches" is why your far right wing of the conservative jumped the shark long ago.

Enjoy your ever smaller white party while you can.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 02, 2014, 12:54:19 pm

And, otto, what do you call a person who takes the earnings of another, without that person's consent?

Pretty much seems to fit the leech definition to me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 02, 2014, 01:31:59 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 02, 2014, 11:18:16 am

And brietbartinVA, just think of the people who have signed up for insurance (and enjoy its benefits) that will hold the republic judges/pols to account for the loss of subsidies if the Supreme Court rules against.

Those people have already sold their votes to the Democrats for all the other Government giveaway programs.  Only in Chicago can you vote more than once.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 03, 2014, 07:42:37 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 02, 2014, 11:18:16 am

Did Kaiser mention how many of the 53% who disapprove of the Landmark law who are Liberals that oppose the law because they support a single payer option?

And brietbartinVA, just think of the people who have signed up for insurance (and enjoy its benefits) that will hold the republic judges/pols to account for the loss of subsidies if the Supreme Court rules against.

I seriously doubt that the spike in the July disapproval numbers is due to liberals wanting single payer. They were likely already disapproving in earlier polls. No, I think people are realizing more and more that the costs will be many times more than how it was sold and the VA system gives them a good look at what the future holds.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 03, 2014, 10:05:49 am

While liberals living in their echo chambers, only actually listening to those who think like them and dismissing any opposing views, are convinced the issues of immigration and the mess at the border are going to help them in the November elections, reality might be quite a bit different.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/01/Key-Democrat-Immigration-Reform-Is-Not-About-Enforcement

Democratic Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI), the Democrat U.S. Senate nominee in Michigan, told attendees of a town hall event in Detroit’s Mexicantown neighborhood that immigration reform was not about enforcing America’s laws.

“Immigration reform is not about enforcement,” Peters said in a short video clip obtained by Breitbart News. “It’s about finding a way to fix the problems in our immigration system.”

The event was held April 6, 2013, and was hosted by local pro-amnesty organization One Michigan—before the Senate passed the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. The organization pushed for that bill and frequently advocates on its Facebook page on behalf of illegal aliens.

This comment could become problematic for Peters, who is losing steam in what previously seemed like a sure bet of a Senate race for Democrats. Republican Terri Lynn Land has been gaining on Peters, as a recent New York Times and CBS News poll put Land up a point over Peters.

Land has been fundraising successfully as well, raking in $3.3 million last quarter, according to the Washington Free Beacon. She bested Peters, who pulled in just under $2 million.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that national Democrats are worried about the seat, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has already reserved $6.3 million worth of advertising in Michigan this year in an effort to protect the seat—which is currently held by retiring Democratic Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI).

If Republicans on a national level stop fighting with each other over immigration, it could become a powerful weapon with which to beat Democrats in elections.

A new poll from the Associated Press and GfK Public Affairs and Corporate Communications shows that immigration is now President Barack Obama’s worst issue. A whopping 68 percent disapprove of the president’s handling of immigration, and just 31 percent—down from 38 percent a couple months—approve of how he's handling it.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, has long argued Republicans should unite against amnesty to beat the Democrats with the message.

“The GOP needs to flip the immigration debate on its head,” Sessions wrote in a July 2013 memo he distributed to the GOP. “The same set of GOP strategists, lobbyists, and donors who have always favored a proposal like the Gang of Eight immigration bill argue that the great lesson of the 2012 election is that the GOP needs to push for immediate amnesty and a drastic surge in low-skill immigration. This is nonsense.”

With the border crisis looming—and Congress and the administration in a free-fall over it—Sessions remains firm in his resolve for Republicans to use immigration to beat the Democrats heading into the midterms.

Interestingly enough, the not-so-conservative ex-Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)—who’s now running in New Hampshire against incumbent Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)—seems to be the first Republican to get the joke. Brown aired what’s been thus far a successful hit on Shaheen, attacking her for standing alongside President Obama in support of amnesty for illegal aliens over support for American citizens struggling in the lagging Obama economy.

If that success continues, Michigan may be the next place Republicans target Democrats with the immigration issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 03, 2014, 02:49:55 pm

Good to hear about Land.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 03, 2014, 03:53:38 pm

To me it is just good to hear that another liberal incumbent may take it in the shorts.  Michigan may well be very fertile ground for the immigration issue.  As a group, blacks tend to be very strongly anti-immigrant, and if they can be peeled away from the Dems there, the incumbent is in huge trouble.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 03, 2014, 05:33:46 pm

I am not sure labor is pro imigration

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 03, 2014, 05:49:28 pm

Organized labor has shifted it's position a bit over the years, largely because they now view immigrant labor as seldom competing with them in the workforce.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 03, 2014, 07:17:17 pm

Mark's Market Blog
8-3-14: Argentina Defaults. Again.
by Mark Lawrence
This was our worst week in the stock market in two years, down 3.3%. Stock brokers are literally jumping off curbs. People are eating apples on the sidewalks. Why? Argentina defaulted which made everyone yawn, the employment numbers came out and were rather pedestrian, What's next? Some are calling for a crash, perhaps as much as 50%. Not right now. Crashes are instigated by something, like the Fed raising rates or some external shock. We don't have any of that right now. The bull will continue in a few days.
 
S&P 500 February 8 2014 to August 1 2014
Margin debt - the amount of money people have borrowed to play the stock market - is near an all-time high. Although I continue to think this is a bull market, the signs of a top are gathering. I don't think this market is a good place for most people to be.


About ten years ago Putin appropriated the assets of a Russian oil company, Yukos. Monday The Hague's arbitration court ruled that Russia owes Yukos shareholders $50 billion - 2.5% of Russia's GDP. Enforcing the order is a completely separate issue. Expect Yukos shareholders to try to identify and seize Russian assets. This should be a real circus.

Ukraine is rapidly running out of money. Their east is industrialized but in the outmoded Soviet style: out of date factories that inefficiently make undesirable products and enormous pollution. The west has a more vibrant economy but is being bankrupt by the war effort. Russian separatists are boxing up everything of value they can get and shipping it back to Russia. What factories there are in the west are accustomed to exporting to Russia and their price and quality cannot compete with the Chinese in European markets. Ukraine does not currently seem to have an economy that can support their people.

Argentina defaulted. They had a negotiator in New York but of course after several years of fighting, the hedge funds have Argentina on the mat now and there's no way they're going to concede anything. The Argentine negotiator packed up and left. What happened? In 2001 Argentine defaulted and then made an agreement with 93% of their bond holders to pay them back at some very low price, like 10 cents on the dollar. Hedge funds bought up the remaining 7% of the bonds cheap and have been trying for a few years to back Argentina into a corner. They succeeded. Argentina's new default was determined to be a "credit event" by the ISDA, triggering about a billion dollars of credit swap payments. Now the hedge funds want to get paid in full, basically giving them a profit of roughly sixteen times their investment. I dislike Argentina borrowing money and thinking they can just default every 20 years or so - the world does not owe them a socialist paradise. But I dislike the hedge funds even more and I wonder why they're not all put in jail. What's next? This is just another step in the negotiations. This most likely won't be settled this year. Most of Argentina's bonds have a clause that if they pay anyone in full they have to pay everyone in full. That clause expires on 1/1/15. The hedge funds won't settle, and they're not going to get 100% until that date. I dunno what's next, but everyone has cooked their bratwursts, iced down their beers and settled into their folding chairs to enjoy the game. It won't be called early. Everyone has their own local jokes - Wisconsin is all Germans and Polish, so it's polack jokes. In Canada it's Newfy (New Foundland) jokes. In Texas it's Aggie (Texas A&M) jokes. Anyway, this reminds me of the Aggie that comes home early and finds his wife in bed with another man. He leaps for his end table, pulls out his gun and puts it to his forehead. His wife and the other man giggle. He says, "Yah, you laugh now. You're next!"

Obama's administration is in an uproar over "inversions:" that's where a US company buys a smaller company in low-tax Ireland or some such and then uses the European company as a base to avoid US taxes. They want to outlaw this, for example proposing a law that if 51% of your business is in the US than you owe US taxes on everything. I don't think this will work. Businessmen can form legal organizations in weeks and there is an entire industry of lawyers and accountants who do nothing but figure out how to beat the IRS. This is turning into a serious issue as about 5 times as many companies are planning to do this in 2014 as in 2013. Large companies already have $2 trillion parked outside the US in subsidiaries, avoiding taxes. To make this end we would need a world government that enforced one tax code for everyone, everywhere. Meanwhile Ireland sees this as a chance to import American companies and jobs and is doing quite well.

Dollar Tree is buying Family Dollar. Both businesses are suffering from the recovery - middle class families are making a bit more money and shopping again at more upscale stores, and lower class families have seen their income drop by 1% since 2004. Walmart has now had 5 straight quarters of declining sales and Goldman Sachs is not predicting the slow decline of Walmart and Target. You may recall in my last motorcycle trip through the south, all I saw in small towns was dollar stores and 7/11s - those people have almost no alternative but to shop there, yet the stores are still losing money, closing stores and laying off workers. The Fed would apparently have you believe they're focused on jobs and recovery, but half our population isn't experiencing the recovery at all.

In a recent poll the Washington Post found that Darth Vador had higher approval ratings for our next president than Hillary. Well, no wonder - she's more like the emperor imo. And Romney would now beat Obama. No big surprise there, Obama has managed to alienate nearly everyone. Blacks and Latinos still like him; the rest of us are waking up with a hangover wondering what on earth we did last night and how long it will take to live it down. Future democrat candidates will have to prove they're not going to be like Obama. At least until Washington turns 14m illegals into voters and their birth rate turns us into a banana republic.

 
Sao Paulo Brazil is experiencing a water crisis more severe than even California's. Brazil estimates that Sao Paulo has 100 days of water left; their largest reservoir is empty. Side effects include a huge increase in natural gas to compensate for the loss of hydro-electric power and a 70% rise in coffee prices as their crop, 35% of the world coffee crop, gets decimated. It's all about water, we're going to hear more stories like this in the future, not fewer. Some would have us believe this is global warming rearing its ugly head; perhaps. I think it's a world population that has nearly doubled in my lifetime. Increasing world population directly increases water demand, of course; in addition increasing world population increases air pollution particulates which affects cloud and rain formation adversely. In particular China and India have horrendous air pollution from burning coal and diesel oil and are having severe drought problems - these are almost certainly related.

China also has a water crisis, but theirs is substantially self manufactured. WIth 20% of the world's population but only 7% of the world's fresh water, you might think they would be careful with their water. 90% of the ground water in and near cities is polluted, 70% of their rivers and lakes. Chinese do not have a culture of caring about each other or their environment. I can't imagine what these people will do to the Arctic if they're allowed a major presence there. You've often heard "you are what you eat." The favorite food in China is pig.


Maxine Waters (D Los Angeles), whom I have previously called a sink hole in the IQ landscape of congress, has done it again. Speaking at the Islamic Society of Orange County, she said those who oppose sharia law in the US are "bigots" and "fear mongers." Sharia is the muslim code handed down by Allah that allows for killing teenage girls who discredit the family name by dating the wrong boy or killing Hindus who refuse to convert to islam. Clarence Darrow, the lawyer in the Scopes monkey trial once said, "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. I'm beginning to believe it." Me too.

Zillow - the web site that tells you what your neighbor's house is worth, has just bought Trulia, a web page that helps you search the MLS listings for a house. All those women you know who have real estate licenses and try to make money selling homes? Their days are numbered. Conventional real estate companies charge their employees monthly dues, so the more agents they have the more money they make. They thrive on incompetent agents who sell almost nothing. Meanwhile the top producers demand a larger cut of the commissions. You can't tell from outside the agency who are the top producers who know the local market and who are the almost useless hangers-on. But soon you won't need an agent at all to find yourself a bunch of houses for sale and whittle them down to a few you're really interested in. Wall Street projects that over the next 2-3 years this combination will gut the real estate industry. MLS is so last decade.

Too big to fail? The government accounting office released a report today that the biggest banks are 25% larger today then just before the crash. And they're still getting subsidized, to the tune of $83 billion per year in the form of low interest rates.

A little story from history: In the 1960s, the air force put out a request for bids for a new transport jet. Lockheed won with the C5. Boeing was left with a substantially completed and paid for design for a big plane that no one seemed to want. They had some meetings, and in a move typical for Boeing from time to time, they decided to bet the company, punch some window holes in the sides and turn it into a huge passenger plane, the 747. Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas were ecstatic, they figured this mistake would drive Boeing out of business. In fact the 747 was a huge success and still sells nicely even though the basic airframe is now nearing 50 years old. The quick and highly profitable acceptance of the 747 left Lockheed and McDonnell Douglass standing around with their pants down looking stupid. Lockheed quickly decided there was a hole in the jets offered - nothing fit in the big gap between the 707 and the 747. They decided to design an intermediate plane, the L1011. After about three years of design Lockheed called in the airlines for feedback and to gauge interest. American Airlines said it looked fantastic, could they take the plans home for the weekend for further study? They took the plans to McDonnell Douglass and said, "How much do you want to build us this plane?" The next monday McDonnell Douglass announced the DC-10. The DC-10 announcement drawings are a better dimensional fit for the actual L1011 than the DC-10, they just changed the rear engine and labels. When airlines are making orders price, range, seating capacity and delivery date are the important points. McDonnell Douglass was a couple years behind and having to compete on delivery dates. So they cut a bunch of corners: the landing gear was not a new design, it was taken off the DC-8 and doubled up, hence the harsh landings of DC-10s. They asked for and received an abbreviated FAA certification schedule. The DC-10 actually had a first flight before the L1011, which gives you some sense of how rushed this project was. Unfortunately in the long run the rush showed - there were numerous crashes due to failure of cargo doors and cabin depressurization, and finally the O'Hare crash where an engine fell off on take-off and all 271 passengers were killed. There's an engineering story behind that too, one which is rather damning of McDonnell Douglass, but I'm not going to get into it today. Suffice it to say that after the 1979 O'Hare crash not a single DC-10 was ever again sold for passenger use, and the remaining passenger versions were quietly converted over the next few years into cargo planes. In about 2001 Airbus decided there was a similar situation to the 1960s - an unfilled need for a bigger jet - and they started design on the A380, a plane that dwarves even the 747. There was again much skepticism in the industry about the viability of such a huge jet, the requirements for runway and terminal modifications, and the logistics of jamming 500+ people into one little tube. The plane first flew in 2005 and was delivered in 2007. Generally speaking you need to sell 300 to 500 jets to pay for the design, then you get to make money. Boeing has sold 1500 747s to date. Airbus has sold 135 A380s to date, roughly half of those to one airline, Emirates. Just this week Airbus canceled an order for six A380s from Skymark of Japan. Japanese airlines have historically been very loyal to Boeing; this was a tough sale and considered to be Airbus getting a foothold in the Japanese market. Now their foot has been ejected and the door slammed shut. I feel confident the A380 has not made money and never will - Airbus misjudged. They won't go bankrupt, they're backed up by the treasuries of France, Germany and the UK. But they're not having a very good time of it right now. The Boeing 787 - the carbon fiber plane - has had a rough start with engineering and production delays and battery problems. Even so 162 planes have been built from 2012 to date and they have strong orders for the future. Airbus has responded with a new advanced plane, the A350, but that too has met with a profound lack of interest from the airlines. Times are good right now for Boeing and Seattle, much less fun in Toulouse France. They have a joke in Europe: Heaven is a place where the engineers are German, the police are British, the cooks are French, your banker is Swiss and your lover an Italian. Hell is a place where the engineers are French, the police are German, the cooks are British, your banker is Italian and your lover a Swiss.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 03, 2014, 08:03:50 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 03, 2014, 05:49:28 pm

Organized labor has shifted it's position a bit over the years, largely because they now view immigrant labor as seldom competing with them in the workforce.

I am sure union bosses are still on the amnesty bandwagon but its the rank and file who might not be singing the party line

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 03, 2014, 08:34:06 pm

yeah, people first said that the illegals were only taking the farm jobs no one wanted. Now they are taking food service jobs, residential and commercial construction jobs and more. HS and college kids have a harder time finding jobs and a lot of times single parents do as well. This means they get no experience or skills and nothing to build on. People don't realize how much that after school job helps teenagers develop needed life skills for when they get older. They don't understand that a single mom can start out at Burger King, gain some skills, eventually move up to a manager,  use those skills to get a job at a bank etc and move on from the minimum wage "Can I take your order please".

The illegals are willing to work hard for cheap and learn new skills, many folks today aren't willing to work at all and don't want to learn new skills. The illegals are bringing their kids here. I work from home so I get to go to the awards ceremonies at school, I get to see the kids of illegals and they are excelling, they will  be competing with my kids for jobs, spots in college, scholarships etc  just like they are for awards.
 I don't blame them for coming here at all but they should do it legal and actually pay in to the system that is educating their kids.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 03, 2014, 08:57:27 pm

Quote from: navigator on August 03, 2014, 08:34:06 pm

yeah, people first said that the illegals were only taking the farm jobs no one wanted. Now they are taking food service jobs, residential and commercial construction jobs and more. HS and college kids have a harder time finding jobs and a lot of times single parents do as well. This means they get no experience or skills and nothing to build on. People don't realize how much that after school job helps teenagers develop needed life skills for when they get older. They don't understand that a single mom can start out at Burger King, gain some skills, eventually move up to a manager,  use those skills to get a job at a bank etc and move on from the minimum wage "Can I take your order please".

The illegals are willing to work hard for cheap and learn new skills, many folks today aren't willing to work at all and don't want to learn new skills. The illegals are bringing their kids here. I work from home so I get to go to the awards ceremonies at school, I get to see the kids of illegals and they are excelling, they will  be competing with my kids for jobs, spots in college, scholarships etc  just like they are for awards.
 I don't blame them for coming here at all but they should do it legal and actually pay in to the system that is educating their kids.

 You just figured this out ?
 
 Only THE UNITED STATES allows immigration on a scale equel to the rest of the world combined.
 
 One of the founders of INTEL is the exception rather then the rule.
 
 Thats the one they always throw in your face about imigration ,
 
 what they dont throw in your face is masses of immigrints standing on
 
 street corners waiting for work.
 
 It used to be you could start out at McDonalds or any other job and work your way up.
 
 Now those jobs are tied down by immigrints 35-55 years old.
 
 This is their lifetime job because it beats being back home.
 
 Where do your kids find jobs ? Well .. they dont.
 
 Shouldnt we take care of our own first before inviting the world in ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 03, 2014, 09:28:37 pm

JJ....clearly you are just a racist bastard

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 03, 2014, 09:52:28 pm

Liberals will not be happy until they destroy the greatest country the world has ever known.  We have to be just as miserable as the rest of the world so we have to take on their policies that have been proven to not work through out history.  The policies and form of government that has been proven to work must be scrapped in their eyes.

High taxes, lots of social programs that just keep the poor right where they are and voting for the liberal candidates.  We all have to lose our individual freedoms and become a collective.  Call it socialism or communism, it is all the same.  It is where we are headed if people do not wake up.

The conservatives need a leader that can articulate how awful socialism is and why we need to do the opposite.  It will be tough because the liberals own the media and they play on emotion.  Facts and logic need to trump emotion.  The "it isn't fair" BS needs to stop.

The government needs to make being married with children a bigger advantage then not being married with children is.  **** is all upside down.         

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 03, 2014, 11:19:02 pm

Quote from: navigator on August 03, 2014, 08:34:06 pm

The illegals are willing to work hard for cheap and learn new skills, many folks today aren't willing to work at all and don't want to learn new skills. The illegals are bringing their kids here. I work from home so I get to go to the awards ceremonies at school, I get to see the kids of illegals and they are excelling, they will  be competing with my kids for jobs, spots in college, scholarships etc  just like they are for awards.

Good.  Sounds like we need more of them.

Quote from: navigator on August 03, 2014, 08:34:06 pm

I don't blame them for coming here at all but they should do it legal....

While I agree, the reason they do not do it legally is because the laws and the quotas simply do not allow it.

Current laws have such restrictive quotas that if illegal immigration were truly ended, those here illegally were returned home, and then tried to come here legally, most of them would literally die before their turn in line came up to allow them to enter.

Quote from: navigator on August 03, 2014, 08:34:06 pm

....but they should do it legal and actually pay in to the system that is educating their kids.

They do.

Our nation's public education system is largely paid for with property taxes and sales taxes.  Even those here illegally pay those, or pay rent to those who pay property taxes.  The idea that those here illegally are getting more of a "free ride" for the education of their children than parent's born here and with birthright citizenship is nonsense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 04, 2014, 09:49:28 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 03, 2014, 11:19:02 pm

Our nation's public education system is largely paid for with property taxes and sales taxes.  Even those here illegally pay those, or pay rent to those who pay property taxes.  The idea that those here illegally are getting more of a "free ride" for the education of their children than parent's born here and with birthright citizenship is nonsense.

That is a pretty broad brush to paint with.
I would expect each state to be different.
In NC only 23% of the education funds come from the local fund which includes property tax and local sales tax.
Over 60% comes from the general fund which comes from income taxes and sales tax.
16% comes from the federal government which I would expect is mostly income tax.
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/resources/data/highlights/2012highlights.pdf

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on August 04, 2014, 11:50:13 am

Illegal immigrants pay sales tax. And, if they are all working the low wage jobs you suggest they do, then they likely would pay little to no income tax.  So, they definitely pay into the funds that support the schools and probably pay a higher percentage of their income to these funds than you do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 04, 2014, 12:31:36 pm

A report, entitled "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments," offered four general conclusions:

• State and local governments incur costs for providing services to unauthorized immigrants and have limited options for avoiding or minimizing those costs.
• The amounts that state and local governments spend on services for unauthorized immigrants represent a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments to provide such services to residents in their jurisdiction.
• The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.
• Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.


A report published in 2005 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit groups that aims to stop illegal immigration concluded that illegal immigrants in Texas created an annual fiscal burden of $3.7 billion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 04, 2014, 01:04:27 pm

Quote from: Cletus on August 04, 2014, 11:50:13 am

Illegal immigrants pay sales tax. And, if they are all working the low wage jobs you suggest they do, then they likely would pay little to no income tax.  So, they definitely pay into the funds that support the schools and probably pay a higher percentage of their income to these funds than you do.

Even a little income tax is more than paying no income tax.
With over 12M illegals here in the US even $100 per year each would be over $1B.

I don't think I said they only worked low paying jobs.  I said they will work for cheap. They might put a roof on your house for $15 per hr per head and a legit contractor paying benefits might need $30+. What does the contractor have to do to compete? He has to figure out a way to cut costs, does he cut pay or benefits or lay off his more experienced guys and hire younger/cheaper guys?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 04, 2014, 01:10:10 pm

Just when I thought stupid would take a day off, the board was offered this.

pekebart

Quote

Liberals will not be happy until they destroy the greatest country the world has ever known.  We have to be just as miserable as the rest of the world so we have to take on their policies that have been proven to not work through out history.  The policies and form of government that has been proven to work must be scrapped in their eyes.

High taxes, lots of social programs that just keep the poor right where they are and voting for the liberal candidates.  We all have to lose our individual freedoms and become a collective.  Call it socialism or communism, it is all the same.  It is where we are headed if people do not wake up.

The conservatives need a leader that can articulate how awful socialism is and why we need to do the opposite.  It will be tough because the liberals own the media and they play on emotion.  Facts and logic need to trump emotion.  The "it isn't fair" BS needs to stop.

The government needs to make being married with children a bigger advantage then not being married with children is.  **** is all upside down.

   


Do not change settings..Ignorant is on...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 04, 2014, 01:13:18 pm

   Do not change settings..Ignorant is on...

Whenever you chime in ignorant is in full display

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 04, 2014, 01:26:26 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 04, 2014, 01:10:10 pm

Do not change settings..Ignorant is on...

Now that would have been the perfect slogan for Obama's re-election campaign...maybe Hillary can borrow it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 04, 2014, 02:30:27 pm

http://www.boehneraccomplishments.com/ (http://www.boehneraccomplishments.com/)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 04, 2014, 03:08:38 pm

Couldn't even have a website for Obaba accomplishments....there's been none....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2014, 03:22:20 pm

Can this be described as anything other than racism?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/29/black-leaders-in-fresno-oppose-white-cultural-studies-teacher/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2014, 03:24:58 pm

Quote from: navigator on August 04, 2014, 09:49:28 am

That is a pretty broad brush to paint with.
I would expect each state to be different.

Not at all.  I wrote that public education is LARGELY funded by property taxes and sales takes, and they are.  If I had said "entirely" or "exclusively" or included no adverb, you might have a point.  As it is, you simply need to read more closely.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2014, 03:35:18 pm

Quote from: navigator on August 04, 2014, 01:04:27 pm

Even a little income tax is more than paying no income tax.
With over 12M illegals here in the US even $100 per year each would be over $1B.

Of the 12M, many of them are spouses who do not work outside the home, or children who do not work.  They do not have income to tax.  And a great many of those who do work DO pay income taxes, AND Social Security taxes, using bogus SSN's, and never getting credit for a dime they have paid into the system.  Many others pay nothing for the same reason their native-born U.S. citizen co-workers at the same job pay nothing -- they do not earn enough to be required to pay income tax.

Quote from: navigator on August 04, 2014, 01:04:27 pm

I don't think I said they only worked low paying jobs.  I said they will work for cheap. They might put a roof on your house for $15 per hr per head and a legit contractor paying benefits might need $30+. What does the contractor have to do to compete? He has to figure out a way to cut costs, does he cut pay or benefits or lay off his more experienced guys and hire younger/cheaper guys?

Welcome to the free market.  If he can't find a way to compete and make a profit, he should find something which society values highly enough to pay him for instead of trying to prevent his competitors from doing the same thing for less.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 04, 2014, 04:04:19 pm

House Republic Intelligence Committee: No administration wrongdoing in Benghazi



-- Intelligence agencies were "warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened."

-- "A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack."

-- "There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind."

-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."


We needed another 3.3MILLION dollars and another committee for this...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2014, 04:49:50 pm

The damn camel clearly has his nose inside the tent. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/3/fbi-hires-firm-to-rate-news-stories-about-the-agen/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2014, 04:52:52 pm

otto, considering how many times you have been urged to include links with your posts and how many times I and others have told you that when you post something which you clearly did not write and it lacks a link that we will give it utterly no credibility, we can only assume you deliberately chose NOT to include a link because you new the source lacked any credibility, meaning at least some of us do not even bother to read it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 04, 2014, 07:55:16 pm

http://europenews.dk/en/node/14505

From Geert Wilders.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 05, 2014, 09:19:57 am

Given Otto's love of posting stupid things done by candidates he must have just overlooked this one. Let me help.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/04/dem-lawmaker-uses-german-luftwaffe-uniform-to-portray-us-navy-in-campaign/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 05, 2014, 11:11:42 am

That's just stupid

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 12:27:28 pm

Headline from the daily caller

Quote

Dem lawmaker uses German Luftwaffe uniform to portray US Navy in campaign mailer

From the article

Quote

A look at all of the Bundeswehr’s official uniforms offers no similar outfit in any branch of the Germany military

Can one of you stupid folks square that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 12:36:33 pm

In the meantime...

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you rep. mo brooks, republic of Alabama:

“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else,” he said during an interview Monday with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. "It's part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”

German uniforms belong where...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rLJqwLcTsXA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rLJqwLcTsXA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AIWTB8POnkg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AIWTB8POnkg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 05, 2014, 01:49:01 pm

That emblem on the hat wasn't an American emblem.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 01:50:38 pm

Anybody want to see a chicken run? Check out the bite and split by rand paul leaving behind a full plate.

**** hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI8rCleTbSo&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI8rCleTbSo&feature=player_embedded)

Also, love the are you a drug runner and lawless country stupidity.

Plus, enjoy the calls of "Go home! Take care of your own!" from the party of white fossils.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 05, 2014, 01:51:04 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 12:36:33 pm

German uniforms belong where...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rLJqwLcTsXA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rLJqwLcTsXA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AIWTB8POnkg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AIWTB8POnkg)

Really Otto?...a youtube video of ONE... I repeat ONE person flying a Nazi flag and a youtube of a Family Guy cartoon episode? Despiration really has a stench about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on August 05, 2014, 02:05:25 pm

This is not good...

http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/oerjans-blog-leg-1/170-observing-and-investigating

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 05, 2014, 03:11:34 pm

Former President Carter says Hamas is a legitimate political actor. A legitimate organization. No, it is a TERRORIST organization. I think he must be getting upset that Obama passed him in the worst president category and is trying to make a comeback.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 03:23:33 pm

Ok, bible-thumping boy about town, one question for ya.


Was Hamas democratically elected by the Palestinian people in 2006 following calls for that election by Israel and our cowboy president?

Yes or No?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 03:39:22 pm

Ex-country lawyer and general libertarian fool.


Just because you think you can read...   http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/rm-ruppersberger-statement-hspci-benghazi-report (http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/rm-ruppersberger-statement-hspci-benghazi-report)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 05, 2014, 03:43:25 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 03:23:33 pm

Ok, bible-thumping boy about town, one question for ya.


Was Hamas democratically elected by the Palestinian people in 2006 following calls for that election by Israel and our cowboy president?

Yes or No?

I assume the answer is yes.  Is that important?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 03:52:40 pm

You would have to ask the bible-thumper who quoted President Jimmy Carter.

I have pointed out that question of "Hamas is a legitimate political actor" was answered when the voters of Palestine democratically voted for them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2014, 03:54:06 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 03:39:22 pm

Ex-country lawyer and general libertarian fool.


Just because you think you can read...   http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/rm-ruppersberger-statement-hspci-benghazi-report (http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/rm-ruppersberger-statement-hspci-benghazi-report)

Before I bother, is there some purpose for the post and for the link?

Is there some point you are trying to make?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 04:00:44 pm

I really don't care what you do country bumpkin.

You bitched about a missing link to a post and when I posted one you **** about the burden of reading.

Minutia on o'boring one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2014, 05:42:02 pm

otto, I have called you many times on failing to provide a link.  You do that quite routinely when you know that what you are posting does not really come from a credible source, or at least not a source which is credible for the purpose you are offering it.

My bet is that is also the case here, and your failure to tie it to any particular post of yours here makes me suspect that bet would be a very safe one.

What is it the link you are providing supposed to support, refute, establish or deny?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2014, 07:29:59 pm

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/04/doctors-begin-to-refuse-obamacare-patients/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2014, 07:39:27 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 05, 2014, 01:50:38 pm

Anybody want to see a chicken run? Check out the bite and split by rand paul leaving behind a full plate.

**** hilarious.

Do you genuinely think politicians out campaigning regularly eat every bite on every plate set in front of them at every stop?

Do you think their schedule allows them to remain to listen to ever discussion which begins in their presence, particularly when the questions and answer in the discussion does not directly involve them?

otto, please tell me that you don't believe such things.  And if you don't believe them, the video is utterly meaningless regarding Paul, and the comments you posted are, well, stupid.  And if you DO believe those things, well, it would appear that you are stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 06, 2014, 01:04:28 am

 
 Ilegal Immigrints in two tasty choices :
 
 A : Do you want to allow them in and **** them over,
 
 OR :
 
 B : Do you not want to allow them in?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 06, 2014, 11:26:48 am

How about if we allow some of them in, and treat them like everyone else.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 06, 2014, 11:39:26 am

Quote from: davep on August 06, 2014, 11:26:48 am

How about if we allow some of them in, and treat them like everyone else.

 Nope. Let them stand in line instead of pushing to the front.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 06, 2014, 11:55:24 am

How about just shooting them with the border police.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 06, 2014, 12:56:37 pm

 
 
DARMSTADT, Germany (AP) — After a journey of 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles), Europe's unmanned Rosetta probe reached its destination Wednesday, a milestone in mankind's first attempt to land a spacecraft on a comet.
   
 The decade-long trip was successfully completed with a seven-minute thrust that allowed Rosetta to swing alongside comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko somewhere between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.
 
 "This is your only chance to have a rendezvous with a comet," Jean-Jacques Dordain, director-general of the European Space Agency, told scientists and spectators at the mission control center in Darmstadt, Germany.
 
 The goal of the mission is to orbit 67P at a distance of 100 kilometers (60 miles) and observe the comet as it hurtles toward the sun.
 
 If all goes according to plan, Rosetta will attempt the unprecedented feat of dropping a lander onto a comet in November.
 
 Scientists hope that the information they collect will help them learn more about the origins of comets, stars and planets, said David Southwood, who oversaw the scientific part of the mission until his recent retirement.
 
 "Comets are the stuff of which the solar system was originally made," he said. Some scientists have suggested that water, an essential element for the development of life, arrived on Earth from comets.
  (http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amnews/i/91/51a1db31b1a86291b15fdd64b53bce/_h0_w300_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg)
   
 Plans to bring material extracted from the comet back to Earth were canceled when NASA pulled out of a joint mission at an early stage, but the U.S. space agency contributed three of the 21 instruments aboard Rosetta and its Philae lander.
 
 Scientists have already made a number of exciting observations even as Rosetta hurtled through space at about 55,000 kph (34,000 mph) —
 
 a speed that required three loops around Earth and one around Mars to gain pace.
 
 Recently-released pictures taken by Rosetta show that 67P has an uneven shape that some have likened to a giant, four-kilometer (2.5-mile) long duck. This could mean that the comet is made up of two formerly distinct objects, or that it was heavily eroded.
 
 The images, which have a resolution of 2.5 meters (eight feet) per pixel, also show steep 150-meter (490-feet) cliffs as well as smooth plains and house-sized boulders.
 
 Scientists will spend the coming months analyzing the pictures Rosetta sends home to determine the best place to drop Philae.
 
 The lander will glide down to the comet before shooting a harpoon into its porous surface to avoid drifting off again.
 
 Apart from the unprecedented landing, the orbiter section will also be the first to accompany a comet on its journey toward the sun, when 67P will begin to fizz and release the cloud of dust and ice that most people associate with comets.
 
 Measurements show that the comet is already losing the equivalent of two small glasses of water each second, an amount that will increase thousand-fold over the coming months.
 
 "We're going to have a ringside seat to see, for the first time, a comet turn into a comet, to develop its tail and explain what for centuries mankind has been puzzled by," Southwood said.
 
 While comets have long been associated with superstition, there is a real, albeit slim chance that such an object could one day hit Earth, causing a global catastrophe. Learning more about the nature of comets might help prevent that, Southwood said.
 
 The spacecraft and its lander won't survive much beyond the end of next year, but the data they collect are expected to keep scientists busy for at least a decade.
 
 Rosetta, which has so far cost €1.3 billion ($1.74 billion), is one of the most high-profile missions for ESA, which is lobbying governments for its next four-year budget in December.
 
 The European mission is different from NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft, which fired a projectile into a comet in 2005 to study the resulting plume of matter.
 
 NASA also landed a probe on an asteroid in 2001, but comets are much more volatile places because they constantly release dust and gas that can harm a spacecraft.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 06, 2014, 02:49:51 pm

 
 POPE IN GAZA !!
 
 Thats all it would take to see the hatred of the 3 Abrahamist religions to knock it off.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2014, 04:23:25 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/08/05/Timeline-Border-Surge-Began-a-Few-Months-After-Obama-s-First-Executive-Action-on-Immigration

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 07, 2014, 10:54:57 am

Biden on Minors at Border: 'These Are Our Kids'

That's the most moronic thing I've heard lately. And of course it comes straight from this administration.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/biden-immigration-these-our/2014/08/06/id/587273/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1580522_08072014&promo_code=aidqb58d

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 12:36:14 pm

Over ONE BILLION VOTES cast and...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/)

Can any of you moronic conservatives run the dollar cost analysis on that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 12:38:12 pm

Ex-country lawyer and current bumpkin


Sources? You want credible sources? Then you post asinine shot from brietbart and newmax?

You have never learned to practice what you very much preach have you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 12:40:07 pm

A message for Scott Brownback.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M1lU2v2Ej8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M1lU2v2Ej8&feature=player_embedded)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 12:48:32 pm

Under the category of 'Don't worry, conservatives don't believe in science so this is only a Liberal theory' one finds...


This week, scientists made a disturbing discovery in the Arctic Ocean: They saw "vast methane plumes escaping from the seafloor," as the Stockholm University put it in a release disclosing the observations. The plume of methane—a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat more powerfully than carbon dioxide, the chief driver of climate change—was unsettling to the scientists.
But it was even more unnerving to Dr. Jason Box, a widely published climatologist who had been following the expedition. As I was digging into the new development, I stumbled upon his tweet, which, coming from a scientist, was downright chilling:

Box, who is currently a professor of glaciology at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, has been studying the Arctic for decades. His accolade-packed Wikipedia page notes that he's made some 20 expeditions to the Arctic since 1994, and served as the lead author on the Greenland section of NOAA's State of the Climate report from 2008-2012. He also runs the Dark Snow project and writes about the latest findings in the field at his blog, Meltfactor.

In other words, Box knows the Arctic, and he knows climate change—and the methane plumes had him blitzed enough to bring out the F bombs.

Now, the scientists in the Arctic didn't fully understand why the plumes were occurring. But they speculated that a warmer "tongue" of ocean current was destabilizing methane hydrates on the Arctic slope.

I called the scientist at his office in Copenhagen, and he talked frankly and emphatically about the new threat, and about the specter of climate change in general. He also swore like a sailor, which I've often wondered how climatologists refrain from doing, given the urgency of the problem—it's certainly an entirely accurate way to communicate the climate plight.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0vhPBlEnUsc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0vhPBlEnUsc)

Don't worry, rush limpthought says the modeling is wrong and it's just science.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 07, 2014, 12:57:35 pm

so in other words the earth burps methane gas naturally and the experts in that field don't know why.
That seems to reinforce the idea that it is way overblown.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 01:02:00 pm

Country bumpkin and avid breitbart re-poster


Would it be Ran Paul or Run Paul?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI8rCleTbSo&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI8rCleTbSo&feature=player_embedded)


Also, that shirt is pretty gay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 01:07:26 pm

navbart


Just to clarify. In your politics driven world "vast methane plumes escaping from the seafloor" is "earth burps" and therefore nothing?


Exactly when did you decide to be in the party of anti-knowledge and why is it preferred?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 07, 2014, 01:14:20 pm

Next to Biden there is no more moronic person in this country than Oddo

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 01:15:49 pm

pekebart

Can you help with this story or fairytale?

Just what is businessman Bruce Rauner republic governor wannabe in Illinois fairytale on his Cayman Island investments?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 01:16:29 pm

Isfullofit


Try harder.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 07, 2014, 01:33:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 01:07:26 pm

....Exactly when did you decide to be in the party of anti-knowledge and why is it preferred?

otto, you are sadly mistaken as I have not joined your party.....and never will as long as they continue the path they are on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 01:56:18 pm

While I respect your decision to remain ignorant (its your choice) my party would not have taken you in anyway.


 Good luck with what you have chosen. I have heard that ignorance us bliss.


You have that going for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 02:04:34 pm

Quote from: Cletus on August 05, 2014, 02:05:25 pm

This is not good...

http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/oerjans-blog-leg-1/170-observing-and-investigating

This is an interesting phenomenon.  There are numerous "hot spots" of methene release around the world.  As algae or krill die and drop to the ocean floor, their bodies decay and release methane, just as decaying vegetation and animal waste produces methane in dumps around the world.

One famous hot spot is off the Carolina coast, where methane releases can create such turbulence in the ocean that boats have been known to almost capsize.  I have read a couple of articles that suggest that this is the source of the "Bermuda Triangle" myths.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 02:13:27 pm

So, you have read some articles and concluded that your opinion is greater than actual scientists on the subject.


 Is that a factual read on your post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 02:39:49 pm

Reading comprehension time!

What opinion did I give that I said was greater than actual scientists on the subject?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 07, 2014, 03:33:59 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 01:56:18 pm

... my party would not have taken you in anyway.....

sure they would, I've heard they will take anyone that could fog a mirror put in front of their mouth but apparently you don't even need to do that to qualify or even vote.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 07, 2014, 03:44:56 pm

Man the Commies will take anybody that pulls that donkey lever in the poling booth. To think they wouldn't would entitle you to permanent residency in the funny farm. Smoke that Commie

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 04:48:18 pm

Man the Commies will take anybody that pulls that donkey lever in the poling booth.

**** hilarious!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 05:12:14 pm

Hey Home, you probably missed my post.

Reading comprehension time!

What opinion did I give that I said was greater than actual scientists on the subject?

In fact, what opinion did I give at all?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 05:21:37 pm

Homo was probably about to post this, but I though I would help in case he is just too busy.

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — U.S. Sen. John Walsh of Montana said Thursday he is dropping his campaign for office amid allegations that he plagiarized large portions of a 2007 research project he wrote for a master's degree.

In a statement to supporters, the former National Guard commander said he is leaving the race but will keep the seat he was appointed to until his term ends in January 2015, when the winner of November's election is sworn in.

"I am ending my campaign so that I can focus on fulfilling the responsibility entrusted to me as your U.S. senator," the Democrat's statement said. "You deserve someone who will always fight for Montana, and I will."

The announcement comes as a U.S. Army War College investigation is set to begin Aug. 15 into the paper Walsh wrote, which he previously said unintentionally contained wrongfully cited passages. Walsh's decision is likely to give a boost to Republican Rep. Steve Daines, who is giving up his House seat to run for Senate. Republicans need to gain a net of six seats in the election to take control of the Senate, and Walsh faced a tough race against Daines before the plagiarism allegations.

Lee Newspapers of Montana first reported Walsh's departure from the race. His decision allows the Montana Democratic Party to hold a nominating convention to choose a replacement candidate before the Aug. 20 deadline to do so. The convention will be comprised of Democratic leaders from each county's party committee, along with federal and statewide elected officials and the party's executive board. They will nominate potential candidates who will have a chance to speak before the convention before voting gets underway.

The nominee who receives a majority of votes will be selected as the replacement candidate, according to the party's rules. Walsh already had announced his candidacy for the seat when Gov. Steve Bullock appointed him in February to replace Max Baucus, who resigned from the Senate to become ambassador to China. Republicans blasted Bullock's appointment of his lieutenant governor as a political move designed to gain an advantage in the elections.

The New York Times revealed the extensive use of unattributed material in Walsh's paper about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Walsh originally called it an "unintentional mistake" and told The Associated Press part of the blame may lie in his being treated for symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder following his deployment in Iraq.

He later said he was not blaming PTSD for his mistake. The pressure on Walsh's campaign grew after the revelations, with the editorial boards of Montana's three largest daily newspapers calling for him to withdraw his candidacy over the past two weeks.

"If the Democrats want to hold on to the Max Baucus Senate seat, their best hope is for Walsh to step aside by Aug. 11 and for a new candidate to take his place on the ballot for a fresh start," the Great Falls Tribune wrote on July 27.

Walsh is the only U.S. senator who served in the Iraq war. He capped a 33 years in the Montana National Guard, his career rising to state adjutant general before he took his first elected office in 2013 as Bullock's lieutenant governor in 2013.

Walsh received the Master of Strategic Studies degree from the war college at age 47, a year before he became adjutant general overseeing the Guard and the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 05:27:51 pm

I'd ask about Ran Paul and his plagiarism problems and why he has not resigned.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 05:30:35 pm

Because he didn't do it?  There is a difference between something done personally, as the Democrat did, and something done by your staff, as happened with the Republican.

By the way, what was the opinion you found fault with?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 05:35:26 pm

davepebart

First I would have to ask if you equate solid methane hydrates which are stored in massive quantities in the ocean the same as algae or krill dying?

Of course, as a conservative anti-scientist they must be the same....according to an article that you have read.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 05:50:47 pm

Ah, the it's the Not My Fault defense. Is dan qualye his lawyer?

Quote

Because he didn't do it?  There is a difference between something done personally, as the Democrat did, and something done by your staff, as happened with the Republican.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/senator-rand-paul-faces-new-charges-of-plagiarism.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/senator-rand-paul-faces-new-charges-of-plagiarism.html?_r=0)



Why Rand Paul's plagiarism matters
   
By Mitchell Blatt
The Hill, November 15, 2013

Sen.Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) pathetic excuses for plagiarizing content in his speeches and book show that either he has no shame, or he has no concept of what plagiarism is and why it is wrong. Either way, it’s a serious problem, and Paul needs to take responsibility for it rather than continuing to attack those who simply reported the truth.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/190290-why-rand-pauls-plagiarism-matters#ixzz39kVxBzPU  (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/190290-why-rand-pauls-plagiarism-matters#ixzz39kVxBzPU)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 06:55:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 12:38:12 pm

Ex-country lawyer and current bumpkin


Sources? You want credible sources? Then you post asinine shot from brietbart and newmax?

You have never learned to practice what you very much preach have you?

Poor, otto.  Perhaps if you went back to elementary school, you might learn how to read.

I don't believe I have ever asked you to post "credible sources."  I simply asked you to list your sources, and after you have listed them, we are free to read the entire thing to try to evaluate it, to put in context what you cut and pasted, and evaluate the credibility of the sources ourselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 06:55:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 12:36:14 pm

Over ONE BILLION VOTES cast and...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/)

Can any of you moronic conservatives run the dollar cost analysis on that.

Any contention that there have been only 31 incidents of voter fraud in the last billion votes cast is so lacking credibility as to have no value whatsoever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 07:54:36 pm

Quote

Any contention that there have been only 31 incidents of voter fraud in the last billion votes cast is so lacking credibility as to have no value whatsoever.

What is it the link you are providing supposed to support, refute, establish or deny? Otherwise, we can only assume you deliberately chose NOT to include a link because you know you lack any credibility.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 08:09:12 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 05:35:26 pm

davepebart
First I would have to ask if you equate solid methane hydrates which are stored in massive quantities in the ocean the same as algae or krill dying?
Of course, as a conservative anti-scientist they must be the same....according to an article that you have read.

You didn't answer the question, Homo.  What opinion did I post that you feel is a bad one.  In fact, what opinion of any kind did I include in the post you questioned.

The University of Wisconsin PS 137 really did a job on your education, didn't they?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 08:11:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 05:50:47 pm

Ah, the it's the Not My Fault defense. Is dan qualye his lawyer?

Nope.  It's the "I didn't do it" defense.  Even in the backwards state and hick city you live in, they must have some understanding of the word "innocent".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 08:24:40 pm

davepebart


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/scientists-may-have-****-the-giant-siberian-crater-mystery-and-the-news-isnt-good/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/scientists-may-have-****-the-giant-siberian-crater-mystery-and-the-news-isnt-good/)


Feel free as an anti-scientist to post something about methane gas releases from cows and pig pop. That will prove the sinking boat theory too...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 08:29:43 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 07:54:36 pm

What is it the link you are providing supposed to support, refute, establish or deny? Otherwise, we can only assume you deliberately chose NOT to include a link because you know you lack any credibility.

Poor, otto.  I know your posts of more than a line or two are cut and pasted from someone else, but that does not mean that anything anyone else posts is merely a cut and paste post.

Some of us are not only capable of independent thought, we actually engage it in it.

Then we even compose coherent sentences to express those ideas.

There is no need to post a link to source your own independent thoughts... if you actually ever stumble on one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 08:31:56 pm

There is no need to post a link to source your own independent thoughts, because there just wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 08:34:44 pm

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1OS8MjfmIqs/U7VsIBs-JsI/AAAAAAAAmEE/0Ztpycqq8YA/s800/Moncktonjuly2014.png)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 08:44:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 05:50:47 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/senator-rand-paul-faces-new-charges-of-plagiarism.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/senator-rand-paul-faces-new-charges-of-plagiarism.html?_r=0)


Why Rand Paul's plagiarism matters
   
By Mitchell Blatt
The Hill, November 15, 2013

Sen.Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) pathetic excuses for plagiarizing content in his speeches and book show that either he has no shame, or he has no concept of what plagiarism is and why it is wrong. Either way, it’s a serious problem, and Paul needs to take responsibility for it rather than continuing to attack those who simply reported the truth.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/190290-why-rand-pauls-plagiarism-matters#ixzz39kVxBzPU  (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/190290-why-rand-pauls-plagiarism-matters#ixzz39kVxBzPU)

Plagiarizing a speech?

Really?

And someone thinks that is a problem somehow?

otto, please, in your own words, explain to me how or why or in what way it is a problem?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 08:49:27 pm

How long have we heard otto and other idiots just like him insist that those contending "global warming" has stopped (if it ever had existed in the first place) and the there had been a pause of now more than ten years when we have seen NO WARMING, something which simply would not be happening if any warming were the result of human activity and those dreaded carbon emissions?

Well, now NASA is explaining WHY the pause which otto has denied happening.... is happening.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/06/nasa-climate-scientist-explains-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 07, 2014, 08:53:58 pm

I applaud Obama for finally sending help to Iraq.  We should have never pulled out in the first place and we should have given aid earlier but I give him credit for finally doing something right.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 09:22:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 08:24:40 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/scientists-may-have-****-the-giant-siberian-crater-mystery-and-the-news-isnt-good/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/scientists-may-have-****-the-giant-siberian-crater-mystery-and-the-news-isnt-good/)

You are a real jewel, Homo.  There is nothing in that article that has any bearing on anything in my post.

By the way, you still haven't said what opinion I wrote in my post.  Are you too stupid to answer the question, or are you just afraid to make your ignorance even more obvious?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 09:53:58 pm

Quote from: davep on August 07, 2014, 09:22:36 pm

Are you too stupid to answer the question, or are you just afraid to make your ignorance even more obvious?

davep, I believe otto genuinely feels he is neither ignorant nor stupid, but that he instead thinks he is a smart and knowledgeable guy.

Scary, isn't it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 09:57:43 pm

I genuinely believe that there is no reason to try to debate two little conservative school girls.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2014, 10:04:40 pm

Oddo the Homo retreats again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 10:12:43 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 09:57:43 pm

I genuinely believe that there is no reason to try to debate two little conservative school girls.

I imagine you are much more dependent on chloroform and duct tape.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 10:14:01 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gaJJtS_WDmI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gaJJtS_WDmI)

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/ (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/)

What are you going to argue when your cherry picked year becomes one of the cooler years?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 07, 2014, 10:50:40 pm

The question really is what will Oddo do when the glaciers begin moving southward into the US again

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 10:52:14 pm

Wow, simply wow.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 07, 2014, 10:58:29 pm

Thrilling isn't it. And how will that affect the food supply?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 08, 2014, 06:33:58 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 08:31:56 pm

There is no need to post a link to source your own independent thoughts, because they're just wrong.

there, I fixed it for you.

When you use a contraction for "they are" you use "they're"
When you point to a direction something is you use "there"
When you want to show ownership you use "their"

How can we believe you are as smart as you say you are when simple grammar eludes you?
Otto, you have been misled by so many people, we are here to help you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on August 08, 2014, 09:17:48 am

Why is everyone a bart?  WTF is a bart?  I really what to know WTF bart means...   ??? ???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 08, 2014, 12:14:17 pm

Under the category of 'Never underestimate the ability of republics to swallow jaw-dropping levels of hypocrisy by one of their own' I offer the following t-bagger...

Rep. Scott Desjarlais (R-TN), the "pro-family" tea party backed guy from a white, under educated and low wage rural TN congressional district. Recent history has shown that DesJarlais was been caught up in a sordid tale in which he committed adultery by sleeping with a patient – he’s a medical doctor by trade – then pressured his two mistress' to have an abortions in the hopes of hiding his misdeeds from the wife he allegedly abused.

The affairs were some of “at least eight” extra-marital relationships DesJarlais acknowledged in court documents.

Worse, during a messy break-up with his ex-wife, DesJarlais also allegedly held a gun in his mouth for three hours, “dry fired” a gun outside his wife’s locked bedroom door.

He ran on an anti-PPACA and Benghazi platform.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 08, 2014, 12:20:29 pm

williamjohn

Can you find an article on breitbart which would explain how President Barack Hussein Obama was the cause of scott's troubles? It might be under an article detailing how President Barack Hussein Obama caused primary republic voters in the Kansas governors race to vote in large numbers against sam brownback.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 08, 2014, 10:48:58 pm

Scientists: Don't freak out about Ebola.   
T-baggers: Panic!


Scientists:: Freak out about climate change.
T-baggers: LOL! Pass me some coal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 08, 2014, 10:57:36 pm

Well actually don't freak out about Ebola unless you or a loved one have it.  It is very deadly once contracted.  As in 90 to 95% die who have it and there is no cure.

However once there is an outbreak it can be contained if everyone follows the proper practices. 

Climate change is natural and not man made so no need to freak about it either.  We just have to roll with the punches.

Where liberals and conservatives differ is that liberals actually think if the government takes enough money and rights from enough people they can solve any problem.  Conservatives know better. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 10:00:23 am

Just a couple of days ago otto posted a link to a Washington post article which (judging from the url) claimed there had only been 31 credible claims of voter fraud in the U.S. over billions of votes cast, meaning it would have been at least the last 5 years if not more. 

I pointed out the obvious:

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 07, 2014, 06:55:57 pm

Any contention that there have been only 31 incidents of voter fraud in the last billion votes cast is so lacking credibility as to have no value whatsoever.

Like any good terrier without a brain, but barking reflexively nonetheless, otto responded as follows:

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2014, 07:54:36 pm

What is it the link you are providing supposed to support, refute, establish or deny? Otherwise, we can only assume you deliberately chose NOT to include a link because you know you lack any credibility.

I just saw this on a friend's facebook page:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hjmKBfrycQ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 09, 2014, 11:04:10 am

Yet the Dumbos don't want voter ID because that would deny illegals the right to cast Dumbo ballots.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 09, 2014, 11:38:35 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 09, 2014, 11:04:10 am

Yet the Dumbos don't want voter ID because that would deny illegals the right to cast Dumbo ballots.

It would also leave all the dead people in Chicago cemataries with nothing to do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 09, 2014, 11:48:08 am

Ha ha, so true

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 12:37:40 pm

WshflThinking and davep, while I support voter ID, it really is not out of any genuine belief Democrats are any more likely to engage in voter fraud than Republicans (I have personally witnessed BOTH parties engage in voter fraud).  I do not believe Democrats oppose voter ID in order to allow meaningful numbers of fraudulent Democratic voters to sway elections.

I do believe, however, that Democrats see the issue as one they can latch onto and oppose in order to persuade minority voters that Republicans hate them, are trying to disenfranchise them, and have to be defeated.  It is a manufactured issue used to gin up their base, as well as to expand their base.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 01:53:57 pm

I can't speak for the rest of the country but in Chicago voter fraud is a huge problem.  Voter ID laws would go a long way towards fixing it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 09, 2014, 02:23:17 pm

my father in law still thinks the democrats are for the "little man".  I've been tempted to vote for him :-)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 03:00:17 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 01:53:57 pm

I can't speak for the rest of the country but in Chicago voter fraud is a huge problem.  Voter ID laws would go a long way towards fixing it.

Considering the margins by which Democratic candidates in Cook County generally beat Republican candidates, the voter fraud there would have to reach unbelievable levels before it would make much difference.

Could a believable, but still serious, level of voter fraud there play a meaningful role in swaying statewide races, or tilting the state's electoral college votes Democratic, certainly, and it likely did in 1960, giving the  nation Kennedy instead of Nixon.  On a national level, I doubt it has made any difference in the outcome of any election since then.

To take that as the launching point for to another discussion topic, what would have happened if dead voters had not turned out en mass to vote for Kennedy in 1960?

How would things have been different?  A bit of alternative history here.

A few possibilities --

1) We still would have seen the Bay of Pigs invasion, since that had begun under the Eisenhower administration, and the aftermath also would have been similar, with Castro aligning himself just as tightly with Kruschev and the USSR as happened with Kennedy in office.

2) Cuban Missile Crisis still would have happened, and Nixon would have been no more likely to have launched missiles than Kennedy, though you have to wonder whether he MIGHT have been more willing to back down on the demands that the USSR not go ahead with the installations.   If Nixon HAD backed down, that would also have meant that the U.S. would have KEPT our nuclear missiles in Turkey, and the strategic difference in that different outcome might have been non-existent.

3) Oswald would still have been a nutjob seeking instant celebrity by assassinating a president and would have killed Nixon instead of Kennedy, making Nixon a national martyr (imagine history with NIXON as a national hero and martyr instead of being synonamous for political scum).

4) The real question is with Vietnam.  Would Nixon, or his successor, have allowed mission creep as Kennedy and Johnson did?  Would Nixon or his successor have been so willing to lie to the nation and Congress to get authorization for it, as LBJ did with the Gulf of Tonkin?  Easy to think he would have, based on Watergate, but Watergate was to a large extent a result of Nixon knowing he got screwed over in 1960 and being paranoid about it.  AN honest election outcome in 1960 might have resulted in a much more honest Nixon.  And if not for Vietnam, would the counterculture movement of the '60's  have been remotely as strong as it was.

5) On civil rights I suspect that Nixon would have been every bit as willing as Kennedy was to send in federal troops to accomplish desegregation -- Ike had done the same think.  You would NOT have seen and LBJ in office in 1965 twisting arms in the Congress to get the Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation passed.... but with a meaningful margin for the Republican party coming from the 1964 elections (that was the re-election of the incumbent and of his party, and with a different incumbent, you would expect a different party controlling Congress in 1965).  And if the Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House in 1965, I would have expected the Republicans to pass into law the kind of legislation LBJ had opposed and blocked when he was in the Senate.  This would have resulted in a massively different electoral re-alignment of voting blocks, with no massive Democratic margin among black voters.

6) Without U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the taxation, spending, and inflation it brought, the U.S. economic picture for the period from 1965-1985 would have been massively different.

7) Likely no Ronald Reagan, other than as an old B-movie actor.

8) Likely still an asinine War on Poverty program.  Likely still an EPA and all of the associated governmental stupidity.

9) Likely NOT a major expansion of the Department of Education.

10) Likely still inner city race riots in the mid to late 60's.

11) Almost certainly still a space race, whether the U.S. made it to the moon first or not, though perhaps a space race with more private sector involvement and a smoother and much faster transition to private sector exploration and development.

12) Certainly the technological developments such as computers and the internet and the rest likely would still have happened much as it has.

13) The Women's Movement would have taken place much the same as it has.

14) The prevalence of birth control, and the associated shift in morality would also likely have happened just as it has.

15) The breakup of the Soviet Union would have happened much the same as it has, even if on a slightly different timetable.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 09, 2014, 04:07:36 pm

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Unstable.shtml

So true but so frightening.  Who would have dreamed this in 1960.  Dis-assembling our former Constitution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 04:28:21 pm

Quote from: packrat on August 09, 2014, 04:07:36 pm

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Unstable.shtml

So true but so frightening.  Who would have dreamed this in 1960.  Dis-assembling our former Constitution.

So that is what David Duke is doing these days.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 04:49:45 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/09/obama-says-iraq-situation-will-take-more-than-weeks-to-solve/

President Obama braced Americans on Saturday for a sustained military involvement in Iraq, saying the United States is prepared to continue with air strikes to protect U.S. diplomats and citizens and others under attack from the ISIL terror group. 

"I don't think we’re going to solve this problem in weeks," the president said on the South Lawn of the White House. “This is going to be a long-term project.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 09, 2014, 05:28:59 pm

So this is how Obama solves the lack of jobs in this country.....go to war.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 06:58:53 pm

I find it curious everyone calls them ISIS but him.  He is the only one I have heard call them ISIL.  I am curious if anyone knows why he calls them that instead of ISIS?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 07:34:39 pm

WshflThinking, are you sincerely suggesting that you would not also have criticized Obama if he had NOT ordered attacks, complaining that he was allowing genocide, or was too weak, or something of the kind?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 08:03:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 06:58:53 pm

I find it curious everyone calls them ISIS but him.  He is the only one I have heard call them ISIL.  I am curious if anyone knows why he calls them that instead of ISIS?

You may not have been listening closely lately (and I will admit I was not either, because I had the same question),  The Associated Press stylebook has been calling them ISIL for at least the last month and a half.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/256045/why-ap-uses-isil-instead-of-isis/
http://www.ibtimes.com/it-isis-or-isil-jihadist-group-expanding-iraq-has-two-names-one-goal-1601346
http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-or-isil-are-they-the-same-what-to-call-iraqs-islamic-militant-extremists-124561/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 08:39:22 pm

Thanks, Jes.

I knew they had changed their name but had only noticed them being called ISIS until his speech.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 08:45:57 pm

For the record I am glad we are helping in Iraq.  I applaud Obama for finally having the balls to do what needed to be done.  I only wish he had not pulled our troops out in the first place.  We won that war then just walked away.  It was stupid!

We should have negotiated a long term deal on a base and let the Iraqi's deal with their own problem but been there to back them up and continue training them.  It makes me sick that all that blood and treasure was for nothing since we walked away to soon.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 09, 2014, 08:56:30 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 07:34:39 pm

WshflThinking, are you sincerely suggesting that you would not also have criticized Obama if he had NOT ordered attacks, complaining that he was allowing genocide, or was too weak, or something of the kind?

You must be as blind or stupid as Oddo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: octagon on August 09, 2014, 09:03:54 pm

Any military action in Iraq is just pro-longing the inevitable.  Iraq will fragment into 3 states in due time, a Kurdish state, a Shia state and a Sunni state.  Involving ourselves in a religiously motivated civil war will just result in more blowback down the line.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 09, 2014, 09:44:36 pm

We still would have seen the Bay of Pigs invasion, since that had begun under the Eisenhower administration, and the aftermath also would have been similar, with Castro aligning himself just as tightly with Kruschev and the USSR as happened with Kennedy in office.

Yes, but Nixon would not have pulled away the air cover, and there is a very good chance that the invasion would have oustted castro.  If that happened, nothing on your list would have followed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 09, 2014, 09:47:51 pm

Quote from: octagon on August 09, 2014, 09:03:54 pm

Any military action in Iraq is just pro-longing the inevitable.  Iraq will fragment into 3 states in due time, a Kurdish state, a Shia state and a Sunni state.  Involving ourselves in a religiously motivated civil war will just result in more blowback down the line.

We should have done what Biden intimated, and done that for them immediately.  Now, it is far too late.  We will end up with a Shiite provence that is part of Iran, a Suni provence that is part of Syria, and a Kurdish state that is at war with Turkey.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 09:54:10 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 09, 2014, 08:56:30 pm

You must be as blind or stupid as Oddo.

Perhaps I am both, but could you possibly answer what was posed as a rather simple question?

For ease of reference, the question was as follows:
WshflThinking, are you sincerely suggesting that you would not also have criticized Obama if he had NOT ordered attacks, complaining that he was allowing genocide, or was too weak, or something of the kind?

Oh, and if it raises your testosterone level or somehow makes you fell good about yourself to do so, please by all means feel free to attempt whatever further insults you would like.  Just please answer the question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 10:03:00 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 08:45:57 pm

For the record I am glad we are helping in Iraq.  I applaud Obama for finally having the balls to do what needed to be done.

Whether we need to be doing now what he has ordered or not, the need has been entirely foreseeable for more than a month and a half now, and Obama has not once asked for Congressional authorization or a declaration of war.

What people often forget is that the way our government was set up, the process is extremely important, because the process, and observation of it, is what preserves the balance of powers and it is that balance of powers which was intended to be the primary protection of our individual liberties against the possibility of an oppressive government.  I don't want a president to assert or claim or exercise additional power beyond what was assigned by the Constitution, EVEN when what the president would be doing would be the "right thing" and would bring about what I would like to happen.  For example, I don't like the Emancipation Proclamation, because I see nowhere in the Constitution where the president could even claim to have had such power, even though ending slavery, and ending that war, were both highly desirable goals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 09, 2014, 10:11:02 pm

Jes, I agree he should be required to have congressional authorization.  He also should have acted months ago.

He should have gone to congress and asked them for permission and explained why it was necessary.  Of course if he never pulled our troops out in the first place none of this would be happening.  How many innocent people have been slaughtered due to him pandering to his base?  And yet we are dragged back into it anyway...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 10:12:06 pm

Quote from: davep on August 09, 2014, 09:44:36 pm

We still would have seen the Bay of Pigs invasion, since that had begun under the Eisenhower administration, and the aftermath also would have been similar, with Castro aligning himself just as tightly with Kruschev and the USSR as happened with Kennedy in office.

Yes, but Nixon would not have pulled away the air cover, and there is a very good chance that the invasion would have oustted castro.  If that happened, nothing on your list would have followed.

Since I was only 6 at the time, and since I have never done anything remotely resembling any research of what happened or how it was bungled, but instead had simply thought it was a matter of a grossly undermanned invasion, and not a matter of an invasion where support which had been planned was not delivered, and since you likely followed it much closer at the time, and may well have looked into it a bit since then, I won't dispute at all your contention that under a Nixon administration, the outcome would have been entirely different.

The idea nothing else on the list would have happened, however, if the Bay of Pigs had been successful, seems out of touch with history.  Oswald still would have been a nut with a gun.  The Women's Liberation Movement was not exactly dependent on the outcome of the Bay of Pigs, nor were the race riots of the 60's, or the advent of birth control and its associated effects, and Ho Chi Minh would still have been pressing for unification of Vietnam without regard to whether Castro remained in power.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 10:18:51 pm

Quote from: davep on August 09, 2014, 09:47:51 pm

We should have done what Biden intimated, and done that for them immediately.  Now, it is far too late.  We will end up with a Shiite provence that is part of Iran, a Suni provence that is part of Syria, and a Kurdish state that is at war with Turkey.

One of the central problems of the middle east over the last 90 years is the way the west carved it up, with little sensitivity to natural nationalist sentiments, and imposing upon them international boundaries and borders which begged for further disputes.  This is much the same thing as has been happening in Africa after the end of colonialism.

Some might look at all of that and conclude that the U.S. should not be imposing borders on other people.  And that the reason that we should not do so is because the effort will almost certainly fail and bring more war, death and oppression that would happen if they sort things out themselves, and that the U.S. will end up blamed for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 10, 2014, 06:29:27 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 09:54:10 pm

Perhaps I am both, but could you possibly answer what was posed as a rather simple question?

For ease of reference, the question was as follows:
WshflThinking, are you sincerely suggesting that you would not also have criticized Obama if he had NOT ordered attacks, complaining that he was allowing genocide, or was too weak, or something of the kind?

Oh, and if it raises your testosterone level or somehow makes you fell good about yourself to do so, please by all means feel free to attempt whatever further insults you would like.  Just please answer the question.

The question is absurd  and irrelevant. If I didn't say it then it then you are just insinuating I said it which is a direct reference to Oddo who is reading deficient. Don't be trying to put words into people's mouths.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 10, 2014, 06:50:25 am

WshflThinking, the question is neither absurd nor irrelevant, nothing in what *I* wrote in that question is a reference to otto (or "Oddo" as you call him in your eagerness to insert needless insult in your posts), nothing put words in your mouth, and nothing insinuated anything.  I asked a simple question.  It could easily be answered with a "yes" or with a "no" or with some of one and some of the other, and with a completely open opportunity for qualification of your response.

Believe it or not, you are not exactly the center of everyone's universe.  I quite sincerely do not remember even a fraction of your prior posts, or our prior exchanges.

I asked the question because I quite sincerely do not know the answer.

Now, I ask a third time, are you sincerely suggesting that you would not also have criticized Obama if he had NOT ordered attacks, complaining that he was allowing genocide, or was too weak, or something of the kind?

You have now criticized him for the attacks.  Are you contending the U.S. should do nothing, that the U.S. should allow ISIL to take all of Iraq and commit genocide?

Or are you saying your post was not critical of what Obama is doing NOW in Iraq?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 10, 2014, 12:58:17 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 09, 2014, 10:12:06 pm

The idea nothing else on the list would have happened, however, if the Bay of Pigs had been successful, seems out of touch with history.  Oswald still would have been a nut with a gun.  The Women's Liberation Movement was not exactly dependent on the outcome of the Bay of Pigs, nor were the race riots of the 60's, or the advent of birth control and its associated effects, and Ho Chi Minh would still have been pressing for unification of Vietnam without regard to whether Castro remained in power.

Sorry, I was talking in the context of your post.  Those that you identified as happening either way, I don't agree with.  I do wonder why they were included in your post, since the purpose of it was to point out what would have been different if the Democrats had not stolen the election from Nixon.

The point that Oswald was a nut with a gun either way is irrelevant.  There are always "nuts with guns" out there, but whether the thousands of details would have happened to cause or allow him to assassinate Nixon is highly improbable/

I was 18 when the Bay of Pigs invasion happened, and was of draft age, something that made things personal to me.  Many Cubans had fled to the United States when Castro took over, and established a center of resistance in Florida, specifically in Miame.  From later reports, the CIA encouraged them to launch an invasion of Cuba, financed by CIA money and arms, and promised U. S. air cover during the landing.  Since the landing was on an exposed beach, it could not possibly succeed without that air cover.  At the last minute, Kennedy refused to provide that air cover, and the "resistance" invaders were slaughtered.  Those hard feelings continue to this day, which is why the Cuban population, especially in Florida, is the only sector of the Latino vote that consistently goes Republican.  Marco Rubio is a result of this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 10, 2014, 02:06:34 pm

Kennedy never agreed to air support for the Bay of Pigs action. He was resolute that America would not overtly support any involvement in the operation that would risk WWIII with the Soviets.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 10, 2014, 03:01:58 pm

From the Kennedy Library site:  http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Bay-of-Pigs.aspx

The Plan

The original invasion plan called for two air strikes against Cuban air bases. A 1,400-man invasion force would disembark under cover of darkness and launch a surprise attack. Paratroopers dropped in advance of the invasion would disrupt transportation and repel Cuban forces. Simultaneously, a smaller force would land on the east coast of Cuba to create confusion.

The main force would advance across the island to Matanzas and set up a defensive position. The United Revolutionary Front would send leaders from South Florida and establish a provisional government. The success of the plan depended on the Cuban population joining the invaders.


The Invasion

The first mishap occurred on April 15, 1961, when eight bombers left Nicaragua to bomb Cuban airfields. The CIA had used obsolete World War II B-26 bombers, and painted them to look like Cuban air force planes. The bombers missed many of their targets and left most of Castro's air force intact. As news broke of the attack, photos of the repainted U.S. planes became public and revealed American support for the invasion. President Kennedy cancelled a second air strike.

On April 17, the Cuban-exile invasion force, known as Brigade 2506, landed at beaches along the Bay of Pigs and immediately came under heavy fire. Cuban planes strafed the invaders, sank two escort ships, and destroyed half of the exile's air support. Bad weather hampered the ground force, which had to work with soggy equipment and insufficient ammunition.

The Counterattack

Over the next 24 hours, Castro ordered roughly 20,000 troops to advance toward the beach, and the Cuban air force continued to control the skies. As the situation grew increasingly grim, President Kennedy authorized an "air-umbrella" at dawn on April 19—six unmarked American fighter planes took off to help defend the brigade's B-26 aircraft flying. But the B-26s arrived an hour late, most likely confused by the change in time zones between Nicaragua and Cuba. They were shot down by the Cubans, and the invasion was crushed later that day.

Some exiles escaped to the sea, while the rest were killed or rounded up and imprisoned by Castro's forces. Almost 1,200 members of Brigade 2056 surrendered, and more than 100 were killed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 10, 2014, 03:08:42 pm

Thanks, davebear, that helps a great deal with the what happened, but still is a bit short of responding to the questions I posed for davep's memory, and otto's cut and paste liberal mythology of JFK.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 10, 2014, 09:37:54 pm

Pekebart? lol...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 10, 2014, 09:41:01 pm

The Cuban's that survived claimed that they were not told that the second wave of air support was cancelled by Kennedy.  Kennedy seemed to cancel the air support because news got out the previous day that the U. S. was behind it, and there was international criticism of it.  Whether of not they were told, Cubans in Florida have lined up pretty consistently against the Democrats.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 11, 2014, 04:15:49 pm

 
 Hispanics in California were evenly split about which party they voted for
 
 before a proposition was put on the ballot about illegal immigrints.
 
 In a move of PURE POLITICAL GENUIS ... the democrats pointed out the proposition was put up by republicans, neglecting to say that democrats also signed on.
 
 The result was Hispanics thought the republicans hated them and shifted their vote to democrats ever since.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 11, 2014, 04:57:08 pm

The problem with hispanics, from a political point of view, is that they don't stay hispanic.  More than 50% of the third generation marries a non-hispanic.

They don't stay a minority forever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 11, 2014, 07:10:11 pm

The problem with most Hispanics, they are not informed voters..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2014, 07:18:47 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 11, 2014, 07:10:11 pm

The problem with most Hispanics, they are not informed voters..

That's a description I have also seen applied to Chicago fans in Virginia.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 11, 2014, 09:56:01 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 11, 2014, 07:18:47 pm

That's a description I have also seen applied to Chicago fans in Virginia.

 You just had to get that dig in there didnt you Jesotto?
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 11, 2014, 10:18:10 pm

chifinva

The problem with every t-bagger is, they're not informed, smart, educated or display any common sense type of person.

For an example please view below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5ogJjmgpLM&feature=player_detailpage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5ogJjmgpLM&feature=player_detailpage)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 11, 2014, 10:29:36 pm

 
 Otto,
 
 It really comes down to this ...
 
 would you hate **** the **** out of Sarah Palin doggy style?
 
 Or just kick her out of bed on moral principles?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2014, 05:25:39 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 11, 2014, 10:18:10 pm

chifinva

The problem with every t-bagger is, they're not informed, smart, educated or display any common sense type of person.

And since otto believes Palin's comments in the video do not display any common sense, are not informed or smart or educated, presumably otto believes fast food jobs ARE "lifetime gigs" and are NOT stepping stones to better jobs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 12, 2014, 08:04:42 am

Maybe obama can donate  some fundraiser cash to those struggling on minimum wage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 12, 2014, 04:52:37 pm

Obama: Iraq Troop Withdrawal Not My Responsibility

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Iraq-troop-withdrawal-Bush/2014/08/12/id/588204/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1581304_08122014&promo_code=nxg3fgjr

The 2011 Iraqi troop withdrawal was Bush's fault. Isnt that right Oddo?  ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 12, 2014, 05:32:42 pm

The problem with most Hispanics voters, they are not informed voters..

I fixed it for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2014, 05:58:46 pm

Quote from: davep on August 12, 2014, 05:32:42 pm

The problem with most Hispanics voters, they are not informed voters..

I fixed it for you.

No disagreement here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2014, 06:24:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 10, 2014, 02:06:34 pm

Quote

Kennedy never agreed to air support for the Bay of Pigs action. He was resolute that America would not overtly support any involvement in the operation that would risk WWIII with the Soviets.

So, otto, since it was absolutely apparent to everyone that the U.S. was involved with the Bay of Pigs, and since I believe the Kennedy administration did not even deny it, what was gained by not providing air support?

otto, since you didn't respond the first time, I thought I would ask again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 12, 2014, 07:12:01 pm

I don't disagree. Although, over 70 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama, that tells me something. Also, being in construction, I talked to a lot of Hispanics at election time, the main answer I got (when I asked them why?) was they voted for Obama 'cause Romney would send their people back to Mexico.. Sounds informed to me.. Yes, I agree, most voters are not informed when they go into the booth..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 13, 2014, 06:13:51 am

Quote from: chifaninva on August 12, 2014, 07:12:01 pm

I don't disagree. Although, over 70 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama, that tells me something. Also, being in construction, I talked to a lot of Hispanics at election time, the main answer I got (when I asked them why?) was they voted for Obama 'cause Romney would send their people back to Mexico.. Sounds informed to me.. Yes, I agree, most voters are not informed when they go into the booth..

Unquestioned ignorance at play there.

Unfortunately, it would appear you do not begin to see it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 13, 2014, 07:31:58 pm

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=247391

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 13, 2014, 09:50:28 pm

Sheldon did you know that Run Paul's family included Alec Baldwin and the Hamptons.

**** Christians in Iowa have some questions for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: panthermark on August 13, 2014, 10:31:52 pm

Holy balls...

Is this the longest running argument in the history of the interwebz? 

Ya'll have been at this for so long the you know what each other will say before they say it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 13, 2014, 11:04:21 pm

Quote from: panthermark on August 13, 2014, 10:31:52 pm

Holy balls...

Is this the longest running argument in the history of the interwebz? 

Ya'll have been at this for so long the you know what each other will say before they say it.

Actually, most of the time I really don't know what otto will say.

In fact, most of the time, even after his post, I don't know what otto has said.  His last post would be a good example of that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 13, 2014, 11:23:12 pm

Ya Sheldon, it's tough being current with the guy that you defend and support to the point of stupidity.


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/08/12/rand-paul-family-commitment/13972009/ (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/08/12/rand-paul-family-commitment/13972009/)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 14, 2014, 12:42:35 am

Quote from: panthermark on August 13, 2014, 10:31:52 pm

Holy balls...

Is this the longest running argument in the history of the interwebz? 

Ya'll have been at this for so long the you know what each other will say before they say it.

 LMFAO !! Welcome back Panther!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2014, 05:57:08 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 13, 2014, 11:23:12 pm

Ya Sheldon, it's tough being current with the guy that you defend and support to the point of stupidity.

No difficulty at all in remaining current on political issues.... now, deciphering your incoherent attempts at human communication, well, that is a different matter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 14, 2014, 07:17:40 am

I guess Otto once again failed to read past the headline...


"Aides for Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, told The Des Moines Register this evening that Paul and his wife, Kelley, did indeed have a family commitment. It was in New York, and they took one of their three sons with them. The party with Baldwin was just an extra event on the itinerary for the weekend."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 02:00:56 am

The **** going down in Ferguson is what will happen eventually all over the place if we continue to give hand outs to people who are not doing anything to earn their way.  They feel **** is owed to them.   When it is not given or they feel they are not being given enough they will riot. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on August 17, 2014, 08:44:56 am

Agreed - people don't value doing the right thing anymore

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 17, 2014, 11:43:05 am

Then everyone worry's about handling it in the politically correct manner. Protesting is one thing, these are nothing but thugs. If that was a white guy that was shot, would there be rioting in the streets? Doubt it..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 12:20:11 pm

Quote from: BearHit on August 17, 2014, 08:44:56 am

Agreed - people don't value doing the right thing anymore

Which people don't value doing the "right thing"?

The vast majority of the people who never looted, and who criticize those who did?

The people who understandably and properly protested a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed man?

Or those who seemingly believe that the cop's actions were acceptable?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on August 17, 2014, 12:54:24 pm

Raising children to treat others as they would like to be treated

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 02:29:56 pm

And who are the folks who are not doing that?

Those who seemingly believe the cop's actions were acceptable -- shooting an unarmed man in the back and then emptying the magazine in him once he has turned around and is unarmed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 02:35:02 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 17, 2014, 11:43:05 am

Then everyone worry's about handling it in the politically correct manner. Protesting is one thing, these are nothing but thugs. If that was a white guy that was shot, would there be rioting in the streets? Doubt it..

For the last several years in the U.S., police have shot and killed an average of 100 blacks a year, which I believe is meaningfully more than the number of whites police have shot and killed, even though whites outnumber blacks by more than 4:1.

It is really painful to watch folks try to make apologies for this, or who try to move focus from where it should be, and onto looting by a small handful of folks who should quite accurately be described as thugs.  That is NOT a description which should be applied to the vast majority of those protesting what happened.

When Pekin started his post with criticism of "this ****," I genuinely thought he was criticizing the actual ****, the cop murdering a person on a city street.  Unfortunately I was wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 02:57:53 pm

Even if the kid attacked the officer and tryed to take his gun (this was the story I was originally told but have seen no mention of since) shooting the kid once or twice should have been enough to end it.  I see no plausible reason a cop should of had to shoot him 9 times. 

I have no problem with peaceful protests.  I find the looting and burning down buildings ridiculous.  The same type of thugs do the same thing when their pro sports team wins a championship.  It is just an excuse to commit a crime they feel they will get away with.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 03:06:46 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 02:57:53 pm

It is just an excuse to commit a crime they feel they will get away with.

Perhaps, but "hand outs" have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and if you look at the cases of real riots in the last 50 years, almost all of them accompany some perceived violation of the civil rights of those rioting.  And in the 1980's, when it was generally accepted (even if completely false) that the federal government under Reagan was cutting "hand outs" you saw none.

Your explanation as to the cause simply does not square with observable reality.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 03:10:35 pm

Then explain the looting when a pro sports team wins.  What civil rights are violated that cause that to happen?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2014, 03:15:07 pm

I have seen very little on the TV news as to exactly what happened during the shooting, other than that given by the protesters.  Does anyone have a legitimate link that gives the police's side of the story.  The only things I have seen reported is that originally they reported that the officer stopped him as a suspect in the robbery, and that later, they said that the police did not know he was a suspect in a robbery.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 03:21:37 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-5-things/index.htm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 03:42:22 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 03:10:35 pm

Then explain the looting when a pro sports team wins.  What civil rights are violated that cause that to happen?

Those tend to be one day, drunken outbursts.  They do not last for an extended period and die on their own.  YOUR explanation for such activity was "hand out."  You seem to be undercutting your own position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 03:46:02 pm

Quote from: davep on August 17, 2014, 03:15:07 pm

I have seen very little on the TV news as to exactly what happened during the shooting, other than that given by the protesters.  Does anyone have a legitimate link that gives the police's side of the story.  The only things I have seen reported is that originally they reported that the officer stopped him as a suspect in the robbery, and that later, they said that the police did not know he was a suspect in a robbery.

So far the "police side" has been either lame, contradictory, or silence.

The forensics and ballistics are going to decide things, but right now it appears a cop needs to be doing a long stretch in prison, quite possibly a couple of decades.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 04:07:09 pm

http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 17, 2014, 04:18:57 pm

Until it is KNOWN what happened, and what the outcome is, what is there to "protest"? And, what gives them the right to loot and break in local businesses?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 17, 2014, 04:21:42 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 03:10:35 pm

Then explain the looting when a pro sports team wins.  What civil rights are violated that cause that to happen?

What civil rights were violated here? The kid was shot, he was having an altercation with law enforcement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2014, 04:35:53 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 03:46:02 pm

So far the "police side" has been either lame, contradictory, or silence.

The forensics and ballistics are going to decide things, but right now it appears a cop needs to be doing a long stretch in prison, quite possibly a couple of decades.

You say the explanations are lame, contradictory or silent, but do not say what they are.  I am sure you are absolutely impartial, but I would like to know WHAT they have said, rather than your opinion of what they said.  Are there any links that actually report the police's explanation?  They certainly could not be BOTH contradictory AND silent.

For some reason, TV news reports from ALL sides of the spectrum have not given the story.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 05:12:24 pm

2465 has the link to a story that shows the police officers side.  Although it is definatly biased against the police.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2014, 05:16:30 pm

All I get from 2465 is "page not found".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 05:21:30 pm

That's weird it is giving me the same thing now.

Anyway the police officers side is that the kid attacked him while he was in his car and tried to take his gun.  The officers did have wounds from an altercation.

Witnesses claim the officers grabbed the kid from his car and the kid was just trying to get away.  I suspect the witnesses are biased against the police. 

I will see if I can find the link again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 05:23:46 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-5-things/index.html

It appears CNN has something that keeps it from linking correctly.

Just do a search on MSN "Ferguson Shooting".  It is like the 5th article that comes up titled what is in the link.  It works that way.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 05:24:05 pm

Link worked this time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 05:48:28 pm

Quote from: davep on August 17, 2014, 04:35:53 pm

You say the explanations are lame, contradictory or silent, but do not say what they are.  I am sure you are absolutely impartial, but I would like to know WHAT they have said, rather than your opinion of what they said.  Are there any links that actually report the police's explanation?  They certainly could not be BOTH contradictory AND silent.

For some reason, TV news reports from ALL sides of the spectrum have not given the story.

They have given little from the police because what they have said has been contradictory, or lame... or they have been silent.

The initial reports were from the chief of police who was quoted saying that the victim had been shot "multiple" times, and that the first time was in the back.  Later he indicated that the victim was first shot while reaching into the car and struggling with the cop over the gun.  He also was initially quoted as saying the victim was 20-30 feet away when the first shot hit him, and that the victim had no weapon, and that the officer never saw a weapon.  He was quoted on Friday, when he released the video of the robbery, as saying the officer saw the cigars on the victim and at that time made the connection between the victim and the robbery.  Within a couple of hours he back-tracked and said the officer involved had been unaware of any link to the robbery.  These are the reports I have seen on CNN and on Fox, both have been consistent with the facts addressed, even if not with the angle presented.  All of the online news sources I have seen have either been consistent with that, or at least not in conflict with it.  I have not, however, even once seen any video of the chief of police saying any of these things.

One other thing I have seen reported from multiple sources, with nothing at odds with it is that the cop who shot him did not even call it in, made no effort to revive the victim, made no call for an ambulance, and that the Ferguson police department dispatch only learned about the shooting a few minutes after the fact from dispatch for the county, which under the 911 set up there is apparently where all of the 911 calls are routed.

But for the most part the police department has been silent about what happened, except when the the police chief has given the contradictory statements or exceedingly lame justifications.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 05:53:36 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 17, 2014, 04:18:57 pm

Until it is KNOWN what happened, and what the outcome is, what is there to "protest"? And, what gives them the right to loot and break in local businesses?

Lots of people have been protesting.  Very few have been looting.  And no one I have heard of has even suggested that anything gave anyone the right to loot and break into local businesses... even though it appears you are quite willing to accept that as having been what happened without in being KNOWN what happened.

As to what there is to protest, we know an unarmed man was shot to death by a police officer and that the shooting of the victim was at a distance it is hard to imagine how he might have posed a threat of harm to the cop, and that (according to the chief of police) at least one of the shots (either the first or the 2nd) hitting the victim came as he was running away.  We also know the cop has not been arrested.  We also know that if the situation had been reversed, Michael Brown would have been arrested the moment other police arrived, and that he would not have been allowed bail.

To me, there is plenty to protest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 06:00:32 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 17, 2014, 04:21:42 pm

What civil rights were violated here? The kid was shot, he was having an altercation with law enforcement.

He was shot to death.

And you think that is NOT a civil rights violation?

You think there is no right to life?

No right to due process before an execution?

Even the police do not claim he was shot DURING an altercation with police, but instead that there was a "tussle" when he leaned into the car, but that he then turned and ran and was then shot in the back at a distance of 20-30 feet while unarmed and running away, with the cop then firing until his magazine was empty, hitting him "multiple" additional times and killing him.

And you think that is NOT a civil rights violation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2014, 06:03:01 pm

Like you, I have not seen any clips of the Police Chief saying any of these things.  Nor have I seen a report, other than by obvious activists, that say any of the bullets were in the back.  Is there any impartial place to verify these reports?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 06:14:23 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 04:07:09 pm

http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0

That refers to an increase in the overall crime rate, without any indication whatsoever it increases THEFT or LOOTING or RIOTING.  And did you find anything about those race riots and looting which would have come during the Reagan years if your position matched reality?  I am sure I simply have forgotten them and you can remind me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 06:18:24 pm

Quote from: davep on August 17, 2014, 06:03:01 pm

Like you, I have not seen any clips of the Police Chief saying any of these things.  Nor have I seen a report, other than by obvious activists, that say any of the bullets were in the back.  Is there any impartial place to verify these reports?

I am simply going on the initial news reports I heard about it at the time, reports which provided the police chief as the source.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 06:38:03 pm

Jes, the people who are looting and setting fires are committing a crime.  I would venture to guess the vast majority either are on welfare, mother received welfare benefits when they were children or have baby momma's raising their kids who are on welfare.  Most likely at least two out of the three.  I also make a fairly safe assumption the majority are young black males. Another safe assumption is that this is not the first crime the majority of them have committed.

This is backed up by the images I have seen showing young black males with their shirts tied around their faces as a mask while smashing windows and looting while buildings burn nearby.

Since I never claimed there were or weren't race riots when Reagan was president you can put that straw man argument aside.

As I have said before I have no problem with the peaceful protestors as that is their right and they are not breaking any laws. 

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2014, 06:49:15 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 06:18:24 pm

I am simply going on the initial news reports I heard about it at the time, reports which provided the police chief as the source.

Did the Police Chief report that one of the bullets hit the victim in the back?  I have not seen any official reports of that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 17, 2014, 07:04:38 pm

 
 1.67% of Ferguson is AfAm.
 
 2. 52 of 55 police officers in Ferguson are non AfAm.
 
 3. Thats the problem. And it should be solved no matter what.
 
 Lets look at the big picture Nationwide ...
 
 13% of the population is AfAm.
 
 50% of all homicides are AfAm nationwide.
 
 90% of all homicides are AfAm's killing other AfAm's in that 50%.
 
 Should AfAm's be angry and protest the Ferguson shooting? You bet.
 
 But no AfAm's have killed more AfAm's then other AfAm's.
 
 That ... you should have been protesting for the last 30+ years.
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2014, 07:11:59 pm

 1.67% of Ferguson is AfAm?

I thought it was mostly African American.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 07:31:34 pm

JJ, which mostly leads back to the welfare system subsidizing single parenthood which lead to the current state of affairs in the African American community.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 17, 2014, 08:27:11 pm

Quote from: davep on August 17, 2014, 07:11:59 pm

1.67% of Ferguson is AfAm?

I thought it was mostly African American.

 Dave,
 
 AfAm = African American

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 09:02:06 pm

Quote from: davep on August 17, 2014, 06:49:15 pm

Did the Police Chief report that one of the bullets hit the victim in the back?  I have not seen any official reports of that.

That is what CNN and Fox both initially reported.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 09:11:18 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 06:38:03 pm

Jes, the people who are looting and setting fires are committing a crime.

I never suggested otherwise.  At the same time YOUR claim was that the looting was a result of "hand outs," and that looting resulted whenever those getting the "hand outs" felt they were not getting enough or it is no longer being given.  The link you provided, however made no reference to thefts or looting, but only to crimes.  In other words, the link simply did not support your claim.

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 06:38:03 pm

Since I never claimed there were or weren't race riots when Reagan was president you can put that straw man argument aside.

No straw man.  This was your claim:

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 02:00:56 am

The **** going down in Ferguson is what will happen eventually all over the place if we continue to give hand outs to people who are not doing anything to earn their way.  They feel **** is owed to them.   When it is not given or they feel they are not being given enough they will riot.

The time when folks were complaining most loudly about "not being given enough" was when Reagan was in office, which was a time without riots or any major incidents of looting.  In other words, while you did not mention Reagan by name, if your claim held water, his administration is a time when you would expect to have seen a major increase in rioting and looting, things that were not seen at all.

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 06:38:03 pm

As I have said before I have no problem with the peaceful protestors as that is their right and they are not breaking any laws. 

Again, your focus appears to be on the lesser problem (looting) and not the greater one -- a cop shooting an unarmed man to death, and cops in general in that community targeting blacks for harassment, which is an underlying factor in what is happening now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2014, 09:20:21 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on August 17, 2014, 08:27:11 pm

 Dave,
 
 AfAm = African American

But 1.67 % is not "mostly"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 09:32:06 pm

Jes the people who are doing the looting are using this as an excuse.  They use their sports team winning a championship as an excuse.  They feel they are owed something.  Other people have nice things they have nothing so they are going to take it.  Especially if they think there are a lot of other people doing it so they will get away with it.  Same reason when the EBT cards were jacked up all the welfare people went to Walmart and filled their carts.  They knew damn well they were stealing but they did not care.  They felt it was owed to them.

When the EBT cards got shut down they just left their full carts in the store at the register.  Then they threatened to riot if they were not turned back on.

http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/riots-demonstrations-and-welfare-cuts/  Just so I can knock you off your high horse, although it really is not my point at all.

If a person is raised on welfare and born into that lifestyle it usually takes something out of them.  They want better things but won't work for it.  They expect it to be handed to them.

It works the same way with kids born into a rich family more often then not.  Unless parenting corrects it they feel that lifestyle is owed to them but they do not want to work for it.  They are given everything and want for nothing yet a lot of times become terrible people.  It comes down to parenting.  The welfare system in a lot of cases takes one parent out of the equation which leads to the problems we are witnessing.
   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2014, 09:44:17 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 09:32:06 pm

Jes the people who are doing the looting are using this as an excuse.  They use their sports team winning a championship as an excuse.  They feel they are owed something.  Other people have nice things they have nothing so they are going to take it.  Especially if they think there are a lot of other people doing it so they will get away with it.  Same reason when the EBT cards were jacked up all the welfare people went to Walmart and filled their carts.  They knew damn well they were stealing but they did not care.  They felt it was owed to them.

When the EBT cards got shut down they just left their full carts in the store at the register.  Then they threatened to riot if they were not turned back on.

http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/riots-demonstrations-and-welfare-cuts/  Just so I can knock you off your high horse, although it really is not my point at all.

If a person is raised on welfare and born into that lifestyle it usually takes something out of them.  They want better things but won't work for it.  They expect it to be handed to them.

It works the same way with kids born into a rich family more often then not.  Unless parenting corrects it they feel that lifestyle is owed to them but they do not want to work for it.  They are given everything and want for nothing yet a lot of times become terrible people.  It comes down to parenting.  The welfare system in a lot of cases takes one parent out of the equation which leads to the problems we are witnessing.
   

You are wanting to argue things which are not part of the argument.

The argument is over whether you can support your original claim that:

Quote

The **** going down in Ferguson is what will happen eventually all over the place if we continue to give hand outs to people who are not doing anything to earn their way.  They feel **** is owed to them.   When it is not given or they feel they are not being given enough they will riot.

As I have pointed out, neither history, nor the link you provided, support the claim.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 09:55:18 pm

Jes, I have no love for police.  Believe me. 

While not a hoodlum I had my share of run ins with the law as did my friends.  Some are good guys just doing a job, others are pricks on a power trip and some are dirty as hell.  I was actually at a party once where the chief of police's son was in uniform doing lines.  He eventually got caught as did his dad in a gun selling scandal and both had to resign.  I don't believe either did jail time at least not for that.  I think the son eventually got sent away on drug charges later on.

Pretty sure his dad and some of the other police got me out of trouble a few times though.  My dad was the fire chief in the same town and passed away when I was young.  When I was a teenager I got out of a few jams because either charges never got filed or they got lost.  Once showed up for a court date and they knew nothing about it.

Sorry memory lane. 

Anyway my point is cops are people too.  The guy who did the shooting may very well be a jerk on a power trip that deserves to go away for a long time.  Or he was alone and had one guy attacking who was quite big and another right there and was scared for his life.  There were also other people on the streets that could have jumped him as well.  He would have no idea if they were friendly with the guy or not. 

We do not have all the evidence but my gut feeling at the very least this police officer should be fired.  He obviously made some bad errors in judgment.  I also agree that they should have more black police officers.  That is one major problem that needs to be fixed.  However are black police officers applying there and not getting the jobs or do rookies generally get stuck working here because it is a bad gig? 

My guess is the local high school does not have a whole lot of people signing up for the Explorers program.  Just a hunch...   

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 10:02:37 pm

Jes, yes it did.  Was there not rioting in Greece?  Did I dream that?

When people have no clue how to take care of themselves and feel like they are owed food and shelter they will act up when they do not get it.  They will also act up when they feel like they are not being given enough. 

It really comes down to the spoiled child syndrome.  Get something for nothing day after day and you will expect it.  You will also feel you are owed more when you see others who have so much more then you.  It takes a special person to break free from that and realize they have to earn it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 17, 2014, 11:06:53 pm

Mark's Market Blog
8-17-14: Still Debt.
by Mark Lawrence
We broke through S&P 1950 on the second try but didn't shoot up from there. The market's primary job is thought by many to be to confuse and surprise as many people as possible. This market is doing a great job: the bears can't catch a break, the market simply won't substantially correct. And the bulls haven't really had anything to cheer about all summer. But I predicted we'd make our way to S&P 2150 or so, and I see no reason to change that prediction.
 
S&P 500 February 122 2014 to August 15 2014
Fracking - ruining our environment? Fixing our oil dependency? I dunno, but it's huge and getting huger. It does not seem to be lowering oil prices, however.


Japan's economy grew 6.1% in Q1 as people stocked up before the impending raise in the national sales tax. Now the Q2 results are in, and their economy shrank by 6.8%. Abenomics is not a run-away success, that much is clear. Japan has not re

I don't like George Soros. As a human being, I think he's below pond scum. His life - a Hungarian Jewish boy who collaborated with the Nazis to turn in fellow Jews for gold - makes me sick. Having said all that, he's also one of the world's best investors. And he's recently committed a full sixth of his investment portfolio to S&P puts, a heavy bet that the S&P will fall substantially in the next couple of months. Warren Buffer is sitting on $50 billion of cash - he can't find anything he wants to buy at these prices.

In her most recent testimony before congress, Yellen said she would rather fight inflation than another economic downturn - in other words, low interest rates will stick around for a long time, until inflation gets pretty bad. When she talks in public it's often about jobs, something I think has absolutely nothing to do with interest rates and bank reserves. And if inflation rears its ugly head, then what? Under Reagan, Paul Volker drove interest rates up to nearly 20% and killed off inflation in just over a year. Or did he? Many note that oil prices came down at the same time and say that's what killed inflation. If Yellen finds herself with high inflation, will she have the guts to raise interest rates to the sky? And will oil prices plummet in half at the same time? My answer is no to both. Just as we have all known for years, this massive government debt means massive inflation, especially for our children. They tell me inflation is running right now at about 2%. All I know is compared to when Obama was elected, I'm paying double for gas, double for milk, double for apples and oranges. However my house hasn't appreciated at all. Our kids who have math based degrees and own real estate will do ok, not great, but ok. Everyone else? forget it. And of course the banks and Wall Street will clean up.

When I was a kid there were some businesses that were run by the mob: trash collection, ****, loan sharking and the numbers racket. The numbers racket meant you placed a bet on the last four digits of the DOW closing value. That's gone now, the states run this and it's now called the lottery. As a friend of mine said, the beautiful thing about the lottery is its inherent symmetry: your chances of winning are the same whether or not you buy a ticket. Loan sharking? That's gone too, replaced by payday loans. There are more payday loan businesses in the US than McDonalds and Starbucks. You pay interest on the loan of course, and also an origination fee, with the result that these loans go out at an annualized percentage rate of 300% (low) to 1800% (high). The excuse is that if you pay the loan back with your next paycheck the annualized rate doesn't apply. Three-quarters of all borrowers fail to pay the loan back on time. In fact one payday loan company has a chart in their employee training manual showing the loan cycle as a never-ending circle, the circle of death. Several states have made half-hearted attempts to regulate this business; the result is that may payday loan companies are changing over to title loans (you put up your car), mortgage loans (you put up your house), or my favorite, the company partners with an Indian tribe and is no longer subject to federal or state law.


ok, it's not pretty, but here it is: Hello. My name is Mark, and I'm a science nerd. There, that said, here's some must see-TV. A fan based effort to put together a *real* Star Trek film, true to the history of the series and to Roddenberry's original vision. funding via Kickstarter. It's about the four years when the Federation was at war with the Klingons. Here's their extraordinarily compelling 21 minute intro film.

Science factoids: Imagine you're showing a puppet show to a group of children. There are two small boxes on the puppet stage, red and blue. Punch puts a jelly bean under the red box, then leaves the stage. Judy moves the jelly bean from the red box to the blue box. Then Punch returns. You now ask the children which box Punch thinks has the jelly bean. Children under about 5 will say "blue," because they saw the jelly bean move to the blue box and they figure everyone knows that. Children over about 5 will say "red" because they understand that Punch didn't see the jelly bean move and so he doesn't know. This is called a "theory of mind," the idea that others have their own knowledge and perspective. Children develop it sometime in their 4s. This seems to be a uniquely human property. For example, several people have trained various primates to use sign language; the run-away winner is a gorilla, Koko, currently 43 and going strong, who can sign over 1000 words and recognizes over 2000 spoken words. But about a dozen other primates have been so trained. Here's the interesting point: no primate who has learned to sign has ever asked a question. They don't seem to have the concept of acquiring knowledge from someone else e who perhaps knows more. Personally, I have Aspergers and I didn't have a well developed theory of mind until I was in my 20's. People on the autism spectrum do poorly at this. I'm still a little iffy on it - I'm a poor teacher due to a lack of patience with people who don't get it as quickly as I would, or who don't react well to my particular teaching method.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 17, 2014, 11:55:16 pm

The thing I hear cops saying all the time 'We want to go home at night'. Well, so do the people you have sworn to protect so don't jump on that gun so quickly!!! You have no right to take someone's life just because you 'thought' your life was in jeopardy. 'He raised his arm' is no reason to shoot unless he's pointing a gun at you.....they are way too quick to that gun....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 18, 2014, 12:06:21 am

You're right.  The police should not shoot merely because they think their life is in danger.  In fact, they should not be allowed to even draw their gun until they have been hit at least twice.  Then they can be real sure.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 18, 2014, 05:00:06 am

Or maybe, they shouldn't be able to carry a gun at all.. Maybe they can just put bubble gum in their hair, you know, if they feel threatened..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 05:54:30 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2014, 10:02:37 pm

Jes, yes it did.  Was there not rioting in Greece?  Did I dream that?

When people have no clue how to take care of themselves and feel like they are owed food and shelter they will act up when they do not get it.  They will also act up when they feel like they are not being given enough. 

It really comes down to the spoiled child syndrome.  Get something for nothing day after day and you will expect it.  You will also feel you are owed more when you see others who have so much more then you.  It takes a special person to break free from that and realize they have to earn it.

The riots in Greece were more about cutting government JOBS than about cutting welfare spending.

And, in case you were unaware of it, Greece is not part of the U.S.

Still can't acknowledge your error, can you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 06:19:03 am

Quote from: davep on August 18, 2014, 12:06:21 am

You're right.  The police should not shoot merely because they think their life is in danger.  In fact, they should not be allowed to even draw their gun until they have been hit at least twice.  Then they can be real sure.

In NO state is a cop allowed to shoot someone "merely because they think their life is in danger."  The test is, and should be, whether they REASONABLY believe their life or physical well-being, or the life or physical well-being of another, is in danger, and some states also allow use of deadly force in the case of stopping a fleeing felon who poses a risk to others, but in this case the police chief has stated that the cop did NOT know Brown was involved in a robbery.

But, when your position makes no sense, by all means distort the other side's position to attack it.

Much easier to beat up on straw men.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 18, 2014, 10:48:51 am

Not sure why but I'm having a hard time giving a damn about this whole story.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 18, 2014, 11:00:45 am

Maybe living in FL the Trayvon case burned you out..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 18, 2014, 11:04:09 am

On the flipside of this argument is the fact that the majority of crime involves young black men. Cops know it and deal with it constantly, so they will by nature be quicker to the gun dealing with a large, unruly black man than they probably would be any other individuals. The video of this thug roughing someone up in a store did not help his case one bit. Without knowing the entire facts it is hard to make a decision one way or another whether this cop was in the right or wrong. Again, the thugs video doesn't help his side one bit....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 18, 2014, 11:19:17 am

Quote from: chifaninva on August 18, 2014, 11:00:45 am

Maybe living in FL the Trayvon case burned you out..

Could very well be the reason. I live about 15 miles from Sanford where the Trayvon event occurred and it was 24/7 news here for about a year. Problem was that there was very little new information provided over that time. Just the same stuff over and over and over.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on August 18, 2014, 12:34:28 pm

Either way there has been more stories of bad cops recently - shooting pets, confiscating cameras, driving infractions,  etc.

And they are protected by the union or management

Take out some of the corruption if you want the people to believe

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 18, 2014, 12:43:44 pm

this is from a pro-gun website but might be some new information, forensic evidence seems to support the guy was charging the officer.

http://bearingarms.com/autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-front-consistent-claims-charged-officer/2/

here is a recording of the incedent. I don't have sound on this computer so I don't have any idea what transpires.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 18, 2014, 03:04:41 pm

I have a motto....live right and leave the rest to God. It sure spares you the trouble some of these morons put themselves and others through....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 04:01:23 pm

Quote from: davep on August 17, 2014, 06:49:15 pm

Did the Police Chief report that one of the bullets hit the victim in the back?  I have not seen any official reports of that.

While the initial reports I heard attributed that to the police chief, the comments I heard about an hour ago from Dr. Bodden, after his autopsy on behalf of the family, indicated there were NO entry wounds to the back.  He was not asked that question directly, but I heard him talking for more than 5 minutes and from those comments it certainly appear that his conclusion was that ALL entry wounds were fired from in front of Brown and that he could not possibly have been shot in the back and then turned around to be shot several more times.

That being the case, my comments critical of the officer were inappropriate and should never have been made.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 04:06:18 pm

Quote from: Sportster on August 18, 2014, 11:04:09 am

On the flipside of this argument is the fact that the majority of crime involves young black men.

Bull.

It may be there are more ARRESTS of young black men, but most arrests are for drug offenses, and even though blacks are arrested far more often than whites for drug use and possession, the studies consistently have found that the USE of drugs is about the same for blacks and whites.  This would strongly indicate that police focus their energies on arresting blacks not because they commit crime more often, but for some other reason.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 18, 2014, 04:16:33 pm

The report I just heard said the kid charged the police officer. That not a smart thing to do. That would jive up with the report that the bullets hitting the kid entered the front. So the kid wasn't running away from the police. Things are starting to make more sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 18, 2014, 04:23:30 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 06:19:03 am

But, when your position makes no sense, by all means distort the other side's position to attack it.

Much easier to beat up on straw men.

That is a subject that you are extremely familiar with.

In any event, the evidence we have at the present time indicates that the officer fired at a point in time where he should not have believed that his life was in danger, since there seems to be no power residue on the body.  And the fact that there were multiple shots fired after the danger seems to have been over certainly does not bode well for the officer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 18, 2014, 04:50:29 pm

1 of every 3 black young men will end up in prison during their lifetime as opposed to 1 in 6 hispanic males and 1 in 17 white males.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html

You can butter this any way you want, call it racism or simply cops knowing the lawbreakers. I would venture to say attitude plays a huge part in how things end up. Like this guy, walking down the road like he owns it, cops come up probably tell the guy get the heck out of the road, he starts with a attitude, comes at the cops, doesn't stop and becomes a growing statistic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 05:31:53 pm

Quote from: davep on August 18, 2014, 04:23:30 pm

That is a subject that you are extremely familiar with.

In any event, the evidence we have at the present time indicates that the officer fired at a point in time where he should not have believed that his life was in danger, since there seems to be no power residue on the body.  And the fact that there were multiple shots fired after the danger seems to have been over certainly does not bode well for the officer.

The results of the autopsy actually open things up for me.  If the forensics (blood spatter and drip evidence) indicate the guy was charging the cop and not standing still, I could easily see it as a justifiable homicide.  If, on the other hand, the blood spatter and drop evidence indicate he was not moving when hit, that will be very bad, indeed, for the officer.

The eyewitness testimony would not do much to sway me one way or another.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 05:34:03 pm

Damn obstructionists Republicans....

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10577020_10154455588390597_6983802736198277773_n.jpg?oh=54b87deb25a01a1f33dc6e1b888133ec&oe=54693D62&__gda__=1416041527_bd684d1686f002254f68ec4edef7fef9)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 05:49:21 pm

Quote from: Sportster on August 18, 2014, 04:50:29 pm

1 of every 3 black young men will end up in prison during their lifetime as opposed to 1 in 6 hispanic males and 1 in 17 white males.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html

You can butter this any way you want, call it racism or simply cops knowing the lawbreakers. I would venture to say attitude plays a huge part in how things end up. Like this guy, walking down the road like he owns it, cops come up probably tell the guy get the heck out of the road, he starts with a attitude, comes at the cops, doesn't stop and becomes a growing statistic.

By all means if a cop encounters a NWA, then he is justified in shooting him to death.

The idea that the figures you cite need to be "buttered" (not really sure what that means) to demonstrate racism only illustrates your ignorance of what happens.  The racism in the data is apparent.  Those who spend any time in court see it every day, often with it shouting out loud.

One white judge in Chattanooga used to have fun with any Hispanic name on the docket by calling the name and inserting "Burrito" or "Taco" for a middle name, and then laughing at it -- "Juan Burrito Hernandez."

Another white judge addressed a motion to suppress where the police had clearly violated the Constitution in not only arresting a young black man, but also in searching him and in stopping him, denying the motion with the comment in open court that, "The Constitution means different things in different parts of town."  That same judge once described a black judge in the same courthouse as a "dumb **** from the projects.)  That last comment was not made in open court, but in the courthouse breakroom, with me less than five feet from the judge and hearing it perfectly clearly.

Minorities are stopped more often, for reasons police ignore with whites, arrested more often, for violations sometimes ignored with whites, are charged more severely, and are treated more harshly by D.A.'s and judges.  Thinking otherwise simply shows how little you know about what goes on every day.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 05:57:41 pm

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/08/prophecies-from-1986.html

Prophecies from 1986
August 18, 2014 by Mark Shea

Back before it was called “global climate disruption”, “global climate change”, or even “global warming” it was called the greenhouse effect and we were all assured 2000 was going to inaugurate the environmental Judgment Day:

    The conclusion, conveyed with great authority by several big-league climatologists from government and private research organizations, is terrible: by the year 2000, the atmosphere and weather will grow warmer by several degrees and life – animal, plant, human – will be threatened. The experts say that melting ice caps, flooded cities, droughts in the corn belt and famine in the third world could result if the earth’s mean temperature rises by a mere two or three degrees.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 18, 2014, 07:27:27 pm

Believe what you want but there's a reason folks don't go certain parts of Chicago, or New York or any other large metropolitan areas.....why don't you go and then come back here and tell us how your trip went, Sheldon?? Make sure to wave your 'I'm a harmless Lawyer' flag. Maybe they won't beat you senseless and drag your dead butt behind their Caddy....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2014, 08:41:18 pm

Did somebody reference looting??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9l73Yo9Pw&feature=player_detailpage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9l73Yo9Pw&feature=player_detailpage)

Stuff happens to free people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2014, 08:45:35 pm

sport of bible-thumpin


Your god will judge you and your prejudice of African-American people.

There is not a damn bit of difference between you and bigots like dave duke and cliven bundy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on August 18, 2014, 09:42:15 pm

Your using Dick Cheney, DICK CHENEY as a reference? You?  He clones children so he can harvest their organs you know. Its an evil lord thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2014, 09:49:00 pm

Its a clip of don rumsfeld dufus.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on August 18, 2014, 09:50:24 pm

oh. old. my bad. But Dick Chaney does harvest cloned organs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2014, 10:18:06 pm

Quote from: 46 on August 18, 2014, 09:50:24 pm

oh. old. my bad. But Dick Chaney does harvest cloned organs.

You might want to ask him for a brain.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 19, 2014, 01:56:47 am

Otts, would love for you to take up my challenge. Head right on over to the worst area of Chitown, please. Believe it's deep in the South Side. Make sure you get out of your car and walk around some, k? And then come back here and report of your findings.....I dare ya....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 19, 2014, 02:16:20 am

 
 Whats interesting about humans is before there was one paycheck cut,
 
 humans worked together for the common good of humans.
 
 You could see it start to fall apart when the Cro Magnon stock exchange was started in 50 000 b.c.
 
 Uh oh ... some humans figured out how to get other humans to do the work and cash in on their labor.
 
 Thus was born the IRA ... except when it was engineered to collapse with regularity.
 
 And here you are ... we'll give it to you ... we'll take it away.
 
 Rinse and repeat ... and get ready for it again.
 
 The idea is to keep you hooked ... on your own brand of stupidity ...
 
 which BTW .......................................................... WE SUPPLY.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 19, 2014, 02:25:31 am

 
 The above post was supplied to you by the guys at the back of the cave tending the fire ... while you went out and hunt.
 
 We were **** your girl mate and got her pregnant.
 
 You should have paid more attention about what was going on.
 
 Survival of the fittest ... not the strongest ... the smartest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 19, 2014, 02:35:26 am

 
  We used you ... and sweetheart ... its going on right now.
 
  Just a different century.
 
  Some of you probably sent your kids overseas to fight ...
 
  we sent ours kids to Harvard.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JR on August 19, 2014, 09:35:44 am

Quote from: Keysbear on August 18, 2014, 10:48:51 am

Not sure why but I'm having a hard time giving a damn about this whole story.

I hear you there.

It'd be one thing if we managed to move forward as a society after one of these types of racial incidents happen.  But it's pretty much the same narrative, same story, same people taking the same sides, etc. without any real progress being made by anybody. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 19, 2014, 11:15:34 am

Quote from: Sportster on August 19, 2014, 01:56:47 am

Otts, would love for you to take up my challenge. Head right on over to the worst area of Chitown, please. Believe it's deep in the South Side. Make sure you get out of your car and walk around some, k? And then come back here and report of your findings.....I dare ya....

Do you really think he's going to leave his comfy TROLL chair?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 19, 2014, 11:23:06 am

Quote from: JR on August 19, 2014, 09:35:44 am

I hear you there.

It'd be one thing if we managed to move forward as a society after one of these types of racial incidents happen.  But it's pretty much the same narrative, same story, same people taking the same sides, etc. without any real progress being made by anybody. 

Agree! The side that says they care, really doesn't. As long as the majority of black people are living in poverty they can control them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 11:41:49 am

No one should wonder why self-serving old fossils like the posters above are losing clout in American culture.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 19, 2014, 12:15:52 pm

Homo woke up early today.  Welfare guys usually sleep til noon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 19, 2014, 02:39:04 pm

so the thug beat up the cop in his car so bad he fractures his eye socket, then takes off running, when the cop gets out of the car and says freeze, he charges the injured cop and the cop kills him...

http://bearingarms.com/police-allege-dozen-witnesses-confirm-michael-brown-charged-injured-police-officer/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 02:56:01 pm

Navbart


Try harder not to be both gullible and ignorant.





 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 19, 2014, 03:19:50 pm

Hey Homo.  Did you ever tell us what opinion I expressed that was contrary to the expert's opinion?  You seem to be very reluctant to explain your idiocy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 19, 2014, 03:22:46 pm

Otto, the local reporter had over a dozen witnesses report the same version. That seems pretty solid.
The ignorant ones seem to be the ones that are rioting and looting the town.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JR on August 19, 2014, 03:58:52 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 19, 2014, 11:23:06 am

Agree! The side that says they care, really doesn't. As long as the majority of black people are living in poverty they can control them.

Pretty much the only people who win in these stories are the media types and talking heads who get increased ratings and the Al Sharpton's of the world.

Other than that, absolutely nothing gets accomplished except more division.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 19, 2014, 04:20:51 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 02:56:01 pm

Navbart


Try harder not to be both gullible and ignorant.





 

Geez Nav....don't you know that the cop punched himself in the face and fractured his eye socket so he would have a chance to go kill the unarmed choirboy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 04:38:13 pm

Ok wingnuts site defenders. Just a feew thoughts on the good olde cop in question.

The Ferguson PD has repeatedly mentioned that Wilson had to be treated for injuries:

Where are the photographs of those injuries?

Where is a report from the medical personnel involved?

The Ferguson police have already passed over great heaps of inflammatory material unrelated to the shooting death of Michael Brown, but they won't make available the one bit of evidence that there actually was a physical altercation between Brown and Wilson prior to the shooting?

Video evidence seems to show Wilson lingering around the scene with no sign of injury. Where is the evidence?

What hospital or medical facility can confirm the injuries?


Answer if you can.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 19, 2014, 04:51:10 pm

Why would the police release that information? They got blasted for releasing the robbery video which may well have increased the violence. Their job is to keep the peace so there is absolutely no reason to release that now. They are being rightfully cautious about what's released given what happend after the  internet video...er...I mean the robbery video. The outside agitators/ rioters  won't care about the evidence anyway. The truth will come out just as it did with skittle boy. I can wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 05:00:17 pm

Idiot from white America

Quote

They are being rightfully cautious about what's released given what happend after the  internet video...er...I mean the robbery video

Being "rightfully cautious"? So where did the blood toxically report on Michael Brown come from?...After the video release by the peken police of Ferguson.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 19, 2014, 05:04:49 pm

Reading comprehension is a good thing Otto. I specifically noted they are cautious AFTER they got blasted for releasing the video.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 05:11:08 pm

Again racist, the medical report on Michael Thomas was released by local police after you claim that they were being "righteously cautious".

When do facts enter your head?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 19, 2014, 05:59:01 pm

If the medical report on the officer were released and it showed evidence of injury you would be accusing the cops of character assassination. You can't have it both ways. With that said I would be happy to see everything released including the personnel file of the cop and the rap sheet of that gentle man getting ready to head off to college. Let's get everything on the table eh Otto?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 19, 2014, 06:25:33 pm

Leave the Homo alone.  He is trying like mad to turn this into a racist thing, and you aren't helping him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 19, 2014, 07:10:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 05:11:08 pm

Again racist, the medical report on Michael Thomas was released by local police after you claim that they were being "righteously cautious".

When do facts enter your head?

I believe the medical report, AND the video, both qualified as public records under MO law and the police department was required to release them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 19, 2014, 07:13:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 04:38:13 pm

Ok wingnuts site defenders. Just a feew thoughts on the good olde cop in question.

The Ferguson PD has repeatedly mentioned that Wilson had to be treated for injuries:

Where are the photographs of those injuries?

Where is a report from the medical personnel involved?

The Ferguson police have already passed over great heaps of inflammatory material unrelated to the shooting death of Michael Brown, but they won't make available the one bit of evidence that there actually was a physical altercation between Brown and Wilson prior to the shooting?

Video evidence seems to show Wilson lingering around the scene with no sign of injury. Where is the evidence?

What hospital or medical facility can confirm the injuries?

Answer if you can.

The answer is quite simple -- those things should not be released at this point in ANY case.

Things will come out at trial, or can come out when a case is closed without prosecution when the records would become subject to public records laws.

Now, what constitutes the "great heaps of inflammatory material" you claim the Ferguson police have released?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 19, 2014, 07:14:38 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 19, 2014, 05:11:08 pm

Again racist, the medical report on Michael Thomas was released by local police after you claim that they were being "righteously cautious".

When do facts enter your head?

Who is Michael Tomas?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 19, 2014, 07:16:31 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on August 19, 2014, 05:59:01 pm

If the medical report on the officer were released and it showed evidence of injury you would be accusing the cops of character assassination. You can't have it both ways. With that said I would be happy to see everything released including the personnel file of the cop and the rap sheet of that gentle man getting ready to head off to college. Let's get everything on the table eh Otto?

Release it all, and you make it easier for the liars to conform their stories to the evidence, while still offering lies.  Much better to let the lies commit their stories in stone before making public the records which destroy the lies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 19, 2014, 07:19:20 pm

Quote from: navigator on August 19, 2014, 03:22:46 pm

Otto, the local reporter had over a dozen witnesses report the same version. That seems pretty solid.
The ignorant ones seem to be the ones that are rioting and looting the town.

Thank You!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 20, 2014, 07:57:55 am

There simply isn't enough information yet to form an opinion as to what happened.

Witness information is unreliable and requires a great deal of analysis to conclude what can be used as fact versus faulty memory.

I suspect if you asked the 15 or so witnesses what shirt the kid was wearing you'll get about 12 different answers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 20, 2014, 08:35:09 am

Quote from: davebear on August 20, 2014, 07:57:55 am

There simply isn't enough information yet to form an opinion as to what happened.

Witness information is unreliable and requires a great deal of analysis to conclude what can be used as fact versus faulty memory.

I suspect if you asked the 15 or so witnesses what shirt the kid was wearing you'll get about 12 different answers.

Apparently Gov. Nixon has already determined guilt.

http://news.yahoo.com/gov-nixon-calls-vigorous-prosecution-darren-wilson-041624592.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 20, 2014, 08:44:32 am

That's a shame

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 20, 2014, 09:31:39 am

News channels are finally getting around to doing actual reporting.

Today was the first time I saw any of them mention the fact that the Travis County, Texas has used the courts in the past for political purposes.  They destroyed the career of Tom DeLay by bogus charges that were ultimately found to be baseless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 20, 2014, 11:07:48 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/18/report-more-than-a-dozen-witnesses-have-corroborated-officer-darren-wilsons-version-of-ferguson-shooting/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 20, 2014, 11:23:31 am

This kid was a thug, period! Not sure why all the love. If this was a black kid walking down the street randomly shot by the cop for no reason at all, I could see the outrage. Then let the investigation take place before you (anyone) jumps to conclusions. These people protesting are nothing but a lynching mob.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 20, 2014, 11:25:47 am

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/restore-families/justice-james-black-cop-shoots-unarmed-white-veteran-orange-tx-over-racial-slur-0057061

Where were the marches when this happened? Where were the camera's? The media?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 20, 2014, 11:58:08 am

I really think this whole indictment of Rick Perry is going to blow up in the dems faces. There is good reason David Axelrod tweeted that this was not a good idea.

http://mediatrackers.org/national/2014/08/20/perry-grand-juror-active-democratic-party-delegate-jury-proceedings

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on August 20, 2014, 12:45:51 pm

When I was a teenager in a town of 20K or so - I felt like the cops targeted many of us - and it gave me a bad attitude about cops - Some of these cops have been profiling obviously...

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/29343530-606/bears-david-bass-has-experienced-fergusons-racial-turmoil.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on August 20, 2014, 01:34:36 pm

The guy was 300#, not the kid you see on cnn. The cop defended himself, if what the eyewitnesses said is true, and does not deserve to be served up
as a political sacrificial lamb.  However, I have a problem with cops with army stuff.  Why do you need it? Have things gone so far to hell and
we'ved not been told, that the cops need to be paramilitary? When did that happen? If you dress army, ride army, have army weapons, aren't you army?
not cops? Rifles on bipods? apc's? who the hell in a suburb needs these toys? I bet you that the deceased had a history, should have been locked up,
and the cop knew it. He went after the cop and paid for it.  Cops don't shoot unarmed people with their hands up saying "don't shoot". Absolute lie.
Everyone is out now to try and make political hay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2014, 04:32:18 pm

Quote from: davebear on August 20, 2014, 07:57:55 am

Witness information is unreliable and requires a great deal of analysis to conclude what can be used as fact versus faulty memory.

While memories, AND perceptions are often faulty, in cases like this the greater concern is with people who are outright lying.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2014, 04:51:04 pm

Quote from: 46 on August 20, 2014, 01:34:36 pm

The guy was 300#, not the kid you see on cnn.

CNN has shown plenty of photos of Michael Brown making clear he was physically imposing.  As to your claim he was 300 pounds, however, that is not what the autopsy found.

Quote from: 46 on August 20, 2014, 01:34:36 pm

  However, I have a problem with cops with army stuff.  Why do you need it? Have things gone so far to hell and
we'ved not been told, that the cops need to be paramilitary? When did that happen? If you dress army, ride army, have army weapons, aren't you army?
not cops? Rifles on bipods? apc's? who the hell in a suburb needs these toys?

Who needs these "toys"?  Perhaps some of the cops in 1997 who responded to this robbery, particularly the 11 cops who were shot, not to count the 7 civillians --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrlUsaYlKPs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2014, 05:00:33 pm

Quote from: davep on August 20, 2014, 09:31:39 am

News channels are finally getting around to doing actual reporting.

Today was the first time I saw any of them mention the fact that the Travis County, Texas has used the courts in the past for political purposes.  They destroyed the career of Tom DeLay by bogus charges that were ultimately found to be baseless.

As for DeLay, I don't believe we hat have a final decision in that case.  http://tpr.org/post/texas-court-criminal-appeals-weighing-tom-delays-overturned-conviction

But DeLay and Perry are not the only Republicans the Travis County DA's office has gone after.
1993 indictments for misconduct as Texas Treasurer

On June 10, 1993, shortly after the special election victory, Travis County authorities, led by Democratic district attorney Ronnie Earle, raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury. The search was conducted without a warrant, as incident to service of the indictments in the case.[14] Subsequently, after two other grand jury indictments were thrown out, Hutchison was indicted a 3rd time [15] by a Texas grand jury in September 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. Hutchison stated that she was the innocent victim of a politically motivated prosecutor. Earle acknowledged that he had sought appointment by Democratic Governor Ann Richards, to the same U.S. Senate seat which Hutchison was ultimately elected to, but he has denied that his legal actions against Hutchison were politically motivated.[16] The case against Hutchison was heard before State District Judge John Onion in February 1994. Pre-trial motions included a Motion to Quash evidence Earle obtained without a warrant when raiding the Treasurer's office. During pre-trial proceedings, the judge did not rule on admissibility. Following the lack of a ruling, Earle declined to proceed with his case.[14] Onion swore in a jury and directed the jury to acquit Hutchison, since Earle chose not to present evidence.[14] The acquittal barred any future prosecution of Hutchison.[15]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Bailey_Hutchison#1993_indictments_for_misconduct_as_Texas_Treasurer

And there is even more reason to have serious doubts about the Perry indictment. 
http://mediatrackers.org/national/2014/08/20/perry-grand-juror-active-democratic-party-delegate-jury-proceedings

I would not even be surprised if the indictment ended up helping Perry in the primaries.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 20, 2014, 06:43:40 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 20, 2014, 04:40:56 pm

So what?

It does not alter the equation one way or the other.  The question remains what happened, and focusing on whether someone shot to death was or wasn't a thug distorts the process, allowing things to be dismissed too casually if he "was a thug," and if the decision is made that someone was not "a thug," making it too easy to become convinced the shooter committed murder.

The focus has to remain on what happened that day, at that time, not even ten minutes earlier.

In the court case, that is certainly true.  However, there is much more happening here than merely a court case.  Riots are taking place, at least in part because of the public perception that a "gentle giant" as he as been portrayed by his mother and in many cases in the media, has been murdered.  I agree that what kind of person the kid was has nothing to do with whether or not the cop should have shot him.  But I believe that if he was NOT a gentle giant, the public that has been told that he was, has the right to know.  It would not have any impact with those that have gone down there to take advantage of the situation, but it certainly could have an impact on what the public believes, and what the public might demand from politicians and public servants.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 20, 2014, 06:50:33 pm

DeLay's conviction was indeed overturned.  But the Democrats used the Republican's polciy that someone under indictment can not hold a leadership position, and he was forced to resign. (the Democratic party has no such rule, probably because they would then have no leadership)

Delay's political career was effectively ended by the Democrats using the court as a political weapon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 20, 2014, 08:12:18 pm

You davebart, are a **** hypocrite


Please do not pass on your ignorance to another generation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2014, 08:20:29 pm

Quote from: davep on August 20, 2014, 06:50:33 pm

DeLay's conviction was indeed overturned.  But the Democrats used the Republican's polciy that someone under indictment can not hold a leadership position, and he was forced to resign. (the Democratic party has no such rule, probably because they would then have no leadership)

Delay's political career was effectively ended by the Democrats using the court as a political weapon.

From what I have found (and posted), while the conviction was reversed, that decision itself is on appeal, and a decision is not expected until some time next year.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2014, 08:22:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 20, 2014, 08:12:18 pm

You davebart, are a **** hypocrite


Please do not pass on your ignorance to another generation.

Could you post the examples of his hypocrisy?

I would genuinely be interested in seeing them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2014, 08:24:52 pm

Quote from: davep on August 20, 2014, 06:43:40 pm

In the court case, that is certainly true.  However, there is much more happening here than merely a court case.  Riots are taking place, at least in part because of the public perception that a "gentle giant" as he as been portrayed by his mother and in many cases in the media, has been murdered.  I agree that what kind of person the kid was has nothing to do with whether or not the cop should have shot him.  But I believe that if he was NOT a gentle giant, the public that has been told that he was, has the right to know.  It would not have any impact with those that have gone down there to take advantage of the situation, but it certainly could have an impact on what the public believes, and what the public might demand from politicians and public servants.

So the post here, starting out with the mention that he "was a thug," was intended to influence public opinion on the streets of Ferguson?

Or to shape the opinions of those reading here?

The question is what happened, and whether he was or wasn't a thug is not a factor in answering that question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 20, 2014, 11:39:35 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 20, 2014, 08:12:18 pm

You davebart, are a **** hypocrite


Please do not pass on your ignorance to another generation.

Homo, if you think there was a factual error in what I said, why don't you tell us what it was.

Was Tom DeLay found innocent when the case went to appeal?  And did it destroy DeLay's career?

Share your ignorance with us.  You have never been reluctant to do so in the past.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 20, 2014, 11:42:35 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 20, 2014, 08:24:52 pm

So the post here, starting out with the mention that he "was a thug," was intended to influence public opinion on the streets of Ferguson?

Or to shape the opinions of those reading here?

The question is what happened, and whether he was or wasn't a thug is not a factor in answering that question.

I have no idea why the information was given, but I am glad it was.

In the court, that information should not be given, but in the court of public opinion, when one side is able to distort things, I have no problem with the other side being given.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 21, 2014, 08:03:36 am

This wont end up like Trayvon Martin did. Erik Holder wont let that happen. They are already dumping the county prosecuter. The police officer is going to be railroaded. He wont be given a fair trial, noy with Holder and Co in charge of this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 21, 2014, 12:01:03 pm

Holder in not in charge, unless they decide to place Federal Civil Rights charges.

It is the Governor of Missouri that is the one in charge, as I understand Missouri laws.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 21, 2014, 12:02:30 pm

is that the same governor that promised swift prosecution?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 21, 2014, 12:48:32 pm

unless they decide to place Federal Civil Rights charges

They would need to prove the officer shot the kid soley 'cause he was black. Good luck with that. On the other hand, maybe it would wake some people up in this country.. Maybe..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 21, 2014, 12:57:13 pm

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-holder-20140820-story.html#page=1

Could be, by the sounds of things from this article, Holder is ready to make a point... Point being, better shoot a whitey rather than a black person even if the black person is committing a crime..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 05:50:52 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 21, 2014, 08:03:36 am

This wont end up like Trayvon Martin did. Erik Holder wont let that happen. They are already dumping the county prosecuter. The police officer is going to be railroaded. He wont be given a fair trial, noy with Holder and Co in charge of this.

Holder and Co is not in charge of it.

And in the Trayvon Martin case, even with a special prosecutor who more than mildly overcharged, Zimmerman got a fair trial and was found not guilty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 05:54:53 pm

Quote from: davep on August 20, 2014, 11:42:35 pm

I have no idea why the information was given, but I am glad it was.

In the court, that information should not be given, but in the court of public opinion, when one side is able to distort things, I have no problem with the other side being given.

What is the "information" you are referencing when you mention "information being given"?

For some reason I have always considered calling someone a "thug" an opinion, not information.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 06:14:40 pm

It is amusing to see climate deniers continue to insist we are in fact experiencing Global Warming, even when the "academics" pushing the BS aggressively spin their ever changing theories to explain its absence.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/   (It is also amusing to see this explanation pushed when hurricanes have been far less frequent than normal for the last several years.... and 20 years ago we were told that Global Warming would bring more hurricanes as it warmed the oceans, and now they claim the "warming" is being absorbed by the oceans so we don't notice anything, and yet, even after absorbing all of that warming, the oceans are generating fewer and not more hurricanes.  Don't YOU love science?)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 21, 2014, 06:23:48 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 05:54:53 pm

What is the "information" you are referencing when you mention "information being given"?

For some reason I have always considered calling someone a "thug" an opinion, not information.

I was talking about the release of the video.  I did not see anyone say he was a thug, but that would seem to me to be inappropriate.  However, probably no worse than calling him a gentle giant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 21, 2014, 06:30:59 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 06:14:40 pm

Don't YOU love science?)

Actually I do.  Unfortunately, a lot of things are called "science" that are not sciences, and a lot of people are called scientists that are not scientific.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 21, 2014, 07:00:07 pm

 
 American Media plays for RATINGS.
 
 It doesnt matter what the issue is ...
 
 all that matters ... is will you tune in to us ?
 
 What American Media knows ... is ...given the effort ...
 
 can bump an AfAm being shot by an EuAm ... (European-American)
 
 over and above how many AfAm's are being shot by AfAm's.
 
 (Look up the numbers supplied by YOUR F.B.I.)
 
 Into the mainstream ...so that pundits can cash in on a tragedy.
 
 Right there American Media is not only wrong ... but should be ashamed.
 
 ITS ALL ABOUT RATINGS BABY !!
 
 YOU ... are in the daily mix of what NEWS is being reported to you.
 
 Depending upon the daily course of American Media ...
 
 does it lead or does it bleed ?
 
 Breaking News at 6:00 ... Cops spot a coyote in a neighborhood !
 
 Sounds like a dull news day.
 
 A guy gets killed by a person of a different race ... that bleeds & leads.
 
 Some guys get killed 300 times over by a person of their own race ...
 
 that doesnt lead. Think about whats wrong with that.
 
 What is American Media ? EXCEPT FOR RATINGS ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 07:48:29 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on August 21, 2014, 07:00:07 pm

American Media plays for RATINGS.

While that may be true, the coverage of this story is a result of the demonstrations, and the violence.

If there were similar demonstrations and violence after the shooting of a white victim, there would be similar news coverage.  There is not, so there is not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 07:52:07 pm

Quote from: davep on August 21, 2014, 06:23:48 pm

I was talking about the release of the video.  I did not see anyone say he was a thug, but that would seem to me to be inappropriate. 

Interesting, since in the post of mine to which you were responding, I made certain I included that portion of the original post in which chifaninva called him a thug.

Quote from: chifaninva on August 20, 2014, 11:23:31 am

This kid was a thug, period!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 21, 2014, 09:11:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 07:48:29 pm

While that may be true, the coverage of this story is a result of the demonstrations, and the violence.

If there were similar demonstrations and violence after the shooting of a white victim, there would be similar news coverage.  There is not, so there is not.

 Your just getting this ?
 
 RACISM = MONEY
 
 The longer you can keep the divide alive ...
 
 the more money you cash in on.
 
 Lets try to keep it going for the next 10 000 years ...
 
 there are products of the 1960's that need a job.
 
 Racism is a business ... and it pays.  Just ask Al.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 21, 2014, 09:38:14 pm

If white people protest this officer being sent to prison for this the media would report it.  However the white people would be portrayed as racists.

Justice needs to be served.  That means if the police officer killed this guy execution style he needs to go away for a long time.  If however what we are hearing now is the truth he should be able to continue being a police officer.

My guess is it is some where in between and the officer should not do jail time but may not be suited to being a police officer and should find a new line of work if he wants to or not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 21, 2014, 09:43:01 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 21, 2014, 07:52:07 pm

Interesting, since in the post of mine to which you were responding, I made certain I included that portion of the original post in which chifaninva called him a thug.

I saw you say that someone said it.  That is not the same as seeing it for myself.  I saw the video, but did not see any official say that he was a thug.

But I don't care.  One side is trying to shape public opinion.  The other side should be able to do it also, as long as it is not in court.

Certainly the things that Holder has been saying are not any better than what the police chief might have said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 21, 2014, 10:01:48 pm

 
  What happens when we're gone ?
 
  Like ... not of this Earth ... because you know its pre ordainded.
 
  At least according to many beliefs.
 
  Then what happens ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 21, 2014, 10:22:45 pm

JJ, No clue.

I guess we all find out when we die or we will just stop existing.

We could just wink out of existence and our physical body gets broke down and becomes part of earth and eventually the universe. 

Or our body gets broke down and our spirit lives on.  If so in what form or way?  Reincarnation?  Go to Heaven?  Travel as a spirit on the earthly planet with no human form? 

**** if I know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 21, 2014, 11:09:20 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 21, 2014, 10:22:45 pm

JJ, No clue.

I guess we all find out when we die or we will just stop existing.

We could just wink out of existence and our physical body gets broke down and becomes part of earth and eventually the universe. 

Or our body gets broke down and our spirit lives on.  If so in what form or way?  Reincarnation?  Go to Heaven?  Travel as a spirit on the earthly planet with no human form? 

**** if I know.

 I'd like to see the Universe or plural of that nature ...
 
 I done my time on earth with "people" ...
 
 to get as far away from them as possible would be goal number one ...
 
 in any afterlife. I hope GOD is listening.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 22, 2014, 05:14:14 am

Quote from: davep on August 21, 2014, 09:43:01 pm

I saw you say that someone said it.  That is not the same as seeing it for myself.  I saw the video, but did not see any official say that he was a thug.

But I don't care.  One side is trying to shape public opinion.  The other side should be able to do it also, as long as it is not in court.

Certainly the things that Holder has been saying are not any better than what the police chief might have said.

You are talking about "sides" in the general public discourse.  My question was specifically related to the poster I was quoting.  I never suggested anyone else referred to him as a thug.  Holder is not here to respond to what he does or doesn't do, so I tend not to ask him many questions about what he means or why he said it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 22, 2014, 05:15:25 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on August 21, 2014, 10:01:48 pm

  What happens when we're gone ?

What happens when YOU are gone?

Well, discussions might veer into insanity a bit less often.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on August 22, 2014, 08:46:28 am

Where is Phill to weigh in on this issue?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 22, 2014, 11:34:17 am

Can someone read the linked article and tell me what the woman's complaints are?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/military-marriages_n_5698547.html?1408712096&ncid=webmail1

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on August 22, 2014, 11:53:56 am

She sounds FAT

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 22, 2014, 12:24:35 pm

here is what I don't understand.....
They had been married for 24hrs.
He hadn't cheated while they were married, only while they were dating.
We don't really know how serious their dating had been only that it had been for some time.
It would make sense to me if she had waited until he had gotten home and then sorted things out.
I expect the fact that he cheated before they were married she isn't entitled to anything whereas if it had happened after they were married then she might be able to get something.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 22, 2014, 04:06:11 pm

Quote from: davep on August 22, 2014, 11:34:17 am

Can someone read the linked article and tell me what the woman's complaints are?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/military-marriages_n_5698547.html?1408712096&ncid=webmail1

You sure there were any?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 22, 2014, 06:43:19 pm

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10565148_712713275465947_2986452201434484333_n.png?oh=0e99e40fba93641f6c240497a5f36a23&oe=54655941&__gda__=1417148104_4b90b2f078ec6fa7aa17e0803d8369cc)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 22, 2014, 08:16:01 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 22, 2014, 05:15:25 am

What happens when YOU are gone?

Well, discussions might veer into insanity a bit less often.

 Now that attack was uncalled for since moi has not pointed out your
 
 didtribution of child sex slaves on a nationwide basis that you fund.
 
 Now why the **** did you have to attack me? Did it get your dick hard?
 
 Why Jes ... Why?
 
 All i asked was one question and you had to go dry hump the internet
 
 to insult me.
 
 Now dont you feel ashamed atacking a fellow poster for no reason ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 22, 2014, 08:26:16 pm

 
 BTW ... there were two misspellings in my last post.
 
 Wheres Waldo ? Can you spot them ?
 
 Time for some games before people get too full of themselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 22, 2014, 08:52:14 pm

 
 What if we were able to put the medical equivalent of a dropped larynx into an animal ... would that animal then be able to speak?
 
 Cats,pigs,dogs, already know over 2000 human words.
 
 What if they could speak them ?
 
 What would happen if you did that to a cow you were about to slaughter to make Big Mac's? And that great cut ... the porterhouse ... hmmmmm.
 
 Would pizza ever be the same knowing the oinker you are eating begged you not to kill him in a human language?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 22, 2014, 09:27:29 pm

Quote from: navigator on August 22, 2014, 12:24:35 pm

here is what I don't understand.....
They had been married for 24hrs.
He hadn't cheated while they were married, only while they were dating.
We don't really know how serious their dating had been only that it had been for some time.
It would make sense to me if she had waited until he had gotten home and then sorted things out.
I expect the fact that he cheated before they were married she isn't entitled to anything whereas if it had happened after they were married then she might be able to get something.

I got the impression that the writer of the article was implying that the military was somehow treating her unfairly (it was the Huffington Post, after all), but I failed to see what they think was unfair on the part of the military.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 23, 2014, 01:09:22 am

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/06/lynn-jenkins/rep-lynn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/06/lynn-jenkins/rep-lynn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/)

Overblown like the poster.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 23, 2014, 06:24:59 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 23, 2014, 01:09:22 am

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/06/lynn-jenkins/rep-lynn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/06/lynn-jenkins/rep-lynn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/)

Overblown like the poster.

To quote from the link otto offers:
Have 352 bills passed the House but await action in the Senate?

Basically, yes.

But, thanks for providing a link this time to support a position you offer.  I wonder if all of those other times your original source would so clearly show your position was wrong.....

Oh, and now that I see you view the folks at politifact as highly credible and reliable, I take it you are now willing to accept that Obama's "like your plan, you can keep your plan," was an absolute, flat out lie... since politifact rated it the "lie of the year."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

PolitiFact has named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013.

                          (http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 23, 2014, 07:50:45 am

Oh and its not a lie that Obumma said it. Its a lie that he meant it. He knew full well people couldn't keep their insurance

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 23, 2014, 05:22:21 pm

Better shot whitey... racist much....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 23, 2014, 05:24:31 pm

Sheldon

 You advocating for the repeal of KYnect

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 23, 2014, 05:27:19 pm

Does Oddo ever speak English?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 23, 2014, 05:40:21 pm

NO

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 23, 2014, 07:21:08 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/perry-lehmberg-mug-shot-t-shirt/2014/08/23/id/590451/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1582809_08232014&promo_code=svyudnwz

Cool

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 23, 2014, 10:42:46 pm

Didn't some former lawyer say ISIL wouldn't be a threat to the US?? If I remember right, I think he did, yet the State Dept is putting out warnings of just such a thing. Hmmm....    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/08/22/ominous-tweet-connects-isis-threat-in-chicago/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 25, 2014, 06:49:01 pm

Mark's Market Blog
8-24-14: Central Banks.
by Mark Lawrence
We broke through S&P 1950 on the second try but didn't shoot up from there. The market's primary job is thought by many to be to confuse and surprise as many people as possible. This market is doing a great job: the bears can't catch a break, the market simply won't substantially correct. And the bulls haven't really had anything to cheer about all summer. But I predicted we'd make our way to S&P 2150 or so, and I see no reason to change that prediction. We'll crash through 2000 sooner or later, the central banks will see to that.
 
S&P 500 February 20 2014 to August 22 2014
Europe is making no progress on unemployment and falling towards deflation. Japan is failing to produce growth stop their two decade long deflation problem. Just as we and the UK are ramping down our QE, ours due to end next month, you may expect Europe and Japan to start their own QE programs and keep the party punch bowl topped off. I really don't see the point to this - interest rates in Europe and Japan are at record lows, there is no one to whom the banks are willing to lend, the money will just be churned by the bankers in financial markets. This new liquidity will leak all over the world and most likely fuel a continued bull market in Europe, Japan, the UK and the US.



Yellen gave a speech at Jackson Hole and made clear she's not impressed with the US labor market - employment is not where she would like it, and worker mobility (move for a better job) is down by 30%. Don't look for rates to raise anytime soon - to the contrary, I think it likely we'll have QE 5 before we get around to finally raising rates.

Yellen also testified before congress. Much pressure was put on her to be more transparent, to submit to an audit, to announce a formula for interest rates like the Taylor Rule. It's widely believed that had Greenspan followed the Taylor Rule there would have been no sub prime mortgage crash and if Bernanke had there would be no stock market and used car loan bubble now. It's less widely believed that instead we might currently be in a major depression. Yellon was having none of it - she is in unquestionable control of the nation's money supply and intends to keep it that was. Basically she's steering the ship, we're off all the charts, and her intuition is better than any compass heading.

Fukushima three years on. All fixed, right? Not exactly. . . Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is running out of space to store contaminated water. There appear to be leaks in the existing tanks as the groundwater is becoming radioactive. Lots of stuff getting dumped into the ocean and we're obviously being lied to about how much radioactivity it contains. TEPCO promised the Japanese government the water would be cleaned by March 31 2015; it's now clear they're going to miss that deadline. And now they want to dig a big trench around the reactors, fill it with pipes flowing liquid at -30 degrees and freeze the ground, forcing the groundwater to flow around the reactors. We were initially told one reactor maybe had a melt down; now it looks like it was three of the four. In reactor 1 the fuel rods melted through the pressure chamber and fell into the containment vessel, then burned at least 27" into the concrete. No one has looked in there so this is a guess, and I promise you it's not a worst case guess. In any case TEPCO isn't keeping up and they want permission to dump treated water into the ocean rather than storing it. And meanwhile the reactors are still producing brand new nasty stuff like radio iodine and strontium. The long term plan is to decommission the four reactors which will finally contain the problem. That's projected to take 40 years and require robots that haven't been invented yet. And dying fish keep washing up on the shores of Alaska and Canada - starfish are melting, fish bleeding out of their eyes and gills, 45 percent of California sea lion pups died this spring, Alaskan polar bears seals and walruses are losing their fur ad have open sores. The Vancouver Sun tested local fish for Cesium-137: positives include 100% of monkfish, carp, seaweed and shark; 94% of cod and anchovies; 93% of tuna and eels; 92% of sardines; 91% of halibut; 73% of mackerel. Is Fukushima killing off the entire Pacific? Anecdotes say yes, governments say no, evidence is completely unavailable.

The Post Office continue to hemorrhage money. The post office says its current assets are $23 billion and its current liabilities are $67 billion - they've lost $44 billion somewhere. I personally checked under my matress and none of it is there. Why doesn't Congress approve one of their plans to close some post offices? Why don't they just privatize it? 489,727 career employees. 137,037 non-career employees. Amtrak is a money losing joke left over from the 1970 bankruptcy of Penn Central. Amtrak was spun off in bankruptcy to the government who said they would fix it up, make money, and privatize it in a couple of years. It's still with us today, it hasn't made a dime in its entire life. On the plus side lots of other railroads then spun off their money losing passenger service and handed them over to Amtrak, making all the private railroads in this country profitable pretty much overnight. When will the post office privatize? They will still be delivering letters after the sun burns out, and still paying out pensions to democratic voters who have been dead for billions of years.

Former Colombo crime family mob boss Michael Franzese told CNBC, "there's a [stock market] bubble there that's going to burst at some point and when it does it's not going to be good. I did a lot of things at times with people on Wall Street... a lot of guys are shady and they did shady things with me and I don't trust them. And I don't like other people that I don't know really well taking care of my money." His advice is to hold physical gold because "there will always be something there," unlike stocks "where in our country, you go to sleep, everyone tells you everything is wonderful, you wake up and everything is gone." The crooks think Wall Street is full of crooks. So do I.

Ohio police departments have received 4,900 assault rifles and 36 mine-resistant vehicles under a Department of Defense program that provides surplus military equipment to local police. In the last four years, DHS has given $5 billion worth of military equipment to police forces. What are they getting ready for? I'd love to hear the answer to that, but I won't until it's too late.


The war on men: How are those all-female households doing? Ten years ago the number of women in the US that had jobs outnumbered the women in the U.S. on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin. But now the number of women in the US on food stamps exceeds the number of women that have jobs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 25, 2014, 07:34:22 pm

Quote from: Sportster on August 23, 2014, 10:42:46 pm

Didn't some former lawyer say ISIL wouldn't be a threat to the US??

What "former" lawyer said that?

And how does someone go about becoming a "former" lawyer?

Being a lawyer simply means a person has a law degree, not a law license, nor a law practice.

Did someone have a college take back a law degree?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: joki13 on August 26, 2014, 05:33:50 am

  I heard Zout was over here in the political thread. If so you need to get your butt back over to the Bear's topic section cause I'm back.

                                                                                                Sincerely

                                                                                                 Joki13

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 26, 2014, 11:33:39 am

You're confusing Jes for zout. Easy thing to do..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 26, 2014, 12:01:35 pm

Zout was long winded and argumentative but never condescending.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 26, 2014, 03:38:09 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on August 26, 2014, 12:01:35 pm

Zout was long winded and argumentative but never condescending.

Well, then how in the world could anyone confuse him for me?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 26, 2014, 03:41:15 pm

Its the stupid argumentative stuff.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 26, 2014, 05:04:05 pm

 
 Are any of you happy in the economic situation that this NATION is heading ?
 
 1. YES
 
 2. NO
 
 Please VOTE ! Lets tally up the score when everyone has voted.
 
 Lets give it one week for everyone to vote ... remember ...
 
 the answer is simple, its either number 1 or number 2.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 26, 2014, 05:09:33 pm

Hey, the economy is roaring back to health.  Everyone knows that.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/25/Unprecedented-Food-Stamp-Enrollments-Top-45-Million-3-Years-In-a-Row

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 26, 2014, 05:16:27 pm

How many times have we seen otto claim that those who doubt the claims of Global Warming are essential conspiracy nuts without anything whatsoever to indicate there has ever been a conspiracy?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-altering-climate-figures/story-e6frg6xf-1227033735740?nk=9c264483f3bb81c2b8d99e6517e87616

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/the-heat-is-on-bureau-of-meteorology-altering-climate-figures-the-australian/#more-37887

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 26, 2014, 06:46:43 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B092acMImJE

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 26, 2014, 08:29:13 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/26/lois-lerner-blackberry-deliberately-destroyed-after-start-congressional-probe/

Lois Lerner’s Blackberry was intentionally destroyed after Congress had begun its probe into IRS targeting of conservative groups, a senior IRS lawyer acknowledged in a sworn declaration.

Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS, wrote in the declaration, part of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the IRS, that the Blackberry was "removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012."

That date - June 2012 - is significant because by that time, ex-IRS official Lerner had already been summoned before congressional staffers who interviewed her about reports of the IRS' targeting of conservative groups.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 26, 2014, 08:50:57 pm

 
 I need VOTES.
 
 From the 05:04:05 PM posting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 26, 2014, 08:58:39 pm

Packrat, since my computer is not working well of late, what is it you believe that the video you just posted shows?  What is its significance?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 26, 2014, 09:01:48 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 26, 2014, 08:29:13 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/26/lois-lerner-blackberry-deliberately-destroyed-after-start-congressional-probe/

Lois Lerner’s Blackberry was intentionally destroyed after Congress had begun its probe into IRS targeting of conservative groups, a senior IRS lawyer acknowledged in a sworn declaration.

Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS, wrote in the declaration, part of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the IRS, that the Blackberry was "removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012."

That date - June 2012 - is significant because by that time, ex-IRS official Lerner had already been summoned before congressional staffers who interviewed her about reports of the IRS' targeting of conservative groups.

The need for a special prosecutor could not be more clear.

Someone, and quite likely at least a handful of someones, needs to be doing some prison time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 27, 2014, 08:00:48 am

I read an article on Yahoo that said that there was a backup system at the IRS and that Lerner's e-mails were safe there. Judicial Watch is pursuing it. The article said that those stopping the investigation are the ones who had fingers in the pie. Appears Issa has been lied to by the new IRS chief too.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 27, 2014, 08:03:31 am

We've speculated about the double racial standard about the white cop killing a black youth and what the reverse would be like. Well smoke this:

http://theweek.com/article/index/267088/speedreads-why-isnt-the-media-covering-the-killing-of-an-unarmed-white-youth-by-a-black-police-officer

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on August 27, 2014, 09:33:06 am

Shouldn't have the media policing our police!

If they ran a tight ship - they would police themselves

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 27, 2014, 12:06:55 pm

Quote from: BearHit on August 27, 2014, 09:33:06 am

Shouldn't have the media policing our police!

If they ran a tight ship - they would police themselves

So is it only Holder's job?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 27, 2014, 12:07:45 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/probe-president-Paul-Ryan/2014/08/26/id/591076/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1583284_08272014&promo_code=mwlkzzcm

Bueno

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 27, 2014, 12:09:00 pm

The Climate Center at Eastanglia has been altering data for more than a decade.  Scientists in several countries have noticed that the raw data showed that they altered their countries submissions.  Eastanglia fixed the problem by stopping the release of raw data.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 27, 2014, 03:36:54 pm

Quote from: davep on August 27, 2014, 12:09:00 pm

The Climate Center at Eastanglia has been altering data for more than a decade.  Scientists in several countries have noticed that the raw data showed that they altered their countries submissions.  Eastanglia fixed the problem by stopping the release of raw data.

And even with aggressive distorting the of the data, the STILL can't hide the fact that there is no warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 27, 2014, 03:41:41 pm

Quote from: BearHit on August 27, 2014, 09:33:06 am

Shouldn't have the media policing our police!

How do we have the media policing the police?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 27, 2014, 03:46:31 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 27, 2014, 08:03:31 am

We've speculated about the double racial standard about the white cop killing a black youth and what the reverse would be like. Well smoke this:

http://theweek.com/article/index/267088/speedreads-why-isnt-the-media-covering-the-killing-of-an-unarmed-white-youth-by-a-black-police-officer

Where is the double standard?

The coverage of what happened in Ferguson is entirely a result of the demonstrations and violence, and not independently a result of the shooting.  If there had been or were now similar demonstrations and violence associated with the shooting of Dillon Taylor, that shooting would also get coverage.  The coverage of the Ferguson shooting was non-existent on national news until the demonstrations and violence began.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 27, 2014, 04:37:50 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 27, 2014, 08:03:31 am

We've speculated about the double racial standard about the white cop killing a black youth and what the reverse would be like. Well smoke this:

http://theweek.com/article/index/267088/speedreads-why-isnt-the-media-covering-the-killing-of-an-unarmed-white-youth-by-a-black-police-officer

Similar thing happened in Texas, no media coverage... Double standard? for sure.. The black cop was known as a racist by the other officers, he was fired and that's it..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 27, 2014, 04:53:45 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 27, 2014, 04:37:50 pm

Similar thing happened in Texas, no media coverage... Double standard? for sure.. The black cop was known as a racist by the other officers, he was fired and that's it..

So there were riots and demonstrations in Texas that the media ignored?

If there were none, there was no double standard.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 27, 2014, 09:26:23 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 26, 2014, 08:58:39 pm

Packrat, since my computer is not working well of late, what is it you believe that the video you just posted shows?  What is its significance?

I'm not really sure, Jes. I wondered the same thing and hoped someone else would have an Opinion.  Do you have any ideas?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 27, 2014, 09:43:58 pm

The double standard is people with jobs may take off work to go demonstrate if they believe strongly in something (but only for as much vacation time as they have) but rarely do it to riot, commit arson and loot.  People on welfare on the other hand have very little else to do and it adds excitement and drama to their lives.  Maybe even adds a sense of meaning to their lives since sitting on your ass doing nothing all day taking a government handout is soul draining.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 27, 2014, 10:07:05 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 27, 2014, 09:43:58 pm

The double standard is people with jobs may take off work to go demonstrate if they believe strongly in something (but only for as much vacation time as they have) but rarely do it to riot, commit arson and loot.  People on welfare on the other hand have very little else to do and it adds excitement and drama to their lives.  Maybe even adds a sense of meaning to their lives since sitting on your ass doing nothing all day taking a government handout is soul draining.

A bit of an assumption there, that all of those protesting and demonstrating are on welfare, and that those who are not will neither protest or demonstrate.  Additionally, in Ferguson, the protests and demonstrations began on the weekend, on days when most people, even those working 40 hour weeks, have the day off.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 27, 2014, 10:09:00 pm

Quote from: packrat on August 27, 2014, 09:26:23 pm

I'm not really sure, Jes. I wondered the same thing and hoped someone else would have an Opinion.  Do you have any ideas?

You wondered the same thing?

Why my post made clear is that I was wondering what the video showed -- that I was not able to watch it.  If YOU also were not able to watch it, then why did you post it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 27, 2014, 10:18:08 pm

My assumption is that most rioting, looting and committing arson are on welfare.  Not those demonstrating peacefully.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 27, 2014, 11:20:19 pm

And to support that conclusion you have....?

What, exactly?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 28, 2014, 09:19:46 am

Interesting commentary: This might debunk some peoples opinions

http://personalliberty.com/stand-police-officer-wilson/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 28, 2014, 11:18:54 am

How dare him call Brown a thug.. Ooooops.. that's the same thing I called him.. Imagine that..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 28, 2014, 03:48:40 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 28, 2014, 09:19:46 am

Interesting commentary: This might debunk some peoples opinions

http://personalliberty.com/stand-police-officer-wilson/

What an idiot.  He thinks that "The use of force is justified if you believe your life is in danger"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 28, 2014, 04:18:16 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 28, 2014, 11:18:54 am

How dare him call Brown a thug.. Ooooops.. that's the same thing I called him.. Imagine that..

The question is not whether is was or wasn't a thug.

The question is under what set of circumstances it could have made any difference?

To quote Hilary, only in a situation in which the quote is applicable, what difference does it make?

Or is it simply an effort to trash him so his death is emotionally easy to dismiss, whether the shooting was justified or not?

Because it is hard to imagine a scenario in which his "thugness" could have mattered, and in the absence of you even beginning to offer a reasonable basis on which it might have, it becomes very simple for anyone with anything remotely resembling an open mind on the issue to dismiss your comments on the issue (or the comments of anyone else wanting to talk about his "thugness").

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 28, 2014, 04:42:37 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 27, 2014, 10:09:00 pm

You wondered the same thing?

Why my post made clear is that I was wondering what the video showed -- that I was not able to watch it.  If YOU also were not able to watch it, then why did you post it?

Apologies.  I misunderstood the meaning of your post.  I saw and heard the whole post but still wasn't sure of the point. 

I will respectfully defer to Pekin's post.  I think that be got the gist.  I will accept that point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 28, 2014, 05:59:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 28, 2014, 04:18:16 pm

The question is not whether is was or wasn't a thug.

The question is under what set of circumstances it could have made any difference?

To quote Hilary, only in a situation in which the quote is applicable, what difference does it make?

Or is it simply an effort to trash him so his death is emotionally easy to dismiss, whether the shooting was justified or not?

Because it is hard to imagine a scenario in which his "thugness" could have mattered, and in the absence of you even beginning to offer a reasonable basis on which it might have, it becomes very simple for anyone with anything remotely resembling an open mind on the issue to dismiss your comments on the issue (or the comments of anyone else wanting to talk about his "thugness").

The question of whether he was a thug or he was a gentle giant is extremely important in the formation of public opinion.  The New York Times started things off by an article that portrayed him as a "gentle giant" who died because he was minding his own business and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  That was a portrayal that should be corrected before it becomes urban myth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 28, 2014, 06:24:51 pm

Sorry, davep, but if THAT is the reason for making the comment, then it needs to be made while referencing the NY Times article, which I am certain helped shape the opinions of its many readers here.

It certainly appears to me to have been nothing more, or less, than an effort to trash Brown in order to encourage others to emotionally dismiss the shooting, regardless whether it was justified.

Silly me, my interest is primarily focused on the question of whether it was justified.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 28, 2014, 09:04:04 pm

Only an idiot would promote one person (on a payroll from...) as a single source of what?

Jennifer Marohasy?


So what if she a is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. That proves actually what?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 28, 2014, 09:06:59 pm

Also, idiot libertarian would it do me any good to google 'ownership of the Australian"?

Wonder what it would find?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 28, 2014, 09:10:56 pm

Is Otto drunk again?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 28, 2014, 09:12:37 pm

Moss on the shady side of the rock

Quote

The Climate Center at Eastanglia has been altering data for more than a decade.  Scientists in several countries have noticed that the raw data showed that they altered their countries submissions.  Eastanglia fixed the problem by stopping the release of raw data.

Can you post one piece of proof which supports your wildly stupid statement?

And dave of the Norsk Society

it's the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

Moron.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 28, 2014, 09:17:13 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 28, 2014, 06:24:51 pm

Sorry, davep, but if THAT is the reason for making the comment, then it needs to be made while referencing the NY Times article, which I am certain helped shape the opinions of its many readers here.

It certainly appears to me to have been nothing more, or less, than an effort to trash Brown in order to encourage others to emotionally dismiss the shooting, regardless whether it was justified.

Silly me, my interest is primarily focused on the question of whether it was justified.

Justified?  I would have thought that you would be concerned about whether or not it was true.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 28, 2014, 09:20:27 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 28, 2014, 09:12:37 pm

Moss on the shady side of the rock

Can you post one piece of proof which supports your wildly stupid statement?

And dave of the Norsk Society

it's the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

Moron.

It has been posted a dozen times on this board alone.  Since you only choose to believe that which agrees with your propaganda, I doubt that you paid attention to it.

You disavow history.  You disavow science.  You disavow facts.  it is the only way a liberal idiot can keep his story straight.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 28, 2014, 09:25:05 pm

Show your facts that are so ready available.

If you can, which you can't because it's only your and some wingnut media's opinion.

Again, show the proof. I called your bluff.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 28, 2014, 09:31:45 pm

E-mail controversy

Main articles: Climatic Research Unit email controversy and Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit

In November 2009, hackers gained access to a server used by the CRU and stole a large quantity of data, anonymously posting online more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents. Some climate change sceptics and bloggers asserted that a number of the leaked e-mails contain evidence that scientists had conspired to manipulate data and to keep scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature. The controversy was also known as "Climategate". All these accusations were denied by CRU spokespersons, and the CRU's researchers stated that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas. In 2011, a new analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, many of whom had stated publicly that they thought is was possible that the CRU had manipulated data, concluded that "these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not affect their conclusions."

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report, however, stated, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.

Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit had sought raw data of instrumental temperature records held by National Meteorological Organizations around the world and obtained by CRU under formal or informal confidentiality agreements that restricted use of this raw data to academic purposes. CRU sought agreement with these organizations to release the data in stages. In its decision released on 23 June 2011, the Information Commissioner's Office required CRU to release the remaining raw data irrespective of the wishes of the meteorological organizations, and this was completed by 27 July 2011.

So your claim of altered data is false

Your claim of inaccessible raw data is false.

What do you have?

Ignorance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 28, 2014, 09:35:29 pm

Jes - are you saying that he was NOT portrayed as a gentle giant in the press?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 28, 2014, 10:24:05 pm

Quote from: davep on August 28, 2014, 09:17:13 pm

Justified?  I would have thought that you would be concerned about whether or not it was true.

Whether or not it was true?

Are you saying you have some serious question about whether Brown was shot to death by a Ferguson cop?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 28, 2014, 10:28:01 pm

Quote from: davep on August 28, 2014, 09:35:29 pm

Jes - are you saying that he was NOT portrayed as a gentle giant in the press?

I am saying that whether he was or wasn't a "gentle giant," or whether he has been so portrayed, is irrelevant.  I am also saying that posting that he was a "thug," without referencing those "gentle giant" portrayals, is not countering it, and that simply calling him a "thug," without offering something to support that conclusion, is also not countering it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 28, 2014, 11:35:32 pm

Run Paul, Kent Sorenson is on line two with an endorsement for sale....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 29, 2014, 12:23:25 am

I sure hope the nrs sends Charles Vacca a thank you note.

He earned it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 29, 2014, 07:09:30 am

Silly me, my interest is primarily focused on the question of whether it was justified.

If as reported Brown charged Wilson and some 6'4/290 lb guy who had already broken his eye socket was charging him then IMHO that's sufficient justification to shoot him. My only question is whether there was past encounters between the two and were there incendiary racial comments uttered by either. But a 6'4 /290 lb man charging a police officer doesn't qualify as a gentle giant, just doesn't, regardless of race.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 29, 2014, 08:52:36 am

Harry says Dan Snyder tried to buy "some of his Nevada indians". Isn't it time for this senile old fool to retire?

http://blogs.rgj.com/politics/2014/08/28/sen-reid-says-he-has-advice-for-hillary-clinton-but-wont-share-it-with-rgj-reporter/

“Redskins is a racist name and native Americans believe that,” Reid said. “They have tried to buy off some of my Nevada Indians and they have not been able to do that, giving them trucks and stuff like that.

“The Indians, they understand that this is an issue that deals with them,” Reid said. “It is a moral issue with them. And he (Snyder) can hang on for a little while but it is not going to go on forever.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on August 29, 2014, 09:04:43 am

I guess this is a politics sports crossover...

Not talking about that dummy Reid but I did hear that Snyder is looking for a new stadium back closer to downtown D.C. and not in a Maryland Suburb.  For those that don't know it would be like the Bears playing in Aurora IL.  Word on the street is that DC politicians and or the league will force a name change before they will allow a new stadium.  His current lease on FedEx field runs through 2027 but there is always an early buy out option if he can get a new stadium deal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 29, 2014, 09:43:01 am

Reid should just shut his mouth and retire. I am sure the Republicans would love to be able to retire Reid in November

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 29, 2014, 05:21:19 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 28, 2014, 10:24:05 pm

Whether or not it was true?

Are you saying you have some serious question about whether Brown was shot to death by a Ferguson cop?

Not at all.  But we were talking about the release of the robbery video.  Are you saying that you have some serious questions about whether Brown has been portrayed as a gentle giant who was wrongfully set upon by a rogue cop?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 29, 2014, 05:25:17 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 28, 2014, 10:28:01 pm

I am saying that whether he was or wasn't a "gentle giant," or whether he has been so portrayed, is irrelevant.  I am also saying that posting that he was a "thug," without referencing those "gentle giant" portrayals, is not countering it, and that simply calling him a "thug," without offering something to support that conclusion, is also not countering it.

It is certainly irrelevant as far as a trial is concerned.  It certainly is not irrelevant as far as forming public opinion is concerned.  There have been protests and property destruction because of one side of the story.  The other side needs to be publicized also.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 05:38:23 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 29, 2014, 07:09:30 am

If as reported Brown charged Wilson and some 6'4/290 lb guy who had already broken his eye socket was charging him then IMHO that's sufficient justification to shoot him.

And if, as also reported, he did NOT charge him, would you accept that the shooting was NOT justified, and that Wilson should be charged with some degree of homicide?

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 29, 2014, 07:09:30 am

My only question is whether there was past encounters between the two and were there incendiary racial comments uttered by either.

And that would make a difference how?

Suppose Brown called Wilson anything you might imagine, would that somehow have justified the shooting?

Suppose Wilson called Brown anything you might imagine, would that somehow have excused Brown charging him?  Or would it have made it more likely that Wilson shot him without justification?  Or if Wilson did NOT call Brown anything at all, would that make it less likely that Wilson shot him without justification?

You seem to want to focus on the purely incendiary aspects of what happened, such as whether Brown was a "thug" or "gentle."  Or whether one used "incendiary racial comments" toward the other.  I don't see the relevance of any of that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 06:03:12 pm

Quote from: davep on August 29, 2014, 05:25:17 pm

It is certainly irrelevant as far as a trial is concerned.  It certainly is not irrelevant as far as forming public opinion is concerned.

There you go with the "public opinion" again.

This is not much in the way of a public forum likely to influence any real part of "the public" as to whether Brown was angelic or thug.

Calling him a "thug," without even addressing any evidence supporting such a conclusion, is nothing other than an effort to paint him as someone no one should care about in order to make it easier to dismiss what happened, and easier to conclude nothing should be done with Wilson, even if he gunned Brown down in cold blood.  After all, if Brown was a thug, we are also still better off without him and should applaud Wilson for getting another thug off the street.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 06:07:37 pm

Quote from: davep on August 29, 2014, 05:21:19 pm

Not at all.  But we were talking about the release of the robbery video.  Are you saying that you have some serious questions about whether Brown has been portrayed as a gentle giant who was wrongfully set upon by a rogue cop?

We were?

You seem to be taking part in a discussion I am unaware of, and perhaps your questions make sense for that discussion, but not one I have been taking part in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 29, 2014, 08:22:11 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 06:03:12 pm

There you go with the "public opinion" again.

This is not much in the way of a public forum likely to influence any real part of "the public" as to whether Brown was angelic or thug.

Calling him a "thug," without even addressing any evidence supporting such a conclusion, is nothing other than an effort to paint him as someone no one should care about in order to make it easier to dismiss what happened, and easier to conclude nothing should be done with Wilson, even if he gunned Brown down in cold blood.  After all, if Brown was a thug, we are also still better off without him and should applaud Wilson for getting another thug off the street.

Whether or not he was gentle giant has nothing to do with whether the cop was right or wrong.

Whether or not he was a thug has nothing to do with whether or not the cop was right or wrong.

But only reporting one side or the other can, and does, color public opinion.  If one side can portray him in one light, I have no problem with the other side portraying him in another light.  The media should report on which portrayal is right or wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 29, 2014, 08:23:30 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 06:07:37 pm

We were?

You seem to be taking part in a discussion I am unaware of, and perhaps your questions make sense for that discussion, but not one I have been taking part in.

It isn't unusual for you to lose track of the discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 08:38:41 pm

Quote from: davep on August 29, 2014, 08:22:11 pm

Whether or not he was gentle giant has nothing to do with whether the cop was right or wrong.

Whether or not he was a thug has nothing to do with whether or not the cop was right or wrong.

But only reporting one side or the other can, and does, color public opinion.  If one side can portray him in one light, I have no problem with the other side portraying him in another light.  The media should report on which portrayal is right or wrong.

So what is it that you are wanting to argue?  I ask because I see no difference between what you just posted and anything I have posted.  And is there ANYone here who has posted anything at all suggesting that they disagree in any degree or to any extent with your 3rd paragraph?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 29, 2014, 09:07:36 pm

You have indicated that the chief should not have released the video of the robbery.  Have you changed your mind?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 29, 2014, 09:34:04 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 05:38:23 pm

And if, as also reported, he did NOT charge him, would you accept that the shooting was NOT justified, and that Wilson should be charged with some degree of homicide?


And that would make a difference how?

Suppose Brown called Wilson anything you might imagine, would that somehow have justified the shooting?

Suppose Wilson called Brown anything you might imagine, would that somehow have excused Brown charging him?  Or would it have made it more likely that Wilson shot him without justification?  Or if Wilson did NOT call Brown anything at all, would that make it less likely that Wilson shot him without justification?

You seem to want to focus on the purely incendiary aspects of what happened, such as whether Brown was a "thug" or "gentle."  Or whether one used "incendiary racial comments" toward the other.  I don't see the relevance of any of that.

I think you are trying to put words in my mouth. Am I on trial here? Any opinions I have are personal beliefs, not legal opinions.

Personally I feel there will be a suppression of evidence and Wilson wont get a fair trial. I don't want to see that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 09:40:33 pm

I don't believe I have indicated that, because I don't believe I have ever felt that.

My understanding is that a news outlet had requested the video, and under MO law, he had little choice but to either release it, or do as the Obama administration does with any FOIA request and violate the law.  While government agencies often can get away with such things, folks who at least TRY to comply with the law don't.

But whether I ever indicated the video should or shouldn't have been released, it really appears you are changing your point in order to search for something to argue about on this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 12:08:56 am

Jes often loses track of the discussion because he is bird dogging on some point he thinks is relevant that no one else does.  All the while trying to paint the person into a corner he has painted.  He likes to feel like he has the high ground and we are a bunch of stupid racists, ignorant **** or some other piece of crap he feels needs kicked around.  I have come to the conclusion he is just an **** and a bully who likes to pick on others.  However he has the need to feel like he is on the side of good while he does it.  A champion of the weak or some bullshit.

I have become bored with it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 12:10:21 am

Jes, get your ability to practice law back and go do this **** in court where you can actually make a difference.  Here you just **** people off for no good reason.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 06:07:18 am

Quote from: davep on August 29, 2014, 08:23:30 pm

It isn't unusual for you to lose track of the discussion.

Cute, but if I did lose track of the discussion here, could you please point out anywhere that *I* was discussing the video of the robbery, or where I even suggested that the chief should not have released it?  I believe I have consistently stated that the chief on that point did as state law required.  You seem to have some point you want to make, or some argument you want to have, yet you have not really pointed to any real difference in our positions to argue about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 06:18:35 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 29, 2014, 09:34:04 pm

I think you are trying to put words in my mouth. Am I on trial here? Any opinions I have are personal beliefs, not legal opinions.

Personally I feel there will be a suppression of evidence and Wilson wont get a fair trial. I don't want to see that.

What words do I seem to be putting in your mouth?

I asked questions about what you would or wouldn't support, without so much as suggesting that you had expressed support of any of them, but for the purpose of actual discussion.  Nothing I have ever written, said, or even thought, has ever suggested that I think what you post is a "legal opinion" or is anything other than your own opinion.

That said, your last line above does amount to a "legal opinion" about what will happen if any charges are brought -- that being your prediction that Wilson will not get a fair trial and that there will be a suppression of evidence in the case.

I'm curious.  What evidence do you believe would be suppressed, and why?  Why do you think Wilson would not get a fair trial?

It is very unusual for a trial court to prevent a criminal defendant from presenting or introducing or asking about evidence relevant to the defense case, and the reason it is unusual is that it makes reversal on appeal quite likely.  So far I have not heard of anything which would be remotely relevant to a defense case which would be at all likely to be suppressed.  What is it you believe would be kept out?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 06:20:51 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 12:10:21 am

Jes, get your ability to practice law back and go do this **** in court where you can actually make a difference.  Here you just **** people off for no good reason.

I don't know, Pekin, your act has grown so old and so thin that pissing you off on general principles is a perfectly good reason, though I have not yet begun to do so.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 12:08:56 am

Jes often loses track of the discussion because he is bird dogging on some point he thinks is relevant that no one else does.  All the while trying to paint the person into a corner he has painted.  He likes to feel like he has the high ground and we are a bunch of stupid racists, ignorant **** or some other piece of crap he feels needs kicked around.  I have come to the conclusion he is just an **** and a bully who likes to pick on others.  However he has the need to feel like he is on the side of good while he does it.  A champion of the weak or some bullshit.

Pekin, very impressive mind-reading.  You ought to take your show on the road.  But until then, could you point out even one word in my last several posts where I was trying to "champion the weak"?  Or where I was trying to "pick on others"?  Or where I have called or even suggested that anyone was racist?  Or where I lost track of any discussion?  (Now davep seemed to lose track of the discussion, but as old as he is, such things just sometimes happen.)  Or where I have been trying to "paint (davep) into a corner (I have) painted"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 06:39:16 am

Jes, You have on many occasions done all of what I have accused you of.  I will not limit myself to your last several posts.  When a person has a long history of doing something which is apparent to anyone paying attention there is no reason for me to catalog each and every instance.  However since the fish are in the barrel I might as well shoot a few.

You put in a dig at Dave in your last post even though it is directed at me.  You can't help but be an **** because that is who you are. (picking on others)

Oh and you started this whole thing about Ferguson because somehow you felt people were racist for not buying the "gentle giant" bullshit the media was peddling.  You felt people were racist for having the balls to suggest the kid was a thug.  Which he was because we all saw the video of him stealing and roughing up the store clerk. (race card and championing the poor gentle giant who got shot dead by a cop for no good reason).

This is not a court of law.  The discussion has been about the court of public opinion.  The race baiters were winning that until the actual facts started coming out.  Which for some reason you have a problem with.  None of us have any idea if the shooting was justified or not.  However it is looking more and more like the police officer actually had a good reason.  This coming from someone who at the beginning felt the officer was probably in  the wrong.   


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 07:14:33 am

Remember all of those Global Warming predictions about how it was going to bring more and bigger hurricanes?

http://www.newsnet5.com/weather/weather-news/us-hurricane-drought-still-in-record-territory

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 07:40:14 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 06:39:16 am

Jes, You have on many occasions done all of what I have accused you of.  I will not limit myself to your last several posts.  When a person has a long history of doing something which is apparent to anyone paying attention there is no reason for me to catalog each and every instance.  However since the fish are in the barrel I might as well shoot a few.

Boy, I am utterly crushed ~sniff~

Now, any chance you can actually discuss an issue at hand?  You know, once your panties get in a wad, you are able to pull them out of your crack instead of leaving them there forever.  Or do you get off on your prattle of insults and personal attacks, even when entirely unrelated to what is being discussed at the moment.

You must be a blast at family reunions.  Forget about what is going on at any given moment, but just march up to Aunt Jen, who hurt your feelings when you were 12-years-old when she pointed out how you were making a fool of yourself, and just let her have it!

Yeah, boy.  You'll show her....

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 06:39:16 am

You put in a dig at Dave in your last post even though it is directed at me.

What was directed at you?

Believe it or not, Pekin, the world does NOT revolve around you.  Not all comments are about you.  I don't believe ANY of my responses to davep have even had you in mind (at least not in the last several posts -- I don't recall whether I might have some time in the past).

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 06:39:16 am

You can't help but be an **** because that is who you are. (picking on others) 

You are a funny guy.  I am "picking on others" here presumably by making personal attacks on them, a point you trumpet not by addressing any issue I have raised or even anything in particular which I have posted, but instead by launching into.... a personal attack, and one seemingly based at least as much on your presumed ability at mind-reading and determining why someone made a comment as it is based on the actual comments.  Funny.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 06:39:16 am

Oh and you started this whole thing about Ferguson because somehow you felt people were racist for not buying the "gentle giant" bullshit the media was peddling.  You felt people were racist for having the balls to suggest the kid was a thug.  Which he was because we all saw the video of him stealing and roughing up the store clerk. (race card and championing the poor gentle giant who got shot dead by a cop for no good reason).

Here is a wonderful example of your mind-reading.  Now, can you point to where I called anyone here a racist in any of the discussion about Ferguson?  Can you point to anywhere I describe Brown as "gentle" or where I wrote anything remotely complimentary of him?  And, while you are at it, can YOU explain how or why whether Brown was or wasn't a "thug" makes any difference?

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 06:39:16 am

The race baiters were winning that until the actual facts started coming out.  Which for some reason you have a problem with.

What "actual facts" do you believe I "have a problem with"?

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 06:39:16 am

None of us have any idea if the shooting was justified or not.  However it is looking more and more like the police officer actually had a good reason.

Impressive.  In one sentence you write that "None of us have any idea if the shooting was justified or not," and in the next you make clear that you DO have an idea by writing that, "it is looking more and more like the police officer actually had a good reason."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 30, 2014, 07:52:20 am

Boy, I am utterly crushed ~sniff~

LOL! Cry me a river.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 08:09:57 am

For a speech delivered before the American Legion by an American president addressing military and national security issues, this is a remarkably tepid response.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO3QqUcsO7Y

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:41:05 am

Jes, Nothing you or anyone else has ever posted here hurt my feelings.  Can you show me where I ever said such a thing?  Of course not because it simply is not true.  You once again simply make a straw man to knock down.  Something you often accuse others of.     

Post 2684 was directed at me (I assume since you were quoting my post) yet you made a point to take a shot at Dave in it.  Do you lack enough social skills to know when you are or aren't insulting someone?  If so perhaps you can get some help for that.

If Brown attacked the officer as the wounds appear to show and if he charged him when the officer drew his weapon the officer had every right to shoot until the threat was over.  Of course we don't know for a fact that is what happened.  We do however know the initial reports that painted the officer in a different light were not true.

We now know due to the autopsy Brown was not shot in the back nor was he shot 9 times as was first reported.  He was shot 6 times only one of which was fatal.  The one that entered the top of his head which could very well be consistent with the officers story that Brown was charging him.

I am not sure why you have such a problem with the word thug.  The kid was a thug.  We have video evidence of it.

That does not mean it gives a cop the right to shoot him down in cold blood if he was on his knees with his hands up surrendering.  Which I can only assume you believe anyone using the word is implying.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 30, 2014, 03:04:00 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 29, 2014, 06:07:37 pm

Not at all.  But we were talking about the release of the robbery video.

You seem to be taking part in a discussion I am unaware of, and perhaps your questions make sense for that discussion, but not one I have been taking part in.

Jes - I have gone over all posts since the discussion began, and find no instance where you criticized the release of the video.  I was wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 03:14:59 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:41:05 am

Jes, Nothing you or anyone else has ever posted here hurt my feelings.  Can you show me where I ever said such a thing?  Of course not because it simply is not true.  You once again simply make a straw man to knock down.  Something you often accuse others of.

Talk about straw men....

pssst, Pekin, I never wrote that I had hurt your feelings, or that I thought I had hurt your feelings, or that you ever SAID I had hurt your feelings.  So, challenging me to show where you had written that is.... eh, I don't even know if you will grasp it now that it has been pointed out to you.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:41:05 am

Post 2684 was directed at me (I assume since you were quoting my post) yet you made a point to take a shot at Dave in it.  Do you lack enough social skills to know when you are or aren't insulting someone?  If so perhaps you can get some help for that.

This exchange illustrates the problem of use of the indefinite pronoun "it."  You might be able to look thru the exchange to identify the problem, but I somehow doubt you would have any success if you put in the effort, and I am quite certain that if you did, the understanding would not lead to any effort to change the way you use indefinite pronouns.  So there is little point in bothering to point out the problem to you.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:41:05 am

If Brown attacked the officer as the wounds appear to show and if he charged him when the officer drew his weapon the officer had every right to shoot until the threat was over.  Of course we don't know for a fact that is what happened.

We also don't know for a fact if the officer even had any wounds.  The reporting of the incident itself has been a long way from clear.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:41:05 am

We now know due to the autopsy Brown was not shot in the back nor was he shot 9 times as was first reported.

Actually we do NOT know Brown was not shot FROM the back, which the original reports of "shot in the back" would appear to have been addressing.  "Shot in the back" would for many witnesses, particularly those without the best command of the language, and without benefit of an actual personal examination of the body, would include shot in the back of the calf or the buttocks or the hamstrings, or the back of the neck or back of the shoulder, or any portion of the posterior, including any part of the arms which would have been facing toward the back of a person, which is where at least one of the entry wounds in the arm was located.  If Brown was first shot when he was running away, the entry wounds to the arm could easily have taken the hit, causing him to stop, turn around, and even put up his hands.

I am not saying that is what happened, but merely pointing out that the limited reports we have so far had from the autopsies in no way conflicts with the claims of the initial witnesses that he was "shot in the back" as he was running.

And I don't recall any of the reports being that he was shot 9 times, but instead that the officer had fired UP to 9 times and had hit him several, but it is a distinction without a difference.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:41:05 am

The one that entered the top of his head which could very well be consistent with the officers story that Brown was charging him.

Not only do we not yet really know what the officer's story was, the only way it would be consistent is if he had been running bent over at the waist with his head facing the ground, or running with his neck at a 90 degree angle, neither of which are the way I would expect one person to be charging another from 30 feet away, allowing the target of the charge to simply step to the side without the movement being noticed.  We still need to see the ballistics, the forensics and the FULL autopsies, but right now I would guess that the last shot, the fatal shot which entered the top of the head of a guy who was 6'4", came when Brown was already falling to the ground from his wounds, even if the wounds up to that point had not been fatal.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:41:05 am

I am not sure why you have such a problem with the word thug.  The kid was a thug.  We have video evidence of it.

And I am not sure why you believe I have ANY problem with the word.

I asked why it was used.

So far the poster I directed the question to, the person who called him a thug, has not offered anything resembling a meaningful response.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:41:05 am

That does not mean it gives a cop the right to shoot him down in cold blood if he was on his knees with his hands up surrendering.  Which I can only assume you believe anyone using the word is implying.

~sigh~  The questions I asked would cover the reason I thought the word was used, and what you offer as your assumption of my belief was not included, nor is your assumption accurate.

Now, would you care to respond to some of the questions I have asked you in this exchange?  For ease of reference, here are the questions:

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 07:40:14 am

can you point to where I called anyone here a racist in any of the discussion about Ferguson?  Can you point to anywhere I describe Brown as "gentle" or where I wrote anything remotely complimentary of him?  And, while you are at it, can YOU explain how or why whether Brown was or wasn't a "thug" makes any difference?

What "actual facts" do you believe I "have a problem with"?

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 06:20:51 am

could you point out even one word in my last several posts where I was trying to "champion the weak"?  Or where I was trying to "pick on others"?  Or where I have called or even suggested that anyone was racist?  Or where I lost track of any discussion?  Or where I have been trying to "paint (davep) into a corner (I have) painted"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 03:18:28 pm

Quote from: davep on August 30, 2014, 03:04:00 pm

Jes - I have gone over all posts since the discussion began, and find no instance where you criticized the release of the video.  I was wrong.

It happens, but don't let Pekin know you were wrong.  And I have to ask, did YOU at any point in our exchange here think I was somehow trying to "paint you in a corner"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 05:31:02 pm

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/08/16/missouris_rule_on_deadly_force_by_cops_1044.html
August 16, 2014
Missouri's Rule on Deadly Force by Cops
By Robert VerBruggen

As new facts come to light about the interaction that led to Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson, a major question is whether the police officer, Darren Wilson, broke the law. As Peter Suderman points out at Reason (citing a tweet from Sean Davis of The Federalist), Missouri appears to have a very lax standard for the use of deadly force by officers:

A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

We can see how these cases actually play out in Missouri by looking at the officially approved jury instructions. Obnoxiously, the state doesn't make those instructions available publicly for free, but here's a citation of the relevant provision in a Springfield Police Department document:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HEYudHHOWceqtwIAm0v9OsvdbTm5H8NqlebZyy8dgY=w668-h322-no)

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/deadly-force-what-does-law-say-about-when-police-are-allowed-use-it
Deadly Force: What Does The Law Say About When Police Are Allowed To Use It?
By William Freivogel

The Constitution does not permit police to fire at unarmed, nonviolent, fleeing suspects unless there is a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or the public.

The police account of Saturday's events is that Michael Brown fought for a gun in a police cruiser before being shot dead a short distance from the car. Given that account, one question in Brown’s shooting death at the hands of Ferguson police is whether Brown would be considered a non-dangerous suspect.

The U.S. Supreme Court imposed a constitutional limit on the police use of deadly force to apprehend unarmed fleeing felons in a 1985 case from Memphis where an African-American 8th grader was shot fleeing a home burglary.  That decision, Tennessee v. Garner, rested on the shoulders of a St. Louis case from the 1970s.

The St. Louis case was the 1972 shooting of Michael Mattis, the 18-year-old son of a prominent St. Louis County doctor, Dr. Robert Mattis.  The teen was killed by an Olivette police officer as Mattis and a teenage accomplice fled a burglary at a golf driving range.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri challenged the shooting as a violation of Mattis’ civil and constitutional rights.

In 1976, the ACLU won a favorable ruling in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which found that police departments had moved away from using deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon who was not considered dangerous.  The appeals court opinion was a long, scholarly inventory of evolving police practice, showing that law enforcement agencies themselves were moving way from the practice.

The U.S. Supreme threw out the 8th Circuit decision on procedural grounds.  But a few years later when the court revisited the issue in the landmark 1985 Garner decision, it rested its decision partly on the 8th Circuit's opinion in Mattis.  It cited Mattis to make the point that many police departments were no longer relying on deadly force to stop fleeing felons.  For that reason, states no longer could claim that deadly force was standard police practice required for effective law enforcement.

Defining the justification of deadly force

Edward Garner was a 15-year-old shot by a Memphis police officer who saw Garner trying to scale a fence while escaping from a burglary.  The officer could see that Garner probably wasn’t armed.  Police found he had taken a purse with $10 from the home.

Tennessee, like most other states, had laws justifying the use of deadly force to stop the escape of a fleeing criminal suspect.  But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those laws violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Police use of deadly force was legally considered seizure under the Fourth Amendment and therefore had to be reasonable in light of all circumstances, the court ruled. It is unreasonable for police to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless the “officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

“It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape,” wrote Justice Byron White for the majority. “Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. …A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”

But the court added that police could use deadly force if the suspect had threatened the life of a police officer.

“If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given,” said Justice White.

Implications for the Brown case

According to police accounts on Sunday, Brown fought with a Ferguson officer over the officer's gun in a police car, and at least one shot was fired within the car.  Brown then was shot a distance from the police cruiser after the officer fired multiple shots. Police said the distance from the car door to the shooting was about 35 feet.

Roger Goldman, an emeritus law professor at Saint Louis University Law School, said that he has “always assumed based on Garner that if the fleeing suspect wasn’t armed and wasn’t dangerous police couldn’t shoot him.”

But he added that White’s reference to a dangerous fleeing felon injected some “ambiguity.”  He added, “if an officer was harassing a suspect and was pointing a gun a suspect and the suspect pushed back at the gun, would that make the suspect dangerous?” Goldman asked.

Goldman noted that the Supreme Court has made clear that police can fire at suspects fleeing in a speeding car.

In a decision this spring involving a fleeing auto, the court made clear that it considers the “totality of the circumstances” in each case and uses the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

(William H. Freivogel is director of the School of Journalism at Southern Illinois University and has reported on legal issues throughout his career, including reporting on the Supreme Court at the time of the Garner decision.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 30, 2014, 06:20:18 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 03:18:28 pm

It happens, but don't let Pekin know you were wrong.  And I have to ask, did YOU at any point in our exchange here think I was somehow trying to "paint you in a corner"?

In this particular exchange, or in every exchange we have ever had?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 30, 2014, 06:29:03 pm

The above talks about when the officer can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.

But there have been numerous reports that the suspect had not only stopped fleeing, but turned around, taunted the officer (who he had already injured in an attempt to seize his gun) and started to come back towards that officer.  If those reports are correct, then the officer would have reason to believe his life was in danger, and was justified in the shooting.

By the way, when the doctor who did the autopsy for the family was interviewed, he said that the wound to the head did not have to come from a suspect charging with his head down.  A bullet glancing off the skull fired straight on would do the damage that killed him by deflecting bone fragments into the brain.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 06:33:28 pm

Quote from: davep on August 30, 2014, 06:20:18 pm

In this particular exchange, or in every exchange we have ever had?

In this particular exchange.

In some discussions there is no doubt that I have tried to pin down your position for further discussion or to point out contradictions in that position and others you have taken or to point out faulty reasoning or the like.  Meaningful discussions often involve this, or, alternatively, involve one person assuming what the other means and launching into a response based on that (often inaccurate) assumption.  You know, the kind of thing we see regularly done here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 07:54:56 pm

Quote from: davep on August 30, 2014, 06:29:03 pm

But there have been numerous reports that the suspect had not only stopped fleeing, but turned around, taunted the officer (who he had already injured in an attempt to seize his gun) and started to come back towards that officer.  If those reports are correct, then the officer would have reason to believe his life was in danger, and was justified in the shooting.

While that might be the conclusion you or I would reach (and at the moment I am unsure I would share that conclusion on hearing all of the evidence), it is entirely an open question as to whether a jury would share that conclusion.  There certainly is enough room for another conclusion based on the limited information we now have.

Quote from: davep on August 30, 2014, 06:29:03 pm

By the way, when the doctor who did the autopsy for the family was interviewed, he said that the wound to the head did not have to come from a suspect charging with his head down.  A bullet glancing off the skull fired straight on would do the damage that killed him by deflecting bone fragments into the brain.

I did not hear Dr. Baden say that the ENTRY wound to the top of the head could have happened any way other than if Brown had his head down.  So I checked a few links online.  And I still find nothing indicating that the ENTRY of the bullet in the top of his head could have happened with a shot fired at him standing upright and with his head held up with the officer firing from a standing or sitting position several feet away.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/08/19/inside-private-autopsy-michael-brown?page=1
Inside the private autopsy on Michael Brown

Published August 18, 2014 | On the Record |
With: Dr. Michael Baden, Forensic Pathologist
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," August 18, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Today, lawyers for the family of Michael Brown announcing the results of a private autopsy, conducted by a frequent guest here on ON THE RECORD, former chief medical examiner for New York City, Dr. Michael Baden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MICHAEL BADEN, FORMER NEW YORK CITY CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER: There are six bullets struck him. Six bullets struck and two may have reentered. And three bullets were recovered at the first autopsy, according to our report. One thing is that there are abrasions around the right side of Mr. Brown's face, rubbing against the ground, which happened, as best we can tell, when, after the gunshot wounds, he fell flat down unprotected and got those abrasions. Otherwise, no evidence of a struggle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Dr. Baden confirming the unarmed teenager was shot at least six times, including twice in the head. Dr. Baden joins us right now.

Dr. Baden, I always think you are the smartest, you are the best, you are the most experienced at. This I'm glad to have you be the one that conducted the autopsy.

BADEN: Thank you, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: But there are some things you didn't have. You didn't have the clothing, right?

BADEN: Right.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. And you don't have a toxicology screen. Those are the two big things that you don't have yet.

BADEN: That's right. Although I heard that the medical examiner's report from the first autopsy has been furnished to the prosecutor and, according to the "The Washington Post," that it does say that marijuana was found in the toxicology. And that the findings of Dr. Mary Case's office, who is the chief medical examiner, are very similar to the findings that we found as to the bullet tracks in the second autopsy.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. In terms of the toxicology -- and I will get to the bullet wounds in a second -- does the fact that they found marijuana, does that exclude the fact that there might be other drugs in his system or that the marijuana was laced with anything? Is that the final analysis or could there be more information to come in terms of the toxicology?

BADEN: I don't know, because I haven't seen the toxicology report yet. That's part of the autopsy and that should be coming to the family in the next day or two. And very important with marijuana is the levels of the different drugs that are present in marijuana, to have an opinion as to whether or not he might have been affected by the marijuana so that he may have been acting in a crazy way, and may have done things to the police officer that normally he would not have done.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right.

BADEN: Which would be the issue that might arise.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. The advantage of having the clothes -- and I have learned this from talking to you over the years -- is that there may be a gunshot residue on the clothes that might be sort of helpful in determining distance between the end of the gun and the body. Now, you didn't have the clothes, but was there anything on the flesh that would give you any sort of hint as to distance?

BADEN: No. Yes, the flesh around the bullet holes of entrance were clear. There was no gunshot residue, no stippling, no powders present around the entrance wounds, which indicates that the muzzle end of the weapon was a foot or two away at the time of discharge. It wasn't a close contact. It wasn't very close, as would have to be the case if they were fighting inside of a car.

Now, the clothing. though, as you point out, can filter out gunshot residue, so that it would be important to know, and the crime lab, I'm sure, in Los Angeles County -- in St. Louis County, I'm sorry -- is doing is looking at the built perforations of the clothing to see if there is any gunshot residue there. And that will be important.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of the actual wounds, I notice that from the drawing that there are a number of bullet wounds to the right arm. Would that be -- I know there has been at least some eyewitness testimony to say that his hands were raised. Are those wounds -- because it's hard to tell from the diagram -- consistent with the hands raised or not?

(CROSSTALK)

BADEN: They are consistent with arms. They are consistent, yes, with the arms, with the arm forearm and right forearm and arm being raised because they were on the right arm. But they are also consistent with the arms being at the side. So there could be either way from the gunshot wounds themselves in the arms.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are they consistent with having -- coming at someone aggressively? Because I know there is that wound on the head, which could either be shooting when someone is down or perhaps someone is charging, either one.

BADEN: Right.

VAN SUSTEREN: Can you in any way sort of reach a decision whether or not the wound on top of the head and the arms would be consistent with someone being shot as is he going down or someone being shot as he is charging?

BADEN: These wounds could be, again, done in either way, because the head is so mobile up, and the arm, the shooter's arm is so mobile, that they can have many different positions in which you get the same bullet track in the head. But what we can say is that when the bullet wound at the top of the head entered Michael Brown's body, he immediately lost consciousness, collapsed, and died. The mom wanted to know, for example, did he have any pain and suffering? Not after that gunshot wound. And he was then immobile and collapsed immediately on that shot.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are we to assume -- and I realize that there is -- assuming sometimes a huge mistake, but that that would be the last shot if that's the one that took him down, since that's the fatal one or not necessarily?

BADEN: That would be the fatal one and the one that took him down, yes. I assume it to be the last one because the discharge -- the discharge of the weapon would stop when he collapsed. But we can tell just from the bullet wounds of the arms and the rest of the body because he could be down, and bullet wounds could have still injured the arm and forearm in a similar way. But I think that's unlikely.

But the point you make, Greta, also, is that he died because of that bullet wound in the head and brain. The other five wounds would not have been lethal in themselves.

VAN SUSTEREN: How close, based on the fact -- and I realize you don't have the clothes that would be very helpful in looking for gunshot residue. But from what you said is that it was more than a foot away but you can't say whether it was two feet, three feet, four feet or six feet, right? So it could be as close as a --

BADEN: That's right.

VAN SUSTEREN: It would be as close as a foot, but no closer?

BADEN: The muzzle could be -- but no closer, right. And he could be as far away as 35 feet. And after a foot, it would be the same two feet to 35 feet would be -- would look the same. No powder would get on the body.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. What question should I be asking you that I haven't asked you that would be sort of very instructive or have I covered the main ones until we get more information?

BADEN: Oh, well, to bring in a little bit of the law, you could ask, how's come there is a third autopsy being done, and could the government perform an autopsy without the permission of the family?

VAN SUSTEREN: I will ask you that.

BADEN: And the answer to that --

VAN SUSTEREN: And, of course, he has also been embalmed, too, which makes it somewhat difficult.

BADEN: Yes. He was embalmed before I did the second autopsy. What's interesting is that the government, the medical examiner's office and the police and the -- can do a -- order an autopsy when somebody dies, even if the family objects to it. But once that's finished and the body is returned to the family, the family has total control over the body. And even if President Obama wanted an autopsy done, a third autopsy, if the family didn't agree, the only thing that could happen would be a court order by a judge to do it. But the family here requested, they wanted the FBI to do a third autopsy because they feel that this will show how improper the shooting of their son was.

_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
Now, as to my point that the autopsy does not come close to establishing whether Brown was or wasn't first shot FROM the back, even if no shot ENTERED the portion of his body between his waist and neck on the backside and which we generally refer to as "the back," this link seems to confirm my speculation:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/did-michael-brown-have-his-hands-up-when-killed-by/article_f9904f19-dba5-58b4-ac4b-56b9bda29646.html
Shawn L. Parcells, who operates a forensics company based in Kansas, assisted Baden during the more-than-three-hour autopsy Sunday. Parcells, who joined Baden Monday to discuss their findings, said the autopsy showed Brown could have had his back the shooter or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position.

“While the shot could have come from the back,” Parcells said. “The arm is a very mobile part of the body, so it also could have occurred when he was putting his hands up ... We don’t know.”
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/fe/2feb4696-2707-5533-839a-0af86109ffac/53f2857ab3801.preview-620.jpg)
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
You will find much the same in this video of the statement Parcells when announcing what he and Baden found during their autopsy.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/pathologist-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-6-times/2014/08/18/b5c39f96-2b56-4c09-89b8-9358fbe98f27_video.html

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
And from the NYT:
Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body. But he has not yet seen the X-rays showing where the bullets were found, which would clarify the autopsy results. Nor has he had access to witness and police statements.

Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds.

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

He stressed that his information does not assign blame or justify the shooting....

Dr. Baden said he consulted with the St. Louis County medical examiner before conducting the autopsy.

One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone. The last two shots in the head would have stopped him in his tracks and were likely the last fired.

Mr. Brown, he said, would not have survived the shooting even if he had been taken to a hospital right away. The autopsy indicated that he was otherwise healthy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

That also sounds to me as if the first shot, to his eye, caused his head to drop and that he was then shot in the top of the head.  Certainly he was not shot first in the top of the head and then in the eye.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 30, 2014, 08:39:33 pm

According to the drawing the bullits appear to enter from the front not the back

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 30, 2014, 08:51:33 pm

Maybe this answers more questions:

http://preservefreedom.org/witness-reveals-michael-brown-was-not-just-doing-nothing-video/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 09:09:56 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 30, 2014, 08:39:33 pm

According to the drawing the bullits appear to enter from the front not the back

Stand up and move your arms as if running.  Listen to the comments from Parcells.

The only way to reach the conclusion you have is to want to reach it, and have little concern for the evidence.  Do you for a moment think anyone holds their arms as shown in the draw when they are running?  Or even when they are standing and facing someone?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 09:22:07 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 30, 2014, 08:51:33 pm

Maybe this answers more questions:

http://preservefreedom.org/witness-reveals-michael-brown-was-not-just-doing-nothing-video/

Not really, particularly the recording of the woman calling into the radio station.  If her story (which apparently is Wilson's story, since she identified herself as a close friend of Wilson's and said she was relating what he had told her) is correct, there would almost have to have been gunshot residue on Brown from the firing of the gun during the struggle, but, according to Dr. Baden, there was none.

And with the first unidentified voice on the recording, unless he can be identified and actually interrogated, and subjected to cross-examination, I give no weight to it.

The forensics, ballistic evidence, and complete autopsies still have not come out.  Those should do a great deal to clear things up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on August 30, 2014, 09:25:32 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 09:22:07 pm

If her story (which apparently is Wilson's story, since she identified herself as a close friend of Wilson's and said she was relating what he had told her) is correct, there would almost have to have been gunshot residue on Brown from the firing of the gun during the struggle, but, according to Dr. Baden, there was none.

I thought I read that Baden didn't have access to the clothing to check for residue

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 30, 2014, 09:54:43 pm

Somebody needs a dishonest lawyer Sheldon.


Sen. Mitch McConnell's teetering reelection campaign has suffered another gut punch as campaign manager Jesse Benton resigned amid allegations of his involvement in a bribery scandal...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 10:02:08 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on August 30, 2014, 09:25:32 pm

I thought I read that Baden didn't have access to the clothing to check for residue

He didn't.  But the residue should have been on hands, arm or face, or all of the above, and none was found.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 30, 2014, 10:13:36 pm

Saw this headline on a website and thought of you Pekin.

Keeping Their Voters Stupid Keeps Republicans Elected

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/30/keeping-base-stupid-republicans-elected.html (http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/30/keeping-base-stupid-republicans-elected.html)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 30, 2014, 10:28:48 pm

Oddo the Homo found a writer as stupid as he is.

Not easy to do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 10:51:14 pm

Otto that was the most ridiculous article I have ever read.  It made absolutely no sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 10:58:16 pm

Quote from: davep on August 30, 2014, 10:28:48 pm

Oddo the Homo found a writer as stupid as he is.

Not easy to do.

Take at look at the comments posted after the article, and also the comments posted after articles at the other links at that site.

Hard as it may be to believe, it appears otto has found a large number of people as poorly informed and as incapable of clear thought as he is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:24:31 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 09:09:56 pm

Stand up and move your arms as if running.  Listen to the comments from Parcells.

The only way to reach the conclusion you have is to want to reach it, and have little concern for the evidence.  Do you for a moment think anyone holds their arms as shown in the draw when they are running?  Or even when they are standing and facing someone?

What are you accusing him of?

Wshful simply stated the truth that is evident from what you posted that came from the Brown families hired coroner.  Of course those paid by their lawyer is going to try and leave the window open for a lawsuit.  They were paid to do so.

There were no wounds in the back at all.  I am no coroner but I don't need to be to know he was not shot in the back.  He could have had his hands up standing still but very doubtful.

At 35 feet no police officer is going to fire that many times and miss someone who is standing still with their hands in the air.  That is not very far at all.

Unless you believe he actually did have an orbital fracture and could not see very well out of one eye which might explain why he was not firing dead center at the chest which is what he should have been doing if he was in fear for his life.  Looks more like he was trying to wing the guy or was a very bad shot. 

   



 



 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 05:38:14 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:24:31 pm

What are you accusing him of?

I give up.

What am I accusing him of?

And where did I do it?

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:24:31 pm

Wshful simply stated the truth that is evident from what you posted that came from the Brown families hired coroner.  Of course those paid by their lawyer is going to try and leave the window open for a lawsuit.  They were paid to do so.

I would try to respond to that, if it were coherent.  Could you try to reword that paragraph?  The autopsy was performed by Dr. Baden.  He is the best known, and perhaps the most highly respected, medical examiner in the country.  The family hid not hire him.  He approached the family and volunteered his services.  He is paid nothing.  He waived his fee.  If you had bothered to read the post which your comments imply you did when you make the contention that, "Wshful simply stated the truth that is evident from what you posted," you would have understood that Baden is not being paid.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:24:31 pm

There were no wounds in the back at all.  I am no coroner but I don't need to be to know he was not shot in the back.  He could have had his hands up standing still but very doubtful.

I already covered this, but, since it appears you have a reading problem, I will repeat it for you here:

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 03:14:59 pm

Actually we do NOT know Brown was not shot FROM the back, which the original reports of "shot in the back" would appear to have been addressing.  "Shot in the back" would for many witnesses, particularly those without the best command of the language, and without benefit of an actual personal examination of the body, would include shot in the back of the calf or the buttocks or the hamstrings, or the back of the neck or back of the shoulder, or any portion of the posterior, including any part of the arms which would have been facing toward the back of a person, which is where at least one of the entry wounds in the arm was located.  If Brown was first shot when he was running away, the entry wounds to the arm could easily have taken the hit, causing him to stop, turn around, and even put up his hands.

I am not saying that is what happened, but merely pointing out that the limited reports we have so far had from the autopsies in no way conflicts with the claims of the initial witnesses that he was "shot in the back" as he was running.

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 07:54:56 pm

Now, as to my point that the autopsy does not come close to establishing whether Brown was or wasn't first shot FROM the back, even if no shot ENTERED the portion of his body between his waist and neck on the backside and which we generally refer to as "the back," this link seems to confirm my speculation:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/did-michael-brown-have-his-hands-up-when-killed-by/article_f9904f19-dba5-58b4-ac4b-56b9bda29646.html
Shawn L. Parcells, who operates a forensics company based in Kansas, assisted Baden during the more-than-three-hour autopsy Sunday. Parcells, who joined Baden Monday to discuss their findings, said the autopsy showed Brown could have had his back the shooter or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position.

“While the shot could have come from the back,” Parcells said. “The arm is a very mobile part of the body, so it also could have occurred when he was putting his hands up ... We don’t know.”
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/fe/2feb4696-2707-5533-839a-0af86109ffac/53f2857ab3801.preview-620.jpg)
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
You will find much the same in this video of the statement Parcells when announcing what he and Baden found during their autopsy.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/pathologist-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-6-times/2014/08/18/b5c39f96-2b56-4c09-89b8-9358fbe98f27_video.html

Your problem with this appears to have been noted more than 35 years ago by the philosopher Paul Simon in his best-selling self-help book, The Boxer: "A man hears what he wants to do and disregards the rest."  Or perhaps it was a top ten single.  I get confused on such things, particularly when dealing with people who pay no attention to what is presented to them.

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:24:31 pm

At 35 feet no police officer is going to fire that many times and miss someone who is standing still with their hands in the air.

Countless real-life examples prove you unquestionably wrong on this point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 10:19:09 am

Very surprising this morning on CBS's Face the Nation.  They pretty much savaged Obama on the Middle East, or at least savaged him as much as can be done in straight reporting, first with an Andrea Mitchell interview of Diane Fienstein, and then following that with a roughly 3-4 minute taped piece by Richard Engle looking at what Obama has first said on a number of issues and then what he has done, and then following that up with a rather critical round-table discussion.  This is the first time since Obama has been in office that I have seen anything like this from CBS.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:05:22 am

Jes you seem to think we all have decided the police officer was in the right.   

I can't speak for anyone else but I have not done so.  The evidence that had been released early seemed to suggest he was guilty.  I said so at the time.  The evidence that has now been released seems to show there was a good chance he is not guilty.  I am saying so now.

I am perfectly willing to wait for all of the evidence and the investigation to be completed.  If he shot the man while he was on his knees with his hands in the air he needs to go to jail.   If he shot the man while he was running towards him he should not.

You don't have to be a medical expert to look at the drawings and know the man was not shot in the back.  There is not a single wound in the back.  He was shot from either the side or the front.  A wound on the back of an arm is not being shot in the back in any normal persons mind.  The arms move around way to much.  In my and any normal persons mind being shot in the back is when you are facing away from the shooter which this man obviously was not.

Can you show me countless examples of police officers missing a man at 35 feet standing still with their hands in the air when they intend to shoot the subject?  I was not aware we had that many police officers that should be in jail for attempted homicide.

By the way if he was facing the officer with his hands in the air how do you explain the wounds on his arms?

On the right hand/forearm you have two jagged wounds that look to me like the arm was in a bent position and was caused by the same bullet.  There is also a wound on the upper right arm that appears to have gone through the arm and into the chest.  Those don't appear to be wounds a man would receive if they had their arms up but would seem to be consistent with someone running towards or at least at an angle from the shooter.  I am no medical expert so I am willing to wait for the evidence but presently there seems to be reasonable doubt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 12:57:36 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:05:22 am

Jes you seem to think we all have decided the police officer was in the right.   

That's not really what I have written, or suggested.

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:05:22 am

You don't have to be a medical expert to look at the drawings and know the man was not shot in the back.  There is not a single wound in the back.  He was shot from either the side or the front.  A wound on the back of an arm is not being shot in the back in any normal persons mind.  The arms move around way to much.  In my and any normal persons mind being shot in the back is when you are facing away from the shooter which this man obviously was not.

Your assertion that you don't have to be a medical examiner to reach your conclusion on the point is all the more interesting because the two medical examiners we have heard from, Parcells and Baden, both draw far short of your conclusion.

But, that's okay, since you don't have to be a medical examiner to see it.  It would be time to again quote Paul Simon.

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:05:22 am

Can you show me countless examples of police officers missing a man at 35 feet standing still with their hands in the air when they intend to shoot the subject?  I was not aware we had that many police officers that should be in jail for attempted homicide.

You weren't aware of that?

Interesting, since I am unaware of anyone suggesting there were ANY examples of police officers either hitting or missing a man at 35 feet standing still with their hands in the air when they intend to shoot the subject.  Could you find me where anyone did, or should I mark this up as another straw man argument?

NYC, 1999, four cops fired a total of 41 shots at Amadou Diallo, all from just a few feet away, and 22 of the 41 shots missed him.  2012 in NYC in the Empire State Building shooting, two officers fired 16 rounds total at a suspected cop killer, all shots fired at distances of less than 30 feet, and hit their target only 10 of the 16 times, as well as hitting 9 innocent bystanders.  Again in NYS in 2006 in the Sean Bell shootings, 6 police officers fired a total of 50 rounds at Sean Bell from a distance of less than 30 feet, and only four of the 50 rounds hit him, though 19 rounds hit one of his friends and another 3 hit another friend.  According to a Rand Corporation study of NYC cops, they hit their targets in gunfights only 18% of the time, and only 30% of the time when their target is not returning fire.  http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf  Of course, don't let facts get in the way of a good conclusion, like the one you reached about the autopsy proving the statements he was first shot "in the back" were lies.

The reality of the accuracy of police in such situations is why they are taught to shoot for "center mass", essentially to shoot to kill, instead of shooting to wound.

And I have to ask, do you own a firearm?  Have you ever shot a handgun?  Have you ever fired it at a target?  Have you ever used it in what was even a simulated high stress situation?  The reason I ask is that it is hard to imagine anyone who would answer "yes" to each of those questions making the kind of statement you made about no officer ever missing a stationary target as often as Wilson is reported to have missed from 30 feet or less.  The idea that Brown was hit multiple times in the arm because Wilson was trying to "wing him" (actually, I believe you used "wound him") is utter nonsense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 03:14:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 30, 2014, 11:24:31 pm

At 35 feet no police officer is going to fire that many times and miss someone who is standing still with their hands in the air.




Countless real-life examples prove you unquestionably wrong on this point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 03:15:42 pm

Shooting at a moving target is much harder then shooting at someone standing still with their hands in the air.

Also I don't give a **** if the guy said he could have been shot in the back.  The damn drawing shows he was not.  PERIOD!

He could have been running away from the officer but he was not shot in the back.  Look at the damn drawing of the body and where the wounds are.  They are all in the front.  There wasn't even any exit wounds on the back so there is no question he was not shot in the back.

Any coroner who suggest he could have been shot in the back is either incompetent, lying or the reporter is misrepresenting what he said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 03:33:41 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad&_r=1

FERGUSON, Mo. — Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found.

One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.

Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 04:01:16 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 03:15:42 pm

Shooting at a moving target is much harder then shooting at someone standing still with their hands in the air.

Also I don't give a **** if the guy said he could have been shot in the back.  The damn drawing shows he was not.  PERIOD!

He could have been running away from the officer but he was not shot in the back.  Look at the damn drawing of the body and where the wounds are.  They are all in the front.  There wasn't even any exit wounds on the back so there is no question he was not shot in the back.

Any coroner who suggest he could have been shot in the back is either incompetent, lying or the reporter is misrepresenting what he said.

You don't need to rely on those lying reporters.  I posted a video with the medical examiner saying exactly as I indicated.  And the Rand Corporation study I posted the link to and the other examples I posted took into account whether targets were moving or not.

But, hey, I'll stop now and won't try to confuse you any further with the facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 04:46:01 pm

If he was shot in the back where is the wound? 

Are you claiming the picture of the body and where the wounds are is not accurate?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 31, 2014, 04:57:48 pm

All white conservatives...


Did Michael Brown have a criminal record?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 05:17:39 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 31, 2014, 04:57:48 pm

All white conservatives...


Did Michael Brown have a criminal record?

The first question for you, otto, is what does it matter?

The next question for you is do you want to include his Juvenile Court record?

His family is opposing news media efforts to access it, and their opposition would generally indicate something is there.

It is always amusing when someone who just recently turned 18 proclaims they "have no criminal record," and pretends that his several criminal cases as a juvenile don't count and that simply because he hasn't had a NEW conviction in the 60 or 90 days since he turned 18 indicates he is an angel (even if he has already picked up a couple of adult charges in that time but they have not yet been resolved).

While there may not have been any criminal charges filed against him before he died, if he had lived, it is a virtual certainty he would have been charged with a felony in his theft from the shop earlier that day, and, assuming the reports are accurate about his exchange with the cop at the patrol car, and his effort afterward to leave, he would have also had charges of felony assault (I believe assault on a cop is a felony in MO), resisting, and felony fleeing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on August 31, 2014, 05:55:08 pm

For those of you who haven't  fired a handgun, lemme tell ya.  It ain't easy by half. add the adreneline, that guy was close to be hit 6 times. period. I have fired a handgun, and the term " can't hit the broadside of a barn" isn't
so funny after you try. A model 1911 .45 is a stone **** to control. Best hit them over the head with it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 06:07:16 pm

So I take it you might have noticed that Pekin did not respond to my questions about his experience with such things when he makes the kind of flat assertion he did.

But, don't try to confuse him with the facts.  His mind is already made up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 06:53:12 pm

I have not shot a pistol since I was a teenager.  When I shoot it is with a rifle.  Which are easier to shoot then handguns at long distances.  However this shooting was not at a long distance.

My father in law (who is a gun dealer) recently gave my wife a 22 Ruger mark iv.  I will let you know how difficult it is to hit a still man sized target at 30 ft when we take it to the range.  And no I have not been in a firefight.

My mind is not made up.  I have said over and over again the cop could be guilty or he could be innocent.  I just find it hard to believe Brown was standing still with his arms up at even 30 ft and did not get hit in the chest/stomache area even once.  Keep in mind this is a trained police officer not some Joe Schmoe who has not taken his pistol to the range regularly.

Hopefully the truth will come out in the investigation and justice will be served whichever way it turns out.


Jes, you are the one that seems to get all worked up if someone calls Brown a thug or suggests the cop might have been defending himself. 

46 reports are Brown was anywhere from 2 ft to 30 ft away.   35 ft is the farthest that has been reported.  I would call that close.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 31, 2014, 07:04:32 pm

It's much easier to shoot with a 22 than say a 357. The fierce recoil of a 45 makes repetitious shots harder. Same with a 40 cal or a 357 Sig. I have a 9mm, a 40cal, had a couple 45's and have a 357 Sig Glock. The 40 and Sig rounds are very powerful and also used widely by Law Enforcement. I believe the Secret Service uses the 357Sig exclusively, or at least they used to. It's a fun round to shoot, very powerful and straight shooting but a real B to reload due to its necked down throat. Hard to keep the bullet from setting back.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 07:48:07 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 06:53:12 pm

Jes, you are the one that seems to get all worked up if someone calls Brown a thug or suggests the cop might have been defending himself. 

Not sure whether your reading comprehension problems are rivaling otto's, or whether you are just deliberately distorting things.  I have never been worked up over anyone calling Brown a thug.  I have never contended he was anything other than a thug.  I have asked how it is relevant that he was or wasn't a thug, and in the case of those engaging in simply calling him a thug, without responding to any claim otherwise and not to rebut anything, when there is no mention made of how or why he qualifies as a thug, I have asked whether there is any real reason for the question other than to minimize Brown's value as a human being to the point that it helps a person become indifferent to whether the shooting was justified or not.

I have never gotten upset with anyone suggesting Wilson was defending himself, though I have pointed out that some of the claims you have made are nonsense.

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 06:53:12 pm

46 reports are Brown was anywhere from 2 ft to 30 ft away.   35 ft is the farthest that has been reported.  I would call that close.

And I would call it a fabrication to say there are reports Brown was shot from 2 feet away.  We know you would call 35 feet close.  We also know you have no experience with handguns, and that no reports exist of Brown having been shot to death from only 2 feet away.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:03:40 pm

Your article with the guy you think is the **** said 2 ft to 30 ft.  Sorry I took your source at his word.  I should have known better since I have read he is a publicity hound.  He is all about the fame.  Which is why he jumped at the chance to do the autopsy for Browns parents.  The guy loves the media attention.

This was from the article you posted!

Baden said given what he knows, the shots could have been fired from at least 1 or 2 feet away or much farther.

“It could be 30 feet away,” he told reporters Monday.


Oh my bad he said it could have been from 1 ft.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:07:40 pm

It is relevant just like it was relevant in the Trayvon Marten case.  A choir boy shot to death by a cop because of his skin color is one thing.  A criminal shot dead while attacking is another.

You as a lawyer know damn well it is relevant.  As I have said numerous times being a criminal does not allow a cop to shoot you dead in the street in cold blood while unarmed with your hands up.  It does show that he may very well have beat up the cop, tried to take his gun, ran then came back when ordered to stop.

The video is also relevant because it shows he was indeed violent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 11:22:53 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:03:40 pm

Your article with the guy you think is the **** said 2 ft to 30 ft.  Sorry I took your source at his word.  I should have known better since I have read he is a publicity hound.  He is all about the fame.  Which is why he jumped at the chance to do the autopsy for Browns parents.  The guy loves the media attention.

This was from the article you posted!

Baden said given what he knows, the shots could have been fired from at least 1 or 2 feet away or much farther.

“It could be 30 feet away,” he told reporters Monday.


Oh my bad he said it could have been from 1 ft.

I don't know if you are simply having trouble following this, are not paying attention to what you are reading, or writing, or are deliberately trying to distort things, but saying he did not know the distance from which the weapon was fired, and that it COULD have been fired from as close as 1 or 2 feet is vastly different from your last post that there were reports the shot had been fired from as little as 2 feet away.  As I wrote, NO ONE has claimed the shots were fired from that distance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 11:25:45 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:07:40 pm

It is relevant just like it was relevant in the Trayvon Marten case.  A choir boy shot to death by a cop because of his skin color is one thing.  A criminal shot dead while attacking is another.

You as a lawyer know damn well it is relevant.  As I have said numerous times being a criminal does not allow a cop to shoot you dead in the street in cold blood while unarmed with your hands up.  It does show that he may very well have beat up the cop, tried to take his gun, ran then came back when ordered to stop.

The video is also relevant because it shows he was indeed violent.

No, I as a lawyer know whether Brown was or was not a "thug" was not relevant.  And while the video would almost certainly come in, it would NOT be admissible to show Brown was violent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:26:44 pm

Actually there are reports the first shot was fired in the car while they were struggling.

Oh and talked to my brother who shoots every single week.  My question is in italics his is in bold.


I am in an argument on a message board about the Brown shooting in ferguson.  How hard is it to hit a grown ass man standing still at thirty feet in the chest with a pistol?

I would think fairly easy if he is not a moving target.  Your thoughts?


30 feet if your trained all shots from magazine should hit

Just shot today doing ths

At about a 6 or 8 inch circle

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:37:23 pm

Granted this does not take into account the officer being beat up and having an eye orbital fracture or the adrenaline.  However I believe it is pretty clear Brown was on the move when he was shot.  If that was running towards the officer or away we will have to wait for the investigation to conclude (he was not shot in the back but may have been shot from the side or while running away from the officer).  I am fairly certain he was not standing or kneeling with his hands up.

That just does not seem to fit with the evidence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 11:44:29 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:26:44 pm

Actually there are reports the first shot was fired in the car while they were struggling.

The first shot fired is not the same as the first shot HITTING Brown.  There are absolutely no reports that Brown was hit during that struggle, or that he was shot from 2 feet.

Are you incapable of simply acknowledging you were wrong and moving on?

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:26:44 pm

Oh and talked to my brother who shoots every single week.  My question is in italics his is in bold.


I am in an argument on a message board about the Brown shooting in ferguson.  How hard is it to hit a grown ass man standing still at thirty feet in the chest with a pistol?

I would think fairly easy if he is not a moving target.  Your thoughts?


30 feet if your trained all shots from magazine should hit

Just shot today doing ths

At about a 6 or 8 inch circle

I am sure your brother actually believes that.  I am equally sure he has no idea what he is talking about.

For some reason I am willing to defer to the life experience reflected in the Rand Corporation study involving HUNDREDS of actual cases in which police discharged their firearms.

You, on the other hand, want to defer to your brother.

To each his own.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2014, 11:49:09 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:37:23 pm

Granted this does not take into account the officer being beat up and having an eye orbital fracture or the adrenaline.  However I believe it is pretty clear Brown was on the move when he was shot.  If that was running towards the officer or away we will have to wait for the investigation to conclude (he was not shot in the back but may have been shot from the side or while running away from the officer).  I am fairly certain he was not standing or kneeling with his hands up.

That just does not seem to fit with the evidence.

The relevant evidence on the issue will be the forensics and the ballistics, taken together with the final autopsy reports.

So far neither of us has seen any of the three, but it is nice to see you are at least now conceding that Brown might possibly have been shot initially while running away from the officer.

As to whether he was standing or kneeling when all of the shots were fired, that story came from the other guy who was with Brown, and there is virtually no reason to give much of any credibility to his story.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 01, 2014, 12:06:41 am

 
 Hey Jes,
 
 Have you ever thought about hanging out with us ?
 
 You know ... get together, have a few brewskis ... hit on the crack pipe,
 
 get a motel room and bring in the wimmen, blow jobs all around,
 
 watch the game ...
 
 just regular guy things. Thats what we do  ... what do you do ?
 
 Would you like to join us ?
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 12:13:58 am

From the get go I said Brown could have been shot while running from the officer.  I have not changed my stance at all.

I started with the shooting being from 35 feet because that is the longest distance I had seen reported.  Your source said between 1 and 30 feet.

Pretty sure the Rand Corporation did not do a study on a police officer shooting a suspect standing still at thirty feet with his hands up.

But it is nice to see you are at least now conceding that the story of Brown standing or kneeling with his hands up is total BS.  Since this has been what we have been arguing about.
 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 01:51:10 am

Thanks.  I knew as much but was being told I did not know what I was talking about.  A trained officer would have pegged the guy in the chest at least once firing 9 shots if he was standing still with his hand in the air.  Not in the arm several times and eventually in the head.  Brown was moving when he fired and not shot in the back.







Yeah u put 7 shots in. One hole more than once and all b 6 to 8 inches over and over
Even shooting two handed with two 45s and with guns I never shot

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 02:02:57 am

Jes I agree with post 2734 100%.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 07:41:12 am

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 12:13:58 am

From the get go I said Brown could have been shot while running from the officer.  I have not changed my stance at all.

Yes you have changed your stance.  Now you claim "Brown could have been shot while running from the officer."  Before, as immediately below, you have said that was impossible.

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:05:22 am

You don't have to be a medical expert to look at the drawings and know the man was not shot in the back.  There is not a single wound in the back.  He was shot from either the side or the front.  A wound on the back of an arm is not being shot in the back in any normal persons mind.  The arms move around way to much.  In my and any normal persons mind being shot in the back is when you are facing away from the shooter which this man obviously was not.

Saying he could not have been shot when "facing away from the shooter" is also saying "he could [NOT] have been shot while running from the officer."  (In the second quoted passage I have inserted the word [NOT], since the other words are all yours and the only way to keep those two statements consistent is to inset the word "not."  In other words, you changed your position entirely.

You can't even keep your own position straight over a 14 hour period.

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 12:13:58 am

I started with the shooting being from 35 feet because that is the longest distance I had seen reported.  Your source said between 1 and 30 feet.

No.  Baden did NOT say any of the shots were fired from 1 foot away.  He said the autopsy could not rule out the shots as having been fired from that short of a distance.  Those are very different things, and you know that.  You simply refuse to admit you were wrong.  (Perhaps because you were not wrong at all, but were intentionally mis-stating things.)

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 12:13:58 am

Pretty sure the Rand Corporation did not do a study on a police officer shooting a suspect standing still at thirty feet with his hands up.

And I am pretty sure you not only do not have any idea what you are talking about (which you have essentially acknowledged when you admitted you have never used a handgun, meaning you would have no appreciation of the effect of recoil, or of adrenalin, or of the difficulty of quickly and accurately sight a target at 30 ft with a handgun), but that you never bothered to read the first word of the study.

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 12:13:58 am

But it is nice to see you are at least now conceding that the story of Brown standing or kneeling with his hands up is total BS.  Since this has been what we have been arguing about.

No, that is NOT what we have been arguing about, in part because I have never said that is what happened.  That story essentially came from Brown's buddy, Dorian Johnson, who was involved in the robbery, while denying there was a robbery.  At no time have I given his account any weight.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 07:52:51 am

This is total BS and exoneration of Brown. The evidence I have seen to date doesn't show that. There was no bullet in the back so he wasn't running away. He was charging Wilson, period. It seems Jes has a problem with acknowledging that. If I were Wilson I sure wouldn't want Jes to be my attorney, he'd be biased against me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 08:29:35 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 07:52:51 am

This is total BS and exoneration of Brown. The evidence I have seen to date doesn't show that. There was no bullet in the back so he wasn't running away. He was charging Wilson, period. It seems Jes has a problem with acknowledging that. If I were Wilson I sure wouldn't want Jes to be my attorney, he'd be biased against me.

WshflThinking, of what would I be trying to exonerate Brown?  And when did I do it?

And please answer a couple of relatively simple questions.  Yes or no would be fine, though certainly you can then explain your answer.

1) If a shot is fired at you while you are running away from the shooter, is it possible for the shot to strike you in any part of your body other than your back?  (For purposes of this question, please assume "back" to mean that part of the posterior of the body between the waist and the neck and entirely excluding the limbs.)

2) Would it be possible for such a shot fired at you while you were running away to strike you in the right arm, perhaps even just grazing the inside of the arm?

3) When you are running, do you move your arms in such a manner that sometimes the palms of your hands are facing behind you and sometimes so they are facing to the side, toward your body?

4) Does your forearm, that part of your arm between your wrist and your elbow, also move when you are running, with the bottom of your forearm (the part on the same side as the palm of your hand) sometimes facing behind you and sometimes so they are facing to the side, toward your body?

5) Who do you think knows more about the way the human body works and the way injuries occur, and in what way an injury might have been inflicted.... you, or a trained, experienced medical examiner who has performed thousands of autopsies himself and reviewed thousands more autopsies performed by other medical examiners?

6) Since it appears at least six bullets struck Brown, is it possible that one might have struck him at one time, and the others at another time, and is it possible that Brown moved between the first and the second round?

7) Is there anyone here who is arguing that Brown could NOT have been charging at Wilson?

8) What do you believe is the best way to determine whether Brown was or wasn't charging?  To rely on the statements of Brown's robbery buddy (who has has a prior conviction for filing a false report, and who has an outstanding warrant for theft, and who acknowledged he hid behind a car and to my knowledge has not had anyone ask him what he personally observed with his own eyes and what it is that he assumes or was told by others happened)?  Or to rely on the statement of the police officer, who none of us has heard from?  To wait for the forensic and ballistic evidence which would detail where all of the blood was and determine the angle from which the shots were fired?  Or perhaps to simply jump to conclusions without any real evidence, but based on what we WANT to have happened since we have concluded that Brown was "a thug," and that his life had no value?

As to you wanting me to be your attorney, you would not need to worry.  Attorneys in private practice get to refuse to represent clients they do not want to represent.  You would have qualified.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 08:38:41 am

One last comment on Wilson's representation -- the reports from those with the Ferguson police department are that Wilson DOES have an attorney representing him on this, even if the attorney is not appearing before any camera's or making any statements or has not been identified to the news media, yet.  And it appears that so far Wilson is following legal advice which is identical to what I would have given -- keep your mouth shut.  No interviews.  No public statements.  No public appearances.  Go into hiding, though allowing the police to contact him at any time thru counsel.

It is very easy for perfectly truthful statements to be misconstrued or misinterpreted, giving a prosecuting attorney more to play with at trial.  Our system of justice does not require a defendant to respond to an accusation at all, and when he does chose to do so, it allows him the opportunity to first hear what the prosecution has to offer.  In this case it is an opportunity Wilson should take advantage of.

The "court of public opinion" is not the court Wilson now has to be concerned with.  A possible criminal court has to be his first and primary concern.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 08:50:28 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 08:29:35 am

WshflThinking, of what would I be trying to exonerate Brown?  And when did I do it?

And please answer a couple of relatively simple questions.  Yes or no would be fine, though certainly you can then explain your answer.

1) If a shot is fired at you while you are running away from the shooter, is it possible for the shot to strike you in any part of your body other than your back?  (For purposes of this question, please assume "back" to mean that part of the posterior of the body between the waist and the neck and entirely excluding the limbs.)

2) Would it be possible for such a shot fired at you while you were running away to strike you in the right arm, perhaps even just grazing the inside of the arm?

3) When you are running, do you move your arms in such a manner that sometimes the palms of your hands are facing behind you and sometimes so they are facing to the side, toward your body?

4) Does your forearm, that part of your arm between your wrist and your elbow, also move when you are running, with the bottom of your forearm (the part on the same side as the palm of your hand) sometimes facing behind you and sometimes so they are facing to the side, toward your body?

5) Who do you think knows more about the way the human body works and the way injuries occur, and in what way an injury might have been inflicted.... you, or a trained, experienced medical examiner who has performed thousands of autopsies himself and reviewed thousands more autopsies performed by other medical examiners?

6) Since it appears at least six bullets struck Brown, is it possible that one might have struck him at one time, and the others at another time, and is it possible that Brown moved between the first and the second round?

7) Is there anyone here who is arguing that Brown could NOT have been charging at Wilson?

8) What do you believe is the best way to determine whether Brown was or wasn't charging?  To rely on the statements of Brown's robbery buddy (who has has a prior conviction for filing a false report, and who has an outstanding warrant for theft, and who acknowledged he hid behind a car and to my knowledge has not had anyone ask him what he personally observed with his own eyes and what it is that he assumes or was told by others happened)?  Or to rely on the statement of the police officer, who none of us has heard from?  To wait for the forensic and ballistic evidence which would detail where all of the blood was and determine the angle from which the shots were fired?  Or perhaps to simply jump to conclusions without any real evidence, but based on what we WANT to have happened since we have concluded that Brown was "a thug," and that his life had no value?

As to you wanting me to be your attorney, you would not need to worry.  Attorneys in private practice get to refuse to represent clients they do not want to represent.  You would have qualified.

That's just total BS. If you believe what your questions suggest then there is a man in the moon with some green cheese for you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 09:03:59 am

Rather predictable.

I didn't expect you to even be honest enough with yourself to answer those questions.  Far easier to simply latch onto that "thug" issue and dismiss whatever happened to Brown as not worthy of real examination since he was a thug we are all better off with him dead.

But the questions do not suggest answers.  In fact, other than the last one, none of the questions would be ruled as "leading questions" in court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 09:20:54 am

I did, but you are just blind enough not to read between the lines. Hey, NP.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 09:27:29 am

Jes you can be running away from someone and not be shot in the back.  Brown was not shot in the back PERIOD!!!  I am not sure I can make that any clearer.

We have gone over this over and over.  You can run away from someone and not have your back facing them squarely.  You can run in many other directions away from them.  In fact odds are that someone running from another person would take one of a million angles away from them then one that would only allow them to be shot in the back. 

Oh and the autopsy showed Brown was not shot in the back!  Can you at least concede that simple point?  I mean we have a graphic of the body and no wound in the back.  Not one!

Baner said it was possible Brown was shot from the back (not shot in the back and by the way who talks like that?) which is the same as him saying it was possible he was shot from 1 ft away.  What is the difference other then one supports your argument and the other does not?

I have never changed my stance.  Only in your mind has my stance on this issue ever changed.

Oh and I did not say I have never shot a handgun.  I have not shot one since I was a teenager.  I did however speak to my brother who was shooting several different pistols at a range the very day I asked him the question.  But then you discount that.  When was the last time YOU shot a handgun? 




 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 10:25:16 am

No bullet entered Browns body except through the front, PERIOD.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 10:46:39 am

My initial opinion was that the situation was a tragedy. That hasn't changed. I also felt there was previous contact between Wilson and Brown. I haven't seen anything to discredit that. I also believe there was bad blood between Wilson and Brown. I also believe the struggle for Wilson's gun. The police chief said that at the time of the shooting Wilson had no knowledge of the convenience store robbery that Brown committed. But that doesn't mean there were no other blemishes on Brown's "resume". I believe Brown was well known to Ferguson police and had many dealings with them. Along with the 12 witnesses who said so I believe Brown charged Wilson and a 6'4 290 pound man is an imposing threat to have charging you, especially someone who had already broken your eye socket. I also believe that having a broken eye socket probably affected Wilson's marksmanship and may have led to the need to fire 6 shots to put Brown down.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 12:46:00 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 10:25:16 am

No bullet entered Browns body except through the front, PERIOD.

As I have pointed out, once you have concluded Brown was a thug, it makes it easy to ignore the facts.  That is what you are doing with your claim above, and your refusal to answer a series of truly simple questions on the issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2014, 12:58:00 pm

Jes - I haven't been following the discussion, so I went back to see what you were saying in the above post.

I found seven questions that you asked that I assume you are referring to.  All of them refer to possibilities, not to facts.  Which facts do you feel that he has ignored?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 01:02:41 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 10:46:39 am

I also felt there was previous contact between Wilson and Brown. I haven't seen anything to discredit that. I also believe there was bad blood between Wilson and Brown.

I have no problem accepting you believe that, or in accepting that you have seen nothing to discredit it.

Now, have you seen anything TO credit it?  Or is that simply another conclusion you are eager to jump to, and then believe is true because you "haven't seen anything to discredit" it?

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 10:46:39 am

The police chief said that at the time of the shooting Wilson had no knowledge of the convenience store robbery that Brown committed.

The chief's story was all over the place, first saying Wilson had no knowledge and then saying Wilson did.  One easy way to clean up the inconsistency from the chief is that, as has now been reported, Wilson had no knowledge up it at the time of his initial contact with Brown that day, but that he heard about it as he was starting to pull away from Brown and Brown's friend, and at the same time saw Brown had a bunch of cigarrellos with him, the same thing which was reported stolen.  But whatever has come from the chief is likely 3rd hand at best.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 10:46:39 am

Along with the 12 witnesses who said so I believe Brown charged Wilson and a 6'4 290 pound man is an imposing threat to have charging you, especially someone who had already broken your eye socket. I also believe that having a broken eye socket probably affected Wilson's marksmanship and may have led to the need to fire 6 shots to put Brown down.

*IF* that is what happened, it is precisely the kind of question which should be put to a jury.

Now, let me ask you another question which I expect you either not to answer, or not to answer honestly, if everything had been reversed, do you have any question about whether Brown would have been arrested and charged, and likely held without bond, most likely arrested right at the scene?  If Brown had shot and killed a cop who was charging at him after the cop had just smacked his face into the side of the car and injured his eye, and the same number of rounds were fired and the same number of witnessed claimed that Brown had shot Wilson first as Wilson was running away and then as Wilson had turned to face him?  Races the same, ages the same, with Brown still a private citizen and Wilson still a cop.

Any question about it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 01:03:17 pm

As I have pointed out, once you have concluded Brown was a thug, it makes it easy to ignore the facts.

What facts? The fact that a bullet can make a U-turn when shot from behind and enter the front?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 01:22:20 pm

Now, let me ask you another question which I expect you either not to answer, or not to answer honestly, if everything had been reversed, do you have any question about whether Brown would have been arrested and charged, and likely held without bond, most likely arrested right at the scene?  If Brown had shot and killed a cop who was charging at him after the cop had just smacked his face into the side of the car and injured his eye, and the same number of rounds were fired and the same number of witnessed claimed that Brown had shot Wilson first as Wilson was running away and then as Wilson had turned to face him?  Races the same, ages the same, with Brown still a private citizen and Wilson still a cop.

Any question about it?

I don't understand the question. What corner are you trying to put me in? A role reversal? I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion. I don't care if Brown was green with purple polka dots. IMHO this isn't a racial issue.

Oh and how about having a 2000 lb bear charging Wilson? Would you then justify Wilson in shooting? Or would it be solely because the animal in question was a black man and not a black bear?. Or are you saying that Wilson had no right to try to stop a man from charging him because the man was black?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 01:36:47 pm

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 09:27:29 am

Jes you can be running away from someone and not be shot in the back.  Brown was not shot in the back PERIOD!!!  I am not sure I can make that any clearer.

We have gone over this over and over.  You can run away from someone and not have your back facing them squarely.  You can run in many other directions away from them.  In fact odds are that someone running from another person would take one of a million angles away from them then one that would only allow them to be shot in the back. 

Oh and the autopsy showed Brown was not shot in the back!  Can you at least concede that simple point?  I mean we have a graphic of the body and no wound in the back.  Not one!

Baner said it was possible Brown was shot from the back (not shot in the back and by the way who talks like that?)

Many people talk like that.  And, as I have pointed out before, much depends on what someone means by "shot in the back."  If the person using the expression means shot in the portion of the posterior above the waist and below the shoulders, then I believe we can agree it did not happen.  If the person meant shot in the back of the body as opposed to the front of the body, that they were shot FROM the back, then we can not conclude it did not happen.  The interviews we have seen were not conducted by attorneys cross examining a witness, or even by trained investigators trying to determine exactly what someone's story is and to determine what the witness observed, or at least what the witness is claiming to have observed.  Instead the interviews were conducted by reporters who view their job as being getting something sensational, not pinning down what a witness means or what really happened, or whether the witness actually saw anything at all.

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 09:27:29 am

Baner said it was possible Brown was shot from the back (not shot in the back and by the way who talks like that?) which is the same as him saying it was possible he was shot from 1 ft away.

I'm not really going to bother attacking that, because I think it is pretty apparent that whatever you meant to say did not end up what you wrote.  What you wrote makes no sense.

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 09:27:29 am

What is the difference other then one supports your argument and the other does not?

That is amusing.  What is my argument as to what happened?  Wouldn't I need to at least HAVE a position as to what happened before something could support or oppose it?

So what is my position (argument) as to what happened?

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 09:27:29 am

I have never changed my stance.

I have already shown otherwise.  You simply are not man enough to admit it.

For your edification, here we go again, from yesterday afternoon:

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 12:13:58 am

From the get go I said Brown could have been shot while running from the officer.  I have not changed my stance at all.

Yes you have changed your stance.  Now you claim "Brown could have been shot while running from the officer."  Before, as immediately below, you have said that was impossible.

Quote from: Pekin on August 31, 2014, 11:05:22 am

You don't have to be a medical expert to look at the drawings and know the man was not shot in the back.  There is not a single wound in the back.  He was shot from either the side or the front.  A wound on the back of an arm is not being shot in the back in any normal persons mind.  The arms move around way to much.  In my and any normal persons mind being shot in the back is when you are facing away from the shooter which this man obviously was not.

Saying he could not have been shot when "facing away from the shooter" is also saying "he could [NOT] have been shot while running from the officer."  (In the second quoted passage I have inserted the word [NOT], since the other words are all yours and the only way to keep those two statements consistent is to inset the word "not."  In other words, you changed your position entirely.

You can't even keep your own position straight over a 14 hour period. [/color]
[/i]

Quote from: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 09:27:29 am

When was the last time YOU shot a handgun?

At least five years, definitely no more than 22 years, but they haven't changed much since I fired them often enough to qualify for a carry permit in California, where I was carrying as an armed bank guard, and the licensing required paper target testing under simulated stress and with the lack of time to steady, sight and aim which is generally associated with a target range.  Beyond that, I am willing to accept the findings of the Rand Corporation study and the position of countless police officers who HAVE fired in such situations and who all agree that the pressure of the situation makes it vastly different from you have made clear you, in willful ignorance, believe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 01:42:44 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 01:22:20 pm

Now, let me ask you another question which I expect you either not to answer, or not to answer honestly, if everything had been reversed, do you have any question about whether Brown would have been arrested and charged, and likely held without bond, most likely arrested right at the scene?  If Brown had shot and killed a cop who was charging at him after the cop had just smacked his face into the side of the car and injured his eye, and the same number of rounds were fired and the same number of witnessed claimed that Brown had shot Wilson first as Wilson was running away and then as Wilson had turned to face him?  Races the same, ages the same, with Brown still a private citizen and Wilson still a cop.

Any question about it?

I don't understand the question. What corner are you trying to put me in? A role reversal? I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion.

So you are seriously contending that if Brown, as an 18-year-old private citizen, shot and killed Wilson, a cop, and the stories about what happened were other wise similarly reversed, that you believe the police arriving on the scene would not have immediately cuffed and arrested Brown?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 01:56:07 pm

Man you need to sharpen your reading skills. I said if Brown were the police officer and Wilson had been charging him

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:00:36 pm

And you didn't answer my questions either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 02:33:52 pm

Your questions appear to be rhetorical.

If you have any serious question, ask it, and I will respond.

As to your claim that you, "said if Brown were the police officer and Wilson had been charging him," you did not write that at all.

You wrote: "I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion."

That was in response to my question as to BROWN would have been arrested for shooting WILSON in such a scenario with, "Races the same, ages the same, with Brown still a private citizen and Wilson still a cop."

There was no mention of Brown having been the police officer, other than the little voices you hear in your head possibly mentioning it.

But the fact that you now contend your answer only applied if, "if Brown were the police officer and Wilson had been charging him," means you never responded to my question at all.

So would you care to try again, this time responding to the question asked instead of the one the voices in your head tell you to address?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:40:11 pm

You wrote: "I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion."

Yes if Brown were white and Wilson had been black and if Brown were the police officer. Correct.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:42:56 pm

Now answer the questions I asked.

Oh that's right, Jes doesn't want to answer questions like that. It might put Him in a corner.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:47:15 pm

Time to play pin the tail on the donkey. And I mean I want you to put yourself in Wilson's position, not some legal mumbo jumbo. I want you to fear for your life like Wilson did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 02:49:53 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:40:11 pm

You wrote: "I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion."

Yes if Brown were white and Wilson had been black and if Brown were the police officer. Correct.

Only that was not the question I asked, meaning you still have not responded to the question I asked.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:42:56 pm

Now answer the questions I asked.

Oh that's right, Jes doesn't want to answer questions like that. It might put Him in a corner.

I made clear, repeat the question or questions.  I will be happy to respond.  I saw no questions from you which appeared to be anything other than rhetorical.

As I have said, repeat them, set them out clearly as questions, and I will respond to them (something you have refused to do with mine), regardless how foolish they might be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 02:52:44 pm

Last week a young guy I was talking with who was insisting the nation is racist, and trying to illustrate his point, quite seriously asked when the country was going to get around to putting Obama's face on the national currency.  I was reminded of his question when I saw this a few minutes ago:

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10580080_745001698879405_864568190885221305_n.jpg?oh=6d15a3f71663888caf798ec59bb5c3bd&oe=5481EDB6&__gda__=1416866679_b55f4edabb1b79d172e9efb2ab756583)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 02:55:01 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:47:15 pm

Time to play pin the tail on the donkey. And I mean I want you to put yourself in Wilson's position, not some legal mumbo jumbo. I want you to fear for your life like Wilson did.

Without knowing what happened, that would be rather hard to do.

Unlike you, I have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Wilson MAY have committed murder, and may also have been entirely justified in the shooting, and being willing to allow the investigation to play itself out and look at the evidence before reaching an opinion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:56:57 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on Today at 02:40:11 pm

You wrote: "I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion."

Yes if Brown were white and Wilson had been black and if Brown were the police officer. Correct.




Only that was not the question I asked, meaning you still have not responded to the question I asked.

I said I didn't understand your question, it didn't make sense to me and didn't sound relative. I thought it meant role reversal, Brown the cop and Wilson the charger/attacker

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:09:16 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 02:55:01 pm

Without knowing what happened, that would be rather hard to do.

Unlike you, I have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Wilson MAY have committed murder, and may also have been entirely justified in the shooting, and being willing to allow the investigation to play itself out and look at the evidence before reaching an opinion.

Unlike you, I have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Wilson was fearing for his life and killed in self-defense. And unlike you I have no qualms about acquitting a police officer for killing a 290 lb charging man be he white, black, yellow, or purple with green polka-dots. And I don't care if Brown were the police officer and Wilson had been the attacker. Race is not the issue. Its a scapegoat. Its a crutch to lynch.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 03:22:32 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 02:56:57 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on Today at 02:40:11 pm

You wrote: "I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion."

Yes if Brown were white and Wilson had been black and if Brown were the police officer. Correct.




Only that was not the question I asked, meaning you still have not responded to the question I asked.

I said I didn't understand your question, it didn't make sense to me and didn't sound relative. I thought it meant role reversal, Brown the cop and Wilson the charger/attacker

So now that you know what the question was asking, are you going to respond to it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 03:31:15 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:09:16 pm

Unlike you, I have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Wilson was fearing for his life and killed in self-defense. And unlike you I have no qualms about acquitting a police officer for killing a 290 lb charging man be he white, black, yellow, or purple with green polka-dots. And I don't care if Brown were the police officer and Wilson had been the attacker. Race is not the issue. Its a scapegoat. Its a crutch to lynch.

No difficulty in "accepting the idea that Wilson was fearing for his life and killed in self-defense," even though you have not yet heard ANYTHING from the officer, and have seen no forensic or ballistic evidence, have not seen a final autopsy, and I don't believe you have even seen a single interview of any kind (let alone an investigative interview or cross examination) with anyone who claims to have witnessed the even who gave a story supporting your conclusion.

Sounds a lot like your mind is made up and that there is no need to confuse you with the facts.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:09:16 pm

And unlike you I have no qualms about acquitting a police officer for killing a 290 lb charging man be he white, black, yellow, or purple with green polka-dots.

No qualms about acquitting....

You can't acquit without a trial, and trials for some strange reason generally require presenting evidence, none of which you have heard, and most of your comments have indicated you believe there should be no trial.... even though you want to reach that conclusion also without seeing any evidence.  Nor, at this time, do we know whether Brown was or wasn't charging Wilson.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:09:16 pm

Race is not the issue. Its a scapegoat. Its a crutch to lynch.

One of the only things we can be quite confident of at this point is that, for you, FACTS are not the issue.  You have made up your mind without knowing what the facts are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 01, 2014, 03:42:46 pm

So seemingly intelligent while acting like the bastard child of the many racist players on the board.


Sheldon


Whose Great Recession was it? When do your numbers start?

Also, are you claiming/asserting that America is truly color blind? Overlooking the white rage of Ferguson are we...

Southern folks....our **** aren't a problem....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

As the facts that are known via eye witnesses are correct then I see no reason to change my opinion. You on the other hand, seem to keep looking for evidence that Brown was trying to escape with his hands in the air and was shot in the back. You also seem to discredit the report that Brown struggled for Wilson's gun and in the mele broke Wilson's eye socket. True, the evidence is not totally known at this point, but what is clear to me is you are trying to make this a case of police brutality, at the least. I don't see or find the case for that. Maybe Wilson has a reputation for being a racist that we don't know of right now. Earlier I brought up the idea that Brown was well acquainted with the Ferguson police as well as officer Wilson and maybe there were racial epitaphs spoken between them. But at this time I have seen no evidence of this.

Again, as of this point, there is no evidence of race baiting, or any evidence of past altercations between the two.

But you don't just charge a police officer with a gun. You obey the police officers orders whatever they are. Brown wasn't playing with a full deck. He was missing a few marbles upstairs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:57:50 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 03:22:32 pm

So now that you know what the question was asking, are you going to respond to it?

No, because I still haven't seen the question in terms I understand

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2014, 04:16:04 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 01:02:41 pm

Now, let me ask you another question which I expect you either not to answer, or not to answer honestly, if everything had been reversed, do you have any question about whether Brown would have been arrested and charged, and likely held without bond, most likely arrested right at the scene?  If Brown had shot and killed a cop who was charging at him after the cop had just smacked his face into the side of the car and injured his eye, and the same number of rounds were fired and the same number of witnessed claimed that Brown had shot Wilson first as Wilson was running away and then as Wilson had turned to face him?  Races the same, ages the same, with Brown still a private citizen and Wilson still a cop.

I doubt that it is common for a police officer to be immediately arrested for shooting someone while in the performance of his duty, even in those rare cases that the officer is later found to be guilty of anything.  Flight risk is minimal, and the investigation is likely to be lengthy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 01, 2014, 04:19:01 pm

Wzsfulofit

The eye socket story was debunked long ago...why do you keep mentioning it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 01, 2014, 04:21:40 pm

Just because I want to know.

**** when is NOT acceptable for white cops to shoot black teenagers?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 04:22:06 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:57:50 pm

No, because I still haven't seen the question in terms I understand

Let me try again, suppose everything in the reports is the same except for the following:
Brown is alive, and Wilson is dead.  Brown shot Wilson to death.  Same number of wounds.  Same gun.  Same distance, except that this time Brown is the one who is alive and tells the police that Wilson had grabbed him and injured him in the scuffle at the car, that there was no justification for Wilson assaulting him, that Brown broke free and ran from Wilson, but that Wilson got out of the car and charged after him, with Brown then afraid of Wilson causing him physical harm, so Wilson shot him, firing the same number of times as Wilson did in the story we have all seen reported, and with Wilson then falling to the street and dying.  Now let's continue it further with the role reversal, and assume that Brown made no effort to call the police to advise them of what happened and made no effort to call for an ambulance or even to check to see if Wilson was alive or dead.

Do you have any doubts at all about whether Brown would have been arrested as soon as other police arrived on the scene, that he would have been cuffed, booked, and would right now be awaiting trial for murder without any possibility of making bond?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 04:24:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 01, 2014, 04:21:40 pm

Just because I want to know.

**** when is NOT acceptable for white cops to shoot black teenagers?

If you actually want to know anything, why not first learn how to communicate and then ask a question.  And then learn how to think so that before you ask it, no only will the question make sense, but so you might understand the answer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 04:25:45 pm

Quote from: davep on September 01, 2014, 04:16:04 pm

I doubt that it is common for a police officer to be arrested for shooting someone while in the performance of his duty, even in those rare cases that the officer is later found to be guilty of anything.  Flight risk is minimal, and the investigation is likely to be lengthy.

Easy for you to respond and to admit that.  WshflThinking, not so much.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 04:27:00 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 01, 2014, 04:19:01 pm

Wzsfulofit

The eye socket story was debunked long ago...why do you keep mentioning it?

Where is anything which "debunked long ago" any report that Wilson suffered a serious eye injury in his contact with Brown?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 04:51:16 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

As the facts that are known via eye witnesses are correct....

WHAT eye witnesses?  I am willing to bet that the only "eye witnesses" you have seen giving statements so far are those who claim Wilson gunned down Brown without justification.  Those with any contrary story have not appeared on camera or have not been quoted for attribution.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

I see no reason to change my opinion.

Nor will you ever.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

You on the other hand, seem to keep looking for evidence that Brown was trying to escape with his hands in the air and was shot in the back.

When have I posted anything suggesting that, "Brown was trying to escape with his hands in the air and was shot in the back," or that I thought he was, or that I was looking for evidence that he was?

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

You also seem to discredit the report that Brown struggled for Wilson's gun and in the mele broke Wilson's eye socket.

Could you point me to where it was that I "seem" to do that?  And, while you are at it, could you point to an on the record quote of anyone for attribution that Wilson's eye socket, or orbit or any bone in his body, was broken?

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

Maybe Wilson has a reputation for being a racist that we don't know of right now.

What difference would his reputation for being a racist make?  Notice, you did not write that perhaps Wilson WAS racist, but instead that perhaps he had a REPUTATION for being racist.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

Again, as of this point, there is no evidence of race baiting, or any evidence of past altercations between the two.

Nor is there any reason to bring up the issue, though it is nice to see you now admit that there is no evidence of what you have earlier written is what you believe happened.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

But you don't just charge a police officer with a gun.

True.  And that is one of the reasons to wonder if Brown did charge Wilson.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:55:56 pm

You obey the police officers orders whatever they are.

What what we seen from anyone to say that Wilson GAVE Brown any orders, other than to get out of the road.  And are you saying a citizen is required by law to comply with a "police officer's orders whatever they are," even if the officer does not have the legal authority to issue the order?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 05:22:56 pm

Ready for insanity on stilts?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/28/Feds-Agree-Buy-Ads-on-Mexican-Media-Place-Billboards-on-Border-to-Reach-Deported-Illegals-Allowed-to-Return

Feds to Advertise Settlement Allowing Deported Illegals to Return

As part of a legal settlement that will allow some illegal immigrants who deported themselves from Southern California to return to the United States, the federal government has agreed to advertise the settlement on various Mexican and Spanish-language media outlets.

The ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit last year on behalf of eleven illegal immigrants who deported themselves. The settlement reached on Wednesday will only cover "longtime California residents with relatives who are U.S. citizens and... young migrants whose parents brought them into the country illegally" who deported themselves between 2009 and 2013. An ACLU official has indicated that there were nearly 250,000 people who were "deported voluntarily from Southern California between 2009 and 2013" and estimated to the Los Angeles Times that the "number of repatriations could reach into the hundreds or thousands."

The U.S. government, through ad buys online, in print, on billboards, and on radio stations, will hope to reach "friends and family of the affected class" in Southern California and Mexico. According to the settlement, the federal government will advertise on television channels like Univision, ESPN Deportes, MundoFox, El Universal, and the Univision Deportes Network. They will also partner with People en Espanol and even the Mexico National Football Team in addition to placing billboards "in high population Mexican border cities of Tijuana, Tecate and Mexicali, as well as focusing placements near border crossings."

U.S. officials will also place "radio ads :60 in length... on top Spanish speaking radio stations near the Mexico/U.S. border." Those who search for "Lopez Case," "Lopez Class Action," "Voluntary Return to Mexico," "Rights for Detainees," "Detained by ICE," and "Returned to Mexico by ICE" will also be targeted with information about the settlement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 05:58:45 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 04:22:06 pm

Let me try again, suppose everything in the reports is the same except for the following:
Brown is alive, and Wilson is dead.  Brown shot Wilson to death.  Same number of wounds.  Same gun.  Same distance, except that this time Brown is the one who is alive and tells the police that Wilson had grabbed him and injured him in the scuffle at the car, that there was no justification for Wilson assaulting him, that Brown broke free and ran from Wilson, but that Wilson got out of the car and charged after him, with Brown then afraid of Wilson causing him physical harm, so Wilson shot him, firing the same number of times as Wilson did in the story we have all seen reported, and with Wilson then falling to the street and dying.  Now let's continue it further with the role reversal, and assume that Brown made no effort to call the police to advise them of what happened and made no effort to call for an ambulance or even to check to see if Wilson was alive or dead.

Do you have any doubts at all about whether Brown would have been arrested as soon as other police arrived on the scene, that he would have been cuffed, booked, and would right now be awaiting trial for murder without any possibility of making bond?

I don't understand the relevance of the question sufficiently to answer it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 05:59:21 pm

And you still haven't answered my questions

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 06:11:38 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on Today at 03:55:56 pm

You obey the police officers orders whatever they are.




What what we seen from anyone to say that Wilson GAVE Brown any orders, other than to get out of the road.  And are you saying a citizen is required by law to comply with a "police officer's orders whatever they are," even if the officer does not have the legal authority to issue the order?

If a police officer tells you to run a red light and move forward in your car you do it. If a police officer tells you to lay on the ground spread eagle with your hands behind your back you do it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 06:40:20 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 05:58:45 pm

I don't understand the relevance of the question sufficiently to answer it.

You do not need to understand the relevance of a question to answer it.

That said, I suspect you understand the relevance of the question perfectly, and that is why you refuse to answer it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 06:41:50 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 05:59:21 pm

And you still haven't answered my questions

As I have said at least three times before, simply repost them so I know what you are asking, and I will respond.  At the moment I genuinely don't know what questions you are talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 06:45:29 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 06:11:38 pm

If a police officer tells you to run a red light and move forward in your car you do it. If a police officer tells you to lay on the ground spread eagle with your hands behind your back you do it.

Are you aware there is no law on the books in any state in the Union requiring a person to comply with all orders issued by police officers, even if the officer is in uniform, on duty, the order is with the officer's line of duty, and the person being ordered knows the officer is in fact an on-duty officer acting within the officer's line of duty?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 01, 2014, 07:02:56 pm

Anyone who has dealt with the police knows you are best off doing what they tell you with in reason and fighting it in court later on.  If a cop tells you to get out of the road it is a good idea to get out of the road.  Even if you have done nothing wrong if you are told put your hands on the hood of his car or behind your back it is smarter to do it then to tell him he has no right to detain you.

Being friendly with the officer while following orders generally ends well for everyone involved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2014, 07:40:58 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 04:22:06 pm

Let me try again, suppose everything in the reports is the same except for the following:
Brown is alive, and Wilson is dead.  Brown shot Wilson to death.  Same number of wounds.  Same gun.  Same distance, except that this time Brown is the one who is alive and tells the police that Wilson had grabbed him and injured him in the scuffle at the car, that there was no justification for Wilson assaulting him, that Brown broke free and ran from Wilson, but that Wilson got out of the car and charged after him, with Brown then afraid of Wilson causing him physical harm, so Wilson shot him, firing the same number of times as Wilson did in the story we have all seen reported, and with Wilson then falling to the street and dying.  Now let's continue it further with the role reversal, and assume that Brown made no effort to call the police to advise them of what happened and made no effort to call for an ambulance or even to check to see if Wilson was alive or dead.

Do you have any doubts at all about whether Brown would have been arrested as soon as other police arrived on the scene, that he would have been cuffed, booked, and would right now be awaiting trial for murder without any possibility of making bond?

If Brown is the cop, I doubt that he would have been arrested by this point.  If Brown isn't the cop, everything isn't reversed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 07:49:39 pm

Quote from: davep on September 01, 2014, 07:40:58 pm

If Brown is the cop, I doubt that he would have been arrested by this point.  If Brown isn't the cop, everything isn't reversed.

Right.  The legal system will treat a police officer differently from someone else, even if everything else is the same.  The LAW has no distinction between the two in such a situation, but the PEOPLE, who make up the legal system do.  And in communities where police clearly and quite routinely harass residents and stop them without a properly legal basis, that difference in the way the average person and a cop is treated in such a situation festers into an ugly pimple begging to be popped.  For several nights in Ferguson, we saw the pimple popping.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2014, 08:26:33 pm

Are you suggesting that every time a policeman kills someone in the line of duty, that he be immediately arrested?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 11:57:16 pm

I have no more suggested that than I have suggested that every time any private citizen kills someone that they should be immediately arrested.  I will say quite clearly, however, that police officers should be treated the same under the law as anyone else.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 02, 2014, 12:54:41 am

 
 WHAT THE MEDIA NEEDS FOR RATINGS :
 
 A EuAm COP shot an AfAm.
 
 Thats your rating tickets right there.
 
 Nevermind about what is happening in the rest of the AfAm community and who is shooting who.
 
 The MEDIA needs RATINGS.
 
 All of us have been suckered by a power bigger then any AfAm & EuAm
 
 community combined.
 
 YOU ... are the result.
 
 Youre being played ... By experts in the MEDIA.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 02, 2014, 08:21:20 am

In case no one posted this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2014, 11:34:37 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 11:57:16 pm

I have no more suggested that than I have suggested that every time any private citizen kills someone that they should be immediately arrested.  I will say quite clearly, however, that police officers should be treated the same under the law as anyone else.

In what way are they not treated under the law?  When a shooting takes place, an investigation is conducted and if warrented, an arrest is made.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2014, 12:09:15 pm

I am in favor of legalizing recreational drugs, but not every argument in favor if legalization is a valid one.

The legalization lobby in Colorado pushed for it using the argument that it would bring in substantial new taxes, and in addition would eliminate the illegal market and eliminate the crime associated with it.

So far, it has brought in less than one third of the estimated taxes, and has failed to pay for the cost of running and policing the program.  In addition, about half of the product purchased in Colorado is on the illegal market because the prices are much lower than in the regulated and taxed legal stores.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:33:27 pm

If you favor legalizing MJ then how do you deal with companies that drug test? Would it then be illegal to fire someone who uses MJ regularly?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 02, 2014, 12:33:54 pm

The only reason for making it legal that matters  is that it's not the government's business what an adult chooses to put in his body. He can't drive or do anything that would cause harm to others but what he does to himself is nobody's business. And before anyone jumps in with the pro-choice/pro-life angle that is a completely separate discussion about whether an unborn child is to be treated as a person or a clump of cells. I am talking about what one does to ones own body.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:58:47 pm

So if its legal to use then anybody can use it anytime they like including driving and at work just like tobacco.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on September 02, 2014, 01:11:08 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:58:47 pm

So if its legal to use then anybody can use it anytime they like including driving and at work just like tobacco.

Yeah, and just like alcohol.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 02, 2014, 02:12:15 pm

Quote

If you favor legalizing MJ then how do you deal with companies that drug test? Would it then be illegal to fire someone who uses MJ regularly?

MJ is still federally illegal.

If you work for the Federal Government and go to Colorado and smoke a joint then test positive you can be fired.

Just ask anyone who is stationed at Lowery AFB.  I am sure they know the rules.

Twenty states now permit the use of marijuana for medical reasons, but employers in those states are under no legal obligation to allow any kind of pot use in the workplace. Colorado has a law that says workers cannot be fired for legal activities while off duty, but the state's courts also have said marijuana use isn't lawful because the federal government still considers it an illegal drug.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/07/marijuana-pot-workplace-employers-hiring-jobs/7272467/

Private companies can make their own rules.  One company that I know of that provides executive protection has a zero tolorance policy for Tobacco products.  You can not smoke or chew tobacco if you work for them.  Look at sports for example.  Athelets are punished all the time for using legal over the counter drugs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2014, 03:42:02 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:33:27 pm

If you favor legalizing MJ then how do you deal with companies that drug test? Would it then be illegal to fire someone who uses MJ regularly?

Yes.  Companies can make whatever rules they want.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2014, 03:43:40 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:58:47 pm

So if its legal to use then anybody can use it anytime they like including driving and at work just like tobacco.

The question was answered above, but just as alcohol is legal, but can not be consumed while driving or at work, other drugs would be treated the same way.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 03:51:27 pm

Quote from: davep on September 02, 2014, 11:34:37 am

In what way are they not treated under the law?  When a shooting takes place, an investigation is conducted and if warrented, an arrest is made.

I give up.

In what way are they not treated under the law?

I wrote that "police officers should be treated the same under the law as anyone else."  I suppose I could have highlighted "the same," but I thought that would be understood.

You have agreed with me that if Brown, as a private citizen has shot and killed Wilson, it would have been a virtual certainty that Brown would have been arrested at the scene and would have been jailed immediately following his arrest.  Private citizens are not treated at all the same under the law, but to the best of my knowledge they are treated under the law.  Saying both cases would be investigated is not close to being the same.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 03:55:48 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:33:27 pm

If you favor legalizing MJ then how do you deal with companies that drug test? Would it then be illegal to fire someone who uses MJ regularly?

A company could fire you because you can not read, or because you REFUSED to read.  But both are perfectly legal.  Just as YOU can refuse to work for an employer who can not read, or who does not read, or who does not share your political, religious, or whatever views.  All perfectly legal.

If pot is legal, which it should be, hopefully many employers will still refuse to employ stoners and will fire anyone who refuses to take a drug screen or who tests positive for pot after taking one.  And, unless a state passed a specific law making such a practice illegal, it would be perfectly legal for an employer to do that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 03:57:07 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:58:47 pm

So if its legal to use then anybody can use it anytime they like including driving and at work just like tobacco.

It is good to see that your thinking is muddy in more than one area.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 03:58:39 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/26/if-the-uk-was-a-u-s-state-it-would-be-the-second-poorest-behind-alabama-and-before-mississippi/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 04:02:11 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/01/email-reveals-lois-lerner-ignored-political-expenditures-by-unions/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 02, 2014, 06:18:52 pm

Ex-lawyer

That article doesn't even prove the headline.

Why?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 06:26:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 02, 2014, 06:18:52 pm

Ex-lawyer

That article doesn't even prove the headline.

Why?

Proof is that which convinces.  You have made clear, otto, that nothing could satisfactorily prove to you that there was anything in any way or to any degree inappropriate at any time ever by the IRS.  After all, Obama said there is not even a smidgen of corruption, so that ends any inquiry other than show hearings by partisan hacks.... right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2014, 06:58:02 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 03:51:27 pm

I give up.

In what way are they not treated under the law?

I wrote that "police officers should be treated the same under the law as anyone else."  I suppose I could have highlighted "the same," but I thought that would be understood.

You have agreed with me that if Brown, as a private citizen has shot and killed Wilson, it would have been a virtual certainty that Brown would have been arrested at the scene and would have been jailed immediately following his arrest.  Private citizens are not treated at all the same under the law, but to the best of my knowledge they are treated under the law.  Saying both cases would be investigated is not close to being the same.

If I, as a private citizen, shot and killed an off duty police officer that broke into my home in the middle of the night, I doubt that I would be arrested.

No one should be arrested until there is reason to do so.  You have no idea what the witnesses told the police.  You have no idea what the physical evidence was at the crime scene.  You have no idea what the officer told the police nor whether the police have been able to verify or refute the story.

In fact, you have given no facts whatsoever, other than the fact that one was armed and one was not.  I would think that a lawyer would know that that is not sufficient evidence, in and of itself, to have an arrest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 08:31:29 pm

Quote from: davep on September 02, 2014, 06:58:02 pm

If I, as a private citizen, shot and killed an off duty police officer that broke into my home in the middle of the night, I doubt that I would be arrested.

No one should be arrested until there is reason to do so.  You have no idea what the witnesses told the police.  You have no idea what the physical evidence was at the crime scene.  You have no idea what the officer told the police nor whether the police have been able to verify or refute the story.

In fact, you have given no facts whatsoever, other than the fact that one was armed and one was not.  I would think that a lawyer would know that that is not sufficient evidence, in and of itself, to have an arrest.

Before I respond further, was I wrong in writing the following?

Quote

You have agreed with me that if Brown, as a private citizen had shot and killed Wilson [in the situation as it existed], it would have been a virtual certainty that Brown would have been arrested at the scene and would have been jailed immediately following his arrest.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2014, 09:13:32 pm

Give me the exact scenario, and I will give you an exact answer.  So far you have only said that a private citizen that kills a cop would be immediately arrested.  I gave you a scenario in which I do not believe he would be arrested.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 09:54:38 pm

The exact same scenario we had in Ferguson.  Except that private citizen Brown pulls a firearm for which he has a legal carry permit and shoots to death the police officer Wilson.  The stories of what happened are essentially the same.  An initial scuffle at the car, with Wilson the aggressor, on-duty, in uniform, arriving on scene in his patrol vehicle, and initiating the scuffle without anything resembling justification, and also without at any point telling Brown he was under arrest, and trying to take Brown's gun from him.  Brown breaks loose and runs away, with Wilson getting out of the car to pursue.  Brown then stops, turns, and sees Wilson charging at him.  Brown then draws his perfectly legal handgun and fires at least six rounds into Wilson, leaving him dead.  Brown has a working cell phone on him but never calls 911 to report the shooting or to ask for an ambulance, but he is still there when the police arrive.  When the police do arrive they get conflicting stories from the witnesses, with Brown insisting he had no choice, that Wilson was out of control, was violent and aggressive, that Brown was convinced Wilson intended to cause him physical harm, and with at least one witness telling the police that Wilson had never been aggressive toward Brown, that Brown had initiated everything, and that before Brown shot him, Wilson had raised his hands above his head, said "Don't shoot," and perhaps even kneeled to the ground.

Are you telling me Brown would not have been arrested immediately, charged with murder, jailed, and held without bond, despite the fact the he had deep roots in the community and he insisted he would show up for trial and be a good boy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 02, 2014, 10:15:34 pm

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/ukraine-iraq-and-black-sea-strategy#axzz3CDX6hDOx

The United States is, at the moment, off balance. It faces challenges in the Syria-Iraq theater as well as challenges in Ukraine. It does not have a clear response to either. It does not know what success in either theater would look like, what resources it is prepared to devote to either, nor whether the consequences of defeat would be manageable.

Read more: Ukraine, Iraq and a Black Sea Strategy | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 10:25:39 pm

Quote from: Pekin on September 02, 2014, 10:15:34 pm

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/ukraine-iraq-and-black-sea-strategy#axzz3CDX6hDOx

The United States is, at the moment, off balance. It faces challenges in the Syria-Iraq theater as well as challenges in Ukraine. It does not have a clear response to either. It does not know what success in either theater would look like, what resources it is prepared to devote to either, nor whether the consequences of defeat would be manageable.

It is not just that the administration lacks a clear strategy, NO ONE has a clear strategy for the U.S. which would bring quick peace to the Ukraine and restore the borders of a year ago, nor does anyone have a clear strategy for dealing with ISIL that would be workable, acceptable to the public, and not have a significant prospect of both worsening the situation there, and bringing significant blowback to the U.S.

That being the case, doesn't either non-intervention, or minimal intervention, make more sense than any course of very active intervention in either area?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 02, 2014, 10:27:23 pm

You didn't read the article did you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 02, 2014, 11:29:13 pm

 
 WHAT IS GOVERMENT ?
 
 Is it designed to flow commerce between states and protect for those states against outside hostilitys?
 
 Is it designed to protect morality? Define morality.
 
 Whats good for you might be bad for me.
 
 In a NATION of 300 000 000 +
 
 Finding the common ground is always going to be an ever changing situation ... its never going to stop.
 
 However you have to ask yourself this for the common good :
 
 Whats in it for all of us in the best interests of all of us baby ?
 
 Thats up to our elected GOVERMENT to decide ...
 
 which BTW ... youve noticed has been on vacation for the last 40 years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 11:31:37 pm

Not at all, nor did I suggest I did.  I responded to what you excerpted from it.  Should I now assume what you seemed to offer as an excerpt was inaccurate, out of context or not representative?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 02, 2014, 11:47:30 pm

You are impossible.  You snipe posts and leave no response that allows good faith debate.  I posted the first paragraph of the article.  Read it or not I do not care but don't give me **** over posting an article you did not read.  It does not bash Obama or his administration at all.

It proposes a strategy or at least a start for one.  Stratfor stands for strategic forecasting and a website I enjoy reading.  I don't always agree with them but I do appreciate their cold common sense approach to geo-politics.

But hey maybe you can create some more straw men for yourself against DaveP or just sit back and snipe other peoples posts while never stating your own opinions so no one can call you on them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 03, 2014, 12:02:11 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 09:54:38 pm

The exact same scenario we had in Ferguson.  Except that private citizen Brown pulls a firearm for which he has a legal carry permit and shoots to death the police officer Wilson.  The stories of what happened are essentially the same.  An initial scuffle at the car, with Wilson the aggressor, on-duty, in uniform, arriving on scene in his patrol vehicle, and initiating the scuffle without anything resembling justification, and also without at any point telling Brown he was under arrest, and trying to take Brown's gun from him.  Brown breaks loose and runs away, with Wilson getting out of the car to pursue.  Brown then stops, turns, and sees Wilson charging at him.  Brown then draws his perfectly legal handgun and fires at least six rounds into Wilson, leaving him dead.  Brown has a working cell phone on him but never calls 911 to report the shooting or to ask for an ambulance, but he is still there when the police arrive.  When the police do arrive they get conflicting stories from the witnesses, with Brown insisting he had no choice, that Wilson was out of control, was violent and aggressive, that Brown was convinced Wilson intended to cause him physical harm, and with at least one witness telling the police that Wilson had never been aggressive toward Brown, that Brown had initiated everything, and that before Brown shot him, Wilson had raised his hands above his head, said "Don't shoot," and perhaps even kneeled to the ground.

Are you telling me Brown would not have been arrested immediately, charged with murder, jailed, and held without bond, despite the fact the he had deep roots in the community and he insisted he would show up for trial and be a good boy?

Brown shot an officer who was acting in his official duty.  I would assume they would apprehend him while they determine whether or not he should be arrested.  If the witnesses and physical evidence verified his story, I would imagine he would be arrested.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2014, 06:05:44 am

Quote from: Pekin on September 02, 2014, 11:47:30 pm

You are impossible.  You snipe posts and leave no response that allows good faith debate.  I posted the first paragraph of the article.  Read it or not I do not care but don't give me **** over posting an article you did not read.  It does not bash Obama or his administration at all.

Amusing.  I never even mentioned Obama.  My question WAS posed in good faith for the purpose of discussion, and you never responded to it, nor did you make any comment suggesting that you either agreed, or disagreed with my first paragraph.  I also did not give you **** in my post.  Any YOU want to talk about "good faith debate," while suggesting I was creating straw men.  And, by the way, could you cut and paste the language of mine where I created a straw man?  For ease of reference, here is my entire original comment:

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 10:25:39 pm

It is not just that the administration lacks a clear strategy, NO ONE has a clear strategy for the U.S. which would bring quick peace to the Ukraine and restore the borders of a year ago, nor does anyone have a clear strategy for dealing with ISIL that would be workable, acceptable to the public, and not have a significant prospect of both worsening the situation there, and bringing significant blowback to the U.S.

That being the case, doesn't either non-intervention, or minimal intervention, make more sense than any course of very active intervention in either area?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 03, 2014, 08:52:46 am

Quote from: Pekin on September 02, 2014, 11:47:30 pm

You are impossible.  You snipe posts and leave no response that allows good faith debate.  I posted the first paragraph of the article.  Read it or not I do not care but don't give me **** over posting an article you did not read.  It does not bash Obama or his administration at all.

It proposes a strategy or at least a start for one.  Stratfor stands for strategic forecasting and a website I enjoy reading.  I don't always agree with them but I do appreciate their cold common sense approach to geo-politics.

But hey maybe you can create some more straw men for yourself against DaveP or just sit back and snipe other peoples posts while never stating your own opinions so no one can call you on them.

Amen. And he never answers your questions because it might pin the tail on the donkey. Its always a double standard with Jes. You are always obligated to answer his questions but he avoids yours.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 03, 2014, 09:00:06 am

I don't know why you guys even respond to him. Just ignore him..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 03, 2014, 10:27:12 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 03, 2014, 08:52:46 am

Its always a double standard with Jes. You are always obligated to answer his questions but he avoids yours.

This is not a courtroom. You are not obligated to answer anyone about anything. If you choose to answer then I would refer you to the fable about the boy who rescues the snake.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 03, 2014, 11:14:37 am

Everyone knows that it was a girl that rescued the snake.  If you can't get it right, keep off the board.

On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
"Poor thing," she cried, "I'll take you in and I'll take care of you"
"Take me in tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in, tender woman," sighed the snake

She wrapped him all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she'd taken to had bee revived
"Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in, tender woman," sighed the snake

She clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful," she cried
"But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite
"Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in, tender woman," sighed the snake
"I saved you," cried the woman
"And you've bitten me, but why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
"Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in, tender woman," sighed the snake

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 03, 2014, 11:48:59 am

Another load of Climate Change Crap. Now Jellyfish stings are a result of climate change. I have lived near and gone to this beach nearly once a week for over 30 years. There are no more jellyfish issues now than there ever were. They always are more common during tropical storm season because winds push them closer to shore. We usually have 2-3 times a season where there are jellyfish warnings. This one is the first this year.

http://beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/7078

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2014, 04:02:39 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 03, 2014, 08:52:46 am

Amen. And he never answers your questions because it might pin the tail on the donkey. Its always a double standard with Jes. You are always obligated to answer his questions but he avoids yours.

For at least the 4th time, just pose the questions you want answered.  You could even simply copy and paste them.

Your failure to do so would seem to indicate you are far less than sincere.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2014, 04:09:36 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on September 03, 2014, 11:48:59 am

Another load of Climate Change Crap. Now Jellyfish stings are a result of climate change. I have lived near and gone to this beach nearly once a week for over 30 years. There are no more jellyfish issues now than there ever were. They always are more common during tropical storm season because winds push them closer to shore. We usually have 2-3 times a season where there are jellyfish warnings. This one is the first this year.

http://beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/7078

Most reporters are absolutely ignorant of anything having to do with science, so they take the crap environmentalists hand them as gospel.  And all of news is by nature alarmist, so it gobbles up such claims as if they were its life-milk, which in a way it is.  This particular claim, that global warming is creating greater problems with jellyfish, has been floating (pun intended) around for at least a decade.  Anytime there is a rash of stings, the reports surface... despite that fact that such problems are anything but new.  I remember a problem on the coast of Maryland in 1968, something I remember rather vividly as a result of encountering the damn things all over the beach when I visited that summer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 03, 2014, 07:01:11 pm

 
 I wonder whose on first ?
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 03, 2014, 07:02:01 pm

JJ, Yep that is a conversation with Jes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 03, 2014, 07:48:01 pm

 
 Whats the best blow/suck job?
 
  For moi I would have to go with the 4 basics ...
 
 1. The forward pump into the babes mouth ... the babe is passive.
 
 2. You are passive while she goes down on you like a piston in a car engine.
 
 3. You are passive while she goes down on you reallllly slow.
 
 4. This entails that you are at the edge of the bed thrusting downwards into her mouth as she is seated on the floor.
 
 There are more options but these 4 are the best for me.
 
 Anybody else have some other ideas?
 
 Jes? Dave? Anybody? Beuller? Beuller?
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 03, 2014, 07:55:22 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 03, 2014, 04:02:39 pm

For at least the 4th time, just pose the questions you want answered.  You could even simply copy and paste them.

Your failure to do so would seem to indicate you are far less than sincere.

And for the 10 millionth time all you have do do is go back and look for yourself, but you wont do that, because you really don't want to answer the questions anyway. Go take your post and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Do your own cut and paste, the rest of us do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2014, 12:09:57 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 03, 2014, 07:55:22 pm

And for the 10 millionth time all you have do do is go back and look for yourself, but you wont do that, because you really don't want to answer the questions anyway. Go take your post and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Do your own cut and paste, the rest of us do.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 03, 2014, 08:52:46 am

Amen. And he never answers your questions because it might pin the tail on the donkey. Its always a double standard with Jes. You are always obligated to answer his questions but he avoids yours.

I have asked you at least four times to simply list the questions you wanted me to respond to, questions which, from your tone, are presumably questions you consider very important, and perhaps questions which you think would make me look bad if I answered.

And you refuse to do so, encouraging me to look thru your posts to find these terribly prescient questions.  So here goes.  The following are all of the posts by you which included question marks in them since before you started complaining I was not responding to your questions:

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 01:03:17 pm

As I have pointed out, once you have concluded Brown was a thug, it makes it easy to ignore the facts.

What facts? The fact that a bullet can make a U-turn when shot from behind and enter the front?

What facts?  Whatever facts would come out in the case.  I have not said there are ANY facts so far which you have ignored, but merely pointed out that when you are calling Brown a "thug" when that is not relevant, and when you do not even offer any particular facts to support the contention, it appears you are trying to minimize Brown as a human being so that whatever facts do come out in the case it will make no difference, since the world will have been better off without the "thug."
The fact that a bullet can make a U-turn when shot from behind and enter the front? Nope.  Nothing having to do with any imagined ability of bullets to change direction or make a U-turn makes any difference to anything I have written.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:58:47 pm

So if its legal to use then anybody can use it anytime they like including driving and at work just like tobacco.

I actually DID respond to that, by pointing out that it is an incredibly stupid question.  But, if you insist on an answer, the answer is: "No.  If pot were legal that would not mean anyone can use it at any time, or that it would be legal to engage in any activity (such as driving) when under its influence (exactly as is now the case of alcohol or any other legal substance which might impair the ability to drive), and while it might be legal to use at work, just like tobacco, it would also be legal for an employer to fire you for its use, just like tobacco, even though using the substance would be legal.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2014, 12:33:27 pm

If you favor legalizing MJ then how do you deal with companies that drug test? Would it then be illegal to fire someone who uses MJ regularly?

I already did answer that, but in case you missed it, here is the answer again:

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 03:55:48 pm

A company could fire you because you can not read, or because you REFUSED to read.  But both are perfectly legal.  Just as YOU can refuse to work for an employer who can not read, or who does not read, or who does not share your political, religious, or whatever views.  All perfectly legal.

If pot is legal, which it should be, hopefully many employers will still refuse to employ stoners and will fire anyone who refuses to take a drug screen or who tests positive for pot after taking one.  And, unless a state passed a specific law making such a practice illegal, it would be perfectly legal for an employer to do that.

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 29, 2014, 09:34:04 pm

I think you are trying to put words in my mouth. Am I on trial here? Any opinions I have are personal beliefs, not legal opinions.

Personally I feel there will be a suppression of evidence and Wilson wont get a fair trial. I don't want to see that.

I also responded to that, though I did not directly answer your question, "Am I on trial here?"  The direct answer would be no, you are not on trial.  (I would have hoped you were aware of that, but on re-reading your posts, perhaps I was crediting you with more sense than you have and you were not aware of it.)

The response I did post was as follows:

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 30, 2014, 06:18:35 am

What words do I seem to be putting in your mouth?

I asked questions about what you would or wouldn't support, without so much as suggesting that you had expressed support of any of them, but for the purpose of actual discussion.  Nothing I have ever written, said, or even thought, has ever suggested that I think what you post is a "legal opinion" or is anything other than your own opinion.

That said, your last line above does amount to a "legal opinion" about what will happen if any charges are brought -- that being your prediction that Wilson will not get a fair trial and that there will be a suppression of evidence in the case.

I'm curious.  What evidence do you believe would be suppressed, and why?  Why do you think Wilson would not get a fair trial?

It is very unusual for a trial court to prevent a criminal defendant from presenting or introducing or asking about evidence relevant to the defense case, and the reason it is unusual is that it makes reversal on appeal quite likely.  So far I have not heard of anything which would be remotely relevant to a defense case which would be at all likely to be suppressed.  What is it you believe would be kept out?

You, of course, did not answer the genuine questions I asked in that response to your rhetorical question, but, what the heck, it is pretty much to be expected from you.

Then we had this from you, where you first quote serious questions of mine to you, then fail to respond those questions I posed andask a number of questions of your own which appeared to be entirely rhetorical:

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 01:22:20 pm

Now, let me ask you another question which I expect you either not to answer, or not to answer honestly, if everything had been reversed, do you have any question about whether Brown would have been arrested and charged, and likely held without bond, most likely arrested right at the scene?  If Brown had shot and killed a cop who was charging at him after the cop had just smacked his face into the side of the car and injured his eye, and the same number of rounds were fired and the same number of witnessed claimed that Brown had shot Wilson first as Wilson was running away and then as Wilson had turned to face him?  Races the same, ages the same, with Brown still a private citizen and Wilson still a cop.

Any question about it?

I don't understand the question. What corner are you trying to put me in? A role reversal? I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion. I don't care if Brown was green with purple polka dots. IMHO this isn't a racial issue.

Oh and how about having a 2000 lb bear charging Wilson? Would you then justify Wilson in shooting? Or would it be solely because the animal in question was a black man and not a black bear?. Or are you saying that Wilson had no right to try to stop a man from charging him because the man was black?

I did reply to that as follows:

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 02:33:52 pm

Your questions appear to be rhetorical.

If you have any serious question, ask it, and I will respond.

As to your claim that you, "said if Brown were the police officer and Wilson had been charging him," you did not write that at all.

You wrote: "I wouldn't care if the race issue was reversed. Same opinion."

That was in response to my question as to BROWN would have been arrested for shooting WILSON in such a scenario with, "Races the same, ages the same, with Brown still a private citizen and Wilson still a cop."

There was no mention of Brown having been the police officer, other than the little voices you hear in your head possibly mentioning it.

But the fact that you now contend your answer only applied if, "if Brown were the police officer and Wilson had been charging him," means you never responded to my question at all.

So would you care to try again, this time responding to the question asked instead of the one the voices in your head tell you to address?

Now, just in case my response was not enough, let me directly respond to each sentence you ended with a question mark:

What corner are you trying to put me in?
None. 

A role reversal?
I genuinely am not sure what you are asking, but will give you a "No" as a response in an effort to satisfy you.

Oh and how about having a 2000 lb bear charging Wilson?
How about it?  If you are asking if Wilson would have been justified in shooting a 2,000 point bear chasing him, I would point out that under the law in most states, if he had a clear and safe escape route available to him, allowing him to escape without using deadly force, he would have been required to do so, and in this case, since he was apparently standing right by the side of his car, all he would have had to have done was gotten back in the car and closed the door.  If that option was not safely available, then, yes, he could have used deadly force against a 2000 lb bear charging him so long as he was both in genuine fear for his safety as a result and the average reasonable person in the same situation would also have feared for his safety.

Would you then justify Wilson in shooting?

I would wonder why he got out of his car to deal with a bear when he had been safe in his car before getting out, and I would wonder why he hadn't called for assistance, but with that aside, if he had no safe option of retreat, yes I would find him justified in shooting a charging bear, and the law would also find that justified.

Or would it be solely because the animal in question was a black man and not a black bear?.
Believe it or not, most sane people, and the law in general, will hold a person to a somewhat higher standard in using deadly force against a human than a bear, regardless the color of either.  But, to answer directly, NO, MY RESPONSES TO YOUR QUESTIONS SO FAR, OTHER THAN AS I HAVE CLEARLY INDICATED, HAVE NOT DEPENDED ON WHETHER YOU  ASKING ABOUT A BLACK MAN OR A BLACK BEAR.

Or are you saying that Wilson had no right to try to stop a man from charging him because the man was black?
No.  I am not saying that, and nothing I have written has suggested that.  Wilson's right to use deadly force was completely independent of how dark Brown's skin color was, so far there is little to nothing reported with anything resembling an identified source to establish that Brown was charging Wilson when he was shot.  As I have said many times now, that will likely only be established by reviewing the ballistic report, the forensic report, and the final autopsy report(s).  And without that, I am not contending that Wilson did anything wrong.  I have simply pointed out that Wilson was treated entirely differently by the police and prosecution than Brown would have been had Brown shot and killed Wilson.

Now, are there any other questions you have asked which you feel I have not responded to?

And is there any possibility you will respond to what I have asked you?

For ease of reference, here is my question again:

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 01:42:44 pm

So you are seriously contending that if Brown, as an 18-year-old private citizen, shot and killed Wilson, a cop, and the stories about what happened were other wise similarly reversed, that you believe the police arriving on the scene would not have immediately cuffed and arrested Brown?

After you said you did not understand that question, I reposed it for you and still not no answer from you.  Again, for ease of reference, here is the question as I reworded it for you:

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2014, 04:22:06 pm

Let me try again, suppose everything in the reports is the same except for the following:
Brown is alive, and Wilson is dead.  Brown shot Wilson to death.  Same number of wounds.  Same gun.  Same distance, except that this time Brown is the one who is alive and tells the police that Wilson had grabbed him and injured him in the scuffle at the car, that there was no justification for Wilson assaulting him, that Brown broke free and ran from Wilson, but that Wilson got out of the car and charged after him, with Brown then afraid of Wilson causing him physical harm, so Wilson shot him, firing the same number of times as Wilson did in the story we have all seen reported, and with Wilson then falling to the street and dying.  Now let's continue it further with the role reversal, and assume that Brown made no effort to call the police to advise them of what happened and made no effort to call for an ambulance or even to check to see if Wilson was alive or dead.

Do you have any doubts at all about whether Brown would have been arrested as soon as other police arrived on the scene, that he would have been cuffed, booked, and would right now be awaiting trial for murder without any possibility of making bond?

And so far, you have not responded to that.  Would you care to try now?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 04, 2014, 01:28:21 am

Sheldon the tedious poster

Quote

The next question for you is do you want to include his Juvenile Court record?

Yes, yes I do.

And seriously, Sheldon "a small box of cigars" as a felony...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 04, 2014, 02:47:08 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:57:50 pm

No, because I still haven't seen the question in terms I understand




Let me try again, suppose everything in the reports is the same except for the following:
Brown is alive, and Wilson is dead.  Brown shot Wilson to death.  Same number of wounds.  Same gun.  Same distance, except that this time Brown is the one who is alive and tells the police that Wilson had grabbed him and injured him in the scuffle at the car, that there was no justification for Wilson assaulting him, that Brown broke free and ran from Wilson, but that Wilson got out of the car and charged after him, with Brown then afraid of Wilson causing him physical harm, so Wilson shot him, firing the same number of times as Wilson did in the story we have all seen reported, and with Wilson then falling to the street and dying.  Now let's continue it further with the role reversal, and assume that Brown made no effort to call the police to advise them of what happened and made no effort to call for an ambulance or even to check to see if Wilson was alive or dead.

Do you have any doubts at all about whether Brown would have been arrested as soon as other police arrived on the scene, that he would have been cuffed, booked, and would right now be awaiting trial for murder without any possibility of making bond?

I am confused. I don't know what you are getting at. I don't look at this as a racial issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2014, 05:23:16 am

Quote from: otto105 on September 04, 2014, 01:28:21 am

Sheldon the tedious poster
Yes, yes I do.

And seriously, Sheldon "a small box of cigars" as a felony...

Strong armed robbery in MO is a felony, whether "a box of cigars" is what is stolen or a nickel.  The value of what is stolen is not the deciding factor, but the use of force.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2014, 05:26:24 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 04, 2014, 02:47:08 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 03:57:50 pm
Let me try again, suppose everything in the reports is the same except for the following:
Brown is alive, and Wilson is dead.  Brown shot Wilson to death.  Same number of wounds.  Same gun.  Same distance, except that this time Brown is the one who is alive and tells the police that Wilson had grabbed him and injured him in the scuffle at the car, that there was no justification for Wilson assaulting him, that Brown broke free and ran from Wilson, but that Wilson got out of the car and charged after him, with Brown then afraid of Wilson causing him physical harm, so Wilson shot him, firing the same number of times as Wilson did in the story we have all seen reported, and with Wilson then falling to the street and dying.  Now let's continue it further with the role reversal, and assume that Brown made no effort to call the police to advise them of what happened and made no effort to call for an ambulance or even to check to see if Wilson was alive or dead.

Do you have any doubts at all about whether Brown would have been arrested as soon as other police arrived on the scene, that he would have been cuffed, booked, and would right now be awaiting trial for murder without any possibility of making bond?

I am confused. I don't know what you are getting at. I don't look at this as a racial issue.

All I am trying to get at is your answer to the question.  Nothing in the question mentioned race.  Nothing in the question made the slightest suggestion of race being involved or that it was "a racial issue."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2014, 05:27:25 am

It would appear, WshflThinking, that you are the one inserting race into the question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 04, 2014, 06:46:42 am

Quote from: otto105 on September 04, 2014, 01:28:21 am

Sheldon the tedious poster
Yes, yes I do.

And seriously, Sheldon "a small box of cigars" as a felony...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that his juvenile record has more on it than a simple case of stealing cigars.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 04, 2014, 09:11:05 am

I don't believe age 18 is classified as being juvenile.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 04, 2014, 02:31:56 pm

McDonald found guilty in Virginia.  The evidence against him was substantial.  Now he can join all the Illinois ex-governors in prison.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 04, 2014, 04:31:58 pm

Just another republic money changer  who thinks nothing happened.

I fully expect brietless bart to claim wrongful convictions....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2014, 04:44:15 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on September 04, 2014, 06:46:42 am

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that his juvenile record has more on it than a simple case of stealing cigars.

It is always possible his juvenile record is utterly spotless.... but I would be happy to climb out on that limb with you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2014, 04:48:58 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 04, 2014, 04:31:58 pm

Just another republic money changer  who thinks nothing happened.

I fully expect brietless bart to claim wrongful convictions....

JJ jr., Blagovich, Rosty, William Jefferson, a long string of TN Democratic governors, Edwin Edwards, enough N.J. democratic elected officials they could build an entire prison for them....

And you want to pretend that corruption is just a Republican thing?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 04, 2014, 05:48:43 pm

 
 At least my last post was funny and designed to engage posters in somthing other than the same boring repeatability.
 
 Entertainment ... whats wrong with that ?
 
 At what point do you give up the ghost ?
 
 Jesus ... Christ ... would I like a Wood/Wilson rock/hip hop duo?
 
 It could be done with holograms. With lyrics by Tupac,Biggy Smalls,Joan Rivers.
 
 Jes I'll need your help on this to round up the financials.
 
 DEATH as a PRODUCT to get rich !
 
 The markets there in t-shirts ... etc.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 05, 2014, 09:42:36 am

I guess recovery summer part 4 is over....

http://news.msn.com/us/us-employers-add-142k-jobs-fewest-in-8-months

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 05, 2014, 11:50:29 am

they were boasting this morning how it was going to be 250k.. Anyone with a half a brain knows this economy isn't hitting on much.. People like myself went from buying new trucks, boats, tv's etc. to trying to save at every turn in the road. First time I dropped Sunday ticket in a long long time..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 05, 2014, 12:03:44 pm

One thing, they focus on the total amount of jobs created, when we should be focusing on the amount of GOOD jobs created.. The elite rich have gotten much richer under Obama, while the middle class is dwindling.. Welcome to the world of liberalism...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 05, 2014, 05:30:45 pm

The IRS must have some really crappy computers. Damn Commodore 64's...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRS_LOST_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-05-15-47-22

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The IRS says it has lost emails from five more workers who are part of congressional investigations into the treatment of conservative groups that applied for tax exempt status.

The tax agency said in June that it could not locate an untold number of emails to and from Lois Lerner, who headed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. The revelation set off a new round of investigations and congressional hearings.

On Friday, the IRS said it has also lost emails from five other employees related to the probe, including two agents who worked in a Cincinnati office processing applications for tax-exempt status.

The agency blamed computer crashes for the lost emails. In a statement, the IRS said it found no evidence that anyone deliberately destroyed evidence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2014, 06:32:18 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on September 05, 2014, 05:30:45 pm

In a statement, the IRS said it found no evidence that anyone deliberately destroyed evidence.

Is there any evidence they did NOT deliberately destroy evidence?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2014, 07:05:07 pm

The highlight of the piece below -- The United States has done close to nothing with the "treasure trove" of intelligence it recovered when killing bin Laden, and hasn't even begun to follow up on much of it.  Why?  Because it clearly contradicted the administration's re-election theme -- that Al Qaeda was "on the run."  Even for this administration that is pathetic.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/al-qaeda-wasn-t-run_804366.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 06, 2014, 10:48:23 am

The sad part of this is that the idiots who support "spreading the wealth around" fail to understand that this is the logical consequence of that foolishness.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/incomes-fell-most-families-past-three-years-while-/

Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise
By Jennifer Pompi - The Washington Times - Thursday, September 4, 2014

               (http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/12/31/toast_c0-102-2634-1637_s561x327.jpg?2b39bafe7b7586940923be6dac8a5ccd423f6cd2)
Under President Obama, the richest 10 percent were the only income group of Americans to see their median incomes rise, according to a survey released this week by the Federal Reserve.

The Fed data covered the years 2010-2013, during which period Mr. Obama constantly campaigned against income inequality and won re-election by painting his Republican rival as a tool of Wall Street plutocrats.

“Data from the 2013 [Survey of Consumer Finances] confirm that the shares of income and wealth held by affluent families are at modern historically high levels,” the report said in noting that the median income fell for every 10-percent grouping except the most affluent 10 percent.

“The 2013 SCF reveals substantial disparities in the evolution of income and net worth since the previous time the survey was conducted, in 2010,” the report stated. The SCF is conducted by the Federal reserve triennially and compiles information about family incomes, credit use, net worth and finances.

The 2010-2013 SCF found that even though real gross domestic product grew by 2.1 percent and civilian unemployment fell from 9.9 percent to 7.5 percent, only families at “the very top of the income distribution saw widespread income gains,” though mean median income levels still lagged behind 2007 numbers....

The survey also found that family in the middle income bracket (40th to 90th percentiles) saw “very little” change in average real incomes and still have not recovered losses from 2010 and 2007. Families at the bottom of the income distribution continued to see “substantial declines” in average real incomes, a continuing trend from the previous two surveys.

The top percentile of Americans also increased their wealth share since 2010, corresponding to a loss in wealth for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, according to the Fed data.

“The wealth share of the top 3 percent climbed from 44.8 percent in 1989 to 51.8 percent in 2007 and 54.4 percent in 2013. … The share of wealth held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33.2 percent in 1989 to24.7 percent in 2013,” the report stated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 06, 2014, 11:22:33 am

Think Otto will start calling him 1%Barrack?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 06, 2014, 11:41:14 am

You actually think Homo will be swayed by the facts?  Are you new on the board?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 06, 2014, 11:48:23 am

Quote from: davep on September 06, 2014, 11:41:14 am

You actually think Homo will be swayed by the facts?  Are you new on the board?

No, he'll distract by posting some stupid comment made by a republican dogcatcher in some backwoods town nobody ever heard of and present it as a typical conservative. He has a very limited playbook.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2014, 04:15:16 pm

More racial violence.  http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/07/high-school-girl-taunted-beaten-at-bus-stop-for-acting-too-much-like-a-white-person/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2014, 04:15:59 pm

The numbers are in and the verdict is that there has been no global warming for 17 years and 11 months, according to satellite data.

Satellite data prepared by Lord Christopher Monckton shows there has been no warming trend from October of 1996 to August of 2014 — 215 months. To put this in perspective, kids graduating from high school this year have not lived through any global warming in their lifetimes.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/08/report-no-global-warming-for-215-months/#ixzz3ClFad55U

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on September 08, 2014, 04:43:16 pm

"In a statement, the IRS said it found no evidence that anyone deliberately destroyed evidence."

Does the IRS every admit being wrong? You do not let the criminals do the investigating.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2014, 05:51:03 pm

Lord muckinton seriously?


Presented as what grandpa sheldon?


Are you getting old and senile?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2014, 06:11:28 pm

otto, poor, otto, can't you even find a link to show how it the statement is wrong and how the entire planet is burning up and how Al Gore was right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 08, 2014, 06:42:20 pm

And Al Gore desperately wants the great Midwest glaciers to return. No more Midwest farming. Just wonderful. Just what we need.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2014, 07:42:44 pm

 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/519b6a3c-3439-11e4-b81c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Cm0VEiNB

September 8, 2014 6:15 pm
The closer we look, the less superior humans are
By Anjana Ahuja

You could describe homo sapiens as the last man standing. Our species is the sole survivor among a clutch of humanlike, or hominin, species that have stalked the planet in the past 7m years.

The Neanderthals ran us a close second, becoming extinct only 30,000 years ago and surrendering total dominion to modern man. They are caricatured as brutish and dim-witted.


Yet carvings discovered in a Gibraltar cave suggest that homo neanderthalensis might have possessed the capacity for abstract thought. The appearance of art in the Neanderthal cultural oeuvre, along with evidence that they used feathers for adornment and buried their dead, is forcing a significant reappraisal of our supposedly intellectually inferior evolutionary cousins.

Had a Neanderthal female been invited to view this particular etching, it is unclear whether she would have been impressed. The engraving looks a bit like a noughts-and-crosses grid – or, to the Twitter-savvy, the world’s oldest hashtag.

The geometric pattern was spied beneath a 39,000-year-old layer of sediment; the same site yielded nearly 300 tools fashioned in the Neanderthal style, suggesting that this masterpiece was not of modern man’s making. The researchers who studied it, and who published an analysis last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, insist the carving is not accidental nor the byproduct of utilitarian behaviour, such as cutting meat. It might have been a map; the chamber changes direction nearby.

Whether the prehistoric artist was more of a Mercator than a Matisse matters not a jot. It is the deliberate intention to create a lasting symbolic expression, designed to be seen and interpreted by others, that so fascinates. As the scientists write: “The production of purposely made painted or engraved designs on cave walls is recognised as a major cognitive step in human evolution, considered exclusive to modern humans.”

So humans can no longer claim that our privileged position as the world’s dominant species is earned through a unique cultural sensibility, expressed in art, science and philosophy. We forfeited the monopoly on other capacities long ago – dolphins have rudimentary language, crows can count and last week it was also revealed that cockatoos can teach others how to make and use tools.
"A zoo-dwelling chimp in Sweden was found hoarding stones in the morning to hurl at visitors in the afternoon"

If technical mastery is not ours alone, then surely it is as a social species that we reign supreme? Observations of chimpanzee groups suggest otherwise; complex behaviour such as altruism, reciprocity and Machiavellian manoeuvring are routinely observed in our closest relatives.

Their emotional spectrum – happiness, sadness, pride, anger, revenge – mirrors ours. Some of them plan for the future, as was discovered when a zoo-dwelling chimp in Sweden was found hoarding stones in the morning to hurl at visitors in the afternoon.

The more closely scientists look at other species, both extant and extinct, the less remarkable our own becomes. Nearly everything we once thought made us human, does not. This sobering message is reflected in Yuval Noah Harari’s bestseller Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, which provocatively challenges the concept of human uniqueness. Homo sapiens is unique only in the literal sense that every other member of the genus Homo died out. Now that we know Neanderthals, first identified as early humans from bones found in Germany’s Neander valley in 1856, were clever and cultured, we must include the possibility of human malevolence in any explanation of their disappearance.

Still, Neanderthal genes linger on today, a legacy of sexual encounters between our direct ancestors, who were moving out of Africa, and the Neanderthals they encountered in Eurasia (such interbreeding did not happen in Africa, which is why the genomes of indigenous Africans are Neanderthal-free). These interloper genes mostly produce keratin, of which skin, nails and hair are made; they probably conferred a survival advantage to our shivering, out-of-Africa ancestors.

So, as modern humans evolved, we had plenty of company. Which leaves us with an enigma: how did homo sapiens become the most successful hominin species ever?

This has been attributed to our brains, which ballooned a few hundred thousand years ago – possibly in response to climatic change – and allowed us to live in ever-bigger societies. In the coming centuries, those brains may allow us to do something that no other species has done: transcend nature and write our own evolutionary future, using bioengineering and artificial intelligence to shape our minds and bodies.

We will never know whether Neanderthals, our archaic cousins, could have accomplished the same.

Homo sapiens might indeed be something special. Or, to use the phrase of writer and comedian Chris Addison, maybe we are simply the ape that got lucky.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on September 09, 2014, 12:02:56 pm

I do not think Ottto'd realizes Nobama made $10,000,000+ last year....how did Otto'd do last year?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 09, 2014, 12:20:08 pm

Hell, how about this year? It still sucks..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on September 09, 2014, 04:10:57 pm

I wonder how the Swedes feel now about giving this massive joker Obama the Nobel Peace prize.

Yeah sure he has kept peace....nope.

Where is that Hope and Change.

Gas was a $1.95 when Nobama took office....I just filled up the other day and it's $3.71. Thanks Nobama!!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2014, 04:23:14 pm

Quote from: Beerfan21 on September 09, 2014, 12:02:56 pm

I do not think Ottto'd realizes Nobama made $10,000,000+ last year....how did Otto'd do last year?

I'm calling bull on that one.

What source do you have for that?  How did Obama make $10M in 2013?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2014, 04:27:13 pm

Quote from: Beerfan21 on September 09, 2014, 04:10:57 pm

Gas was a $1.95 when Nobama took office....I just filled up the other day and it's $3.71. Thanks Nobama!!!!

And let's be real.  Gas was as high or higher in all of the first half of 2008 as it is now.  Same thing for 2007.

The reason it was low when Obama took office (and I doubt it was then $1.95, but I will accept that figure solely for the purpose of this discussion), was because the economy was deep in the crapper at the time and gas consumption had fallen enough to drive the price down considerably.  It is up now because the economy is doing better (even if not nearly well enough) and people (and businesses) are driving more.

Lots of things to complain about with Obama.  This is not one of those things.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on September 09, 2014, 05:43:31 pm

Jes....books - he and his wife.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2014, 06:09:50 pm

Quote from: Beerfan21 on September 09, 2014, 05:43:31 pm

Jes....books - he and his wife.

That is how you think he did it, but it is not a source.  I still call bull.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2014, 06:16:55 pm

Posted at the White House official welbsite on 4/11/14:
Today, the President released his 2013 federal income tax returns. He and the First Lady filed their income tax returns jointly and reported adjusted gross income of $481,098. The Obamas paid $98,169 in total tax.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/11/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-s-2013-tax-returns

If you want to see the actual returns, check here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/2013_potus_tax_returns.pdf

Beerfan, do you just pull this stuff out of your rectum?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 09, 2014, 06:20:36 pm

Rectum, my dear Fannie?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 11, 2014, 12:26:33 pm

The Obama zombies are out all over the aairways declaring that Obamacare is a success because rates only increased by 3%. Too bad they are not Paul Harvey who could give you "the rest of the story". Out of pocket costs have more than dwarfed that small savings in premiums.

http://money.msn.com/insurance/news.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20140910&id=17921622

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. health insurance premiums are going up only 3 percent this year, to an average of $16,834 for a family. Workers will pay about 20 percent of that cost, or $4,823, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The Kaiser Family Foundation's 2014 Employer Health Benefits report says that rate increases are slowing from recession highs that ran far above inflation rates. In the past 10 years, healthcare premiums rose a cumulative total of 69 percent.

However, the big leap in deductibles offsets the good news for consumers.

"If you told the average working person that healthcare costs were at record-low increases, they'd look at you like you were a little bit crazy," says Kaiser Chief Executive Officer Drew Altman. "Out-of-pocket costs are way up, while their wages are relatively flat."

While insurers and employers kept premiums in check over the past few years, deductibles are up 47 percent since 2009. The average deductible now stands at $1,217 - at least $1,000 for 41 percent of workers and $2,000 or more for 18 percent.

The shift to high deductibles is even starker at companies with fewer than 200 employees. Some 61 percent of these workers have deductibles of at least $1,000.

"This has a big impact on working people," says Altman. "It can be a real disincentive to get care."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2014, 04:13:58 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on September 11, 2014, 12:26:33 pm

"This has a big impact on working people," says Altman. "It can be a real disincentive to get care."

Nah, this has to be crazy.

ObamaCare is all about CARE.

I mean, it is right there in the damn name.  You would have to be crazy to think it somehow resulted in people getting LESS medical care.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2014, 05:53:52 pm

damb global warming... http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2014/09/11/inches-possible-black-hills/15434275/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2014, 09:11:43 pm

Worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR7VHs9wo0Q

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2014, 12:05:47 pm

Further proof Al Gore was right: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/12/noaa-246-low-max-records-broken-or-tied-from-sept-1-to-sept-10-some-records-broken-by-16f/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 13, 2014, 04:02:49 pm

Hey Oddo, smoke this: No Global Warming. Global Warming is a hoax.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/18/climate-catastrophe-cancelled-geologist-debunks-noaa-climate-report-point-by-point/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2014, 06:52:18 pm

Damn.... imagine that...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457000
By running an experiment among Germans collecting their passports or ID cards in the citizen centers of Berlin, we find that individuals with an East German family background cheat significantly more on an abstract task than those with a West German family background. The longer individuals were exposed to socialism, the more likely they were to cheat on our task. While it was recently argued that markets decay morals (Falk and Szech, 2013), we provide evidence that other political and economic regimes such as socialism might have an even more detrimental effect on individuals’ behavior.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 13, 2014, 08:58:52 pm

And the IRS doesn't lie, right? I don't believe it.

http://preservefreedom.org/surprise-lost-irs-letters-have-been-found-guess-where/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2014, 05:49:17 pm

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMMIGRATION_DEPORTATIONS_DOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-11-13-59-41
Deportations down 20 percent, fewest since 2007
By ALICIA A. CALDWELL
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama has quietly slowed deportations by nearly 20 percent while delaying plans to act on his own potentially to shield millions of immigrants from expulsion.

The Homeland Security Department is on pace to remove the fewest number of immigrants since 2007, according to an analysis of its data by The Associated Press.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 14, 2014, 08:26:33 pm

Mark's Market Blog
9-14-14: BIS - the biggest, most mysterious bank you've never heard of.
by Mark Lawrence
Markets have been slowly sliding slightly downwards, still clinging to the S&P 2000 level. As I pointed out a couple weeks ago, we're a the top edge of a market channel, but continued money printing means the market wants to go up more. IMHO we'll spend a bit more time spinning our wheels letting the channel move upwards away from us, then continue upwards. In a few months the Fed is likely to raise rates - historically the first rate increase doesn't phase the stock market, but the second increase, perhaps a few months after the first, will likely change market sentiment.
 
S&P 500 March 22 2014 to September 12 2014
Jeff Gundlach, a rather notable talking head from Wall Street, says he believes the Japanese yen will go to 200 within 3 to 5 years. It's about 100 right now, so that means more or less Japanese goods like cars and motorcycles will sell for roughly half what they cost right now. I dunno if I believe this. It's pretty clear this is exactly what the Bank of Japan wants. It's far less clear that the Bundesbank and the Fed will allow it to happen - this amounts to stealing some serious jobs from Munich and Detroit, and exporting their deflation to a couple powerful countries that are having their own fight with deflation. I can say that if you wait a few years on buying that Lexus LS460 you're likely to get a better deal. Good chance it's true for that Mercedes S550 you've been looking at too. And that's pretty much the definition of deflation right there.


ISIS or ISIL, depending on who you listen to, lopped off another head, this time of a British aid worker. I prefer their self-given name, ISIL - Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as their very name makes clear they intend to wipe out Israel and take over Lebanon and Jordan. UK PM Cameron said, disingenuously, "They are not muslims, they are monsters." Sorry, they're muslims and they purport to represent all muslims everywhere. And they have a lot of support throughout the world - hundreds of muslim immigrants in Europe have traveled to the region to join them in their fight. Obama has ordered air strikes on ISIL, telling Assad in Syria that if he fires on American planes we will have him overthrown. Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, previously director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency, said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report on Thursday, "The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex: It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment." US Secretary of State John Kerry and White House chief of staff Denis McDonough both said Sunday the US is "at war" with ISIL in the same way it is "at war" with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. "In terms of al-Qaeda, which we have used the word 'war' with, yeah... we are at war with al Queda and its affiliates. And in the same context if you want to use it, yes, we are at war with ISIL in that sense," Kerry said on CBS' Face the Nation. On July 12, 2007, President Bush said, "To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous." On December 14, 2011 Obama said, "We are leaving behind a sovereign, self- reliant and stable Iraq." If you have the impression that this administration is flailing about trying to reassure everyone while not doing anything truly substantive, then you share mine.

In a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll 47% of Americans, a plurality, feel "less safe" than they did before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. No wonder - Al Queda used to be a handful of guys living in caves in Afghanistan, now ISIL is a country.

We hear on the news that the Great Recession is over. Yet a lot of Americans still think the economy sucks. Here's a bit of why. Salaries as a percentage of GDP have been and continue to be in logn term decline. If you work on Wall Street, the economy is great. You don't actually produce anything, but you any your cronies are divvying up about three-quarters of all the profits made in our economy. And you get to golf with Obama and suggest how laws could improve things. If you're not on Wall Street, well, all you got is a vote and that no longer counts for much of anything.


Scotland votes this week on becoming independent from England. The Scots have a talent for stirring up the anthill and they're doing it again. Independence for Scotland would mean a new currency and huge debt as they take on their share of the UK debt. The Scots think after a year or three of stabilization they would join the EU; however the EU thinks this would be a mini-disaster as it would entice Catalans and Basques in Spain to seek independence and spread outward from there - the famous "domino effect." And Ken Rogoff of "This Time Is Different" fame says the vote is already a disaster before it's happened - no one will invest in Scotland now, knowing the future is so uncertain. I dunno, I have a different opinion: political lines in most of the world were drawn by a few warlords with an eye to only their own interests, and it doesn't surprise me at all that today people want their own fake democracy instead of piggy-backing on someone else's fake democracy. What's this vote really about? My generation has a slogan: follow the money. Here's Scottish bank assets as a percent of GDP compared to several other countries. Scottish banks are huge, with assets 12 times the Scottish GDP, and would clearly dominate the Scotch economy. One can't help but think the bankers are behind this, pushing for a smaller country where they can quietly buy off all the politicians behind the scenes.


The BIS - the Bank for International Settlements - is the central banker's central bank. Is there a more mysterious company in the world? The BIS was originally formed after WWI to managed the payment of German war reparations. In the mid-30s when the Nazis stopped making those payments, the BIS went in search of a new mission. They became dominated by Germans and Nazis and spend most of the war years helping Germans smuggle jewish gold and other assets out of Germany, frequently to Switzerland, sometimes to Argentina and such places. They also managed huge behind-the-scenes loans from American banks to the Nazi regime - there was no lack of Nazi sympathizers on Wall Street. After WWII they transformed again and became the conduit for the McArthur plan, managing the dispersal of American money to Europe. Today, transformed yet again, they're an exclusive club where the world's central bankers and top people from the IMF and World Bank meet to have lunch in their exclusive members-only top-floor five star restaurant and exchange views on how the world economy should be managed. Can't find Volker, Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen? They're either in their office, testifying before congress, being paid $150,000 to have lunch on Wall Street, or on the top floor of the BIS building having a lunch you and I can only fantasize about and hanging out with the heads of the UK, EU, Japanese, Brazilian and Chinese central banks. They make secretive loans to banks and were the guiding force in the recent IMF / World Bank / ECB bailout of Greece. The BIS by international treaty is not subject to the laws of any country, cannot be sued in any court including the World Court, and pays no taxes on their billion+ dollar a year profits. They have a beautiful building in Basel Switzerland and employ a sizable fraction of Basil's residents - who pay no taxes on their BIS paychecks, 'cause the BIS is not a Swiss institution and is not subject to Swiss laws on withholding or reporting. You've perhaps heard of the Basil Accord establishing exchange rates around the world to be used as targets by the various central banks? Or Basil II, modifying those rates and setting international standards for banking reserves? Those would more properly have been called BIS and BIS II - a bank that most don't even know exists, that is subject to no democratic process on earth sets our exchange rates and banking rules. They have a secretive economic data collection center that apparently tracks every dollar, euro, won or yen that ever crosses any border. Many believe the BIS is the organization that secretly runs the world, choosing new presidents and prime ministers as required to fit their needs - the modern embodiment of Nathan Rothschild's famous quote, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws." In any case, they put out a quarterly report that's must-read if you care about world economics. Whatever you think of the BIS - and for most of us this paragraph is likely the first time you've ever heard of it - their financial reports are excellent, perhaps the best in the world. Their new report is just out. They say financial asset prices are at "elevated" levels and market volatility remains "exceptionally subdued" thanks to ultra-loose monetary policies being implemented by central banks around the world. "By fostering risk-taking and the search for yield, accommodative monetary policies thus continued to contribute to an environment of elevated asset price valuations and exceptionally subdued volatility." There were several references in the report to the "extraordinarily" and "exceptionally" low levels of volatility, suggesting the BIS feels markets may be getting too complacent and therefore vulnerable and ill-equipped to handle a shock.


Are central banks having an impact? Dutch interest rates are at a 500 year low. Can the ECB drive those rates lower? Yah, a little bit perhaps, but at some point you're paying the government to hang on to your money. Things have to get pretty bad before paying the government is better than stuffing money under your mattress.


Deutsche Bank just released a 104 page report where they claim there have been many financial bubbles in history, but never has there been a 20 year period of bubble following bubble like we are in now. Their claim is the we're now in the bubble of last resort - government bonds - where the market is made by governments and central banks. This bubble cannot be allowed to burst, as it will take the world economy down with it. What happens next? Hard to predict, but governments are now addicted to cheap money, and sooner or later addictions always end badly. Central bankers believe in a "soft landing" where they generate inflation and the government debt gets eaten away in time, along with everyone's savings. Unfortunately none of the major debtor nations has managed to generate any inflation - in fact most are living on the edge of deflation.


China has the largest shale gas reserves in the world - 1100 trillion cubic feet according to a new report by the World Resources Institute. But most of that is in desert areas and there's simply no water available to extract shale gas. I think there's a strong likelihood that sometime in the next few years China is going to have a serious banking crisis that will stop all economic expansion and likely result in layoffs. The Chinese government thinks this will lead to instability. When that occurs, what's the chance that they start looking at diverting the Brahmaputra river, leaving several hundred million Indians and Bangladeshi high and dry so that they can have cheap energy? China doesn't have law schools, their government is run by engineers. They see this much more clearly than I do.

Lotsa news in cars this week. Ford is changing the 2015 F-150, the best selling vehicle in the US with 500,000 sold year to date, to almost completely made of aluminum. The frame will still be steel - they haven't figured out aluminum frames like Chevy did for the Corvette. The aluminum truck weighs 700 pounds less than the steel version, resulting in significant gains in gas mileage and towing power. Analysts are projecting that the F-150 could get up to 27 or 28 miles per gallon on the highway, a significant increase from the 21 or 22 miles per gallon that 2014 F-150s get. This is a huge change - for 100 years cars have been made out of steel, stamped, sheared, welded. All of these processes are completely different for aluminum. Plus when you're talking about selling 700,000 trucks per year, you need a lot of aluminum - more than was available even a couple years ago. GM announced that some 2016 Cadillacs will come with "super-cruise," a hands-free cruise control that follows lanes and traffic, maintaining safe distances and speed, controlling steering, braking and throttle. In 2017 they will introduce a Cadillac with car-to-car communication built in. This won't mean much when there's only a few thousand such cars in the US, but in 10 or 15 years most cars will have this capability, meaning that cars can anticipate traffic patterns and conditions far in advance, all but eliminating stop and go freeway conditions. Will this change things? Here's a hint: a couple decades ago a poll in California found that 80% of drivers ranked themselves at above average, and 50% ranked themselves in the top 10%. A recent study conducted by Columbia University said that replacing New York's fleet of 13,000 yellow cabs with 9,000 driverless cars could cut costs per mile by nearly 88% and wait times down from 5 minutes to just 36 seconds during rush hour. Morgan Stanley estimates that interconnected autonomous cars will use 20%-30% less gas than humans who hit the brakes and throttle constantly. They also estimate that 90% of accidents are caused by human error, suggesting a huge decrease in the accident rate. When they add up fuel savings, savings on accidents, savings on lost productivity due to traffic jams and accidents, they believe autonomous cars will save the US $1.3 trillion per year, 10% of our GDP.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2014, 08:39:07 pm

I wonder what otto's response to this would be in the races were reversed....


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/bk-women-force-tenants-gunpoint-squat-apartment-cops-article-1.1931834

Two Brooklyn women tired of 'white people moving into the area' force tenants out at gunpoint, then squat in apartment: police
Precious Parker, 30, and Sabrina James, 23, were arrested Saturday after they allegedly kicked two men and a woman out of an Ocean Ave. apartment on Thursday. Authorities say the crime was partly motivated by race and class resentment.
BY Frank Green , Joseph Stepansky
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS  Monday, September 8, 2014, 2:30 AM

Two women were arrested after they intimidated three tenants out of their Brooklyn apartment and then moved into the newly vacated space, law enforcement sources said. Google Two women were arrested after they intimidated three tenants out of their Brooklyn apartment and then moved into the newly vacated space, law enforcement sources said.

Two women were arrested after they robbed and then intimidated three tenants out of their Brooklyn apartment — and the crime was partly motivated by race and class resentment, law enforcement sources said.

Precious Parker, 30, and Sabrina James, 23, knocked on the door of an apartment building on Ocean Ave. near Newkirk Ave. in Flatbush at 9:30 p.m. on Thursday and held a 34-year-old man, a 37-year-old man, and a 25-year-old woman at gunpoint demanding they move out or be killed, police said.

The women then stole $800, an iPhone and personal information from the tenants, police said.

The terrified residents left soon after, said a night porter, who declined to give his name.

“They just left,” he said. “They said somebody wants to kill them.”

The usurpers then squatted in the apartment, a law enforcement source said.

The source added the trio may have been targeted because of their race, as one of the women said she didn’t like “that white people were moving into the area,” the police source said.

Both women were arrested Saturday in the apartment and charged with robbery and unlawful imprisonment, police said.

Cops recovered a handgun, a law enforcement source said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 15, 2014, 02:24:00 am

 
Heinrich Himmilers mother used to prostitute her self off to a Jewish landlord in order to pay the rent.
 
 Heinrich Himmiler knew this was going on.
 
 Do you know what Heinrich Himmiler went on to do ?
 
 Osama bin ladin was from the Bin ladin group that his father developed for building buildings.
 
 Osama bin ladin went out of his way to destroy buildings.
 
 Find out in the past where these people got this **** up.
 
 You will find a story to be traced back to everyone.
 
 That concerns their parents.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 15, 2014, 09:13:42 am

There are hundreds of thousands of fathers who build buildings, and less than half of theor children go out of their way to destroy buildings. 

If you want to see where they got **** up, look to their Wahabi religion and their own flawed personalities.

I suspect that there have been children of prostitutes that became law abiding.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 15, 2014, 03:54:18 pm

Quote from: davep on September 15, 2014, 09:13:42 am

If you want to see where they got **** up, look to their Wahabi religion and their own flawed personalities.

And you think there are no members of the Wahabi sect, or no one with a flawed personality who has not killed people?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 15, 2014, 10:32:32 pm

Not worth a reply

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 15, 2014, 10:36:51 pm

Speaking of flawed personalities...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 16, 2014, 04:53:51 am

For sure!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 16, 2014, 05:31:37 am

How many times have those of us in the United States ridiculed of condemned reports from the middle east about one Islamic nation or another punishing people for doing something which offended the Islamic nation?  Is the following really any different from what we condemn when it is half way around the world?  http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/09/pennsylvania-teenager-hump-oral-sex-jesus-statue-prison


Pennsylvania Teenager Simulates Oral Sex With Jesus Statue, Faces 2 Years in Prison
—By Sam Brodey  | Fri Sep. 12, 2014 1:39 PM EDT
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/top-of-content-main/desecration-jesus-statue.jpg)
Teenagers are prone to dumb, tasteless pranks, but one 14-year-old is facing prison time for his latest stunt. The teen, from Everett, Pennsylvania, hopped on top of a statue of a kneeling Jesus—in front of an organization called "Love in the Name of Christ"—and simulated oral sex with the statue's face. Naturally, he posted the pictures to Facebook, which made their way to authorities.

Officials in Bedford County charged the teen (whose name hasn't been released) with desecration of a venerated object, invoking a 1972 Pennsylvania statute that criminalizes "defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action." You'd think an appropriate punishment for a kid violating this seldom-invoked law might be picking up trash or, at worst, paying a fine. If convicted, he faces much worse: two years in juvenile detention.

Truth Wins Out, a LGBT advocacy nonprofit, has argued that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the establishment clause—"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"—and free speech rights—"Congress shall make no law abridging the right to hump a statue of Jesus."

Pennsylvania is not the only state with a "venerated objects" law—many states have some version of it, but most define "desecration" as vandalizing or otherwise physically harming an object of civic or religious significance. Alabama, Tennessee, and Oregon have laws like Pennsylvania's, which can be interpreted to punish individuals—like this bold, dumb teenager—who simply decide to do something offensive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on September 16, 2014, 08:43:34 am

Simple, the difference is in the punishment.

Her he would not be beheaded or have his hands cut off

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 16, 2014, 08:53:34 am

Being charged is not quite the same as being convicted, and being convicted is still not the end of the appeals process.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 16, 2014, 09:33:09 am

Fish on!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 16, 2014, 11:33:55 am

If he would have done that to a statue of Mohammed, Obama would've been on TV condemning the act.. I don't agree with the act, but prison time? I say a night with Adrian Peterson should suffice..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 16, 2014, 12:29:03 pm

He faces up to two years in juvy.  He will probably get community service and probation.  Rightfully so.  Kid needs to learn some respect.  I don't care what God or Idol it is.  He should learn respect.

The LGBT need to get a freaking life.  This law establishes what religion?  And what speech did the kid give? 

I bet they would have a different tune if someone were sticking a dildo in a statue of Barbra Streisand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 16, 2014, 05:26:36 pm

wmljohn, if punishment is appropriate, and your response makes clear you believe it is, then would there be anything in the constitution which could limit the punishment, other than the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment"?  And, from your response, would I be correct in assuming you have no objection to middle eastern nations punishing those who show disrespect to Muhammed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 16, 2014, 06:19:44 pm

Two years is a bit excessive but public service is the right track on this and maybe having to work at a Christian food bank or soup kitchen would do the trick. And what Islamists do in punishment, i.e. cutting hands off or worse, is so far beyond rational sanity to not even be worth the comparison....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 16, 2014, 09:07:49 pm

It is a stupid law and should be appealed.  Just as Federal Hate Crime Acts should be repealed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 17, 2014, 04:32:26 am

Quote from: davep on September 16, 2014, 09:07:49 pm

It is a stupid law and should be appealed.  Just as Federal Hate Crime Acts should be repealed.

sportster and wmljohn would clearly appear not to agree, and no one else has indicated they would agree, either.  And while I agree the Federal Hate Crimes Act should be repealed, it's repeal should simply be because it is bad law, not because it is both bad law and unconstitutional.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 17, 2014, 09:40:46 am

I don't try to speak for either Sportster or wmljohn.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 17, 2014, 12:54:49 pm

Quote

wmljohn, if punishment is appropriate, and your response makes clear you believe it is, then would there be anything in the constitution which could limit the punishment, other than the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment"?

I am no constitutional scholor or lawyer so I don't know.  Is there anything other than the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" covering any other crimes in the constituion?  I do believe that facing 2 years in Juvy is a bit on the harsh side for this particular crime but he has not been sentenced to 2 years in Juvy.  If I were king I would order him to 1 year in Juvy suspended with 80 hours community service and probation for one year.  And maybe let the community he offended chuck rotten tomatos at him.  JUST KIDDING about the tomatos.  I would make him write a letter of apology to them. AND have the parents attend parenting classes just because they raised the **** who thought it would be cool to do it.

Quote

And, from your response, would I be correct in assuming you have no objection to middle eastern nations punishing those who show disrespect to Muhammed?

You would be correct as long as it is applied both ways.  Just as it should be here.  Lets also get this straight that the law is "defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action."

Doing disrespectful **** like this for no other reason than to **** off another person is uncalled for.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 17, 2014, 01:02:04 pm

I think I would make a good king.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 17, 2014, 02:40:30 pm

ALL HAIL Dbilly the gnome!  :P

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 17, 2014, 04:41:18 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on September 17, 2014, 12:54:49 pm

I am no constitutional scholor or lawyer so I don't know.  Is there anything other than the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" covering any other crimes in the constituion?  I do believe that facing 2 years in Juvy is a bit on the harsh side for this particular crime but he has not been sentenced to 2 years in Juvy.  If I were king I would order him to 1 year in Juvy suspended with 80 hours community service and probation for one year.  And maybe let the community he offended chuck rotten tomatos at him.  JUST KIDDING about the tomatos.  I would make him write a letter of apology to them. AND have the parents attend parenting classes just because they raised the **** who thought it would be cool to do it.

You would be correct as long as it is applied both ways.  Just as it should be here.  Lets also get this straight that the law is "defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action."

Doing disrespectful **** like this for no other reason than to **** off another person is uncalled for.

A great many things in life are "uncalled for," but that is not a basis from criminalizing them.

And in this case at hand, what he did would only offend or outrage anyone if they attached some religious significance to the statute, which is the very same thing as with Muslims offended by someone creating an image of Muhammed.  Beyond that, the action was rather clearly communication or expression, even if not literal speech.  If we as a society can criminalize that, then certainly something like the old NEA crucifix in a jar or urine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ also could be, as could anything else disturbing religious sensibilities... just like we see in the middle east with those responsible for images of Muhammed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 17, 2014, 07:38:42 pm

I agree.  This kind of action should not be a crime.

What should happen is that someone that he deliberately offends should just smack him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 17, 2014, 08:30:34 pm

 
 Basically in a nutshell it falls into two different catagorys ...
 
 If its offensive to anyone ... then that person should be executed according to sharia law.
 
 God willing. Allah Akber.
 
 If its FUNNY ... then that person should be given a guest shot on :
 
 THE TONIGHT SHOW starring Jimmy Fallon !!
 
 Jimmys special guests tonight include : DaveP ! Pekin! Jes Beard!
 
 And new music by Elvis Presly and John Lennon ! LIVE !!
 
 We'll be right back after this commercial break !
 
 Stay tuned ... theres more fun to follow !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 17, 2014, 09:10:26 pm

LOL

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 18, 2014, 03:16:08 am

 
 Holy **** !! The Chicago Sports Talk board is still up and running !!
 
 Well get over there and post somthing. I did.
 
 Never fails to have a backup.
 
 http://bbumsforum.proboards.com (http://bbumsforum.proboards.com)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 18, 2014, 05:04:48 am

Sure is a shame how poor Christians are targeted for oppression by atheists these days.  http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-must-swear-god-leave-us-air-force-232153866.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 18, 2014, 07:27:03 am

That is another stupid rule.  The AF is the only service to do that?  How stupid are they?  Let the **** take an oath to serve.  So help him whothefuckever.

Half the idiots who say that damn "oath" aren't religious christians either and it doesn't mean anything.  It's just this **** has little dick syndrome and has to prove a point.

Hell you can't even be a doctor or pastor in the Marine Corps because we take an oath to kill motherfuckers.  If you are against killin' you can't be a Marine.  Tell that **** flyboy prop head to join the corps and he won't have to worry about taking an oath to god.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 18, 2014, 11:56:47 am

because we take an oath to kill motherfuckers.  If you are against killin' you can't be a Marine.

It doesn't get any better than that!!! I love it!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 18, 2014, 01:03:18 pm

For those uneducated on the Corps that really didn't know you couldn't be a doctor or religious leader this quote explains it...

"While I have not practiced med in the Navy yet i.e. still a student. I do love my Corps and we love our docs. While Marine Med would be great it would go against the fabric of the Corps. All Marines are rifleman and kinda conflicts with the do no harm part of medical ethos. After all the only things Marines import into our Corps are Med and Chaplain both non-combatants. I do yearn for the chance to stay Marine and practice Medicine alas cause I am not allowed to "kill my enemy before he kills me" (riflemans creed) I will have to remain happy with the chance to treat those magnificent bastards and their families. Semper Fi. The love is mutual." - unkown Marine training to be a doctor and trasnfer to the Navy.

We love our corpsman and chaplins to death.  Literally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 18, 2014, 03:47:00 pm

There ya go....just another atheist in a long line of the jerks attempting to change what has been tradition for eons.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 18, 2014, 06:07:13 pm

I don't know how long an eon is, but when I was an instructor in Air Force Officer's School from 1968 through 1972, I had to swear in each graduating class every 12 weeks.  In the regulation, we were told that if anyone felt uncomfortable with the words "so help me God", we were to accept the words "so help me".

The article isn't very clear about exactly who has told him he must use those words, but from my experience in the Air Force, it seems likely that some idiot at the local level doesn't know what he is talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 18, 2014, 06:41:16 pm

There's a difference between simply skipping the 'so help me God' and attempting to change it so others never say it again. This is the problem. If you don't believe, fine, don't say it. But they have no right to change it so others don't have to say it. But that's how atheists nowadays work. The minority overruling the majority, time and again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 18, 2014, 07:25:08 pm

That isn't the point.  If the article is correct, he is not trying to eliminate others from saying it.  He is merely asking that he himself be allowed to skip it, and has been denied.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 18, 2014, 07:38:55 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on September 18, 2014, 07:27:03 am

Half the idiots who say that damn "oath" aren't religious christians either and it doesn't mean anything.  It's just this **** has little dick syndrome and has to prove a point.

He is the one who has to prove a point?  It is not the military?  You acknowledge that for many who take the oath, it is meaningless, but you think the the person who does not want to be compelled to swear to something which he does not believe (which is rather different from a meaningless oath) is the one being unreasonable... even though it would appear the Constitution and reason are both on his side.

I have not included the words "under god" in anything I have pledged or in any oath I have said in more than 45 years.  And that has not been in any effort to "prove a point."  If I were required to recite it in order to remain in something or to get something, I simply would not be getting it.

I suspect that for some of those on here who are believers, perhaps sportster, for example, if he were required to swear in public an oath to satan, or to repudiate and deny Jesus was his savior, he would refuse to do so, even if it carried serious personal, financial and professional consequences.  He would likely challenge the requirement, and I doubt it would be because of "little dick syndrome."  Do you have that much difficulty understanding those who hold beliefs different from you that you can not understand this?

Quote from: wmljohn on September 18, 2014, 07:27:03 am

Hell you can't even be a doctor or pastor in the Marine Corps because we take an oath to kill motherfuckers.

1st -- He is not re-enlisting in the Marines, so that really does not matter.

2nd -- He is not a doctor or a pastor, so that really doesn't matter.  And if he were, since doctors or pastors are not required or even expected to bear arms in combat, it wouldn't matter, even if he were a doctor or pastor.

3rd -- That is not at all the oath required for enlistment in the Marines.  In fact the oath on enlisting in the Marines is the exact same oath administered on entering ANY of the four branches of the armed forces:
§ 502. Enlistment oath:
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."   http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3663.html   The oath is established by statute: 10 U.S.C. § 502  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY3MlR-NWig

4th -- Yesterday the Air Force backed down from its requirement, meaning there will be no court case.  http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140917/NEWS/309170066/Air-Force-nixes-help-me-God-requirement-oaths

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 18, 2014, 07:54:26 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 18, 2014, 03:47:00 pm

There ya go....just another atheist in a long line of the jerks attempting to change what has been tradition for eons.....

Sportster, if you had bothered to read the link you would have seen that the "jerks attempting to change what has been tradition for eons," were the ones in the military who last October changed the policy which required those who did not want to recite the "So help me god," language to simply omit it.  This is a policy which the other branches of the armed forces allowed all along, without changing things last October.  This is from the original link, which you appear to have chosen to comment on without the effort of reading: In the past, an airman could opt for an alternative phrase and omit the words "so help me God," but the US Air Force changed its policy in October 2013.  The other branches of the American military do not require the reference to God and make the phrase optional.

Quote from: Sportster on September 18, 2014, 06:41:16 pm

There's a difference between simply skipping the 'so help me God' and attempting to change it so others never say it again. This is the problem. If you don't believe, fine, don't say it. But they have no right to change it so others don't have to say it. But that's how atheists nowadays work. The minority overruling the majority, time and again.

No, Sportster, this is how YOU nowadays work, jumping to conclusions to fit your agenda, without the faintest effort to actually determine what the facts are, making yourself look foolish, time and again.

Quote from: davep on September 18, 2014, 07:25:08 pm

That isn't the point.  If the article is correct, he is not trying to eliminate others from saying it.  He is merely asking that he himself be allowed to skip it, and has been denied.

Of course, but for Sportster to know that, he would have actually had to bother to read the article, and that would be, like, so much mental work.... I mean, really, why bother?  After all, he already knows it was an atheist involved, and they all belong to a long ling of short-dicked jerks (no pun intended), so what does it really matter whether he bothers with the facts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 18, 2014, 08:19:11 pm

So are you going to be foolish enough to tell me atheists have not at all been trying to change our culture and omit God and everything pertaining to Him from society?? Go ahead....tell me that's not the case.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 18, 2014, 08:55:30 pm

Atheists in general?

You are correct.  Atheists in general have been making no effort to "omit God and everything pertaining to Him from society?"  Have there been some who have?  Perhaps.  Not all of them check in with me to get their plans approved at our weekly meetings.

But, Sportster, please don't try to divert the discussion or avoid owning up to your foolishness in commenting on the link without reading it, or assuming things about it which were entirely at odds with reality.  Perhaps that is part of your problem with the conclusion you have reached that "atheists have...  been trying to change our culture and omit God and everything pertaining to Him from society."  You simply don't bother to familiarize yourself with what is actually happening, but jump to your conclusion without caring how it matches (or diverges from) reality.  And after assuming it fits with your agenda, you once again believe the report you never read once again reinforces your preconceived notion of what is going on... even when reality is completely at odds with the way you think things are.  That would explain a lot of your comments on a lot of issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 18, 2014, 09:01:42 pm

Spout your bs elsewhere.....you know darn well atheists have been at every turn fighting the name of God in courts, in public opinion, everywhere. I don't expect you to admit it.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 18, 2014, 10:33:04 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 18, 2014, 09:01:42 pm

Spout your bs elsewhere.....you know darn well atheists have been at every turn fighting the name of God in courts, in public opinion, everywhere. I don't expect you to admit it.....

Sure, Sportster, you have outed me.

I spend all of my time drafting pleadings for the endless judicial assault on a non-existent god.

The one thing which I truly do not expect to be admitted here and which is patently obvious is that you never read the article and yet were absolutely convinced you knew what it said.... because you KNOW with moral certainty just what all of those godless heathen atheists are up to.

A sane person might stop digging once he realized he was in a hole.  You, on the other hand, continue digging.  Of course, you may not even have come to grips with the fact that you are in a hole.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 18, 2014, 10:44:22 pm

Jes, you are guilty of commenting on articles you have not read as well.  So why do you feel calling Sporty out on it gives you the high ground?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 18, 2014, 11:44:04 pm

common sense - 1

the american taliban - 0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 19, 2014, 03:56:44 am

Quote from: Pekin on September 18, 2014, 10:44:22 pm

Jes, you are guilty of commenting on articles you have not read as well.  So why do you feel calling Sporty out on it gives you the high ground?

Pekin, just to keep the discussion on sane footing, could you reference what you are talking about?

Perhaps a cut and paste, or a link to it?

Is it perhaps this:

Quote from: Pekin on September 02, 2014, 10:15:34 pm

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/ukraine-iraq-and-black-sea-strategy#axzz3CDX6hDOx

The United States is, at the moment, off balance. It faces challenges in the Syria-Iraq theater as well as challenges in Ukraine. It does not have a clear response to either. It does not know what success in either theater would look like, what resources it is prepared to devote to either, nor whether the consequences of defeat would be manageable.

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 02, 2014, 10:25:39 pm

It is not just that the administration lacks a clear strategy, NO ONE has a clear strategy for the U.S. which would bring quick peace to the Ukraine and restore the borders of a year ago, nor does anyone have a clear strategy for dealing with ISIL that would be workable, acceptable to the public, and not have a significant prospect of both worsening the situation there, and bringing significant blowback to the U.S.

That being the case, doesn't either non-intervention, or minimal intervention, make more sense than any course of very active intervention in either area?

You posted the first one, and I immediately followed with the second.

And nowhere in my response did I offer any comment on what was stated at the link or presume what was in the link or suggest that the writer was either right or wrong.  I instead stated what seemed that obvious, that Obama had no clear strategy for what to do in the Ukraine, and that NO ONE had a clear strategy (and, on later reading the article at the link, my memory is that the link also offered no clear strategy).  I then asked if, given the lack of a "clear strategy for dealing with ISIL that would be workable, acceptable to the public, and (which would) not have a significant prospect of both worsening the situation there, and bringing significant blowback to the U.S," isn't non-intervention a preferable option.

Now, IF that is what your last comment was referencing, could you point me to where it was that I was commenting ON THE ARTICLE?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 19, 2014, 07:02:41 am

Double talk. Hmmmmm!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 19, 2014, 07:59:15 am

Jes - You obviously missed the first sentence in my post...

Quote

That is another stupid rule. The AF is the only service to do that? How stupid are they? Let the **** take an oath to serve. So help him whothefuckever.

Quote

1st -- He is not re-enlisting in the Marines, so that really does not matter.

2nd -- He is not a doctor or a pastor, so that really doesn't matter.  And if he were, since doctors or pastors are not required or even expected to bear arms in combat, it wouldn't matter, even if he were a doctor or pastor.

3rd -- That is not at all the oath required for enlistment in the Marines.  In fact the oath on enlisting in the Marines is the exact same oath administered on entering ANY of the four branches of the armed forces:
§ 502. Enlistment oath:
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."   http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3663.html   The oath is established by statute: 10 U.S.C. § 502  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY3MlR-NWig

Don't tell me what the **** oath is to join the Marine Corps.  I know what the **** oath is because I took it.  I also know everyone was told they didn't have to use the last phrase.  I also know that if you are in a group when doing it you really don't have to say it because no one will **** know.

The AF is stupid for forcing them to do it.

Lastely you must not have read my last sentence. 

Quote

Tell that **** flyboy prop head to join the corps and he won't have to worry about taking an oath to god.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 19, 2014, 09:27:20 am

Quote from: otto105 on September 18, 2014, 11:44:04 pm

common sense - 1

the american taliban - 0

Common sense - 1

Oddo the Homo - 0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 19, 2014, 09:59:10 am

This is classic for the dems...not the act mind you but the blaming of republicans for discovering it.

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/09/council_candidate_dropped_racist_slurs_pants_at_middlesex_diner_cops_say_now_he_drops_out.html

Joint statement from Chrissy Buteas and Joe Lambert

We respect Joe’s decision. This in no way reflects on the Joe Sorrentino we know today as a dedicated teacher and coach, and positive influence on the lives of everyone around him. What’s most disappointing is that the Republicans will stoop so low as to seek to personally destroy him for something that happened years ago and for which he has not only apologized with his words, but also his actions. It’s become obvious that the only play in the Republican book is to seek to personally destroy everyone who disagrees with them. Our community deserves much better than this type of politics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 19, 2014, 03:42:54 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on September 19, 2014, 07:59:15 am

Jes - You obviously missed the first sentence in my post...

You need to work on your obvious-meter.  I read the first sentence of your post.  What is it that I wrote that caused you to think otherwise?

Quote from: wmljohn on September 19, 2014, 07:59:15 am

Don't tell me what the **** oath is to join the Marine Corps.  I know what the **** oath is because I took it.  I also know everyone was told they didn't have to use the last phrase.

And I also know that what you represented the oath to be was wrong.  If I don't need to tell you what the oath is, then that would mean you were deliberately misrepresenting what it was... which would not surprise me in the least.  And you are the first person I have ever heard claim that the oath "doesn't mean anything."  Believe it or not, to some people it does.  Of course, to other people no oath means anything.  By the way, have you ever been married?

Quote from: wmljohn on September 19, 2014, 07:59:15 am

Lastely you must not have read my last sentence. 

No, once again you are wrong.  I did read it.  And I gave it all the consideration it deserved, which was none.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 19, 2014, 08:46:00 pm

That's right...none. You heard me

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 19, 2014, 08:56:46 pm

Jes, The greatest Dbag of the interwebz has spoken. 

He says you are wrong so therefore you are wrong.  No judge or jury decides who is right or wrong.  Only Jes!

He doesn't need to read articles before commenting on them but you do.  He needs no evidence to back up his opinions but you do and you need three sources and he needs to approve them or they don't count. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 19, 2014, 09:44:08 pm

Smoke this Oddo:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scott-walker-wisconsin-john-chisholm/2014/09/19/id/595726/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1586869_09192014&s=al&dkt_nbr=6ybfoj4z

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 19, 2014, 10:07:41 pm

Quote from: Pekin on September 19, 2014, 08:56:46 pm

Jes, The greatest Dbag of the interwebz has spoken. 

He says you are wrong so therefore you are wrong.  No judge or jury decides who is right or wrong.  Only Jes!

He doesn't need to read articles before commenting on them but you do.  He needs no evidence to back up his opinions but you do and you need three sources and he needs to approve them or they don't count. 

Ahemmm....

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 19, 2014, 03:56:44 am

Pekin, just to keep the discussion on sane footing, could you reference what you are talking about?

Perhaps a cut and paste, or a link to it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 19, 2014, 10:08:01 pm

Still waiting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 20, 2014, 02:53:55 pm

Quote

What is it that I wrote that caused you to think otherwise?

How about you misrepresented by post that he should have to change services in order to avoid the so help me god part.  I said the AF is stupid and he should be allowed to take the oath so help whothefuckever.

Quote

And I also know that what you represented the oath to be was wrong.  If I don't need to tell you what the oath is, then that would mean you were deliberately misrepresenting what it was... which would not surprise me in the least.  And you are the first person I have ever heard claim that the oath "doesn't mean anything."  Believe it or not, to some people it does.  Of course, to other people no oath means anything.  By the way, have you ever been married?

I misrepresented nothing.  I said if he didn't like saying so help me god he should change services so he wouldn't have to say it.  The oath only means as much as you believe it to mean.  Some it's nothing some it's everything.  The only part I was speaking about was saying so help me god means nothing.  To me I meant every **** word of it.  Don't even try to comprehend what those **** words mean.  To you they are just **** words.  You will NEVER know what those words mean.  You think you do.  You don't.  Not until you are looking down the barrel of your M-16, pull that trigger and watch the life of your enemy leave the back of their skull.  You will never know what those words mean.  Not until your best friends blood is on your hands and his last words you carry to his child he has never met.  You will never know what those words mean.

And yes you pompous ass.  I am married.  I have been married for 21 years.  To the same woman I married when I was a young Marine.  I have a two daughters that I have raised and am still raising.  I know what a **** oath is and I know what a **** oath means.  To me.

If this **** **** thinks that saying "so help me god" somehow ruins his life then he has choices.  Choose one and move the **** on.  Just like you said you do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 20, 2014, 05:19:18 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on September 20, 2014, 02:53:55 pm

How about you misrepresented by post that he should have to change services in order to avoid the so help me god part.

What is it that I misrepresented?  What did I say you had written that you did not write?

Quote from: wmljohn on September 20, 2014, 02:53:55 pm

Don't even try to comprehend what those **** words mean.  To you they are just **** words.  You will NEVER know what those words mean.  You think you do.  You don't.  Not until you are looking down the barrel of your M-16, pull that trigger and watch the life of your enemy leave the back of their skull.  You will never know what those words mean.  Not until your best friends blood is on your hands and his last words you carry to his child he has never met.  You will never know what those words mean.

Bull.  When the oath is given, not one new Marine recruit has ever done those things or had those experiences.  Not you.  Not anyone (at least not in service, and the Marines don't often attract the folks who might have had those experiences in civilian life).  You want to paint yourself as a hero, knock yourself out, but it does not change the meaning of the language in the pledge.


Amusing.

Quote from: wmljohn on September 20, 2014, 02:53:55 pm

I misrepresented nothing.

Quote from: wmljohn on September 19, 2014, 07:59:15 am

Don't tell me what the **** oath is to join the Marine Corps.  I know what the **** oath is because I took it.

Quote from: wmljohn on September 18, 2014, 07:27:03 am

Hell you can't even be a doctor or pastor in the Marine Corps because we take an oath to kill motherfuckers.

The oath on enlisting in the Marines is the exact same oath administered on entering ANY of the four branches of the armed forces:
§ 502. Enlistment oath:
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."   http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3663.html   The oath is established by statute: 10 U.S.C. § 502 

Now, wmljohn, since you "misrepresented nothing," could you point out which part of the language in the actual oath is, to quote you directly, "an oath to kill motherfuckers"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 21, 2014, 02:23:50 am

Quote

defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

We certainly are not tossing rocks out there.

Quote

When the oath is given, not one new Marine recruit has ever done those things or had those experiences.

You take the oath upon reenlistment too jack ass.  Many have had those experiences before taking the oath.  Even Marine recruits now what they are getting into BEFORE they take that oath.

Sleep well tonight knowing that others pulled the hard duty for you to **** on them from your pulpit.

I'm done with you.  So help me god.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2014, 06:46:16 am

Quote from: wmljohn on September 21, 2014, 02:23:50 am

We certainly are not tossing rocks out there.

"not tossing rocks" is rather different from "kill(ing) motherfuckers."

Quote from: wmljohn on September 21, 2014, 02:23:50 am

You take the oath upon reenlistment too jack ass.  Many have had those experiences before taking the oath.  Even Marine recruits now what they are getting into BEFORE they take that oath.

But you just told us that NO ONE can understand that oath BEFORE they kill someone or have their best friend die in their arms while begging to send a message home to an unborn child (you really watch a lot of old WWII movies, don't you), so those Marine recruits taking it for the first time would not know....  Sorry, wmljohn, your positions and statements simply do not make sense.  But that is not really surprising.  You simply like to latch onto cliches and regurgitate them thru your keyboard, even when the cliches don't quite fit.  Original thought, or thought of any kind, is just too damb difficult.

Quote from: wmljohn on September 21, 2014, 02:23:50 am

Sleep well tonight knowing that others pulled the hard duty for you to **** on them from your pulpit.

Pulled the "hard duty" my ass.  In your case, pulling your pud is probably much more like it.  But whether it was pulling your pud or pulling "hard duty," it was not to preserve my freedoms in this country.  The last time the armed forces fought to preserve freedom in this country was in the War of 1812.  WWII was fought to avenge Pearl Harbor and to free Europe, NOT to free the United States, or to even keep us free, and no other war in the last 100 years comes even that close to being one fought to preserve our freedoms.

Quote from: wmljohn on September 21, 2014, 02:23:50 am

I'm done with you.

Promises, promises.

And despite all of your crap, I see you still have not pointed out where I misrepresented anything you wrote.  Why, oh, why am I not surprised?

Oh, and, in a similar vein, Pekin, I am still waiting for you to try to reference what you were talking about with your comment that I am "guilty of commenting on articles (I) have not read as well."

Are you trying to imitate otto here?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2014, 07:08:17 am

All you really should need to do is to look at the chart copied from the link and pasted below.

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/subsidies-and-third-party-payer-inefficiency-and-higher-prices/

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpqEz_HCIAAdxN3.png)

Note, for electronics they are reflecting both the drop in price AND the improved quality which is how they get the rather impossible figures showing TV prices have dropped by more than 100%.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Coach on September 21, 2014, 11:33:49 am

Quote from: Keysbear on September 19, 2014, 09:59:10 am

This is classic for the dems...not the act mind you but the blaming of republicans for discovering it.

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/09/council_candidate_dropped_racist_slurs_pants_at_middlesex_diner_cops_say_now_he_drops_out.html

Joint statement from Chrissy Buteas and Joe Lambert

We respect Joe’s decision. This in no way reflects on the Joe Sorrentino we know today as a dedicated teacher and coach, and positive influence on the lives of everyone around him. What’s most disappointing is that the Republicans will stoop so low as to seek to personally destroy him for something that happened years ago and for which he has not only apologized with his words, but also his actions. It’s become obvious that the only play in the Republican book is to seek to personally destroy everyone who disagrees with them. Our community deserves much better than this type of politics.

What a load of macaca.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 21, 2014, 11:43:01 am

That comes directly out of Oddo the Homlo's playbook.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 21, 2014, 02:56:07 pm

Quote

And despite all of your crap, I see you still have not pointed out where I misrepresented anything you wrote.  Why, oh, why am I not surprised?

OK  Easy enough to do....

Quote

But you just told us that NO ONE can understand that oath BEFORE they kill someone or have their best friend die in their arms while begging to send a message home to an unborn child (you really watch a lot of old WWII movies, don't you), so those Marine recruits taking it for the first time would not know....  Sorry, wmljohn, your positions and statements simply do not make sense.  But that is not really surprising.  You simply like to latch onto cliches and regurgitate them thru your keyboard, even when the cliches don't quite fit.  Original thought, or thought of any kind, is just too damb difficult.

I did not say NO ONE.  I said....

Quote

[replying directly to your post] Don't even try to comprehend what those **** words mean.  To you they are just **** words.  You will NEVER know what those words mean.  You think you do.  You don't.  Not until you are looking down the barrel of your M-16, pull that trigger and watch the life of your enemy leave the back of their skull.  You will never know what those words mean.  Not until your best friends blood is on your hands and his last words you carry to his child he has never met.  You will never know what those words mean.

Did I say NO ONE would or did I say YOU wouldn't know? 

And why question my marriage status?  Were you hoping that I was married and divorced so you could somehow point out that I don't know how to honor oaths?  Nice try though.

I guess god couldn't help me to be done with your misrepresentation of my post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2014, 03:36:09 pm

~sigh~

Quote from: wmljohn on September 20, 2014, 02:53:55 pm

How about you misrepresented by post that he should have to change services in order to avoid the so help me god part.

To that I asked a very simple question:

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 20, 2014, 05:19:18 pm

What is it that I misrepresented?  What did I say you had written that you did not write?

Your response is where it gets fun:

Quote from: wmljohn on September 21, 2014, 02:56:07 pm

OK  Easy enough to do....

Then to show I misrepresented you before your claim that I did, you offer something I wrote AFTER your claim, with the time stamp conveniently omitted so it is not quite so obvious what you were doing.

Sorry, wmljohn.  Doesn't quite fly.  In fact it is even more lame than your cliches of military service.

At least you have stopped denying that you misrepresented the Marine oath.  I do have to give you credit for that much.

Oh, and, in a similar vein, Pekin, I am still waiting for you to try to reference what you were talking about with your comment that I am "guilty of commenting on articles (I) have not read as well."  (You have been on here this afternoon, and even posted in another thread.)

Are you trying to imitate otto here?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 04:35:23 pm

Jes, I respond to you when I want to not when you want me to.  If at all.

You know damn well you have commented on articles you have not read.  I know you did so with an article I linked to about gun control ages ago.  You even admitted it at the time.

Have you recently stopped taking medication that you need to be on? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2014, 05:16:38 pm

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 04:35:23 pm

Jes, I respond to you when I want to not when you want me to.  If at all.

You know damn well you have commented on articles you have not read.  I know you did so with an article I linked to about gun control ages ago.  You even admitted it at the time.

Have you recently stopped taking medication that you need to be on? 

No meds here.  I don't believe I have commented on articles I have not read.  And despite your efforts (and I am confident you have made them here), I don't believe there is anything for you to find.

Am I saying I never have?  Nope.  But it certainly is not something I normally do.  I may comment on the subject.  I may, as I did a couple of days ago with the post that prompted your claim, respond to the POST which included a link to an article which I did not read and which was not at issue in my response, but your claim, which you repeated on consecutive days, implied that this is something I do quite routinely.

Quote from: Pekin on September 18, 2014, 10:44:22 pm

Jes, you are guilty of commenting on articles you have not read as well.  So why do you feel calling Sporty out on it gives you the high ground?

Quote from: Pekin on September 19, 2014, 08:56:46 pm

Jes, The greatest Dbag of the interwebz has spoken. 

He says you are wrong so therefore you are wrong.  No judge or jury decides who is right or wrong.  Only Jes!

He doesn't need to read articles before commenting on them but you do.  He needs no evidence to back up his opinions but you do and you need three sources and he needs to approve them or they don't count.

If so, it shouldn't be all that hard for you to find.

So find one of those examples.  Or be man enough to acknowledge you were simply talking out your ass.

Or be a weasel like otto.

Your choice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2014, 05:45:28 pm

I am betting ObamaCare becomes even less popular next year than it is now.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/tompor/2014/09/21/susan-tompor-tax-refunds-will-be-cut-for-some-who-get-health-credits/15958211/

Tax refunds will be cut for ACA recipients
Susan Tompor, Detroit Free Press 9:10 a.m. EDT September 21, 2014

A significant benefit of the Affordable Care Act is the opportunity to receive money-saving tax credits up front to cut the overall cost of health insurance, but now hundreds of thousands of consumers could owe back some of that money next April.

Those affected took advance payments of the premium tax credit for health insurance. Some married couples could owe $600 or $1,500 or $2,500 or even more. It might feel like a raw deal for some who are already suffocating under the escalating costs of health insurance.

"Health insurance is confusing enough, and now they're adding the complexities of the Tax Code," said Lorena Bencsik, a member of the Michigan Association of CPAs and owner of Prime Numbers in Ferndale.

When you file that 2014 tax return next year, the Internal Revenue Service will compare your actual income for the year with the amount you estimated when applying for exchange-based health insurance under the health insurance law.

The next open enrollment period begins Nov. 15. But notices were sent this week to some consumers whose incomes don't match up to such things as 2012 tax return information.

On Monday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said at least 279,000 households reported incomes that still don't match what the government has on record. Supporting documents are needed by Sept. 30.

What can you do to avoid tax-time problems?

Experts say people need to realize early on that they should report changes in income and other changes in one's life, such as a marriage, throughout the year. See HealthCare.gov to report "income and life changes."

Of course, many people may have no idea that they'd need to report changes.

The IRS put out some more details on the issue mid-month.

What should you report? A move, an increase or decrease in income, a marriage or divorce, the birth or adoption of a child, whether you started a job that offers health insurance and whether you gained or lost eligibility for other health care coverage.

Best spots for information: HealthCare.gov and IRS.gov/aca.

Karen Pollitz, senior fellow with the Kaiser Family Foundation, said many people who qualify for these tax credits aren't working 9-to-5 jobs with regular salaries. So guesstimating one's income for the coming year can be very tough.

"It's people in transition. Maybe they're in and out of work," she said. Or maybe they're self-employed.

People who lose a job would want to report that change during the year, as well, because that change can lead to a higher advance payment for the credit.

"Life changes can drive tax changes," said Mark Steber, chief tax officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Service.

Steber stressed that people need to make sure to update information via HealthCare.gov or their state insurance exchanges.

The Kaiser Family Foundation site has a calculator to help figure out potential tax credits, based on one's situation.

Premium tax credits are available to individuals and families with incomes between 100% of the federal poverty line ($23,550 for a family of four this year) and 400% of the federal poverty line ($94,200 for a family of four) who purchase coverage in the health insurance marketplace in their state.

The tax credits are paid directly to the insurer, if taken in advance. People are not required to take the entire credit in advance. Realistically, if you cannot afford insurance, you'd need some credit in advance.

To be sure, there are some caps on the amount filers must pay back and the cap is based on household income. The cap ranges from $300 to $1,250 for some single taxpayers and $600 to $2,500 for married taxpayers, again based on income.

But if the income is 400% or more above the poverty line, there is no cap and the taxpayer must pay back the full amount.

Rules exist for qualifying for the premium tax credit: You must buy health insurance through the marketplace; you're not eligible for coverage through an employer or government plan; your income must be within certain limits; you do not file a married-filing-separately federal tax return (unless you meet certain exceptions, such as victims of domestic abuse and spousal abandonment) and you cannot be claimed as a dependent by another person.

The actual credit would vary based on how close your are to the federal poverty level, your age, the size of your family and where you live.

Sadly, it's fair to say some people will see some unexpected, unpleasant surprises on their tax returns next year.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:00:47 pm

If your not on meds you need them because you obviously have some mental health issues.

I said you commented on an article you did not read.  Now you are saying you weren't commenting on the article but what someone posted after the posting the link to the article.  Seriously? 

When proven wrong you simply move the goal posts.  Do you also want to debate the definition of the word "is" is like Bill Clinton did?

Do you not remember me posting a link and part of an article that was anti-gun control and you attacking it.  When I told to click the link and actually read the article you eventually admitted you were wrong but assumed what I had posted from the article was the entire thing.  That is just one example off the top of my head.

You often attack people for what you perceive them to mean.  You build a straw man in your mind then attack.  If they try to explain what they actually meant you don't believe them.  As if you know better then them what they meant.   









 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2014, 06:23:31 pm

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:00:47 pm

If your not on meds you need them because you obviously have some mental health issues.

So, in other words, you still did not find an example of me doing what you claimed I have done, not once, but repeatedly.

And instead of manning up about it, you allege "mental health issues."

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:00:47 pm

I said you commented on an article you did not read.  Now you are saying you weren't commenting on the article but what someone posted after the posting the link to the article.  Seriously?   

And you can not see the difference?  Again, find an example illustrating the point you claim to have.

Or admit that you have no point.

I have already examined the post of yours which would seem to have prompted this claim from you, and nothing whatsoever in my response to your post suggested I was responding to or had read the link you included.  Are you suggesting that before we respond to another person's post where a link was included we first edit out the link if we did not read it?  Nonsense.  (Oh, and I now HAVE read the link you provided, and it was pretty damn worthless.  If I HAD read it before my response, I would have changed nothing in my response.  The content of the link itself was not really worth responding to.)

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:00:47 pm

When proven wrong you simply move the goal posts.

Mighty fast and loose with the claims now, aren't you Pekin?

Any chance you can be any better at providing examples of this bull than you were with the last bull?

When wrong, I admit it.

As this exchange is illustrating, that appears to be something you are having great difficulty doing here.

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:00:47 pm

Do you not remember me posting a link and part of an article that was anti-gun control and you attacking it.  When I told to click the link and actually read the article you eventually admitted you were wrong but assumed what I had posted from the article was the entire thing.  That is just one example off the top of my head.

I love it.

I one paragraph you claim I do not admit I am wrong but simply "move the goalposts."  And in the next paragraph you offer an example where I "eventually admitted (I was) wrong."

I love it.

But your example does not really support your contention that I respond to articles without reading them, since it would appear clear from your example I was not responding to the article, but instead to your excerpt from it -- in other words I was responding to what you posted.

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:00:47 pm

You often attack people for what you perceive them to mean.  You build a straw man in your mind then attack.  If they try to explain what they actually meant you don't believe them.  As if you know better then them what they meant.   

A wonderful example of projection here, Pekin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:53:23 pm

You only admitted you were wrong after you eventually read the article.  But then you claimed you weren't "really wrong" because you had assumed that I posted the entire article.  But then you also added that even though the article did in fact make a lot of good points it needed a proof reader or some silly bullshit.  You always have to nit pick some stupid ****.  This is why I call you Sheldon.

Quite honestly I don't even know what article you keep claiming I was referring to.  I have been ignoring you for several days because you are impossible to have a discussion with.  Which is why I am not going to search for posts you will say mean nothing.  Why waste my time? 

You have a pattern of behavior here that is very clear for everyone to see.  Even if you don't see it yourself. 

By the way is it just me or could Sporty simply have been having a conversation with people here?  Or you know commenting on other posts about the article and not directly on the article as you claim to have been doing?

Most of us here are simply discussing issues not keeping score.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 21, 2014, 09:16:03 pm

When wrong, I admit it.

Like Peke said, you just move the goal posts. True dat!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on September 21, 2014, 11:20:11 pm

OR ignore

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 11:31:06 pm

He has gotten so ridiculous I had actually thought about putting him on ignore.  But then I realized I have never put anyone on ignore.  Not even Phill or Otto.  So I figured I would just breeze past his **** for awhile because he seems to go in spurts of being unbearable then back to being tolerable.  He is always arrogant but at times he does bring some intelligent discussion to the table.  Other times he is hell bent on arguing with anyone and everyone about anything and everything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 11:41:29 pm

Random Poster: The sky is blue.

Jes: Not really.  It is only blue because of the way your eyes and brain process the information.

RP: OK.  I guess I just see it the way god intended me to.

Jes: There is no God.

RP: It was just an expression.  Chill.

Jes: Why should I chill?  Since you are a religious bigot don't you mean burn in hell? 

RP: What?

Jes: It is not my problem you have reading comprehension problems. 

RP: Wow.  You are such a dick.

Jes:  When you start calling names it shows you have lost the argument.

 ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 22, 2014, 01:44:00 am

 
 Boy does JJ remember when he got disbarred ...
 
 Yours truly figured the best way to get his chops back was argue with everybody. To get that edge back before taking the BAR exam again.
 
 It'll sharpen you up and give you a taste of the old ultraviolence.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-mDTdeKR8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-mDTdeKR8)
 
    This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.  My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.  My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...  My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...  My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...  Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.  So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace! 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 22, 2014, 04:54:45 am

Just ignore..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 22, 2014, 05:32:57 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 21, 2014, 09:16:03 pm

When wrong, I admit it.

Like Peke said, you just move the goal posts. True dat!

As I asked Pekin, provide an example.

Should be easy.  If the claim were true, that is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 22, 2014, 06:08:52 am

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:53:23 pm

You only admitted you were wrong after you eventually read the article.  But then you claimed you weren't "really wrong" because you had assumed that I posted the entire article.  But then you also added that even though the article did in fact make a lot of good points it needed a proof reader or some silly bullshit.  You always have to nit pick some stupid ****.  This is why I call you Sheldon.

And what is it that you are doing now with your dissection of my comment on a post of yours from several months ago and whether I was commenting on the content of your post or the content of the article, and whether it was proper to comment on your post without reading the entire link?

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:53:23 pm

Quite honestly I don't even know what article you keep claiming I was referring to.  I have been ignoring you for several days because you are impossible to have a discussion with.  Which is why I am not going to search for posts you will say mean nothing. 

This is not the first time you have launched into one of your rants like this, and then refused to bother to offer examples of what you are talking about.

For example: http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg192568/#msg192568   http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg192556/#msg192556   There are many more.

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:53:23 pm

Why waste my time? 

Indeed, why waste your time attempting to find something which does not exist, just to support a bogus claim you have made?  I agree that such an attempt, which I know you have already tried, would be a waste of time.

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:53:23 pm

By the way is it just me or could Sporty simply have been having a conversation with people here?  Or you know commenting on other posts about the article and not directly on the article as you claim to have been doing?

Because, unlike you, I actually read the exchange before commenting on it.  I had read every post in it, and Sportster was commenting not on ANY other post in the thread, but was instead commenting on the substantive issues involved, issues addressed in the article, and issues which the article made abundantly clear were not as Sportster assumed (without reading the article).

As stupid as Sportster is, even he could not have misunderstood the article to have said what his posts made clear he assumed the situation to be.

For reference, here is the post from Sportster where he makes clear he had not read the link, despite commenting on it, making claims about the situation which could not have been drawn from other posts here:

Quote from: Sportster on September 18, 2014, 06:41:16 pm

There's a difference between simply skipping the 'so help me God' and attempting to change it so others never say it again. This is the problem. If you don't believe, fine, don't say it. But they have no right to change it so others don't have to say it. But that's how atheists nowadays work. The minority overruling the majority, time and again.

Quote from: Pekin on September 21, 2014, 06:53:23 pm

Most of us here are simply discussing issues not keeping score.   

You seem to be aggressively trying to "keep score" in these last several exchanges, and simply doing a miserable job of it.

Instead of actually discussing anything, your entry into this discussion has been exclusively about keeping score.  Not one word of discussion about the issue at hand, which was the Air Force requirement that "So help be god" be included in the enlistment/re-enlistment oath.  (A requirement they have dropped since this discussion began.)

Not one word.  You may well be right about "most of us here," but that would not necessarily include you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 22, 2014, 07:02:13 am

SSDD Jes

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on September 22, 2014, 07:17:34 am

Quote

I see you still have not pointed out where I misrepresented anything you wrote.  Why, oh, why am I not surprised?

Quote

Then to show I misrepresented you before your claim that I did, you offer something I wrote AFTER your claim, with the time stamp conveniently omitted so it is not quite so obvious what you were doing.

LOL!  I guess because I showed that you misrepresented my post after you asked me to show you where you misrepresented my post it doesn't count.  Even though you asked me to point out ANYTHING i wrote that you misrepresented.

You didn't ask me to show you which posts you misrepresented.  You asked for ANYTHING.  You do that **** all the time.  You read into something that someone wrote and then regurgitate your version of what was written and claim it as gospel.  When in fact it is not really what the person posted in the first place.

But because the time stamp wasn't right or omitted or whatever it doesn't count.  You never did it.

And you still never answerd the question of why my marital status was needed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on September 22, 2014, 09:07:38 am

This should be interesting. Think everyone was honest when they had to list their income on the Obamacare forms?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/tompor/2014/09/21/susan-tompor-tax-refunds-will-be-cut-for-some-who-get-health-credits/15958211/

A significant benefit of the Affordable Care Act is the opportunity to receive money-saving tax credits up front to cut the overall cost of health insurance, but now hundreds of thousands of consumers could owe back some of that money next April.

Those affected took advance payments of the premium tax credit for health insurance. Some married couples could owe $600 or $1,500 or $2,500 or even more. It might feel like a raw deal for some who are already suffocating under the escalating costs of health insurance.

"Health insurance is confusing enough, and now they're adding the complexities of the Tax Code," said Lorena Bencsik, a member of the Michigan Association of CPAs and owner of Prime Numbers in Ferndale.

When you file that 2014 tax return next year, the Internal Revenue Service will compare your actual income for the year with the amount you estimated when applying for exchange-based health insurance under the health insurance law.

The next open enrollment period begins Nov. 15. But notices were sent this week to some consumers whose incomes don't match up to such things as 2012 tax return information.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 22, 2014, 01:22:15 pm

Don't bother with the clown. He's a self obsessed egomaniac atheistic prick....and that's putting it nicely......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 22, 2014, 03:32:03 pm

Darnit!! Next time., tell us how you really feel...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 22, 2014, 03:49:07 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on September 22, 2014, 07:17:34 am

LOL!  I guess because I showed that you misrepresented my post after you asked me to show you where you misrepresented my post it doesn't count.  Even though you asked me to point out ANYTHING i wrote that you misrepresented.

You didn't ask me to show you which posts you misrepresented.  You asked for ANYTHING. 

Not really true.

Here is the question I posed for you initially, with any subsequent repeat of the question rather clearly relating back to this:

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 20, 2014, 05:19:18 pm

What is it that I misrepresented?  What did I say you had written that you did not write?

That is not asking for ANYTHING.  It is rather specific, and specifically in response to your claim at a given point in time and in a given post that I misrepresented something you had written.

You STILL have not produced it.  Only one logical inference to be drawn from your failure....

Quote from: wmljohn on September 22, 2014, 07:17:34 am

But because the time stamp wasn't right or omitted or whatever it doesn't count.  You never did it.

Talk about misrepresenting.... I did not say I did not post what I have posted.  (I also have not agreed there was any misrepresentation.)  I simply pointed out that you made a claim I had misrepresented what you had written.  I asked you to point to anything I had misrepresented.  The tense of the verb is part of the request.  You did contend that I misrepresent things at some time, with me then asking you to watch what I write in the future to find an example.  I asked you to offer up what it was that you contended I had misrepresented that you wrote.  You still have not done so, and there would only be a post or two for you to look through.  Shouldn't be that hard.

Still waiting.

Quote from: wmljohn on September 22, 2014, 07:17:34 am

And you still never answerd the question of why my marital status was needed?

Talk about misrepresenting and reading things into something someone wrote.... I asked a question.  I never said it was needed.  So for me to answer YOUR question as to why it was needed is a bit like answering the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?"  It assumes in the question something which has neither been established, nor on which there is any agreement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 22, 2014, 06:20:23 pm

Just what we would need in the White House, another Alinsky acolyte.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/


The Hillary Letters
Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed
BY: Alana Goodman     September 21, 2014 10:00 pm

NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/240077031/The-Hillary-Letters

Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.

Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.

Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.

The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.

A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.

On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”

“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.

However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.

“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.

She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.

“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.

But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.

“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”

Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.

“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”

It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.

A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”

“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996′s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.

The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.

Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.

“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.

In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.

She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.

She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.

“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.

“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 23, 2014, 05:47:02 pm

Coming soon to a presidential primary near you... Jerry Brown the sequel... or the sequel to the sequel.  http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/23/6727968/am-alert-jerry-brown-burnishes.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 24, 2014, 07:34:58 pm

When ISIS does something like this, much of the U.S. condemns it as barbaric.  Anyone condemning the U.S. State Department and Barack Obama now for doing the same thing?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768554/State-Department-tweets-photos-four-dead-ISIS-jihadis-battle-hearts-minds-ratchets-UN-Security-Council-wins-pledge-prosecute-foreign-fighters.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 24, 2014, 09:17:05 pm

Most likely you have a problem with it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 25, 2014, 03:57:14 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 24, 2014, 09:17:05 pm

Most likely you have a problem with it

And most likely you had a problem with what ISIS did, have no problem when the U.S. does the same thing, were one of the millions of Americans who became upset by what ISIS did and called for revenge (though referring to it as retaliation), and who also fails to understand that when the U.S. does the same thing our action will have the same sort of reaction from the Arab world.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 25, 2014, 07:45:31 am

We have a difference of philosophy. The new testament says we are supposed to turn the other cheek. The old testament says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Its why there were those that were appalled at the damage in Gaza, yet others weren't. I didn't see any beheadings in that pic/video. I sure didn't see anything appalling enough to turn my stomach. War is war. It isn't nicy nice and kiss your enemy. ISIS goaded the US into this war and they are going to get just what they were asking for, a war with the US. I don't expect something kissy faced.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 25, 2014, 03:49:20 pm

My concern is not with either the New Testament or the Old Testament.  I see not only see neither of them as infallible, I see neither of them as valuable guides for life, or even as good literature.

I do, however, care about what works or does not work, and what consequences are likely to result from policy decisions and from actions.  And I care about those things much more than I care about what provides momentary feelings of satisfaction or of satisfying an urge for revenge.

I agree with you that ISIS goaded the US into the bombing raids, and it is exactly what ISIS wanted.  And ISIS wants it because our bombing attacks on them will serve as very valuable recruiting tools for them.  Right now the United States and the west in general are likely more hated by the Arab world in general than we were before we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq (the first of which I supported unquestionably, and the 2nd of which gave me considerable pause because of the likely blowback... which ended up happening), and we are also likely at a greater risk in the US and in the west today because that increased hatred has led to more people supporting sympathizing with and joining the terrorists.

But my post was not really commenting on that, because it is a policy decision on which sane people can disagree.

My post was on the utter insanity of sending out those images.  TWEETING them as if they were something to be proud of, and as if doing so would not be far more harmful to the goal of the United States than NOT doing so.  On that it is difficult to see how sane people could disagree.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 25, 2014, 04:01:13 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 24, 2014, 07:34:58 pm

When ISIS does something like this, much of the U.S. condemns it as barbaric.  Anyone condemning the U.S. State Department and Barack Obama now for doing the same thing?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768554/State-Department-tweets-photos-four-dead-ISIS-jihadis-battle-hearts-minds-ratchets-UN-Security-Council-wins-pledge-prosecute-foreign-fighters.html

So you are drawing a moral comparison between the U. S. sending pictures of jihadists killed in a rocket attack, and jihadists sending pictures of themselves using a bowie knife to saw off the head of a journalist?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 25, 2014, 04:55:46 pm

Nothing I have written suggests any moral comparison of anything on this.  Nothing I have written in this discussion should be taken as any comment on morality at all.

As I hope my last post makes clear, my comments here are not based on any concept of morality, but only pragmatism.


-- corrected by adding "not"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 25, 2014, 08:19:04 pm

So you are drawing a pragmatic comparison between the U. S. sending pictures of jihadists killed in a rocket attack, and jihadists sending pictures of themselves using a bowie knife to saw off the head of a journalist?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 25, 2014, 08:48:14 pm

You are focusing on distinctions which do not constitute a difference.

Both images can reasonably be expected to inflame the opposition, and to create more opponents.

ISIS wants that, and the images were clearly intended for that purpose.  I sincerely doubt that was the intent of what the State Department tweeted.  It will, nonetheless, be the result.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 25, 2014, 08:59:10 pm

I thought  you were picking at morality because war isn't moral period. Every war has had its atrocities.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 25, 2014, 09:54:19 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 25, 2014, 08:59:10 pm

I thought  you were picking at morality because war isn't moral period. Every war has had its atrocities.

Did this not clarify it sufficiently?

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 25, 2014, 03:49:20 pm

My concern is not with either the New Testament or the Old Testament.  I see not only see neither of them as infallible, I see neither of them as valuable guides for life, or even as good literature.

I do, however, care about what works or does not work, and what consequences are likely to result from policy decisions and from actions.  And I care about those things much more than I care about what provides momentary feelings of satisfaction or of satisfying an urge for revenge.

I agree with you that ISIS goaded the US into the bombing raids, and it is exactly what ISIS wanted.  And ISIS wants it because our bombing attacks on them will serve as very valuable recruiting tools for them.  Right now the United States and the west in general are likely more hated by the Arab world in general than we were before we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq (the first of which I supported unquestionably, and the 2nd of which gave me considerable pause because of the likely blowback... which ended up happening), and we are also likely at a greater risk in the US and in the west today because that increased hatred has led to more people supporting sympathizing with and joining the terrorists.

But my post was not really commenting on that, because it is a policy decision on which sane people can disagree.

My post was on the utter insanity of sending out those images.  TWEETING them as if they were something to be proud of, and as if doing so would not be far more harmful to the goal of the United States than NOT doing so.  On that it is difficult to see how sane people could disagree.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 25, 2014, 10:36:20 pm

Before you posted that I thought morality was your issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 25, 2014, 11:23:48 pm

Wow, it's just not enough to be individually stupid you guys make it a group effort,


Congratulations, morons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 26, 2014, 08:56:59 am

I see the biggest moron pops up his  ugly head.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 26, 2014, 09:31:53 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 25, 2014, 08:48:14 pm

You are focusing on distinctions which do not constitute a difference.

Both images can reasonably be expected to inflame the opposition, and to create more opponents.

ISIS wants that, and the images were clearly intended for that purpose.  I sincerely doubt that was the intent of what the State Department tweeted.  It will, nonetheless, be the result.

The propaganda will probably cause some to become jihadists.  The propaganda will probably prevent some from becoming jihadists.  Anyone that allows the opposition to corner the propaganda market is likely to lose.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 26, 2014, 02:08:45 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/US/rush-limbaugh-eric-holder-justice-department/2014/09/25/id/596984/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1587658_09262014&s=al&dkt_nbr=eza8iars

God help us if that happens.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 03:59:53 pm

Quote from: davep on September 26, 2014, 09:31:53 am

The propaganda will probably cause some to become jihadists.  The propaganda will probably prevent some from becoming jihadists.  Anyone that allows the opposition to corner the propaganda market is likely to lose.

davep, could you define "propaganda," as well as indicating its goal and purpose, as you are using it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 04:14:46 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 26, 2014, 02:08:45 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/US/rush-limbaugh-eric-holder-justice-department/2014/09/25/id/596984/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1587658_09262014&s=al&dkt_nbr=eza8iars

God help us if that happens.

Holder is 63 years old.  If he replaced Ginsberg (and I have some real questions about whether he could be confirmed -- the hearings, particularly with a Republican controlled Senate, meaning a Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, likely chaired by Senator Grassly, would be an utter delight to watch for those who dislike Holder and/or Obama) he would be at least 64 when taking office, meaning he likely would not be on the Court for a very long time, and his vote on the Court would likely be exactly the same as Ginsberg.  In other words, if he makes it, he likely would not change the outcome of anything until he retired, likely at a time when a Republican is president, meaning that liberal seat on the Court would most likely go to a conservative leaning judge, and likely causing Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

I can think of much worse that could happen.

Obama is almost certainly going to want to appoint a young (early 40's at the oldest) liberal without a paper trail.

I don't think it would be Holder.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 26, 2014, 04:34:28 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 03:59:53 pm

davep, could you define "propaganda," as well as indicating its goal and purpose, as you are using it?

Propaganda - information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Purpose - among others, to dissuade from joining the jihadists.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 26, 2014, 04:38:30 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 04:14:46 pm

Holder is 63 years old.  If he replaced Ginsberg (and I have some real questions about whether he could be confirmed -- the hearings, particularly with a Republican controlled Senate, meaning a Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, likely chaired by Senator Grassly, would be an utter delight to watch for those who dislike Holder and/or Obama) he would be at least 64 when taking office, meaning he likely would not be on the Court for a very long time, and his vote on the Court would likely be exactly the same as Ginsberg.  In other words, if he makes it, he likely would not change the outcome of anything until he retired, likely at a time when a Republican is president, meaning that liberal seat on the Court would most likely go to a conservative leaning judge, and likely causing Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

I can think of much worse that could happen.

Obama is almost certainly going to want to appoint a young (early 40's at the oldest) liberal without a paper trail.

I don't think it would be Holder.

Of course a Republican controlled Senate would not affirm Holder.

But even if the Republicans win control of the Senate, not a sure thing as the 2012 elections demonstrated, The Democrats have until January 6? or so to approve Holder, if an opening in the Court appears before that time.  Under current Senate rules, a simple majority is all that would  be required, and that would be a slam dunk.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 07:17:25 pm

Holder has said he is not leaving the DOJ until after his replacement is affirmed.  If Ginsberg died tomorrow, there might not be enough time for Holder's replacement to be in office before January 6th.... of course, if an opening on the Supreme Court existed, and Obama wanted to nominated him for it, I suspect he would be willing to change his position on when his resignation became effective.

And while I doubt a Republican Senate would affirm Holder, if it came to a vote on the floor, the Senate might still affirm (probably wouldn't, but not a certainty, in part because of the racial politics at play, and in part because putting a 63 year old on the Court to replace Ginsberg is likely much better to conservatives than putting a 40 year old liberal on the court).

Holder's biggest problem would likely be surviving the Senate confirmation hearings, which could get very, very ugly for him, and even uglier with a Republican chair on the committee willing to jigger with the rules for the hearing, including things as simple as extending the period each committee member got to ask questions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 26, 2014, 07:25:18 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 04:14:46 pm

Holder is 63 years old.  If he replaced Ginsberg (and I have some real questions about whether he could be confirmed -- the hearings, particularly with a Republican controlled Senate, meaning a Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, likely chaired by Senator Grassly, would be an utter delight to watch for those who dislike Holder and/or Obama) he would be at least 64 when taking office, meaning he likely would not be on the Court for a very long time, and his vote on the Court would likely be exactly the same as Ginsberg.  In other words, if he makes it, he likely would not change the outcome of anything until he retired, likely at a time when a Republican is president, meaning that liberal seat on the Court would most likely go to a conservative leaning judge, and likely causing Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

I can think of much worse that could happen.

Obama is almost certainly going to want to appoint a young (early 40's at the oldest) liberal without a paper trail.

I don't think it would be Holder.

Again an assumption of a Republican Senate is highly wishful thinking at this point. Right now as it stands its still a Harry Reid controlled Senate. Could Reid get enough votes to confirm Holder? Ya know that possibility scares me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 07:34:43 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 26, 2014, 07:25:18 pm

Again an assumption of a Republican Senate is highly wishful thinking at this point. Right now as it stands its still a Harry Reid controlled Senate. Could Reid get enough votes to confirm Holder? Ya know that possibility scares me.

Why would Obama want to appoint Holder?

Why would Holder on the Court scare anyone?

If Ginsberg leaves the Court and Holder replaced her, how would that change the outcome of any case reaching the Court?  Do you think Holder would be able to persuade the conservatives on the Court to vote with him?

If Obama replaces Ginsberg, it would be much preferable that he replace Ginsberg with someone who is 64 than with someone who is 40.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 07:37:33 pm

Quote from: davep on September 26, 2014, 04:34:28 pm

Propaganda - information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Purpose - among others, to dissuade from joining the jihadists.

How would those images the State Department tweeted dissuade prospective jihadists from joining the cause?  How would those tweets HELP the U.S. and HURT the jihadists?

I have no doubt that that it has already had exactly the opposite effect and will only continue to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 26, 2014, 08:06:37 pm

Do you think Holder would be able to persuade the conservatives on the Court to vote with him?

It might even polarize the court even more.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 26, 2014, 09:34:05 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 26, 2014, 07:37:33 pm

How would those images the State Department tweeted dissuade prospective jihadists from joining the cause?  How would those tweets HELP the U.S. and HURT the jihadists?

I have no doubt that that it has already had exactly the opposite effect and will only continue to do so.

I have no way of knowing if it has already had exactly the opposite effect.

Of course, neither do you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 27, 2014, 12:21:08 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 26, 2014, 08:06:37 pm

Do you think Holder would be able to persuade the conservatives on the Court to vote with him?

It might even polarize the court even more.

The court actually is NOT polarized nearly as much as it has been in the past.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 27, 2014, 12:24:45 am

Quote from: davep on September 26, 2014, 09:34:05 pm

I have no way of knowing if it has already had exactly the opposite effect.

Of course, neither do you.

Actually both of us have a considerable basis of knowing what the effect likely has been, and likely will be, and the likely effect is not at all good for us here in the U.S.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 27, 2014, 10:57:21 am

Each of us can have opinions, but neither of us could have factual knowledge of it's results.  In general, the side that decides not to engage in propaganda generally loses the public opinion game.  I much prefer our side being engaged in it even though I might not like specific actions.

And not having seen the stuff in question, and having no knowledge of Arabic, which I assume was the language used, I have no way of assessing the action, let alone evaluating the results.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 27, 2014, 01:51:06 pm

davep, what I provided I link to included no Arabic, and no mention OF Arabic.  It instead was another example of the Obama trying to run a victory lap before a race starts, an.  Regardless what the State Department might have written in Arabic, the Arab world will know that it was written by the United States, and that the photos represent the United States as being proud of having killed Middle Eastern Moslems.  Recent history should provide you with a pretty good idea what effect it will have.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 27, 2014, 02:31:02 pm

Why would Obama be proud of killing his Muslim brothers?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 27, 2014, 02:42:23 pm

The link you provided didn't provide enough information to allow any rational person to determine whether the propaganda was good or bad.  It consisted of a handful of still pictures with no context, nor any independent translation of anything that was said, but merely a summary by a clearly biased reporter.

The purpose, apparently, was to show potential recruits how dangerous their recruitment could be to them.  There is nothing in the link that gives any indication that this did or did not work.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 27, 2014, 08:56:03 pm

 Bill Clinton is a handsome guy, and Hillory Clinton when she was younger was fuckable.


 Now between the two of them ... how did they manage to make a daughter that you would only **** with a paper bag on her head?


 I've always wondered about that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on September 27, 2014, 11:57:38 pm

......and she's pregnant.  I assume by hubby.  Hopefully the lights were out when the Mr. performed his martial duties.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 28, 2014, 07:46:26 am

When will the Global Warning Deniers stop blocking the efforts of Al Gore to save the earth? http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/27/noaa-1695-low-max-records-broken-or-tied-from-sept-11-to-sept-20-one-record-broken-by-25f/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 28, 2014, 09:34:23 am

Quote from: 46 on September 27, 2014, 11:57:38 pm

......and she's pregnant.  I assume by hubby.  Hopefully the lights were out when the Mr. performed his martial duties.

She's a dog for sure!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 11:05:18 am

sheldon

Posting more articles from james imofe I see. So a single week of cool weather disproves climate change?

Did you and james see some icicles?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 12:03:30 pm

sheldon

You dropped this an the way in.

This Week's RNC Motivational Action List
Sept. 29 - Oct. 5


Monday Take all the time you need to reflect on all the positive and worthwhile things you learned over the weekend from the Values Voters Summit. Spend the remaining 23 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds reviewing your Obama impeachment list.


Tuesday In the wake of fresh air strikes ordered by President Obama against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, today is a great day to reaffirm that you love air strikes but you hate that it's Obama ordering them. Clear your head of "stinkin' thinkin'" by picturing illegals being shipped back to Mexico in boxcars.


Wednesday With that nip of fall in the air, today is a good day to write a letter to your local newspaper warning about the dangers of global cooling. Go ahead and make up your own facts---they'll print it anyway. This evening: tell your Benghazi Seething Class instructor to kick it up a notch!


Thursday Email all your Democrat family members, friends and acquaintances urging them to vote on November 5th. Then scratch an itch with your Glock, but don’t bother checking to see if the gun's unloaded because you're a responsible gun owner so how could it not be?


Friday Don't take no for an answer, give no for an answer. Then practice mansplaining lady parts in front of a mirror so you'll be ready to win hearts and hoo-hahs at upcoming Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings.



Weekend Join the March On Washington Against President Obama's Treasonous Act of Allowing Pabst Blue Ribbon to be Sold to the Russian Commies. But first have your Democrat neighbor spellcheck your signs.


All Week: Don’t bake a single thing for the gays.


Have a great week! God Bless America and Money and Bombs!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 29, 2014, 02:08:47 pm

Oddo the Homo resurfaces.  Not a word about his war hungry president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 03:39:36 pm

That's funny davebart

How many countries have republics/phaxnews pundits wanted to bomb and invade just this year?

Any word on whether any sons of republic pols want to wage war with their boots?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 29, 2014, 03:49:00 pm

Any word on when Oddo joins ISIS? So much hatred for American values

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 29, 2014, 03:53:04 pm

The Difference Between Winners And Whiners
The midterms will provide a valuable object lesson.

By David Catron – 9.29.14

Democrats think conservatives in general, and Tea Partiers in particular, are stupid. Here’s how to reinforce that belief: Sit out the 2014 congressional elections because your favorite candidate lost his primary bid to an establishment Republican. If you live in Kansas, for example, you can suck your thumb while Democrat ringer Greg Orman beats Republican Senator Pat Roberts. If you’re a Kentucky conservative, you can stay home and **** about Mitch while Alison “Rubberstamp” Grimes heads to Washington. If you’re in Mississippi, you can stay mad at Thad and allow Travis “no repeal” Childers to win. That’ll show those RINOs!

It isn’t necessary to speculate about the results of such petulance. We are already suffering the consequences of a similar tantrum. As R. Emmett Tyrrell pointed out last week, about 4 million conservatives declined to participate in the 2012 presidential election: “The wise psephologists tell us that these conservatives did not like Romney. He was too bland for the Tea Partiers.… Frankly, I do not know why they stayed home given the choice between a community organizer and a former governor.” Regardless of the rationale, those abstainers are responsible for the domestic corruption and foreign policy disasters of the last two years.

And, if they engage in similarly sophomoric behavior in November, the results will be even more catastrophic. If Harry Reid remains in control of the Senate, he and his White House accomplices will “fundamentally transform” the nation into a social democratic hellhole. They will finish packing the court system — including the Supreme Court — with partisans who will kill any legal challenge to their unconstitutional laws and edicts. Obamacare will wreak further havoc on our health care system, the EPA will continue its war on the economy, the IRS will continue to abuse its power, the FCC will shred the First Amendment, ad infinitum.

Nonetheless, it would appear that many conservatives have failed to learn the lesson of 2012. Rick Manning, of Americans for Limited Government, reports the following in a recent column for Investor’s Business Daily: “One state party chairman has privately bemoaned that social conservatives in his state openly question why they should bother voting at all.” Manning, who believes the GOP establishment is to blame for this ambivalence, goes on to pose this revealing question: “Given the national party’s desire to kick them out of the big tent to make room for a hoped-for influx of pot smoking hipsters, who can blame them?”

The answer to that question is: Any conservative with a grain of sense. But, setting aside the hilariously improbable image of Mitch McConnell sitting in a circle of “pot smoking hipsters” around a hookah, the query does highlight the naïveté that creates so many unreasonable expectations among newcomers to the conservative movement. All political parties contain competing factions. The nascent GOP, for example, consisted of **** Northeastern abolitionists, less strident Free Soilers, and even more moderate ex-Whigs. There was no love lost between these factions, but they all showed up on Election Day.

Some of today’s conservatives are less inclined to demonstrate the same level of solidarity because establishment Republicans have failed to welcome them into the party with open arms. But a brief review of more recent GOP history will reveal that even Ronald Reagan and his supporters were regarded with fear and loathing by Republican party regulars when they first appeared on the scene. Nonetheless, neither Reagan nor his followers petulantly sat out an election simply because the GOP establishment insisted on, as Manning phrases it, “disrespecting” them. The Reaganites were not, in other words, whiners.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of some conservatives who challenged GOP incumbents in this year’s primaries. Indeed, in Mississippi, incumbent Republican Senator Thad Cochran is actually being sued by the Tea Party challenger he narrowly defeated in the recent Republican primary. State Senator Chris McDaniel lost to Cochran last June, but rather than bowing out gracefully and joining the fight to retake the Senate majority from the Democrats, he challenged the Senator’s primary victory in court. Cochran has been forced to waste valuable time defending himself while Mississippi Republicans have become increasingly disheartened.

The polls suggest that McDaniel’s antics are unlikely to cost the GOP a Senate seat in Mississippi. But Kansas is another story. Incumbent GOP Senator Pat Roberts was weakened in his primary battle against Tea Party challenger Milton Wolf. Wolf, who lost to Roberts by a surprisingly narrow margin, hasn’t been as irresponsible as McDaniel. Yet he has refused to endorse Roberts and help unite Republicans against the latest example of Democrat skullduggery, wherein they forced their original candidate to drop out of the race as part of a transparent strategy to get “Independent” candidate Greg Orman elected. And Roberts needs all the help he can get. The Democrat bait-and-switch, as the Washington Post gleefully reports, may well succeed. The Republicans have flown in Tea Party icon Sarah Palin to stump for Roberts, and John McCain has also campaigned for him. Yet Wolf, whose local support is such that he could do more to improve Republican chances than any out-of-state surrogate, has remained silent except for a Facebook denial concerning Politico’s report that he planned to meet with Greg Orman. Perhaps Dr. Wolf should ask himself what Ronald Reagan, whom he claims to venerate, would do in such circumstances.

For any conservative or Tea Partier in doubt about the answer to that question, I recommend spending a few minutes viewing the extemporaneous speech Reagan made to the 1976 GOP convention after losing his nomination bid to President Ford. He ended it with the following call for Republicans to pull together and focus on the ultimate goal: “We must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory.” These are the words of a winner.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 04:00:08 pm

An assertion is put forward by an olde tacit racist from a cut and paste article straight from wingnut o'shere.

Quote

Democrats think conservatives in general, and Tea Partiers in particular, are stupid.

But it was already answered in a previous post by another olde tacit t-bagger.

Quote

"Any word on when Oddo joins ISIS? So much hatred for American values"

Any word on whether YOU can define any American values?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 29, 2014, 04:17:00 pm

THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI"

 

We're the battling
boys of Benghazi
No fame, no glory, no
paparazzi.


Just a fiery death in
a blazing hell
Defending our country
we loved so well.


It wasn't our job, but
we answered the call,
fought to the
Consulate and scaled the wall.


We pulled twenty
Countrymen from the jaws of fate
Led them to safety,
and stood at the gate.

Just the two of us,
and foes by the score,
But we stood fast to
bar the door.


Three calls for
reinforcement, but all were denied,
So we fought, and we
fought, and we fought 'til we died.


We gave our all for
our Uncle Sam,
But Barack Obama
didn't give a damn.


Just two dead seals
who carried the load
No thanks to us......... we
were just "Bumps In The Road."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 04:37:04 pm

olde tacit racist

Any of those many wingnut O'sphere conspiracy theories actually be proven true yet?

























































Didn't think so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 29, 2014, 04:56:22 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 03:39:36 pm

That's funny davebart

How many countries have republics/phaxnews pundits wanted to bomb and invade just this year?

Amazing.

otto is more concerned about the number of countries people who are not in power might WANT to bomb than he is about the number of countries Obama HAS BOMBED.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 29, 2014, 04:59:51 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 04:00:08 pm

Any word on whether YOU can define any American values?

If I had to define any, I might look start by looking at whatever values otto rejects.  Save lots of time to start there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 29, 2014, 05:03:08 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 04:37:04 pm

Any of those many wingnut O'sphere conspiracy theories actually be proven true yet?

Proof is whatever is required to convince or persuade, and since otto has made clear he has closed his mind on anything which might be critical of Obama, he has made clear that, for him, nothing can be proven, regardless how true facts, reason, and logic might establish something to be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 05:08:24 pm

sheldon sprouting the same old tired and worn lines....much like the small libertarian fraction of the republic party that you caucus with.

Isn't there a book on minutia that you should be brushing up on?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 05:12:07 pm

I'd love to hear one wingnut 0'sphere Benghazi conspiracy theory which has been proven true sheldon.

Like was the burning toilet paper American made?

Who gave the "stand down" order preventing anyone from saving the "freedom fries" in the microwave during the attack?

Who ordered the removal of gideons bible from the guest room?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 05:58:40 pm

When will the Global Warning Denier marc morono (a jimmy inhofe stooge cited by sheldon) stop rejecting the knowledge of 98% of actual Scientists just to make oil and gas money?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/science/earth/human-related-climate-change-led-to-extreme-heat-scientists-say.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/science/earth/human-related-climate-change-led-to-extreme-heat-scientists-say.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 29, 2014, 06:50:34 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 05:58:40 pm

When will the Global Warning Denier marc morono (a jimmy inhofe stooge cited by sheldon) stop rejecting the knowledge of 98% of actual Scientists just to make oil and gas money?

When will the idiot global cooling denier otto stop pretending the the "98% of actual Scientists" claim has any validity just to help usher in more socialism and have government send him more of our money?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 07:16:56 pm

The opinion of an idiot (played the socialism hand way too fast packrat).

Quote

stop pretending the the "98% of actual Scientists" claim has any validity

Fact based reality.

A  2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences - found that out of 1,372 climate researchers surveyed, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing the climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change.  It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- surveyed scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146) and asked: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes to this question.

Anything from the morono climate depot that you can propaganda about? However, we know that nothing can be proven to you, regardless facts, reason, and logic might establish something to be the minutiaboy from TN will lie about it and make it really boring and you'll wish you never responded to them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 29, 2014, 07:43:25 pm

A link, otto?

Or are we to conclude all of that is your own?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 07:58:27 pm

Only republics make up facts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 29, 2014, 08:04:51 pm

Don't you love it when Oddo the Homo joins in the conversation.  Nothing proves the idiocy of the democratic party than the idiocy of it's adherents. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 08:16:33 pm

Hey davepbart, I'm going to an event outside this coming weekend and I need you check the Norsk Sagas for the weather 1400 years ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 29, 2014, 08:29:45 pm

When the Homo can't refute what is said, he resorts to ridicule of it.  He learned that from the Liberal Handbook.

It is much easier than actually resorting to facts or reason.

He takes the word of dentists from Thailand on the subject of Global Warming, and ignores the history books because he doesn't understand them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 08:48:39 pm

I give you the idiocy of it's adherents,texas republic joe burton style.

Quote

"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to wind energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about."

And this idiocy of the republic party...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDTyI20Ka94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDTyI20Ka94)

Wonder if good olde joe has read the Norsk Sagas....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 29, 2014, 08:57:03 pm

Oddo, doesn't Obama control the NOAA? Then why does the NOAA say there has been no global warming in 17 years? So they are wrong? Its just you Communists that say there is global warming, probably because you are the ones profiting from it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 30, 2014, 05:17:02 am

Quote from: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 05:12:07 pm

Who gave the "stand down" order preventing anyone from saving the "freedom fries" in the microwave during the attack?

I take it you have not watched this, particularly beginning about 9:50 in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHcknnoTeqM

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 30, 2014, 05:25:18 am

Quote from: otto105 on September 29, 2014, 08:48:39 pm

I give you the idiocy of it's adherents,texas republic joe burton style.

And this idiocy of the republic party...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDTyI20Ka94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDTyI20Ka94)

Wonder if good olde joe has read the Norsk Sagas....

Nothiing wrong with Burton's question, though Chu's contention that the oil "just drifted up there" and that the arctic was never a lot warmer up there, has a problem.

Of course when talking about scientific ignorance, it is hard to beat that of Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson, who Democrats are expected to re-elect next month:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on September 30, 2014, 12:38:01 pm

George Zimmerman has changed his name to Beh Gazi so the white house and the media will keep quiet about him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 30, 2014, 10:35:35 pm

 JJ says the Titanic never sunk. JJ is always right.


 DO not question JJ ... because it would make you look like a complete FOOL.
 
 JJ can shape it until the point that you agree.


 Never disagree with JJ ... JJ will put your kids in uniform and send them overseas ...


 just to prove to you ... and so that you will never forget ...


 that the Titanic never sunk ... that is the power of JJ.


 JJ can LIE to you ... and make you believe it.


 So who's in on these tickets for the next sailing of the Titanic?


 We are talking FIRST CLASS tickets here ... private room ... Blue Tooth technolgy,


 steak and lobster brunch ... and even more LIES as you sink,


 because you fuckin trusted JJ you stupid fuckin **** !


 JJ is no different then who you vote for.


 Y'know ... maybe YOUR fuckin ass should run for office.


 It cant get any worse than that!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 01, 2014, 10:41:01 pm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists?tr=MostViewed

Otto and Jes this means you.  Seek help.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 01, 2014, 11:26:06 pm

Peke

Would have been more believable if you had a ready made story to put a personal touch on it. Like one where you source a lazy ass minority who works in your warehouse who trolls brietbart and you know it because that is where you get your news.


Say just how many posts do you have?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 01, 2014, 11:28:25 pm

Davepbart


 Can you check the Nordk Sagas again for walruses on the beach because of a lack of sea ice. I'm just doing some research....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 02, 2014, 11:19:22 am

http://www.hpe.com/opinion/x1221645005/Clarence-Page-Help-the-Islamic-State-to-destroy-itself

Support for Obama's foreign policy continues to erode.  Clarence Page bails out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 02, 2014, 01:41:06 pm

The Homo has a real problem with history and archaeology.  I guess that he doesn't like his pet beliefs upset by facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 02, 2014, 02:06:14 pm

Quote from: davep on October 02, 2014, 01:41:06 pm

The Homo has a real problem with history and archaeology.  I guess that he doesn't like his pet beliefs upset by facts.

 Peke has it right...just a troll. Better not to feed it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2014, 04:47:03 pm

Quote from: packrat on October 02, 2014, 11:19:22 am

http://www.hpe.com/opinion/x1221645005/Clarence-Page-Help-the-Islamic-State-to-destroy-itself

Support for Obama's foreign policy continues to erode.  Clarence Page bails out.

In addition to losing Page, the NYT just called him out as a liar, and even Chris Matthews seems to have lost the tingle up his leg.   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/01/chris_matthews_obama_getting_intellectually_lazy_atrophied_by_people_like_valerie_jarrett_michelle_obama.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2014, 06:34:20 pm

http://washingtonexaminer.com/it-looks-like-a-gop-wave-the-question-is-how-far-it-goes/article/2554246
It looks like a GOP wave; the question is how far it goes
BY MICHAEL BARONE | OCTOBER 2, 2014 | 5:00 AM

Republicans seem to be pulling away in the race to win a majority in the U.S. Senate. At least this week.

In mid-September, several polls seemed to be going the other way. The well-informed Washington Post analyst Chris Cillizza wrote that for the first time in this election cycle odds favored the Democrats keeping their majority.

Two weeks later he was singing another tune. Analysts at the Post, the New York Times and FiveThirtyEight, in addition to psephologists Charlie Cook, Stuart Rothenberg and Larry Sabato, all agreed.

RELATED: Sabato: Best Dems can hope for is 50-50 Senate as GOP fades in Kansas

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
What may have happened is this: Over the summer Democrats used their money advantage to savage Republican opponents. When spending got equalized in September, Republicans’ numbers rose.

So Republicans retain big leads to pick up three open seats in states carried by Mitt Romney —West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota. Republican nominees have moved ahead of three Democratic incumbents in Romney states (Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana) and in two target states carried by President Obama (Colorado and Iowa).

Only in North Carolina, which Romney narrowly carried, has the Republican not yet overtaken the incumbent Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan — and her edge is narrowing in the most recent polls.

Psephologists used to have a rule that incumbents running below 50 percent against lesser known challengers would inevitably lose. Everyone knows them, the logic went, and half aren’t voting for them.

RELATED: 2014 Midterms blog

That rule doesn’t seem to apply anymore, but perhaps another one does. The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls puts Democratic incumbents in these five states at 41 to 44 percent of the vote.

In seriously contested races in the last six Senate cycles, starting with 2002, only two incumbents polling at that level in September ended up winning. One was appointed to an open seat and thus probably not widely known. Both ended up with less than 50 percent and won by plurality.

Psephological rules are made to be broken, sooner or later. Polls can fluctuate. Events or campaigning can change attitudes. Democrats now trailing might win Republican seats in Kentucky or Georgia. Or the former Democrat running as an Independent in Kansas could win and cast the deciding vote for Democrats. There are ways they can hold their Senate majority. But most likely they won’t.

RELATED: Ground game looms large in close Kansas Senate race

That should settle the ongoing argument in psephological circles about whether this is a “wave” year. Some argued that since Republicans were expected to gain only a few seats in the House — something the insiders pretty much agree on — and since they were by no means certain of winning a Senate majority, it might not be a wave at all.

But it depends on what your benchmark is. In 2012 Republicans won 234 House seats — the second most they’ve won since 1946, just behind the 242 in 2010. Expecting them to gain anything like the 63 seats they did in 2010 or the 52 in 1994 was always unrealistic.

As for Senate elections, the Republicans entered this cycle down 55 to 45. It’s noteworthy when well-informed analysts give a party a better than even chance of making a net gain of six Senate seats, as they have throughout this cycle. I can’t remember consensus predictions of six-Senate-seat gains in 1974, 1980, 1994 or 2006 — all now regarded as wave years.

All of which is to say that focusing too closely on fluctuations in the polls risks losing sight of the bigger picture. Rewind back five years: The Obama Democrats expected their major policies to be popular.

They expected that most voters would be grateful for the stimulus package, for Obamacare, for raising the tax rate on high earners. They aren’t.

Democrats expected that running for re-election they’d be running ads touting these genuine accomplishments. They aren’t. Instead you get personal attacks on Republican nominees and oldie-but-supposedly-goodie reprises of the “war on women” theme.

Out in Colorado about half of Democrat Mark Udall’s TV spots have been on abortion. Even liberal commentators are questioning whether that’s smart. But maybe the Udall consultants sitting around the table can’t come up with anything better.

Early in the 2010 cycle, Barack Obama told an Arkansas House Democrat that he needn’t worry about voters because “you’ve got me.” Today all four Arkansas House seats are held by Republicans. Democratic Senate candidates in multiple states have been shunning Obama campaign appearances.

We’re watching a wave come in. We just can’t be sure how far it goes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2014, 06:47:12 pm

Quote from: Pekin on October 01, 2014, 10:41:01 pm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists?tr=MostViewed

Otto and Jes this means you.  Seek help.

From the link:
Let's start by getting our definitions straight. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved.

Nine if your last nine posts here in this topic have been personal attacks, without anything resembling any discussion of any issue, and most of the nine, like the one above, have been out of the blue, with you "com(ing) into a discussion and post(ing) comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation," and seemingly having "no real purpose... except to upset" someone.

That is every post of yours in the last month in this thread.  Not a single post commenting on anything actually under discussion here, and not a single post about any general political topic, and not a single post even sharing a link to a political discussion or asking any question about any comment anyone else had made or any link they had posted.

Project much, Peke?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 02, 2014, 07:24:24 pm

LOL!

Yeah I am the troll...   ::)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 03, 2014, 12:59:27 am

 

Quote from: Pekin on October 02, 2014, 07:24:24 pm

LOL!

Yeah I am the troll...   ::)

 YOU OWE ME MONEY MOTHERFUCKER!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 03, 2014, 05:50:59 am

Quote from: Pekin on October 02, 2014, 07:24:24 pm

LOL!

Yeah I am the troll...   ::)

I never said you were a troll.  You drew that inference yourself.  I simply quoted directly from the link you posted, and then posted some very simple facts, which you rather clearly do not dispute.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 03, 2014, 06:45:04 am

Peke???.....Is that you??


(http://images.addoway.com.s3.amazonaws.com/items/8141/1485732/8141_1_2c9924.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 03, 2014, 08:42:31 am

That's not a troll...trolls wear mittens

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 03, 2014, 09:57:32 am

Then photoshop it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 03, 2014, 11:17:36 am

You can tell the "zout factor" has taken a toll on this thread.. Jes sayin..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: VJ on October 03, 2014, 11:50:01 am

zout, Jes, and Carlton walk into a bar...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 03, 2014, 04:22:48 pm

 

Quote from: VJ on October 03, 2014, 11:50:01 am

zout, Jes, and Carlton walk into a bar...

 Thats the guys name ... Carlton! Carlton Cartwright?


 Wasnt he in the Caribbean somewhere?


 Wasnt Zout sick or something before he disappeared?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 03, 2014, 07:28:41 pm

Slow Economic Growth Has Likely Inflated 'Real' Jobless Rate to 20 Percent

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/jobs-employment-labor-americans/2014/10/02/id/598145/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1588748_10032014&s=al&dkt_nbr=owdu8fga

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 03, 2014, 08:00:44 pm

Victim much wing nut?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 03, 2014, 08:56:31 pm

Too many people like you now Oddo, they are on the government dole

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 05, 2014, 07:40:17 am

Ebola?  It's the NRA's fault.  Gotta love liberal logic.  No wonder MSNBC's ratings are under the crapper.  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2014/10/03/msnbc-points-finger-nra-making-ebola-crisis-worse

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 05, 2014, 03:56:15 pm

The NRA's fault.  What a load of crap.

Ask Oddo.  It is the fault of Global Warming.

Well, maybe both.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 05, 2014, 11:19:25 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1AWJFs_YiY&list=UUcgg5oVHV3ktWzbkbc52urQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1AWJFs_YiY&list=UUcgg5oVHV3ktWzbkbc52urQ)

Its really easy to find the moron and his moronic ideology.

We all read them in here everyday by the Pavlov dogs who believe them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 06, 2014, 06:35:29 am

Davis's performance in that debate was absolutely terrible.  She came across very poorly, refused to observe time limits or the moderators calls to stop, ignored questions and simply launched into attacks unrelated to the questions, and interrupted and talked over opponent.  Local news stations in Texas were airing clips of her performance and making fun of it in their newscasts for several days afterward.  She was running well behind before the debate started.  I have seen no polling results since the debate, but it is hard to imagine how her standing now would not be worse than it was beforehand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 06, 2014, 08:14:54 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 06, 2014, 06:35:29 am

Davis's performance in that debate was absolutely terrible.  She came across very poorly, refused to observe time limits or the moderators calls to stop, ignored questions and simply launched into attacks unrelated to the questions, and interrupted and talked over opponent.

No wonder Otto loved it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 06, 2014, 08:25:21 pm

Mark's Market Blog
10-5-14: BS in Dental Hygiene.
by Mark Lawrence
Markets are down this week; the S&P is below its 50 day moving average and the Dow is flirting with it. The Russell 2000 is below its 50 day and 200 day moving average and the 50 day is below the 200 day in what is called a "death cross." The dollar is going up fast, indicating that Boeing and other large exporters will have more trouble selling in the future. The tea leaves all point to a correction - 10% or more drop in the S&P - or even perhaps something worse. I still don't believe it. There's still too much money looking for a home, I don't think we've seen the top of this market yet.
 
S&P 500 April 12 2014 to October 3 2014
 
Russell 2000 Death Cross
The dollar hit a four year high this week against a basket of currencies. This is good for consumers as imports get cheaper. It's bad for jobs, as we will make less here and import more. It's bad for the trade deficit. It's bad for US business - nearly half US corporate profits are from international sales, and a rising dollar means rising prices and lower profits. It's bad if you believe the solution to our debt problems is inflation. And if US interest rates rise next year, it's going to get worse - the dollar will be worth more. How long will the Fed allow Europe, China and Japan to lower their currencies against the dollar? And, interestingly, is it obvious the Fed can do anything about it?

Germany just sold $5 billion worth of 10 years bonds with an interest rates of 0.93%. Twenty years ago these bonds would have sold at 5%; until the 2008 crisis they never dipped below 3%. Unschooled German politicians perhaps think this is wonderful, as it means their interest payments are really low and they can afford more debt in an emergency. Some of us think this is a clear bet by the bond buyers that Germany will experience some serious deflation and they'll make their money on the increase in value of their principle, not on the interest. 0.93% means these bonds are only slightly better than just holding cash. The ECB thinks Germany should sell a whole bunch of bonds and build a whole bunch of infrastructure, perhaps employing a bunch of young Spanish and Greeks to hammer nails and pour concrete. The Bundestag thinks the ECB should take a quick dip in the Rhine river.

The UN's ebola chief Anthony Branbury has warned that the Ebola virus could mutate and go airborne. This is unconscionable scare tactics - evolution happens to losers. Sharks haven't changed in 100 million years. Ebola is winning, it would be ridiculous for it to mutate. Mr. Branbury wants something, and it's not hard to see what: he wants the west scared and putting major resources into west Africa. Meanwhile flu, pneumonia and diarrhea are each killing people more than a hundred times as quickly as ebola.

The jobs report came out, and unemployment dropped to 5.9% as we added 248,000 jobs in September. Meanwhile the labor participation rate dropped to 62.7%, the lowest level since 1978. In the 50s the participation rate was about 59% as nearly all women got married and stayed home. Today we're told that this was evil, women should have the choice and right to work. Now all women work and more and more young men are staying home, playing XBox instead of caring for kids. Perhaps we're heading for a 59% labor participation rate again, except this time it will be the men who don't have jobs. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how this constitutes liberation for the women, who work 8 hours, commute another hour or two, pick up their kids, feed and bathe them, get them in bed, do a bit of housework, then collapse for a few hours before doing it again. On the other hand, I'm having no trouble at all seeing how the young men are liberated - they work just enough hours to make the payment on their Mustang and to save up for the next XBox game.

Consumer debt has reached an all-time high - the total outstanding of credit card debt, student loans and auto loans have never been higher. However mortgage debt is down 20% from the peak and continuing to drop, so overall consumers are continuing to unwind their loans. These are totals, of course, so what's really true is the middle and upper classes who have the mortgages continue to unwind, and the lower classes are building up debt to buy cars and get bachelor's degrees in auto mechanics and dental hygiene.


Italy continues to sink. Their youth unemployment is up for 45% from 40% a year ago, and they now have .25% deflation - no businessman wants to hire when consumers are holding their cash waiting for a better deal. As I see it, so long as southern Europe continues to share the Euro with northern Europe, the south will continue to have dysfunctional economies. I just don't see the Euro as long term viable.

Elizabeth Warren - the Massachusetts liberal senator whom I like - is continuing to take on the Fed. Last week I talked about how Carmen Segarra has tapes showing that the Fed is pretty cozy with Goldman Sachs. Elizabeth Warren is all over this, saying in a recent interview, "ultimately this report tells us exactly what we already knew — that the relationship between regulators and the financial institutions they oversee is too cozy to provide the kind of tough oversight that's really needed. You know, the regulators seemed to think that it was a victory just to raise an issue, even if they took absolutely no action to address the issue," Warren said. "And that's the kind of approach that allowed banks to take on massive risks before the financial crisis. You know, think about that: The regulators seemed to think that fussing at banks behind closed doors was their toughest sanction. Does anyone believe that Goldman Sachs is gonna give up a deal that would yield millions of dollars because someone fussed at them behind closed doors?" Elizabeth continued, "You know, the game out there is rigged, and people across this country really get it. And the Goldman Sachs tapes just show it one more time. Little banks have to follow the rules, regular families have to follow the rules, but big financial institutions? Somehow they can manage just to push their regulators aside and go forward. There's a — there's a fundamental question about who this country works for. It can't just work for those who already have lots of money and lots of power. We've got to have a country that works for everybody else." By no means do I agree with all her positions, but for taking on Wall Street I'm willing to forgive and forget a pretty large number of other issues. I see Wall Street as the #1 issue for our economy and our democracy. They need to be taken down.

Hedge funds lost a major court case. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two subsidized government corporations that keep mortgages cheap, deliver their profits to the treasury - the same treasury that bailed them out a few years ago at great expense and now wants our money back. Hedge fund guys had bought a lot of stock and argued in court that this was unfair, they should get the $33 billion in profits. The courts disagreed. Fannie and Freddie stock are down 40% on the news. I believe this is the first time I've written about hedge fund guys losing one.

Pimco funds lost Mohamed El-Erian about 6 months ago; we all secretly knew it was because he had lost all respect for Pimco's resident genius, Bill Gross. Now last week the board of directors told Bill to take a long walk. Bill promptly surfaced at the Janus fund, a bond hedge fund. These guys never miss a meal. Meanwhile, Pimco, who used to be the elephant in the bond market, has lost $23 billion in assets under management in the last month - a bit more than 10% of their total assets. This number is almost certain to increase. They've hired six guys to replace Mohamed and Bill, but the bond market is full of investors like Calpers who want to deal only with known quantities; anything new scares them. The Fed is likely to raise rates in the next six months or so, and perhaps raise them a second time a month or three after that. This will stir up the bond hive, scaring everyone. This was not a good time for Pimco to lose their two best guys. Although word is that Bill has marched right up to the edge of mental stability, then taken a bold step forward. Over the course of his career Bill has made a bit over $2 billion and is 70 years old now, begging the question why he doesn't just retire. His answer: "Managing money is in my blood. I like to get up at 5:30 in the morning and make money for clients and compete against other money managers. That's something that doesn't go away. I am obsessed with delivering value to investors and winning the game from a personal standpoint. Retiring at this point in my career just doesn't suit me." There's some quote about camels and needle eyes, but I can't remember it.

Sears is having enough cash flow problems that vendors now routinely buy insurance against Sears defaulting on payment. That's been going on for a few years; however recently the cost of that insurance has risen to the point where it's now 35% of the cost of the goods on an annual basis. Sears is very close to needing corporate CPR.

JP Morgan was attacked and lost personal information on 76 million customers and 7 million small businesses. Nine other financial institutions were broken into at the same time, but we haven't heard about them. US officials are quietly saying this was a Russian attack in retribution for Ukraine sanctions. Congress is considering passing a set of laws, 'cause that's what they do. Apparently they think in the absence of laws banks have no interest in cyber security. If you had a JP Morgan account, don't, do not, respond to any emails that ask you to log into your account.

Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown signed a law enabling a pilot program to allow the P.R. of California community colleges to offer bachelor's degrees in auto mechanics and dental hygiene. These words, "Bachelor's degree," I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean. The community colleges were given no new funding for these or any other programs - already severely under funded and over populated, you spend your first couple of years at community colleges taking junk classes and building up enough seniority to take the classes you really need. Brown also used his line-item veto to eliminate $100 million in new funding for the states existing universities. Brown also announced new scholarships particularly for illegals, but no new money. When I was a kid Berkeley was just a quarter notch behind Harvard and Stanford, and UCLA another quarter notch behind them. These flagship schools are now dropping fast as Sacramento is more interested in social engineering than in education; in the latest US News ranking they're now both in the 20s, not even close to Ivy League quality. On current trends USC, the historically unloved step child of California education, will soon be ranked higher than either. I predict that one day some other state like Washington will offer some serious money to Caltech, Stanford, USC to pack up and move. That's going to look very tempting. . .

Everyone is pulling out of the bidding for the 2022 Winter Olympics. History is clear, cities that win spend billions on one-time-use facilities and never get their money back. The TV contracts pay billions to the Olympic committee but they aren't very interested in sharing. The Olympic committee desperately wanted Oslo, but the Norwegians are too smart to fall for it, they pulled out of the bidding refusing to spend an estimated $5.5 billion on single use facilities. Russia spent $51 billion building Sochi, now a ghost town. At this time only Beijing and Almaty Kazakhstan are in the running for the games - centrally planned governments don't have to answer for poor economic decisions. If the Olympic committee doesn't change their policies soon you're going to see a lot of ex-communist Olympics. Will the winter games wind up in Beijing? Possibly, but it seems clear the Olympic committee is going to have to revise their policies.

I don't like Islam. I take some flak for this from friends who assure me that the average muslim is just like me and I'm condemning a billion decent average people over the insanities of a small fraction. I don't believe it. I have customers in Indonesia and Malaysia who ride motorcycles with my windshields and tell me they want Israel wiped off the map and Jews dead. There are videos of UC San Diego co-eds saying they agree with the Hezbollah president when he says he'd like all Jews to move to Israel so that he doesn't have to hunt them down one at a time around the globe. All over the Arab world people marry their 1st cousin because Mohammed, the famous ****, did. A bit over 2/3 of all Pakistani marriages are between 1st cousins, with the result that their birth defect rate is ten times the world average and their average IQ is a full standard deviation below normal. That last means 5 out of 6 Pakistanis is below world average, and 1 out of 3 has an IQ below 70, the basic threshold for literacy. Muslims are taught that their part of God's quest to dominate the world is to have six children, and all too many of them do: the countries with the fastest growth rates in the world are all either in sub-saharan Africa or are muslim. The CIA lists the top ten as Lebanon, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, Jordan, Qatar, Malawi, Niger, Burundi, Uganda, Libya. Five of those are muslim. Only in muslim countries can you be killed for being something other than muslim, and certainly will be killed if you convert from muslim to anything else. Muslims have been active in, one may even say central to the world's slave trade for the last 500 years. In fact Obama is not descended from black slaves, he's descended from muslim slave traders. In muslim countries **** victims are killed, rapists go free. Although muslims brought the idea of community property to the world - the idea that wives own half what is acquired in marriage - today muslim women are property. Below is a picture of ISIL attracting members by auctioning off 2500 women as young as 13 for $10 each. The christian or yazidi women who won't convert are given as sex slaves first to groups of 10 or so warriors, then sold as slaves. Those who will convert to muslim are sold as brides for somewhat higher prices. Women: if you're captured by ISIL, convert to islam. Immediately. Tell them you always wanted to. Trust me on this. Notice nowhere have I spoken of muslim religious beliefs. It's not their beliefs, it's their suffocating culture / politics / laws.


It's been known for some time that prolonged sitting, a nearly ubiquitous feature of our culture, does damage to the arteries of your legs. In fact it's becoming clear that sitting all day is roughly as bad as smoking a pack a day. Walking for 5 minutes each hour reverses the damage.

Is marriage dead? In the lower classes, yes. Women want a man with a job who is interested in kids. Those men don't exist in the lower half of our society. So the women are married to ADFC and section 8 instead. In the upper classes, marriage is being delayed until the people are in their 30s, but it continues. However the divorce rate among those people continues to rise. Women without children apparently have no incentive to marry at all and mostly don't. Women with college degrees and kids nearly always get married. Perhaps granting a BS in dental hygiene will lower the number of kids on welfare. . .


Sign of the apocalypse? I've noted here before that the younger generation prefers a good phone to driving. And they love their designer jeans. Now that Apple has released the iPhone 6+ with a 5" screen, Samsung is already selling a 6" screen and Google is getting one ready for release, designer jeans manufacturers are announcing they're increasing the size of their pockets to fit the new larger phones.

Thinking of buying a car and driving it into the ground? The longevity winner is the Ford F250 super duty pickup - 4.2% of them make it to 200,000 miles. Various trucks and truck based SUVs like the Sierra and Suburban are next on the list, 3% or so of them make it to 200k. The best cars - Hondas, Toyotas, Subarus - about 1.5% of them make it. Basically don't count on making it to 200k miles, it's quite unlikely.

The FAA just ordered airlines to replace Honeywell built cockpit screens on 1300 Boeing aircraft that are subject to interference from WiFi devices and mobile phones. The screens can black out if you use a cell phone or net book near them.

In the last 50 years human population has doubled. In that time 39% of Earth's species have disappeared; freshwater fish populations are hardest hit at 76% die off. Currently humans are consuming Earth's resources 50% faster than they can be restored, cutting down trees faster than they grow, taking fish faster than they breed. The tropics are getting hit worst with a 56% decline in wildlife; Latin America leads with an 83% decline. With population scheduled to grow by better than 50% this century these numbers will only get worse.

The 2015 Corvette Z06 specs have been released. 650hp. 0-60 in 2.95 seconds. Quarter mile in 10.95 @ 127. 60-0 in 99 feet, the best number GM has ever tested in any production car. 1.2 lateral gs. $79,000. The 8 speed automatic is faster than the 7 speed manual - sorry, all you purists are going to be a quarter second behind. I'd really like one of these. I have no idea what I would do with it, and I suppose I would tire of it in a few weeks, but I still really want one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 07, 2014, 07:18:03 am

Great article, PR....going to have to subscribe to him...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 07, 2014, 12:10:12 pm

Here is some more water for Oddo's fire. More support for the accusation that the economy isn't as good as Obama wants us to believe and his mouthpiece Oddo wants it to be:

Kudlow: 'Subsidizing Non-Work' Hobbles Labor Market

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Kudlow-Non-Work-Labor-Market/2014/10/06/id/598970/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1589300_10072014&s=al&dkt_nbr=ivfqzed5.

I'd be willing to agree that our actual unemployment figures are much closer to 20-25 %. Of course people like Oddo really don't want to work. So that's why he is happy to support the head Communist's figures as accurate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 07, 2014, 12:52:38 pm

NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/science-us-climate-oceans/2014/10/06/id/598864/?Dkt_nbr=Newsmax&utm_source=Newsmax&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=5&utm_campaign=widgetphase2?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1589243_10072014&s=al&dkt_nbr=gtwfhh1a

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 07, 2014, 03:55:15 pm

 If everybody is so **** right ... how come this country is so **** wrong?


 What are we doing to our people?


 When did this start that you gave up on your own for overseas profits?[size=78%] [/size]


 When did you stop being an American,


 and start being a Chinese in order to make a profit?


 If I could find out who you are ... I would kill you ... with relish.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 07, 2014, 08:11:00 pm

Quote from: Sportster on October 07, 2014, 07:18:03 am

Great article, PR....going to have to subscribe to him...

You will probably need to e-mail him to have it mailed to you, Sporty.  He sends it to his customers and friends.

mark@calsci.com;

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 08, 2014, 06:23:48 pm

It might be nice to see Hilary get the nomination.

http://news.yahoo.com/first-whitewater-prosecutor-says--serious-crimes--were-uncovered-in-probe-220111087.html


First Whitewater prosecutor says 'serious crimes' were uncovered in probe
Robert Fiske's new memoir provides fresh look at investigation into Clintons
By Michael Isikoff October 7, 2014 3:45 PM Yahoo News

The first federal prosecutor to probe the financial dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton says he was poised to bring high-profile indictments against top Arkansas political and business figures — based in part on testimony from a chief witness against the then president — when he was abruptly replaced by a panel of federal judges, throwing his investigation into turmoil.

"I was angry, frustrated and above all disappointed that I was not going to be able to carry through and finish bringing the indictments," writes Robert Fiske, a former U.S. attorney who served as the original independent counsel in charge of the Whitewater investigation, in a forthcoming memoir, "Prosecutor Defender Counselor."

Fiske — ever the punctilious prosecutor — offers no judgments on the conduct of the Clintons, nor on that of the man who replaced him, Kenneth Starr.

But in his first extensive public comments on his Whitewater investigation, in his book and in an exclusive Yahoo News interview, Fiske contends his removal had a devastating impact on the agents and prosecutors working the case: It ultimately caused the Whitewater probe to stretch on for years longer than it needed to under Starr, a conservative former federal appellate judge who had no prosecutorial experience.

"The simplest way to put it, after I was replaced, the lawyers on the staff in Arkansas said the agents for the FBI and IRS were totally demoralized," Fiske said in the Yahoo News interview. "They thought we were on the brink of doing all these great things, and now that was not going to happen."

The long-ago Whitewater probe seems likely to be revived by political foes if, as is widely expected, Hillary Clinton runs for president. (The Clinton library is due to release new documents, including some that are expected to include Whitewater files, this Friday.) For years, the Clintons have sought to portray the entire investigation as a politically inspired witch hunt, pushed by partisans hunting for any ammunition they could find to damage the president and first lady.

"I'm still waiting for them to admit that there was nothing to Whitewater," Bill Clinton said in a recent appearance.

But the new account of Fiske, a pillar of the New York legal community, offers a more complicated picture. He describes how he had quickly uncovered "serious crimes" in the Whitewater investigation but that his probe was cut short after conservatives falsely accused him of a "cover up."

"There were indictments, there were convictions," said Fiske when asked about claims that there was "nothing" to the investigation. "People went to jail. There was never any evidence that was sufficient to link the Clintons to any of it, but there were certainly serious crimes."

Appointed by Janet Reno in January 1994, Fiske describes how he moved aggressively from the start, carving out a wide-ranging mandate and hiring a top-flight staff of veteran prosecutors. One of his first moves was to subpoena Hillary Clinton's law firm billing records — documents that were later found under mysterious circumstances in the White House living quarters.

By the summer of 1994, Fiske says, he was preparing to bring eight indictments against 11 defendants, including criminal charges for fraud against Jim and Susan McDougal (the Clintons' Whitewater business partners), Webster Hubbell (then an associate attorney general and formerly Hillary Clinton's law partner) and Jim Guy Tucker (Clinton's successor as governor of Arkansas).

A key witness in these cases was David Hale, a former municipal judge and the owner of a federally subsidized small-business lending company. It was Hale who had made the most serious allegation against Bill Clinton: Hale had claimed that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, had pressured him to make a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan to a marketing company owned by Susan McDougal that was really intended to pay off the two couples' debts in their Whitewater real estate investment. ("My name can't show up on this," Hale claimed Clinton had told him, an account that President Clinton later denied.)

Defenders of the Clintons have long depicted Hale as an inveterate liar who was put up to his allegations by bitter political enemies of the then president and first lady.

But Fiske devotes a chapter of his book to how he cut a plea deal with Hale, titling it "An Early Breakthrough," and describing how Hale's information "moved us forward."

"You used David Hale as a witness. You believed he was credible?" Fiske was asked by Yahoo News.

"Yes, we did," Fiske replied. He noted that FBI agents and prosecutors working for him (including famed Texas trial attorney Rusty Hardin) had closely vetted Hale's story.

"He provided very valuable information to us," Fiske said about Hale.

But Hale was also a confessed felon, who had pleaded guilty to defrauding the government. "Standing alone, nobody was going to bring a case based on what he was telling us," Fiske said — unless there was corroboration from other witnesses and documents. "But from what we had seen of him, we thought the story was plausible and was certainly worth pursuing," said Fiske.

Despite Fiske's efforts to find more evidence, he soon ran afoul of conservatives in Congress and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, who accused him of pulling his punches. In late June, he issued two reports — one clearing the Clintons and White House officials of any wrongdoing in trying to influence a regulatory agency review of Jim McDougal's savings and loan, and a second one concluding that Vince Foster, another law firm partner of Hillary Clinton's, who was serving as White House counsel, had committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park overlooking the Potomac River and was not the victim of foul play.

In his memoir, Fiske contends that the evidence that Foster took his own life was overwhelming. But Fiske writes, "conspiracy theorists" attacked his findings, suggesting that Foster may have been murdered elsewhere and his body dumped in the park. Fiske recounts how an Indiana congressman, Dan Burton, even sought to disprove his findings by shooting a watermelon in his backyard. And soon Fiske was also being accused of conflicts of interest and protecting the Clintons. "The Fiske cover up," ran the headline on one Wall Street Journal editorial.

In August 1994, just as his investigation in Arkansas was gathering steam, Fiske was jolted when a panel of three federal judges — two of them strong conservatives — removed him on the grounds that he was not independent enough (because he had been appointed by Clinton's attorney general) and replaced him with Starr.

Fiske says he sought to reassure his dejected staff. Starr "has no experience as a prosecutor, so things may move a little slower but these indictments will happen," he told them.

The indictments were ultimately brought by Starr — only in some cases more than a year after Fiske's removal, and by then, Starr was widely being depicted by the White House and its allies as a conservative partisan. In that sense, Fiske's removal may have been a turning point that ended up undermining public confidence in the entire Whitewater probe, said Ken Gormley, the dean of Duquesne University School of Law and the author of "The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr," an exhaustive study of the investigation.

"Painting the whole thing as a witch hunt would have been much harder" if Fiske had not been replaced, said Gormley. And, he believes, Fiske would likely not have expanded the probe, as Starr did, to include Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. "Fiske was a lawyer's lawyer," said Gormley. "He was the consummate principled prosecutor."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 08, 2014, 07:38:17 pm

  At least I'm honest with my soul. No one ever made up my mind for me.


  Except of course for everything all of you have been posting.


  And hasn't that been the idea all along ? To make JJ like you?


  Can you imagine how incredibly boring this planet would be ...


  if JJ was just like you ?


  JJ : "Hi honey Im home ! Whats for dinner?"


  POD : "mashed potatoes." (Quayle)


  JJ : "Sounds yummy and steak and mixed veggies to go with that and gravy ?"


  POD : "No ... just mashed potatos."


  JJ: "Well honey that sounds a bit bland ... dont you remember last night before you went to sleep and you were going down on me like a garden hose sucking a golf ball thru it?"


 POD : "That was then ... tonight ... eat the mashed potatoes and sleep."


 JJ : " Well honey is you insist ... you seem kind of cold tonight for lovemaking ..."


 POD : "Sleeeep ... when you awake ... all will be better."


 JJ : "Well ... ok."


 [size=78%]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIvH2dPolsM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIvH2dPolsM)[/size]


 [size=78%]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo)[/size]

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 08, 2014, 08:41:26 pm

Really ex-lawyer, that was worthy of a post?


Standards have lowered considerably in your posting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 09, 2014, 10:03:22 am

Worthy of a post?  If that were the standard, Homo wouldn't even be allowed a sign on password.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 09, 2014, 09:28:02 pm

Oooooooooooooooh Davebart clamoring for more Whitewater hash from the olde x-lawyer....



Way to be several generations behind the times.


Nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 09, 2014, 10:07:12 pm

Since Hillary is planning to run for president I believe that makes it relevant.  She does not have the charisma her husband has to brush the slime off.

Then again she has enough baggage of her own with Benghazi and all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 09, 2014, 10:49:00 pm

Relevant? Relevant how, like gwb's military reserve records while he dodged the Vietnam War?

Or dick cheney's 6 deferments doing the same?

And peke, I want to you to be fact based in the response. What is former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's "baggage" in the Benghazi attack? What can you prove which involves any facts?

And your answer has to be backed by any of the SEVEN investigations into the matter by the government.

Enjoy the challenge.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 10, 2014, 04:55:58 am

Hillary's ability to look into the camera and lie will get her elected. She's a scum bag!! She played the good little soldier while dumb ass has been in office, she has automatic nomination...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 05:27:34 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 09, 2014, 10:49:00 pm

Relevant? Relevant how, like gwb's military reserve records while he dodged the Vietnam War?

Or dick cheney's 6 deferments doing the same?

If either of them are on the ballot, those issues might be relevant, but I somehow doubt either will be on the ballot.

Quote from: otto105 on October 09, 2014, 10:49:00 pm

And peke, I want to you to be fact based in the response. What is former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's "baggage" in the Benghazi attack? What can you prove which involves any facts?

As I have pointed out many times now, proof is merely that which is required to convince.  In your case, otto, you have made clear nothing will convince you any of your saints are responsible for anything which might be wrong or in any way politically harmful.  That does not mean the rest of the nation approaches such issues with a similar closed mind.

Quote from: otto105 on October 09, 2014, 10:49:00 pm

And your answer has to be backed by any of the SEVEN investigations into the matter by the government.

otto, you might be able to determine in advance what YOU would consider as evidence, but not what others will consider.

Hilary's political liabilities with independent voters are huge.  As I have indicated, I would be very happy to see her run.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 05:38:59 am

Quote from: chifaninva on October 10, 2014, 04:55:58 am

Hillary's ability to look into the camera and lie will get her elected. She's a scum bag!! She played the good little soldier while dumb ass has been in office, she has automatic nomination...

Her nomination in 2008 was also supposedly automatic.  It was not.  As to thinking that the Democratic base is inclined to nominate those who have played "the good little soldier," the Democratic party does not have a very good record of doing so.  Since 1956, in every presidential election in which an incumbent was not seeking re-election, or a sitting VP was not seeking the nomination, the party base has nominated a shining new penny instead of a candidate they were quite familiar with.  Not the same thing with the Republican party, but certainly has been true with the Democrats.  Part of that tendency can be seen right here in otto's comments, which are likely fairly representative of the the Democratic base on this issue, when we see him just a few hours ago making that comment that even interest in an issue is, "several generations behind the times."

They tend to be consumed with the pursuit of something new, at least in part because any time they get what they want, even they are generally able to see (if not admit) that what they had been calling for (or at least the individual pushing it) is a failure.  So they want something new, or at least someone new to champion the tired old causes.  Hilary is anything but new, nor are her causes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 10, 2014, 09:18:37 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 09, 2014, 10:49:00 pm

Relevant? Relevant how, like gwb's military reserve records while he dodged the Vietnam War?

Absolutely.  Bush could have been a coward and run off to Canada just as so many cowards did.  But he stayed and dealt with the situation legally.

The voters knew and took it into account, just as voters today should do for Hillary.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 10, 2014, 11:14:54 am

http://news.yahoo.com/muslim-free-gun-range-arkansas-160333108.htm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 12:46:04 pm

Mike Huckabee is threatening to leave the Republican Party.... which would likely be very good for the Republican Party.  http://washingtonexaminer.com/huckabee-threatens-to-leave-gop-over-gay-marriage/article/2554606

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 10, 2014, 02:05:49 pm

First the Libertarians.  Then the religious right.

Stupidity like that will pretty much destroy the conservatives chances in National elections.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 02:43:10 pm

davep, the religious right pretty much abandoned the Republican party in 2012, and it was one of the reasons Romney lost.  They sat on their hands and did not turn out at the same rate they did in 2008.  If they had turned out at the same rate, Romney would have won.  If they are going to stay home, the party is better off not having extremely vocal figures such as Huckabee strongly influencing the party's platform and direction.  Huckabee has several times talked about running again in 2016, and if so, it would almost certainly pull the party in that direction to ultimately bring his supporters into the fold.

Without Romney, the libertarian wing, with prominent figures who have NOT threatened to leave the party, are more likely to be a significant influence in picking the nominee, shaping direction and wording the platform.  And those are positive things for the party.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 10, 2014, 04:25:09 pm

Huckabee also guaranteed the Republican Party would continue to lose people like him if it did not change its actions toward same-sex marriage.

Good, take a hike!! I'm tired of hearing about gay people. I don't have a problem with them being gay, I have a problem with the media (and some gay people) making a big deal out of it..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 04:56:50 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on October 10, 2014, 04:25:09 pm

Huckabee also guaranteed the Republican Party would continue to lose people like him if it did not change its actions toward same-sex marriage.

Good, take a hike!! I'm tired of hearing about gay people. I don't have a problem with them being gay, I have a problem with the media (and some gay people) making a big deal out of it..

So it is good for Huckabee to "take a hike," because you are "tired of hearing about gay people," and it is Huckabee who wants to talk about such things and who wants to make a big deal out of it?  Does this mean you are happy Huckabee may leave the party because the Republicans will then be less likely to make same sex marriage a national political issue and you don't want to hear such things even discussed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 10, 2014, 08:26:17 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 02:43:10 pm

davep, the religious right pretty much abandoned the Republican party in 2012, and it was one of the reasons Romney lost.  They sat on their hands and did not turn out at the same rate they did in 2008.  If they had turned out at the same rate, Romney would have won.  If they are going to stay home, the party is better off not having extremely vocal figures such as Huckabee strongly influencing the party's platform and direction.  Huckabee has several times talked about running again in 2016, and if so, it would almost certainly pull the party in that direction to ultimately bring his supporters into the fold.

Without Romney, the libertarian wing, with prominent figures who have NOT threatened to leave the party, are more likely to be a significant influence in picking the nominee, shaping direction and wording the platform.  And those are positive things for the party.

It was certainly the lack of votes from the religious conservatives that caused Romney to lose.  Not surprising.  The economic conservatives expect them to give them their votes even though they do not want to give them what is important to them.

The democrats make sure that each of their unrelated segments, labor unions, blacks, environmentalists, teachers unions, etc. all get at least a portion of what they want.  You never see anyone in a position of importance make fun of the desires of one of the segments, because they want to win.  Conservatives, on the other hand, would rather have the Democrats win rather than someone in the other segment of their party.

It wasn't that long ago that you said on this board that if Huckabee won the nomination, you could not vote for him.  Libertarians are the most politically stupid of all the segments of the Republican party.  And anyone that thinks that the conservative wing could ever win a national election without the votes of the social conservatives is an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 09:13:58 pm

And you remember my comment and position on Huckabee accurately... but I am not a Republican.  I am not part of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.  I am a libertarian.  It is possible that a Republican candidate could be libertarian leaning enough that I could clearly support him and vote for him.  It simply has not happened, yet.  A libertarian leaning Republican could attract the bulk of independent voters.  I Huckabee Republican could not (it is possible they might prefer a Huckabee over whatever candidate the Democrats might offer, but a Huckabee Republican could not attract them).

I do not see elections as tribal.  I don't really care whether someone of my ethnic, geographic, ideological or even partisan tribe wins office.  I care about what is likely going to happen as a result of who is holding the office.  And if gridlock, or policies which might later be reversed, will be the outcome of having the person I like least win the election, instead of having someone win who I dislike less, but who would be in a position to do more harm, I am all for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 10, 2014, 10:40:07 pm

Whether you are or are not a Republican is irrelevant.

Huckabee is in favor of 90 percent of those things you advocate.  But instead you would have voted for someone that had absolutely no chance to win, thus essentially boosting the chances of Obama, who is in favor of about 1 percent of those things you advocate.

Letting what you see as the perfect be the enemy of what you see as good is the height of lunacy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 11:45:54 pm

davep, being in favor of a certain percentage of issues someone supports is a rather simple-minded way of determining whether to support someone, since in fails to weight any of the issues and also ignores the consequences of one thing or another being done.

If I had known I held the deciding vote in electing Obama or Huckabee in 2008, or Obama or Huckabee in 2012, and if I also would have known that if Obama on election or re-election would do exactly as he has done, I would have put Obama in office without a moment's hesitation instead of Huckabee.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 11, 2014, 12:14:42 am

Then you are a moron!

No way Huckabee could have been worse then Obama.

Simply not possible.  Plus since the Democrats controlled the congress he would not have been able to get anything into effect that would have hurt your atheist feelings.

While I am not a fan of Huckabee I don't for a minute think he would have ignored the constitution the way Obama has.  If he had, the media would have screamed bloody murder and he would have been stopped.  Obama has done more damage to this country then I ever imagined when he was elected.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 11, 2014, 01:00:07 am

 All I want is my **** being sucked and slamming a babe in whatever style.


 Beyond that ... you have to ask yourself ... what is the role of government,


 throughout the entire motherfucking world ?


 People like to ****.


 If you can find a logic for your mind after that to control other people.


 Then you have a pretty **** up mind.


 Why would you want to control ME ? Wouldn't you rather be **** ?


 I can get your ass to SATURN tomorrow morning ...


 You just have to stop hating one another ... it can start with you.


 Heres what I know that you dont know yet ... despite the idiocy of THIS PLANET ...


 today.


 Your kids are going to make this better ... and they've already figured it out.


 They are just waiting for you to step aside ... DINOSAURS !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2014, 06:13:19 am

Quote from: Pekin on October 11, 2014, 12:14:42 am

Then you are a moron!

No way Huckabee could have been worse then Obama.

Simply not possible.  Plus since the Democrats controlled the congress he would not have been able to get anything into effect that would have hurt your atheist feelings.

While I am not a fan of Huckabee I don't for a minute think he would have ignored the constitution the way Obama has.  If he had, the media would have screamed bloody murder and he would have been stopped.  Obama has done more damage to this country then I ever imagined when he was elected.

Obama has not done as much to change the basic operation of the constitutional system as FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Wilson, LBJ, Nixon or the 2nd Bush.  If ObamaCare is ever fully implemented, he might be able to rightfully claim his place in that pantheon, but he is not there yet, and he is unlikely to make it.

There is little a president can do unilaterally, without the active involvement of Congress which is going to greatly offend the Constitution on any permanent basis (though Lincoln and Nixon certainly did their best to try) because Congress has the power to bring a president back in line when the president is usurping Congressional power in a way that troubles Congress too much.  But when a president is able to get Congress behind him with one move or another which expands the power of the federal government in general or upsets the balance between the states and the federal government or between the federal government and private citizens, those corrosions of the system are much more difficult to correct.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 11, 2014, 06:16:16 am

What a 2 bit phony.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2014, 07:53:36 am

Quote from: Pekin on October 11, 2014, 12:14:42 am

Then you are a moron!

Quote from: Pekin on October 01, 2014, 10:41:01 pm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists?tr=MostViewed

Otto and Jes this means you.  Seek help.

From the link: Let's start by getting our definitions straight: An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.

An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments

Check, the discussion taking place did not involve you before your post beginning by calling another poster a moron.

designed to upset or disrupt the conversation.

Check, calling another poster a moron would seem to apply, particularly when that begins the post, and includes an exclamation point for emphasis.

Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved.

At least half a check -- no apparent purpose for the post other than an attempt (though a failed attempt) to upset another poster (not all, but one) involved.

Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.

Check.

The definition is not mine.  I never offered it.  I am not even indicating I agree with it.

But if the shoe you offer fits....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 11, 2014, 10:33:56 am

Why do you guys feed the troll.. Read his idiocy, he's worse than Phil..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 11, 2014, 01:00:59 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 10, 2014, 11:45:54 pm

davep, being in favor of a certain percentage of issues someone supports is a rather simple-minded way of determining whether to support someone, since in fails to weight any of the issues and also ignores the consequences of one thing or another being done.

If I had known I held the deciding vote in electing Obama or Huckabee in 2008, or Obama or Huckabee in 2012, and if I also would have known that if Obama on election or re-election would do exactly as he has done, I would have put Obama in office without a moment's hesitation instead of Huckabee.

Everyone has their priorities.  Hopefully, not many have priorities as foolish as yours.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2014, 01:47:44 pm

Other than the fact that they are not the same as yours, what would make the priorities at issue foolish?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on October 11, 2014, 04:53:02 pm

Moron...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2014, 05:38:46 pm

Dave23, even if you can't stop talking to yourself, you really should stop writing to yourself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 11, 2014, 06:11:04 pm

Ah the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense!

A new low even for Jes...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 11, 2014, 06:42:52 pm

 You guys are the greatest !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2014, 06:44:01 pm

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/220469-turnout-fears-mount-for-democrats

Turnout fears mount for Dems
By Cristina Marcos - 10/11/14 06:17 AM EDT

The Democratic Party's worst fears about the midterm election look to be coming true.

Polling in recent weeks suggests turnout on Election Day could be very low, even by the standards of recent midterms. That’s bad news for Democrats because core groups in the liberal base are more likely to stay home than are people in the demographic segments that lean Republican.

A Gallup poll last week found that voters are less engaged in this year's midterms than they were in 2010 and 2006. Only 33 percent of respondents said they were giving at least “some” thought to the upcoming midterms, compared to 46 percent in 2010 and 42 percent in 2006. Even more troubling for Democrats, Republicans held a 12-point advantage  when those paying “some” attention were broken down by party.

Historically, the core Democratic constituencies of young people, minorities and single women are more likely to skip voting in midterm elections. The current projections suggest that months of effort by the Democratic Party to engage those groups on issues such as the minimum wage and women's pay may have been in vain.



If the numbers hold, it could mean a rout for Democrats similar to the 2010 "shellacking" — President Obama’s description — that swept away their House majority.

"We cannot have 2010 turnout. If we have 2010 turnout among our key constituencies, we're going to have 2010 all over again. It's math," said Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, who served as a pollster for President Obama's election campaigns.

Overall voter participation in midterm elections has hovered around 40 percent in recent years, compared to a 56 percent average for presidential years. But turnout levels are more resilient among older, richer and white voters — all of which is good news for Republicans.

According to the nonpartisan Voter Participation Center, nearly 21 million fewer African Americans, Hispanics, unmarried women and young people voted in 2010 compared to 2008. That's exactly the situation Democrats want to avoid this time around.

Some Democrats think the party hasn't done enough to pep up the groups that form its main pillars of support. Veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told The Hill last week that Hispanic voters would largely be unmotivated to vote in this year's elections due to President Obama's decision to delay an executive action on immigration.

“I think if we'd done something, it would have energized the Latino vote and drawn a clear distinction with the Republicans," Lake said.

Polling has further shown that young people are generally disengaged with this year's elections. A Pew Research poll this month found that only five percent of adults ages 18-29 were following the 2014 midterms very closely.

That could spell disaster for Democrats. National exit polls from the last midterm elections in 2010 indicated that voters aged 18-29 favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by 55 percent to 42 percent. Those figures were roughly reversed among voters aged 65 and older, who voted Republican 59 percent to 38 percent.

Tellingly, those voters who were 65 and older accounted for 21 percent of the votes cast in 2010, while only about 12 percent of the total voters came from the 18-29 cohort.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2014, 06:52:47 pm

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/220364-the-polls-are-in-the-democrats-lost

October 10, 2014, 07:00 am
The polls are in; the Democrats lost
By David Russell, contributor

According to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, the Republicans have a 57.6 percent chance of winning a majority in the Senate and are odds-on favorites to increase their majority in the House. So, for the next two years, at least, there is a strong likelihood that our Democratic president will face an increasingly hostile and belligerent Congress. For those embittered by the flawed strategies of the Democrats in Congress and disappointing record of unfulfilled promises by the president, there is a tinge of self-righteousness in feeling that Democrats deserve this defeat and a grudging recognition of the Republican strategy of "just say no."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 11, 2014, 08:21:09 pm

 Jesus H. motherfuckin Kee Riste ... how old do you have to be before you GET IT that you are on the outside looking in ?


 Your'e not going to have the 170 foot long yacht in the Caribbean ...


 your job is to work for the motherfuckers that have the 170 foot long yacht in the Caribbean.


 That's why they have it and you don't ... dummy's!


 You're never going to get it ... because if you got it ... you would be taking away from them.


 They are not going to see it taken away from them.


 Do you know what they give you ? CHICAGO BEARS !


 A Mortgage that they own ... you're just along for the ride to fill their coffers.


 Your children are next ... and there aint a fuckin thing you can do about it.


 But maybe ... just maybe ... if you help your children ...


 THEY can do something about it ... in order not to be like you.


 Being continuously **** over ...


 After all ... don't you want whats best for your children ?


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2014, 08:59:10 pm

Is anyone surprised?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/10/clinton-aide-peddled-stories-against-conservatives-exposing-lewinsky-affair/

Clinton Aide Peddled Stories Against Conservatives Exposing Lewinsky Affair
6:22 PM 10/10/2014  Chuck Ross  Reporter

Emails sent by Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, to a prominent liberal journalist during the Monica Lewinsky scandal provide a rare look at the Clinton White House directly attempting to influence the journalistic process to target the Clinton’s conservative critics.

Blumenthal, who is considered one of Clinton’s staunchest defenders, did so by attempting to convince David Corn, then a reporter with The Nation, a progressive magazine, to look into Lucianne Goldberg and Bill Kristol.

Emails sent from Blumenthal to Corn are contained among thousands of documents released by the Clinton Presidential Library on Friday.

Blumenthal’s first email to Corn was sent on July 6, 1998 targeted Goldberg, a conservative literary agent who had encouraged Linda Tripp to record conversations with Lewinsky. Tripp and Lewinsky worked together at the Pentagon.

“Do you want to do a story about Lucianne Goldberg?” Blumenthal asked Corn, who is currently a reporter at Mother Jones and a contributor to MSNBC.

“She was sued about ten years ago by Kitty Kelley for stealing a lot of money from her. Lucianne was her agent and made off with more than $20,000. It went to trial and Lucianne lost and was forced to pay back all the stolen lucre,” Blumenthal wrote.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 11, 2014, 11:38:20 pm

 You can run but you cant hide MOTHERFUCKER!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 12, 2014, 07:44:42 pm

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10686942_366269163532448_7780179531813550073_n.jpg?oh=04876c05b2abfeb1886289d7cd022982&oe=54B3C80A)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 12, 2014, 07:45:44 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 11, 2014, 01:47:44 pm

Other than the fact that they are not the same as yours, what would make the priorities at issue foolish?

Because they ensure you achieve none of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 12, 2014, 08:07:36 pm

But

Quote from: davep on October 12, 2014, 07:45:44 pm

Because they ensure you achieve none of them.

Cute, but which priority is it that I would not achieve by having Obama president instead of Huckabee?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 12, 2014, 11:17:27 pm

Mark's Market Blog
10-12-14: Volatility returns.
by Mark Lawrence
It's October, the end of the Fed's (in)famous QE program, and everyone wonders what that means. Europe, including Germany, looks to be headed for recession and everyone wonders what that means. Ukraine and ISIL continue to be trouble spots and everyone wonders what that means. Ebola has everyone worried, 'cause, you know, it even killed Gwyneth Paltrow. The dollar is making multi-year highs, bringing exports, profits and job creation into question, and everyone wonders what that means. There no way the dollar can go up like that and the Fed can engineer inflation, which everyone knows is what they want. Bottom line: lots of volatility right now as people try to position themselves for a suddenly very foggy future. Right now it looks like maybe we'll be taking another 1% step down to the 200 day moving average, then perhaps recover from there. Or perhaps collapse further if we punch through the 200 day.
 
S&P 500 April 19 2014 to October 10 2014
Peter Schiff, yet another famous wall street talking head (YAFWSTH), says he doesn't believe the Fed will be raising rates anytime soon. Remember, Bernanke said we would have artificially low rates for the rest of his lifetime. Peter said, "I don't think they ever had a plan to hike rates. I think their plan is to launch QE 4, but they can't come out and admit that so they've been pretending that they're gonna raise rates. And I've been saying for months and months that they're gonna come up with an excuse as to why they couldn't. The latest excuse is 'well, the dollar's too strong.' You've got so many people that think the Fed can stop QE because they're convinced it worked. It hasn't worked; it's just made the U.S. economy more dependent than ever on QE and zero percent interest rates." I find that I agree with him. Raising rates would throw a huge ice water bucket on the housing industry, it would lower inflation, raise the deficit, cause the huge retirement funds to lose major money as both stocks and bonds go down, and probably do something harmful to apple pie. I am currently expecting more global uncertainty and trouble, and I am expecting that the Fed will most certainly not raise rates in this environment - they're far more likely, on current trends, imho, to start printing money again. And stocks? I will be unsurprised to see a 10% - 20% drop sometime in the next few months, but I don't believe Yellen has the balls to let any drop go much further than that. The minute a stock market correction passes 15% I will be convinced that QE4 is on the way. And I continue to believe that this out of control money printing will end very, very badly, but not in the next few years.

Another week, another tape of the Fed being too friendly with banks. Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review said, "The point here is that if bank regulators are captives who identify with the interests of the banks they regulate, it is partly by design. This is especially true of the Federal Reserve System, which was created by Congress in 1913 more as a friend to and creature of the banks than as a watchdog. Two-thirds of the board that governs the New York Fed is chosen by local bankers. And while amendments to the Federal Reserve Act in 1933 shifted the balance of power in the Federal Reserve System from the regional Federal Reserve Banks (and the New York Fed in particular) to the political appointees on the Board of Governors in Washington, bank regulation continues to reside at the regional banks. Which means that the bank regulators' bosses report to a board chosen by … the banks."

German 5 year bonds have slipped to 0.14%, below their current inflation rate and matching the interest rate on Japanese 5 year bonds. Basically this means absent deflationary expectations investors are paying the German government to hold their money for five years. Many organizations including the IMF are continuing to revise their estimates of global growth downwards, leading to more and more fear about stock markets going down. No matter what people say about their expectations, the bond market is where they vote with their feet. And dollars.

Oil has been dropping all week along with the other markets. It's now at $85 / barrel and at a two year low.

Factory orders in Germany fell nearly 6% in July and August, industrial production fell 4%, adding to the case that Germany is headed for a recession. Which adds to the case for the ECB printing more money faster. Which adds to the case for a continuation of the bull market. However Germany has made clear they will not be doing any deficit spending to mitigate any recession, and they will not approve extraordinary efforts by the ECB to print money. Much like how democrats and republicans in the US cannot agree on spending policy, Germans, French and Italians cannot agree on spending policy.

The IMF says that European banks aren't lending enough to businesses. They have a solution: banks loans to businesses should be guaranteed by the taxpayers. Their report on Global Financial Stability says the problem with the recovery in Europe is that banks can't do enough lending. And they further say if nothing is done Europe will "slide back into recession."

According to the IMF, on purchase power parity the Chinese economy just overtook the US economy to become the world's largest. Purchase power parity which means the values of the dollar and renminbi are adjusted for the fact that stuff is cheaper in China than in the US. Measured by exchange rates, the US economy is still about a third larger than the Chinese. And currently as the dollar strengthens and the renminbi weakens we're still pulling ahead.

Brokerages in London report that purchases of 12.5kg gold bars by the super-wealthy have increased 243% this year. Such a bar is worth roughly $500,000. Switzerland is set to vote on a proposition that the Swiss central bank should hold 20% of their assets in gold. If this passes on Nov.20, then Switzerland will be buying 1700 tonnes of gold. China is already a major buyer as they are in the middle of acquiring 4000 tonnes of gold. The $1200 level for gold is looking a bit like a bottom right now.

That guy in Dallas who flew here from Liberia, then went to the hospital and was sent home, then went back two days later and was found to have ebola? Yah, well, he died wednesday. No big surprise, 70% or so do. Now we wait another week or two to see if anyone else he contacted has ebola. A Dallas Sheriff's deputy who had checked out the Liberian guy's house without wearing protective gear checked into the hospital on Thursday. Turns out he doesn't have ebola. However an female nurse from that hospital is now positive for ebola - the first case transmitted on US soil. And two people who had recently been in Liberia showed up at a Boston clinic with some symptoms, and were quickly stuffed into hazmat suits and carted off to a hospital that could handle isolation. The world death toll is now up to 4500 and continuing to climb faster every week - this epidemic is nothing like contained.

FBI Director James Comey said on 60 minutes, "There are two kinds of big companies in the United States. There are those who've been hacked by the Chinese and those who don't know they've been hacked by the Chinese. I liken them a bit to a drunk burglar. They're kicking in the front door, knocking over the vase, while they're walking out with your television set. They're just prolific. Their strategy seems to be: We'll just be everywhere all the time. And there's no way they can stop us." Comey said they're looking to steal industrial secrets, not credit card numbers.

This year a bit over 1000 French citizens and legal residents have left France to travel to Syria and Iraq to support ISIL.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." -- Albert Einstein. Well, no matter what old Albert thought, nationalism is on the rise in Europe. Marine Le Pen's far-right National Front won 25% of the vote in France (up from 6.3% in 2009). Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party, which took 27.5% of the UK vote, giving it 23 MEPs and forcing Labour and the Conservatives into a humiliating scrap for second place. Scotland just held a referendum, pushed by nationalists there, on whether to leave Britain (and by default Europe). The nationalists got 45% of the vote. In Greece, the radical left coalition SYRIZA came on top of the polls with a 26.6% share of the total. Rising anti-European sentiment has been attributed to the ongoing eurozone economic crisis, which has left up to a quarter of the working-age populations of countries like Greece and Spain out of work and caused the region's economy as a whole to flat-line.

It appears that something interesting is happening in North Korea. Kim Jong Un, the chubby 31 y/o supreme dictator, hasn't been seen in public for a little over a month. He missed the Supreme People's Assembly last month, which is simply unheard of. Pyongyang, the capitol, has been in lock down for a couple weeks. No one gets in or out. And a few N.Korean officials suddenly popped up in S.Korea for a diplomatic visit. What does it all mean? Who knows. Certainly no one outside of N.Korea. Perhaps Kim is mortally ill, or dead, or deposed, or locked up. Perhaps Kim is purging the government of his rivals, putting an end to frequent claims that he's just a figurehead. Perhaps it will end suddenly and we won't be able to tell what changed. Anyway, if you're a N.Korean, this is interesting times. . .

A team at Morgan Stanley is predicting the Death of the Auto Industry. What does that mean? They're predicting that driverless cars are coming far faster than most people imagine - like well within 10 years. And at nearly the same time car ownership will disappear as people rent cars for a day - something that's already popular in scandinavia. Meanwhile Tesla announced a new versions of their model S sedan, the D with dual motors and four wheel drive. It's faster than the previous version and has a very advanced autopilot feature. In autopilot it reads speed limit signs and uses long range ultrasonic sonar to avoid obstacles. If you can't find it in the parking lot you can call it up on the internet from your phone and tell it to come to you, driverless. Why walk out in the rain when your car can pick up at the Nordstrom door? Or step out of the car in your driveway and tell it to park itself in your garage. Whatever. If I'm still alive, I'll still be splitting lanes on my motorcycle.

On Monday the Supreme Court refused to hear cases from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin on gay marriage. You may recall that the feds insisted that Utah define marriage in their constitution as between one man and one woman in order to become a state. Now the feds have found that that clause is unconstitutional. This is it: when Oklahoma and Utah have to perform gay marriages, everyone does. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states by the end of 2015, I guarantee it. Meanwhile half of republicans are moving on, like Scott Walker (governor Wisconsin) who said "For us, it's over in Wisconsin. To me, I'd rather be talking in the future now more about our jobs plan and our plan for the future of the state." The other half think this will be a hot button issue in 2016, and no presidential candidate will be nominated unless he backs a constitutional amendment making marriage state law only. I got bad news for Ralph Reed and his Faith and Freedom Coalition: I don't like how this was done so undemocratically, but it's done. The poll numbers are clear, it's over, it won't be reversed in my lifetime. All he's going to accomplish is to alienate young voters.

Warren Buffet, the Oracle of Omaha, said this week, "Hillary is going to run. She's going to announce it as late as possible. Hillary is going to win. I will bet money on it. I don't do that easily."

Three Japanese physicists have won the Nobel prize for inventing blue LEDs. There's no such thing as white LEDs; what those actually are is an array of red, green and blue LEDs. Personally, I don't get this award; I just can't see blue LEDs as being comparable to general relativity, quantum field theory, the Higgs particle. . . but then if you go to any physics department and chat about the Nobel prize, quickly you'll hear, "It's awarded by the Swedish academy of Science. Who are these guys? Has anyone every heard of them? What have they done?" Einstein was proposed for the Nobel prize pretty much every year from about 1908 until 1920 and never won. There was a guy on the Swedish committee who blocked it, saying, "This is not science, it's Jewish science." That guy, what kind of scientist was he? A dentist. Einstein finally got the award when Sommerfeld, a previous winner, went to the committee and said, "Look, everyone alive knows Einstein is the greatest living physicist. At this point if you don't give him the award, you're just making the award worthless." Einstein was given the 1921 award.

Scientists at the University of Southampton studied 2,060 people who suffered cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals across Britain, Austria, and the United States. Of the 330 who survived, 140 said they had experienced some kind of awareness while being resuscitated, when they were clinically dead. One 57-year-old man described the noise of the machines and what the medical staff were doing during this time. Dr. Sam Parnia, who led the study, told the Daily Telegraph: "The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two beeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experience lasted. He seemed very credible, and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened." Dr.Parnis further said, "We know the brain can't function when the heart has stopped beating. But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn't beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20 to 30 seconds after the heart has stopped. There is no moment of death; it begins when your heart stops, and goes on for a period of time"

It's October, pumpkin time. There is absolutely no real pumpkin in a Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte. Pumpkin Spice Lattes were named after the spice mix used in pumpkin pie — cinnamon, cloves, ginger and nutmeg. Most pumpkin pies aren't made with real pumpkin, either. Most are made with Libby's Select Pumpkin Mix, which is made with Libby's specially developed "Dickinson pumpkins," a type of squash known as Cucurbita Moschata.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 13, 2014, 10:44:17 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 12, 2014, 08:07:36 pm

But
Cute, but which priority is it that I would not achieve by having Obama president instead of Huckabee?

You like the way Obama has handled the economy?  You like his appointments on the Supreme Court?  You like the executive orders that take authority away from Congress?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 13, 2014, 11:03:47 am

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHRdhWqQjLwHqHJvaR2-VO7zsJ_Mkg1QsCFrCFBaGOdDmHlQpN)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 13, 2014, 11:54:17 am

LOL

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 13, 2014, 05:16:10 pm

Quote from: davep on October 13, 2014, 10:44:17 am

You like the way Obama has handled the economy?  You like his appointments on the Supreme Court?  You like the executive orders that take authority away from Congress?

Your questions really do not respond to the question I posed: "but which priority is it that I would not achieve by having Obama president instead of Huckabee?"

But, that said, to reply to your questions: No, No, and No, but I see no reason to believe Huckabee would be different in any meaningful way on any of those three things.  And on the "executive orders that take authority away from Congress," what executive orders and what authority are you talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 13, 2014, 06:25:38 pm

Arguing with a religious bigot is a lot like arguing with Oddo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 13, 2014, 06:58:28 pm

A rather empty response.  Sort of the kind one might expect from otto.  Still nothing of which priority is it that I would not achieve by having Obama president instead of Huckabee

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 13, 2014, 08:55:53 pm

Anyone who would imagine Obama would make a better president than Huckabee is a moron. Absolutely!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 13, 2014, 09:35:04 pm

WshflThinking, no one was discussing whether either Obama or Huckabee would be a better president than the other, or whether either would be a good president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 13, 2014, 10:21:46 pm

If the shoe fits wear it. Sometime the truth hurts

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 13, 2014, 10:28:51 pm

What "truth" are you talking about?  The only one I see is that you seem to have difficulty understanding what is written.... since no one was discussing whether either Obama or Huckabee would be a better president than the other, or whether either would be a good president, and no one indicated they "imagine(d) Obama would make a better president than Huckabee."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 13, 2014, 10:30:41 pm

Definition of a moron.

Anyone who thinks Huckabee could be anything more than a carnival barker at the church fair.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 13, 2014, 11:43:12 pm

Interesting.... particularly since Huckabee served as governor of Arkansas for 10 years, the same church fair carnival barker position Clinton held before he was elected president, though by most impartial metrics Huckabee did better at the job than Clinton did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 14, 2014, 10:03:49 pm

Wasn't otto telling us just within the last couple of months that the Democrats were going to beat Mitch McConnell this November in his re-election race?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/14/democrats-are-pulling-out-of-the-kentucky-senate-race-heres-why-thats-important/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/220697-dems-pull-plug-on-kentucky-ads

Of course, otto could still be right... it could be the Democrats have decided to stop paying for any more adds in KY just because the race is completely in the bag and they know there is no reason to waste any more money there when McConnell has already lost.

I'm sure that's it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 14, 2014, 10:38:27 pm

Ex-lawyer for the hillbillies


What metrics would that church carnival barker be judged at....

Basic stupidity or lack of understanding of the Constitution?


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 14, 2014, 10:42:10 pm

The people of kentucky deserve the leadership that they vote for.

If they want to push their economic interest to the wealthy and get screwed they deserve it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 14, 2014, 10:51:31 pm

Ex-lawyer for the hillbillies

How about these metrics....

http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/11/editorialswhos-biggest-tax-raiser.html (http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/11/editorialswhos-biggest-tax-raiser.html)

Got anything else, dufus? Like something you really want to pull out of your ass.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 14, 2014, 11:07:26 pm

maybe ex-lawyer to the hillbillies

You want to talk about...Clemency controversies of the carnival barker.


You want to go first?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 14, 2014, 11:19:46 pm

Hey sporty


Be very careful watching the bears this season.

You can get Ebola if you root too hard for the black players according to the Lord.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 14, 2014, 11:49:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 14, 2014, 10:42:10 pm

The people of kentucky deserve the leadership that they vote for.

If they want to push their economic interest to the wealthy and get screwed they deserve it.

So now you are conceding what everyone else know all along, that McConnell would be easily re-elected?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 15, 2014, 12:08:57 am

 What none of you brain dead **** know is the Irish "Double Standard" is being repealed.


 Huh ??  JJ what the **** is the Irish double standard ??


 Look it up. You'll get an education about business.


 All of your favorite players play there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 15, 2014, 12:26:42 am

 The Irish government is preparing to close a tax loophole (http://macnn.com/rd/319897==http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/10/15/change.expected.to.have.little.practical.benefit.for.government.budgets/) that many technology companies are using to their advantage. The government has announced changes to tax law covering Ireland, which will prevent Google, Apple, and other large enterprises from taking advantage of current tax rules in what is commonly known as a "Double Irish" tax arrangement

"Aggressive tax planning by multinational companies has been criticized (http://macnn.com/rd/319892==http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/06/11/presences.in.ireland.netherlands.and.luxembourg.suspect/) by governments across the globe and has damaged the reputation of many countries," said Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan according to (http://macnn.com/rd/319893==http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/14/ireland-budget-idUKL6N0S93R520141014) Reuters.

"Schemes that exploit mismatches in tax legislation are being heavily scrutinized by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and others, and through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project they will come to an end over time."

 While the announcement covers a wide array of tax schemes, Noonan added extra measures to affect the "Double Irish" arrangement,

namely by requiring all companies registered in Ireland to also be "tax resident," meaning they are subject to local taxes.

The change will apply to new companies from January 1, though existing companies will have a transition period until the end of 2020.
___________________________________________________________________________

 I'll bet you thought they were looking out for you for the best of the World ... BWA-Ha-HA-HA-HA-HA !!

**** idiots .. why do I have to put up with **** idiots ? A CHICAGO BEARS board I could understand ...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 15, 2014, 05:47:20 am

This is just the beginning, but its started, a frontal assault on the first amendment and religious freedom.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/city-of-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons.html

It wouldn't surprise me to see this eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 15, 2014, 06:31:20 am

I'm curious, Wshflthking, if the Department of Homeland Security issued subpoenas for radical Islamic clerics in this country to provide copies of their sermons for review, perhaps to identify mosques where the messages might be encouraging members to become terrorists, even if only accidentally and not overtly, would you have similar concerns?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 15, 2014, 06:50:55 am

So if we actually have equal protection under the law then their sermons should be under the same scrutiny, but it isn't. Muslims are given a free pass, hands off.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 15, 2014, 08:02:06 pm

WshflThinking, your contention that "Muslims are given a free pass" and that government has a "hands off" approach toward them would appear at odds with reality.  http://www.northjersey.com/news/muslim-groups-protest-new-york-city-s-stance-on-north-jersey-spying-1.1104200  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-14/Muslims-NYPD-spy/51191296/1

Do you have anything resembling a news source supporting that position?

And did I miss your response to my question as to whether you would have similar concerns if the Department of Homeland Security issued subpoenas for radical Islamic clerics in this country to provide copies of their sermons for review, perhaps to identify mosques where the messages might be encouraging members to become terrorists, even if only accidentally and not overtly?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 15, 2014, 08:29:02 pm

So how, in your twisted mind, do you equate Christians and what they believe and live to Muslims who support terrorism and preach it in their sermons? And don't twist what I said to say something outlandish. You said

Quote

if the Department of Homeland Security issued subpoenas for radical Islamic clerics in this country to provide copies of their sermons for review, perhaps to identify mosques where the messages might be encouraging members to become terrorists, even if only accidentally and not overtly, would you have similar concerns?

  Huge huge difference between preaching God's word in truth in a sermon and encouraging members to become terrorists!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 15, 2014, 08:42:30 pm

Apple meet orange....in moronville known as republic party politics they are the same.


Sporty just answer the question.


We all know wasfullofit can't because he is down at the laundry mart cleaning his BVD's.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 15, 2014, 08:49:15 pm

Sporty

Just how did those christians preaching the word of god do with followers shooting abortion providers?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 15, 2014, 08:50:04 pm

I figured you wouldn't get it, Otter. Liberals have a hard time differentiating between a criminal and a unborn child, with the criminal deserving leniency and life and the baby, death in the mother's womb. Stop being so dense....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 15, 2014, 08:52:13 pm

You really wanna play that game?? Ok then, every ignorant mean half witted thing that liberals speak against Christians is 'hate' speech and deserves censoring and subpeonas or jail time. Gee, that would leave very few of you around, wouldn't it?.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 15, 2014, 10:14:20 pm

And check out Louis Farakhan. He has had a free pass for seemingly ages.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 15, 2014, 10:38:31 pm

You're not very secure in your beliefs are you sporty.

And one wonders why most of America thinks the whole fundamentalist christian movement is made up of a bunch of white uneducated buggy-eyed morons.

Not very much difference between you and the buggy-eyed morons in the Middle East.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 15, 2014, 10:49:07 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 15, 2014, 08:49:15 pm

Sporty

Just how did those christians preaching the word of god do with followers shooting abortion providers?

The difference, of course, is that 99 % of people calling themselves Christians believe that anyone that shoots an abortion provider should be tried and convicted of murder.

According to more than one poll done after 9 - 11, about 70 % of Muslims living in America believe that terrorist killings of innocent civilians is an acceptable way to gain political goals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 15, 2014, 10:52:38 pm

rick scott is a wussy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNPJ0UJroIQ#t=54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNPJ0UJroIQ#t=54)

Like every republic pol.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 15, 2014, 11:03:51 pm

Davepeebart


Which "poll" showed "only" those calling themselves christian supported charges against anti-choice murders?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 16, 2014, 05:43:19 am

Quote from: Sportster on October 15, 2014, 08:29:02 pm

So how, in your twisted mind, do you equate Christians and what they believe and live to Muslims

On a most fundamental basis, I equate them because they are the same.  On a legal basis I equate them because both are practicing freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 16, 2014, 06:24:53 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on October 15, 2014, 10:14:20 pm

And check out Louis Farakhan. He has had a free pass for seemingly ages.

The "free pass" is called the First Amendment.  It is what also allows you to criticize the president, whoever the president happens to be, and feel comfortable no one is going to roust you out of your bed in the middle of the night to take you off for execution or a "re-education" camp.

Start trimming it's application for Farakhan and be prepared to also lose it for yourself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 16, 2014, 10:09:11 am

Dem strategy...distort and distract...will it work?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/10/15/wapos-kessler-gives-gop-cut-cdc-funding-four-pinocchios-effectively

Early this morning, Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's designated fact-checker gave the left's claims that Republicans alone were responsible for alleged "cuts" to Ebola research four Pinocchios (i.e., a "whopper"). That's nice, but it hardly undoes the damage news outlets like the Associated Press have inflicted on the truth in the apparent name of ginning up resentment among low-information voters.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 16, 2014, 10:30:55 am

If this is true it is another example of the complete incompetence of the secret service...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/obama-ebola-nurses-atlanta_n_5990584.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 16, 2014, 11:16:59 am

Protocol is one thing, what bothers me with this, the nurse had a low grade fever and had been caring for an ebola patient and she boards a commercial jet anyway? If this was some normal schmuck that didn't know any better would be one thing, but come on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest77 on October 16, 2014, 11:21:57 am

Quote from: chifaninva on October 16, 2014, 11:16:59 am

Protocol is one thing, what bothers me with this, the nurse had a low grade fever and had been caring for an ebola patient and she boards a commercial jet anyway? If this was some normal schmuck that didn't know any better would be one thing, but come on.

My wife is a Nurse and said exactly the same thing.  If she knew she had a fever, she should have known better than to fly.  CDC better get their $hit together and do their jobs.  Starting to sound like a horror movie script now. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 16, 2014, 04:27:27 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 15, 2014, 11:03:51 pm

Davepeebart


Which "poll" showed "only" those calling themselves christian supported charges against anti-choice murders?

I supported charges against the anti-choice murderers.  Nor did I ever meet anyone that did not support it.

Which poll showed that most Christians were in favor of the murders?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 16, 2014, 07:20:01 pm

And the administration, which wanted to cut the budget BELOW the level Congress funded, AND which was responsible for the sequestration idea, wants to blame budget cuts for its ebola screw-up.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/15/NIH-Spent-Millions-Studying-Origami-Condoms-Poop-Throwing-Chimpanzees-Instead-of-Ebola

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 16, 2014, 10:22:55 pm

Anyone know what the first time jobless claims were this week?

Can someone ask beerbelly?

Or ask the ex-lawyer for the hillbillies what GDP has been....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 17, 2014, 06:05:45 am

First time jobless claims reflect how many new layoffs there were, nothing more.

I don't know what the numbers were this week.  Unless an economy has been laying off growing numbers of workers each week and you are looking to see whether that trend is continuing, it is a rather insignificant to downright meaningless figure, even if it approaches zero.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 17, 2014, 06:26:01 am

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_ADVANTAGE_WEALTHIEST_DISTRICTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-16-56-29


Oct 16, 4:56 PM EDT
Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER  Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP support for tax breaks that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 17, 2014, 03:41:13 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/17/dragon-egg-marines-who-guarded-saddam-mysterious-bunker-fear-weapons-unleashed/

Marine Lance Cpl. Kevin Fanning, who served in Hartley’s platoon and corroborated the account, described other ominous discoveries made by the Marines as they cleared the area around the top-secret bunker.

“When we began searching, we discovered a huge stockpile of 105-millimeter artillery shells that were filled with mustard gas,” Fanning told FoxNews.com. “I have always wondered why it never became big news, as well as other incidents. I never doubted the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.”

Hartley went on to serve in Afghanistan and achieved the rank of captain before being discharged from the military.



Their account was similar to a separate one reported by The New York Times earlier this week, in which U.S. service members guarding Al Muthanna said a toxic agent used in mustard gas leaked out of a shell when a soldier picked it up. According to the Times, more than a dozen U.S. soldiers were injured by chemical weapons but the incidents were not made public.

Gen. Jack Kean, chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, former Army vice-chief of staff and a Fox News contributor, told Fox News’ ‘The Kelly File’ on Wednesday that it was known in high military circles that Hussein’s old weaponry was still around, although it was believed to be in poor condition.

“It was common knowledge in the chain of command that these storage sites existed and occasionally our soldiers would ‘bang into these things,’” Kean said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 17, 2014, 03:41:38 pm

Wait I thought Bush lied and there were no WMD in Iraq?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 17, 2014, 04:53:36 pm

How could they possibly be acquiring and using weapons that don't exist? HMmmmmm.......maybe ask Otts, he'll know....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 17, 2014, 05:08:18 pm

Never underestimate the Homo's ability to deny reality.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 17, 2014, 05:21:48 pm

Socialists have long proven their tremendous ability to deny reality.... they are, after all, socialists, meaning they insist that socialism works, is fair, and would be best for mankind.  Everywhere they see reality proving otherwise, and denying it, insisting that the only thing needed is... more socialism.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 17, 2014, 06:06:35 pm

Thank you peke for being the first moron to buy the latest wingnut mythology in regards to WND in Iraq!


I do appreciate your abillity to buy it so completely.


You may want to review your post (ya know actually fact check it) before I point out the history of reagan and rumdfeldt in regard to the matter and shove it back up your right wing ass where it belongs.


I will give you time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 17, 2014, 06:16:45 pm

Sport

Have you plastic wrapped your house yet?

Your life depends on it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 17, 2014, 06:39:21 pm

So Otto you are saying Reagan and Rumsfeldt gave Saddam WMD to fight Iran?

Yet you still buy that there were no WMD and that, "Bush lied, people died!"?

Which is it? Both can't be true.

Seems to me the left lied to smear Bush.  You and your ilk are the ones buying the lies.

Also why is it Reagan giving weapons to Iraq to fight Iran was wrong but Obama giving weapons to Islamic extremists to fight Syria is fine?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 17, 2014, 06:40:22 pm

Snappy comebacks by the Homo.

You guys sell him short.  It is much harder to think of ways to attack those that disagree with him than it is to actually read, understand, and respond with facts and logic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 17, 2014, 07:16:27 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 17, 2014, 06:06:35 pm

Thank you peke for being the first moron to buy the latest wingnut mythology in regards to WND in Iraq!


I do appreciate your abillity to buy it so completely.

Wait a minute, otto, are you genuinely still contending that WMD were NOT found in Iraq?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Quote from: otto105 on October 17, 2014, 06:06:35 pm

You may want to review your post (ya know actually fact check it) before I point out the history of reagan and rumdfeldt in regard to the matter and shove it back up your right wing ass where it belongs.
I will give you time.

Forget about waiting.... I want to see you try to shove anything anywhere.  Really.

Try pushing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on October 17, 2014, 08:57:56 pm

I guess Sadaam's son in law was a wing nut too, who just happened to be involved in the manufacture of WMD's

Then uninformed liberals march on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 18, 2014, 02:12:27 am

  JJ being the hard core leftist that he is decided to join a socialist political party ...

  NSDAP ; National Socialist German Workers Party. Nyuk !

  You just can't get too left of the left ! Right ? Dues are only $6.00 a month,less then Netflix.

  WE KNOW WHATS BEST FOR YOU. >:(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 18, 2014, 09:49:52 am

Quote from: Pekin on October 17, 2014, 03:41:13 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/17/dragon-egg-marines-who-guarded-saddam-mysterious-bunker-fear-weapons-unleashed/

Marine Lance Cpl. Kevin Fanning, who served in Hartley’s platoon and corroborated the account, described other ominous discoveries made by the Marines as they cleared the area around the top-secret bunker.

“When we began searching, we discovered a huge stockpile of 105-millimeter artillery shells that were filled with mustard gas,” Fanning told FoxNews.com. “I have always wondered why it never became big news, as well as other incidents. I never doubted the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.”

Hartley went on to serve in Afghanistan and achieved the rank of captain before being discharged from the military.



Their account was similar to a separate one reported by The New York Times earlier this week, in which U.S. service members guarding Al Muthanna said a toxic agent used in mustard gas leaked out of a shell when a soldier picked it up. According to the Times, more than a dozen U.S. soldiers were injured by chemical weapons but the incidents were not made public.

Gen. Jack Kean, chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, former Army vice-chief of staff and a Fox News contributor, told Fox News’ ‘The Kelly File’ on Wednesday that it was known in high military circles that Hussein’s old weaponry was still around, although it was believed to be in poor condition.

“It was common knowledge in the chain of command that these storage sites existed and occasionally our soldiers would ‘bang into these things,’” Kean said.

Pekin, now you know that is probably just some right wing nut job :::sarcasm:::

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 18, 2014, 11:45:34 am

I'm pretty sure that the issues of high deductibles and co-pays as a problem with Obamacare was frequently brought up here. I'm also pretty sure that people who expressed these concerns were called racists and fear-mongers. Yep...congrats on a program that allows people to buy insurance policies that they can't afford to use. From the NY Times no less.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/unable-to-meet-the-deductible-or-the-doctor.html?src=twr&_r=0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 18, 2014, 07:17:24 pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/charge-that-gop-cuts-have-stymied-ebola-efforts-doesn%e2%80%99t-add-up/ar-BB9Reaa

Generally, Congress gave the NIH about what the president requested — sometimes more, sometimes less. In 2013, for instance, Congress gave the NIH more than what the White House had requested, but then $1.5 billion was taken away by sequestration.

Whose idea was sequestration? It was originally a White House proposal, designed to force Congress to either swallow painful cuts or boost taxes. The law mandating sequestration passed on a bipartisan vote, and then Republicans embraced it even more strongly when they could not reach a grand budget deal with President Obama.

For fiscal 2015, the documents show, it was the Obama White House that proposed to cut the NIH’s budget from the previous year. Moreover, we should note that President George W. Bush, a Republican, is responsible for significantly boosting the NIH’s funding in the early years of his presidency.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 18, 2014, 09:34:02 pm

Lies, all lies.

Everyone knows that George Bush is personally responsible for Ebola, and that the only reason the tireless public servants at NIH did not develop a vaccine, which would simultaneously improved your sex life, is because Tea Party Republicans cut the budget.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 18, 2014, 10:50:32 pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/authorities-say-michael-brown%e2%80%99s-blood-found-on-gun-inside-police-car/ar-BB9Rl13

Forensic evidence shows Michael Brown’s blood on the gun, uniform and inside the car of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, law enforcement officials said, information they believe potentially corroborates the officer’s story that the unarmed 18-year-old tried to take his gun.

The evidence will make it harder for the Justice Department to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson on federal charges that he violated Brown’s civil rights, said the officials, who asked their names be withheld because of the sensitivity of the case.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 18, 2014, 11:11:02 pm

The Homo isn't here right now, so I will stand in for him.

LIES!  LIES!  Bush planted the blood there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 19, 2014, 06:38:21 am

Quote from: Pekin on October 18, 2014, 10:50:32 pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/authorities-say-michael-brown%e2%80%99s-blood-found-on-gun-inside-police-car/ar-BB9Rl13

Forensic evidence shows Michael Brown’s blood on the gun, uniform and inside the car of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, law enforcement officials said, information they believe potentially corroborates the officer’s story that the unarmed 18-year-old tried to take his gun.

The evidence will make it harder for the Justice Department to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson on federal charges that he violated Brown’s civil rights, said the officials, who asked their names be withheld because of the sensitivity of the case.

While that does corroborate that aspect of Wilson's account, I don't believe that aspect of his account was not seriously disputed, other than, perhaps, by Brown's buddy who had been with him the entire time, and that guy, who denied that they had taken anything from the shop minutes earlier, and who had an outstanding warrant against him for giving false statements to the police, simply was not going to have any credibility in the case with any remotely objective juror.

The real question is what happened after the struggle between the two of them at the patrol car.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 19, 2014, 11:41:16 am

Quote from: davep on October 18, 2014, 11:11:02 pm

The Homo isn't here right now, so I will stand in for him.

LIES!  LIES!  Bush planted the blood there.

Not quite...you forgot the derogatory name calling. You need to throw in a "wingnuts" or "teabagger" and don't forget the racism reference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 19, 2014, 11:53:56 am

Quote from: Keysbear on October 19, 2014, 11:41:16 am

Not quite...you forgot the derogatory name calling. You need to throw in a "wingnuts" or "teabagger" and don't forget the racism reference.

While true, davep got in the name calling himself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 19, 2014, 12:32:01 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 19, 2014, 06:38:21 am

While that does corroborate that aspect of Wilson's account, I don't believe that aspect of his account was not seriously disputed, other than, perhaps, by Brown's buddy who had been with him the entire time, and that guy, who denied that they had taken anything from the shop minutes earlier, and who had an outstanding warrant against him for giving false statements to the police, simply was not going to have any credibility in the case with any remotely objective juror.

The real question is what happened after the struggle between the two of them at the patrol car.

That aspect of the account was totally denied of ignored by most of the protesters, left wing blogs and Oddo the Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 19, 2014, 02:27:00 pm

As it will be denied or ignored by them now.

Many of the same people continue to insist that Trayvon Martin was murdered.

Folks like that are deliberately taking themselves out of any meaningful discussion, and are unlikely to survive voir dire to make it onto a jury in the case ever does go to trial, or to constitute a majority of a grand jury panel deciding to indict... in other words, what they pretend to think (think being something most of them are actually not willing to do) really makes no difference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 19, 2014, 06:35:54 pm

Mark's Market Blog
10-19-14: Amost a correction.
by Mark Lawrence
The S&P made it almost to 10% down, then Thursday and Friday recovered a bit. This isn't yet officially a correction. Will it be? Yes. I think we're only about half way through this thing in both time and percentage. Jim Cramer says Friday constitutes a tradable bottom, as we've made progress on ebola, ISIL & Ukraine, oil has bottomed out, all stocks got hit, tech stocks bottomed out. Apparently he has much better eyesight than I because I don't see any of that stuff happening.
 
S&P 500 April 26 2014 to October 17 2014
QE1 ended. The S&P dropped 20% and the Fed started QE2. QE2 ended, the S&P dropped 20%, and the Fed started QE3. That ended, 20% drop, QE4. Now QE4 is ending and we're about 10% down and dropping. Who could have predicted it? Bill Fleckenstein, Yet Another Wall Street Talking Head (YAWSTH) said, "There is no way on Earth that the S&P is going to stay near 2,000 without the Fed printing money. They tried to exit from QE1 and QE2 and it failed and the market tanked. Does anybody really think that they can print $1.5 trillion over the space of a year and a half, and then stop and not have the markets go down?"

It's October and the government tells us this month how great they are. On Wednesday, the Treasury Department released its statement for fiscal year 2014. Receipts rose $247 billion to $3,021 billion, outlays rose $50 billion to $3,504 billion for a deficit of $483 billion. At 2.8% of GDP, as the media gleefully pointed out, proportionately the smallest since 2007. And to fill that $483 billion hole, the US government borrowed $1.086 trillion. $7,750 per taxpayer. Imagine that - we're being lied to.

A second nurse in Dallas has been diagnosed with Ebola. So here's where we're at: a Liberian with Ebola flies to Dallas to see if he can get married to his ex-girlfriend from over a decade ago. He checks into a Dallas hospital. He dies. Now two Americans have ebola as a result of treating him. And liberals tell us that we cannot bar West Africans from coming to the US 'cause that will just make things worse. Bad news: things are worse. The CDC is investigating how the two nurses contracted the disease. Turns out they're not sure, they think their procedures should have protected the nurses.

Ebola deaths world wide to date: 4700. WHO says we could easily be looking at 10,000 new cases a week by December. African hospitals are completely unequipped to handle this, many lacking soap, clean needles, running water. Because so many hospitals are seen by the locals as death traps (my friend got Ebola, went to the hospital and died), many refuse to go to the hospital at all, thereby spreading the disease faster by staying home. Average IQ in Guinea and Sierra Leone: 67. 70 is routinely considered the cutoff for basic literacy. There are currently about 10,000 total ebola patients being handled by about 300 native doctors - 33 patients per doctor. Imagine when there are 10,000 new cases per week. Estimated cost of 50,000 hospital beds for the region with associated doctors and nurses etc, about $1 billion per month. Where will the money, doctors, nurses, sheets, buildings, beds, support personnel come from? This epidemic is going to get much, much worse.


Ebola works a little bit like HIV - it first attacks your body's immune system, then takes on your blood vessels after your immune system is unable to respond to it. Culturally ebola works in a similar fashion - it's attacking the extremely sparse health care organizations in West Africa, taking up beds and killing health care workers. Some estimate for everyone dead of ebola there are several others dead of malaria and diarrhea due to not having access to health care right now.

Russian gas is transported to Europe through Ukraine pipelines. Putin says that if the Ukraine steals gas from the pipeline, he will reduce supplies to Europe.

Interest rates are starting to rise on Europe's periphery. Greece rates, for example, are going exponential. Portugal, Spain and Italy are also showing signs that the bond market's love affair, arranged by Draghi and the ECB, has hit a rough patch. Is this a short term issue, or are we headed for yet another Europe banking crisis? Stay tuned. . .


As the dollar rises in value so do Chinese exports, which are up 15% year on year. Cutting QE and eventually raising US interest rates is going to be great for China.

China is slowing, meandering towards banking and property crises, and having productivity and profit problems. I believe this will continue for some time - China's vast foreign reserves will see them through a lot of turmoil before they crack. However the day must come, and I think soon, when they will have to start to dip into those reserves to preserve the stability of their government. China has a long history of booms and collapses, this is nothing extraordinary for them. Right now China is a mass of conflicting data, some positive, some very negative. Into this morass, the China central bank has started printing again, trying to keep up with the Japanese and Europeans. They're injecting $65 billion of liquidity into their major banks. One day we're all going to drown in this massive, unprecedented world wide liquidity, but not just yet.

In an interview last weekend, Elizabeth Warren, my favorite liberal senator, said, "He [Obama] picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street." The interviewer says that it seems Obama's economic team "just about every time sided with Wall Street." Warren agreed, "That's right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over."

Last week I noted the rising dollar would put pressure on the Fed to print more money. The Fed apparently agrees. San Francisco Fed President John Williams said, "If we really get a sustained, disinflationary forecast ... then I think moving back to additional asset purchases in a situation like that should be something we should seriously consider."

Oil continues to drop, now quickly approaching $80. Some are claiming that this is Saudi Arabia trying to kill off the US fracking boom, as somewhere between $65 and $80 oil most fracking sites become uneconomic. I'm not sure I credit the Saudis with that much power or foresight. In any case the fracking oil has sitting there for a few million years, delaying pumping it for a few years doesn't change things in the long run.

The Washington Post has a story that highlights some of the more disturbing aspects of a police tactic known as civil forfeiture, which lets cops make money from seizing cash and property from alleged criminals. Police can seize your assets even if you're never convicted of a crime as long as cops believe you obtained the property illegally. The Washington Post examined 43,000 reports on asset seizures dating back to 2008, which reported $2.5 billion in spending from these seizures. According to the Post's analysis, 81% of that spending came from seizures in which the property or cash owners were never indicted.

Federal safety regulations say that a yellow light should last 3 seconds. Chicago recently allowed a private company to install red light cameras at many of their intersections and reset the yellow lights to 2.9 seconds. They took in $8 million in red light violations in the last six months. Recently under complaints from judges, Chicago put the yellows back to 3 seconds. Now they're trying to find a way to not have to refund the $8 million.

Sweden says they have pictures of some sort of Russian sub operating in their waters and they're out to catch it. Sweden has a nice little defense department going - they have their own home-made extremely quiet submarines and radar absorbing ships. The pictures are in what Sweden says is "a sensitive area."

Lockheed claims a huge breakthrough in fusion reactors. They say they have a self-regulating magnetic containment field that cuts power requirements dramatically. They say they have something commercially feasible which is small - seven feet by ten feet - and produces energy with almost no radioactive waste. They claim they can have a prototype working in five years and could be manufacturing reactors in ten years. I dunno, I've been hearing about fusion my entire life. I'll believe it when I see it.

Fun Science Facts: It's now been revealed by scientists that sexual intercourse was invented 385 million years ago in Scotland. I suppose when it basically either rains or snows or both every single day of the year you have to find something to occupy yourself. The first happy critters were some armored fish. These fish - placoderms - apparently invented paired limbs, jaws, teeth, and grabbing females. Apparently the first pair of arms was evolved for just that purpose. We don't yet know if they were the first critters to bite their women on the neck, but they were certainly the first equipped to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 21, 2014, 11:09:54 am

The republic bus just went bump again....


Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard was arrested Monday on nearly two dozen felony ethics charges. The prominent Republican turned himself in to Montgomery, Alabama, authorities after being indicted on 23 felony counts, including the misuse of his public office for personal gain.
 
Hubbard, whose book "Storming the Statehouse" details the 2010 Republican takeover of the state's legislature, which had been led by Democrats for 136 years, was indicted as part of an ongoing investigation in Alabama.
 
Eleven of the charges against the politician allege that he solicited or received items of value "from a lobbyist or principal." Hubbard was also charged with using his office as Alabama Republican Party chairman for personal gain, voting for legislation despite a conflict of interest, and collecting a fee in exchange for his lobbying services.

More republic government for sale.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on October 21, 2014, 12:12:09 pm

oddo where is the hope and change?

"If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"

"I did not want to leave Iraq, it was not my decision" - only to be recorded 16 different times on televison that he will pull troops and did.

Bengahzi cover-up.

IRS scandal - Obama refuses to prosecute Lois Lerner

Texas boarder mess

NSA scadal and spying

ObamaCase scam and lies

The Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban Swap - brought back a traiter and a deserter


Obama repeatedly broke the law to delay parts of Obamacare and he lied to the American people. Just because this happened a few months ago doesn't mean it isn't worthy of impeachment! Within the Affordable Care Act, there are a number of statutory deadlines and start dates for different components of the law. They are written into the law and cannot be altered or changed without an act of Congress. As far as I know, this is still the United States of America and only CONGRESS can write laws. Alas, Barack Obama took it upon himself to change the law not once, not twice, but over FORTY times! All the while lying to the American people that they could keep their insurance and doctor even though the President knew that was a lie! Clinton got impeached for lying under oath… Obama should have been impeached ten times already!

Not ot mention 200 rounds of golf while in office.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 21, 2014, 01:29:59 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 21, 2014, 11:09:54 am

The republic bus just went bump again....


Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard was arrested Monday on nearly two dozen felony ethics charges. The prominent Republican turned himself in to Montgomery, Alabama, authorities after being indicted on 23 felony counts, including the misuse of his public office for personal gain.
 
Hubbard, whose book "Storming the Statehouse" details the 2010 Republican takeover of the state's legislature, which had been led by Democrats for 136 years, was indicted as part of an ongoing investigation in Alabama.
 
Eleven of the charges against the politician allege that he solicited or received items of value "from a lobbyist or principal." Hubbard was also charged with using his office as Alabama Republican Party chairman for personal gain, voting for legislation despite a conflict of interest, and collecting a fee in exchange for his lobbying services.

More republic government for sale.

Maybe he can be William Jefferson's cellmate.  Unless, of course, they send him to Illinois to be with the ex Democratic Governor's cellmate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on October 21, 2014, 04:02:12 pm

He go to jail with Illinois Gov Pat Quinn...whis headed to jail.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 21, 2014, 04:24:07 pm

Murderer George Ryan anyone......


Quinn as what beerbelly?


When will you be right for the first time....


BTW your team sucks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 21, 2014, 04:29:34 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 19, 2014, 11:53:56 am

While true, davep got in the name calling himself.

True.  But the difference is that I will never do it again if Oddo agrees to the same thing.

But if he stopped calling names, he would have nothing to say.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 21, 2014, 04:45:21 pm

What is that about a leopard and his spots...


 Davebart

 You are a paleoconservative who excepts the role. You're not going to change.

Face it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 21, 2014, 04:46:51 pm

Yuck, yuck, you suck

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 21, 2014, 04:50:32 pm

Peke of another tribe of the paleoconservative dying species...


 Thought about the WNDs "found" in Iraq yet?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 21, 2014, 04:54:54 pm

Wasfullifit

What are you? But old and stuck.

Just cling to your ideology and prove to anyone under 30 tthat old and stupid is good for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 21, 2014, 05:15:35 pm

I fear for anyone 30 or younger. They have no future. The schools cant teach, no jobs, just a life of living off the government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 21, 2014, 05:50:40 pm

Quote from: davep on October 21, 2014, 04:29:34 pm

True.  But the difference is that I will never do it again if Oddo agrees to the same thing.

I suspect that it is congenitally impossible for otto to exist without the name calling.  Without the name calling, and the bile and venom associated with it, what would be left?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 21, 2014, 05:54:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 21, 2014, 04:45:21 pm

What is that about a leopard and his spots...
 Davebart
 You are a paleoconservative who excepts the role. You're not going to change.
Face it.

davep never said anything about changing himself.  He merely said he would stop calling you names, if you even "agree... to the same thing."  He did not even say you had to do it, just that you had to AGREE (or promise) that you would do it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 21, 2014, 06:35:41 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 21, 2014, 11:09:54 am

The republic bus just went bump again....


Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard was arrested Monday on nearly two dozen felony ethics charges. The prominent Republican turned himself in to Montgomery, Alabama, authorities after being indicted on 23 felony counts, including the misuse of his public office for personal gain.
 
Hubbard, whose book "Storming the Statehouse" details the 2010 Republican takeover of the state's legislature, which had been led by Democrats for 136 years, was indicted as part of an ongoing investigation in Alabama.
 
Eleven of the charges against the politician allege that he solicited or received items of value "from a lobbyist or principal." Hubbard was also charged with using his office as Alabama Republican Party chairman for personal gain, voting for legislation despite a conflict of interest, and collecting a fee in exchange for his lobbying services.

More republic government for sale.

First, at the moment, these are charges, not a conviction.

Second, if convicted (and perhaps well before), there is little question but that Republicans will renounce and condemn Hubbard.

Third, the story does not describe GOVERNMENT being for sale, but instead an individual lawmaker who was for sale.

Fourth, there is no indication in that report that the party in general is involved, but simply that one lawmaker was involved.

And, finally, this is a state lawmaker, hardly a leader in the Republican party.  But, since you are very determined to find anything done, or allegedly done, by any Republican which looks bad of foolish, what sort of response do you have to the Missouri Democratic State Senator Jamilah Nasheed being arrested in Ferguson for her protesting at Ferguson a couple of nights ago....
(http://media.kmov.com/images/600*400/Still1021_00000.bmp[img])[/img]

.... at a time when she was lit enough that police asked her to take a breathalyzer, which she REFUSED, all while she was packing a fully 9 MM pistol with extra ammunition along for the ride in case she needed to reload after emptying the clip.

Think about it.

She goes to the highly volatile street protest in Ferguson, packing heat, when she is tanked up, and jumps into the fray and refuses to follow reasonable police commands to move out of the way and stop blocking traffic (she was told she could continue her protest on the sidewalk, just that she had to stop blocking traffic).  St. Louis News outlets have shied away from mentioning her party, but she is a Democrat.  And for the legislative district she represents, this likely assures her re-election as long as she wants to hold the office, and probably a call for sainthood.  That is the kind of stupidity which plays well to an element of the Democratic base.

In other words, while the charges against Hubbard would almost certainly result in him losing any effort to seek re-election, because Republicans will reject him for it, the arrest and charges against Nasheed will likely result in her being elevated by Democrats in her district to the status of hero and assure re-election.

http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/State-Senator-arrested-outside-Ferguson-Police-Department-279860142.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 22, 2014, 10:31:07 am

Good that there is no such thing as voter fraud...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390893/james-okeefe-strikes-again-john-fund

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 22, 2014, 10:54:58 am

All the viewers of MSNBC bought one...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cuomo-sells-945-copies-book-paid-over-700000-advance_816973.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 05:47:29 pm

"First, at the........."



Do you have to be so **** boring all the time?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 05:51:55 pm

I'm sorry Keysbart, what actual fraud has that fraud shown?


Johnny  needs a shower.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 22, 2014, 06:06:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 05:47:29 pm

"First, at the........."

Do you have to be so **** boring all the time?

well, if you insist on being bored at having someone point out your foolishness, then the answer is yes, I do have to be so **** boring all of the time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 06:15:49 pm

Awesome


Even the attempt at a comeback is devoid of entertainment and tediously boring.


God your insurable.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 06:18:46 pm

I'm thinking that even in your favorite coffee shop your nickname is major buzzkill.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 22, 2014, 06:18:59 pm

And what does that say about you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 22, 2014, 06:37:51 pm

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Michael Brown's official autopsy shows the 18-year-old was shot in the hand at close range during a struggle with the Ferguson police officer who fatally shot him, two experts said in a published report Wednesday.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (http://bit.ly/1tKXIGB ) obtained the St. Louis County medical examiner's autopsy and an accompanying toxicology report that shows Brown had used marijuana.

The newspaper reported that St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham and another pathologist not involved in the investigation reviewed the report and said it indicates a wound to Brown's hand came at close range.
Brown and officer Darren Wilson struggled inside Wilson's SUV on Aug. 9 and Brown was shot once in the hand. Brown was killed outside the vehicle.

Graham told the Post-Dispatch that the autopsy report "does support that there was a significant altercation at the car."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 22, 2014, 06:41:15 pm

At this point, was there really any dispute about that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 22, 2014, 06:43:48 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on October 22, 2014, 06:18:59 pm

And what does that say about you?

The one thing it apparently does NOT say about otto is that he is tired of being wrong or of being shown to be foolish.  How does it say that?  Because he continues posting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 22, 2014, 08:27:01 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 06:15:49 pm

God your insurable.

Insurable? Of course he is....thanks to Obamacare. Now that's funny. Otto, I must admit it. You can be quite entertaining with your lack of education and adult vocabulary.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 08:42:05 pm

Really lawyer to hillbillies.


Going full on olde tacit racist grandpa rat...I would think that is beneath you, but you chose it. I remain unconvinced that you're anything more than dull.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 22, 2014, 08:42:21 pm

Calibration error....yeah, that's the ticket...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 08:47:03 pm

Keysbart


Would all of your posts fall under irrelevant if judged on actual content?


Laughably yes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 08:51:27 pm

Wasfullofit


I know what I am.... what about you....



Stop being old and past relevant posting Grandpa Simpson.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 08:57:37 pm

Seriously Keysbart

 The PPACA makes the lawyer to the hillbillies dull?


Are you **** more stupid?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 22, 2014, 09:04:36 pm

Close your eyes Otto....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/21/ballot-harvesting-by-colorado-campaign-workers-rai/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/22/Ineligible-DACA-Beneficiaries-Discovered-On-NC-Voting-Rolls

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 22, 2014, 09:09:12 pm

Well, here's a shocker...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blue-cross-reveals-2015-health-171556608.html

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina discussed the expected rate increases in a teleconference several weeks ahead of the Nov. 15 kickoff for the enrollment period for coverage starting in January.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 22, 2014, 10:20:42 pm

 Will we be judged in some afterlife ... or is it all BULLSHIT ?


 That being the case of BULLSHIT ... shouldn't you just grab whatever you can right now?


 You should knock your neighbor over the head right now and take what you want ...


 but ... THE HUMAN SPIRITUALITY keeps your loins in line from raping your ...


 neighbors wife and selling his children as slaves ... well up to a point anyways.


 There is however always tomorrow, and morality could change ...


 and right now you motherfuckers are looking really good as slaves ...  :D


 if I can keep you fed and propagating ... were talking decent money for your kids.


 Oh ... that's right ...you didn't know you were already slaves.


 You live in a box made of sticks or bricks ... you don't own a yacht ...


 the jet you don't own is to an island you will never get to.


 And I'M stupid. You better justify the name calling of a person you call stupid.


 I need you to believe in me so that I can play you like a bunch of clowns,


 to support my lifestyle ... you are the little people that makes me possible.


 THANK YOU !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 22, 2014, 10:27:02 pm

 And NO ... I will never share my wealth with brain dead **** from Peoria ...


 where do you think I get my wealth from to begin with ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 22, 2014, 10:46:49 pm

 Did those last few posts irritate the **** out of you ?


 If not ... then you're compensated. And for you the struggle of AMERICA is over.


 If it DID **** you off ... YOU ARE THE NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION !


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 22, 2014, 10:58:33 pm

In order be irritated by you, we would have to take you seriously.  Spouting nonsense is hardly a cause for irritation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 23, 2014, 06:31:52 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 22, 2014, 08:51:27 pm

Wasfullofit


I know what I am.... what about you....



Stop being old and past relevant posting Grandpa Simpson.

I know what I am Comrade. I served my country fighting the likes of you. You and your ilk are destroying this country. This country is no longer the land of the brave and home of the free.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2014, 06:41:12 am

Quote from: Keysbear on October 22, 2014, 08:27:01 pm

Insurable? Of course he is....thanks to Obamacare.

Actually I was insurable before Obamacare.  Obamacare does not make anyone insurable who was uninsurable before.  In fact, since it distorts the marketplace, I have no doubt but that it actually makes some people uninsurable, even if we have not yet heard about them.  And those who are now getting "coverage" are not really insurable now if they had not been before.  They are simply getting government mandated, socialized coverage, which is not actually insurance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 23, 2014, 09:12:44 am

Never mind what you see in the video....

http://teapartypolitics.com/democrats-say-this-never-happens-during-elections-too-bad-it-was-caught-on-camera/

While he and other poll workers worked to process early ballots, he noticed someone come in and make a large… “deposit.”

Recounting what happened to Arizona Daily Independent, he said, “A person wearing a Citizens for a Better Arizona (CBA) t-shirt dropped a large box of hundreds of ballots on the table and started stuffing the ballot box as I watched in amazement.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 23, 2014, 09:47:06 am

Would Oddo worry about stuffing the ballot box if they were Dumbocratic votes? Unlikely, only if they were Republican votes. Voter fraud is a crime whichever party does it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 23, 2014, 10:35:28 am

Finally somebody with cajones.

http://patriotsandpolitics.com/this-biker-gang-is-sick-of-isis-and-theyre-taking-matters-into-their-own-hands/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on October 23, 2014, 03:33:25 pm

Dumbmicrats at it again.....fixing votes in Schaumburg, IL....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 23, 2014, 04:40:09 pm

 

Quote from: davep on October 22, 2014, 10:58:33 pm

In order be irritated by you, we would have to take you seriously.  Spouting nonsense is hardly a cause for irritation.

 Ahhh you're just pissed because I put the reality of the everyday situation in your face when you don't want to see.


 You're not a player ... you're a worker ... or at least was.


 I took your money while you were working for me ...


 I'm rich and you're not because I took the money that was owed to you and kept it ...


 for me!


 Is JJ great or what ?  :D ;D  Sucks doesnt it? But you let me get away with it.  ;)


 And now here we are having laffs.  :)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2014, 04:55:17 pm

Quote from: davep on October 22, 2014, 10:58:33 pm

In order be irritated by you, we would have to take you seriously.  Spouting nonsense is hardly a cause for irritation.

Who were you responding to, davep?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 23, 2014, 05:18:22 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 23, 2014, 04:55:17 pm

Who were you responding to, davep?

 MOI

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 23, 2014, 06:05:07 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 23, 2014, 04:55:17 pm

Who were you responding to, davep?

Joke posted that his drug induced prattle irritated me.  I merely told him that it didn't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 23, 2014, 08:07:15 pm

 

Quote from: davep on October 23, 2014, 06:05:07 pm

Joke posted that his drug induced prattle irritated me.  I merely told him that it didn't.

 You still love me ... right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 23, 2014, 08:59:45 pm

And here I thought the brilliant tactician JJ was on his way to Turkey to join the Dutch bikers who went to fight ISIS alongside the Kurds.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 23, 2014, 09:24:46 pm

How do you know he isn't texting from his Harley right now from Kurdistan??.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 23, 2014, 09:30:41 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on October 23, 2014, 08:59:45 pm

And here I thought the brilliant tactician JJ was on his way to Turkey to join the Dutch bikers who went to fight ISIS alongside the Kurds.

 Oh hell yeah I'm there fighting ... I just paid somebody $300.00 to do the fighting for me. That's the American way since the Civil War.


 I have a business conglomerate to run ... do you know what the cost of a new diamond ring is everyday?


 Believe me I have it just as rough as you do ... now excuse me while I have Dave bring the limo around to the front and have him put the suitcases in the trunk.


 You have no idea how brutal traffic is to get to my jet to get me to my island when my helicopters down for maintenance.


 How do the workers put up with this everyday ? Is that whats called a traffic jam ?


 Without Dave to dress me in the morning ...


 I don't know how I could get through the day.


 BTW ... the McCaskeys are throwing a Halloween party on their yacht ...


 are you invited also ? Hope to see you there!


 What Dutch bikers from what Dutch motorcycle club ? Be specific.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 23, 2014, 09:51:35 pm

 

Quote from: Sportster on October 23, 2014, 09:24:46 pm

How do you know he isn't texting from his Harley right now from Kurdistan??.....

 Actually I (or someone closely resembling I) was there a few days ago letting the public know that when things settled down, a softer brand of toilet tissue would be introduced into the marketplace.


 Less sheets per roll but only slightly more money while being softer.  ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 23, 2014, 10:04:51 pm

JJ, you didn't read my post above. I'll just cut and paste it for you:

Finally somebody with cajones.

http://patriotsandpolitics.com/this-biker-gang-is-sick-of-isis-and-theyre-taking-matters-into-their-own-hands/

Enjoy JJ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 23, 2014, 10:37:10 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on October 23, 2014, 08:07:15 pm

 

 You still love me ... right?

As much as ever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 24, 2014, 12:10:54 am

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on October 23, 2014, 10:04:51 pm

JJ, you didn't read my post above. I'll just cut and paste it for you:

Finally somebody with cajones.

http://patriotsandpolitics.com/this-biker-gang-is-sick-of-isis-and-theyre-taking-matters-into-their-own-hands/ (http://patriotsandpolitics.com/this-biker-gang-is-sick-of-isis-and-theyre-taking-matters-into-their-own-hands/)

Enjoy JJ

 I thot it was going to be Outlaws, Bandidos,Hells Angels,all in Netherlands.


 [/size]

Quote from: davep on October 23, 2014, 10:37:10 pm

As much as ever.

 Bless you.  :)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 24, 2014, 12:41:15 am

Quote from: davep on October 23, 2014, 06:05:07 pm

Joke posted that his drug induced prattle irritated me.  I merely told him that it didn't.

I'm sorry.  Sometimes I forget that he probably still posting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 24, 2014, 01:42:28 am

 Speaking of skooter trash ... JJ knew a dude named Mooch who co-founded a motorcycle club called the Hells Henchmen (Now patched over as Hells Angels) in Chicago.


 However the club grew too violent when all Mooch and the other founders of the club just wanted to do was ride their putts.


 So they started a new club called the Breakaways M.C. (breakaways get it ?)


 What Mooch did was custom paint motorcycle parts in his garage ...


 he taught me to spray paint epoxy which was tricky at the time because you had X amount of minutes to spray it before it hardened.


 He was also the first guy I knew to use diamond dust in paint which gave this brilliant sparkle effect to the paint.


 Mooch also had about a 5 foot replica of the star ship Enterprise hanging in the rafters of his garage.


 JJ also knew a Chicago cop named Olle who was into scooters and military restorations ... he had a WWII jeep in original army markings.


 One day Olle asked me if I knew anybody that sprayed motorcycle parts and I said yes this dude named Mooch.


 So off we went to Mooch's alley in a WWII jeep with Olle in full Chicago police uniform and this long hair (me) in the passenger seat tooling down Chicago streets.


 We pulled into the alley behind Mooch's garage and he had the garage door open as he was painting ...


 his eyes bulged out of his sockets as he saw a Chicago cop in an army jeep!


 I quickly realized that a faux pas had been created and quickly introduced the two partys to each other and pointed out to Mooch that Olle was off duty.


 Now how much scooter parts in Mooch's garage were legal and illegal anyone can say,


 but Olle the cop saw a Triumph front motorcycle tire on a wheel and asked Mooch how much he wanted for it.


 Mooch's reply was "hey man just take it ... its YOURS!"


 Olle then saw a sportster gas tank and asked him what he wanted for that.


 Mooch's reply was "hey man just take it ... its YOURS!"

Did you ever see a cartoon where a knife is coming out of the characters eye indicating extreme hatred?

Thats how Mooch was looking at me.

Anyway we left with Olle's free goodies and when I called up Mooch later he said :

"WHAT THE **** HELL WERE YOU DOING BRINGING A **** COP TO MY PLACE FOR??"

I apologized ... humbly.

BTW ... Mooch sprayed Olle's motorcycle parts. Capitalism at its best. ;D

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 24, 2014, 12:41:15 am

I'm sorry.  Sometimes I forget that he probably still posting.

 Indeed I am sir.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: VJ on October 24, 2014, 06:55:55 am

Tax dollars at work (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6932c44c-6ef4-491d-a0f1-078b69f1f800)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on October 24, 2014, 08:08:43 am

I had a roommate after college who had been one of the Henchmen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 25, 2014, 01:37:17 am

Some wingnut t-bagger posts this...While being a fearmongery little ****.

Quote

Never mind what you see in the video....

http://teapartypolitics.com/democrats-say-this-never-happens-during-elections-too-bad-it-was-caught-on-camera/

While he and other poll workers worked to process early ballots, he noticed someone come in and make a large… “deposit.”

Recounting what happened to Arizona Daily Independent, he said, “A person wearing a Citizens for a Better Arizona (CBA) t-shirt dropped a large box of hundreds of ballots on the table and started stuffing the ballot box as I watched in amazement.”

So the post begs the question, is what we see in the video legal under AZ law?

Little **** fearmongery a-holes need an answer.

And the answer is...

In Arizona … it is not illegal for groups like the CBA to collect absentee ballots and deliver them on behalf of the citizens who filled them out. As stated in the Arizona Elections Manual, “[a]fter [voters] have securely sealed the voted ballot inside the early ballot return envelope, voters may voluntarily give their voted early ballot to a person of their choice for delivery to the Recorder or a polling place.”

Moreover, according to the president emeritus of the CBA, Randy Parraz, the group typically delivers thousands of ballots at a time, making the hundreds delivered in the video “look like a pittance.”

Enjoy fearmongery little ****.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 25, 2014, 01:41:11 am

Of course the resident old fossil posts right after the fearmongery little ****

Quote

Would Oddo worry about stuffing the ballot box if they were Dumbocratic votes? Unlikely, only if they were Republican votes. Voter fraud is a crime whichever party does it.

So another question is, why does the fossil never deal in any facts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 25, 2014, 01:45:04 am

Quote

This country is no longer the land of the brave and home of the free.

Not enjoying the oligarchy are we fossil?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 25, 2014, 02:12:23 am

In wingnuttery news today

The NRA moved swiftly today after the latest school shooting in Seattle to secure the gun used in the attack. In a statement Wayne Lapeair said, "The organization would move quickly to assess why the gun failed to kill all its targets." He also questioned the commitment of the students involved to the 2nd Amendment. Stating, "this country is no longer the land of the brave"

In a separate statement issued by Run Paul (r-kwhy), he again reaffirmed his hold on the Administrations Surgeon General nominee saying, "four of the six people involved in the attack survived. That reflects a 67% survival rate which clearly shows guns aren't a health issue".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 25, 2014, 05:07:07 am

I see the resident northern hillbilly had nothing to do on a Friday night..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 25, 2014, 12:40:43 pm

The Homo lives in a hick town in a backwards state.  What more could you possible expect?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 25, 2014, 12:53:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 25, 2014, 01:37:17 am

Some wingnut t-bagger posts this...While being a fearmongery little ****.
So the post begs the question, is what we see in the video legal under AZ law?

Little **** fearmongery a-holes need an answer.

And the answer is...

In Arizona … it is not illegal for groups like the CBA to collect absentee ballots and deliver them on behalf of the citizens who filled them out. As stated in the Arizona Elections Manual, “[a]fter [voters] have securely sealed the voted ballot inside the early ballot return envelope, voters may voluntarily give their voted early ballot to a person of their choice for delivery to the Recorder or a polling place.”

Moreover, according to the president emeritus of the CBA, Randy Parraz, the group typically delivers thousands of ballots at a time, making the hundreds delivered in the video “look like a pittance.”

Enjoy fearmongery little ****.

Blindly partisan or easily fooled?  Probably both.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 27, 2014, 12:18:25 am

LOL!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcjet2MwUR0&list=UU67f2Qf7FYhtoUIF4Sf29cA

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 27, 2014, 12:29:12 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 25, 2014, 01:41:11 am

Of course the resident old fossil posts right after the fearmongery little ****
So another question is, why does the fossil never deal in any facts?

otto, the post from davep to which you were responding, included the following: Voter fraud is a crime whichever party does it.

Is that NOT a fact?  Did davep get that wrong?  And if he did not get it wrong, what in the world were you doing asking why he never deals in facts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 27, 2014, 12:30:36 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 25, 2014, 01:37:17 am

Some wingnut t-bagger posts this...While being a fearmongery little ****.
So the post begs the question, is what we see in the video legal under AZ law?

Little **** fearmongery a-holes need an answer.

And the answer is...

In Arizona … it is not illegal for groups like the CBA to collect absentee ballots and deliver them on behalf of the citizens who filled them out. As stated in the Arizona Elections Manual, “[a]fter [voters] have securely sealed the voted ballot inside the early ballot return envelope, voters may voluntarily give their voted early ballot to a person of their choice for delivery to the Recorder or a polling place.”

Moreover, according to the president emeritus of the CBA, Randy Parraz, the group typically delivers thousands of ballots at a time, making the hundreds delivered in the video “look like a pittance.”

What it actually makes the hundreds in the video look like is the tip of the iceberg of the actual voter fraud at issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 27, 2014, 12:32:49 am

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/26/Woodward-Lots-of-Unanswered-Questions-on-Obama-Involvement-in-IRS-Scandal

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 09:49:12 am

Jes what do you think of the president's executive order #13603? If you don't know about it you better find out about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 09:50:40 am

This ought to scare you.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/crime-money-IRS-seizure/2014/10/25/id/603098/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1592324_10272014&s=al&dkt_nbr=8cbxi66u

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on October 27, 2014, 10:38:02 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 09:49:12 am

Jes what do you think of the president's executive order #13603? If you don't know about it you better find out about it.

Yeah, you'd better be worried about that one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 10:46:42 am

I don't believe its the same thing

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on October 27, 2014, 10:53:19 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 10:46:42 am

I don't believe its the same thing

It is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 27, 2014, 10:55:28 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 27, 2014, 12:29:12 am

otto, the post from davep to which you were responding, included the following: Voter fraud is a crime whichever party does it.

Is that NOT a fact?  Did davep get that wrong?  And if he did not get it wrong, what in the world were you doing asking why he never deals in facts?

Davep never gets things wrongs, but in this case, it was the post of WshflThinking that he was quoting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 03:09:46 pm

And that statement is wrong? I don't see anything wrong with it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 27, 2014, 04:40:34 pm

Don't expect an answer from Homo.  He fades into the background when shown to be an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 27, 2014, 05:14:47 pm

The only thing that I'm being shown is a little circle of fools.


Which one if you guys is working on rep. orangeman's law suit against the President?

Talk about not being able to produce a fart at a bean casserole party....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 27, 2014, 05:25:51 pm

A moment of silence please.... for the christian right's favorite astrologer joan quigley who floated up to the stars today.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 27, 2014, 05:31:09 pm

Anyone know who Homo is talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 27, 2014, 05:52:30 pm

Word of advice, don't try to be old and irrelevant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 27, 2014, 06:10:42 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 10:46:42 am

I don't believe its the same thing

Good.  So provide a link to whatever you think folks should be concerned about.

And while you do, you might want to compare the Executive Order found here https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/22/2012-7019/national-defense-resources-preparedness with the one addressed at the link cletus offered.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 27, 2014, 06:13:44 pm

Quote from: davep on October 27, 2014, 10:55:28 am

Davep never gets things wrongs, but in this case, it was the post of WshflThinking that he was quoting.

Quote from: davep on October 27, 2014, 04:40:34 pm

Don't expect an answer from Homo.  He fades into the background when shown to be an idiot.

But he is ALWAYS shown to be an idiot, and he has never really completely faded into the background.... so it sure appears you have gotten at least one thing wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 27, 2014, 06:43:10 pm

 Geezus ... 3-5 with a bye and G.B. also.


 The next game is in G.B.


 **** me man ... **** me.


 Lets just walk off the field with not being destroyed.


 And Rodgers is gimped from N.O.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 27, 2014, 08:04:45 pm

Mark's Market Blog
10-26-14: Europe sliding down.
by Mark Lawrence
Last week I said that Jim Cramer apparently had better eyesight than I do, as he was calling a bottom and I thought we had further down to go. It's now obvious he has better eyesight than I do. If you're looking for stock tips, Mad Money is apparently much better than me. Anyway the almost correction is clearly over for the moment and stocks are back on their way up. I still look to 2150 as a target. So does Goldman Sachs.

 
S&P 500 May 3 2014 to October 24 2014
Much of Toronto was on lock down this week as authorities reacted to Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who walked up to a war memorial, fatally shot a soldier in the back who was guarding it, then rushed into Canada's Parliament and opened fire. He was shot and killed in the parliament building before he hurt anyone. He was born Michael Joseph Hall in Quebec in 1982, worked as a miner and a laborer at various points in his life, and at some point he changed his name to Zehaf-Bibeau and converted to Islam. However even the muslims were scared of him: Zehaf-Bibeau was asked to stop attending prayers at mosque because elders found his behavior "erratic." He wanted to travel to the middle east to "study" but Canadian officials had confiscated his passport. I don't understand this part, I'd have been thrilled to ship him off to ISIL.

More than half of US manufacturers are interested in moving production from China back to the US. They cite rising Chinese wages, higher US productivity, better access to skilled labor in the US, shorter supply chains, reduced shipping costs and higher quality and yield. Cutbacks in Chinese production are expected to be about 11%. Declines were also predicted for Mexico (-5.0%), Western Europe (-19%) and the rest of Asia (-22%). Jim Rogers continues to say this will be the century of China. I'm not so sure - they have a long way to go in improving the lot of their people and making a stable government and society, and they have to do it in a world with high energy costs and a shortage of fresh water. It's easier for me to see a Chinese government collapse than a dominant China.

Elections are still a week away, but Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com says it's 63% that republicans take the senate. After likely runoff elections in Louisiana and Georgia. I'd be excited about this if I thought republicans were likely to do anything useful. Of course they won't, because 1) republicans are no better than democrats, and 2) getting anything done with Obama would be an implicit vote for split government and Hillary. At least they'll keep Obama a little bit honest.


New York Fed president William Dudley said to Wall Street this week, "The inevitable conclusion will be reached that your firms are too big and complex to manage effectively. In that case, financial stability concerns would dictate that your firms need to be dramatically downsized and simplified so they can be managed effectively." Now we'll see if the Fed follows through.

Sears, the dominant retailer of my youth, said in their 3rd quarter earnings report, "We disclosed that we would be closing unprofitable stores as leases expire and in some cases will accelerate closings when it is economically prudent." Seeking Alpha reported that Sears would be closing more than 100 stores and laying off 5,500 workers. A Sears spokesman noted that it had 200,000 workers between its namesake and Kmart brands, working in 800 Sears stores and 1100 KMart stores. The department store has been bleeding cash, posting its ninth straight quarterly loss in August. Former Sears executive Steven Dennis said, "The uncomfortable and sad reality is this: Sears has zero chance of transforming itself into a viable retail entity."

Sears is dying in part due to Amazon, who simply has a better business model for growth: give stuff away. The chart below seems pretty self-explanitory to me. The basic curves are pretty smooth, with a blip each and every christmas. I love shopping at Amazon and getting my purchases subsidized by the Amazon shareholders. Just lately the shareholders are starting to question this: Amazon stock took a big hit when the latest quarterly results came out Thursday night.


Europe's numbers continue to show deterioration - it looks more and more like they're headed for recession, their third since the 2008 crash. France's PMI came in awful at 47, showing a contraction in manufacturing. Tesco, Britain's grocery store chain that's second in sales only to Walmart, seems to be collapsing, with sales off almost 5% and profits off over 90%. Share price has plunged over 50% and world-famous investor Warren Buffet has said his confidence in the retailer was a "huge mistake." George Soros, my favorite sociopath billionaire, says "Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence."

The EU presidency rotates among the member countries each year, and now it's Luxemburg's turn. The new President is Jean-Claude Juncker, a man who as prime minister of Luxembourg for close to two decades is largely credited with reinventing the tiny landlocked principality into one of Europe's largest tax havens and dirty money channels (just behind Switzerland and the City of London). What does this unelected EU president have for a cabinet? An ex-petroleum company president as climate commissioner (Miguel Arias Cañete); an ex-corporate lobbyist in charge of financial services (Jonathan Hill); a former vice-president of the industry lobby group Le Cercle de l’Industrie in charge of economic policy (Pierre Moscovici); an ex-Goldman Sachs financier as research commissioner (Carlos Moedas); and the former political no.2 to a Czech multi- billionaire as consumer commissioner (Vera Jourova). How can the European man on the street possibly question the dedication of this unelected and unaudited bunch of EU bureaucrats in Brussels?

As signs of Europe slipping into recession intensify, talk from politicians is heating up. Orwell would be proud of these guys. EU president Jean-Claude Juncker said that he would present his 300-billion-euro plan for investment to bolster growth and jobs by the end of this year. He stressed, however, that much of the 300 billion euros should come from private investors and that governments should continue to contain their budget deficits. The EU has an "inflexible" rule that member countries may not run deficits of more than 3%; France and Italy have said they need to run larger deficits. Juncker said, "The rules will not be changed, But they can be implemented with a degree flexibility." I know what all these means, I've learned to interpret politicianese. The first means the ECB will be told to go ahead with their plan to have banks loan to businesses then the ECB will buy up those loans - the roughly $400 billion dollars of private investment will be made with the ECB and finally the taxpayers taking the risk, but first there will be an Ozian curtain hiding the little banker man making all the money. European businessmen say for each dollar in payroll they must send off two dollars in taxes - why would any rational person hire under those conditions? What does the second mean? The US has a budget deficit of $483 billion, just under 3% of GDP; but we had to borrow $1.086 trillion dollars to cover the $483 billion deficit, meaning we're borrowing and spending 6% of GDP but have flashy numbers that claim we're only over-spending by 3%. This same thing will be encouraged in Europe. This is good 'cause even though France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece have generated absolutely no job growth in 20 years or so, they will be returning to growth in the next year or two as politicians borrow and spend far more wisely than their predecessors. Generationally sclerotic European businesses that are not trusted to fire or lay off employees will suddenly be trusted to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars and dramatically increase their hiring. Yup. That will work. And the Wicked Witch of Deflation will melt when an ECB bucket of water is thrown on her. What's the take away here? Just like in the US, the only thing that matters is propping up huge established businesses and guaranteeing the banks huge risk-free profits, while holding hands and chanting to the voters "We Care! We Care! We Care!" Juncker also announced that he has a plan to make the EU bureaucracy more efficient by adding a new management layer of vice-presidents to help the commissioners coordinate. This word "efficient," I do not think it means what he thinks it means. . . "Citizens are losing faith," Juncker said. "Extremists on the left and right are nipping at our heels. Either we succeed in reducing unemployment, or we will have failed." Bad news, Jean-Claude: you're failing. Badly.


Rumors fly fast and furious that Super Mario will start up a European QE program in December, essentially replacing the money that the Fed is withdrawing from the markets. European markets jumped 1% - 2% on the idea. Germans think this is a violation of the EU charter and are likely to challenge it, so we'll just see what happens. . . David Tepper, yet another hedge fund billionaire, said this week that he's short the euro as he believes the ECB has no choice but to print. He also thinks 2 and 3 year EU bonds are a great investment as they will appreciate in this environment. Curious this: he thinks the ECB will print massive money and the result will be interest rates go down, indicating that the consensus is for yet more deflation. I agree with this: deflation is the problem, printing money is not the solution.

The ECB conducted "stress tests" of 130 European banks. 25 of the banks failed the tests; 13 of them are considered in severe danger of bankruptcy in the event of another financial crisis. The worst shortfalls in capital were in Italian, Greek and Cypriot banks. Deutsche, Santander, BNP Paribas, HSBC are salivating at the prospect buying up these under capitalized banks cheap and getting even too-bigger-to-fail. Then with their new plethora of branches and ECB backing they'll make huge numbers of dodgy loans, bundle them up, and sell them for a tidy profit to the ECB. How can this possibly fail to stimulate the economy and job creation? A year ago Europe looked like they were going to get back on track. Now again they're looking like a bug in search of a windshield.

The New York Times' David Sanger reported Monday that if Iran and the six world powers agree to a deal on its nuclear program by a Nov. 24 deadline, Obama would do "everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it." I've taught my kids from a very early age that the big lie is always out in the open, front and center. "People's Democratic Republic of China:" It's not a republic, it has no democracy, and it is not at all for the people. Our "Democratic Party" is similarly highly mistrustful of democracy and voters.

Ebola watch: The death toll is now 5,000. N.Korea has closed their borders to tourists to keep ebola out. Dozens of tourists world wide are devastated. The WHO has declared Senegal and Nigeria free of ebola, showing that if you have few cases, a somewhat educated population and a better economy, you can contain this problem. Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia fail all three of those prerequisites. The first case has popped up in Mali next to Ivory coast, the world's major producer of cocoa, so now this epidemic is threatening chocolate - it just got serious. The two nurses in Dallas who got ebola are cured - Nina Pham and Amber Vinson are free of the virus. However, now we have an ebola- positive doctor, Craig Spencer, in NYC who just returned from volunteering in Guinea. He flew home to the largest metropolitan area in the US, one of the top 12 in the world. Wednesday went jogging, then traveled on the A, L and 1 subway lines that night, visited a bowling alley in Williamsburg, and then took an uber taxi back to Manhattan with his girlfriend, whom he apparently slept with. The next morning with a fever of 103 and diarrhea, he and his girlfriend called for an ambulance. Four more people - his girlfriend, two other friends and the taxi driver - are in isolation in NYC and the CDC is looking for several others. He had no right to do all that. There will now be completely justifiable fears about ebola spreading in New York. The NYC mayor immediately held a press conference and said there was no risk of ebola spreading in the city, then posted half a dozen police officers outside of Dr.Spencer's apartment and closed the bowling alley. Spencer is going to get sued and he deserves it. New York, New Jersey and Illinois now require 21 days of isolation for people returning from ebola areas. Obama is working over the three governors to get them to reverse this decision. A New Jersey nurse, Kaci Hickox, who flew home from west Africa Friday, is the first traveler subject to the new rules. Ms.Hickox wrote an editorial decrying the unfairness of her quarantine and how she fears it will deter others from traveling to West Africa to help. If Craig Spencer's girlfriend or taxi driver wind up positive for ebola, I wonder if they'll think a manditory quarantine is unfair. Governments in India and south east Asia are watching this with dread - they have dense, poor, poorly educated populations, and an ebola case in Asia could take off quickly to a major crisis.

Researchers at Harvard have announced a new invention for fighting viruses, including ebola: an artificial spleen. They have created nano particles that are magnetic and have protean bonds. They pull blood from your body, add the nano particles that bond with a specific virus, use magnets to remove those particles, and send the cleaned blood back to your body. They don't get every virus, but they reduce the number to something your immune system can handle. It's been tested on pigs and rats; human trials are still a bit in the future. I think this will revolutionize medicine, doing to viruses what antibiotics did to bacteria.


Laurence J. Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University, co-authored the 2012 book "The Clash of Generations: Saving Ourselves, Our Kids, and Our Economy." Kotlikoff, 63, recently said, "We're waging a war against our own children. And the worst of it is that we're winning. It's not being waged with tanks and howitzers, of course. It's a war of funding shortfalls and ever increasing consumption by older people at the expense of coming generations. We've turned retirement into a well-paid, long-term occupation. It's extremely unfair to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We're burdening them with massive government debt in order to pay for that generosity. These unfunded bills will stretch into eternity, and our children won't be able to pay them." Read the entire interview here.

Immigration Services put out a request for bids for up to 34,000,000 new green cards, including the ability to deliver 9,000,000 quickly in a "surge." Obama of course has promised to address immigration, without congress, after the November elections. There are roughly 14,000,000 illegals in the US right now. You do the math. . .

Americans drive fewer total miles today than we did nine years ago, and fewer per person than we did at the end of Bill Clinton's first term. The unique combination of conditions that fueled the Driving Boom — from cheap gas prices to the rapid expansion of the workforce during the Baby Boom generation — no longer exists. Meanwhile, a new generation — the Millennials — sees a new American Dream that is more about iPhones and less dependent on driving.


Newspapers are dying. 25 years ago they employed 60,000 journalists. Now that's down to 36,000. US population since then is up by 25%, but the number of journalists is down by 40%. (I have to admit, I don't miss them.) Back in 2010 Google's ad revenues passed up the total ad revenues of all newspapers in the country and now they take in double what the newspapers do. This will only get worse, as the next generation doesn't even read books, much less newspapers. Go to any college class and the kids have all downloaded a torrent of their textbook onto a nook or a nexus or an iPad. Paper is over, just like CDs are over.


Marc Andreessen, the author of first web browser and the core code used to make all web browsers today, says the middle class is an accident of history. His claim is that after WWII the US was the only manufacturing nation that wasn't bombed out, so we could afford the unions wages and sick leave and vacations and pensions that defined the middle class. When Japan and Germany started to rebuild their economies in the 70s, the wage pressure started and the middle class started evaporating. Personally, I'm becoming convinced that the middle class is a singular event in history and will be pretty much gone by the end of my life. We'll have a population that's about 40% poor, 40% working class, 19% business and professional class and 1% rich, with .01% filthy rich and effectively in charge of all laws. Currently in the US even the poor drive SUVs and have huge flat screen TVs. That will be changing as we move towards renting driverless taxis instead of owning cars. The flat screens will continue to be ubiquitous. I'd best get my Corvette soon, in 15 more years everyone will be in a driverless plug- in Prius. I wonder if I'll even be able to buy gas for my Harley.

Washington State is considering a new law - I-594 - to require background checks on all gun purchases. We already have this in the P.R. of California. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer and Michael Bloomberg are among contributors who have donated nearly $10m to support the initiative. The backers admit freely that background checks require registration data, and this is just a step towards gun registration. Here's the interesting part: the Supreme Court has already found in Haynes v. US that felons need not register their guns, as forcing a felon to register a gun that they cannot legally own amounts to self-incrimination, a violation of his 5th amendment rights. So what we're going to get is a huge database of gun owners who are law abiding citizens, and a bunch of unregistered guns spread among felons. By the way, Gates and Bloomberg routinely travel with multiple armed guards. There's an alternative solution - a national database of felons who are not allowed to own guns, and the background check consists of checking against that database, but no one in the ruling / moneyed class seems interested in that solution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 27, 2014, 08:06:21 pm

Washington State is considering a new law - I-594 - to require background checks on all gun purchases. We already have this in the P.R. of California. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer and Michael Bloomberg are among contributors who have donated nearly $10m to support the initiative. The backers admit freely that background checks require registration data, and this is just a step towards gun registration. Here's the interesting part: the Supreme Court has already found in Haynes v. US that felons need not register their guns, as forcing a felon to register a gun that they cannot legally own amounts to self-incrimination, a violation of his 5th amendment rights. So what we're going to get is a huge database of gun owners who are law abiding citizens, and a bunch of unregistered guns spread among felons. By the way, Gates and Bloomberg routinely travel with multiple armed guards. There's an alternative solution - a national database of felons who are not allowed to own guns, and the background check consists of checking against that database, but no one in the ruling / moneyed class seems interested in that solution.

We - well, I anyway - think ISIL is evil. However muslims world wide are rushing to Turkey, crossing into Iraq and signing up. Just this week three teenage US girls, all muslims, were intercepted in Munich by police on their way to ISIL. Hundreds of French, 3,000 Tunisians, 2,500 Saudis, a couple thousand Jordanians, lots of Libyans, Egyptians etc are all traveling to Syria to sign up. Obviously for each person who travels there are lots more who are sympathetic. The FBI reports that ISIL is uniquely competent with a high-profile on-line social media presence, telling a story about how your (muslim) people are being oppressed and killed in Syria by a despot, why don't you come out and join the fight, become a hero, do something important with your life, be a part of something great. They're preying on younger and younger women with Disney-like versions of what it is like to live in the caliphate, complete with promises of husbands and homes. Those who think Islam is a religion of peace filled with normal average people just trying to live their lives in peace will have trouble explaining this. ISIL is uniquely well funded, making about $1 million per day on oil revenue plus $20 million to date on ransom payments. They're also doing quite well robbing banks in cities they take over.

Thinking of getting a flu shot? Don't. A recent report from Johns Hopkins shows that people who get flu shots 3 to 5 years in a row have a ten-fold increase in getting alzheimers. The shots are known to be completely ineffective in children under five and have a 1% chance of causing convulsions in such children. The mercury in the flu shot depresses your immune system for several weeks and can cause you to get the flu. Why isn't someone sued? Vaccines are protected under law. This is like printing money for big pharma.

Science: Are you a Vegan? Don't read this. Recent work at the University of Missouri show that plants know when they're being eaten and don't like it. In experiments on the Broccoli / Kale family of plants, scientists made very high resolution audio recordings of caterpillars eating their leaves. When these recordings were played back to new plants, the plants released mustard oils in an attempt to discourage the caterpillars. When other sounds like wind or music were played, the plants did not react.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 27, 2014, 08:19:14 pm

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2014/10/if-you-had-to-explain-todays-america-to-founders/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 09:39:22 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on October 27, 2014, 06:10:42 pm

Good.  So provide a link to whatever you think folks should be concerned about.

And while you do, you might want to compare the Executive Order found here https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/22/2012-7019/national-defense-resources-preparedness with the one addressed at the link cletus offered.

I read that and what I read had nothing to do with national defense. Its why I asked you about what executive order 13603 actually said. And the date March this year doesn't seem to jive. I somehow assumed it was more recent although I saw no date posted. I actually thought you would know more since we already had a discussion on the issue and you said at that time you hadn't seen any such executive order.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 27, 2014, 10:29:22 pm

I just read the link you posted and that was way different than what I had read it contained.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 28, 2014, 04:10:23 am

So why don't you post the link you are talking about?  If it in fact dealt with what it contended was executive order 13603, and it was not the executive order at  https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/22/2012-7019/national-defense-resources-preparedness then what you read would appear to be one more example of a website simply making **** up to make Obama look bad and then feeding it to those who hate Obama so much that they are not bothered by whether something is true or not but eagerly consume and then further disseminate anything negative they hear or see about him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on October 28, 2014, 06:18:56 am

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-says-businesses-don-t-create-jobs-155608850.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 28, 2014, 08:31:49 am

Well governments don't create jobs either. They just line the pockets of their contributors, like Obama's green jobs while the taxpayers pay for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 28, 2014, 10:12:19 am

Especially for Oddo and his fearmongering climate changing Commies:

http://personalliberty.com/epa-official-calls-climate-change-major-concern-americans-weather-channel-founder-9000-scientists-insist-doesnt-exist/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 28, 2014, 05:58:56 pm

Fearmongering?

Without it, the republic party doesn't have old fossils voting for it....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 28, 2014, 06:05:25 pm

otto, could you explain how Al Gore and company warning of the consequences of "Global Warming," is NOT fear-mongering?  And, while you are at it, since we have now had enough time pass for some of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" predictions to have come to pass, could you tell us which of his dire predictions have in fact come to pass?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 28, 2014, 06:54:10 pm

Ask South Beach Florida which just spent 200MILLION against rising ocean water levels to maintain beaches and pumping from higher tides.


Can you get back go me on that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 28, 2014, 07:22:36 pm

No, otto, I asked YOU to explain how Al Gore and company warning of the consequences of "Global Warming," is NOT fear-mongering?

To that question, you have not even attempted a response.

I additionally asked YOU to tell me which of Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" dire predictions to have come to pass.

And, unless one of them was that South Beach Florida would spend 200MILLION against rising ocean water levels to maintain beaches and pumping from higher tides, your post was not responsive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 28, 2014, 08:31:05 pm

Will you leave Homo alone.  You know he doesn't understand the term "fact".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 29, 2014, 08:37:17 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 28, 2014, 06:54:10 pm

Ask South Beach Florida which just spent 200MILLION against rising ocean water levels to maintain beaches and pumping from higher tides.


Can you get back go me on that?

Beach replenishment has been going on in Florida for decades. Nothing new there and certainly not something caused by global warming. If you want to blame beach erosion on man then you are partly correct. It is caused by the development on the coasts and the building of seawalls etc but absolutely nothing to do with climate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 29, 2014, 08:50:01 am

Even an idiot such as a lawyer for hillbillies should know the difference between a fact based documentary about the effects of human-induced global climate change and republic election fear mongering on say Ebola.

Can you deny that CO2 has continued to increase just as the movie predicted.

Can you show where the glaciers that have continued to retreat as the movie predicted, actually stopped and grew.

Can you show where carbon dioxide concentrations are not at the highest levels now than at any point in the last 650,000 years.

Can you explain why the list of hottest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record just as the science in the movie has predicted.


So minutia boy...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 29, 2014, 09:02:23 am

BBBBBBWWWWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH.


Beach replenishment? Thats what you bring back foolish keysbart? Wow, not even trying anymore are we.


http://www.floridatrend.com/article/15826/impact-building-and-infrastructure (http://www.floridatrend.com/article/15826/impact-building-and-infrastructure)

Silly and stupid keysbart, can you tell me where the sand is in the 200MILLION?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 29, 2014, 09:21:26 am

Can Homo explain why, in spite of the fact that CO2 levels have made record high for the past 16 years, the global temperatures, even the manipulated ones published by the Eastanglian Climate center, show no temperature increases at all?

Can he restrict himself to actual facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 29, 2014, 09:23:07 am

You were the one who said "maintain beaches" in your original post. Perhaps you could consider saying what you mean in the future?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 29, 2014, 09:51:16 am

The cream of the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

MADISON, Wis. –  In attempting to explain her two-year work hiatus in the early to mid-1990s, Democratic Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke has said she was just burned out after an intense period of leading European operations for Trek Bicycle Corp., her family’s Waterloo-based global manufacturer.

In fact, Burke apparently was fired by her own family following steep overseas financial losses and plummeting morale among Burke’s European sales staff, multiple former Trek executives and employees told Wisconsin Reporter.

The sales team threatened to quit if Burke was not removed from her position as director of European Operations, according to Gary Ellerman, who served as Trek’s human resources director for more than 21 years. His account was confirmed by three other former employees.

“She was not performing. She was (in) so far over her head. She didn’t understand the bike business,” said Ellerman, who started with Trek in 1992, at the tail end of Burke’s first stint as a manager at Trek.

Ellerman said Richard Burke, Mary Burke’s father and founder of the family business, asked Tom Albers, Trek president and chief financial officer at the time, to fly to Amsterdam to evaluate Mary’s performance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 29, 2014, 10:22:35 am

Maybe they just had to go to the bathroom....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/crowd-begins-file-out-while-obama-speaks-wisconsin_817679.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 29, 2014, 10:25:02 am

uh oh....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-harvard-poll-millennial-voters-want-gop-in-charge-abandon-obama/article/2555411

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 29, 2014, 02:14:25 pm

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/23/Fiscal-Warrior-Coburn-s-Parting-Shots-Washington

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 29, 2014, 02:16:34 pm

http://www.concordcoalition.org/publications/2014/1028/national-debt-greatest-threat-us-security

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 29, 2014, 02:29:33 pm

Photo Credit: Daily Caller
Photo Credit: Daily Caller

Jim Moynihan, Republican candidate for the Illinois State House, went in today to vote early, and to vote for himself. But when he touched the screen mark his name, it was his Democratic opponent’s name that registered the vote.

“While early voting at the Schaumburg Public Library today, I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan told Illinois Review. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for aRead more at http://joemiller.us/2014/10/rise-machines-vote-republicans-chicago-automatically-changed-democrats/#dW3wAwCylze646UO.99

Dem asses still at it I n Chicago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 29, 2014, 07:00:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 29, 2014, 08:50:01 am

Can you deny that CO2 has continued to increase just as the movie predicted.

Can you show where the glaciers that have continued to retreat as the movie predicted, actually stopped and grew.

Can you show where carbon dioxide concentrations are not at the highest levels now than at any point in the last 650,000 years.

Few people really care about ANY of those predictions.  Let's address the DIRE predictions.  None of those would count.

Quote from: otto105 on October 29, 2014, 08:50:01 am

each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record just as the science in the movie has predicted.

Except that the last 12 years have NOT been among the 14 warmest on record, though I will admit that the movie predicted they would be.  The prediction simply has not happened, nor have the dire consequences which were predicted along with it.

No cataclysmic drought.  No rising ocean levels.  No crop failures.  No famines.  No increase in hurricanes or tornadoes.

Nothing.  And yet the legions of socialists who still hope to use this as a justification for socialism continue to push it, despite the fact that the ship has sailed and the public rejects the doom and gloom.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 29, 2014, 07:05:11 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on October 29, 2014, 09:23:07 am

You were the one who said "maintain beaches" in your original post. Perhaps you could consider saying what you mean in the future?

Quote from: davep on October 29, 2014, 09:21:26 am

Can Homo explain why, in spite of the fact that CO2 levels have made record high for the past 16 years, the global temperatures, even the manipulated ones published by the Eastanglian Climate center, show no temperature increases at all?

Can he restrict himself to actual facts.

Restricting himself to facts?

Expecting him to actually write what he means?

You two are being incredibly unfair.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 29, 2014, 09:59:35 pm

Maybe if Oddo stopped being such a blow hard there wouldn't be such record CO2 emissions. ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 30, 2014, 01:34:33 pm

Move along folks...nothing to see here

http://theweek.com/article/index/270950/speedreads-this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-a-voting-machine-changes-your-vote

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 30, 2014, 02:38:57 pm

Speaking of facts...

Quote

Except that the last 12 years have NOT been among the 14 warmest on record, though I will admit that the movie predicted they would be.

Prove it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 30, 2014, 03:42:17 pm

I wonder what the statute of limitations is on Tax cheating...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/tim-geithner_n_6076854.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Pop quiz: Which high-profile official faulted the Obama administration for the following botched responses to the financial crisis?

1) Policing bad banks: "The enforcement response we sought came way more slowly than would have been ideal ... and (inevitably) fell far short of what people thought would be appropriate ...

2) A mortgage task force Obama announced in his 2012 State of the Union speech "was not about the average individual victims, but more the fights among the consenting adults that had sold and bought mortgage securities that performed badly."


3) The government's $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement to fix botched foreclosures "was ridiculously protracted and ultimately unsatisfying in the penalties imposed and relief sought."

Outspoken progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.?

Libertarian firebrand Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.?

Sorry, no. The answer is actually Timothy Geithner, the former Treasury secretary, architect of the crisis rescue packages and, more typically, the Obama administration's stalwart defender.

The criticisms all come from a cache of previously unreleased documents prepared for Geithner's recent memoir, "Stress Test," that are part of one of the biggest legal fights from the financial crisis, a case against the government by shareholders of insurance giant AIG.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on October 30, 2014, 04:30:42 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 30, 2014, 02:38:57 pm

Speaking of facts...
 


Prove it.

Satellite data for the past 16 years has already proven it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 30, 2014, 08:36:44 pm

Then post it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on October 30, 2014, 09:15:04 pm

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/no-warming-in-antarctica-since-the-start-of-satellite-records/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 30, 2014, 09:35:14 pm

Right on cue some idiot wingnut enters the conversation with a non-answer and probably feels good about his post.

So peke, Antarctica is the world in your view?

Come on idiot conservatives, can't one of you prove the hillbilly lawyers assertion? 

davepbart

Check the Norsk Sagas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 30, 2014, 09:37:42 pm

Steven Goddard is the pseudonym of global warming skeptic blogger Tony Heller, who runs the blog "Real Science." Goddard originally blogged only using a pseudonym, but revealed his real identity in a June 27, 2014 blog post.

Nice.


**** moron.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 31, 2014, 04:47:15 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 30, 2014, 02:38:57 pm

Speaking of facts...
 
Prove it.

Prove your assertion.  As I have said many time, "proof" is merely that which is required to convince.  I have multiple times acknowledged when I was wrong and when someone has established a point.  I can't recall you ever doing the same, so I see no reason making an effort to "prove" anything to you.  Additionally your claim came first.  Prove it is true.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 31, 2014, 04:49:43 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 30, 2014, 09:37:42 pm

Steven Goddard is the pseudonym of global warming skeptic blogger Tony Heller, who runs the blog "Real Science." Goddard originally blogged only using a pseudonym, but revealed his real identity in a June 27, 2014 blog post.
Nice.
**** moron.

And your point would be.... what?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 07:53:53 am

Run away little Jessie.

You can't "prove" it.

You can't convince anyone on it.

Your opinion is just that and it is a lie.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 31, 2014, 07:55:53 am

And the problem its your word against Goddard and your word is worthless

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 08:03:38 am

Goddard doesn't exist.

Did some a-hole post something about satellite data (data which is not used in global surface temperature because they use actual recorded data instead of sensor readings)....we yes, some a-hole did.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9)

Have at it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 08:20:09 am

Another liar posts...

Quote

even the manipulated ones published by the Eastanglian Climate center

daveprbart

Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion? Any at all? Just one little bit of factual information?

Like getting the name right. It's the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

Because you have to debunk the debunkers.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate)

Good luck.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 31, 2014, 08:32:29 am

Get it through your head, you cant convince anyone because what you say is your word. Anybody else's word is wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 08:33:05 am

hillbilly legal aid

On the drought assertion, Australia or California?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 08:35:41 am

Isfullofit.

Take it up with all the sources that I have posted.

Now go back to eating your oatmeal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 31, 2014, 08:36:17 am

Dude have you ever been to Australia? I doubt it. It is always hot and desert like there.  Stop yourself. Hey Oddo Trix are for kids.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 08:54:18 am

Do you even know the meaning of the word drought? Do you understand even deserts and rainforests can experience drought.

Typical conservative response of I've been to county and it seemed dry and hot....so it can't have a drought.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 09:02:01 am

hillbilly legal aid

How was GDP in last quarter?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 31, 2014, 09:23:07 am

Sessions: 'The World Has Turned Upside Down'

1:17 PM, Oct 30, 2014• By DANIEL HALPER

Senator Jeff Sessions will soon release this statement in response to a report in the Wall Street Journal that details President Obama's plans to unilaterally implement amnesty.
 
"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election.
 
"In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans.
 
"Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.
 
"Earlier this week, President Obama’s former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President’s earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one’s oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.
 
"The President is assuming for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, work, live, and claim benefits in the United States. He has exempted virtually every group in the world from America’s immigration laws: people who enter before a certain age, people related to people who enter before a certain age, adults traveling with minors, minors traveling with adults, illegal immigrants who are not convicted of serious crimes, illegal workers who are convicted of serious crimes but not enough serious crimes, almost anyone who shows up the border and demands asylum, the millions who overstay their visas, and, as was recently exposed, illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories. The list continues to grow.
 
"A nation creates borders and laws to protect its own citizens. What about their needs?

"The President is systemically stripping away the immigration protections to which every single American worker and their family is entitled. He doesn’t care how this impacts Americans’ jobs, wages, schools, tax bills, hospitals, police departments, or communities.
 
"But it gets worse still. The WSJ reports that the President is ‘expected to benefit businesses that use large numbers of legal immigrants, such as technology companies.’ Those changes include measures to massively expand the number of foreign workers for IT companies—measures aggressively lobbied for by IT giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Yet we have more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees who don’t have jobs in these fields. Rutgers professor Hal Salzman documented that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are being filled by foreign workers. From 2000 through today, a period of record legal immigration, all net gains in employment among the working-age have gone entirely to immigrant workers.
 
"And now, in order to help open borders billionaires, President Obama is going to deny millions of Americans their shot at entering the middle class and a better life.
 
"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people. But the citizens of this country still hold the power, and through their voice, they can turn the country right-side again."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 31, 2014, 10:15:53 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 08:54:18 am

Do you even know the meaning of the word drought? Do you understand even deserts and rainforests can experience drought.

Typical conservative response of I've been to county and it seemed dry and hot....so it can't have a drought.

You mean droughts are naturally occurring phenomena and not the result of climate change?  Who knew? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on October 31, 2014, 10:32:13 am

The party of thugs...

http://nypost.com/2014/10/30/democrats-threaten-voters-to-get-to-the-polls/

Democrats are telling voters that they had better head to the polls — or else.
The New York State Democratic Committee is bullying people into voting next week with intimidating letters warning that it can easily find out which slackers fail to cast a ballot next Tuesday.
“Who you vote for is your secret. But whether or not you vote is public record,” the letter says.
“We will be reviewing voting records . . . to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014.”
It ends with a line better suited to a mob movie than a major political party: “If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not.”
The letter and accompanying post card was criticized even by party members, with one Democratic consultant saying it was the wrong way to inspire votes.
“It’s a threatening letter. It’s a scare piece that is unnecessary and inappropriate,” the insider said.
Brooklyn and Manhattan residents who received the note Wednesday were furious, calling it an attempt to browbeat them into showing up at the polls.
“I’m outraged. Whether I vote or not is none of your business!” said a Manhattan voter, who was so incensed that she complained to a local Democratic leader.
“The letter is ludicrous and menacing,” said the voter, who requested anonymity.
The woman also received a report card of her voting record, pointing out that she had failed to vote in two of the last four elections.
Overall, the notices were sent out to 1 million registered Democrats who had failed to vote in previous midterm elections, according to the group.
The committee — chaired by former Gov. David Paterson — defended the scare tactic, calling it standard practice throughout the country.
“This flier is part of the nationwide Democratic response to traditional Republican voter-suppression efforts, because Democrats believe our democracy works better when more people vote, not
less,” said Peter Kauffmann, a committee spokesman.
“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is they don’t want people to vote and we want everyone to vote.”
Paterson declined to comment.
The mailer has a phone number on it that goes to Election Protection, a nonpartisan voting organization.
The organization said it had received a “significant” number of calls about the letter.
Such attempts to shame people to vote — what politicos call “social pressure” or peer pressure — has become more common place and was used by the Obama campaign in 2012, sources said.
A Yale University study in 2008 found that voter participation increased substantially after lazy voters received letters telling them their spotty voting history was a public record that would be scrutinized.
The notice includes a “vote report card” rating New Yorkers’ voting records as “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “incomplete.”
“Many organizations monitor turnout in your neighborhood and are disappointed by the inconsistent voting of many of your neighbors,” it says.
The letter came a week before heavily favored Democratic Gov. Cuomo faces off against Republican Rob Astorino.
Cuomo was not behind the shame letters, party sources insisted.
But Astorino scoffed, “Andrew Cuomo’s thuggish tactics just crossed the line into creepy territory . . . Threatening and intimidating people is not how honorable elected leaders operate.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on October 31, 2014, 10:56:41 am

(http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/benson/art_images/cg5451ae9eb9c88.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 31, 2014, 11:04:05 am

Quote from: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 08:54:18 am

Do you even know the meaning of the word drought? Do you understand even deserts and rainforests can experience drought.

Typical conservative response of I've been to county and it seemed dry and hot....so it can't have a drought.

Drought is a natural occurance that has existed even in biblical times when there was no pollution, industrial revolution, or over population. Even todays Baalites cant stop a natural occurance from happening.

I think the biggest drought is in your head, it is affecting your thinking power

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on October 31, 2014, 01:00:32 pm

I hope and pray the voters send a resounding defeat to the Dems this election, but I'm not holding my breath. After all, I remember everyone saying Obama was in trouble last Prez election and that didn't turn out well at all. So we'll see....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on October 31, 2014, 01:29:16 pm

Quote from: Sportster on October 31, 2014, 01:00:32 pm

I hope and pray the voters send a resounding defeat to the Dems this election, but I'm not holding my breath. After all, I remember everyone saying Obama was in trouble last Prez election and that didn't turn out well at all. So we'll see....

Nobody who had any brains thought Obama was in trouble.  It was obvious for months that he would win.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on October 31, 2014, 02:01:50 pm

I wonder how many of those smart people have regretted their votes for Obumma since 2012?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 05:42:51 pm

2016 will be a wonderful year for the Democratic Party.

All those smart people ( who vote according to you Democratic) will vote that way again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 31, 2014, 08:44:51 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 09:02:01 am

hillbilly legal aid

How was GDP in last quarter?

Disappointingly poor, just as it has been every quarter since Obama took office.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 31, 2014, 08:46:58 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 08:33:05 am

hillbilly legal aid

On the drought assertion, Australia or California?

We have seen nothing like what Gore predicted, and the public knows it, which is why ever growing numbers of people either laugh at the foolishness of Global Warming claims, or curse the folks pushing that agenda as a way of increasing the size, scope and power of government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on October 31, 2014, 08:56:33 pm

Quote from: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 07:53:53 am

Run away little Jessie.

You can't "prove" it.

You can't convince anyone on it.

Your opinion is just that and it is a lie.

~sigh~ As I have pointed out to you many times now (and which so far you seem unable to grasp), "proof" is merely that which is required to convince someone of something, and you have made clear you will not alter your position on this (or anything else) and that neither evidence nor reason make any difference to you.  On the other hand, I have several times acknowledged I was wrong here, and will so so again if the evidence demonstrates that.  So, with that in mind, and combined with the fact that I first challenged YOUR position in our exchange here, I will leave it to you to "prove" your claim.

Now, as to your statement that I "can't convince anyone on it," would you care to poll those posting here to see how many were convinced by your claim that:

Quote from: otto105 on October 29, 2014, 08:50:01 am

the list of hottest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record just as the science in the movie has predicted.

or how many instead agree with my statement that your claim is at odds with reality?

And, finally, you really need to learn the meaning of the word "opinion."  Your contention that my "opinion... is a lie," indicates you might not grasp what the word "opinion" means.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on October 31, 2014, 10:38:08 pm

 


 Certainly cant go wrong with this !
__________________________________


 [size=78%]Here is your registration code (DHJKT00678G)[/size]


UBA Bank Head Office Plc has finalize all the necessary
arrangement and your FUND $2.8usd has been approved by the board of
directors of UBA BANK, you will receive your ATM VISA CARD as soon as possibble.it has been registered with DHL COMPANY this
morning,contact DHL Director Mr.Duhung pieerre,

with this following information for Re- Confirmation,

Your, Name--------------
Your, Country--------------------
Your, City-----------------------
Your, Post code-------------
Your, Tell-----------------------
Your, age--------------
Your, occupation----------------
Your, Id-------------------------

Forward the information here (duhungperrie@gmail.com) Or Call Mr.
Duhung pieerre On tell phone: +229-984 126 91

Thanks
From Hon Mrs. Juliet Adams

__________________________________________

Wow ... 2.8 million ... maybe JJ should by multiple homes next door to you. ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 11:26:18 pm

Quote

Quote from: otto105 on Today at 07:53:53 am

Run away little Jessie.

You can't "prove" it.

You can't convince anyone on it.

Your opinion is just that and it is a lie.




~sigh~ As I have pointed out to you many times now (and which so far you seem unable to grasp), "proof" is merely that which is required to convince someone of something, and you have made clear you will not alter your position on this (or anything else) and that neither evidence nor reason make any difference to you.  On the other hand, I have several times acknowledged I was wrong here, and will so so again if the evidence demonstrates that.  So, with that in mind, and combined with the fact that I first challenged YOUR position in our exchange here, I will leave it to you to "prove" your claim.

Now, as to your statement that I "can't convince anyone on it," would you care to poll those posting here to see how many were convinced by your claim that:


Quote from: otto105 on October 29, 2014, 08:50:01 am

the list of hottest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record just as the science in the movie has predicted.



or how many instead agree with my statement that your claim is at odds with reality?

And, finally, you really need to learn the meaning of the word "opinion."  Your contention that my "opinion... is a lie," indicates you might not grasp what the word "opinion" means.

So you have nothing. Just say so hillbilly legal aid.

God your awful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on October 31, 2014, 11:30:54 pm

More of nothing to add...

Quote

Quote from: otto105 on Today at 09:02:01 am

hillbilly legal aid

How was GDP in last quarter?




Disappointingly poor, just as it has been every quarter since Obama took office.

Disappointing would be the fact most people on any board you post on consider you boring, when you actually excel at being obnoxiously boring.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2014, 06:27:25 am

otto, do you believe that if you shout something stupid, it is magically transformed into something intelligent?

Or that if you pound the table loudly enough more people will agree with you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 01, 2014, 08:34:07 am

JJ, what do you keep getting yourself into that you get these notices constantly? Can't remember the last time I received one of those spam letters, but I also use a anti spam tool, so it fends off that nonsense. BTW, you should try one of those.....you just 'might' get rich.... ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2014, 10:02:15 am

Liberals often accuse Republicans of a war on women.  I trust they will mention this battle prominently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1SOfysMlvw

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 02, 2014, 01:50:08 am

 

Quote from: Sportster on November 01, 2014, 08:34:07 am

JJ, what do you keep getting yourself into that you get these notices constantly? Can't remember the last time I received one of those spam letters, but I also use a anti spam tool, so it fends off that nonsense. BTW, you should try one of those.....you just 'might' get rich.... ;)

 Yeah Sporty I was up 2.8 mil but gambled it away on online poker.  :-[


 Whoever thot a royal flush could beat aces & eights?


 For one hand I was there baby ! Almost.


 Just got this one ... I'm rich again !


 _________________________________________


 [size=78%]U.S.A EMBASSY IN BENIN REPUBLIC [/size]
Metro Plaza, Plot 991/992
Zakari Maimalari Street
Cadastral Zone AO,
Central Business District, West Africa
Email (embassyu910@yahoo.com)

Attn:
Welcome to the United States Of America Embassy Benin Republic, This is Johnson Williams U.S. Embasador in Benin Republic. We write to notify you that U.S. Embassy here in Benin has inter-vain in your case due your total sum of $4.8millions, Inheritance fund owning you in Africa.


 We are here to represent and protect the legal interest of every American and any others Country like UK and Asia that involved


 in such businesses of every Foreigner and especially to the Northz Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member Country Citizens domiciled here in Cotonou, Benin Republic.This site contains information on the United States of America and the Republic of Benin.
 
 It provides pages on the bilateral relationship between the two Countries,as well as on foreign policy,economic affairs,domestic issues,and U.S.society and values.The various sections of the Embassy work together as a team to address the goals of the Mission.

 We write to inform you of the breaking news about your Inheritance fund of ($4.8millions USD) which you have been expecting sending money for so longer, without a good result up to date, even many of
them contacted you in form of Western Union Department or Money Gram stated your fund was with them, from the financial regulatory bodies of this Country, from their report I gathered that your Inheritance fund which was scheduled to have been remitted to your destination point by some corrupt officials with intention of on asking you to pay endless money.
 
 However, I went to Benin Republic International Criminal Organization after USA Embassy Board of Directors for investigation, and in their bid to launch a full scale
investigation into the saga, they found out that the reason why you were swindled in the past and still not been able to receive your expected fund till date was because you were dealing with the wrong people without involved USA Embassy Representative, unscrupulous elements, and impostors that were impersonating.

 Further more,USA Embassy have took the chance to an emergency meeting with the Government of Benin Republic, and it was resolved that you shall be receiving $4.800,000,00, we have summon the amalgamated
union governing all the official office stores in this Country and their MD referred your fund to step aside that we will handle your payment total sum of $4.800,000,00,by yourself,so,it better for you to
stopped communicate with any other office here in Benin Republic,because,if you did is for your own risk.
 
 Though the Claim Fund Origin certificate charges that you were supposed to pay was initially
on the high price but has been cut down to $100 by the USA Embassy in Benin Republic as part of our corporate social responsibility to considering the poor economic situations that make it difficult for
the middle class citizens to meet up with the Claim Fund Origin of their entitlement.

 Note that the $100 is the only money that you shall pay to Hillary Odinaka Okoye before they shall start program the payment details that shall enable you have access of your $4.800,000,00,
 
Note that the $100 is compulsory for you to pay as it was agreed in the meeting that you have to pay the $100 which will serve as re-confirmation to your original file,meanwhile you are advising to reconfirm the below
information to us avoid mistaking.

1. Your Full Name: _________
2. Your Direct Cell No: _________
3. Your Home Address: _________
4. Your City: _________
5. Your ID: _________

Note that you are expected to pay only $100 for re-confirmation of your file and you are to pay it to Western union or Money Gram here in Benin Republic as the origination of the Fund in the favor of
Hillary Odinaka Okoye. Send the $100 through with the information below for reconfirmation of your file that will enhance the release of your Fund,

Receivers: _________Hillary Odinaka Okoye
City: _________Cotonou
Country: _________Benin Republic
Test Question: _________A
Answer: _________A
Amount: _________$100
Sender s name: _________
MTCN____________________

 Once you send the money, try to notify us with the MTCN for easy pick
up and for immediate action on the release of your $4.800,000,00, and
your subsequent payments. Note that any unclaimed funds will be return
to the Government of Benin after 10days. So you are urgently advised to comply with our directives so that you shall receive your fund without stress again.
Thank you Mr Johnson williams
call +22968944524


_________________________________________________


 Well Sporty it doesn't get any easier then that to make a kewl 4.8 million.


 I sent them the $100.00 from your bank account number.


 We'll split it the usual 95% me 5% you.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2014, 05:12:27 am

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2014/11/01/iowa-poll-joni-ernst-leads-bruce-braley/18345157/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2014, 08:50:46 am

Why bother?  This is effectively a 94% failure rate.  Is there anything, other than government activities, at which a 94% failure rate is acceptable?  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/31/2-1-2-Month-Snapshot-Thousands-of-Family-Units-Failed-to-Appear-in-Immigration-Court

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 02, 2014, 10:58:37 am

Fairly easily dealt with.  Just make failure to report to the immigration court a felony and prosecute those that are ultimately caught and found guilty, with a penalty of 2 years in jail followed by immediate deportation.  And put a reward of 10 thousand dollars for anyone giving information that leads to arrest and conviction.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2014, 01:25:26 pm

Since the president would have executive discretion on those prosecutions, if the president is essentially deliberately responsible for what we are now seeing, such legislative changes might well be meaningless.  And after those having the information to report saw there were no convictions, there would also be no one providing any information leading to an arrest.

A more effective approach, and one which would reduce the level of executive discretion involved, would be detention before the deportation hearing, and immediate deportation afterward.  We already have federal law making it a felony to illegally return after deportation, with conviction carrying 2 years in prison followed by immediate deportation, and the Justice Department merely decides not to prosecute.

Of course, another solution would be to impeach and remove any president who so willfully refuses to enforce federal law, and if the election results Tuesday make that a realistic possibility, we might actually see it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 02, 2014, 03:53:12 pm

He wouldn't obey the law. When has he? He has refused to obey any law he doesn't like. Impeachment? You better have a whole lot more Republicans to make that stick. Besides, after the election he plans to issue a blanket amnesty by issuing green cards to all the illegals. If Congress passes a law and he doesn't like it then he wont sign the legislation maybe veto it. Then you wont get that by on an override cause you cant/wont get a 23 majority.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 02, 2014, 03:58:37 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 02, 2014, 01:25:26 pm

Of course, another solution would be to impeach and remove any president who so willfully refuses to enforce federal law, and if the election results Tuesday make that a realistic possibility, we might actually see it.

I think hoping enough Senators would vote to impeach the President is less realistic than hoping that Obama will change his views and enforce current laws.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2014, 05:27:19 pm

Overriding a veto and removal by impeachment both require require 2/3's votes.  I see no reason to believe Obama would even consider changing his views on enforcement without impeachment being a serious threat, and as a threat it would only be meaningful if underway.

And if those Senators who have supported Obama do very poorly on Tuesday, those standing for re-election in 2018 might consider voting against impeachment (on the right bill of particulars) to be politically ill-advised.

I am not convinced the green card plan WishflThinking mentions is at all likely.  If Obama were to do that, he would essentially be waving a red flag at Congress and daring Congress to impeach him.  Perhaps that is exactly what he wants.  Blanket green cards would be extremely foolish politically.

Two things I do expect to see if the Republicans take real control of the Senate are the following:

1) That Congress will sent Obama a number of bills which he will veto, with some of them being sent to him multiple times in only slightly modified form, and with Democrats in Congress preventing overrides, something which will allow Republicans to paint the Democrats in 2016 as the "party of no," the party which prevented meaningful action.

2) That the Senate will likely block any Supreme Court nominee Obama might really like in his last two years, leaving the seat to be named by the next president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 02, 2014, 06:00:22 pm

Like your temperature assertion, good luck with that.

BTW Study the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2014, 07:06:57 pm

otto, the next time you pick up a dictionary, you might want to look at the difference between an "assertion" and a "prediction."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 02, 2014, 07:35:02 pm

You will need to review the post in question and either offer proof of your assertion or admit your error.


Your choice legal aid to the hillbillies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2014, 09:20:55 pm

Quote from: otto105 on November 02, 2014, 07:35:02 pm

You will need to review the post in question and either offer proof of your assertion or admit your error.


Your choice legal aid to the hillbillies.

I will be more than happy to admit my error.

When I make one.

Until then, what "post in question" are you even talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 02, 2014, 10:23:07 pm

Mark's blog:

Mark's Market Blog
11-2-14: Unwinding the Carry Trade.
by Mark Lawrence
Markets continued to recover from the almost-correction. The S&P bounced off a key level, 1985, on tuesday and wednesday then burst through on thursday just to bounce off another key level, 2000. Japan then announced more QE and the S&P shot through 2000 like tissue paper, setting a new all-time high and wiping out six months of effort on making a head-and-shoulders. Deutsche Bank announced on Thursday that the S&P would hit 2000 by year end; their prediction came true overnight. This continues to be a bull market. Certainly there will be more pullbacks and corrections - perhaps even soon - but they will be short lived and lead to higher highs.
 
S&P 500 May 10 2014 to October 31 2014
German consumer confidence fell to a two year low and German retail sales dropped 3% in September. It's getting hard to see how Germany will avoid a recession. Chinese consumer confidence hit a three year low. US consumer confidence rose to a seven year high. The Q3 GDP report shows the US continues to grow at about 3.5% per year. Many on Wall Street are expecting a US stock market crash Real Soon Now - like a 40% to 60% drop. It seems a bit difficult to see how that would happen in the face of high profits, rising confidence and a flood of liquidity.

How has the country done under Obama? While he spends his time golfing on Martha's Vineyard with Wall Street billionaires, the bottom 50% of the country is losing ground daily. Low-income and middle class retailers including Wal-Mart, JCPenney, Target, Macy's, and Family Dollar have reported disappointing earnings this year. Meanwhile we've doubled the number of billionaires in our country. Clinton has made well over $110 million since he's left office, and Obama is obviously spending his second term positioning himself for the same thing. Democrats aren't for the little guy, they're just for the little guy's vote. And, appropriately in my mind, they're not getting that lately. Nate Silver says the likelihood of republican control of the senate is up to 73%.


Oil continued its slide, dropping Monday into the $70s for the first time in two years. This is going to be very hard on Russia and US frackers, among others. Saudi Arabia is pumping oil to discourage US production and to shock other oil producers into line. They have enough cash reserves to live for eight years with $80 oil and the resulting Saudi budget deficits. No other oil producer has such cash reserves.

The carry trade: Suppose you're Goldman Sachs. You can just walk up to the Fed window and borrow $5 billion for under .25% interest. So you do. Then you look around; you find that you can buy bonds that pay perhaps 4% - 8% interest in emerging countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa, and Turkey. For you this represents risk free profit, provided only that the exchange rate stays constant. This is called the carry trade. Now suppose the dollar starts going up, which it has been recently, or the local currency in the other country goes down, which in many cases it has been recently, or even worse the Fed raises interest rates, which they indicate they will soonish. Suddenly your profits start to evaporate and your principle takes on risk - if the dollar moves more than 4% you could lose your money, not the Fed's money but real actual your money. You sell the bonds quickly and repatriate the money, which is called unwinding your carry trade. Estimates are that under QE the carry trade has reached $5 trillion dollars; $2 trillion in China and $3 trillion elsewhere. This will be serious money flooding into the US and it has to find a home. This is why many think as the Fed winds down QE and perhaps raises interest rates, and as other countries start printing their own money to lower their currency and make it easier to export, our interest rates and stock market could both go up simultaneously. Unwinding the carry trade will take some time, perhaps a year or two, and during that time as this huge amount of liquidity rushes home like the tide coming in all US market are likely to float to higher levels. This at the expense of money becoming quite dear in emerging economies, but emerging markets are well outside of the Fed's mandate - collateral damage, so to speak. Anyway, thinking of doing some international travel? That's likely to get very cheap in the next year or three as emerging countries scramble to get their hands on dollars. Last time the dollar leaped upwards and the carry trade unwound there were crises in Mexico and Russia and the US hedge fund LTCM failed, nearly bringing down Wall Street with it. This time the carry trade is much larger. Expect interesting times ahead. If I ran the Fed, I'd keep a close eye on this and consider that it might be an opportunity to unload some of my QE assets and soak up some of this liquidity.


Deutsche Skatbank announced that they will now charge .25% to savings accounts holding $600,000 or more. The Germans call this "Punishment Interest." It's the latest and most blatant step of the ECB strategy to confiscate the wealth that prudent people and businesses have accumulated. Super Mario wants that money circulating, not sitting in some musty old bank vault. Germans are famously thrifty people, they are not going to start spend huge amounts of money just because the banks start charging to hold onto it. That money will wind up somewhere - and as Europe tends towards recession and their markets fall, some of it will inevitably find itself in US stocks and bonds. Mr.Draghi hopes to stimulate his own EU economy through loans and resulting production and consumption; instead he's going to drive money out of European banks and into our markets.

Friday the bank of Japan announced $725 billion of QE, annually, until the economy improves. That's a sixth of their economy. An economy that's a little less than a third the size of the US will have a QE program half as large as we had. And now there's no limits: they're buying government bonds, stocks, mortgages, real estate investment trusts, whatever looks appealing today. They're determined to stop deflation and get into inflation for the first time in about 25 years. They'll get asset inflation, obviously, but an increase in consumer prices? No chance. Japan's Nikkei immediately shot up 5% to a seven year high - I do wish I'd had a piece of that. European markets went up about 1.5%. The S&P rose 1.5%. Gold, which Thursday had dropped below $1200, dropped almost 3% to $1165 on the news. QE in Europe, China and Japan and the unwinding of our carry trade are going to act as a major steroid injection into the US stock markets. My prediction of S&P 2150 is starting to look far too conservative. The #1 saying on Wall Street is "don't fight the Fed." Today fighting the fed would mean opening up three simultaneous fronts. When will it end? It can't. Japan would come crashing down under the deficits implied by a non-zero interest rate. Likely so would Europe, and possibly so would we. The world is going to ride the zero interest rate roller coaster until we run out of track.

Some time ago I reported that the ECB was flirting with negative interest rates: they charge you to park your money at the central bank. They don't want huge deposits, they want more money in circulation causing inflation. Now Sweden finds themselves in the same position: in September their consumer prices dropped by .4%. Their central bank promptly dropped interest rates to zero and is considering negative interest rates. This means two things for us: 1) you can forget about any carry trade where we park money in Sweden - there's no money to be made on loaning money to them when they loan money to themselves at zero interest. 2) You can start to wonder if their bankers will look to park money in the US, in our bonds and stocks, meaning suddenly it's looking interesting to European and Scandinavian banks to initiate a carry trade benefiting the US. Perhaps the Fed will find themselves in the interesting position of not needing a new QE: the rest of the world will do that for them. Europe, Japan, China are all going to be subsidizing US government deficits with low interest loans for the next few years. In the long run the tide will turn - it always does - and when they want their money back this will get very ugly very fast. But for so long as we're in a currency war and the dollar keeps appreciating, we can expect US interest rates to stay low and US markets to go up. It used to be you could consider the US economy as an isolated system, but international banking means that those days are long gone.

The Russian Ruble has fallen to an all-time low against the dollar and the Euro; it's down 20% this year. Needless to say, no one is interested in loaning them any money. Their banks are in real trouble. Rich Russians are already in the habit of keeping their money outside the country, so there has been no notable capital flight of which I am aware.

Effective July 1, for-profit colleges need to show their average graduate's annual loan repayments are under 20% of discretionary income or 8% of total income or risk losing federal aid. US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement that they estimate about 1,400 programs serving 840,000 students, of whom 99% study at for-profit institutions, would not pass the new accountability standards.

A US rocket which was delivering 5,000 pounds of supplies to the international space station was blown up shortly after lift off due to readings indicating it was going very bad. It's considered that when a rocket is failing, the lower it fails the better. The Antares rocket is based on the AJ-26 rocket engine, developed 50 years ago by the Russians. They designed them to lift cosmonauts to the moon, built a couple hundred, then sold off a bunch to Aerojet. Aerojet was refitting them for individual use in US rockets. Another blew up in a ground test last May. The Russians had similar problems with them back in the 60s. Then on Friday Space Ship Two, Virgin Galactic's rent-a-seat-to-space for $200,000, blew up on a test flight, killing the copilot and seriously injuring the pilot. It's been a very bad week for US commercial space ventures.

Australian researchers modeled world population and came up with some sobering results: a World War III with deaths proportional to WW I and WW II would have almost no affect on world population. A world-wide one child policy like China's would have almost no affect in the coming century. Semi-contained epidemics like ebola will have almost no affect. We're headed for 10 to 12 billion people in the world. And most of those people will be in south Asia and Africa, as north Asia and the western world has far less population growth. In 50 years, absent catastrophic epidemics like the black death was to Europe in the 1300s, the world will be choked with muslims and Africans. Notice that the population growth chart below is logarithmic - in the time from 1950 to 2050 Asia will go from a population of 1.3 billion to 5 billion, and Africa will go from a population of 200 million to 2 billion. Everyone else will be under 1 billion. Me, I'm banking on catastrophic famines and plagues: there simply isn't enough food and fresh water to support such growth.

 
China has restricted most families to a single child since the late 1970s, but the Communist party said in November that couples would be allowed to have two children so long as at least one of the parents is an only child. They expected this to result in two million extra births a year, but out of more than 11 million couples eligible only 700,000 applied for permission by the end of August. Of those, 620,000 had been authorized. China has a population of 1.36 billion. Over-60s account for 15% of the total and projections show that they will represent 25% of the population - 350 million people - by 2030. Consider those words - "applied for permission." The day will come when this happens world wide.

Russia is being very provocative, flying fighters and bombers into Nato airspace - 19 combat aircraft on Wednesday including several heavy bombers. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are worried, 'cause they know in a quick attack they're screwed - those countries are indefensible from Russia. Poland is also worried and is mobilizing their armed forces. Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, contradicting optimistic European and NATO presumptions of our era that conventional war in Europe was unimaginable, stated in May 2013, "I'm afraid conflict in Europe is imaginable." Poland has arrested several people in the last week and charged them with espionage. The Poles have not forgotten that Russia invaded twice last century and occupied Warsaw both times. Poles have already been let down in WWII by allies Britain and France, and they view Obama with more than a little skepticism - they fear they might be left on their own. Meanwhile Nato fighters are meeting the Russian planes and escorting them back home.

A couple weeks ago I noted that fat boy president for life Kim Jong-Un had disappeared. S.Korea says they know why now: ankle surgery. Several thousand years of food shortages have left Asian bodies poorly equipped to deal with the weight gains associated with the western diet. Our health deteriorates when our BMI gets over 30; Asians find their health deteriorates when their BMI gets over 25.

The number of US billionaires has more than doubled to 1,645 since the financial crisis. And they're getting richer by the second: Last year the world's richest 85 people, who own as much as the entire poorer half of the world, grew $668 million richer each day, $243 billion on the year. The combined wealth of today's billionaires has grown by 124% in the last four years to $5.4 trillion. It's not the 1%, it's not even the .1%; their income has leveled off in the last decade. Income inequality is all about the world's top few thousand people.

 
London, the one place on earth possibly worse than Wall Street, is in a property bubble. What do I mean? The moss-covered shed shown below sits on .013 acres - a square of land about 24 feet on a side, roughly the size of a two stall garage - and it just sold for $800,000.


The Kaiser Family Foundation reports there are 893,851 active physicians working in the United States. According to a survey conducted this year by the Medical Group Management Association, "as many as 214,524 American physicians will not be participating in any ACA (Obamacare) exchange products." Reasons abound as to why, but, "chief among them is the fact that exchange plans are more likely to offer significantly lower reimbursement rates than private market plans, confusion among consumers about the obligations associated with high deductibles, and fear that patients will stop paying premiums and providers will be unable to recover their losses."

During a speech in Rhode Island on Friday, President Obama called for more taxpayer-spending on pre-school in order to "make sure that women are full and equal participants in our economy. Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that's not a choice we want Americans to make."

Ebola watch: Kaci Hickox, the nurse who was quarantined by New Jersey after returning from Africa, was released after Obama and Elizabeth Warren applied intense pressure to the NY and NJ governors. She returned to her home in Maine, where the Maine government said she was to remain in her house until Nov. 10. She says she'll sue Maine if they don't lift the restriction. She was measured to have a fever by a TSA employee when she arrived at the US, but she claims that measurement was an error. Hickox says she does not understand the public's concern over health care workers arriving back home in the United States. Kaci said the "poorly planned" new policy was unnecessarily draconian because people who contract the virus are not contagious until after they become symptomatic. She says she's planning to sue over her "unconstitutional" detention. She also went on a bike ride with her boyfriend, followed by a pack of hungry paparazzi, demonstrating either her confidence in how ebola transmits or her complete disdain for her boyfriend's life. Or both. I don't share her certainty about how ebola transmits, and I expect a court will uphold Maine's quarantine. But then I felt sure that within a year a court would order Obama to produce a birth certificate.

Everyone hates Visa. Certainly I do. They charge merchants 2.5% - 4% on each sale and make our lives miserable. If your card gets stolen you know how you don't own anything? Yah, that's 'cause the merchants pay it - we run the stolen card, it's approved, we get paid, we ship the merchandise, then we get the money taken back by Visa. 'Cause we should have known better, apparently. Anyway in Africa no one has a Visa card, they all pay with their phones. That's now coming to the US and big fights are happening behind the scenes. Google has Google Wallet which lets you attach your Visa cards and bank account to your phone; Apple just introduced Apply Pay which does the same thing. On Saturday Rite Aid and CVS disabled Apple Pay and Google Wallet from their stores. Walmart refused to turn it on in the first place. They won't say why, but it seems to be because each is part of the Merchant Customer Exchange, a consortium of the biggest retailers in the US including Walmart. MCX is working on its own mobile payments app, CurrentC, which is in beta testing and is expected to launch next year. But CurrentC is a mess and much more difficult to use than Apple Pay. It works only with your checking account - no Visa, as the merchants all hate them. It also requires you to scan a barcode to make payments, something proved to not be as secure as near-field communication and other encrypted technology used by Apple Pay and Google Wallet. Finally, CurrentC will allow merchants to track what you buy and store that data, something Apple Pay doesn't allow. Will Visa survive? In the short run, yes; in the long run it's hard to see how they add 3% of value to our economy. Will CurrentC survive? No chance. And Apply Pay and Google Wallet? They're the future, no question. You can already get your auto insurance papers on your phone and most police will accept that; soon it will be drivers licenses and Costco membership cards too, then there will be no reason to carry a wallet at all, just a phone. That perhaps sounds unlikely and even traumatic to us old guys, but we'll be dead soon and the leather wallet and credit card industry will die with us.

What do people want the government to spend money on? Turns out this depends highly on your age. Old people want pensions and defense. Young people want jobs and education.


Just a little bit ago Steve Ballmer, microsoft gazillionaire, shocked the world by paying $2 billion for the LA Clippers, a team estimated to be worth more like $500 million. Now it comes out we'll be helping him pay for it. Here's how: his accountants value the team at $500 million, citing a Forbes study as a supporting fact, and say the other $1.5 billion was "goodwill." Under new laws, "goodwill" is depreciable. He depreciates the goodwill over a 15 year period, and counts the negative value against his profits on other businesses. The tax savings add up over 15 years to roughly $1 billion - half the purchase price. When the team sells again the new price is taxed at the value over $500 billion, but 1) he's probably dead, and 2) by using a family limited general partnership and some clever attorneys and accountants he can substantially transfer the team year by year tax-free to his heirs while maintaining control.

Like the Civil War? Here's some must see TV

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 03, 2014, 05:16:26 pm

http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/lena-dunham-threatens-sue-truth-revolt-quoting-her

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 03, 2014, 06:00:02 pm

Rich



The legal aid to the hillbillies pleading stupidity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 03, 2014, 06:45:45 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 02, 2014, 05:27:19 pm

2) That the Senate will likely block any Supreme Court nominee Obama might really like in his last two years, leaving the seat to be named by the next president.

There is a very real chance that, if the Republicans win the Senate, Ginsburg will immediately resign and Obama will appoint someone that will easily be confirmed before this current Senators come into office.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 03, 2014, 07:50:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on November 03, 2014, 06:00:02 pm

Rich


The legal aid to the hillbillies pleading stupidity.

It is not even remotely close to "pleading stupidity" to point out that your posts, at their very best, are unclear and make little sense.  Of course, the reason that is when they are at their best is that many of them are clear lunacy.  So being unclear and making little sense is better for you than being quite clear, but obviously nutso.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 03, 2014, 07:56:30 pm

Quote from: davep on November 03, 2014, 06:45:45 pm

There is a very real chance that, if the Republicans win the Senate, Ginsburg will immediately resign and Obama will appoint someone that will easily be confirmed before this current Senators come into office.

I don't think so.  Ginsburg has been very, very resistant to leaving, and I'm not sure the Senate will be back long enough to accomplish that even if they tried.  Lee, Cruz, Paul and a few others might even use authentic fillibusters to prevent it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 03, 2014, 10:32:41 pm

You can't filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee under the Senate's current rules.  Ginsburg has been resistant to leaving, but she has left the option open, perhaps hoping that the Democrats would retain the Senate.  She might not want to wait another 4 years, with the possibility that it could extend well beyond that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 03, 2014, 10:46:14 pm

Quote the legal aid to the hillbillies.

Quote

Except that the last 12 years have NOT been among the 14 warmest on record, though I will admit that the movie predicted they would be.  The prediction simply has not happened, nor have the dire consequences which were predicted along with it.

Reality steps in.

Quote

Prove it.

Then the Run Paul backup to a run backward.

Quote

Prove your assertion.  As I have said many time, "proof" is merely that which is required to convince.  I have multiple times acknowledged when I was wrong and when someone has established a point.  I can't recall you ever doing the same, so I see no reason making an effort to "prove" anything to you.  Additionally your claim came first.  Prove it is true.

Then comes the convince anyone that you're not olde grandpa rat's personnel legal aid moment.

Quote

Run away little Jessie.

You can't "prove" it.

You can't convince anyone on it.

Your opinion is just that and it is a lie.

Which leads to the run away little girl moment.

Quote

I will be more than happy to admit my error.

When I make one.

Until then, what "post in question" are you even talking about?

Again provide anything which would "convince" anyone of your assertion.


Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 03, 2014, 10:51:58 pm

And moron hillbilly legal aid.

My convincing is posted here for all to see.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13)


Now is your southern moment to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gLN3QoN-q8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gLN3QoN-q8)


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 03, 2014, 11:28:03 pm

Quote from: davep on November 03, 2014, 10:32:41 pm

You can't filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee under the Senate's current rules.  Ginsburg has been resistant to leaving, but she has left the option open, perhaps hoping that the Democrats would retain the Senate.  She might not want to wait another 4 years, with the possibility that it could extend well beyond that.

You don't have to limit the filibuster to the issue being filibustered.  You can filibuster EVERYTHING, and in the process so delay everything that there is not time to take care of the confirmation vote.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 03, 2014, 11:41:42 pm

Quote from: otto105 on November 03, 2014, 10:51:58 pm

And moron hillbilly legal aid.

My convincing is posted here for all to see.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13)

And that may well be enough to convince you.  Of course you would also have been convinced in its absence.

It is not enough to convince me.

NOAA's ground-based data collection has serious flaws and is not reliable, but, even if taken as perfectly reliable, your claim was as follows:

Quote from: otto105 on October 29, 2014, 08:50:01 am

each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record

And even NOAA does not make that claim at the link you offer.  The year 2008 is not on the list at all, and the last I looked 2008 was one of the years between 2001 and 2012.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 04, 2014, 07:30:18 am

Also that doesn't compute with my recollection of any of those years. I cant remember any of those summers being hot, like 90's hot. It makes me wonder where their ground stations are located.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on November 04, 2014, 10:05:52 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 04, 2014, 07:30:18 am

Also that doesn't compute with my recollection of any of those years. I cant remember any of those summers being hot, like 90's hot. It makes me wonder where their ground stations are located.

I'm surprised that they don't vet their data against your unreliable decade old memories from one specific point on the map. Clearly it's a conspiracy to push the global warming myth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 04, 2014, 10:11:47 am

Don't you have some socialists/communists/atheists to vote for today? Run along now....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 04, 2014, 10:25:09 am

Quote from: Cletus on November 04, 2014, 10:05:52 am

I'm surprised that they don't vet their data against your unreliable decade old memories from one specific point on the map. Clearly it's a conspiracy to push the global warming myth.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 04, 2014, 10:45:22 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 03, 2014, 11:28:03 pm

You don't have to limit the filibuster to the issue being filibustered.  You can filibuster EVERYTHING, and in the process so delay everything that there is not time to take care of the confirmation vote.

All Reid has to do is put nothing on the docket other than the nominee.  There is no way that the Republicans could stop it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 04, 2014, 10:54:06 am

Quote from: Cletus on November 04, 2014, 10:05:52 am

Clearly it's a conspiracy to push the global warming myth.

Not quite...conspiracy would indicate some secrecy. Nothing secret about this hoax and its purpose...follow the money

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 04, 2014, 04:42:56 pm

Quote from: davep on November 04, 2014, 10:45:22 am

All Reid has to do is put nothing on the docket other than the nominee.  There is no way that the Republicans could stop it.

I don't believe they could even finish the hearings in time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 04, 2014, 04:48:49 pm

Quote from: Cletus on November 04, 2014, 10:05:52 am

I'm surprised that they don't vet their data against your unreliable decade old memories from one specific point on the map. Clearly it's a conspiracy to push the global warming myth.

Much of the temperature data is collected from stations which over the years have evolved into heat sinks which are not really indicative of the environmental temperature overall, but instead distort the picture because of changes in groundcover, nearby development and concrete or blacktop being added nearby.  It results in GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out, but WshflThinking did not refer to his memory of the temperatures "from one specific point," and there is no reason to think that is what he was referring to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 04, 2014, 05:51:36 pm

It's official...The 'Hope and Change' FRAUD is over. The Republicans WILL control the House and the Senate. Nobama is a Lame Duck.

The teleprompter lied. Nobama had no business being president. A community is misisng it's organizer.

Now we have to figure out how to repeal the god awful "NobamaCare". As Nancy Pelosi said "We have to pass the bill before you can read what is in it"

"If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage" - LIE

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 04, 2014, 08:50:11 pm

It is hardly over.  Democratic Senator candidates still have a reasonable chance to maintain control.  At least for the night.  It is likely to come down to runoffs in Louisiana and Georgia.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 04, 2014, 08:51:14 pm

Senate hearings will last as long as Harry Reid wants them to.  There is nothing to prevent him from limiting their length.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 04, 2014, 09:26:29 pm

Looks like Homo isn't representative of Wisconsin voters after all.  Seems as if the voters of that backwards state are quickly moving it into the 21st century.

Homo's next move has to be to attempt to have the People's Republic of Madison secede from the state.  I doubt if the rest of the state would try to stop it.  Maybe we can convert it into an Indian Reservation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 04, 2014, 09:30:06 pm

Quote

Except that the last 12 years have NOT been among the 14 warmest on record, though I will admit that the movie predicted they would be.  The prediction simply has not happened, nor have the dire consequences which were predicted along with it.

Enjoy your carnival barker position.

Quote

NOAA's ground-based data collection has serious flaws and is not reliable

BBBBBBWWWWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


And the convincing behind that is??????


Olde tacit racist is that you?


Moron.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 04, 2014, 09:43:19 pm

Hey Homo.  How is your Governor Walker doing in the election tonight?  Did you remember to vote for him?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 04, 2014, 10:38:12 pm

Hey Homo.  I am listening to your Governor, and he seems to speak pretty good English.  Didn't he go to the same school you did?

Anyway, congratulations.  You have a good one there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 04, 2014, 10:49:35 pm

DaveP - it's official. Republicans control the House and the Senate.

Well...after today the fraud that was 'Hope and Change" is over. Republicans control the house and the Senate. In Illinois we now have a Republican Gov. - Obama's fake home state.

They need to repeal ObamaCare...not sure if they have enough to do that. ObamaCare has not kicked in all the way. It's going to be a mess. Don't get sick, even if you have coverage it wil lcost you $1,000's "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"

The FAKE Teleprompter president is now officially a fraud.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 04, 2014, 10:52:28 pm

Scott Walker WINS again in Wisconsin. Good comedy. The Libs in Wisconsin get pooped on again. Otto gets pooped on again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 04, 2014, 10:56:11 pm

Harry reid will not have control of the Senate...so it's all moot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 04, 2014, 11:45:49 pm

The best Obamacare comments I heard tonight was an attempt to defund it, because to repeal it would take an Obama signature and that isn't going to happen. Also they talked about repealing some of the Obamacare taxes. Obama may be a lame duck but he still has a veto pen. It appears unless he compromises the gridlock appears to be in full control mode.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 04, 2014, 11:48:53 pm

 All AMERICA wants is a warm blanket over it,


 while getting some decent head under it.  :D


 THAT'S the AMERICAN way !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 05, 2014, 12:23:52 am

If Nobama starts vetoing everything he will just solidify the fac the he isthe worst President ever.

Great comedy is Nobama came to visit Quinn here in Illinois and campaign for him...so did Michelle....the race was tied at the time...Quinn lost todat by 5 % points. Nobama's so called home state.

I wonder how smug and arogant Nobama will be now? I am guessing a lot more golf.

The teleprompters lied.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2014, 04:44:03 am

Quote from: otto105 on November 04, 2014, 09:30:06 pm

Enjoy your carnival barker position.

BBBBBBWWWWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!   

And the convincing behind that is??????    Olde tacit racist is that you?    Moron.

Again, to keep things in focus, your claim was as follows:

Quote from: otto105 on October 29, 2014, 08:50:01 am

each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record

In my last post on the issue, I pointed out that even the source you offered to support your position failed to do so:

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 03, 2014, 11:41:42 pm

And even NOAA does not make that claim at the link you offer.  The year 2008 is not on the list at all, and the last I looked 2008 was one of the years between 2001 and 2012.

If you were correct that "each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record," then the year 2008 would have to be included, but the year 2008 is not once mentioned at all in the body or the graphs of the NOAA link you offered.

So, when your error is clearly pointed out, when it is pointed out that even the sources YOU offer as credible (and which I do not accept) fail to support your position, the response from you is as above.

otto, are you even capable of admitting when you are wrong?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 05, 2014, 07:38:47 am

Charlie Crist has now lost national races as a Republican, Independant, and now Democrat. Perhaps now he will finally go away.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 08:03:10 am

Begich is trailing in Alaska and Louisiana is going to a runoff Dec 6th. Excellent night for Obama's communists. And Oddo's favorite governor won another 4 year term in Wisky. Expect the comrade to be out celebrating for awhile. I wonder what kind of shenanigans Reid will try to pull off before January.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 08:05:43 am

If I am not mistaken Reid is up for re-election in 2016

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 08:56:06 am

Jes, do you buy this?

Morris contends that "the Republicans will be able to use the House and the Senate to pass an extensive agenda of stuff the country really wants."

 Such power will allow Republicans to "pass a series of bills on a wide variety of subjects including corporate tax reform, the Keystone Pipeline, immigration with securing the border, a whole range of legislation, healthcare reform that will be very dynamic and very exciting and can give the Republicans an agenda for the 2016 election," he added.

In addition, "Obama will be in the position of marching to the Republican beat while vetoing the bill. That will also put Hillary Clinton in a very tough position because she has to buy into Obama's vetoes and run on them or risk losing the support of much of the party."

 "This is going to be a transfer of momentum from the Democrats to the Republicans," he said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GOP-Midterms-2014-Senate/2014/11/04/id/605166/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1593847_11052014&s=al&dkt_nbr=pbn6xdjm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 05, 2014, 09:42:31 am

I think Reid was  re-elected last mid term election, and spent a lot of money to make it back in office..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 05, 2014, 09:59:32 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 04, 2014, 11:45:49 pm

The best Obamacare comments I heard tonight was an attempt to defund it, because to repeal it would take an Obama signature and that isn't going to happen. Also they talked about repealing some of the Obamacare taxes. Obama may be a lame duck but he still has a veto pen. It appears unless he compromises the gridlock appears to be in full control mode.

That has been a strategy used in several actions over the years.  In every case, it has failed, because when the bill is vetoed and the government is shut down, the Republicans have gotten the blame.  The far right is no longer the majority in the House, and never has been in the Senate.  Moderate Republicans will not allow a potential Government shutdown.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 05, 2014, 10:05:08 am

Homo?  You out there?  Or are you out attending one of Walker's victory parties.  Must be nice to live in a state that is finally entering the 21st century.  Communism failed in the USSR.  Communism failed in China.  Now it has been kicked out of office in Wisconsin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 05, 2014, 11:02:22 am

He's so mad, the northern hillbilly is out stomping in pig **** right about now..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 05, 2014, 11:10:15 am

Here in VA Warner barely made it. He was supposed to win by double digits, instead it's "too close to call". The media is making all kinds of excuses. Warner said something to the effect that the voters are sending me to Washington to straighten things out. I'm thinking, you've been there for the past 6 years you jackass, you were supposed to win by double digits. This is more the voter saying "Warner you suck!" I think Warner had something like 3 times the money that Gillespie had.. I don't expect much out of the Republicans, but the Dems are just **** terrible, and most people know this..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 05, 2014, 12:49:06 pm

Another article for Homo to ignore.

http://www.pqbnews.com/opinion/281465481.html

VICTORIA – The climate debate, which all left-thinking people insist is over, has erupted in the B.C. legislature over our nascent liquefied natural gas industry.

Chilliwack-Hope B.C. Liberal MLA Laurie Throness heated things up by announcing that he’s “agnostic” on the subject of human-caused global warming. The religious terminology is intentional, he said, because this is how climate change is currently discussed – deniers, believers and so on.



Throness mentioned the inflated elephant in the room, 18 years with little or no average global surface temperature rise, even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising around the world.

Needless to say, Green Party MLA and climate scientist Andrew Weaver was aghast at this heresy. And NDP MLAs lined up behind former Sierra Club high priest George Heyman to ridicule Throness, inadvertently proving his point about their rather nasty religious zeal.

I’m also skeptical on global warming, as regular readers will know, and so are many voting adults in Canada and elsewhere. And I agree with Throness’ main point that B.C. shouldn’t sacrifice its energy economy while the jury is still out.

Most politicians who presume to decide the fate of this vital and threatened industry have at best visited a well or plant site, and media information about the industry is often from questionable protesters. So today I’d like to provide some background on the natural gas industry, as someone who grew up with it and worked in it in northeastern B.C.

Natural gas is mostly methane, the main ingredient in farts. It is many times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, which is one reason it is often flared rather than vented if it isn’t captured for use as fuel.

Raw natural gas may contain carbon dioxide, a key plant food and component of exhaled breath that has been rebranded as pollution. Gas from the Horn River Basin, one of B.C.’s largest deep shale formations, contains 10 per cent or more CO2, more than conventional gas.

B.C.’s most lucrative gas field is the Montney shale around Fort St. John, which contains nearly CO2-free gas as well as light petroleum liquids.

(This is similar to the Bakken shale in North Dakota, where American roughnecks continue to burn off vast amounts of gas to get at the more valuable light liquids. Oddly, President Barack Obama and former Canadian singer Neil Young don’t notice this.)

Weaver and the NDP are correct in their main objection, which is that the B.C. government’s new limits on CO2 from LNG production are a sham. As much as 70 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the gas industry occur before the LNG stage, which is the only thing the new rules regulate.

CO2 that comes up with gas is extracted and vented. A government-subsidized pilot project to capture and store CO2 at Spectra Energy’s operations at Fort Nelson seems to be going nowhere. Restricting LNG-related emissions is mostly a cosmetic gesture.

Environment Minister Mary Polak correctly notes that gas producers pay carbon tax. Yes, but only on the fuel they use, not “process emissions” such as flaring. Big LNG proponents plan to burn more gas to compress and cool LNG, and their greenhouse gas emissions beyond a certain limit will force them to buy carbon offsets or pay into a technology fund.

If LNG investment isn’t scared away by protests and piled-on taxes, it surely means B.C.’s greenhouse gas reduction targets are history. The question now is how much that actually matters.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 05, 2014, 02:03:43 pm

tempetures go up...and tempetures go down. Maybe Oddo will understand that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 05, 2014, 07:43:49 pm

 As a source of fuel ... whats cleaner and is going to last forever ?


 Everyone of you swingin dicks will come back with the same answer.


 Sunlight ... you know it, I know it ... the rest is bullshit and you know that too.
 
 It's not about what is now ... it's not about your children ...


 it's about your children s children.


 Those are the kids you better be thinking about.


 What are you going to leave them ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 05, 2014, 07:51:41 pm

 Fergot to mention about Mercedes-Benz with the paint job that captures sunlight and converts it to electricity on their cars.


 It's coming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 05, 2014, 08:39:13 pm

 Did you ever wonder whats going on in the rest of the universe ?


 You know ... somewhere out there ... a real estate deal is going down ...


 some fucker is trying to sell 53 quadrillion square miles of space ...


 literally space,


 to developers that want to convert it into an inter-dimensional playground for


 vacationers on a break from their daily existence.


 Wait a minute ... didn't we already invent that on Earth ?


 Lets get the marketing boys in on this ... this looks exportable.  ;D


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 05, 2014, 08:52:34 pm

 Disneywhatever !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 09:07:25 pm

I knew this was going to come sooner or later.

http://preservefreedom.org/is-this-really-america-christian-pastors-could-face-180-days-in-jail-if-they-dont-comply-with-states-demands/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2014, 09:19:27 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 09:07:25 pm

I knew this was going to come sooner or later.

http://preservefreedom.org/is-this-really-america-christian-pastors-could-face-180-days-in-jail-if-they-dont-comply-with-states-demands/

Do you want to put any money on it?

You pick the odds, and I will accept anything up to 10,000 to one.

The only way they do any time in jail is if they downright WANT to go, and even then I doubt it would happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 05, 2014, 09:36:04 pm

I read a different article where the reason they are being prosecuted is because they are running a for profit business as well as a non for profit business out of the same place.

So I see no reason they won't lose since bakers and florists have already been forced to provide services to gays under the same law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 05, 2014, 10:28:22 pm

True Christians will not bow to Caesar, come what may.....period....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 11:02:19 pm

Non church members I can see pastors getting away with that. Its where the members son or daughter wants a gay marriage. Personally I can see such a situation going to the supreme court. The Supreme Court failed to rule and the problem gets worse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 11:05:01 pm

Compromise? not from this President. If there was a spirit of compromise why would he insist on a compromise before the Senate changes in January? Same old Obama. Its his way or the highway.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-firm-vow-act-immigration-202842589--politics.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 05, 2014, 11:22:26 pm

There have been similar rumors about doctors being forced by law to perform abortions.  Neither turn out to be true.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 04:25:27 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 11:02:19 pm

Non church members I can see pastors getting away with that. Its where the members son or daughter wants a gay marriage. Personally I can see such a situation going to the supreme court. The Supreme Court failed to rule and the problem gets worse.

Could you perhaps rerwrite the first three sentences to eliminate the indefinite pronouns, the last sentence to indicate what the "problem" is, and further rewrite the first sentence so it makes sense?

You might be making a point I agree with.  You might be making a point I would dispute.  You might not really have a point.   At the moment I can't really tell.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 04:58:42 am

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/05/361550503/newly-released-justice-documents-includes-a-slam-on-issa

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 06:52:36 am

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/here-s-what-a-republican-takeover-looks-likes-20141105

(http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action-get&id=42726)
http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action-get&id=42726
Perhaps the Democratic party can simply be eliminated in the next couple of elections and replaced with competing wings of the Republican party.  Libertarians may find a true home, yet.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on November 06, 2014, 08:57:28 am

With the way the election played out, I feel like we just traded a washed up Tommy Harris for the number one pick in the draft. Too bad  I'm expecting that we will pick Jamarcus Russell. :-(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 06, 2014, 10:00:57 am

The Hitching Post was not a church, but was a for-profit business offering marriage to the general population.  This puts them in the same class as restaurants.  Under the law, they are quasi-public organizations that can not discriminate for reasons of race, religion, gender, etc.  Churches do not fall under the same category.

I think it is a terrible law, but unless you feel that restaurants SHOULD be able to discriminate against people because of race, religion, etc. you shouldn't be upset about this particular situation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 06, 2014, 11:41:32 am

Hope and Change was a made up farse. Hope and Change was made up by the Chicago Dumbmicratic machine. Hope and change was invented by David Axelrod. It's one big lie. The telprompter told us about hope and change, but it never happened. Hope and Change just = BIG governemnt.....spend, spend, spend, spend....Government can't keep spending money and you can't keep supporting millions of people - it never works. It time for America to get to work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I said it 6 years ago here what a lying farse Nobama was....where is Phil?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on November 06, 2014, 12:40:29 pm

It worked for him - and his family - they will be millionaires until they die - great scam if you have no conscience

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 06, 2014, 12:52:15 pm

I sure as heck hope you aren't referring to Reid as the 'Washed up Tommy Harris', Nav. I think what happened was a good thing and much needed. The problem occurs when they try to push their agenda and Obama wears out his veto pen denying all of it. But then he'll never get any funding for any sort of program HE wants if he does that....so the next two years is going to be very interesting to say the least. Probably couldn't have two more polar opposite situations. One desperately trying to drag us right and the other having already dragged us left trying to keep us there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 06, 2014, 04:27:15 pm

 

Quote from: navigator on November 06, 2014, 08:57:28 am

With the way the election played out, I feel like we just traded a washed up Tommy Harris for the number one pick in the draft. Too bad  I'm expecting that we will pick Jamarcus Russell. :-(

 LOL !! Same **** ... different day.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 06, 2014, 04:30:24 pm

Nobama keeps vetoing and he will go down as the worst President ever....the election is proving it. I think Obama is too stupid to work with Congress. All Obama was is mouth piece - he worthless without his teleprompter.....as Iowa used to say here "empty suit"

Nope!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 05:05:16 pm

No comment necessary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824034/Police-report-identifies-Michael-Brown-s-mother-attacker-armed-robbery-Ferguson-t-shirt-vendors-selling-t-shirts-commemorating-teenager-s-death.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 05:07:41 pm

Quote from: davep on November 06, 2014, 10:00:57 am

I think it is a terrible law, but unless you feel that restaurants SHOULD be able to discriminate against people because of race, religion, etc. you shouldn't be upset about this particular situation.

And I feel restaurants SHOULD be free to do that, just as I should then be free to boycott them, or just as I as a customer am free to decide to patronize or to ignore a restaurant because of the race, religion, etc, of the owner or the other patrons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 05:39:06 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 05, 2014, 08:56:06 am

Jes, do you buy this?

Morris contends that "the Republicans will be able to use the House and the Senate to pass an extensive agenda of stuff the country really wants."

 Such power will allow Republicans to "pass a series of bills on a wide variety of subjects including corporate tax reform, the Keystone Pipeline, immigration with securing the border, a whole range of legislation, healthcare reform that will be very dynamic and very exciting and can give the Republicans an agenda for the 2016 election," he added.

In addition, "Obama will be in the position of marching to the Republican beat while vetoing the bill. That will also put Hillary Clinton in a very tough position because she has to buy into Obama's vetoes and run on them or risk losing the support of much of the party."

 "This is going to be a transfer of momentum from the Democrats to the Republicans," he said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GOP-Midterms-2014-Senate/2014/11/04/id/605166/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1593847_11052014&s=al&dkt_nbr=pbn6xdjm

Most of it I agree with.  This part is an exception: "Obama will be in the position of marching to the Republican beat while vetoing the bill. That will also put Hillary Clinton in a very tough position because she has to buy into Obama's vetoes and run on them or risk losing the support of much of the party."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 06, 2014, 06:17:49 pm

There is nothing in working with congress.

A simple opposition will be an effective political strategy for President Barack Hussein Obama.


 Enjoy the 52 senators which is 8 short.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 06:21:43 pm

otto, I would wish you learned how to communicate, but since that might result in seeing you actually explain in a lucid manner what you think, we are probably all better off the way things are now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 06, 2014, 07:08:53 pm

Its meaningless to try to understand moron babbling

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 06, 2014, 07:12:02 pm

Otto, Congrats on your new Governor.

Oh wait, Walker won again.  Never mind. 

Perhaps you could congratulate me on my new Governor?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 06, 2014, 07:13:39 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 05:39:06 pm

Most of it I agree with.  This part is an exception: "Obama will be in the position of marching to the Republican beat while vetoing the bill. That will also put Hillary Clinton in a very tough position because she has to buy into Obama's vetoes and run on them or risk losing the support of much of the party."

I didn't buy that either which is why I posted it. Personally I think she will try to distance herself from Obama if she hopes to get elected. She will run on Bill's name and record.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 06, 2014, 08:09:42 pm

 The next President of the "Newt-eyed Snakes Of Armenia" should be Jeb Bush.

  Should be ..

  Just laying the odds. A classic Bush-Clinton rematch.


  Although Clinton has the classic "fire hydrant" build of a low puncher,


  Bush, with longer arm reach can dance and land blows to Clinton,s head ...


  what Bush is going to have to remember in coming into contact with Clinton in close 


  quarters is that punching upwards from a lower position deals more force than 


  punching downwards with the height advantage.


  Why hasn't Vegas set the odds on this fight yet?


  Both boxers with a proven track record have never squared off in a prime time fight.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 06, 2014, 08:21:16 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 05:07:41 pm

And I feel restaurants SHOULD be free to do that, just as I should then be free to boycott them, or just as I as a customer am free to decide to patronize or to ignore a restaurant because of the race, religion, etc, of the owner or the other patrons.

As you already know, I feel the same way, which is why I led off by saying that it was a terrible law.

None the less, it IS the law, and what is happening to the marriage business is exactly the same as what is happening to the restaurant business.  The rights of church pastors are not being infringed upon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2014, 08:32:27 pm

I have really tried not to offer an opinion on whether the rights of church pastors are or are not being infringed on, because I have not seen any source which seemed to be more interested in neutrally presenting the facts of the case than pushing an agenda, and I don't really care enough about the case to try to find such a source.  But I repeat my belief that there is no way under the sun a remotely competent defense attorney could avoid a conviction in such a case if it went to trial.... unless, of course, the defendants were so unsympathetic their own parents would support conviction just on general principles.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 06, 2014, 08:58:43 pm

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Its typical in a closed society which is what the liberals (communists) want. Religion is their enemy. Any way you can destroy the enemy is fair game.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 06, 2014, 09:08:32 pm

I don't dispute that.  But this has nothing to do with religion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 06, 2014, 09:13:41 pm

And couple that with the Houston situation. Thats an attack on the 1st amendment rights of pastors. Cant say what the bible says about gays.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 06, 2014, 09:25:58 pm

Quote from: davep on November 06, 2014, 09:08:32 pm

I don't dispute that.  But this has nothing to do with religion.

 This has everything to do with religion ... and every religion is involved ...


 if God created everything ... then he created commies ... Nazis ...


 the drive thru lane at McDonald's ... and yes ... the NFL.


 What Humans have to do given free will ... is decide what path to follow ...


 either evil ... Packers, or salvation ... BEARS !!


 The same logic could apply to everything Humans have ever done given free will.


 Sometimes we make one time fatal mistakes ...


 most of the time we get it right after **** up over and over.  ;D


 Otherwise we wouldn't be here. Aren't you glad you're you?  :o

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 06, 2014, 11:29:59 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 06, 2014, 09:13:41 pm

And couple that with the Houston situation. Thats an attack on the 1st amendment rights of pastors. Cant say what the bible says about gays.

I'll bite.  what is the Houston situation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 06, 2014, 11:40:07 pm

 

Quote from: davep on November 06, 2014, 11:29:59 pm

I'll bite.  what is the Houston situation?

 Lamar Houston is on I.R.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 07, 2014, 02:18:24 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 06, 2014, 08:58:43 pm

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Its typical in a closed society which is what the liberals (communists) want. Religion is their enemy. Any way you can destroy the enemy is fair game.

You disagree with whom?  About what?  What is the "Its" which you write is "typical in a closed society"?  Is your last sentence offered as your own view, or offered as a parody of the view of the liberal communists you fear are hiding under your bed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 07, 2014, 02:39:58 am

The most transparent administration in history: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/border-patrol-statistics-show-changing-migration-pattern/2014/11/05/727c9132-6534-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html

Border stat posted, and then removed

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 07, 2014, 05:32:16 am

Quote from: davep on November 06, 2014, 11:29:59 pm

I'll bite.  what is the Houston situation?

JJ, Houston has a female gay mayor who has passed measures promoting things like unisex bathrooms and anti gay discrimination which were repulsive to Christian pastors. The pastors tried to organize a repeal of the ordinances. So in response the mayor supoenied pastoral speeches, e-mail in an attempt to prove the pastors were guilty of hate crimes against gays, which is a violation of 1st amendment right of free speech.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 07, 2014, 06:43:08 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 07, 2014, 05:32:16 am

JJ, Houston has a female gay mayor who has passed measures promoting things like unisex bathrooms and anti gay discrimination which were repulsive to Christian pastors. The pastors tried to organize a repeal of the ordinances. So in response the mayor supoenied pastoral speeches, e-mail in an attempt to prove the pastors were guilty of hate crimes against gays, which is a violation of 1st amendment right of free speech.

Close, but not quite.  Hate speech, is Constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, and hate crimes require actions, not speech.  I am not disputing your description of Houston's mayor, or what was subpoenaed, or even what the purpose of the subpoenas was, but merely your comment on what does or doesn't violate the First Amendment.  Since the language of the First Amendment makes clear only government can violate it, nothing a private citizen does can violate, or be in violation of, the First Amendment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 07, 2014, 08:50:09 am

Everyone has irrational fears.  Some fear liberals.  Some fear Southern Baptists.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 07, 2014, 08:53:02 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 07, 2014, 06:43:08 am

Close, but not quite.  Hate speech, is Constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, and hate crimes require actions, not speech.  I am not disputing your description of Houston's mayor, or what was subpoenaed, or even what the purpose of the subpoenas was, but merely your comment on what does or doesn't violate the First Amendment.  Since the language of the First Amendment makes clear only government can violate it, nothing a private citizen does can violate, or be in violation of, the First Amendment.

I am not aware of the incident, but if it was the Mayor that demanded the Emails, it was the government of Houston that violated the First Amendment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 07, 2014, 10:12:23 am

Dave at first the Sermons were subpoenaed too then the city backed off that demand. The whole situation is a smoking pile of feces and needs to be eradicated. It still amounts to an attack on the 1st amendment. Houston needs to kick that bunch of trash out of office. Hey hit the road Jack.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 07, 2014, 01:50:35 pm

They backed off because they could not win in court.

There are idiot activists for every cause imaginable, who thy to do things that are not practical.  If you get worried about every crackpot out there, you will have a horrible life.

Save your energy for those things that are an actual danger.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 07, 2014, 10:02:45 pm

I left the liberals when Lyndon Johnson took over the presidency.  ENOUGH.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 07, 2014, 10:18:52 pm

 Lamar Houston is still on I.R. ... and overpaid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 02:57:08 am

Quote from: davep on November 07, 2014, 08:53:02 am

I am not aware of the incident, but if it was the Mayor that demanded the Emails, it was the government of Houston that violated the First Amendment.

True.  I was reading WshflThinking's post as it was written.  And, after re-reading it, I was rather clearly NOT reading it as he appears to have intended.  The last clause of his final sentence is more than a bit ambiguous.  My reading had it modifying the last thing before it which would have structurally made sense.  On re-reading it, that is almost certainly now how it was intended: The pastors tried to organize a repeal of the ordinances. So in response the mayor supoenied pastoral speeches, e-mail in an attempt to prove the pastors were guilty of hate crimes against gays, which is a violation of 1st amendment right of free speech.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 04:35:56 am

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/07/ferguson-protester-beaten-by-other-protesters-for-some-unknown-reason/

At a time when Ferguson is preparing for violent demonstrations if the police officer there is not indicted, President Obama is in a position where he might genuinely do some good, and where nearly the entire nation would applaud him if he climbed onto Air Force 1 and flew there on the taxpayer dime (something he has no reluctance to do to make it to a fundraiser).

But he won't.

The community organizer, who sent his Attorney General there shortly after Brown's death when there was no real need or justification for it, is very unlikely to have Holder return to calm down the growing storm, and Obama is even less likely to go himself.

It is hard to tell why, but the opportunity for speculation is itself unhealthy for the nation.

But imagine what Obama could do if for the last two years plus of his administration he made a sustained effort to truly improve race relations in the country, if he made that his legacy, and if he calmed tensions instead of inflaming them.

He still has enough time to do it, and the election a few days ago should have effectively eliminated most other legacy issues from his agenda, but I doubt Obama has it in him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 08, 2014, 05:37:52 am

I haven't kept up on Ferguson as I have been more watching the political climate. But from my best recollection of events there it appears that it has been determined that Wilson seems to have been justified in shooting Brown and no trial seems imminent. This has incensed the community there and it appears headed for violence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 08, 2014, 07:09:41 am

Nuke 'em!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 07:55:23 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 08, 2014, 05:37:52 am

I haven't kept up on Ferguson as I have been more watching the political climate. But from my best recollection of events there it appears that it has been determined that Wilson seems to have been justified in shooting Brown and no trial seems imminent. This has incensed the community there and it appears headed for violence.

The grand jury has not returned a decision, but many in Ferguson, and particularly the demonstrators there, have come to increasingly believe that an indictment is unlikely.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 08, 2014, 09:43:48 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 07:55:23 am

The grand jury has not returned a decision, but many in Ferguson, and particularly the demonstrators there, have come to increasingly believe that an indictment is unlikely.

One thing I did hear was Brown's DNA was found on Wilson's gun as well as his blood on Wilson's clothes. It is appearing that the "gentle giant" wasn't so gentle after all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 09:59:58 am

While my preference would be to have ObamaCare buried thru the legislative process, I will be happy to see its death result from a slow strangulation by the judiciary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-new-challenge-to-health-law.html

Justices to Hear New Challenge to Health Law
By ADAM LIPTAKNOV. 7, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act, potentially imperiling President Obama’s signature legislative achievement two years after it survived a different Supreme Court challenge by a single vote.

The case concerns tax subsidies that currently help millions of people afford health insurance under the law. According to the challengers, those subsidies are being provided unlawfully in three dozen states that have decided not to run the marketplaces, known as exchanges, for insurance coverage.

If the challengers are right, people receiving subsidies in those states would become ineligible for them, destabilizing and perhaps dooming the law.

The Obama administration said it would mount a vigorous defense in the Supreme Court.

“This lawsuit reflects just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act and to strip millions of American families of tax credits that Congress intended for them to have,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. “We are confident that the financial help afforded millions of Americans was the intent of the law and it is working as Congress designed.”

Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, said he welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case. The administration, he said, “cannot ignore the plain language in a statute and rewrite laws with which they disagree.” He added, “This Supreme Court review will provide Oklahoma and the 35 other states that did not establish state-based exchanges with immediate and conclusive clarity as to their rights and obligations under the A.C.A. so that the states may make appropriate health care policy decisions.”

The case is likely to be argued in February or March, and a decision will probably arrive in June, three years after the court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally in enacting the law.

In a supporting brief urging the court to hear the case, several Republican lawmakers said the law as currently enforced would result in “tens of billions of dollars of unlawful spending in the next year, and hundreds of billions over the next decade.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, said the court’s move was a surprise. “It’s troubling that they would even consider this,” she said. “The language is very clear. The intent of Congress is very clear.”

The central question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, is what to make of a provision in the law limiting subsidies to “an exchange established by the state.” (If states do not establish their own exchanges, the health care law requires the federal government to run them instead.)

The challengers say the provision means that only people in states with their own exchanges can get subsidies. Congress made the distinction, they say, to encourage states to participate.

But the Internal Revenue Service has issued a regulation saying subsidies are allowed whether the exchange is run by a state or by the federal government. The challengers say that regulation is at odds with the law.
Continue reading the main story

In response, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices that the I.R.S. interpretation was correct, while the one offered by the challengers was “contrary to the act’s text and structure and would render the act unrecognizable to the Congress that passed it.”

Health insurance companies reacted cautiously to the announcement. “This issue is now in the hands of the justices, but it’s clear that significant policy changes would be required to ensure an affordable and stable market for consumers were the court to rule against the government,” Clare Krusing, the director of communications for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, said in a statement.

Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University and one of the architects of the new challenge, said the administration’s approach may be good policy, but is contrary to the plain terms of the law.

“The Supreme Court has the opportunity to reaffirm the principle that the law is what Congress enacts, not what the administration or others wish Congress had enacted with the benefit of hindsight,” Mr. Adler said. “Granting tax credits to those who need help purchasing health insurance may be a good idea, and may have bipartisan support, but the I.R.S. lacks the authority to authorize such tax credits where Congress failed to do so.”

The case the Supreme Court agreed to hear comes from Virginia. It was brought by four people who said they did not want to be subject to the law’s requirement that they buy insurance or pay a penalty. If it was not for the subsidies, they said, they would have been eligible for a hardship exemption.

In July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled against the challengers.

Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing for a three-judge panel of the court, said the contested phrase was “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” That meant, he said, that the I.R.S.’s interpretation was entitled to deference.

That same day, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the other way, agreeing with the challengers that only people in states that run their own exchanges are eligible for subsidies.

“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote for the majority. “Our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly. But, high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.”

In dissent, Judge Harry T. Edwards said the case was a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” the health care law.

The Supreme Court often steps in when federal appeals courts have disagreed. But the split between the two courts was wiped out in September when the full District of Columbia Circuit vacated the July ruling and set the case for argument in December.

The challengers urged the Supreme Court to intercede anyway, saying that the sums involved are huge and that individuals, employers, insurers and states need a prompt and definitive resolution.

It takes only four votes to add a case to the Supreme Court’s docket. They may have come from the four members of the court who were ready in 2012 to strike down the Affordable Care Act: Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Once again, it seems, the fate of the law may rest with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

As is the Supreme Court’s custom, its one-sentence order did not disclose the justices’ votes and gave no reason for the decision to hear the case, which came just before the health care law’s open enrollment period is set to start next week.

Mr. Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the court’s move has not, for now at least, altered the status quo.

“American families who have already enrolled, or are planning to sign up during the open enrollment period beginning on Nov. 15, should know that nothing has changed,” he said. “Tax credits and affordable coverage remain available.”

The question now is whether six words in the law contain the seeds of its destruction.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 08, 2014, 10:21:32 am

We've talked about this before Jes and you stated it wouldn't go to the Supreme Court. I too am hoping that come January there is some legislative resolution to this horrible law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 08, 2014, 10:33:51 am

There will be no legislative solution to the law.  Obama will veto any repeal, and there certainly not enough votes to override the veto.  And, like it or not, defunding is off the table.  The Republicans in both houses are scared stiff of being accused of another Government shutdown.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 10:44:20 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 08, 2014, 10:21:32 am

We've talked about this before Jes and you stated it wouldn't go to the Supreme Court. I too am hoping that come January there is some legislative resolution to this horrible law.

If you think I ever said or wrote I thought ObamaCare would not go to the Supreme Court, I believe you are wrong.

If you think I ever said or wrote I thought this element of ObamaCare would not go to the Supreme Court, I believe you are wrong.

I am still waiting for the case addressing the origination clause (the Constitutional provision requiring that all tax bills originate in the House -- the Supreme Court's decision on the first challenge made that issue rather important, and I have not heard what has happened with the legal challenges addressing it) to reach the Court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 10:49:58 am

Quote from: davep on November 08, 2014, 10:33:51 am

There will be no legislative solution to the law.  Obama will veto any repeal, and there certainly not enough votes to override the veto.  And, like it or not, defunding is off the table.  The Republicans in both houses are scared stiff of being accused of another Government shutdown.

I disagree with you on both counts.  I think the House already has the votes for an override, and while it is unlikely, political survival might persuade enough Dems in the Senate to vote to override.  Beyond that, defunding certainly remains an option, particularly if done in parts, with riders attached to bills defunding only parts of ObamaCare, but which, when done often enough, could essentially defund the entire thing.

Beyond that, I believe Reid set the precedent for repeal of this in a budget reconciliation move, which would essentially allow repeal of the bill without Obama's signature.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 08, 2014, 10:53:30 am

Well the Republicans ran on doing something. They need to at least do it once to put the onus on the Democrats for the continuation of the bad law. While they may know in advance its going to be vetoed at least they honored their pledge to the voters. They then can say to the voters in 2016 we tried but we need a Republican President to accomplish that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 08, 2014, 12:22:21 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 10:49:58 am

I disagree with you on both counts.  I think the House already has the votes for an override, and while it is unlikely, political survival might persuade enough Dems in the Senate to vote to override. 

The chances of successful impeachment is substantially less than the chances of the "birthers" winning in the Supreme Court.  It sounds nice, but it is a lot like those in 2012 claiming that Obama was "toast".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 08, 2014, 01:43:16 pm

A local station brought out some interesting stats concerning the recent Florida elections.  Most interesting to me was that in his last election, Scott got only 4 percent of the black vote, but in this election received an unheard of 12 percent of the black vote.  Even more important, although some of the increase is due to fewer votes for the democratic candidate, most of it was due to increased votes for the Republican candidate.

He also received 35 percent of the Latino vote, up substantially from last election.

It has the democratic party here in Florida in a panic.  I wonder if these changes occurred in many other states.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 02:31:55 pm

Quote from: davep on November 08, 2014, 12:22:21 pm

The chances of successful impeachment is substantially less than the chances of the "birthers" winning in the Supreme Court.  It sounds nice, but it is a lot like those in 2012 claiming that Obama was "toast".

Did you decide you hadn't attacked a strawman lately so you needed to do so here?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 02:33:11 pm

Quote from: davep on November 08, 2014, 01:43:16 pm

A local station brought out some interesting stats concerning the recent Florida elections.  Most interesting to me was that in his last election, Scott got only 4 percent of the black vote, but in this election received an unheard of 12 percent of the black vote.  Even more important, although some of the increase is due to fewer votes for the democratic candidate, most of it was due to increased votes for the Republican candidate.

He also received 35 percent of the Latino vote, up substantially from last election.

It has the democratic party here in Florida in a panic.  I wonder if these changes occurred in many other states.

It couldn't have with the Hispanic vote.  You have told us there is no way they will vote Republican.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 08, 2014, 03:14:34 pm

I said there was no way they would vote Republican merely because we gave amnesty to illegal aliens.

Instead of trying to convince the jury, it might be helpful if you actually tried to determine the truth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 04:36:19 pm

Not trying to convince a jury, nor am I attacking straw men.  Your position was that Hispanic voters were going to be liberal voters because they sought giveaways.  I never urged amnesty.  Amnesty really was not the context of the exchange.

Bad day for straw men today?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 04:38:09 pm

But to your substantive observation about the Hispanic vote, the shift was seen outside of FL, as well, and if it has not yet frightened Democrats, it certainly should.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 08, 2014, 05:31:16 pm

Legal Aid


When giving a blowjob its best not to talk, but just suck like you do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 08, 2014, 06:00:46 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 04:36:19 pm

Not trying to convince a jury, nor am I attacking straw men.  Your position was that Hispanic voters were going to be liberal voters because they sought giveaways.  I never urged amnesty.  Amnesty really was not the context of the exchange.

Bad day for straw men today?

Speaking of straw men, did you actually think that I believed that every single Latino would vote Democratic?  Even in the Florida election, where Scott is considered to have done well, he drew 35 percent.  Even in Jesmath, that means that 65 % of them voted Democratic.  In spite of your contention that they are by nature, conservative.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 08, 2014, 06:03:13 pm

Hey!!  Homo is back on the board.  This is the shortest time he was in mourning.

Homo.  How does it feel to have your entire philosophy repudiated, even in the Peoples Republic of Wisconsin?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 08, 2014, 06:56:55 pm

He just couldn't resist sharing his expertise on giving blowjobs

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 08, 2014, 07:01:36 pm

LOL! 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 08, 2014, 08:09:50 pm

Talking like a man with sizeable experience. That's about the only thing I feel he knows anything about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 09:46:44 pm

davep, you are still picking fights with strawmen.  I never suggested that you believed every single Latino voter would vote Hispanic.  And most Hispanics coming to the U.S. are conservative, but when one party welcomes them, and the other party figuratively **** on them, it is not surprising that many vote with the party which welcomes them, even if the policies most often advanced by candidates of that party do not reflect the values of the immigrants.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 08, 2014, 09:57:11 pm

Jes I saw some Yahoo article saying that there has been an influx of Puerto Rican Hispanics moving into Florida and they tend to be voting Republican.

http://news.yahoo.com/how-a-surge-in-puerto-rican-voters-is-changing-florida-politics-150912696.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2014, 08:07:12 am

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MIDTERM_ELECTIONS_SOUTHERN_TAKEOVER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-08-18-23-45

Nov 8, 6:23 PM EST
The South: Solid once again - for Republicans
By BILL BARROW  Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) -- With the walloping Republicans gave Democrats in the midterm elections, the GOP stands one Louisiana Senate runoff away from completely controlling Southern politics from the Carolinas to Texas. Only a handful of Democrats hold statewide office in the rest of the Old Confederacy.

The results put Southern Republicans at the forefront in Washington - from Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to a host of new committee chairmen. Those leaders and the rank-and-file behind them will set the Capitol Hill agenda and continue molding the GOP's identity heading into 2016.

In statehouses, consolidated Republican power affords the opportunity to advance conservative causes from charter schools and private school vouchers to expanding the tax breaks and incentive programs that define Republican economic policy. The outcome also assures that much of the South, at least for now, will remain steadfast in its refusal to participate in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

"I think these new leaders can help drive the conservative movement" at all levels, said Louisiana Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere, echoing the celebrations of Republican leaders and activists across the region. "We just want a government that doesn't suppress people."

Republicans widely have acknowledged that the party now has to prove it can govern. But one-party rule invariably means internal squabbles. Republican White House hopefuls in particular must court Southern Republicans who are more strident than the wider electorate on issues ranging from immigration to abortion and the broader debate over the government's role - and how to pay for it.

"The Republican presidential nomination will run through the South," said Ferrel Guillory, a Southern politics expert based at the University of North Carolina. "As Mitt Romney found (in 2012), that ... makes it harder to build a national coalition once you are the nominee."

Even with the South's established Republican bent, Tuesday's vote yielded a stark outcome. Besides McConnell's wide margin, Republicans knocked off North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor. In Louisiana, Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy is the heavy favorite to defeat Sen. Mary Landrieu in a Dec. 6 runoff.

Republicans reclaimed the governor's mansion in Arkansas and held an open Senate seat in Georgia that Democrats targeted aggressively.

In January, the GOP will control every governor's office, two U.S. Senate seats, nearly every majority-white congressional district and both state legislative chambers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas. Landrieu and Florida Sen. Bill Nelson are the only officials keeping their states from the list. At the northern periphery of the South, Kentucky's Legislature remains divided, and Democratic governors in Kentucky and West Virginia are in their final terms.

In Washington, Senate Republicans haven't parceled out leadership assignments, but Southerners figure prominently among would-be major committee chairmen: Mississippi's Thad Cochran (Appropriations); Alabama's Jeff Sessions (Budget) and Richard Shelby of Alabama (Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs); Bob Corker of Tennessee (Foreign Relations); Richard Burr of North Carolina (Intelligence); Lamar Alexander of Tennessee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions); Johnny Isakson of Georgia (Veterans Affairs).

In the House, Georgia Rep. Tom Price could end up chairing the Budget Committee. Louisiana's Steve Scalise already won a promotion to majority whip, Republicans' No. 3 post in the chamber. Georgia's Rob Woodall chairs the Republican Study Committee, the GOP's arch-conservative arm.

The regional differences in the GOP could make it more difficult for McConnell to deliver on his declaration Tuesday night that "just because we have a two-party system doesn't mean we have to be in perpetual conflict."

McConnell and Obama have both said since Tuesday they'll make attempts to find common ground on a range of issues. But elsewhere on election night, Sessions declared in Alabama, "Tonight the American people dramatically repudiated the policies of President Obama. ... It was also a dramatic affirmation of the policies our GOP candidates." Sen.-elect David Perdue of Georgia struck a similar chord: "Georgia made it loud and clear ... that we are going to stop the failed policies of President Obama and Sen. Harry Reid."

The region also is home to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, both presidential hopefuls and tea party favorites who have strengthened their absolute approaches, particularly on budget deals.

In Louisiana, Villere rejected the notion that Southerners could complicate Republican policies and electoral fortunes in the long-term. "Whether it was the old Southern Democrats or Republicans now, we've pushed the liberal wings of the parties for a long time," Villere said. "I think it's good for the party and for the country."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 09, 2014, 10:00:47 am

Quote from: Keysbear on November 08, 2014, 06:56:55 pm

He just couldn't resist sharing his expertise on giving blowjobs

Same thing I thought. Nights must get real cold in Wisconsin..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 09, 2014, 11:00:37 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 08, 2014, 09:46:44 pm

davep, you are still picking fights with strawmen.  I never suggested that you believed every single Latino voter would vote Hispanic.  And most Hispanics coming to the U.S. are conservative, but when one party welcomes them, and the other party figuratively **** on them, it is not surprising that many vote with the party which welcomes them, even if the policies most often advanced by candidates of that party do not reflect the values of the immigrants.

You have said many times that most Hispanics coming to America are conservative.  Obviously, you have an odd definition of the term.  In what way are the Hispanics coming to America conservative. 

Do they have an in depth understanding of the United States Constitution, and a substantial reverence for it?

Are they against the "welfare state"?

Do they have a reverence for the United States laws that they are breaking by coming here?

In what way are they conservative?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2014, 12:51:37 pm

Quote from: davep on November 09, 2014, 11:00:37 am

You have said many times that most Hispanics coming to America are conservative.

That's because they are.

Quote from: davep on November 09, 2014, 11:00:37 am

Obviously, you have an odd definition of the term.

I was genuinely going to seriously respond, sentence by sentence to what you wrote.... until that one.

The only real response I can think of is that the only way it would be obvious I have an odd definition of the term would be if you knew my definition of the term.

So why bother responding to the rest of your question if you already know what I think when I have not shared it?

You seem to believe you know what I think.

YOU share what it is.

Quote from: davep on November 09, 2014, 11:00:37 am

Do they have an in depth understanding of the United States Constitution, and a substantial reverence for it?

Did YOU have an in depth understanding of the United States Constitution, and a substantial reverence for it
when YOU came to this nation?

I somehow suspect that even the most illiterate Guatamalen peasant who illegally comes to the U.S. knows a great deal more about the United States Constitution AND had more respect for it on entering the United States than you did when YOU came to this nation.  Do you not grasp the foolishness of your question?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 09, 2014, 01:16:52 pm

Cute.  But unless you define what you mean by conservative when you claim that Latino immigrants are conservative, you have effectively ended the conversation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2014, 02:47:42 pm

No, there is no START to the conversation when you try to begin it as you did.

You do not WANT a conversation when you begin it as you did.

And even now you do not acknowledge the foolishness of your question about the Constitution.

If you want to have a conversation, davep, I am more than willing to have one.

I even actually TRY to engage in conversation with otto.... until he again demonstrates he is unwilling to do so.

Your initial post her pretty clearly illustrated it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 09, 2014, 04:18:59 pm

 Hart-Celler Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart-Celler_Act) in 1965, a by-product of the civil rights revolution and a jewel in the crown of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society) programs.

The measure had not been intended to stimulate immigration from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere in the developing world.

Rather, by doing away with the racially based quota system, its authors had expected that immigrants would come from the "traditional" sending societies such as Italy, Greece, and Portugal, places that labored under very small quotas in the 1924 law.

The law replaced the quotas with preference categories based on family relationships and job skills, giving particular preference to potential immigrants with relatives in the United States and with occupations deemed critical by the U.S. Department of Labor.

  But after 1970, following an initial influx from those European countries, there were immigrants from places like Korea, China, India, the Philippines, and Pakistan, as well as countries in Africa.

1980s Immigration Reform and Control Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act) (IRCA) was passed, creating, for the first time, penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants. IRCA, as proposed in Congress, was projected to give amnesty to about 1,000,000 workers in the country illegally.

  In practice, amnesty for about 3,000,000 immigrants already in the United States was granted.

Most were from Mexico.

Legal Mexican immigrant family numbers were 2,198,000 in 1980,

4,289,000 in 1990 (includes IRCA) and 7,841,000 in 2000.

Adding in another 12,000,000 illegal immigrants of which about 80% are thought to be Mexicans would bring the Mexican family total to over 16,000,000

—about 16% of the Mexican population.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 09, 2014, 06:56:53 pm

oddo has given many a blow job...he jus tproved it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 09, 2014, 07:24:21 pm

ObamaCare is a horrific law - forcing Americans to purchase insurance....the only people who like Nobama have NEVER had a serious health issue - I hope they never do.

Anyone on Medicade who has a serious helth issue STILL has to pay a massive deductable becaue of Nobamacare.

I have Blue Cross and Blue Shield...our deductable has gone from $500 to $5000. AND we pay way more in premiums. We NEVER had any health issues (pre-existing).

My wife had a health issue recently and we owed $5,000. Now we can afford it, but MOST peopel could not afford that - hel MOST people can not afford our premiums.

I am sure our premimiums will go up.

THE WORST part of Nobamacare will happen next year when citizens are TAXED for NOT having insurance. TAXED!!! The givernment is FORCING Citizens to have insurance. If you do not have insurance yu BETTER be prepared for your nice TX courtisey of Nobama.

THERE IS AWAY TO END NOBAMACARE and that is to Unfund it. Nobamacare is a MASSIVE ependuture to our country. All Republicans have to do is comeup with legislature to UNFUNF Nobama.

ALSO ObamaCare IS unconstitutianl - you can't FORCE Americans to purchase insurance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 10, 2014, 03:41:18 am

 Is every body happy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 10, 2014, 04:55:14 am

 Wait a fuckin minute here ...


 when did it become SONY & SAMSUNG and NOT AMERICAN?


 Whose ass do you want to put to WORK ... Asians or US ?


 Where is your next dollar going to ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 10, 2014, 12:30:07 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/republicans-reform-offer/2014/11/07/id/606125/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1594447_11082014&s=al&dkt_nbr=pjfq2qum

Of course Obama doesn't want a Republican law from Congress come January, he wants a bill engineered by Harry Reid who wont be Majority leader come January. He wants a Democratic controlled bill. Duh!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 10, 2014, 02:46:03 pm

Whose ass do you want to put to WORK ... Asians or US ?

For me it would be American workers. But there is a huge problem with that. If you keep jacking up the minimum wage in the US we will be pricing out US labor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 10, 2014, 03:32:58 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 10, 2014, 12:30:07 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/republicans-reform-offer/2014/11/07/id/606125/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1594447_11082014&s=al&dkt_nbr=pjfq2qum

Of course Obama doesn't want a Republican law from Congress come January, he wants a bill engineered by Harry Reid who wont be Majority leader come January. He wants a Democratic controlled bill. Duh!

He can't get a Democratic controlled bill because the House is currently Republican.  His only power is to act under the laws that past Congresses, both Democratic and Republican, have already passed.

Most laws passed are extremely vague, and require the Executive Office to pass implementation regulations that gives the President wide latitude.  In addition, almost all of them allow the President to make exceptions to the laws in case of "emergency" without defining what constitutes an emergency.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 10, 2014, 04:53:08 pm

Quote from: davep on November 10, 2014, 03:32:58 pm

He can't get a Democratic controlled bill because the House is currently Republican.  His only power is to act under the laws that past Congresses, both Democratic and Republican, have already passed.

Most laws passed are extremely vague, and require the Executive Office to pass implementation regulations that gives the President wide latitude.  In addition, almost all of them allow the President to make exceptions to the laws in case of "emergency" without defining what constitutes an emergency.

Wrong Dave. All House bills are crapcanned in Harry Reid's desk. And the Senate bill Harry Reid rammed through was toilet flushed by Boehner. Thus the President keeps calling for new legislation to come to him in the next 6 weeks which puts that during Harry Reid's lame duck swansong as Senate Majority leader. The newly elected Republicans don't go to Washington to be sworn in until January 6th, which is why Obumma wants a bill before then. Comprende?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 10, 2014, 05:42:35 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 10, 2014, 02:46:03 pm

Whose ass do you want to put to WORK ... Asians or US ?

For me it would be American workers. But there is a huge problem with that. If you keep jacking up the minimum wage in the US we will be pricing out US labor.

 If you have more money you spend more money.


 BTW ... has anyone noticed a correlation between The United States Government,


 and THE CHICAGO BEARS ?  :o 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 10, 2014, 08:33:17 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 10, 2014, 04:53:08 pm

Wrong Dave. All House bills are crapcanned in Harry Reid's desk. And the Senate bill Harry Reid rammed through was toilet flushed by Boehner. Thus the President keeps calling for new legislation to come to him in the next 6 weeks which puts that during Harry Reid's lame duck swansong as Senate Majority leader. The newly elected Republicans don't go to Washington to be sworn in until January 6th, which is why Obumma wants a bill before then. Comprende?

Sorry.  You are wrong.

Any bill that goes before the President will have to be voted on and passed not only by the Democratic Senate but also by the House of Representatives which is controlled by the Republicans.  No bill can to to the President without BOTH sides passing on it.  It just can't be done.

Why does he want it before January 6?  Because any bill that comes before then will have to be passed through the Democratic Senate, and they will not send him one that he doesn't like.  Once the Senate changes over, they can send him bills that he will have to veto, which will be politically difficult for him to do.

But since he has publicly asked for an immigration bill, and he will not get one before January, he can use the lack of a bill to issue his own regulations based upon laws that have already been passed which give the president authority to act in an emergency.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 07:20:05 am

Just for your edification Dave there hasn't been one House bill passed that has gotten out of Harry Reid's desk. Everything done has been what Harry Reid wants or the highway.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2014, 08:40:03 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 07:20:05 am

Just for your edification Dave there hasn't been one House bill passed that has gotten out of Harry Reid's desk. Everything done has been what Harry Reid wants or the highway.

I somehow suspect davep is quite aware of that, but it does not alter the fact that so long as the Democrats control only one chamber of Congress, any bill that goes before the President will have to be voted on and passed not only by the Democratic Senate but also by the House of Representatives which is controlled by the Republicans.  No bill can to to the President without BOTH sides passing on it.  It just can't be done.

Comprende?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 09:57:07 am

Comprendo. But the point being argued is about Obama's desire to have an immigration bill before January. They aren't going to get a Republican immigration bill out of the Senate till the Republicans take control in January....and that's not what Obumma wants. He wants an amnesty bill so he gets more Democrat votes when they become citizens.

Comprende?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2014, 10:36:56 am

WshflThinking, yo entiendo en ambos idiomas. No está claro que entiende en cualquiera.

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 10, 2014, 12:30:07 pm

Of course Obama doesn't want a Republican law from Congress come January, he wants a bill engineered by Harry Reid who wont be Majority leader come January. He wants a Democratic controlled bill. Duh!

That comment of yours is what started the exchange.

davep pointed out that there is no way Obama will get a "Democratic controlled bill" by January.  What Obama might want is utterly irrelevant to the point.

You then attempted to argue davep's perfectly simple, and utterly obvious point, and in your argument you also made the attempt to suggest davep was the one not seeing the obvious, concluding your response with "comprende."

Additionally, while it is entirely possible that in your effort to attribute a particular motivation to Obama that you are correct, it is also entirely possible that Obama has no motivation beyond the ones he has given -- the perfectly reasonable belief that amnesty is both best for the United States and is the humanitarian and right course of action.

I do not like Obama, and I do not like his policies, positions, or disregard of the Constitution, but none of that requires attributing nefarious motives to any of his actions or plans.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 10:45:57 am

I take it you haven't read Dick Morris's book.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 11, 2014, 11:09:53 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 07:20:05 am

Just for your edification Dave there hasn't been one House bill passed that has gotten out of Harry Reid's desk. Everything done has been what Harry Reid wants or the highway.

I am aware of that, and do not dispute that.

But it has no effect upon the current situation.  Regardless of the fact that Obama would like a bill sent to him that Reid would be happy with, there is no way that could happen.  The house Republicans will NOT do it.

Obama can do a lot through Executive Order, but he is not going to get a bill unacceptable to the Republicans from the lame duck Congress.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 11, 2014, 11:12:46 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 10:45:57 am

I take it you haven't read Dick Morris's book.

I don't know about Jes, but I certainly haven't read Morris's book.  Has he discovered a way for Reid to get a bill to the White House without having the Republicans vote on it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2014, 12:27:28 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 10:45:57 am

I take it you haven't read Dick Morris's book.

And I would take it that the toe-sucker does not know Obama personally, has never spoken with him in a private setting, and did not have any meaningful sources in Obama's inner circle.  I would also take it that there is little you have ever seen or will ever see about Obama which is negative which you do not warmly embrace as gospel.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 12:39:40 pm

The first 2 I would give you the 3rd one I know is wrong. You do know he was political advisor to Bill Clinton. I would guess he knows a few in Obama's inner circle. I would say he probably knows Obama better than you do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 11, 2014, 01:24:52 pm

Obama, the proven fraud now. "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage" A community is missing it's organizer. He had no business being President.

Next up is repeal of NobamaCare...unconstitutional - you can't FORCE people to buy insurance. Wait till tax payers who did not buy insurance get taxes. There will be an uproar rising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2014, 01:46:15 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 12:39:40 pm

The first 2 I would give you the 3rd one I know is wrong. You do know he was political advisor to Bill Clinton. I would guess he knows a few in Obama's inner circle. I would say he probably knows Obama better than you do.

~sigh~  The difference, of course, is that unlike you, and Dick Morris, I am not attributing motive to Obama's action (or inaction).  You quite routinely do, and, from your comments here, it would appear so does Morris.  As to Morris' familiarity with those in Obama's inner circle, Morris has been a pariah among liberal Democrats for years. 

Since your comments indicate that you have read Morris' most recent book, can you tell us whether he attributes anything to personal sources he has in that inner circle, or is it simply a case of his attributing motivation to Obama based on his innate ability to divine such things without ever having contact with a person beyond reading or watching the news?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 04:57:32 pm

I haven't read the book so I cant answer your questions. But I would guess if he used personal information by sources he wouldn't or shouldn't divulge sources. I sure wouldnt

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 11, 2014, 05:59:57 pm

If you haven't read Morris's book, why did you believe that I had not read it.  Does it have some impact upon the discussion?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 11, 2014, 06:00:08 pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insurance/youre-gonna-pay-for-that-obamacares-cadillac-tax/ar-AA7BO72

"The employees could see up to a $6,150 reduction in their health-care benefits and little or no increase in their pay," the report said.

Troy said he thinks that these kinds of projected costs of the Cadillac Tax on businesses and workers may lead Congress to change it, particularly given the fact that Republicans will take control of the U.S. Senate this winter, and have solidified their control of the House of Representatives after the mid-term elections.

"You can eliminate the tax, you can change the thresholds, or you could exempt employees under a certain wage," Troy said, when asked what Congress might do.

However, tweaking or even eliminating the tax may prove difficult as long as President Barack Obama is in office and wields a veto pen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 11, 2014, 06:41:36 pm

President Barack Hussein Obama won two elections.


 Just in case any moron needs to know.


And furthermore, the voters of 2016 will be younger and more diverse.


 Note to conservatives.... just ignore it

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2014, 06:43:59 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 04:57:32 pm

I haven't read the book so I cant answer your questions. But I would guess if he used personal information by sources he wouldn't or shouldn't divulge sources. I sure wouldnt

He would not need to divulge sources to at least say he had some, but the entire issue would appear to be moot when you write that you "haven't read the book".... and this after you had previously posted the following:

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 10:45:57 am

I take it you haven't read Dick Morris's book.

That comment, in context, would certainly seem to imply that you had, suggesting that my post was something which would not have been written if only I had gained the insight Morris offered.... and you now admit you have not read the book.

Strange way to engage in a discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 11, 2014, 06:50:50 pm

He did win two elections Otto.  However he has badly damaged the Democrats and will continue to do so in the future. 

He may very well be what saves the Republican party.  Much like Jimmy Carter led to the last rise of the Republican party.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 11, 2014, 07:49:37 pm

Just keep telling yourself that peke.


Makes you feel better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 11, 2014, 07:51:42 pm

Because what makes the republic party stupid isn't going away.


It will be on parade for the next two years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 11, 2014, 08:16:14 pm

Hey Homo, don't you live in the same town as the Republican Governor that has won three elections in four years?  Must be nice to know that your state is finally coming into the 21st century.  Even a backwoods state with a hick town for a capitol is finally getting some sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 11, 2014, 08:32:36 pm

The Republican party is not stupid except when they try and be the Democrats light.

Conservative ideas are tried and tested and they work.

Liberal ideas have failed every single time through out history.

The pendulum always swings back Otto.  It is swinging back to the conservatives because Obama and his ass clown administration have **** up so bad.  Don't worry after the Republicans take control and right the ship and we have years of a good economy the liberals will once again convince enough people things are terrible and the pendulum will swing back.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 11, 2014, 08:48:51 pm

Sorry, Blotto, but a majority want the Republicans directing policy from now on, not Obaba.....

(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8xdivtxseeuavcrofohdsg.png)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 11, 2014, 09:48:14 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 11, 2014, 06:43:59 pm

He would not need to divulge sources to at least say he had some, but the entire issue would appear to be moot when you write that you "haven't read the book".... and this after you had previously posted the following:
That comment, in context, would certainly seem to imply that you had, suggesting that my post was something which would not have been written if only I had gained the insight Morris offered.... and you now admit you have not read the book.

Strange way to engage in a discussion.

From what I've heard that was an impression I had of your comments. Because if you had you wouldn't have been saying them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2014, 06:14:00 am

Quote from: Pekin on November 11, 2014, 08:32:36 pm

Conservative ideas are tried and tested and they work.

Liberal ideas have failed every single time through out history.

That is more than slightly overly broad.

Republican government was a liberal idea.

Democratic principles were a liberal idea.

One man one vote was a liberal idea.

Allowing women to vote was a liberal idea.

Education for the masses was a liberal idea.

Abolition was a liberal idea.

Ending monarchy was a liberal idea.

Free market capitalism and ending mercantilism were liberal ideas.

Freedom of speech was a liberal idea.

Public health was a liberal idea.

Public sanitation was a liberal idea.

Liberal ideas throughout history actually have a pretty good track record.

For the last 100 years or so, not so much, but history extends a bit longer than that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 10:20:59 am

Sullivan has won the Alaska Senator seat.  Homo should be proud that even states more remote than Wisconsin are joining the 21st century.

Democrats have withdrawn most of the money targeted for the Louisiana runoff in January, realizing it is a lost cause.

The University of Wisconsin - Madison is thinking about seceding from the Union.  The Union is encouraging it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 12, 2014, 03:08:21 pm

Has Obama been impeached yet?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 05:49:46 pm

Another example of republic stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 06:11:22 pm

Nice to see Homo out so soon.  In 2010 he sulked for almost six months.

Probably, it is because he sees how great Wisconsin is doing under a rational government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 07:32:15 pm

Your lack of knowledge about our governor isn't surprising.


So far he gas had more people convicted of crimes under him than years in office.


And while you consider support for the oligarchy a political objective, I consider it undemocratic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2014, 07:35:14 pm

otto, what limits, if any, would you put on a democracy?

Is there anything you believe the majority should not be allowed to do?

And just who should be allowed to vote?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 07:41:09 pm

First, dumb question for many reasons.


Second, Jim Crow laws southern boy or anything limiting constitutional rights.



Third, everyone over 18 and not dead who is a legal citizen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 08:04:14 pm

Today in republic stupid we find two great examples.


First, newly elected debate goofs (including sen. chinless from chintucky) hold presser announcing that pollution never hurt anyone and China pussied out to our President Barack Hussein Obama and "his" climate change myth by yelling "coal now, coal forever" into a microphone.


Second, and more importantly republics warned against belief in the fantastic achievement of landing a vehicle on a comet, saying that the science needed in the endeaver was unsettled and that the scientists who claim it are biased. Canadian senator Cruz saying, "those people got paid for it" while referencing actual science....which was christian...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2014, 08:26:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 07:41:09 pm

First, dumb question for many reasons.

Humor me.  Work with the premise you already work with, that I am incredibly dumb and need being educated.  Certainly someone as brilliant as yourself could do so.  I ask again, what limits, if any, would you put on a democracy?

Quote from: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 07:41:09 pm

Second, Jim Crow laws southern boy or anything limiting constitutional rights.

Who is "southern boy," and are you addressing him, or suggesting that "southern boy" should be one of the things the majority is not allowed to do?  And how do you square your believe that a majority should not be able to do "anything limiting constitutional rights" with your calls for gun control?  And is there any chance you could actually articulate a principled position as to what you believe a majority should not be able to do instead of offering something as ad hoc as "Jim Crow laws"?

Quote from: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 07:41:09 pm

Third, everyone over 18 and not dead who is a legal citizen.

Why should those who are not yet 18 be prevented from voting when they are citizens, and are also required to pay taxes and follow the law?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2014, 08:27:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 08:04:14 pm

Today in republic stupid we find two great examples.


First, newly elected debate goofs (including sen. chinless from chintucky) hold presser announcing that pollution never hurt anyone and China pussied out to our President Barack Hussein Obama and "his" climate change myth by yelling "coal now, coal forever" into a microphone.


Second, and more importantly republics warned against belief in the fantastic achievement of landing a vehicle on a comet, saying that the science needed in the endeaver was unsettled and that the scientists who claim it are biased. Canadian senator Cruz saying, "those people got paid for it" while referencing actual science....which was christian...

otto, are you stoned, drunk, or simply more incoherent than normal this evening?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 09:24:03 pm

Homo is stoned, drunk and incoherent every day.  It is the only reason that he gets up in the morning, other than to cash his unemployment check.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 12, 2014, 09:47:50 pm

What do you expect from Homo? He has all this free money from his sole mate in the White House and no work. He has nothing better to do than get drunk.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 10:04:54 pm

"Humor you"?

You have an ability to experience humor? Since when? And you will have to provide an arguement which can convince anyone first.


Second, define "well regulated"

Third, do you know what 18 and older but not dead means. Articulate before anymore stupid argumentive **** posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 13, 2014, 05:09:25 am

Glad to see China capping their Carbon output by 2030, while we start today... Great deal.. What a fucknut!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2014, 05:10:42 am

Quote from: otto105 on November 12, 2014, 10:04:54 pm

"Humor you"?
You have an ability to experience humor? Since when? And you will have to provide an arguement which can convince anyone first.
Second, define "well regulated"
Third, do you know what 18 and older but not dead means. Articulate before anymore stupid argumentive **** posts.

otto, you have accidentally stumbled into a valuable point.  Just as the phrase "humor me" has nothing to do with a sense of humor, but is instead a request that someone accommodate a simple request, so, too, the phrase "well regulated" has nothing to do with government regulation. 

To determine the meaning of language used in the Constitution, you do not look at what the words mean now, but instead what they meant at the time.  At that time the common use of the phrase simply meant something in proper working order, something which was functioning well.  In fact since the very purpose of the militia, as shown in the revolution itself and the experience at Concord and Lexington, was to forcibly resist oppressive government, the idea that the language would have meant the militia was to be regulated or controlled by government is clearly absurd.

"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation, and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."

Those words in italics are from the preamble to legislation North Carolina lawmakers passed on December 11, 1789, to charter the University of North Carolina.  This was contemporaneous with the Bill of Rights (which was transmitted to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789), so the use of the phrase "well regulated" by the North Carolina legislature, at the very same time it was included in the proposed Constitutional amendment which had just been sent to those very same lawmakers for consideration, would be quite instructive to its meaning at the time.

As to your response to the third question, "not dead" means "living," and "18 and older" means having reached the age of 18.  Now, would you respond to what was a simple question?  For ease of reference, all three of my questions were, again, as follow:

What limits, if any, would you put on a democracy?

Could actually articulate a principled position as to what you believe a majority should not be able to do, instead of offering something as ad hoc as "Jim Crow laws"?

Why should those who are not yet 18 be prevented from voting when they are citizens, and are also required to pay taxes and follow the law?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 13, 2014, 05:12:30 am

I love the way the media is wording this, so dumb ****'s like homo really think this is a good deal..

Under the agreement, the United States would cut its 2005 level of carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2014, 05:21:16 am

Quote from: chifaninva on November 13, 2014, 05:09:25 am

Glad to see China capping their Carbon output by 2030, while we start today... Great deal.. What a fucknut!!

The "agreement" is not a treaty, and has absolutely no force of law.  Presumably the next president to take office will rather promptly advise China the United States will for all intents and purposes ignore it as nothing more than a symbol of affection and cooperation between President Obama personally and the Chinese leadership.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 13, 2014, 09:56:57 am

Although not a treaty, and without the force of law, it is not unimportant.  During the next two years, the President can use it to justify tighter regulations on CO2, and fools like Homo and the media will actually portray it as a good thing.

A future President could undo much of what is done, but that would not undo the damage to the economy over the next two years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 13, 2014, 11:11:23 am

Obama can do a whole lotta damage in the next two years. Gotta pray that Congress can limit it by limiting funding for his insanity programs.....keep him caged, per se...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 13, 2014, 12:22:49 pm

The communist Obummer....forcing people to pay for medical coverage and forcing hard workers like myself to pay for people who can't afford insurance.

Luckily Congress will at least defund ObamaCare and we will find a better system.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 13, 2014, 02:55:09 pm

oddo is a special kind of stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 13, 2014, 03:31:23 pm

I wish he was.  It looks like you don't know other liberals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on November 13, 2014, 03:39:33 pm

That is the most unfortunate thing about it.  There are more just like him out there roaming the USA.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 13, 2014, 07:11:39 pm

Fewer each year in Wisconsin, though.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 13, 2014, 08:46:02 pm

 All JJ want's is AMNESTY for driving down your street where your kids play at while doing 90 m.p.h.


 Whats wrong with breaking a law ?


 Oh that's right ... laws are subjective.


 This is where it gets interesting at in terms of whose being gored by what laws.


 Therein lies the paradox about JJ doing 90 m.p.h. on your street ...


 and people invading your country and given amnesty.


 Now either two laws are being broken ... or no laws are being broken.


 I want AMNESTY for ME at 90 m.p.h. !


 If given the policy of agreeing on one side ...


 you must agree with the policy of the other side.


 Since all laws are now invalid.


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 14, 2014, 11:13:15 pm

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPhPbTbjYM0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPhPbTbjYM0)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 15, 2014, 04:46:23 pm

http://online.wsj.com/articles/phil-gramm-and-michael-solon-how-to-distort-income-inequality-1415749856

What the hockey-stick portrayal of global temperatures did in bringing a sense of crisis to the issue of global warming is now being replicated in the controversy over income inequality, thanks to a now-famous study by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, professors of economics at the Paris School of Economics and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively. Whether the issue is climate change or income inequality, however, problems with the underlying data significantly distort the debate.

The chosen starting point for the most-quoted part of the Piketty-Saez study is 1979. In that year the inflation rate was 13.3%, interest rates were 15.5% and the poverty rate was rising, but economic misery was distributed more equally than in any year since. That misery led to the election of Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies helped usher in 25 years of lower interest rates, lower inflation and high economic growth. But Messrs. Piketty and Saez tell us it was also a period where the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and only a relatively small number of Americans benefited from the economic booms of the Reagan and Clinton years.

If that dark picture doesn’t sound like the country you lived in, that’s because it isn’t. The Piketty-Saez study looked only at pretax cash market income. It did not take into account taxes. It left out noncash compensation such as employer-provided health insurance and pension contributions. It left out Social Security payments, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and more than 100 other means-tested government programs. Realized capital gains were included, but not the first $500,000 from the sale of one’s home, which is tax-exempt. IRAs and 401(k)s were counted only when the money is taken out in retirement. Finally, the Piketty-Saez data are based on individual tax returns, which ignore, for any given household, the presence of multiple earners.

And now, thanks to a new study in the Southern Economic Journal, we know what the picture looks like when the missing data are filled in. Economists Philip Armour and Richard V. Burkhauser of Cornell University and Jeff Larrimore of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation expanded the Piketty-Saez income measure using census data to account for all public and private in-kind benefits, taxes, Social Security payments and household size.

The result is dramatic. The bottom quintile of Americans experienced a 31% increase in income from 1979 to 2007 instead of a 33% decline that is found using a Piketty-Saez market-income measure alone. The income of the second quintile, often referred to as the working class, rose by 32%, not 0.7%. The income of the middle quintile, America’s middle class, increased by 37%, not 2.2%.

By omitting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Piketty-Saez study renders most older Americans poor when in reality most have above-average incomes. The exclusion of benefits like employer-provided health insurance, retirement benefits (except when actually paid out in retirement) and capital gains on homes misses much of the income and wealth of middle- and upper-middle income families.

Messrs. Piketty and Saez also did not take into consideration the effect that tax policies have on how people report their incomes. This leads to major distortions. The bipartisan tax reform of 1986 lowered the highest personal tax rate to 28% from 50%, but the top corporate-tax rate was reduced only to 34%. There was, therefore, an incentive to restructure businesses from C-Corps to subchapter S corporations, limited-liability corporations, partnerships and proprietorships, where the same income would now be taxed only once at a lower, personal rate. As businesses restructured, what had been corporate income poured into personal income-tax receipts.

So Messrs. Piketty and Saez report a 44% increase in the income earned by the top 1% in 1987 and 1988—though this change reflected how income was taxed, not how income had grown. This change in the structure of American businesses alone accounts for roughly one-third of what they portray as the growth in the income share earned by the top 1% of earners over the entire 1979-2012 period.

An equally extraordinary distortion in the data used to measure inequality (the Gini Coefficient) has been discovered by Cornell’s Mr. Burkhauser. In 1992 the Census Bureau changed the Current Population Survey to collect more in-depth data on high-income individuals. This change in survey technique alone, causing a one-time upward shift in the measured income of high-income individuals, is the source of almost 30% of the total growth of inequality in the U.S. since 1979.

Simple statistical errors in the data account for roughly one third of what is now claimed to be a “frightening” increase in income inequality. But the weakness of the case for redistribution does not end there. America is the freest and most dynamic society in history, and freedom and equality of outcome have never coexisted anywhere at any time. Here the innovator, the first mover, the talented and the persistent win out—producing large income inequality. The prizes are unequal because in our system consumers reward people for the value they add. Some can and do add extraordinary value, others can’t or don’t.

How exactly are we poorer because Bill Gates , Warren Buffett and the Walton family are so rich? Mr. Gates became rich by mainstreaming computer power into our lives and in the process made us better off. Mr. Buffett’s genius improves the efficiency of capital allocation and the whole economy benefits. Wal-Mart stretches our buying power and raises the living standards of millions of Americans, especially low-income earners. Rich people don’t “take” a large share of national income, they “bring” it. The beauty of our system is that everybody benefits from the value they bring.

Yes, income is 24% less equally distributed here than in the average of the other 34 member countries of the OECD. But OECD figures show that U.S. per capita GDP is 42% higher, household wealth is 210% higher and median disposable income is 42% higher. How many Americans would give up 42% of their income to see the rich get less?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 16, 2014, 07:54:31 am

Has anyone noticed that on sites that are liberal biased, i.e. dailybeast or Huffington post that they make it difficult to post on their message boards? I have the most trouble on those sites than I do any other. Yahoo is liberal based but at least their for the most part open with messages on the board. They let it fly. But there are some who keep their comment section biased towards their own and those two are DB and HP....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 16, 2014, 10:03:36 am

It could just be that they are making it difficult for you in particular, Sportster.  You know, like the oil futures speculators who conspire to drive up gasoline prices wherever you are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 16, 2014, 11:32:45 am

Oh lookie, it's Jessie...thought I smelled something rank....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 08:30:21 am

Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1595581_11172014&s=al&dkt_nbr=gliwbisr

Finally somebody with some brains. I believe he is right on the money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 09:02:52 am

New GOP Senate Campaign Chief to Newsmax: Reid 'Big Target' in 2016

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnGizzi/wicker-senate-gop-target/2014/11/13/id/607305/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1595581_11172014&s=al&dkt_nbr=gliwbisr

Dang straightand that Commie from Indiana too

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 10:27:00 am

Interesting:

http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/amnestyorimmigrationreform/do-you-support-amnesty-or-immigration-reform-/id/124/kw/default/?Dkt_nbr=F492-1&nmx_source=Newsmax&nmx_medium=widget&nmx_content=3&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2

However I think they are more interested in getting your e-mail address so they can send you more of their stuff. And I don't do political surveys either over the phone or online. It tends to put a big red bullseye on your back

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 17, 2014, 01:33:36 pm

Who is the Commie from Indiana?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 02:02:53 pm

The Obama lockstep Senator who beat Murdock in 2010, Joe Donnely

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 17, 2014, 02:06:52 pm

Is he more of a Commie than Schummer or Warren?  Or for that matter, any other Democrat?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 03:05:57 pm

Cant say.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 17, 2014, 04:26:45 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 03:05:57 pm

Cant say.

How or why do you say he is a "Commie" at all?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 17, 2014, 04:43:22 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 17, 2014, 04:26:45 pm

How or why do you say he is a "Commie" at all?

 They're all Commies ... including you.


 You wouldn't know how to run a snow-blower or barbecue if your Commie life depended on it.


 We know who you are ... and you are being watched.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 17, 2014, 04:51:10 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 08:30:21 am

Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1595581_11172014&s=al&dkt_nbr=gliwbisr

Finally somebody with some brains. I believe he is right on the money.

I believe he is every bit as misguided as Al Gore.

I fully agree with him that the primary climate driver is the sun, and solar activity.  I have no problem accepting the possibility that we are now headed into a cycle of solar inactivity which will lead to global cooling and not global warming.  I have considerable difficulty accepting the idea that he can accurately forecast future solar activity.

But that is not the central problem I have with him.  The central problem I have with him is the same problem I have with Al Gore.  Both claim that GOVERNMENT should be given the power to control or alter human activity in order to reduce or minimize the harm coming from the climate change they forecast.  There is absolutely no reason to believe the harm coming to us from government controls to prevent or minimize the harm from global cooling would be any less than the harm coming to us from government controls to prevent or minimize the harm from global warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 17, 2014, 05:47:27 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 17, 2014, 04:51:10 pm

I believe he is every bit as misguided as Al Gore.

I fully agree with him that the primary climate driver is the sun, and solar activity.  I have no problem accepting the possibility that we are now headed into a cycle of solar inactivity which will lead to global cooling and not global warming.  I have considerable difficulty accepting the idea that he can accurately forecast future solar activity.

But that is not the central problem I have with him.  The central problem I have with him is the same problem I have with Al Gore.  Both claim that GOVERNMENT should be given the power to control or alter human activity in order to reduce or minimize the harm coming from the climate change they forecast.  There is absolutely no reason to believe the harm coming to us from government controls to prevent or minimize the harm from global cooling would be any less than the harm coming to us from government controls to prevent or minimize the harm from global warming.

 The **** & giggles are who is going to be proven right over the long run.


 At this point in time we know what is happening ... I hope you love the weather where you're at.


 The pisser is who wants to win at the cost of their offspring?


 Either take the money now and get rich at the cost of your children ...


 or just think this **** thru.


 Now either the scientific community is bullshit ... or your political beliefs are bullshit.


 This is where it gets interesting ... why does there have to be an argument?


 Unless it's about whose bank account is being hurt ? And when ?


 Obviously if it's entrenched that the main way to coin is going in the direction already in place for the last 150 years ... if it could go on for longer then why change ?


 At least for a little longer to maximize profits.


 But this **** coming to an end ... you know it.


 Either that or you are going to kill yourself while making a dollar.


 Nobody wants to change because ... hell ... it's what has been working.


 On the other-hand you have to ask yourself this : QUESTION ...


 If you were secure in making buggy whips in 1892 ... when HENRY FORD made his first cycle-car ...


 were you slick enuff to see that maybe you should get out of making buggy whips ?


 Thats the question that has to be asked ... are we slick enuff to change?


 in WORLD WAR 2 ... the AMERICAN economy went from a CONSUMER economy to a WAR economy ...


 in less then FOUR years ... we outproduced the REST OF THE WORLD in WARFARE!


 I mean we were that fuckin good!


 We need the means of energy ... but at the same time lets be real about the WAY we are getting energy ...


 we know there's better ways ... but if you are set in your ways that this is the only way to get energy ... then nothings going to change while you kill yourself with the energy that you need.


 CHINA admits that air pollution costs them 200 BILLION dollars a year in damages.


 China has the second largest coal reserves in the world after the USA.


 It's all China has to work with ... they know it's killing them. But it's all they have.


 Thats why they are trying like hell to get out of the mess including the largest hydro-electric dam ever built on this planet.


 If the commie chinese get it ... are you saying WE cant get it?


 What the hell does that say about us ...


 other then get rich at no matter what the cost ?


 Is that the AMERICAN way ?


 Then somewhere AMERICA left me behind.


 Because I thought it was about ALL of us as AMERICANS.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 17, 2014, 05:51:39 pm

Whoever posted the sunspot theory should be embarrassed and consider suspending further posts until they have been evaluated for dementia.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 17, 2014, 05:54:36 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 17, 2014, 04:51:10 pm

But that is not the central problem I have with him.  The central problem I have with him is the same problem I have with Al Gore.  Both claim that GOVERNMENT should be given the power to control or alter human activity in order to reduce or minimize the harm coming from the climate change they forecast.  There is absolutely no reason to believe the harm coming to us from government controls to prevent or minimize the harm from global cooling would be any less than the harm coming to us from government controls to prevent or minimize the harm from global warming.

The interesting thing is that although Governments should act before it is too late, he gave no indication WHAT Government should, or could do. 

Fine auto makers if their fleets get too much gas mileage?  Reopen coal burning electric plants?  Build two dozen Keystone pipelines?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 17, 2014, 05:56:05 pm

All conservatives are fascists.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 17, 2014, 06:16:13 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on November 17, 2014, 05:56:05 pm

All conservatives are fascists.

 You do realize that mindless name calling results in zero discussion?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 17, 2014, 07:20:08 pm

Wish lives in Indiana, so I'm sure he is commenting on the senator since he has first hand knowledge (local news and such)..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 17, 2014, 07:36:55 pm

 Whats interesting about a virus is that it attacks and kills its host ...


 thus insuring its own destruction ...


 unless it can propagate to another host.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 09:16:09 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 17, 2014, 04:51:10 pm

I believe he is every bit as misguided as Al Gore.

I fully agree with him that the primary climate driver is the sun, and solar activity.  I have no problem accepting the possibility that we are now headed into a cycle of solar inactivity which will lead to global cooling and not global warming.  I have considerable difficulty accepting the idea that he can accurately forecast future solar activity.

But that is not the central problem I have with him.  The central problem I have with him is the same problem I have with Al Gore.  Both claim that GOVERNMENT should be given the power to control or alter human activity in order to reduce or minimize the harm coming from the climate change they forecast.  There is absolutely no reason to believe the harm coming to us from government controls to prevent or minimize the harm from global cooling would be any less than the harm coming to us from government controls to prevent or minimize the harm from global warming.

The thing is we need to find this Baal guy who could control the weather. He may be a bit crusty but he has the answers.  ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 17, 2014, 09:48:25 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 17, 2014, 09:16:09 pm

The thing is we need to find this Baal guy who could control the weather. He may be a bit crusty but he has the answers.  ;)

 Bones  : What do you think they are going to do after we leave?

 Kirk : Well if I were them Id be **** my living brains out.

 Spock : FEED BAAL!


 Lets remember that you are not in control of your COUNTRY anymore.


 People who break the laws now make the laws ... and you are sleeping.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeipM2f2Aek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeipM2f2Aek)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 17, 2014, 10:39:30 pm

 Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you are the next door neighbor to the most powerful country on the planet ... some of that should bleed thru and you are the second most powerful country on the planet?


 Instead you are not the  second most powerful country on the planet and you flee to the most powerful country on the planet.


 So where the **** did you **** up at and why do WE have to pick up the tab on your **** up?


 What if what was north of your border was NORTH KOREA?


 Would you be so fast to get off your asses to THAT point?


 Or would you stay at home and develop your OWN country?


 Uhhh ... THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA did that ... turned out pretty good too.


 Thats why you LOVE us and can't wait to get here ...


 but you're KILLING the country you came from in the process.


 You want a COUNTRY? You have to FIGHT for it ... and not RUN from it.


 As long as you keep doing that ... you can wave any flag here ...


 but you'll never wave it at home.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 17, 2014, 11:00:29 pm

ARAB CIVILIZATION HAS COLLAPSED     

 

Written by Hisham Melhem   

Wednesday, 01 October 2014

 

With his decision to use force against the violent extremists of the Islamic State, President Obama is doing more than to enter a quagmire. He is doing more than play with the fates of two half-broken countries-Iraq and Syria-whose societies were gutted long before the Americans appeared on the horizon.

 

Obama is stepping into the chaos of an entire civilization that has broken down.

 

Arab civilization, such as we knew it, is all but gone. The Arab world today is more violent, unstable, fragmented and driven by extremism-the extremism of the rulers and those in opposition-than at any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire a century ago.

 

Every hope of modern Arab history has been betrayed. The promise of political empowerment, the return of politics, the restoration of human dignity heralded by the season of Arab uprisings in their early heydays-all has given way to civil wars, ethnic, sectarian and regional divisions and the reassertion of absolutism, both in its military and atavistic forms.

 

With the dubious exception of the antiquated monarchies and emirates of the Gulf-which for the moment are holding out against the tide of chaos-and possibly Tunisia, there is no recognizable legitimacy left in the Arab world.

 

Is it any surprise that, like the vermin that take over a ruined city, the heirs to this self-destroyed civilization should be the nihilistic thugs of the Islamic State? And that there is no one else who can clean up the vast mess we Arabs have made of our world but the Americans and Western countries?

 

No one paradigm or one theory can explain what went wrong in the Arab world in the last century. There is no obvious set of reasons for the colossal failures of all the ideologies and political movements that swept the Arab region: Arab nationalism, in its Baathist and Nasserite forms; various Islamist movements; Arab socialism; the rentier state and rapacious monopolies, leaving in their wake a string of broken societies.

 

Nor is the notion of "ancient sectarian hatreds" adequate to explain the frightening reality that along a front stretching from Basra at the mouth of the Persian Gulf to Beirut on the Mediterranean there exists an almost continuous bloodletting between Sunni and Shia-the public manifestation of an epic geopolitical battle for power and control pitting Iran, the Shia powerhouse, against Saudi Arabia, the Sunni powerhouse, and their proxies.

 

There is no one single overarching explanation for that tapestry of horrors in Syria and Iraq, where in the last five years more than a quarter of a million people perished, where famed cities like Aleppo, Homs and Mosul were visited by the modern terror of Assad's chemical weapons and the brutal violence of the Islamic State.

 

How could Syria tear itself apart and become - like Spain in the 1930s - the arena for Arabs and Moslems to re-fight their old civil wars? The war waged by the Syrian regime against civilians in opposition areas combined the use of Scud missiles, anti-personnel barrel bombs as well as medieval tactics against towns and neighborhoods such as siege and starvation. For the first time since the First World War, Syrians were dying of malnutrition and hunger.

 

Iraq's story in the last few decades is a chronicle of a death foretold. The slow death began with Saddam Hussein's fateful decision to invade Iran in September 1980. Iraqis have been living in purgatory ever since with each war giving birth to another. In the midst of this suspended chaos, the U.S. invasion in 2003 was merely a catalyst that allowed the violent chaos to resume in full force.

 

The polarizations in Syria and Iraq-political, sectarian and ethnic-are so deep that it is difficult to see how these once-important countries could be restored as unitary states.

 

In Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi's 42-year reign of terror rendered the country politically desolate and fractured its already tenuous unity. The armed factions that inherited the exhausted country have set it on the course of breaking up-again, unsurprisingly-along tribal and regional fissures.

 

Yemen has all the ingredients of a failed state: political, sectarian, tribal, north-south divisions, against the background of economic deterioration and a depleted water table that could turn it into the first country in the world to run out of drinking water.

 

Bahrain is maintaining a brittle status quo by the force of arms of its larger neighbors, mainly Saudi Arabia.

 

Lebanon, dominated by Hezbollah, arguably the most powerful non-state actor in the world-before the rise of the Islamic State-could be dragged fully to the maelstrom of Syria's multiple civil wars by the Assad regime, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah as well as the Islamic State.

 

A byproduct of the depredation of the national security state and resurgent Islamism has been the slow death of the cosmopolitanism that distinguished great Middle Eastern cities like Alexandria, Beirut and Damascus.

 

Alexandria was once a center of learning and multicultural delights (by night, Mark Twain wrote in Innocents Abroad, "it was a sort of reminiscence of Paris"). Today Alexandria is a hotbed of political Islam, now that the once large Greek-Egyptian community has fled along with the other non-Arab and non-Moslem communities.

 

Beirut, once the most liberal city in the Levant, is struggling to maintain a modicum of openness and tolerance while being pushed by Hezbollah to become a Tehran on the Med. Over the last few decades, Islamists across the region have encouraged-and pressured-women to wear veils, men to show signs of religiosity, and subtly and not-so-subtly intimidated non-conformist intellectuals and artists.


The jihadists of the Islamic State, in other words, did not emerge from nowhere. They climbed out of a rotting, empty hulk-what was left of a broken-down civilization. They are a gruesome manifestation of a deeper malady afflicting Arab political culture, which was stagnant, repressive and patriarchal after the decades of authoritarian rule that led to the disastrous defeat in the 1967 war with Israel.

 

That defeat sounded the death knell of Arab nationalism and the resurgence of political Islam, which projected itself as the alternative to the more secular ideologies that had dominated the Arab republics since the Second World War. If Arab decline was the problem, then "Islam is the solution," the Islamists said-and they believed it.

 

At their core, both political currents-Arab nationalism and Islamism-are driven by atavistic impulses and a regressive outlook on life that is grounded in a mostly mythologized past.

 

Many Islamists, including Egypt's Moslem Brotherhood (the wellspring of such groups) - whether they say it explicitly or hint at it - are still on a ceaseless quest to resurrect the old Ottoman Caliphate. Still more radical types -the Salafists - yearn for a return to the puritanical days of Prophet Mohammed and his companions. For most Islamists, democracy means only majoritarian rule, and the rule of sharia law, which codifies gender inequality and discrimination against non-Moslems. 

 

Let's face the grim truth: There is no evidence whatever that Islam in its various political forms is compatible with modern democracy. From Afghanistan under the Taliban to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and from Iran to Sudan, there is no Islamist entity that can be said to be democratic, just or a practitioner of good governance.

 

The short rule of the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt under the presidency of Mohamed Morsi was no exception. The Brotherhood tried to monopolize power, hound and intimidate the opposition and was driving the country toward a dangerous impasse before a violent military coup ended the brief experimentation with Islamist rule.

 

Like the Islamists, the Arab nationalists-particularly the Baathists-were also fixated on a "renaissance" of past Arab greatness, which had once flourished in the famed cities of Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo and Córdoba in Al-Andalus, now Spain.

 

These nationalists believed that Arab language and culture (and to a lesser extent Islam) were enough to unite disparate entities with different levels of social, political and cultural development. They were in denial that they lived in a far more diverse world. Those minorities that resisted the primacy of Arab identity were discriminated against, denied citizenship and basic rights, and in the case of the Kurds in Iraq were subjected to massive repression and killings of genocidal proportion.

 

Under the guise of Arab nationalism the modern Arab despot (Saddam, Qaddafi, the Assads) emerged. But these men lived in splendid solitude, detached from their own people. The repression and intimidation of the societies they ruled over were painfully summarized by the gifted Syrian poet Muhammad al-Maghout: "I enter the bathroom with my identity papers in my hand."

 

The dictators, always unpopular, opened the door to the Islamists' rise when they proved just as incompetent as the monarchs they had replaced. That, again, came in 1967 after the crushing defeat of Nasserite Egypt and Baathist Syria at the hands of Israel.


From that moment on Arab politics began to be animated by various Islamist parties and movements. The dictators, in their desperation to hold onto their waning power, only became more brutal in the 1980s and ‘90s. But the Islamists kept coming back in new and various shapes and stripes, only to be crushed again ever more ferociously.

 

The year 1979 was a watershed moment for political Islam. An Islamic revolution exploded in Iran, provoked in part by decades of Western support for the corrupt shah. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and a group of bloody zealots occupied the Grand Mosque in Mecca for two weeks.

 

After these cataclysmic events political Islam became more atavistic in its Sunni manifestations and more belligerent in its Shia manifestations. Saudi Arabia, in order to reassert its fundamentalist "wahhabi" ethos, became stricter in its application of Islamic law, and increased its financial aid to ultraconservative Islamists and their schools throughout the world.

 

The Islamization of the war in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation - a project organized and financed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan - triggered a tectonic change in the political map of South Asia and the Middle East. The Afghan war was the baptism of fire for terrorist outfits like the Egyptian Islamic Group and al Qaeda, the progenitors of the Islamic State.

 

This decades-long struggle for legitimacy between the Dictators and the Islamists meant that when the Arab Spring uprisings began in early 2011, there were no other political alternatives. You had only the Scylla of the national security state and the Charybdis of political Islam.

 

The secularists and liberals, while playing the leading role in the early phase of the Egyptian uprisings, were marginalized later by the Islamists who, because of their political experience as an old movement, won parliamentary and presidential elections. In a region shorn of real political life it was difficult for the admittedly divided and not very experienced liberals and secularists to form viable political parties.

 

Thus in today's Iraq, the failure of a would-be authoritarian - recently departed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki - has contributed to the rise of the Islamists. The Islamic State is exploiting the alienated Arab Sunni minority, which feels marginalized and disenfranchised in an Iraq dominated by the Shia for the first time in its history and significantly influenced by Iran.

 

Almost every Moslem era, including the enlightened ones, has been challenged by groups that espouse a virulent brand of austere, puritanical and absolutist Islam. They have different names, but are driven by the same fanatical, atavistic impulses.

 

The great city of Córdoba, one of the most advanced cities in Medieval Europe, was sacked and plundered by such a group - a horde of Islamist Berbers from Morocco called the Almoravids (Al Murabitun), destroying its magnificent palaces and its famed library in 1013.

 

In the 1920s the Ikhwan Movement in Arabia was so fanatical that the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, who collaborated with them initially, had to crush them later on. In contemporary times, these groups include the Taliban, al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

 

All of these Islamist groups stem from the Arabs' civilizational ills. The Islamic State, like al Qaeda, is the tumorous creation of an ailing Arab body politic. Its roots run deep in the badlands of a tormented Arab world that seems to be slouching aimlessly through the darkness.

 

It took the Arabs decades and generations to reach this nadir. It will take us a long time to recover-it certainly won't happen in my lifetime.

 

My generation of Arabs was told by both the Arab nationalists and the Islamists that we should man the proverbial ramparts to defend the "Arab World" against the numerous barbarians (Imperialists, Zionists, Soviets) massing at the gates.

 

Little did we know that the barbarians were already inside the gates, that they spoke our language and were already very well entrenched in the city.

 

Hisham Melhem is the Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya, the Dubai-based satellite channel. He is also the correspondent for Annahar, the leading Lebanese daily.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 18, 2014, 12:31:19 am

 Packy,


 Islam does make a damn good cup of coffee tho.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 18, 2014, 02:31:48 am

Quote from: packrat on November 17, 2014, 11:00:29 pm

ARAB CIVILIZATION HAS COLLAPSED     

Written by Hisham Melhem   
Wednesday, 01 October 2014

So what is the takeaway of that piece?

How about that we in the U.S. really do not understand what is going on there, who the good guys or the bad guys are, or what the probable consequences of our actions will be there, so it is best to take a non-interventionist approach and let them sort it out on their own without our active involvement supporting or opposing anyone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 18, 2014, 08:31:35 am

My take is you cant figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The difference is imperceptible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 18, 2014, 09:12:40 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 18, 2014, 08:31:35 am

My take is you cant figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The difference is imperceptible.

THAT interpretation would seem to be based on the conclusion that those in the Arab world are somehow different from the rest of the world.  A much more reasonable interpretation would simply be that we do not know enough about them, and about the situation there, to tell what the differences are or to see them, regardless how great the differences are, or how perceptible they might be, they are imperceptible to US.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 18, 2014, 09:21:49 am

No its like the Afgan police we train, the Iraqui police and military we trained. Then they turn on us and kill us. Makes you not trust a sole. Its this anti-Christian beliefs Muslims have and the incohehiveness they exhibit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 18, 2014, 09:58:20 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 18, 2014, 09:21:49 am

No its like the Afgan police we train, the Iraqui police and military we trained. Then they turn on us and kill us. Makes you not trust a sole. Its this anti-Christian beliefs Muslims have and the incohehiveness they exhibit.

Your comment here would seem to prove my point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 18, 2014, 11:38:23 am

Now this is funny...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/ferguson-protest-leader-has-car-stolen-during-the-fck-the-police-rally/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 18, 2014, 01:22:38 pm

(http://prod.images.packers.clubs.nflcdn.com/image-web/NFL/CDA/data/deployed/prod/PACKERS/assets/images/imported/GB/photos/clubimages/2014/11-November/temp141116-packers-eagles-biever-1-001--nfl_mezz_1280_1024.jpg?width=960&height=720)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 18, 2014, 07:02:15 pm

JJ


A statement of fact is not name calling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 18, 2014, 07:18:11 pm

You expect Homo to know the difference?

Hey Homo, how is your governor doing.  He sure seems to be popular is your hick state.  Probably because he is the only one with a real education.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 18, 2014, 07:28:07 pm

Yeah,  he's popular in non-presidential election years dominated by gobs of koch money from the oligarchy.


You must be soooooo proud.



Hey nirsk saga groupie... keystone list 59-41..... so sad.


Again try to tell me how 53 republic senators us better than 53 Democratic ones?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 18, 2014, 07:31:34 pm

Can you really say Walker has done a bad job?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 18, 2014, 07:50:56 pm

Going into the next biannual budget walker Wisconsin is facing a 1.8BILLION dollar deficit and we are still 33,000 jobs behind our 2008 level.

6 people convicted in his office for felonies. A campaign collusion case thrown out by a conservative judge (warda) where freedom of information requests show that he sold out his position then....ya..


What do you consider success?

Besides, taking gobs of koch money for elections.?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 18, 2014, 11:17:45 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on November 18, 2014, 07:02:15 pm

JJ

A statement of fact is not name calling.

 No, calling conservatives fascists is name calling.


 Then all liberals are communists.


 Do you see where this leads to in a discussion?


 You've already painted anyone you argue with as an extremist ... and vice versa.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 18, 2014, 11:23:00 pm

Homo.  What do you call success?  He broke the back of the Teacher's Union mafia and made it possible for school districts and local municipalities to deal with them on a level playing field.  He also brought Wisconsin partially into the 21st century.  Feels good, doesn't it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 19, 2014, 08:43:03 am

Quote from: otto105 on November 18, 2014, 07:28:07 pm

Hey nirsk saga groupie... keystone list 59-41..... so sad.


Again try to tell me how 53 republic senators us better than 53 Democratic ones?

At least Warren Bufett is happy today. His rail cars get to keep moving that oil which is going to move with or without a pipeline. Follow the money.  So sad for the unions and the unemployed who would have filled the jobs it created but Obama doesn't need you anymore so you're screwed. African Americans? You're the next group to get the shaft. He's going to give amnesty to millions of illegals to compete with you for jobs. Nothing like talking about the "wage gap" and then adding millions who will work for low wages into the mix. How's that Obama vote looking now? By every measurable statistic you are doing worse under Obama but go ahead and keep voting democrat. You asked for it...you got it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2014, 10:17:09 am

Quote from: chifaninva on November 17, 2014, 07:20:08 pm

Wish lives in Indiana, so I'm sure he is commenting on the senator since he has first hand knowledge (local news and such)..

"THE senator"?

Did Indiana lose one?

My question was simply which senator is supposed to be the "commie," and then also knowing what qualifies them as a "commie" would be nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2014, 10:21:54 am

Quote from: otto105 on November 18, 2014, 07:02:15 pm

JJ


A statement of fact is not name calling.

As you used the word in your post, what is the definition of "fascist"?

What is the definition of "conservative"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 19, 2014, 10:40:30 am

All fascists are conservative.

All conservatives are fascists.

Don't you pay attention when Homo posts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2014, 01:15:25 pm

Oh, I am aware that he would agree with your first two sentences, davep, but neither of them set out the definition of the words as otto was using them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 19, 2014, 02:25:18 pm

you aren't thinking like Homo.  "Fascist" is defined as conservative.  "Conservative" is defined as fascist.

Sufficient onto the day is the definition thereof.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 19, 2014, 02:35:25 pm

 

Quote from: Keysbear on November 19, 2014, 08:43:03 am

At least Warren Bufett is happy today. His rail cars get to keep moving that oil which is going to move with or without a pipeline. Follow the money.  So sad for the unions and the unemployed who would have filled the jobs it created but Obama doesn't need you anymore so you're screwed. African Americans? You're the next group to get the shaft. He's going to give amnesty to millions of illegals to compete with you for jobs. Nothing like talking about the "wage gap" and then adding millions who will work for low wages into the mix. How's that Obama vote looking now? By every measurable statistic you are doing worse under Obama but go ahead and keep voting democrat. You asked for it...you got it.

 Keys,


 Ouch! Good one !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 19, 2014, 04:16:27 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 19, 2014, 10:17:09 am

"THE senator"?

Did Indiana lose one?

My question was simply which senator is supposed to be the "commie," and then also knowing what qualifies them as a "commie" would be nice.

Let me start out by saying two things. First, any Obama lapdog senator is no different than Obama and Obama IMHO is a Communist, pure and simple. I am sure there will be disagreement with that but that opinion wouldn't affect mine. Second, if you check the voting records in France and Italy with the 2 largest Communist Parties in Western Europe you will find little difference. They pretty much vote for the same thing.  The most significant difference between a Communist system and a Socialist system is the Communist system of government takes a dictatorship to run. And aren't we fast approaching a dictatorship here in this country...IRS, BLM, ATF, and so forth. And last but not least, Socialist Europe is fast approaching bankruptcy. Definitely some system to avoid. Thus voting for Socialist/Communist senators is a bad thing to do. I wont vote for Communists, period

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2014, 04:53:20 pm

You still did not define "commie" as you use the word, and the only definition I am presently interested in is yours.

You have told me that Obama is a Communist, but not what it is about him which makes him one.  And you have told me the most significant difference between a Communist and a Socialist is that a communist system takes a dictatorship to run.  But that falls significantly short of a definition.

Could you try again?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 19, 2014, 05:28:00 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 19, 2014, 04:16:27 pm

Let me start out by saying two things. First, any Obama lapdog senator is no different than Obama and Obama IMHO is a Communist, pure and simple. I am sure there will be disagreement with that but that opinion wouldn't affect mine. Second, if you check the voting records in France and Italy with the 2 largest Communist Parties in Western Europe you will find little difference. They pretty much vote for the same thing.  The most significant difference between a Communist system and a Socialist system is the Communist system of government takes a dictatorship to run. And aren't we fast approaching a dictatorship here in this country...IRS, BLM, ATF, and so forth. And last but not least, Socialist Europe is fast approaching bankruptcy. Definitely some system to avoid. Thus voting for Socialist/Communist senators is a bad thing to do. I wont vote for Communists, period

 WSH,


 The beauty of it is communism could't exist with out capitalism.


 HEY WHERE DID ALL THOSE AMERICAN JOBS GO TO ...


 **** COMMUNIST MOTHERFUCKING CHINA ??


 Are you kidding me ???


 That's like Jews PAYING to get into a gas chamber in Nazi Germany.


 Somebody said it best :


 "We'll sell the capitalists the rope we hang them with."


 Yep ... good old fashioned greed ...


 You think we would have outgrown that by now ...


 BUT ... I have my ideology and you have your ideology.


 And somebody else has their ideology. And about 7 BILLION others also.


 Humans however in that great construct of MANKIND in the making ...


 just ain't getting on the same vibe yet baby!


 Ain't that some **** ? Is there PROGRESS being made with humanity?


 We know what Ebola is and how to fight it. That's working together.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXo6G5mfmro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXo6G5mfmro)


 I have a fuckin smart phone that I can WASTE TIME on ...


 but cancer hasn't been cured and there's no FUSION for energy yet.


 So for Humanity it's like ... what are the fuckin priority's?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 19, 2014, 09:28:14 pm

Well, well, well if it's any "measurable statistic" that "you are doing worse under Obama"...I choose GDP numbers. under President Barack Hussein Obama compared with the scrub's last quarter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 19, 2014, 09:34:17 pm

As a second "measurable statistic" I choose consecutive months of job growth under the shrub verses our President Barack Hussein Obama.

That again, should be easy for a guy who posted soooooooo confidently about statistics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 19, 2014, 09:45:48 pm

Sorry guys about that fascist post.


I meant to all conservatives are authoritarian fascist pricks.


And isfullofit


Support the oligarchy much?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 19, 2014, 10:17:22 pm

Otto...I wasn't aware that GDP numbers were listed by race. My point specifically referenced blacks as doing worse. Name a measurable category where they aren't. You really should work on your reading skills.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 19, 2014, 10:45:04 pm

I meant to all conservatives are authoritarian fascist pricks.

What? And you frickin Commies aren't? BLM, IRS, NSA, ATF aren't enough? A Commie President trying to force his ideas on immigration on the nation. Sounds like the Fifth Column to me. And I really suppose you are too blind to see that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 20, 2014, 01:27:15 am

 

Quote from: otto105 on November 19, 2014, 09:45:48 pm

Sorry guys about that fascist post.


I meant to all conservatives are authoritarian fascist pricks.


And isfullofit


Support the oligarchy much?

 Why do you do this ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 20, 2014, 03:40:29 am

 Man I don't know why but I love this music & Beethoven too.  :D


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmbUXqHPk4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmbUXqHPk4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPq1tnrH_eM&list=PLJFJk9LXgFfpTKk3eMcjAsLqWw5PM3zO5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPq1tnrH_eM&list=PLJFJk9LXgFfpTKk3eMcjAsLqWw5PM3zO5)

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 05:57:22 am

otto, if you looked up a definition of GDP, you might understand why it does not at all support your position.  And if you combined that with a look at recoveries from U.S. economic downturns thru history, you might even see where it rather strongly argues against your position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 06:00:50 am

Quote from: otto105 on November 19, 2014, 09:34:17 pm

As a second "measurable statistic" I choose consecutive months of job growth under the shrub verses our President Barack Hussein Obama.

That again, should be easy for a guy who posted soooooooo confidently about statistics.

Months of consecutive job growth do nothing to establish a person is better off today than at some point in the past, not to establish that a group of people are better off.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 06:05:33 am

Quote from: Keysbear on November 19, 2014, 10:17:22 pm

Otto...I wasn't aware that GDP numbers were listed by race. My point specifically referenced blacks as doing worse. Name a measurable category where they aren't. You really should work on your reading skills.

Based on that comment, you might also want to check the definition of GDP.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 06:06:25 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 19, 2014, 10:45:04 pm

I meant to all conservatives are authoritarian fascist pricks.

What? And you frickin Commies aren't? BLM, IRS, NSA, ATF aren't enough? A Commie President trying to force his ideas on immigration on the nation. Sounds like the Fifth Column to me. And I really suppose you are too blind to see that.

Still haven't defined "commie," but what is a "Fifth Column"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 06:06:31 am

Quote from: otto105 on November 19, 2014, 09:45:48 pm

Sorry guys about that fascist post.  I meant to all conservatives are authoritarian fascist pricks.   And isfullofit
Support the oligarchy much?

So I take it from this post that you have no willingness to offer anything resembling a definition of the terms.

Not surprising.

Makes it easier to ignore your posts when you again demonstrate you refuse to even attempt an actual discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 20, 2014, 06:59:57 am

 Well it's that time of the morning ... since JJ is currently working the graveyard shift,


 it's time for a beer.


 Jes would you care to partake with a brew with me?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 07:23:20 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 06:05:33 am

Based on that comment, you might also want to check the definition of GDP.

You clearly missed the sarcasm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 20, 2014, 07:37:03 am

 

Quote from: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 07:23:20 am

You clearly missed the sarcasm

                       And that's what this board runs on baby !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 10:50:17 am

Quote from: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 07:23:20 am

You clearly missed the sarcasm

No, I'm quite certain I got the sarcasm, and even with the sarcasm in mind, the comment indicated you might want to check the definition of GDP.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 20, 2014, 10:56:03 am

GDP = Gross Damn Politics?  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 11:25:17 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 10:50:17 am

No, I'm quite certain I got the sarcasm, and even with the sarcasm in mind, the comment indicated you might want to check the definition of GDP.

OK...here is a definition.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

I fail to see how ponting out to Otto that this does nothing to show whether blacks are doing better  under Obama as he claimed it shows is wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: VJ on November 20, 2014, 12:10:43 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJXEpiMyPM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIueBJWkCQY&list=UUun4tg1BecN4PuxwZ6mL3NA

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 12:33:15 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 11:25:17 am

OK...here is a definition.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

I fail to see how ponting out to Otto that this does nothing to show whether blacks are doing better  under Obama as he claimed it shows is wrong.

So if you have read and now understand the definition you know that the issue is not whether such data is broken down by race, but that it does not consider income or standard of living at all, and is an aggregate national figure, without regard to individual income, assets or earnings.  Double a nation's population, and increase its GDP by 5%, and the average person is much worse off than they were before the GDP increase.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 01:06:04 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 12:33:15 pm

So if you have read and now understand the definition you know that the issue is not whether such data is broken down by race, but that it does not consider income or standard of living at all, and is an aggregate national figure, without regard to individual income, assets or earnings.  Double a nation's population, and increase its GDP by 5%, and the average person is much worse off than they were before the GDP increase.

 So my sarcasm about it having nothing to do with race was correct but I just didn't take it far enough. You're a lot of fun at parties aren't you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 20, 2014, 02:02:26 pm

So if you have read and now understand

LOL!! WTF...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 02:08:57 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 01:06:04 pm

So my sarcasm about it having nothing to do with race was correct....

As I have pointed out, not really.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 03:16:07 pm

OK Professor...I will accept an F in Sarcasm. I will retake the course next semester.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 20, 2014, 03:34:13 pm

So...the numbers are going to be "revised down"? Now where have I heard that phrase before?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-20/obamacare-s-subscriber-rolls-include-unpublicized-dental-plans.html

he Obama administration said it erroneously calculated the number of people with health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, incorrectly adding 380,000 dental subscribers to raise the total above 7 million.

The accurate number with full health-care plans is 6.7 million as of Oct. 15, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed today, saying the U.S. won’t include dental plans in future reports.

“The mistake we made is unacceptable,” Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said on her verified Twitter account. “I will be communicating that clearly throughout the department.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2014, 04:58:25 pm

When things are genuinely "unacceptable" in the private sector, folks tend to lose their jobs.  I am betting that happens to no on here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 20, 2014, 07:54:20 pm

That is nothing but bullshit.  People DO lose there jobs in the Obama Administration.

Why do you think there are so many on paid leave?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 21, 2014, 06:28:04 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/20/sheriffs-tough-message-to-the-president-goes-viral-ahead-of-obamas-big-immigration-speech-only-you-are-singularly-responsible/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on November 21, 2014, 03:17:38 pm

Guess what...he doesn't need you anymore so he doesn't care what you have to say. How's that voting for skin color thing working out for you?

http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/11/21/black-activists-speak-out-against-obama-amnesty-agenda.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2014, 05:30:42 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on November 21, 2014, 03:17:38 pm

Guess what...he doesn't need you anymore so he doesn't care what you have to say. How's that voting for skin color thing working out for you?

http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/11/21/black-activists-speak-out-against-obama-amnesty-agenda.html

And other black activists and black politicians are strongly supporting his moves on immigration.  Despite the implication of your post, blacks are no more monolithic in their perspective than whites.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 21, 2014, 05:35:29 pm

Why would anyone consider the paid for beliefs of any conservative post worthy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 21, 2014, 05:42:43 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 21, 2014, 05:30:42 pm

And other black activists and black politicians are strongly supporting his moves on immigration.  Despite the implication of your post, blacks are no more monolithic in their perspective than whites.

Perhaps not.  But they are much more monolithic in their voting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2014, 06:24:20 pm

Perhaps more NEARLY monolithic, but not "more monolithic."

Oh, by the way, davep, do you have any idea what otto's last post was about?

I am guessing that even though you did not write it, there is a better chance you understand it than there is that he understands it, and I am certain there is a better chance you could explain it than there is that he could.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 21, 2014, 06:34:52 pm

You would have to be a moron like Oddo to understand his posts

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 21, 2014, 08:43:39 pm

Typical stupid republic pol.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-17/do-republicans-have-a-plan-to-deal-with-illegal-immigrants (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-17/do-republicans-have-a-plan-to-deal-with-illegal-immigrants)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 21, 2014, 08:53:52 pm

I have a very simple plan to deal with illegal immigrants.  We won't even need a fence.  Just fine any company or individual a large sum of money for hiring illegals to work.  Then enforce it. 

Problem solved. They would leave all on their own. 

I would also make it much easier to move here legally for those who have skills that are in demand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2014, 09:06:07 pm

Limiting immigration to those having skills "that are in high demand" makes as much economic sense as allowing McDonald's to determine when a new fast food restaurant will be allowed to open, or allowing a construction company to prevent any new construction companies from starting up unless there was a demand for construction beyond what they could handle.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 21, 2014, 09:06:36 pm

You ever hear of the underground economy? It might not be high paying jobs but it will be decent work

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 21, 2014, 09:10:51 pm

House panel finds no intelligence failure in Benghazi attacks


By Greg Miller November 21 at 8:53 PM
Washington Post
   


An investigation by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee has concluded that the CIA and U.S. military responded appropriately to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, dismissing allegations that the Obama administration blocked rescue attempts during the assault or sought to mislead the public afterward.

After a two-year probe that involved the review of thousands of pages of classified documents, the panel determined that the attack could not be blamed on an intelligence failure, and that CIA security operatives “ably and bravely assisted” State Department officials who were overwhelmed at a nearby but separate diplomatic compound.

The committee also found “no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support,” rejecting claims that have fed persistent conspiracy theories that the U.S. military was prevented from rescuing U.S. personnel from a night-time assault that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The House panel faulted preliminary assessments by the CIA and other agencies on what had caused the attacks and motivated militants, leading to erroneous public assertions by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the assault had erupted from a spontaneous protest. The White House effort to assemble her talking points was deemed “flawed.”

But overall, the panel’s findings were broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of events. Previous investigations have reached similar conclusions.


Wow, bet some fool from south carolina still has the backing of some fool from tennessee.....

davebart

What do the Norsk Sagas say about wasting money?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2014, 09:11:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on November 21, 2014, 08:43:39 pm

Typical stupid republic pol.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-17/do-republicans-have-a-plan-to-deal-with-illegal-immigrants (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-17/do-republicans-have-a-plan-to-deal-with-illegal-immigrants)

Two consecutive posts which make no sense, otto.  How many do you think you can go for?  Actually, putting the figure at two likely ignores at least ten of them before the one four hours ago, but I don't have the energy to count all of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 21, 2014, 09:20:03 pm

Hey boredom magnet, why don't you go back to peddling myths about the shooting in Ferguson?


Like how far from the racist cops vehicle did the body of Michael Brown lay?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 21, 2014, 09:30:29 pm

Its best hillbilly legal to actually read the material before trying to run little school girl smack.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 21, 2014, 09:35:54 pm

Jes - leave Homo alone.  His posts make perfect sense to someone who peaked out in 6th grade English in University of Wisconsin PS 132.

But there is hope.  With Walker re-elected as their Governor, they should be able to improve the state's educational system enough to prevent putting out more Oddo the Homos.  Wisconsin is finally joining the 21st century.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 22, 2014, 09:31:34 am

Ok fascist moron conservatives, which Least Educated State in America do you live in?

Percentage is from Federal Education data on Bachelor and Advanced Degrees obtained

10. Oklahoma - 23.8%    politically conservative
9.   Tennessee- 23.6%    politically conservative <--- insert hillbilly legal aid here
8.   Indiana -    23%      politically conservative
7.   Nevada -    22.5%   politically republican
6.   Alabama -  22.3%    politically conservative
4.   Louisiana - 21.1%    politically conservative
4.   Kentucky - 21.1%    politically conservative
3.   Arkansas - 20.3%    politically conservative
2.   Mississippi- 19.9%    politically conservative
1.   West Virginia - 18.5%  politically conservative

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states/ (http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states/)

BBBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHHH

keep em' uneducated and moron red.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 22, 2014, 10:30:25 am

And just what is your education level moron Oddo? 6th grade? And while we are talking about education, why is it the high schools aren't preparing students properly to obtain a college education? Its because of the teachers unions which try to control the education process and are flat out incompetent. Also on the education subject, why are the costs so high in obtaining a college education? And not every high school student has parents who can afford to send their children to college because they don't have high paying jobs.

Therefore, its just moronic to bring up college percentages and political persuasions as a cause and effect situation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 22, 2014, 10:39:23 am

What are the worst school systems in the country?


Chicago - politically democratic
Washington DC - politically democratic.
Detroit -  - politically democratic
Atlanta - politically democratic
Los Angeles - politically democratic
New Orleans - politically democratic
New York City - politically democratic
Cleveland - politically democratic
Madison  - politically stupid

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 22, 2014, 10:51:06 am

Quote from: davep on November 21, 2014, 09:35:54 pm

Jes - leave Homo alone.  His posts make perfect sense to someone who peaked out in 6th grade English in University of Wisconsin PS 132.

Actually, davep, I have been teaching 6th grade English for a while now, and I have not seen anyone as incoherent as otto is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 22, 2014, 11:50:01 am

And actually 6th graders have been so poorly taught up until the 6th grade

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 22, 2014, 12:47:17 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 22, 2014, 10:51:06 am

Actually, davep, I have been teaching 6th grade English for a while now, and I have not seen anyone as incoherent as otto is.

You are not teaching 6th grade in the University of Wisconsin PS 132 system.  Their standards are much lower.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 22, 2014, 01:15:44 pm

Quote from: davep on November 22, 2014, 12:47:17 pm

You are not teaching 6th grade in the University of Wisconsin PS 132 system.  Their standards are much lower.

Standards?  Aren't "standards" all a part of the racist, sexist, oligarchical hierarchy an enlightened system like the University of Wisconsin PS 132 would have discarded in order to free its students from The Man?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 22, 2014, 03:14:52 pm

Yet they want 15/hr for jobs based on the inability to speak and write.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 22, 2014, 03:21:02 pm

That is just for the teachers in the Wisconsin teacher's union.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 22, 2014, 03:41:55 pm

Is anyone else thinking about how awful it would be to have Jes as your 6th grade English teacher?

Sorry Jes not trying to start **** just an honest observation. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 22, 2014, 04:28:58 pm

Quote from: Pekin on November 22, 2014, 03:41:55 pm

Is anyone else thinking about how awful it would be to have Jes as your 6th grade English teacher?

Sorry Jes not trying to start **** just an honest observation. 

No problem, Pekin, even though your comment is neither honest, nor an observation, and shows you should have paid more attention to your 6th grade English teacher.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 22, 2014, 04:35:47 pm

 FREE TICKETS for the BILLS-NYJ game in DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETROIT on Monday!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 22, 2014, 04:57:31 pm

Jes, I have observed your behavior here for quite some time now.  I think I am pretty safe in assuming the kids in your class absolutely hate you.  Well unless you act nothing like you do here.  Which I find highly unlikely.

However you are probably a pretty good teacher.  I would guess you are very strict on discipline and correct every single shortcoming.  You make sure they dot every "I" and cross every "T".  No feelings spared, no quarter given.  None of this nonsense where you build self-esteem in the kids by allowing them to misspell words.   

My 6th grade English teacher was Ms. Stewart.  She was fresh out of college and hot.  She used to sit on her desk in her jean skirt.   You could almost see everything (well in my adolescent mind anyway).  So I paid a whole lot of attention to my 6th grade teacher.

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 22, 2014, 05:02:30 pm

Quote from: Pekin on November 22, 2014, 04:57:31 pm

So I paid a whole lot of attention to my 6th grade teacher.

I have no doubt you paid close attention to what you could see up her skirt, but your last post indicated you might not have paid much attention to what she taught.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 22, 2014, 06:03:47 pm

Ruh-roh....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/30k-missing-irs-emails-recovered/article/2556522

Up to 30,000 missing emails sent by former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner have been recovered by the IRS inspector general, five months after they were deemed lost forever.

The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) informed congressional staffers from several committees on Friday that the emails were found among hundreds of “disaster recovery tapes” that were used to back up the IRS email system.

“They just said it took them several weeks and some forensic effort to get these emails off these tapes,” a congressional aide told the Washington Examiner.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 22, 2014, 06:22:59 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 22, 2014, 06:03:47 pm

Ruh-roh....

 Scooby Doo where are you ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 22, 2014, 08:12:49 pm

I wasn't an adolescent in 6th grade.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 22, 2014, 08:23:42 pm

Neither was I.  At least in the first year.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 22, 2014, 08:57:49 pm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adolescent
1ad·o·les·cent
noun \-sənt\
: a young person who is developing into an adult : a young person who is going through adolescence


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adolescent
adolescent
[ad-l-es-uh nt]
adjective  1.
growing to manhood or womanhood; youthful.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adolescent
ad·o·les·cent  (dl-snt)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or undergoing adolescence. See Synonyms at young.
2. Characteristic of adolescence; immature: an adolescent sense of humor.
n.
A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin adolscns, adolscent-, present participle of adolscere, to grow up : ad-, ad- + alscere, to grow, inchoative of alere, to nourish; see al-2 in Indo-European roots.]
Word History: The adolescent grows up to become the adult. The words adolescent and adult ultimately come from forms of the same Latin word, adolscere, meaning "to grow up." The present participle of adolscere, adolscns, from which adolescent derives, means "growing up," while the past participle adultus, the source of adult, means "grown up." Appropriately enough, adolescent, first recorded in English in a work written perhaps in 1440, seems to have come into the language before adult, first recorded in a work published in 1531.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
adolescent (ˌædəˈlɛsənt)
adj
1. of or relating to adolescence
2. behaving in an immature way; puerile
n
3. an adolescent person

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 22, 2014, 08:12:49 pm

I wasn't an adolescent in 6th grade.

If you were not an adolescent in 6th grade, what were you?  Had you fully matured and reached adulthood at that time?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 22, 2014, 09:14:54 pm

You didn't list all the possibilities.

"A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager."

Most people in the sixth grade are not teen agers, and probably most of them have not undergone puberty.  I'm surprised you missed that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 22, 2014, 10:05:10 pm

Ditto Davep. Exactamundo!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 22, 2014, 10:07:20 pm

Tsk, tsk Jes. Put your dunce cap on and go sit in the corner right now

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 22, 2014, 10:09:35 pm

OTOH probably all the kids in Oddo's 6th grade class were all 15 0r 16. It figures

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 22, 2014, 10:29:29 pm

 It's all about nutzy and crunchy ! C'mon along with us America as we go on a cross country trip to find the best treat spots in America !


1. The Morman Church, Salt Lake City Utah, vanilla AND French vanilla !


2. The Hells Angels bar in Oakland Ca., you still have teeth left what are you bitching about?


3. The Democratic National HQ ... currently on move ... ALL flavors all the time!


4. The ORIGINAL Billy Goat Bar in Chicago! Not the copies. Cheeseboiger !


5. Lombardi's Pizza in NYC.


6.For some strange reason ... Wichita Kansas ... where White Castle and Pizza Hut were founded and another big one I forgot ... but it wasn't Tastee Freeze.


7. A & W Root Beer for that frosty mug taste! Not Sonic.


8. Elaines House of Pleasure , Tupalo Mississippi. Not to be confused with the other Elaines.


9. That place you go to with the multi screen TV's on Sunday with decent burgers and pizza,cheap beer and your friends.


10. Your house.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 22, 2014, 11:34:04 pm

Jes, Am I wrong about your students or how you teach?   

Didn't think so. 

I was an A, B student all through high school. I did have a HS English teacher ask me to stay after class to work on sentence structure (He wore a three piece suit, gaudy jewelry and used to much cologne). So maybe you have a point but I still don't **** care!

Oh and I skipped out on those private lessons because I have enough common sense to not put myself in a position to be sexually abused.  Even at the age of 14.

People understand what I am talking about and my spelling is pretty good.  If you think I am under educated you should see the other 90% of the population!   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 23, 2014, 12:14:56 am

For the rest of you in 6th grade I was interested in girls.  I was not advanced enough to have hair growing in new places but I was getting boners and the girls were fascinating.  Has it been so long ago for you guys that you forgot how it was?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 23, 2014, 12:41:10 am

I come here just to check up occasionally and see who's fighting whom and about what and instead I see Peke posting about boners when he was 12.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 23, 2014, 02:33:03 am

LOL!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2014, 06:13:24 am

Quote from: davep on November 22, 2014, 09:14:54 pm

You didn't list all the possibilities.

"A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager."

Most people in the sixth grade are not teen agers, and probably most of them have not undergone puberty.  I'm surprised you missed that.

davep, I know that dictionaries were new when you were in school, but didn't you learn that the preferred definition is the one which is listed first?

The language you quote is, indeed, listed at one of the cites I offered, but it is not only neither the first nor the second, it is offered as the MEDICAL definition:
adolescent in Medicine

adolescent ad·o·les·cent (ād'l-ěs'ənt)
adj.
Of, relating to, or undergoing adolescence. n.
A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adolescent

And while alternate and lesser definitions are certainly acceptable to explain what someone meant, they generally are not used to explain away what someone meant.  WshflThinking's first comment on this was not to offer an alternate definition of "adolescent," but was instead offered as a suggestion that Pekin had used the word wrong to say he (Pekin) was an adolescent in the 6th grade.  Unless Pekin had reached full maturity in the 6th grade, he most certainly was.  And unless WshflThinking had reached physical maturity in the 6th grade, or unless his reference was to a medical context (which it clearly was not), so was he.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2014, 06:14:54 am

Quote from: Pekin on November 22, 2014, 11:34:04 pm

Jes, Am I wrong about your students or how you teach? 

0 for 2.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 23, 2014, 06:25:54 am

Put that dunce cap on and get in that  corner, right now Jes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2014, 08:24:37 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 23, 2014, 06:25:54 am

Put that dunce cap on and get in that  corner, right now Jes.

I would never want to take an article of clothing away from you, WshflThinking.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply acknowledge that you were mistaken about the meaning of the word adolescent and to move on?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 23, 2014, 11:04:33 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 23, 2014, 06:13:24 am

davep, I know that dictionaries were new when you were in school, but didn't you learn that the preferred definition is the one which is listed first?

The language you quote is, indeed, listed at one of the cites I offered, but it is not only neither the first nor the second, it is offered as the MEDICAL definition:
adolescent in Medicine

adolescent ad·o·les·cent (ād'l-ěs'ənt)
adj.
Of, relating to, or undergoing adolescence. n.
A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adolescent

And while alternate and lesser definitions are certainly acceptable to explain what someone meant, they generally are not used to explain away what someone meant.  WshflThinking's first comment on this was not to offer an alternate definition of "adolescent," but was instead offered as a suggestion that Pekin had used the word wrong to say he (Pekin) was an adolescent in the 6th grade.  Unless Pekin had reached full maturity in the 6th grade, he most certainly was.  And unless WshflThinking had reached physical maturity in the 6th grade, or unless his reference was to a medical context (which it clearly was not), so was he.

The first one is the preferred one, but not the only one.  It is perfectly acceptable to use one of the secondary usages.  If the reader can not make out the particular meaning from the context (which it seems everyone did but you), he could ask which meaning the writer used. 

Unless, of course, he is less interested in exchanging ideas, and more interested in playing "gotcha".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on November 23, 2014, 02:09:32 pm

LOL, how many times have we seen jes make reference to the 4th or 5th listed definition of a word when defending his usage?

And no, I'm not searching for one...everyone here has either seen it, or can easily believe it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2014, 02:22:06 pm

Quote from: davep on November 23, 2014, 11:04:33 am

The first one is the preferred one, but not the only one.  It is perfectly acceptable to use one of the secondary usages.  If the reader can not make out the particular meaning from the context (which it seems everyone did but you), he could ask which meaning the writer used.

That is what you do when a word is used in the positive sense, but not when used in the negative sense.

He used it in the negative sense.  His use indicated, as I have shown, that he really did not understand what the word meant, when the only definition he seems to have understood was not just not the preferred definition, or even the second or third alternative definition, but only the medical definition.

Quote from: davep on November 23, 2014, 11:04:33 am

Unless, of course, he is less interested in exchanging ideas, and more interested in playing "gotcha".

There was no exchange of ideas involved.  He was merely playing "gotcha" by contending the word had been misused, when it had in fact been used correctly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 23, 2014, 05:14:34 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 23, 2014, 08:24:37 am

I would never want to take an article of clothing away from you, WshflThinking.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply acknowledge that you were mistaken about the meaning of the word adolescent and to move on?

Nope, not happening. If you don't straighten up its the principal's office and a paddle.  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 23, 2014, 08:25:20 pm

Mark's Market Blog
11-23-14: Ukraine, Russia and War
by Mark Lawrence
Markets stalled last week trying to break through the channel top at S&P 2040, then stalled again as they broke through and then back tested the level. Then they took off as several major central banks announced stupid initiatives to print money and thereby affect their economies somehow. We continue to be in a world-wide liquidity trap, where commercial banks have no one to whom they are willing to lend, but the central banks have only one hammer so they're going to continue to pound nails until the economy is fixed. Or, more likely imho, the hammer shatters something valuable.
 
S&P 500 May 31 2014 to November 21 2014
This week I'm driving to Texas for thanksgiving with two of my sons and my new daughter-in-law. It seems I'm the only one in the family who knows how to cook a turkey, so I was invited - no dummy, that new DIL. If I have a blog for Nov.30 it will be abbreviated. Good news: although I delayed my piece on Russia for a week, Russia is still here.

Robert Schiller, who coined the phrase "irrational exuberance" and won the Nobel prize for his work on house prices, also likes to look at stocks with a very long-range viewpoint. This week he tells us that stocks are overbought by the 2nd highest amount in history - the only comparable time was 1999-2000 at the top of the internet bubble. Are stocks in a bubble? This is a topic of great debate; I say yes. Will stocks crash? Without question - basic laws of physics, it goes up, eventually it must go down. Will they crash soon? I don't think so. Too many central banks are printing too much money, too many politicians have a stake in this big lie. The last time we got to 90% above trend line, it was 20 more months before the market crashed. I think we're good for 2015, absent wars or major terrorist attacks. Will there be set backs and corrections? Very likely, imho. I consider another 10% correction very likely in the next 12 months. I think a 15-20% correction is possible if something really stupid happens, like Obama's immigration orders lead to a showdown with republicans, who then go all in with a government shutdown or impeachment hearings. But a 50% to 80% drop? Not happening anytime soon, as I see it. In fact, given my opinion that stocks are in a bubble manufactured by the Fed, I see no problem with stocks going up another 30% to S&P 2600 from here. Japan's central bank is now buying some stocks directly; if our Fed panics in a couple years and starts doing that, then I see no problem with stocks going up to S&P 3200. And then crashing historically.



Are we in a bubble now? To my knowledge no one has a measure of "bubbleness." Currently we recognize a bubble when it pops. This leaves a couple rather interesting questions: (1) Can you identify when you're in a bubble, indicating you should take extreme caution? And (2) can you predict when a bubble will pop, allowing you to make extreme profits by short selling? I'm personally of the opinion shared by many economists that the date of a bubble popping cannot be predicted: to quote two people famous for their predictions, "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." -- John Maynard Keynes; and "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -- Matthew 24:36. As to identifying bubbles, there is a number used to typify time series called the Hurst coefficient. If the Hurst coefficient is near 1 the time series is trending, nearly a straight line with minimal interruptions, and can be predicted to some extent. If the Hurst coefficient is near zero, the time series is bouncing back and forth in a range and again can be predicted to some extent. If the Hurst coefficient is near 1/2 the time series is what mathematicians call a "random walk" or a "drunk walk" and cannot be predicted by any known techniques. It seems clear that bubbles would be typified by a Hurst coefficient which was near 1 on many time scales simultaneously - minutes, days, months, years - for a very extended time. The S&P is showing such behavior, it's been almost three years since we had a proper 10% or more correction. One of my readers is an expert on Hurst coefficients and I write this with hope he will choose to investigate this further.


Super Mario said it's imperative to get inflation on target as fast as possible, and he will "step up pressure and broaden even more the channels through which we intervene." It's not clear he has authority to do this - the Bundesbank will try to stop this as Germans hate inflation above all else. And it's not clear that even if he intervenes he can influence inflation: the Japanese and US central banks have both failed at this. In any case, the Euro immediately dropped below $1.25 on expectations of more printing. China announced a cut in interest rates. The Chinese growth rate continues to drop and their central bank wishes to get it above 7.5%. It seems unlikely to me that cheap money will do this, but it will further enrichen Chinese insiders. US markets immediately jumped up almost 1% on news of new central banks bringing monetary alcohol to the Wall Street party punch bowl. Since 2000, China has increased the holdings of their central bank by 9x and lowered interest rates to near nothing, resulting in bridges to nowhere, cities where no one lives, airports where no one lands, malls where no one shops, a real estate bubble that's breath-taking even by Japanese standards. Europe has Super Mario promising that there are no limits to what he will do to re-kindle inflation; meanwhile Europe's GDP is still stuck where it was in 2006 and Europe's CPI has risen 20% over the same period, very close to an average of 2% per year, while savers are now paying the banks to hold their money. Japan has had essentially no real growth since 1990 while their central bank has tried everything you can imagine and a few things perhaps you can't. And our beloved Fed has increased their holdings by 5x since 2008 and reduced interest rates to near zero. Here's a question for you: How is the latest round of money printing different and how is it going to change anything for any economy?

The Philly Fed manufacturing report came out and crushed expectations, rising to a level not seen since 1993. By all statistical measures, the US economy is doing great - the one bright spot among the world's large economies. Japan is falling faster than expected, Germany is flatlined, France is falling deeper into recession, China is flatlined.

Japan is in recession with a 1.6% annualized contraction in the 3rd quarter. This is in the face of their unprecedented money printing; it's not working for them. Their over-65 population rose to 25% of everyone this year and continues to go up - more and more people are retired and depend on fewer and fewer young workers.

China and "one or two" other countries are capable of mounting cyber attacks that would shut down the electric grid and other critical systems in parts of the United States. Admiral Michael Rogers, director of the NSA, said U.S. adversaries are performing electronic "reconnaissance" on a regular basis so that they can be in a position to disrupt the industrial control systems that run everything from chemical facilities to water treatment plants. "All of that leads me to believe it is only a matter of when, not if, we are going to see something dramatic. China's economic cyber espionage ... has grown exponentially in terms of volume and damage done to our nation's economic future. The Chinese intelligence services that conduct these attacks have little to fear because we have no practical deterrents to that theft. This problem is not going away until that changes."

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said recently, "If [the Iranians] get nuclear weapons, we will get nuclear weapons." Similarly, the UAE notes that their nuclear treaty with Washington which allows them Korean reactors with US technology includes a clause: "The terms and conditions accorded... shall be no less favorable in scope and effect than those which may be accorded from time to time to any other non-nuclear weapons state in the Middle East in a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement." Obama's lack of will and leadership to end Iran's nuclear plans is going to lead to a new nuclear arms race - among people who marry their 1st cousins, believe in warrior priests who live in caves for 600 years, and want Israel gone at any cost. Israel, it's been nice knowing you. Those Jewish holidays - "They attacked, we survived, let's eat!" - we might need to change those a little bit.

Putin is evil and starting a war in Ukraine, right? Well, as I see it, not exactly. Russia's history in Europe does not give them a lot of confidence that they will be left alone to live peacefully. Although the Russians have never particularly been aggressive conquerors, they have been invaded by Sweden, Poland, Turkey, France and Germany enough times that they're sick of it. Russia has no natural boundaries to the west. In the east they have frozen Siberia that hasn't been crossed for a long time and the Ural mountains. To the south are the muslim countries - the Stans - which are a mixed bag of barely friendly buffer states for Russia. They end in the uncrossable Taklamakan desert to the east and the Himalayas to the south. The Caucasus mountains protect Russia between the Caspian and Black seas. West of the Black sea they're protected by the Carpathian and Balkan mountains to the south, but to the north their borders are wide open to the North European plain.


To defend this plain Russia believes, accurately I think, that they need a lot of room to fight and retreat. For most of the last century that room has been provided by Romania, Moldova, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. If they lose those buffer states, Moscow is an easy 200 mile tank ride from anywhere on an indefensible 800+ mile front. Remember, in WWII they held the Germans at Kiev in central Ukraine with the help of the Dnieper river - pretty much the only major river between Russia and the west. In 1990 Germany reunified, producing a threat to the Russians just as the USSR was crumbling. We made good use of that chaos and signed the Czech republic, Hungary and Poland to NATO in 1999, then Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria in 2004. From the Russian perspective we had opened up invasion routes to Russia over the Carpathians, through the Baltic Sea, and encroached deeply into the North European plain.


Early this year we promised military and economic aid culminating in EU and NATO membership to Ukraine if they broke away from Russia and formed a new government; they promptly started a grass roots revolution. This was the final straw for Russia, threatening to put NATO troupes, tanks and missiles within 200 indefensible miles of Moscow. On Wednesday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, "We believe, and we've been talking about it since the very beginning of the current historical period, that the reckless, endless expansion of NATO is a mistake that undermines Europe's stability." Lavrov added that Ukraine's neutral status was key for security and Russia's national interests. Also taking Crimea away from Russia would steal their only navy ports that gave them warm water access to the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Unsurprisingly, Russia decided enough was enough and reacted quickly, militarily and decisively. Imagine how we would react if Russia stationed tanks, missiles, aircraft, men in Cuba.

Today we have a weak president in the US who is reneging on his promises to Ukraine - even Obama is not stupid enough to think he can prosecute a ground war against Russia in Ukraine - and a nationalistic president in Russia who is committed to his country's security and has the backing of a super majority of his countrymen. Putin is massing Russian jets, tanks and men on the Ukraine border making it painfully clear that there are no limits to his determination to keep Ukraine out of NATO. We have backed the Russians into a corner with an existential threat, and now with the help of the Saudis and the European banks we're doing everything we can to bankrupt them as punishment for defending their vital interests.

Frankly I'm sympathetic to Putin. I wish we had a president who expressed and supported our own interests as unequivocally as Putin does for Russia. In the long run Russia will lose and likely disintegrate. In 2000 Russia had about 150 million people; by 2050 that number will be more like 115 million with about a third of those over 55 years old. Russian men have a life expectancy which is 20 years shorter than European or US men, likely due to vodka, poor diet and their 3rd world hospitals. Russia's economy is now completely dependent on oil and gas exports which are declining resources; Russia has no other significant exports, and imports an alarming percentage of their food and manufactured goods. It's likely that in 15 to 30 years Russia will find they no longer have the resources to dominate their own territory, and their hold on Siberia and the muslim countries including Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Georgia will crumble. From the Russian strategic viewpoint this will open up invasion routes from Turkey and Iran and leave Siberia to be picked over by China and Japan - two countries that have been jealous of Siberia's resources for centuries. In Russia they are preoccupied with holding off the inevitable decline of their nation. Russians are not stupid, they see this even more graphically than I do and they are not going to allow this process to be accelerated by a weak and indecisive US president. They have overflown NATO countries and installations roughly 50 times in the last two weeks with armed fighters and bombers. They have stated that their bombers can reach the gulf of Mexico. They have practiced launching cruise missiles at the US, Sweden, Denmark, the Baltics, Poland, Turkey and Guam. I don't know how Washington interprets this, but to my eyes the message is clear: "We will go to war over Ukraine."

If I were elected president tomorrow, I would find a way to quietly withdraw from Ukraine and allow Russia their buffer state; the alternative results in a war we cannot win. Reagan bankrupted the USSR with Star Wars; now we can just be a bit patient and Russia will do the rest of the work for us with their declining birth rate, poor health, obsolete manufacturing, inefficient farming and gross overspending on the military. And this presumes that we want Russia weakened and then broken up. When I look at muslim population growth, ISIL and the emergence of a caliphate, the strong potential for a nuclear Iran, muslim designs on dominating Europe and the destruction of Israel and the US, I see Russia as a natural ally, not an enemy. We won WWII in large part by supplying Russia with food and war materials - it was the Russians who did the heavy lifting in WWII. Perhaps in the not too distant future we will again find ourselves in a position where Russia is willing and able to supply ground troupes for a war that has even more meaning for them than for us.

The Skinny Mirror is a new company in the People's Republic of California that sells mirrors that make you look skinny. They take an apparent 10 pounds or so off a typical shopper. Retailers are putting these in their dressing rooms where they increase sales by a bit over 20% and contribute to a bit over 50% of all sales.


Paranoia strikes deep department: If you think the government is spying on you, here's a program which will check your computer for you. It's written by Amnesty International. Detekt. I scanned my computer, apparently the government doesn't care enough about me to spy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 23, 2014, 08:27:44 pm

Wshful, using humor on the likes of Jes or Dave223 is futile.......might as well be talking to a log. With Jes, you'll probably have to define what 'lol' means and then you'll get a blank stare back....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 23, 2014, 09:38:25 pm

Rolf from Copenhagen, Denmark

How much do you think the chip-on-the-shoulder contributes to a player’s development and demeanor? I think it’s more of a story for the media and the fans about a guy beating the people who didn’t believe in him.

How many guys with a chip on their shoulder got cut? It’s only a story when a guy makes it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 23, 2014, 09:39:45 pm

James from Wausau, WI

My gut hasn’t stopped churning, yet. This should be a close game, like most figured.

Like most figured? Most were looking forward to the Patriots game.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 23, 2014, 09:43:32 pm

Paul from Denver, CO

I remember last year a coach changed his mind and took a penalty once we were going to go for it on fourth down. Could Mike have changed his mind once the Vikings tried to go for it on the fourth-and-5?

I think it was the Cincinnati game. There was a time out at the time, I believe. Let’s revisit this question tomorrow when I’m back at the office and can open my rulebook.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 23, 2014, 09:46:58 pm

PR you're in the wrong forum again....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 23, 2014, 09:49:38 pm

packrat your are posting football stuff in the politics topic.

I did enjoy the Mark's blog post however.  No way was Russia going to lose that naval port.  There was simply no way they would allow it to happen.
Even under Bush they would have taken it.  I doubt they would have pushed much further though.  They know Obama is weak and ineffective.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 23, 2014, 10:32:20 pm

I also like Mark's blog, but he definately has it wrong on Israel being destroyed. That's never going to happen and in fact, according to Ezekiel 38,39, Russia and Iran and a few others will be destroyed on the hills of Israel when they try to come against her. God will intervene and destroy them. Israel ain't going anywhere...mark it down.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 23, 2014, 11:02:43 pm

I believe Iran is **** themselves by going for a nuclear weapon.  It is forcing other Arab nations to ally with Israel to have a strong ally in the region against Iran.  There is going to be a nuclear race in the middle east which is not good for anyone.  Especially with all of the nut jobs over there who are fine with dying as long as they can take someone else with them. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 24, 2014, 01:03:50 am

Iran would probably be perfectly fine, some of those wackos leading them, to sacrifice themselves to destroy Israel. They're not at all shy of openly declaring their intentions of pushing Israel into the sea and destroying her.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2014, 08:47:47 am

Supply and demand....

http://discover.economist.com/?a=21611074&p=LC&cid1=disp|984851|50126&cid2=USSiteWhitelistLiberalCausesPayforSexCTOutbrain|[TRACKING]

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2014, 12:03:29 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/18/after-13-years-2-wars-and-trillions-in-military-spending-terrorist-attacks-are-rising-sharply/

The following graph is one of the most telling things you will find at the link.  Look carefully at the dates and think about what had happened shortly before each point on the graph.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/11/terrorism.png&w=1484)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on November 24, 2014, 03:18:53 pm

mmmmmmmm.... Well! THAT's odd. How could this behttp://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/robot-sub-finds-surprisingly-thick-antarctic-sea-ice/ar-BBfC446? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 24, 2014, 03:35:02 pm

 It takes MONEY to supply terrorists. Where does the MONEY come from? OIL !


 Don't buy their oil ... they have no money to give to terrorists.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2014, 05:34:47 pm

Our purchase of Middle East oil is actually less today than it was in 2001, so this is not happening as  result of buying oil.  There is something that did happen, though, right before the increase in terrorist acts increased.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 24, 2014, 05:58:37 pm

 WHO CONTROLS OIL ?


 Right now believe it or not it is Estados Unidos.


 This little known fact is driving Russia and Iran out of business.


 Since they are one trick pony's.  ;D


 We could have done this 30 years ago if we had got off our asses.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 24, 2014, 06:13:22 pm

The US wont until they open up the oil drilling and get the Keystone pipeline built. Obama has refused drilling permits on federal land. Drilling has to be on private land or on state land to bypass Obama. And why is Obama stopping oil drilling? First is environmentalists want it stopped. But most importantly he wants it stopped because it increases the cost of gasoline and hinders his green agenda/global warming agenda.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 24, 2014, 06:27:18 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 24, 2014, 06:13:22 pm

The US wont until they open up the oil drilling and get the Keystone pipeline built. Obama has refused drilling permits on federal land. Drilling has to be on private land or on state land to bypass Obama. And why is Obama stopping oil drilling? First is environmentalists want it stopped. But most importantly he wants it stopped because it increases the cost of gasoline and hinders his green agenda/global warming agenda.

 And whens the last time you've seen gasoline this cheap ?


 You're being PLAYED by International Politics. Enjoy it while you can.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on November 24, 2014, 08:08:15 pm

Apologies for the misplaced football posts.  The old brain just ran off the tracks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 24, 2014, 08:48:33 pm

 

Quote from: packrat on November 24, 2014, 08:08:15 pm

Apologies for the misplaced football posts.  The old brain just ran off the tracks.

 So yer a human ... what else is new ?


 Did I ever tell you about this one babe that wanted to nail me for child support until the blood tests came in ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 24, 2014, 09:09:41 pm

 The Ferguson story is history ... the Grand Jury gave the results.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 24, 2014, 09:37:47 pm

And whens the last time you've seen gasoline this cheap ?

Not in many a year. I think with all this oil we are finding the price will come down even more and the muscle cars will make a comeback which is what the liberals don't want.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 24, 2014, 09:56:06 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 24, 2014, 09:37:47 pm

And whens the last time you've seen gasoline this cheap ?

Not in many a year. I think with all this oil we are finding the price will come down even more and the muscle cars will make a comeback which is what the liberals don't want.

 Here ya go WSH !


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ7rAqjXr_8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ7rAqjXr_8)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 24, 2014, 10:12:53 pm

Don't count the Democrats out yet.  The Federal Government is holding hearings right now on putting the ruffled grouse on the endangered species.  The decision will be made in about 10 months.

If it is placed there, it will allow the Federal Government to regulater fracing in Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota, the area that produces more oil and natural gas than any other area.  More than Texas.  More than Alaska.

They used the spotted owl to destroy the Oregan and Washington logging industries.  North midwest oil is the next target.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 24, 2014, 10:13:42 pm

A bunch of idiots looting, burning **** and acting like fools.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 24, 2014, 10:34:36 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on November 24, 2014, 10:13:42 pm

A bunch of idiots looting, burning **** and acting like fools.

 Duck we better get in on this action before Black Friday!


 Free TV's !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 24, 2014, 10:46:27 pm

"Deep-winter sea ice in Antarctica now stands at an all-time high, as measured in the modern satellite record - and researchers are trying to work out why it has not followed the sharp decline seen in the Arctic."

There are a lot of things global warmers are trying to figure out.  But at least it is settled science.

At least that is what they learn in University of Wisconsin PS 132.  Walker has a lot of work to do to bring Wisconsin's educational system into the 21st century.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2014, 06:42:24 am

Where in the world was the National Guard in Ferguson after the Governor had "over-reacted" and declared an "unwarranted" state of emergency last night?

Way too much restraint on the part of law enforcement as buildings and patrol cars burned and thugs used the grand jury decision as an excuse for looting.  Hopefully law enforcement will very aggressively pursue criminal charges wherever they can to deal with those responsible and judges then impose maximum prison sentences.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 25, 2014, 07:35:25 am

Darn.. Did someone use the word thug?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2014, 07:45:25 am

Quote from: chifaninva on November 25, 2014, 07:35:25 am

Darn.. Did someone use the word thug?

There is nothing wrong with the word, and I don't recall anyone here ever suggesting there was.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2014, 12:08:08 pm

Reassuring to hear calls for restraint in Ferguson.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/25/michael-brown-s-mother-speaks-after-verdict.html

Michael Brown’s Stepfather Tells Crowd, ‘Burn This **** Down’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlDzWt7TPc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlDzWt7TPc)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 25, 2014, 08:58:41 pm

 Anyway that's over with so lets move on to the next one because the MEDIA needs excitement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 25, 2014, 11:25:14 pm

Shoot their butts! They're gonna hurt anyone in their way and burn innocent peoples businesses? Shoot their A's! It's disgusting! And you can probably thank Obaba for their being no National Guard there. He probably had something do to with it.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 25, 2014, 11:33:25 pm

Once a racist, always a racist.


 Let's shoot them first.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 25, 2014, 11:40:44 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on November 25, 2014, 11:33:25 pm

Once a racist, always a racist.


 Let's shoot them first.

 In a paintball war ? OK who do you want on your team from this board?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 25, 2014, 11:42:37 pm

You're a serious frickin idiot, Otts. Hey, gotta idea! How bout you build a business there with YOUR hard earned money and then watch some idiots burn it down and destroy it! Jerk.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 25, 2014, 11:43:06 pm

Deep water ice.....once again the Nirsk Sagas fail to provide context and render the post stupid.


Davebart must be soooo proud in his second of post joy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 25, 2014, 11:49:02 pm

christian racist


Better yet.....how about a few black cops shoot a few rednecks to even out the Ferguson policing problem.


You good with that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 25, 2014, 11:49:56 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on November 25, 2014, 11:43:06 pm

Deep water ice.....once again the Nirsk Sagas fail to provide context and render the post stupid.


Davebart must be soooo proud in his second of post joy.

 Once the posts get so inside to the inside you lost all of us. WTF ?


 Please essplain in detail.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 25, 2014, 11:53:51 pm

Everytime you open your mouth you prove your idiocy.....fact....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 25, 2014, 11:55:46 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on November 25, 2014, 11:49:02 pm

christian racist


Better yet.....how about a few black cops shoot a few rednecks to even out the Ferguson policing problem.

You good with that?

 I'm good with that if you think that killing people solves things.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 25, 2014, 11:57:26 pm

JJ


Which is less dense, melting glacier freshwater or ocean saltwater?

Which one would lead to ice on the surface?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on November 26, 2014, 12:04:31 am

Killing people always solves problems. Just like in Dirty Harry movies and 24.


Antiabortion folks consider it "getting closer to god"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 26, 2014, 12:16:48 am

 

Quote from: otto105 on November 25, 2014, 11:57:26 pm

JJ


Which is less dense, melting glacier freshwater or ocean saltwater?

Which one would lead to ice on the surface?

 I'm going with the freshwater for 60 added bonus points.


 NOW ... Which insert would you use to cut forged titanium ...


 CNMG 432 or CNMG 313 ?


 Did you know that Madison Wisc. is ranked the #1 area to retire at ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 26, 2014, 12:27:09 am

 Ahhh yes Otto ... Dirty Harry!


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSfkoFA7UCY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSfkoFA7UCY)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 26, 2014, 06:29:48 am

Quote from: Sportster on November 25, 2014, 11:25:14 pm

Shoot their butts! They're gonna hurt anyone in their way and burn innocent peoples businesses? Shoot their A's! It's disgusting! And you can probably thank Obaba for their being no National Guard there. He probably had something do to with it.....

How?

Or is Obama simply now to blame for anything you don't like?

Bad weather?  Obama's fault.

Breakfast cereal gets soggy?  Obama's fault.

Constipated?  Obama's fault.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 26, 2014, 07:05:21 am

Oddo, how do you think burning the whole town down helps the situation? IMHO one of the biggest problems in Ferguson is a lack of jobs. If I were in business, and I am not, but if I were and somebody came to my company from Ferguson and applied for a job, I'd throw their app in file 13. Why? Because they might decide to burn my business down. They are just unworthy of being hired, period. Nobody from Ferguson gets a job

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 26, 2014, 07:21:59 am

Nuke the mother fuckers!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on November 26, 2014, 07:22:14 am

I remember during the LA riots after the Rodney King trial how the Korean business owners protected their businesses.

After the low life's burned their own hood they went to Koreatown looking for easy pickings.

Only the Korean business owners were on the roofs of their stores with rifles which saved them from looting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 26, 2014, 07:22:55 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on November 26, 2014, 06:29:48 am

How?

Or is Obama simply now to blame for anything you don't like?

Bad weather?  Obama's fault.

Breakfast cereal gets soggy?  Obama's fault.

Constipated?  Obama's fault.

You left one out-

Jes showing up on this board.. gotta be Obama's fault!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 26, 2014, 07:51:56 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 26, 2014, 07:05:21 am

Oddo, how do you think burning the whole town down helps the situation? IMHO one of the biggest problems in Ferguson is a lack of jobs. If I were in business, and I am not, but if I were and somebody came to my company from Ferguson and applied for a job, I'd throw their app in file 13. Why? Because they might decide to burn my business down. They are just unworthy of being hired, period. Nobody from Ferguson gets a job

No question I don't dwell too long on otto's posts, but I don't recall anything he has written here which would even have begun to indicate he thinks that burning ANY of Ferguson down helps the situation.

Could you point out where he posted something to that effect?

And why is a lack of jobs in Ferguson supposed to be a big problem?  Ferguson is a relatively small residential community in a large metro area.  It is not at all unusual for such communities to have far fewer jobs than here are people in the community who want jobs.  In such situations the people work in neighboring communities.  Ferguson is so small and bordered by so many other communities that even if Ferguson were to have NO jobs, it would not make a great deal of difference.

And assuming that anyone and everyone in Ferguson is "just unworthy of being hired," or that everyone in Ferguson was involved in the burning and looting there two nights ago (which would seem to be the assumption when you write that you would trash any application from anyone there because "they might decide to burn (your) business down," would certainly seem to be nothing more than a thinly veiled excused for racism.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 26, 2014, 12:41:23 pm

Homo is certainly proud of his ignorance.

By the way, Sportster advocated shooting looters.  Why does Homo assume that looters must be black?  As usual, the liberal is the only one that is racist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 26, 2014, 12:45:02 pm

Obama is NOT responsible for constipation.  Every time I listen to him, I feel like I have to ****.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 26, 2014, 01:02:04 pm

Obama could easily make a phone call and say hold on that National Guard deployment. You that stupid to not figure that one out, ehh??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 26, 2014, 01:57:25 pm

Yeah... just like he could call anyone and ask for anything.

Obama has no control over the MO National Guard unless he calls them up for active duty in the military. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 26, 2014, 02:31:53 pm

Baloney. This is the President of the United States. He can most definitely request a stay. He is already overriding States rights, how difficult is it to conceive he can do this?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 26, 2014, 02:47:21 pm

You and I agree that he can REQUEST almost anything.

You and I disagree as to whether those he asks are likely to do as he requests.

There is no reason whatsoever to believer that Obama would have made such a request, because there would have been no reason for him to have made it.  There is even less reason to believe that the Governor of MO would have been inclined to grant such a request, simply because the president might make it.

There is, however, considerable reason to believe you made the assumption Obama did this out of personal bias toward Obama, that you posted what you initially did without realizing at the moment that Obama does not control the National Guard, and that you now stand by your absurd "he COULD have asked for it" position out of a stubborn refusal to acknowledge when you are wrong.... about like your refusal to admit that gasoline prices are not determined by oil speculators.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 26, 2014, 04:47:13 pm

Already shown oil speculators are to blame but you're too stubborn to see it, even though I've posted article after article on it. I'm sure you know better on this, too, just as you seem to think you know better on every d@%# thing on the planet.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 26, 2014, 08:47:28 pm

Sportster, can you offer ANY evidence that obama requested that the Guard be withheld?  Any at all, other than your own prejudiced views of what MIGHT have happened?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 26, 2014, 08:56:54 pm

While there is no proof Obama or anyone else in his administration asked the governor not to deploy the National Guard it does not seem out of the realm of possibility.  They have done worse and made bigger mistakes.

One thing is for sure the governor screwed up and it is his call.  If he allowed political pressure to keep him from doing his job then shame on him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 26, 2014, 09:01:07 pm

On Tuesday, Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder demanded answers as to why the National Guard was not called in to quell Ferguson riots Monday night, insinuating that orders to withhold the armed forces may have come from the Obama administration itself.

Read more: http://www.hngn.com/articles/50852/20141126/missouri-lt-gov-lack-of-national-guard-presence-due-to-obama.htm#ixzz3KEa1G5VB

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 26, 2014, 09:16:59 pm

Quote from: Pekin on November 26, 2014, 08:56:54 pm

While there is no proof Obama or anyone else in his administration asked the governor not to deploy the National Guard it does not seem out of the realm of possibility.  They have done worse and made bigger mistakes.

One thing is for sure the governor screwed up and it is his call.  If he allowed political pressure to keep him from doing his job then shame on him.

It is also not outside the realm of possibility that, in spite of the evidence, the officer intended to kill the man out of spite.  It is foolish, however, to believe it without some evidence to support it beyond mere prejudice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 26, 2014, 11:04:55 pm

Until Sporty starts looting, burning **** or shooting at people over his opinion or prejudice I am not going to get to concerned about it. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on November 26, 2014, 11:09:32 pm

As far as I know, the mother has not burned, destroyed or looted anything.  Doesn't change the fact that neither she nor Sportster are basing their views on anything other than prejudice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 26, 2014, 11:19:19 pm

I am not to concerned about the mothers views either.  Many mothers of criminals blame the police.  As long as she is not breaking the law she is free to have whatever opinion she wants.

It was the Governors call and he screwed up.  The police and National Guard should have been in place ready to defend those businesses.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 27, 2014, 01:01:47 am

Looks like the Lt. Governor thinks I might be right, huh Jessy....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 27, 2014, 06:40:46 am

Quote from: Sportster on November 27, 2014, 01:01:47 am

Looks like the Lt. Governor thinks I might be right, huh Jessy....

So the fact that there is someone else who has the same nutty opinion you do, also in the absence of any evidence, makes you feel comfortable in your conclusion?

Nowhere in that link is there anything remotely resembling even a suggestion of evidence supporting the conclusion the that Obama was responsible for the decision not to deploy National Guard troops in the heart of Ferguson Monday evening.

It isn't a matter of you SPECULATING as to what happened, but that you are asserting it, advancing a conclusion.  I have no problem at all with such speculation.  Offering it as a conclusion is another matter entirely.   

Quote from: Sportster on November 25, 2014, 11:25:14 pm

you can probably thank Obaba for their being no National Guard there. He probably had something do to with it.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 27, 2014, 06:48:49 am

Quote from: davep on November 26, 2014, 09:16:59 pm

It is also not outside the realm of possibility that, in spite of the evidence, the officer intended to kill the man out of spite.  It is foolish, however, to believe it without some evidence to support it beyond mere prejudice.

The insistence that Wilson shot Brown because Brown was black is one of the craziest aspects of this.  If Wilson were simply some rogue racist cop who decided to kill a black kid, wouldn't it have made more sense for him to have done it somewhere with fewer witnesses, where there likely would have been no one around to dispute his story?  Wouldn't he have shot Brown right at the car?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 27, 2014, 06:51:56 am

Quote from: Pekin on November 26, 2014, 11:04:55 pm

Until Sporty starts looting, burning **** or shooting at people over his opinion or prejudice I am not going to get to concerned about it.

One of the first posts I recall from Sportster was him telling about how he would like to kill those he considered responsible for his father's death, and how he tended to view young black males as thugs just like those who he considered responsible for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 27, 2014, 06:55:57 am

Quote from: Pekin on November 26, 2014, 11:19:19 pm

I am not to concerned about the mothers views either.  Many mothers of criminals blame the police.  As long as she is not breaking the law she is free to have whatever opinion she wants.

True, but her hubby certainly would appear to have been breaking the laws which prohibit inciting riot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLELgpc4IgQ

Quote from: Pekin on November 26, 2014, 11:19:19 pm

It was the Governors call and he screwed up.

MASSIVELY.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 27, 2014, 06:57:52 am

It would be poetic justice if the District Attorney were to get the same Grand Jury who looked as the Wilson case to indict the step-father for inciting to riot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 27, 2014, 07:41:24 am

It was the Governors call and he screwed up.  The police and National Guard should have been in place ready to defend those businesses.

Exactly!! The Governor didn't want it to appear as if they were trying to temper the rights of the protestors (and they didn't want to chance another death). Protesting is one thing, but when the looting and burning start, take the gloves off....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 27, 2014, 11:43:10 am

I do not recall saying I'd like to 'kill' those responsible for my dads death. Did not say that....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on November 27, 2014, 01:17:23 pm

500 people killed in Chicago this year due to gang violence and NO ONE CARES - where are the protests? WHY isn't Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, Holder, Nobama here in Chicago?  Jesse Jackson and Sharpton live off this crap - they create the violence - they want this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on November 27, 2014, 02:49:47 pm

Quote from: Sportster on November 27, 2014, 11:43:10 am

I do not recall saying I'd like to 'kill' those responsible for my dads death. Did not say that....

If it was my Dad, I would..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 10:33:13 am

This story is so far being ignored.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/28/IN-FERGUSON-WITNESS-INTIMIDATION-LYING-BY-COMMUNITY-OF-COLOR

An adult male near the scene “commented to detectives as they walked by that he witnessed the incident and the officer was ‘in the right’ and ‘did what he had to do.’ He added the statements being made by bystanders in the complex were inaccurate. The detectives momentarily stopped to speak with the male who was clearly uncomfortable speaking with detectives. The male indicated he was not making any further comments or identifying himself.”

Two more witnesses, one male and one female, “said they were afraid to speak about what they witnessed. Both said they were worried about retaliation from people who live in the area.” One “began crying and said she could not talk about it.” The male said that he saw Brown inside the vehicle. He turned away, and when he turned back, “the male began moving quickly toward the officer and he heard several more gunshots.” Both witnesses refused to provide recorded statements.

One witness told police that “she had been speaking to her neighbors about the incident, and her neighbors were getting upset at what they believed happened. Their beliefs were inconsistent with what she witnessed.”

Yet the witness told police “that although present during the incident, and seeing the entirety of what happened, he would not be speaking to police for fear of retaliation from neighborhood residents. He also stated the information being broadcast by the news outlets was not accurate information and there were ‘blatant lies from those giving accounts of what they saw.’ He said there were multiple people present when the shooting occurred and even those people, when interviewed by the media, were giving false statements.”

Still another witness told police he had “already told investigators from Saint Louis County Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he was not willing to formally discussed the incident, but he was willing to discuss his fears.” He said “threats… had been made to the residents of Canfield Green Apartment Complex. He said notes had been posted on various apartment buildings threatening people not to talk to the police, and gunshots were still being fired every night.” He said “there were at least 10 other people who were outside and saw exactly what happened. He was not willing to provide names of any of those individuals.” He said Wilson told Brown “no less than 10 times to get down” while they were both on the street. He said Brown never had hands raised.

In FBI interviews, witnesses repeated such accusations. Witness 10, whose account backed Wilson’s story, said, “I just wanted to come forward and just tell it how I seen it. Because I feel like it’s very rare that somebody’s gonna come forward and tell actually what happened.” Witness 14, who initially said Brown was shot from behind before changing his story to accord with the facts, stated:

You have to understand the mentality of some of these young guys they have nothing to do. When they can latch on the something they embellish it because they want something to do. This is something they giving the okay now we got something we can get into… The majority of them do not work. They all they do is sit around and get high all day… two people never seen these people before in my life in the whole time I have been out there and I sit out there a lot. Came up threatenin’, hey y’all better not say nothing, ah, you’ll snitching and all.

Witness 14 added that within one minute of the shooting, there were 70 or 80 people “saying things that didn’t happen,” and they “started embellishing it when the stepfather showed up.” They lied, he said, when they said the officer “ran up behind him shot him in the back.” They lied, he said, when they said he had “his hands straight up in the air.” They lied, he said, when they stated that Brown was shot while down. “They had it in they mindset of what happened,” he continued. “They are set they are looking for a reason to explode, that’s what they, ‘cause they don’t have anything to do… They got nothing else to do they running all day they’re drinking and-and getting high all day we see this all the time.”

And indeed, witness testimony showed that witnesses routinely embellished their accounts, changed them to fit autopsy results as those results broke in the media, and even lied about seeing the events at all.

After Dorian Johnson, Brown’s alleged accomplice in robbing a local convenience store, went on television and told his false story about Brown having been shot from behind and raising his hands before being killed, witnesses began shifting their own testimony to match. Multiple witnesses said they knew Johnson, and one said she had spoken with him before talking to the FBI. Two witnesses brought handwritten notes to police matching in wording and other respects.

At least 12 witnesses claimed that Brown was shot from behind, which was factually false. At least 16 witnesses said Brown’s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false. One witness said Wilson used a Taser, then a gun: false. Another said she witnessed the events, but admitted she was blocks away when the events occurred. Still another witness said there were two officers involved in the shooting, and admitted she couldn’t tell what she’d seen and what she’d read about the case. One witness admitted in testimony to changing his story to “coincide with what really happened.” Another witness said that he was friends with Brown, and that Brown was shot while on his knees. When informed that such a story contradicted all physical evidence, the man admitted that he had not seen the shooting and then asked if he could leave because he was “uncomfortable.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 10:54:09 am

Sounds like some of the same stuff you were spitting out in August when it happened. And witnesses were saying the same thing I said recently that the real problem was jobs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 11:37:30 am

WshflThinking, I am truly sorry you are not capable of distinguishing between a comment that something MIGHT have happened one way or another and that as a result people should wait for all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion as to what happened, and sworn supposed eye-witness testimony which ended up being clearly at odds with physical evidence.

But I will try to keep those limitations in mind during future discussions with you.

As to "witnesses... saying... the real problem was jobs," what in the world are you talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 01:28:13 pm

Re-read your own post you quoted, then go stick your previous post where the sun doesn't shine. Also in August you were talking about Brown with his hands up in the air and it was Wilson's fault while I questioned that at the time. Seems you flip flop all the time. I said at the time the DNA test on Wilson's gun came back with Brown's DNA on it that pretty  much proved Wilson's case. "Fear"? I said at the time that I'd fear for my life having a 400# man charging me. That proved out too.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 02:47:49 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 01:28:13 pm

Re-read your own post you quoted, then go stick your previous post where the sun doesn't shine. Also in August you were talking about Brown with his hands up in the air and it was Wilson's fault while I questioned that at the time. Seems you flip flop all the time. I said at the time the DNA test on Wilson's gun came back with Brown's DNA on it that pretty  much proved Wilson's case. "Fear"? I said at the time that I'd fear for my life having a 400# man charging me. That proved out too.

You have a very convenient memory regarding which one of us was "questioning" and which one was asserting in August, but I did not ask you anything about "Fear" in my comments above.   I asked you about the following from you: "witnesses... saying... the real problem was jobs." As I wrote in my last post, what in the world are you talking about?

And as to a "400# man," where do you get these things?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 02:55:18 pm

You now want to contend that in August (or early September) you were asking questions instead of making assertions.  Your posts from the time illustrate otherwise.  And some of those assertions would, well, seem to be rather wrong.

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2014, 10:46:39 am

I also believe there was bad blood between Wilson and Brown....  I believe Brown was well known to Ferguson police and had many dealings with them. Along with the 12 witnesses who said so I believe Brown charged Wilson and a 6'4 290 pound man is an imposing threat to have charging you, especially someone who had already broken your eye socket. I also believe that having a broken eye socket probably affected Wilson's marksmanship and may have led to the need to fire 6 shots to put Brown down.

Another repeated claim from you was that Wilson never once shot Brown from the back, something Wilson's own testimony established was wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 28, 2014, 02:58:53 pm

Wshful this is why I have stopped conversing with Jes.  I remember the posts at the time and you have it correct.

The problem is you are having a bar room conversation like a normal person while Jes is playing a game of "gotcha" with court room like rules he makes up in his own mind.  He will never admit he was on the opposite side now of what he was asserting then.

If someone used the word thug they were a racist.  Now he uses it.  Perfectly fine.

He was telling us Brown was shot in the back.  Even had diagrams and ****.  Now he is posting articles that say he was not shot in the back and the witnesses were lying.  Yet at the time we were all a bunch of racists for saying Brown was not shot in the back.

Don't waste your time engaging him and maybe he will eventually go away and troll some other board.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 02:59:38 pm

I read he was 390 and not 290

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 03:03:47 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 02:59:38 pm

I read he was 390 and not 290

So are you now contending you believe he actually weighed 390?  Do I need to refer you to the coronor's report?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 03:05:48 pm

What did it say his weight was? That would be interesting

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: method on November 28, 2014, 03:09:52 pm

How quickly can a 390 pound man possibly move?

FYI... if there is a 390 pound man that is charging you... just walking backwards might be enough to keep them away from you

at 290 its a different story.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 03:20:20 pm

Quote from: Pekin on November 28, 2014, 02:58:53 pm

Wshful this is why I have stopped conversing with Jes.  I remember the posts at the time and you have it correct.

The problem is you are having a bar room conversation like a normal person while Jes is playing a game of "gotcha" with court room like rules he makes up in his own mind.  He will never admit he was on the opposite side now of what he was asserting then.

If someone used the word thug they were a racist.  Now he uses it.  Perfectly fine.

He was telling us Brown was shot in the back.  Even had diagrams and ****.  Now he is posting articles that say he was not shot in the back and the witnesses were lying.  Yet at the time we were all a bunch of racists for saying Brown was not shot in the back.

Don't waste your time engaging him and maybe he will eventually go away and troll some other board.

So now, like a true weasel, Instead of responding directly to me, you respond entirely to my post, but while directing your comments to someone else.

Have you ever actually looked at any of the evidence or witness statements or the autopsy in the case.  The first shot DID strike Brown from the back as he was running away.  That shot almost certainly hit Brown in the arm, as I wrote at the time.

As to referring to Brown as a thug, I never wrote that the term is in any way racist.  I wrote that dismissing Brown as a thug BEFORE ACTUALLY HEARING THE EVIDENCE was an easy way to dismiss the entire incident as not being worth looking at, since, if he was a thug, it was easy to conclude he deserved whatever happened to him.  And that is exactly what was being done in the post a couple of months ago when I pointed it out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 04:03:53 pm

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/here-are-transcripts-and-audio-darren-wilsons-grand-jury-hearing

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 04:35:57 pm

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2014, 04:38:27 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 03:05:48 pm

What did it say his weight was? That would be interesting

At page 2 -- 285 pounds.  http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370608-michael-brown-private-autopsy-report.html  Or, according to the official autopsy at page 1 -- 289 pounds.  http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370591-2014-5143-autopsy-report.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 08:13:54 pm

So roughly 290 and not 390. OK. NP

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on November 28, 2014, 08:19:38 pm

From TV and pics Wilson isn't a big man. I don't know his dimensions but he doesn't carry any 250-300 lbs. After getting beat up in the squad car 290 or 390 makes no difference, I think the fear he had was legitimate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 29, 2014, 08:36:18 pm

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkS-aORoUE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkS-aORoUE)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 29, 2014, 09:36:19 pm

You're in the wrong forum, JJ. PR has age as his defense, what's yours? Sipping back on a little of Grandma's cough medicine are ya?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 29, 2014, 09:36:34 pm

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/p235x350/544960_10152616519868432_5278720298930937137_n.jpg?oh=439dfae8e3672570f38f46e5e4624673&oe=55186B3B&__gda__=1423464925_10b730186fc88965492a6e5acf3ee984)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on November 29, 2014, 09:54:48 pm

 Sporty,


 Tell me your not slammin this babe doggie style into infinity.


 (https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBnBRrzVPPXNiHT-E6X1lfyF8_vvM-Obn6t7DH0cmw6rAS8V3b)


 That's Leelee Sobieski


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on November 30, 2014, 12:07:57 pm

http://benswann.com/exclusive-interview-called-domestic-terrorists-by-the-feds-oath-keepers-help-stop-ferguson-from-burning/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on November 30, 2014, 03:55:21 pm

She married to that Kimmel guy, J?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on December 01, 2014, 02:33:19 pm

Mark's Market Blog
11-28-14: Oil continues to drop.
by Mark Lawrence
On the short Thanksgiving week stocks traded leapt up on Monday then traded sideways the rest of the week. We're nearing year end and all the hedge fund lemmings must justify their investments and return - it's likely a lot of them will have to buy into this market that never ends. Like a few talking heads on Wall Street, I'm thinking a strong dollar and weak oil prices mean we're likely to see a melt up into January with rising prices on low to moderate volume.
 
S&P 500 June 8 2014 to November 28 2014
Is the market healthy? I think no such thing. One good measure of excessive bullishness is when more and more stocks are bought on credit, 'cause, you know, money is cheap and stocks can never go down. Investor credit is at an all time high. When this ends it will end very quickly.


China's National Development and Reform Commission and the Academy of Macroeconomic Research recently released a report which says $6.8 trillion in investments from 2009 to 2013 has been "ineffective." They're talking about the empty cities, unused airports, bridges to nowhere. $6.8t is roughly half their total investment in those years, and amounts to two years of Germany's GDP. You're supposed to gain twice from capital investments: when Eisenhower had us build the US interstate system we gained immediately by putting a bunch of people to work and buying a bunch of steel and concrete; then over the years we had a much greater gain by having a much faster and cheaper form of transportation between our major cities. China is not getting that secondary gain from their unused construction.

Australia's economy is heavily based on mining exports to China, so many think Australia gives better insight into China than official Chinese (cooked) numbers do. The Aussie dollar just tanked to a four year low, just under US$0.85. Declining iron, copper and gold exports are a major part of what's driving the Aussie dollar down.

After two months of protests in the streets, Hong Kong protesters continue to refuse to disperse. Protesters want free elections, not to vote between candidates chosen by Beijing. However, while the protests started with over 100,000 participating, they're down to a few hundred now.

Switzerland voted today on several points about their central bank and gold and on immigration. The measures all failed about 78% to 22%. Taken together the proposed gold laws would constitute a Switzerland gold put: if the price of gold fell, the percentage of Swiss central bank gold assets would falls and Switzerland would have to buy gold. And they're never allowed to sell. Gold promptly dropped almost 5% to under $1145. Today 1/3 of the residents of Switzerland are not Swiss nationals; the immigration law would have limited that. As a result of immigration Switzerland is concreting over their limited agricultural land at the rate of one square yard per second. I would have voted yes for that one but it failed too. People against the anti-immigration measure said limiting immigration would also limit economic growth. When did economic growth become the single most important thing in our lives? It seems all over the world us white europeans are uninterested in defending our borders.

OPEC met for Thanksgiving and voted to continue at current production levels. Oil promptly dropped below $65. The ruble also promptly dropped more, increasing pressure on Russia. Time to see the USA in a gas guzzling Chevrolet SUV. This is good for drivers everywhere, good for the US economy as we all have more cash in our pockets, bad for Frackers, bad for Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran. Russia said they're prepared for oil to fall to $60; meanwhile the ruble's value has cut in half, doing even worse than the Argentine peso. And Canadian billionaire Murray Edwards, chairman of Canadian Natural Resource, said, "Prices could spike down to $30, $40. It got down to $35 in 2008, for a very short period of time."


 
Cadillac Escalade - the upscale Chevy Suburban, seats 8 in sybaritic comfort, about $90,000, about 16 mpg.
Embattled Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro vowed that he would not rest until oil prices were back to "where they should be" at about $100 a barrel, reports Venezuelan paper, El Universal. Thanks to Maduro's brain-damaged socialist programs, Venezuela has raging inflation and a profound shortage of food and consumer goods. I think he won't be getting a lot of rest anytime soon. He's wildly unpopular but has a death grip on politics and the media in his country, meaning it looks like nothing short of violent revolution will change the politics in Venezuela. Meanwhile, what can you do? Buy your gas at Valero stations, which sell Venezuelan gasoline in the US.


Mexican president Enrique Nieto is incensed by the recent abduction and massacre of 43 student teachers. The government says local police handed over the students to a drug gang, which apparently murdered them and then incinerated their bodies. In a speech to an assembly of political leaders, Pena Nieto said: "Mexico cannot continue like this." Less than 2% of crimes in Mexico result in a conviction. He's proposing constitutional changes to get rid of local police organizations and replace them with state-wide forces to attack organized drug gangs. I'm so pleased we're letting the dregs of this society into the US and turning them into voters.

Who knows 3rd world economies better than anyone? John Deere sells everywhere. They just released 3rd quarter results, which were good, but issued a warning for 2015. They say they expect Europe and China growth to continue to decline, and Brazil to lose 15% of their agricultural output.

Speaking at the University of Helsinki, Super Mario Draghi warned, "Lack of structural reforms raises the specter of permanent economic divergence between [EU] members, and insofar as this threatens the essential cohesion of the Union, this has potentially damaging consequences for all." Draghi is worried that weaker members might again start thinking publicly of quitting the Euro, producing yet another round of crisis. Greece, Spain and Italy continue to suffer dramatically, while France and Germany continue to worry only about themselves and block all attempts to transfer wealth to the weaker economies. Meanwhile Europe continues to drift towards deflation and recession.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 02, 2014, 11:40:00 am

http://news.yahoo.com/why-charles-barkley-supports-ferguson-grand-jury-decision-163736319.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 03, 2014, 01:59:04 pm

Look out...here we go again.Will there be riots? Is Rev Al on his way?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nyc-grand-jury-to-return-no-indictment-in-police-choke-hold-case-local-media/ar-BBgio9c

NEW YORK, Dec 3 (Reuters) - A New York City grand jury on Wednesday returned no indictment against a white police officer who used a choke hold on Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, while arresting him for illegally selling cigarettes, local media reported.

They said the Staten Island panel decided against criminal charges for Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on December 03, 2014, 04:34:44 pm

No Pantalones?

I need to switch careers - these guys can do no wrong

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 03, 2014, 07:05:33 pm

The hell of it is, the guy was selling untaxed cigs.. Big price to pay..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 03, 2014, 07:15:14 pm

He also refused to be cuffed.  Resisting arrest usually leads to bad things no matter your skin color.  Him being a big guy probably made it worse since the cops are more fearful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 03, 2014, 08:10:41 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/03/gop-lawmakers-benghazi-survivors-fume-over-house-report/?intcmp=HPBucket

Sadly this does not surprise me.  We all knew there was more to the story.  Every senator D or R that helped hide this should be tried for treason imo.  Never happen but it should.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 03, 2014, 11:32:07 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on December 03, 2014, 07:15:14 pm

He also refused to be cuffed.  Resisting arrest usually leads to bad things no matter your skin color.  Him being a big guy probably made it worse since the cops are more fearful.

 Duck, The dudes DEAD for selling cigarettes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 04, 2014, 06:56:06 am

He was selling cheap cigarettes he got that didn't have the NY state taxes included which is illegal and he knew it. He knew he was breaking the law. He was a street peddler. He resisted arrest and it took like 5 cops to bring him down he was that huge.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 04, 2014, 07:21:41 am

He knew he was breaking the law

It's breaking the law when you drive one mile over the speed limit. My only comment is, he paid a helluva price for selling cigs. It's an unfortunate incident. I can assure you, if the cop had to do it over, he would've approached things differently. Not because of the scrutiny, he killed a man over nothing..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 04, 2014, 08:03:53 am

I don't disagree with what you are saying that it was a heck of a price to pay. Its unfortunate, but if you saw the video, what other choices did the police have? The man was huge and resisted their efforts to cuff him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 04, 2014, 08:07:34 am

Quote from: chifaninva on December 04, 2014, 07:21:41 am

He knew he was breaking the law

It's breaking the law when you drive one mile over the speed limit. My only comment is, he paid a helluva price for selling cigs. It's an unfortunate incident. I can assure you, if the cop had to do it over, he would've approached things differently. Not because of the scrutiny, he killed a man over nothing..

No  doubt he was not committing a major crime but to say he died because he was selling cigarettes is like saying Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob. Selling the cigs may have been what started but the action that killed him was his refusal to cooperate when the cops tried to take him into custody. The cops may have been overzealous but they can't just overlook everything and I understand that this guy had been arrested 31 times previously and was known to the cops.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 04, 2014, 10:25:16 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on December 03, 2014, 11:32:07 pm

 

 Duck, The dudes DEAD for selling cigarettes.

Don't be silly.  The dude's dead for resisting arrest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on December 04, 2014, 10:41:24 am

And the cops didn't even get a slap on the wrist?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 04, 2014, 11:05:59 am

Well civil rights violations are still pending. I think charges are still forthcoming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 04, 2014, 11:08:25 am

I think if he has been arrested 31 times before then there ought to be a lot of other charges pending, just not murder.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 04, 2014, 05:01:04 pm

More global warming denial

https://w3.newsmax.com/LP/Finance/CTI/Dark-Winter?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1598050_12042014&s=al&dkt_nbr=zb93nuxo

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 04, 2014, 06:14:31 pm

Quote from: Pekin on December 03, 2014, 07:15:14 pm

He also refused to be cuffed.  Resisting arrest usually leads to bad things

Have you actually watched the video of it?

There are TWO videos of it.  Here they are.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/04/i-cant-breathe-eric-garner-chokehold-death-video

http://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/eric-garner-the-other-video-367323203998

If they had charged him with resisting, they likely could not have made out their case, and if a judge had allowed it to go to a jury, a jury almost certainly would have dismissed it.

There also was simply no reason to have arrested him.  They could have, and should have, simply issued a citation for him to appear in court on the charge, which is what they do for pot possession in NYC.  In fact, I suspect that under NY law they probably could NOT have legally arrested him for the offense, unless one of the officers had personally witnessed him committing the offense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 04, 2014, 06:15:40 pm

Quote from: Pekin on December 03, 2014, 08:10:41 pm

Every senator D or R that helped hide this should be tried for treason imo.  Never happen but it should.

Treason is the only criminal offense under U.S. law which is specifically defined by the U.S. Constitution.

This would not meet the definition.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 04, 2014, 06:19:47 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 04, 2014, 08:03:53 am

I don't disagree with what you are saying that it was a heck of a price to pay. Its unfortunate, but if you saw the video, what other choices did the police have? The man was huge and resisted their efforts to cuff him.

Issuing a citation, which is what they should have done.  As I have commented, under NY law, the entire arrest was likely illegal if one of the officers did not personally witness him committing the misdemeanor offense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 04, 2014, 07:09:47 pm

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/04/eric-garners-final-words

Eric Garner's final words may be the ultimate political litmus test:

Every time you see me, you want to mess with me. I'm tired of it. It stops today. Why would you...? Everyone standing here will tell you I didn't do nothing. I did not sell nothing. Because every time you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me (garbled) Selling cigarettes. I'm minding my business, officer, I'm minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time, please just leave me alone. please please, don't touch me. Do not touch me.    I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe.

That's the statement of a man who was being choked figuratively long before he was choked literally. He is asserting his dignity, and then he's being killed for it. Commentators have seen a host of social problems in Garner's death: the impunity of abusive cops, the literally lethal consequences of criminalizing so much nonviolent behavior, the ways the effects of both that impunity and that criminalization fall more heavily on blacks than on whites. And they're right on all those counts. But underlying all that is something more primal and universal. Eric Garner died because he decided to demand what should be the first right of any human being in a decent society: the right to peacefully live your life without being molested.

Or that's how it seems to me, and to vast swaths of Americans across the ideological spectrum. But there are other people out there, crawling through hundreds of comment threads, Facebook debates, and Twitter wars, all asking variations of the same question: Why didn't he just submit?

Some of those people have newspaper columns. Here's  Bob McManus in The New York Post:

Eric Garner and Michael Brown had much in common, not the least of which was this: On the last day of their lives, they made bad decisions. Epically bad decisions.

 Each broke the law—petty offenses, to be sure, but sufficient to attract the attention of the police.

 And then—tragically, stupidly, fatally, inexplicably—each fought the law.

The Post ran that under the headline "Blame only the man who tragically decided to resist." And part of that is true: He did decide to resist. It's right there in his final words. Every time you see me, you want to mess with me. I'm tired of it. It stops today.

There lies the litmus test. There are people who think Eric Garner's resistance means that he's to blame for how he died. And then there are those of us who think that just might be the most horrifying possible lesson anyone could draw from this terrible story.

Eric Garner, 1970-2014

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 04, 2014, 08:43:39 pm

The truth is the liberal mayor wanted the cops to crack down on black market cigarette sales.  The cops just followed orders.  Now the guy who made the orders is throwing them under the bus.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 05, 2014, 12:26:58 am

Quote from: Pekin on December 04, 2014, 08:43:39 pm

The truth is the liberal mayor wanted the cops to crack down on black market cigarette sales.  The cops just followed orders.  Now the guy who made the orders is throwing them under the bus.

Garner had been arrested many, many times before, including several times for the same offense police intended to charge him with here.  Are you trying to suggest the mayor elected in Novemeber of last year was responsible for all of those arrests, including the dozens before he became mayor?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 05, 2014, 12:36:35 am

 If you have 4 cops busting a guy for selling individual cigarettes out of a pack of cigarettes ...


 then you have 3 cops too many on the city payroll.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 05, 2014, 02:49:20 am

 And this one you keep asking yourself in the great cosmic scheme of things ...


 who made us ... and why ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 05, 2014, 12:47:24 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/rolling-stone-uva-****-story-retraction-180722194.html

A lot of people here took a lot of heat over this, now it may not be true? Who the **** reads Rolling Stone anyway? My daughter just graduated from UVA, she had people asking her everyday about this. So much so, she started getting belligerent. She's proud of her university, and never had a seconds worth of trouble.

More so, what's something like this do for women who actually have been assaulted?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on December 05, 2014, 01:55:06 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on December 05, 2014, 12:47:24 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/rolling-stone-uva-****-story-retraction-180722194.html

A lot of people here took a lot of heat over this, now it may not be true? Who the **** reads Rolling Stone anyway? My daughter just graduated from UVA, she had people asking her everyday about this. So much so, she started getting belligerent. She's proud of her university, and never had a seconds worth of trouble.

More so, what's something like this do for women who actually have been assaulted?

UVa is a great school. Your daughter must be adopted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 05, 2014, 01:58:56 pm

LOL!! Fucker!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 06, 2014, 07:24:10 am

 Gentlemen,


 Let us pause and reflect on the brevity of a quiet moment ...


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4x6nZlefc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4x6nZlefc)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 07, 2014, 09:19:50 am

Mike Brown's step-father is now saying, "Oh, ****."

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/12/06/New-Video-Mike-Brown-s-Step-Dad-Said-I-m-Going-To-Start-A-Riot-Prior-To-Burn-This-B-tch-Down-Rant

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/12/05/explosive-new-video-mike-brown-step-dad-im-going-to-start-a-riot-minutes-before-he-climbs-car-and-proclaims-burn-this-****-down/

”Brown’s family attorneys received a call from McCulloch shortly before the announcement that there would be no charges against the officer. Crump took the call and delivered the news to Brown’s family in an area hotel”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWbYTVK_RXo

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on December 07, 2014, 10:06:04 pm

Mark's Market Blog
12-7-14: A day that shall live in infamy?
by Mark Lawrence
Stocks got a bit overbought and had a little mini-correction on Monday, but recovered quickly and made a couple new all-time highs later in the week. Party on, Dudes! We had a bit of trouble pushing through the S&P 2040 level a week ago; now it seems we're having the same problem pushing through the 2080 level. The next problem area is in the 2100-2150 area, we can expect to get stuck in there for several days. I've been saying 2150 is my next expectation; currently I think there's a very decent chance we'll hit that before the end of the year.
 
S&P 500 June 15 2014 to December 5 2014
How's the market doing? Lotsa people on Wall Street are nervous about an upcoming crash. I'm not - there's simply too much money floating around and there's no triggering event like war or recession or something else big and newsey. To the contrary, the November jobs report was excellent with 321,000 new jobs added - 50 straight months of adding jobs, and the number seems to be accelerating. It's very normal for everyone to be nervous - "Bull markets climb a wall of worry." When they stop worrying, that's when to get nervous. Anyway, stock valuations as a percentage of GDP, Warren Buffet's favorite measure to see if stocks are cheap or expensive, is nearing an all time high. Crash confidence, which is a trailing indicator meaning everyone thinks there will be a crash right after one starts, is dropping, not rising. We're due for a Christmas stock price run-up, for an end-of-year run-up, and for a presidential 3rd year run up. Basically I think it all looks more or less like smooth sailing right now. Putin can change that overnight, but Russians are never in a big hurry to attack in the winter. The Fed could change it too, but they're also in no hurry to turn off the lights and shut the party down. Noriel Rubini aka Dr.Doom called this bubble back in February of 2013. He says it won't pop until 2016.



What is Amazon doing to the retail world? Amazon has huge automated warehouses all over the world now. Products are on shelve units in no visible arrangement - computers keep track of what products are on what shelves, so razors can be next to comic books next to vitamins. When you order something one of Amazon's 15,000 robots drives out, picks up a shelf unit with your product and brings it to a boxing table for a human. When the human is done the robot brings the shelf back to an empty slot as directed by the warehouse computer, likely a different slot than it came from originally. People pretty much never walk down the isles. As other companies work to catch up they're having problems matching this efficiency. Kohls says its online profitability is half that in its stores; Target says its margins will shrink as online sales grow. Walmart says it will make no money on online sales through 2016 as they build technology and infrastructure to match Amazon. And smaller companies who can't match the technology and warehouse investment? Forget it, they're going to have to shrink into a niche or go the way of the dinosaurs. Perhaps on-line sales will do what junk mail couldn't: save the post office from their exorbitant retirement costs.


Oil continues to hover in the mid-60s. The gas station OnCue in Oklahoma City became the first gas station in the US to drop the price of regular below $2 since 2010. Which promptly lit off a gas war. Remember those? It's yesterday once more. . .

Best Buy, struggling to survive in the US due to internet pricing and sales of electronics, is quitting China. They had 184 stores in China, but they're all sold now.

Newspapers are dead - no one under about 35 even knows how to hold one. Broadcast TV may be next on the block. TV advertising revenues fell 9% this year. Digital advertising grew 11% in the same period.

Manufacturing is returning to the US. As Chinese labor prices continue to rise, along side existing chinese quality problems and the cost of shipping across the ocean, many companies are finding it more cost effective to use american labor. For example, Mexican drug cartels are now illegally bringing US marijuana into Mexico, where local growers cannot match US potency and quality.

The Chinese stock market is looking so much like a bubble these days that even the Chinese government has issued a warning to "fear the market."


It's the month of the 120s. The Euro is at about $1.25 and headed down; many forecast $1.20 by Christmas and then $1.10 a bit after that. The Euro is also at Swiss Franc 1.20 and headed down, even though the head of the Swiss central bank is committed to using "unlimited" resources to prevent this. We may soon learn what "unlimited" means - when supporting the Swiss Franc means buying €250 billion, will they write the check? And finally the Japanese yen is at 120 to the dollar and on the way down. This will likely pause for a couple weeks due to the snap elections on December 14th, but after that we're most likely on our way to ¥140. This is going to cause no small amount of consternation in China and Korea. We're having a bit of a pause in Ukraine hostilities due to winter, so it appears the currency wars will heat up to take its place. Nouriel Roubini, professor at New York University, said, "Domestic demand is weak in advanced economies, and the only way to grow the economy is to weaken currency in order to boost net exports." Because trade balance is a zero sum game countries have to compete for a larger share of the market by continuing to lower their currencies. Roubini predicts that Japan's increase in QE will lead to a full-out currency war, "From Korea to Malaysia to Thailand. . . even the Central Bank of China has recently cut rates to avoid the strengthening of its currency." The contagion of lowering currency value will hit Europe next, says Roubini. "The first to be hurt by a weak yen [will be] Germany and the Eurozone so the ECB will have to do quantitative easing. The Swiss National Bank, the Norwegians and the Central Europeans" will have to follow.

There's a plant native to Indonesia, "gendarussa." The leaves look a bit like marijuana. When you make pills from the leaves, they form a male birth control pill that's 99% effective. The pill weakens enzymes in the sperm that make them wigglers, so unlike women's birth control pills it doesn't mess with men's hormones at all. It can take up to 30 days for the pill's effects to completely wear off. I'm big on this, as currently women have 100% control of everything regarding birth - they decide if they're getting pregnant, if they're getting an abortion, and implicitly if the male is on the hook for 18 years of support payments. Now we get a choice. Of course it will have to go through US clinical trials before it's released in the US, which take ten years and cost well north of a billion dollars. Not to worry, it will likely be available soon on EBay from a Thailand supplier as an anti-biotic for your fish tank or something like that. I'd like to see this put into the water supplies of the fastest growing populations in Africa and India.

Europe's PMIs just came out and economic growth continues to be stalled, perhaps .1% in the 4th quarter. France is already in recession with a PMI of 48 and unemployment rising to record levels. S&P just cut Italy's bonds to one notch above junk after 13 straight quarters of negative growth. Due in part to the falling price of oil, markets are now pricing in deflation for Europe in 2015. This will almost certainly lead to more QE next year, 'cause, you know, if you already have negative interest rates and that's not doing it, then it's definitely time to print yet more money. You have to give the central bankers credit for having the courage of their convictions - their stuff hasn't worked for years, but that doesn't even slow them down. Most European countries want to engage in a new round of deficit spending, which is against EU rules that say your budget deficit cannot exceed 3%. Germany is adamant that other countries must play by the agreed-upon rules and more deficits will not be tolerated, making Germany the unpopular father at this proposed teen-age girl credit card spending spree. Below is the new European Central Bank building in Frankfurt Germany, appropriately placed immediately behind the Sudfass whorehouse (partially dismantled for expansion work - those bankers like their hobbies).




Russia, of course, is crashing into recession as oil profits evaporate, their currency hits record lows, employment drops and import prices skyrocket. Current credit default swaps on Russian bonds are pricing in a 23% chance of a Russian default. I don't understand why we want to harm Russia - I can only imagine it's become a personal thing with Obama.

Back in April, Japan raised their national sales tax. They estimated this would cost them .5% growth rate. Now the numbers are in and it seems it cost them 1.9%, putting them into two consecutive quarters of contraction, the normal definition of a recession. They had had plans to raise the national sales tax again soon, but now that looks to be delayed. Higher taxes for the populace, free money for the big corporations: it's the latest big thing. And it's not working anywhere.

Venezuela's bond prices have dropped, reflecting that the markets now anticipate an 84% change of default.

And the rest of Latin American seems to be slipping into recession. Argentina and Venezuela will contract, Brazil will have near zero growth. It's looking more and more like the US will be the only functioning economy in 2015.

Haven't heard much about ISIL lately, have you? That's 'cause our highly liberal media isn't interested in telling you that Obama's grand strategy of air attacks and no boots on the ground isn't working. ISIL hasn't lost one square yard of territory. Personally, I don't care about ISIL - let the Saudis and Iranians deal with their own mess. But I don't like the US making big claims then looking impotent. The next president is going to have a steep hill to climb to restore US credibility. Race relations in the US are at levels not seen since the 60s with on-going riots in several cities including New York; Putin says we're entering a new cold war with the US trying to break Russia up like Yugoslavia; Arabia is in flames; Asia is tip-toeing around several potential wars, both currency and shooting. And Obama, the one chosen to bring us all together, has presided over all this. I'd thought Ford and Carter were wasted presidencies - I'd had no idea how low we could sink.

Mostafa Ahmed Awwad was a civilian engineer in the Nuclear Engineering and Planning Department at the Navy's shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia. The 34-year-old Awwad worked at the department since February 2014. One night in September, an Arabic-speaker called Awwad and set up a meeting the next day, where the caller explained that he was an Egyptian intelligence agent. According to a Justice Department press release Awwad was eager to cooperate and claimed it was his intention to utilize his position of trust with the US Navy to obtain military technology for use by the Egyptian government, including but not limited to, the designs of the USS Gerald R. Ford nuclear aircraft carrier." Awwad allegedly set up dead-drops and a system of communication with the person he thought was an Egyptian spy. Awwad provided his handler with "four computer-aided drawings of a US nuclear aircraft carrier downloaded from the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Information system." He allegedly provided photos of blueprints for the vessel, and even explained the best places to strike the carrier in order to sink it. Awwad allegedly brought a handgun to one of his meetings with his contact as well. Since his contact was actually with the FBI, the sting will likely land Awwad a 20-year prison sentence. Awwad was born in Saudi Arabia. 16 of the 19 9-11 terrorists were Saudi. And our president bowed to their king.


Sears is closing an extra 100 stores this year, on top of the previously planned 135. They've lost $6 billion in the last three years. The dominant retailer of most of my life and creator of the all-important Sears Christmas Catalog probably has about two years left.

Sciencey stuff: Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever they call it these days, is in serious trouble. Of course this doesn't stop the True Believers from screeching about "climate deniers" and talking about how all scientists agree. None of the people I've seen screeching loudest have any degree in science. Anyway, the UN panel on turning off the 1st world economy climate change is meeting right now, and they have a new presentation showing the average of all the climate models, and then showing there's a simple linear relationship between CO2 and global temperature. One minor problem: have a look at their graph below, it shows a .6c global temperature rise between 2000 and 2014. In fact there's been no rise at all. Not one single climate model can account for the 15+ year pause in warming that we've experienced, and that's even after the fact. No model came even close to predicting it. So now we have inconvenient data; no problem, we just ignore the data and make multi-trillion dollar policy decisions based on the average of lots of defunct computer models. I see this as more proof of the creative God that liberals deny: left to myself, I would never have dreamt up liberals and their complex religion about evolution, global warming, race relations, free immigration and the non-heritability of intelligence. But the God that created flies, mosquitos, rats and fleas saw fit to create liberals too.



Major General Allen Batschelet of US Army Recruiting Command said that the Army is facing significant challenges in recruiting. Only three in ten Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 meet the Army's standards for service due to obesity, moral disqualifications, and an erosion in academic qualification. Reflected in the problem of education, recruits have routinely scored worse on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test. By 2020, according to the general, "that eligibility number could be down to two in ten." The young Dream immigrants who are supposed to restore economic growth in this country mostly aren't even eligible to serve in the Army.


Some have noticed I'm getting more aggressive in my conservative opinions. Sorry. In the last few months many of the news outlets I follow have become much more screechingly liberal, with daily releases about income inequality; illegals in Chicago who work part time at McDonald's and can't afford clothes for their fatherless children; stories about how soon North Carolina's outer banks will be completely submerged and we're not doing anything about it; and reasons why Obama and Pelosi and ObamaCare were right all along and the voters are apparently too stupid to see it. I'm having a reaction to this. After six years of watching our country produce profits only for the top .001%, of becoming an international joke with a foreign policy that can only be described as mindless reactivity, of inventing a system of nearly-free health insurance for the poor that requires huge advertising budgets and still isn't working because the poor learned this year about deductibles and copayments, the nation turned hard right. I can't imagine how this surprised anyone. And I'm rapidly tiring of being told I'm stupid 'cause I don't believe in global warming or trickle-down trillion dollar Wall Street finance or more free handouts for people who can't reliably feed or house themselves yet are still encouraged to have five kids - which kids are supposed to be our nation's future.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 08, 2014, 12:32:33 am

Amen and amen! When a guy's right, he's right....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 08, 2014, 09:58:26 am

Do you agree?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Greg-Abbott-lawsuit-immigration-constitution/2014/12/07/id/611586/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1598442_12082014&s=al&dkt_nbr=7jpbywdv

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on December 08, 2014, 01:51:54 pm

ObamaCare wait for the mess.....it's coming. People making $22,000 a year with $5,000 deductables - that 's very affordable! People who will get taxed this year because they do not wan to pay for insurance.

ObamaCare is just a tax. That's it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on December 08, 2014, 01:59:48 pm

Obama a failure? Yes..........

Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

(1) First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

(2) First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

(3) First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

(4) First President to violate the War Powers Act.

(5) First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

(6) First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

(7) First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

(8) First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

(9) First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

(10) First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

(11) First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

(12) First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

(13) First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.

(14) First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

(15) First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

(16) First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

(17) First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

(18) First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

(19) First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

(20) First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

(21) First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

(22) First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of Obama's friends in a corruption case

(23) First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

(24) First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

(25) First President to golf more than 200 separate times in his first five years in office.

(26) First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

(27) First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

(28) First President to go on multiple "global apology" tours and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

(29) First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

(30) First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

(31) First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

(32) First President to fly-in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

(33) First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

(34) First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

(35) First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

(36) Then, he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion. (Thank God he didn't get away with THIS one.)

(37) IRS scandal - and massive cover up

(38) Bengahzi scadal

(39) NSA scandal

(40) Glorified a trator and a deserter in Beu Bergdahl

(41) Ram rodded NobamaCare down our throats - then lied about "If you like your coverage, then you can keep your coverage."

How is this 'hope and change' working out for you?It's hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 08, 2014, 06:45:09 pm

The Little Sisters Of The Poor are suing over Obamacare.  You can't make this **** up...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 08, 2014, 11:25:04 pm

Didn't they do that a couple of years ago?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 09, 2014, 11:27:59 am

BBBBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH on the "greatest" wingnut collection of sap since the last post from the hillbilly law clerk.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 09, 2014, 04:24:08 pm

Homo surfacing again.  Notice how his writing has improved since Wisconsin got a real governor.  Looks like Walker is improving everyone in the state.  Maybe there is hope for the University of Wisconsin PS 138.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 09, 2014, 05:13:18 pm

davep, Yes but apparently is still ongoing. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 11, 2014, 09:12:04 am

There weren't any more deserving candidates for the job than this? Yhey couldn't find a kid without a criminal background? Seriously?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/nick-pistor/michael-brown-witness-dorian-johnson-hired-to-do-work-for/article_bf6cb909-2f78-5b5e-a712-d2557b834cea.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

ST. LOUIS  •   Dorian Johnson, who rose to fame as a witness to Michael Brown's fatal encounter with Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, has been hired to do work for the city of St. Louis.

Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, has confirmed that Johnson was hired under a state grant through the city's Agency on Training and Employment, or SLATE.

Officials said he is doing work for the city. The job, listed as a temporary position, pays about $8.50 an hour.

Rainford said Johnson met the low income eligibility requirements for the hiring. 

Johnson, 22, was with Brown at Ferguson Market and Liquor when Brown stole a box of Swisher Sweets cigarillos and shoved a store employee. Johnson was walking with Brown when they were stopped in the street by Wilson.

Johnson couldn't be reached for comment.

Officials have said Johnson will not be charged in connection with the cigarillo incident. While enrolled at Lincoln University in Jefferson City, Johnson had a bench warrant issued against him on a misdemeanor theft charge. 

His former attorney, former St. Louis Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr., also confirmed the employment and said Johnson had been looking for work and his happy to have a job.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 11, 2014, 05:53:46 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on December 11, 2014, 09:12:04 am

There weren't any more deserving candidates for the job than this? Yhey couldn't find a kid without a criminal background? Seriously?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/nick-pistor/michael-brown-witness-dorian-johnson-hired-to-do-work-for/article_bf6cb909-2f78-5b5e-a712-d2557b834cea.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

ST. LOUIS  •   Dorian Johnson, who rose to fame as a witness to Michael Brown's fatal encounter with Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, has been hired to do work for the city of St. Louis.

Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, has confirmed that Johnson was hired under a state grant through the city's Agency on Training and Employment, or SLATE.

Officials said he is doing work for the city. The job, listed as a temporary position, pays about $8.50 an hour.

Rainford said Johnson met the low income eligibility requirements for the hiring.

It dependes entirely on how you would define "deserving."

In all probability, if you looked at the language of the grant application, Johnson would likely fit to a T the criteria of those the program is intended to "help."  He also likely will acquire no meaningful job skills which he will be able to transfer to another job, will make connections which would help in any career pursuit (if he were ever to pursue one).  And he is only getting $8.50 an hour.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 12, 2014, 02:47:20 am

 I got this e-mail from a women that needs help ...


 since I am already supporting 17 of them wont you help and contribute?
_______________________________________________


 Hi Dear,
I'm Ukrainian war victim a lonely girl.
My parents and  only brother were killed on August 27, 2014 as Battle for Ukraine's  southeast coast heats up.There is no doubt that the  day during which my father, mother and only brother were killed would forever remain the traumatic and darkest part of the history of my life.Please help me to move to your country for a refuge. I have with me a documented sum of money and gold treasures my father left for me somwhere in a secured deposit.I want you to help me get this money out of the desposit and  move all to your possession.Then when I come to your country, help me to invest this money/gold in a lucrative business.
I am waiting for your reply.

Yours sincerely
Ms.FN CHIZURUM


_________________________________________


 Now tell me you don't have a heart to help this babe.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on December 12, 2014, 09:38:46 am

JJ - Ask her for naked pictures first.  You need to see if she is real and will not be able to tell if she has clothes on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 12, 2014, 07:32:24 pm

I already have naked pictures of her.  When my wife found them, I explained that she was a war orphan that I wanted to adopt.  For some reason, my wife was against the idea.

Who can possibly understand women?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 12, 2014, 09:45:51 pm

Wow, where have all you torture republics been this week? It seem Zero Dark 30 lost its implied torture is good basis and 24 got cancelled.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 12, 2014, 10:09:12 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 12, 2014, 09:45:51 pm

Wow, where have all you torture republics been this week? It seem Zero Dark 30 lost its implied torture is good basis and 24 got cancelled.

Quote from: davep on December 12, 2014, 07:32:24 pm

Who can possibly understand women otto?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 12, 2014, 10:11:01 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2014/12/12/worst-year-in-washington-2014/

Worst year: President Obama, for losses at home and crises abroad

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 12, 2014, 11:46:46 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 12, 2014, 10:11:01 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2014/12/12/worst-year-in-washington-2014/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2014/12/12/worst-year-in-washington-2014/)

Worst year: President Obama, for losses at home and crises abroad

 I dunno ... without his main WR & RB you knew he was going to crash at home.
 
 And for two straight home games ...  he did.


 Once he got his WR back the game at Las Vegas was a guaranteed win. And it was.


 The next road game at Birmingham you knew their defense was going to clobber us without our main RB. That's exactly what happened.


 And then the **** exhibition game played at Tehran, Iran.


 You knew that was going to be a disaster with Portland's QB on a hot streak.


 Well ... now Obama is back home against Memphis ...


 the odds makers in Vegas are throwing the charts at 50-50 as of today ...


 Memphis gets their DE back ... Obama gets his RB back.


 I wouldn't know where to place my money on this game.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 13, 2014, 04:28:36 am

Man JJ is getting Oddoesque.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 13, 2014, 05:03:17 am

going?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 13, 2014, 05:16:19 am

He must be getting his indoctrination from the "head" Commie in Washington

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 13, 2014, 05:29:03 pm

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/08/30-of-the-60-senators-who-voted-for-obamacare-will-soon-be-out-of-congress/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 13, 2014, 06:14:29 pm

Too bad it's not 60 out of 60..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 13, 2014, 10:17:47 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 13, 2014, 04:28:36 am

Man JJ is getting Oddoesque.

 You of all people missed the Cutler connection in the joke?


 I'm losing faith in you.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2014, 05:35:00 am

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/12/histories-of-several-cosby-accusers-cast-doubt-on-tales/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 14, 2014, 03:14:24 pm

I figured it was a scam to get his cash. It's really hard to even imagine Cosby doing what these women claim and with Allred backing them, even more difficult. She's nothing but a opportunistic hag....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 14, 2014, 05:26:14 pm

Congratulations to the open carry movement. They have a new hero in Veronica Dunnachie.


If have them, use em'



Again, congratulations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on December 14, 2014, 06:18:08 pm

Hey Otto'd you pole smoker....did you choke on your brat today? Delusional?.....still can't face the facts that the Peckers aqre over rated and Scott Walker is STILL Gov of Wispoundscum.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 14, 2014, 06:33:52 pm

10-4 isn't overrated.

Second, money.


Third, just how did the bears do against "under rated"? You guys still have a team? Thought we killed it.



BBBBBBBWWWWAAAAAHHHHHHH.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 14, 2014, 09:38:50 pm

 

Quote from: Sportster on December 14, 2014, 03:14:24 pm

I figured it was a scam to get his cash. It's really hard to even imagine Cosby doing what these women claim and with Allred backing them, even more difficult. She's nothing but a opportunistic hag....

 Sporty years and I mean years ago my friend had to deal with Gloria Allred ...


 he smacked his wife in an argument ...


 within hours he was served with a court order to stay 500 yards away from his house.


 Who got the court order in ? Gloria Allred ... before she made it big.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2014, 10:38:30 pm

And I take it you believe your buddy should have been allowed to remain in the home to smack the wife around some more?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 14, 2014, 11:06:31 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 14, 2014, 10:38:30 pm

And I take it you believe your buddy should have been allowed to remain in the home to smack the wife around some more?

 Jes,


 Not only beat her but knife her into slices and deliver them at your parents doorstep at that trailer you grew up in.


 Now why the **** are you trying to start nothing out of something between Sporty and Moi ?


 Whats in it for you man ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on December 15, 2014, 12:01:46 am

Mark's Market Blog
12-14-14: Oil. Black gold. Texas tea.
by Mark Lawrence
Stocks had a rough week due to fears about Greece, China, oil, and negotiations in the US to pass some kind of budget and avoid a government shut down.
 
S&P 500 June 22 2014 to December 12 2014
Our lame-duck government is currently trying to avoid a government shutdown. A new budget for 2015 was due last Thursday; we don't have one. A temporary spending bill was passed to keep the government running until Saturday; that's now not enough. The house passed a budget on Thursday which no one particularly likes. It weakens the rules on banks and allows more rich people to dump more money into politics. It funds the DHS and implicitly funds Obama's amnesty program through next February. Now the Senate has to pass a similar bill. Republicans are livid that they won the election but haven't taken their new seats yet so in their eyes this budget process is being driven by democrats. The stock market will continue to drop until these bozos get their act together and pass something. I expect a budget will pass sometime this coming week, then the market will recover quickly. And then all new budget fights in late January when the new republican majority takes their seats and is determined to cut off funding for Obama's immigration plans.

France is currently spiraling downwards into deflation. Core inflation, which has energy stripped out, is already negative at -0.2%. The version including energy costs is, of course, much more negative. Headline inflation is 0.3% but expected to go negative early next year. Italy is well into deflation. This means that their huge public debt must be repaid with future euros that are considerably more valuable than current euros - a recipe for bankruptcy. It's thought that Europe needs a massive QE program, 'cause, you know, it didn't work in Japan, it didn't work here, but it will definitely work in Europe. Germans are dragging their feet, but that must change if the euro is to hold together. A dangerous dynamic is setting in where high European unemployment is sapping demand, causing companies to cut prices to hold on to market share. This in turn leads to further pay cuts and layoffs and bankruptcies in a vicious cycle. It is exactly what happened in Japan.

Greece is having a major crisis. The legislature is trying to elect a new president; if they fail, which is likely, there will be general elections. These are likely to be won by the far left party Syriza, who wants to exit the EU bailout and force bond holders to take a haircut. In other words they want to rock Draghi's boat. Greek stocks dropped 25% this week on the news, and their 10 year bond interest rate went up nearly 30%. Short term bonds jumped up even higher - a yield curve inversion that indicates fears of recession or default. What does Syriza want? Free electricity and gas, free health care, food and rent subsidies. All paid for by debt issued by the Greek government and bought up by Super Mario and the ECB. While Greek voters might like the sound of this, I can guarantee you that Mr.Draghi is not on board with this at all. Syriza is also a proponent of the theory of "odious debt," the theory that debt built up by a previous regime for purposes that don't serve the people is not enforceable. I note in passing that the bond holders and Mr.Draghi take a different view of this issue.

Spain, tiring of depression level unemployment, has a new party "Podemos" which is a leftist cousin to Syriza. Podemos is growing in popularity, promising a right to a basic income, caps on executive salaries, and nationalization of telecommunications, utilities and banks. In France if elections were held today Marine Le Pen's National Front would likely win, a far-right party that wants limits on immigration, no Euro, no European common agricultural policy. In Sweden prospects for passing a budget are threatened by the emergence of another far right party. In Germany the Alternative for Germany party is gaining strength on their policies of no bailouts for other European nations. Basically the EU is continuing to split faster and faster into a south that expects a free ride and a north that refuses to pay for it.

Inflation is fairly hot in Russia, with food prices up 25% this year. This month prices were up 5% to 6% in one week. The price increases are being driven by the rouble which is down 40% on the year, raising the price of Russian food imports. Russians have seen this movie before; they're changing roubles into dollars as fast as they can and stashing them under their mattresses. The projection from here is pretty easy: on present trends Russia is just a few months away from hyper inflation followed by economic collapse. Meanwhile, while the USSR used to finance socialist and communist parties the world over, the new Russia is financing right-wing parties all over Europe. It's been said by many that there's a fine line between ultra far left and ultra far right, and Russia seems to have crossed over that line. Find a European party that's against the Euro, against unfettered immigration, against more central power in the EU and you'll almost certainly find a party that's pro-Russia and getting financial and other help from Russia.

Dubai's stock market has dropped 30% in the last week on falling oil. Kuwait's market has wiped out nearly two years of gains. You have to believe this is affecting our stock market: margin calls have to be forcing people to liquidate, including US market positions. No matter how healthy our economy, it's difficult for our markets to go up while everyone else is crashing.

The China stock market dropped 5.5% on Tuesday. Chinese imports have leveled off, indicating low or no growth in their economy. Chinese real estate prices continue to drop. So does Chinese consumer inflation, now at a five year low of 1.4%, bringing the threat of deflation into play. Oil continues to drop; The chief executive of Kuwait's national oil company on Monday said oil prices were likely to remain around $65 a barrel for the next six or seven months. The World Bank said that $65 oil means Russia's economy will shrink by 2% next year. 2015 is shaping up to be the year when the US is the world's only functional economy.

Oil continues to drop, falling this week to below $58. OPEC is forecasting a drop in world demand for oil to 2002 levels. As oil continues to drop more and more US fracking sites become uneconomic, raising questions about the bonds which support fracking. For the last several years Saudi Arabia has cut production as needed to keep oil over $100; those days are now gone. If we wanted to have the price of oil go back up, we would need some sort of production agreement between the US, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, Canada. It would be hard to get those people in one room, much less to agree on anything. Meanwhile Obama is very happy about this development: US consumers hate high gas prices; many of the countries hurt by low oil prices - Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Syria - are on his naughty list; and the economic squeeze on Iran is coming at just the right time in the nuclear negotiations. Low oil prices should help Obama complete a toothless nuclear treaty which Iran will never respect. Which worthless treaty Obama can appropriately claim as the main accomplishment of his foreign policy.

Argentina's markets are down 13% in a week. I don't know why - on January 1st, the terms of their bonds change and they can wiggle out of this. They're nearly home free.

US consumer confidence came in at 93.8, the highest reading since 2007. Jobs are increasing, unemployment is down a bit, gas is cheap, prices are down all over, what's not to like?

Japan just had elections, and Shinzo Abe's party won big. He now has a massive mandate to print money, collapse the value of the yen, and try to put Japan back to work with inflation and exports. Abe is also interested in changing Japan's constitution and building up Japan's army. I've a feeling Abe is putting Japan on a collision course with China and Korea.

I've enjoyed harping on China's boondoggles like their airports where no plane lands. They're not alone in this. Europe has 80 relatively new airports that attract fewer than 1,000,000 passengers per year. One 3 year old airport in Spain has not yet had a single landing. Poland has received €616 million aid in the last six years for their airports which are highly under utilized. Polish spokespeople say the projects are a success because they created jobs, brought in tourists, and drove up investment in the regional economy. And they're going to need another €82 billion aid over the next three years to keep them operating. I don't see any corruption here: a businessman wants to see a ROI before making an investment like this. A government just wants to see jobs.

As we watch the rest of the world seem to slip towards recession and currency wars, we can ask what the consequences are for the US. Immediately we can imagine a "flight to safety" among foreign investors who would pour their money into the dollar and dollar denominated investments, which could drive the dollar up to nose-bleed territory. This would be great for consumers as prices on imports fall. It would be troublesome for the Fed as we would be importing deflation, precisely what they want to fight. And it would lead in time to higher unemployment as foreign countries would have far more attractive labor prices. I expect most of this to happen and I expect the result will be an end to our bull market in stocks. It will also lower US interest rates as money pours into treasury bonds. This happened last week with 30 year interest rates dropping almost 10% from 3% to 2.7%. Low interest rates, rising unemployment, threat of a US recession - it's also easy to predict what follows that. More deficit spending. Republicans, democrats, it makes no difference: they have to seem to be doing something.

Sales of high-end cars - cars which sell for over $50,000 - are on track to hit 1,000,000 in the US this year. This is a combination of luxury automobiles, top end sports cars and large SUVs. Two-thirds of these vehicles are being leased.

Generating one inch of top soil takes 1,000 years, and if current rates of degradation continue all of the world's top soil could be gone within 60 years. About a third of the world's soil has already been degraded said Maria-Helena Semedo of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The causes of soil destruction include chemical-heavy farming techniques and deforestation which increases erosion.

Credit company Transunion did a survey and found that 22% of those aged 50 to 64 expect to be in debt for the rest of their lives. 31% of those over 65 expect to be in debt forever. It's the new way to pay off your debt: die.

The South shall rise again: not bloody likely. The 2014 state health rankings are out, and the south and the rust belt are doing very poorly. There's a strong correlation between race and health: minorities are much more likely to be obese and have diabetes. And southerners are more likely to smoke. Your mother had it right 50 years ago: eat your vegetables.


Even paranoids have enemies: If you're interested in the new NSA data center, read this.

A couple hundred years ago if you got an infection you were in serious trouble. In the civil war they routinely amputated limbs that had been shot for just that reason. Then starting in 1928 we got antibiotics and infections were suddenly no big deal. Well, they are again. Last year 23,000 americans died from anitbiotic resistant infections and a similar number in europe. In India today half of all infection samples are resistant to our most powerful antibiotics, and 58,000 infants died last year of antibiotic resistant infections. How did this happen? Bacteria can share genes with each other. In much of Asia you can just walk into any pharmacy and buy any antibiotic you want - I've done it personally in Thailand. You take the wrong antibiotic in the wrong doses, your infection shares some genes with some other bacteria that's resistant, and pretty soon the resistance has transferred to a different bacteria - now a new superbug. In much of the world we dump antibiotics on livestock - in the US we put them in food for pigs, cattle, chickens; in asia they're grossly overused in fish farms. The British government says superbugs will soon lead to 10,000,000 deaths a year. Here in the US we have an FDA which has procedure that pretty much guarantee it takes ten years and a billion dollars worth of trials to bring a new drug to market; I think the drug companies are secretly happy with that because it's a huge barrier to entry and keep young smart companies from knocking them off. But there's little profit in antibiotics so no one is doing research into them, as no one is willing to dump a billion dollars on one if it looks promising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on December 15, 2014, 12:17:47 am

 Packy,


 What matters is YOU.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 15, 2014, 08:28:31 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 14, 2014, 10:38:30 pm

And I take it you believe your buddy should have been allowed to remain in the home to smack the wife around some more?

Shame on you. How can it be that someone of your intelligence hasn't figured it out that women are adept at pulling a man's chain? They engineer some of the stuff that happens, then cry foul, Oh look at me, he hit me, oh poor me. You know I have a daughter who was a hitter. I tried to teach her that if she acted like a man and hit a man she deserved to be treated like a man and be hit back.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 15, 2014, 06:06:16 pm

No, WshflThinking, I fully recognize that happens, but recognizing it does happen neither means that is what always happen, nor excuses the "smack around" once it does.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 15, 2014, 07:07:55 pm

Too much abuse goes on. Drunken fool comes home and beats up "the old lady"..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 15, 2014, 10:10:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 14, 2014, 05:26:14 pm

Congratulations to the open carry movement. They have a new hero in Veronica Dunnachie.
If have them, use em'
Again, congratulations.

The reports are that this happened at the home Dunnachie shared with the two vicitms.  So what does open carry have to do with it?  She was at home, where it was perfectly legal for her to have a gun.  And even if it had not been legal, there is no reason to believe a law making it illegal for her to have had a gun would have made any difference.  There is already a law against murder, a law which carries a possible death sentence.  Presumably criminalizing guns would not make violation of such gun control laws a more serious offense than murder, and the laws against murder, even withthe threat  of the death sentence, did not stop her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gun-toting-texas-mom-shoots-kills-estranged-husband-cops-article-1.2042769

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article4428614.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 15, 2014, 10:24:54 pm

You must be so proud of her and packin heat.


Maybe she needs a hillbilly law clerk to polish her guns while she us away.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 15, 2014, 10:45:33 pm

A backwoods yokel from a backwards state uses "hillbilly" as a slur?  Having a decent governor must be giving Homo delusions of grandeur.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 15, 2014, 10:47:36 pm

Oddo needs to be put away in the funny farm. Certainly loonier than a fruit cake

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 16, 2014, 06:46:20 am

Quote from: otto105 on December 15, 2014, 10:24:54 pm

You must be so proud of her and packin heat.  Maybe she needs a hillbilly law clerk to polish her guns while she us away.

Not surprisingly, otto, you seem to be missing the point -- she was not "packin."  He had a gun with her in her home.

"Packin heat" refers to carring a firearm out and about.  She commited the murders IN HER OWN HOME.  Your "point" is non-existent. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 16, 2014, 09:19:34 am

Not surprisingly, clerk you have declared what you want to argue and started right in. The POINT dear hillbilly law clerk, is that the open carry crowd believes that the mere existence of guns deter crime.

What crime in her house (loaded with guns) did they deter?


Now get your sippy straw out of your kids cup and answer the damned question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 16, 2014, 09:21:37 am

Also, was she a "good guy with a gun" before she decided to use them guns to make a point?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 16, 2014, 09:28:48 am

Homo seems to think that since guns do not prevent EVERY crime, that is proof that they do not prevent ANY crime.

Logic has never been Homo's long suit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 16, 2014, 09:36:55 am

.....especially when you eat Fruit Loops for breakfast

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 16, 2014, 04:39:18 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 16, 2014, 09:19:34 am

What crime in her house (loaded with guns) did they deter?

Open carry laws do not come into play inside a person's own house.

I am sorry you do not follow this, otto, but it is about like asking whether seat belts were effective at saving a person from tripping and falling down the stairs in a house.  Or why not ask how many pregnancies lightening rods have prevented?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 16, 2014, 04:40:21 pm

Quote from: davep on December 16, 2014, 09:28:48 am

Logic has never been Homo's long suit.

Do you really think otto HAS a "long suit"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 16, 2014, 04:43:12 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 16, 2014, 04:40:21 pm

Do you really think otto HAS a "long suit"?

Yes, he does...being an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 16, 2014, 07:32:46 pm

That poor **** idiot!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on December 17, 2014, 01:18:52 am

Hey otto'd.....Republicans control the House and the Senate, Scott Walker is STILL your gov, Peckers are a shitty road team, NobamaCare will be repealed OR unfunded by law, Obama has a very good chance of being impeached.

Enjoy!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 17, 2014, 10:24:38 am

There isn't a chance in the world that Obama will be impeached.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 17, 2014, 11:59:12 am

Nope, maybe one in a trillion. I think the better odds is his actions get beat up by the Supreme Court. I somehow am watching and hoping for them to step in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 17, 2014, 04:34:42 pm

Quote from: davep on December 17, 2014, 10:24:38 am

There isn't a chance in the world that Obama will be impeached.

Not yet.  Not base on anything he has yet done, that we know of, but you need to remember that Wshfl is convinced Obama is doing things like deliberately trying to collapse the economy and build big FEMA camps to force folks into and to cause a race war (okay, that last one is a bit of a joke, even if he has indicated he believes the first two).  In Wshfl's view, there is always the possibiity some of these things will be uncovered and there will then be a groundswell of popuar support for his impeachment and his removal.

Though I don't share Wshfl's view, it would not too greatly surprise me to see Obama further goad Congress in a calculated effort to get the House to impeach him.  And if he tries hard enough, it is possible he might actually succeed in getting impeached, though impeachment and removal are different matters.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 17, 2014, 07:24:19 pm

I thought it was beer that brought up impeachment?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 17, 2014, 07:31:59 pm

TY, see how easy it is to get blamed. Dang terrorists. You never get an apology from Jes

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 18, 2014, 05:58:39 am

Several folks have Wshfl, and, when appropriate, I will apologize to others in the future, but there is no reason to apologize to you here since I was responding not to the original post, or the original poster, but to davep, and to YOUR comment on the issue:

Quote from: davep on December 17, 2014, 10:24:38 am

There isn't a chance in the world that Obama will be impeached.

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 17, 2014, 11:59:12 am

Nope, maybe one in a trillion. I think the better odds is his actions get beat up by the Supreme Court. I somehow am watching and hoping for them to step in.

Or are you now contending your post was not addressing impeachment?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 18, 2014, 01:03:40 pm

I addressed it but surely didn't take the attitude you stated in your post condemning me. I don't favor the impeachment process because it wont have 2/3 majority in the Senate especially before the 2016 election and is a dead idea. There are too many Democrats that while they don't agree with Obama wouldn't want their party's standard bearer so ruined before the 2016 election. If all goes as I think it might the Dumbos could re-take the Senate in 2016. Stranger  things have happened. I think the Republicans have 25 seats at stake in 2016.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 18, 2014, 01:39:45 pm

The Senate makes it extremely unlikely that an impeachment would be successful, but that doesn't mean much.  A large portion of Republicans in the house would not vote for impeachment under any circumstances.  The common wisdom among the Republican establishment is that the impeachment of Clinton was a terrible mistake, and must not be repeated.  They are much more concerned about what they see as their own self interest than they are about constitutional concerns.

In addition, there are too many republicans in both the senate and the house that are too liberal on many issues such as amnesty or big government, and will not put their careers in danger for a cause they don't agree with in the first place.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 18, 2014, 05:43:49 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 18, 2014, 01:03:40 pm

I addressed it but surely didn't take the attitude you stated in your post condemning me.

Could you please cut and paste for me the language in my post which constituted "condemning" you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 18, 2014, 07:49:05 pm

Well you seem to feel you can misstate someone's opinion and its OK. Show in a post where I said or advocated positions I posess that agrees with what you said

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 18, 2014, 08:17:45 pm

In other words you can not find anyplace where I was condemning you.  Pointing that out certainly is not misstating anything.

Now, can you point to any language where I did misstate your opinion?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 18, 2014, 08:29:29 pm

Jes, just admit you accused the wrong guy and be done with it.

Geez, how hard is it to admit you were wr, wro, wron, incorrect about something?
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 18, 2014, 08:54:26 pm

Quote from: Pekin on December 18, 2014, 08:29:29 pm

Jes, just admit you accused the wrong guy and be done with it.

If you can point to what I "accused" him of that was wrong, I might.

So far, neither you nor Wshfl have even begun to do so. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 18, 2014, 09:08:01 pm

Damn ground squirrels.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2877313/Scientists-ground-squirrels-beavers-contributing-global-warming-previously-released.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 18, 2014, 09:55:45 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 17, 2014, 04:34:42 pm

Not yet.  Not base on anything he has yet done, that we know of, but you need to remember that Wshfl is convinced Obama is doing things like deliberately trying to collapse the economy and build big FEMA camps to force folks into and to cause a race war (okay, that last one is a bit of a joke, even if he has indicated he believes the first two).  In Wshfl's view, there is always the possibiity some of these things will be uncovered and there will then be a groundswell of popuar support for his impeachment and his removal.

Though I don't share Wshfl's view, it would not too greatly surprise me to see Obama further goad Congress in a calculated effort to get the House to impeach him.  And if he tries hard enough, it is possible he might actually succeed in getting impeached, though impeachment and removal are different matters.

Smoke that Jes. Where is my apology?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 19, 2014, 05:04:56 am

Wshfl, once again, what part of that amounted to "condemning" you for anything?  And in what language in that post did I misstate your opinion?  And, for Pekin, in what part of that did I "accuse" him of anything?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 19, 2014, 06:46:59 am

Guys, how many times do I have to say

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0TfYF189ZOg/VDIUAxiI-wI/AAAAAAAAVps/gcfPimo_Uxw/s1600/Don&#39;t_feed_the_trolls.jpg)

in this case, remove the plural

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 19, 2014, 07:06:11 am

Of course, there is always the option of actually pointing to the language hat amounted to"condemning," or which misstated an opinion, or which "accused" Wshfl of anything.... except that would atually require such language to exist, and such things to have been done.

Yeah,chifan, you might be right, much better to toss up the stupid meme and pretend to be acting on principle when that can't be done.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 19, 2014, 07:25:25 am

Jes, unless you figure out you figure out your "mistake" I will do what Chifan suggests and put you on ignore. I don't now where you have conjured up these opinions you attribute to me but they are wrong. Your behavior I wont tolerate. The Wisky moron I kinda tolerate, but from educated people I refuse to tolerate such behavior.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 19, 2014, 08:22:00 am

I'm probably going to regret getting involved but since it is an opinion board I will toss mine out there. I didn't see language that "comdemned" or "accused" Wshfl of anything. What I did see was language that in my opinin was meant to ridicule which I see as worse than the other two assertions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 19, 2014, 04:43:30 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 19, 2014, 07:25:25 am

Jes, unless you figure out.... your "mistake" I will do what Chifan suggests and put you on ignore.

The fact that you are not able to point to any language which was mistaken, or which amounted to"condemning," or which misstated an opinion, or which "accused" you of anything, is only underscored by your post above.  You can't find the language where I did those things, because I did NOT do those things.

Quote from: Keysbear on December 19, 2014, 08:22:00 am

I'm probably going to regret getting involved but since it is an opinion board I will toss mine out there. I didn't see language that "comdemned" or "accused" Wshfl of anything. What I did see was language that in my opinin was meant to ridicule which I see as worse than the other two assertions.

And, Keys, there is a reason you didn't seen language that "condemned" or "accused" Wshfl of anything.  That reason is because there WAS no such language.  In fact, there really was not even any intent to ridicule.

Here is the post which I am guessing Wshfl is responding to:

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 17, 2014, 04:34:42 pm

Not yet.  Not base on anything he has yet done, that we know of, but you need to remember that Wshfl is convinced Obama is doing things like deliberately trying to collapse the economy and build big FEMA camps to force folks into and to cause a race war (okay, that last one is a bit of a joke, even if he has indicated he believes the first two).  In Wshfl's view, there is always the possibiity some of these things will be uncovered and there will then be a groundswell of popuar support for his impeachment and his removal.

Though I don't share Wshfl's view, it would not too greatly surprise me to see Obama further goad Congress in a calculated effort to get the House to impeach him.  And if he tries hard enough, it is possible he might actually succeed in getting impeached, though impeachment and removal are different matters.

Nothing in the second paragraph even relates to Wshfl, so that narrows the focus to the first paragraph.

In the first paragraph I attribute to Wshfl the following opinions:
1) That "Obama is doing things like deliberately trying to collapse the economy and build big FEMA camps to force folks into."
2) That Obama is trying "to cause a race war."  I then IMMEDIATELY, in the very same sentence, say that "is a bit of a joke."
3) That "there is always the possibility some of these things (Obama is doing) will be uncovered and (that) there will then be a groundswell of popuar support for his impeachment and his removal."

Other than the 2nd one, which I immediately made clear was a joke, those are all positions Wshfl has previously taken.  There is no attempt in that language to ridicule him or to make fun of the opinions.  Those are, in fact my understanding of his beliefs, based on his posts here, and also based on some personal messages from him to me.  Now, Keys, YOU might think my wording even of #1 and #3 above are attempts to ridicule Wshfl, they are not.  They are attempts to accurately and fairly reflect the opinions he has expressed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 19, 2014, 05:31:26 pm

Find quotes by me that would indicate those are my opinions or positions on issues. You wont find them. Last response.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 19, 2014, 07:27:44 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 19, 2014, 05:31:26 pm

Find quotes by me that would indicate those are my opinions or positions on issues. You wont find them. Last response.

This was from one of your personal messages to me:

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 11, 2014, 11:09:43 pm

Check this out:
http://personalliberty.com/second-american-revolution-now-inevitable/

I responded by saying I thought such ideas were nonsense, and often the result of people who hated Obama so intensly for personal reasons that they couldn't think straight.

You then replied back to that with the following:

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 12, 2014, 07:23:15 am

And you havent been listening to the news? And you still don't understand? Oh well

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 13, 2014, 11:57:50 pm

"I see said the blind man"

Other times you sent me the following:

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 13, 2014, 04:16:30 pm

I don't want to post this because its kinda far out to me but I want to see what you think of the possibilities some of this stuff is realistic.

This Marxist president is putting everything into play for the up coming civil unrest so he can declare Martial Law this summer. He signed a Bill in January this year which says in the event of Martial Law all elections will be suspended. That means he becomes the dictator he always wanted to be and stays in power until he decides to cancel the order. He is also going to use a 1976 EPA regulation on lead and ban any bullets containing lead , that's how he thinks he can get around the 2nd Amendment. Sorry to say it but this guy and Reid are **** up people.

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 15, 2014, 07:52:51 am

OK. And I am sorry for this format to discuss this but the topic is too frightening and dangerous to discuss on the board. As for the martial law thing. Obama likes to change things via executive orders. It wouldn't surprise me that he tried this via executive order to implement martial law. What frightened me was cancelling the fall elections if it seemed he was going to lose.

There was more that you sent me by email, though I may have deleted it, and even if I did not delete it, a hard drive crash may have made it impossible to retrieve.

In performing a google search here, however, I notice there is one poster who has clearly stated his belief that Obama has been deliberately trying to crash the economy: Pekin.

Quote from: Pekin on June 29, 2014, 05:05:46 pm

Jes, It appears to me that Obama is using the Cloward-Piven strategy.  He wants to overwhelm the system, make people so desperate they cry for more government to save them.  This helps him create the socialist nation he dreams of.  He has said himself he wants to fundamentally transform the United States of America.   
The massive amount of debt is not sustainable.  Obama's ludicrous budgets couldn't even get passed when the Democrats owned both houses.
It is only going to get worst as we add millions to the welfare rolls.  All of these illegal children will need to be taken care of.   It is obvious Obama is not going to have them deported since they are sending them to other states.  All of this while the economy is in shambles due to his policies. 

And after I responded to that comment from Pekin by saying the idea was absurd, Wshfl joined the discussion, starting his comment with a two paragraph quote from me, which I will put in italics to help keep things straight:

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 27, 2014, 09:50:38 am

Jes Beard
"Even I think claims like this are a bit nutty.  Obama has no desire to "transform America into a third world country."  Contending he does is, well, nutty.  It would serve no purpose any reasonable person could conclude he actually desires.  There is no reason to believe he would desire it.  And no honest examination of his policies would allow a sane person to conclude Obama's major policy moves would do so, or at least not in anything resembling the foreseeable future, and certainly not nearly so effectively as many other alternative policy moves."

Maybe you think its a bit nutty but there are some things which are questionable to me. The only reason I can see besides more ignorant Dumbocrat votes (just pull the donkey lever, that's all you have to do to get paid) is that you lower the standard of living. There is no upward mobility. That tends to make this country like a 3rd world country. That appears to be what Obama is trying to do. That seems to coincide with goals of the "New World Order".

That comment from you would essentially seem to be an expression of support of Pekin's clearly stated oppinion that Obama is deliberaty trying to crash the economy.

Wshfl, now, which opinion I attributed to you do you still want me to provide evidence that it is an opinion you do in fact hold?  (One of the more interesting aspects of this exchange is that so far I don't recall seeing you state that you do NOT any hold the opinions which I attributed to you.... but perhaps there would be a reason for the absence of such a statement.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 19, 2014, 09:24:01 pm

Posting a link doesnt mean that's your position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 19, 2014, 09:27:41 pm

You STILL have not denied that my post accurately reflected your opinion that Obama has been deliberately trying to crash the U.S. economy.

Let's just deal with that one first.  Does that accurately reflect your current opinion, or your opinion at any time in the last few years?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 19, 2014, 09:30:54 pm

When someone opens up a supposition and throws it out there to judge other view points on the subject that doesn't necessarily constitute his position. You don't judge a book by its cover. You owe me the apology, plain and simple. If you disagree then adios muchacho.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 20, 2014, 02:31:52 am

And you STIIL have not denied that my post accurately represents your opinion, nor have you indicated how it fails to do so if it does not accurately represent your opinion.  I do not see me owing you an apology for anything.  In fact, since I have presented numerous comments from you indicating you hold precisely the opinions I attributed to you, it you appear that YOU owe ME an apology for this exchange, but I won't bother asking you for it, because I have never seen any indication you are man enough to apologize.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 20, 2014, 06:24:57 am

Yee ya. Ya know if you go to a bar and you see two guys next to you with beers in front of you, does that mean both are drunks or that they necessarily both like beer? NO. Say afterwards then you go to a convenience store and you witness a store robbery there, does that make the robber a thief? of course it does. You cant judge a book by the cover. Appearances are deceiving. You need to grow up and be a man

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 20, 2014, 07:44:43 am

And you STILL do not deny holding the opinions I attributed to you or explain in what manner or to what degree your opinion differs.

Appearances CAN be deceiving... even though they generally are not.  At the moment you APPEAR to be a weasel, refusing to even mention what opinions I attributed to you, but wanting me to apologize for attributing them, let alone saying the opinion attributed is not one you hold or the manner or degree to which you differ.  Stop being a weasel.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 20, 2014, 08:30:37 am

And you talk about WEASELS? Well I guess that comes from the experience of being one yourself. Just go away, you stink so bad. You aren't even man enough to admit your mistakes. I bet you believe you never made a mistake in your life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 20, 2014, 08:48:27 am

I make mistakes quite frequently, and admit them readily, once I see I have made a mistake.

So far Wshfl, you have loudly shouted I have made a mistake in attributing three opinions to you, yet, despite the fact I have repeatedly pointed out the fact that you have not indicated WHICH of the opinions you deny sharing, or to what degree, you have failed to point to what in my post was mistaken.  At one point you even wrote that I should simply look and find it myself.

I looked.  It appears that what I wrote accurately reflect your opinion on all three points.

If you want to dispute them, do it.  State which of the three opinions you do not share, to what degree and how.  Until then, you are unquestionably being a weasel on this, just as you have been before.

And just for the sake of clarity, here once again are the three opinions at issue:
1) That "Obama is doing things like deliberately trying to collapse the economy and build big FEMA camps to force folks into."
2) That Obama is trying "to cause a race war."  I then IMMEDIATELY, in the very same sentence, say that "is a bit of a joke."
3) That "there is always the possibility some of these things (Obama is doing) will be uncovered and (that) there will then be a groundswell of popuar support for his impeachment and his removal."

Is your dispute that you in fact DO believe Obama is trying to cause a race war, and that I never should have suggested that you do not?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 20, 2014, 07:06:03 pm

Two NYC cops shot to death today, assassinated, by a nutjob wanting to "get even" for the deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner.

I'm betting Obama and Al Sharpton right now are both feeling good about how they calmed things down.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 20, 2014, 10:45:53 pm

Quote

I make mistakes quite frequently, and admit them readily, once I see I have made a mistake.

Maybe I'm mistaken but I have not seen this....anyone else??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 20, 2014, 11:00:41 pm

I have seen him claim that he does many times.  I don't recall ever actually seeing it.  Maybe once or twice he said he misinterpreted what someone wrote but never actually admitting error on his part beyond that.

The guy always twists **** and claims he didn't say what we think he said.  The article he posted was just an article not what he believed.  But if you post an article it means you believe 100%.  It has gone beyond predictable and become boring.

We would all be better off simply putting him on ignore.  Yet we don't. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 21, 2014, 01:45:35 am

Amen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 21, 2014, 05:48:09 am

Quote from: Pekin on December 20, 2014, 11:00:41 pm

The guy always twists **** and claims he didn't say what we think he said.

Pekin, instead of wrting about "always" this, or "always" that, let's look at the specific comment at issue here.  It is a bit hard to address your feelings of what "always" does or doesn't happen, or what I "always" do or do not do.

Let's look directly at THIS instance.

YOU wrote,

Quote from: Pekin on December 18, 2014, 08:29:29 pm

Jes, just admit you accused the wrong guy and be done with it.

I responded with

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 19, 2014, 05:04:56 am

And, for Pekin, in what part of that did I "accuse" him of anything?

So far, I have seen no post from you responding to that question, no post setting out what I supposedly "accused" Wshfl of, and certainly no post from YOU admitting you were wrong in writing that I had accused him of anything.

And, of course, Wshfl has not responded to my repeated requests to set out what opinion he believes I attributed to him which he denies holding, and if so, how and to what degree his opinion differs from my characterization of it.

And what is it in THIS instance that I am "claim(ing I) didn't say what (you) think (I) said"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 21, 2014, 09:22:08 am

I used to enjoy this thread.. WTF?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 21, 2014, 03:13:35 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/deblasio-weathers-blowback-on-police-reform-after-cop-slayings-164011463.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 21, 2014, 03:47:35 pm

In other news Eric Holder is initiating an investigation into why those two racist cops caused that innocent black kid to commit suicide

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 21, 2014, 06:57:38 pm

Yeah, no ****.. Maybe at some point we can start to talk about who the real racist are..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on December 21, 2014, 09:41:05 pm

Mark's Market Blog
12-21-14: North Korea now runs Sony.
by Mark Lawrence
Stocks started a another rough week due to fears about Greece and Russia and oil, but then recovered nicely as it was realized that no one actually cares about Greece and Russia. The big question: Is this Saudi Arabia attacking Iran, Russia and Fracking, their three big threats? Or is this a world-wide recession causing a huge drop in demand? (hint: it's not the demand thing.)
 
S&P 500 June 29 2014 to December 19 2014
The government did not shut down. Wall street decided that if Greece and Russia implode it's not their problem. So the markets are back on track to finish the year up. I continue to look for S&P 2150 by the first week of January. Perhaps we won't make it, perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I'm pretty clear we'll be closer to 2150 than to 2000. As I see it we're in a hot air balloon playing strip poker and burning our clothes. It's up, up, up and very exciting right now; later we'll be out of clothes and things to burn and it's going to be a memorable combination of scary and embarrassing. In the meantime confidence in the US is high and the economy is doing fine. Stock market crashes are precipitated by high interest rates or recessions and we're not close to either.


Half the 50 states now have gas below $2. Not including the People's Republic of California, I assure you. We're still paying $2.50 for our specially formulated gas that means we get 10% - 20% worse mileage than anyone else in the country. I'm taking a couple long road trips in the next couple of weeks and the gas is going to be a lot cheaper than I budgeted. My son and I are visiting six states that we're considering as alternatives to the P.R.Ca after he graduates university in June. We're both engineers so we're going about this methodically - he wants to live somewhere where it snows a bit and gets regular rainfall. I want a decent university nearby and a place highly rated for livability. I'm concerned about pensions and won't choose a state with hugely under funded pensions like Illinois, Kentucky or Kansas - most unfortunate, as Kentucky is otherwise one of the most beautiful states. Illinois, that could be traded to Cuba for a couple baseball pitchers as far as I'm concerned. Our statistical work is here.

Sony Pictures made a movie, "The Interview," a comedy about a couple idiots who are invited to interview N.Korea's Kim Jong-Un and then recruited by the CIA to kill him. N.Korea has been screaming for several months that this movie constitutes an act of war. Last week a group of hackers calling themselves the Guardians of Peace (GoP) apparently working out of Thailand hacked into Sony's servers and released huge amounts of data to the public: emails about negotiations, employee salaries, future movie plans, pay for stars, and even several up coming movies. Apparently this was an inside job: a Sony employee gave them their initial access. No software can protect against this. The GoP put a statement on several other servers threatening theaters that show the movie and warning people to "remember the 11th of September, 2001." Sony is backing down under the onslaught and canceling the movie's Dec.25 release. I think this is being handled poorly - I see this hacking as an act of war to which we much find a way to respond. I think it also points to a future where someday soon a major US corporation is all but destroyed by such hacking. Although the US has several groups that can do similar damage - the NSA obviously has some major hacking capabilities - we have no government organization at all that works to defend us against hacking. As a result it's believed that hackers could also shut down a huge fraction of our power grid, water supply and communications. This is the new "asymmetric warfare:" the US and Europe are very vulnerable to such hacking; most third world countries have no assets to hack. I'm one who believes you don't negotiate with terrorists. I'm also tired of N.Korea, their nukes, their missiles, their bombing of S.Koreans, and their constant threats to the world. I would support taking action against them. N.Korea now says they're innocent and they want to help the US find the hackers.

How does N.Korea do it? Probably 98% of N.Koreas have never seen the internet. Owning a personal computer is illegal in N.Korea, and besides the hackers only several hundred N.Koreans have global internet access. N.Korea has a school for hackers and is estimated by S.Korea to have 2500 to 4000 of them. They got started and keep current by sending students to China and Russia to study. They regularly infiltrate S.Korean businesses and military installations looking for secrets. In 2011 they crippled a S.Korean bank, Nonghyup, so badly that the bank's on-line services were down for two weeks. In 2013 they did it again, wiping out hard drives on about 30,000 S.Korean computers, freezing ATMs and shutting down on-line banking for several days. If you're looking for retribution, N.Korea doesn't have on-line banking and has very few internet connected PC's. It's hard to do cyber attacks on an iron age economy, an economy where a third of their children are chronically malnourished.

Russia is in complete crisis. Prices are rising daily on most goods. The ruble is now about 75 per dollar; two weeks ago it was 50. Their base interest rate is 17%. They're entering that deadly combination of recession and runaway inflation. Dollars are getting scarce and we're already more or less at de facto currency controls - it's almost impossible to buy more than $2000 in a single day. Due to inflation, Apple, Opel, GM and Calvin Klein have stopped selling to Russia. More western brands will certainly follow - it's going to get very hard to buy much of anything in Russia in the next month or so. What's next? A hard winter which will only get harder if the price of oil continues to decline - oil accounts for 70% of their exports and 50% of their government revenues. Russian officials guarantee that oil prices will firm up by the end of the year. I have no idea how they think they can predict that. The Russian central bank raised rates from 1% to 10.5% earlier this week, then a couple days later to 17%. This had no effect. The Russian banking system is now pretty much completely shut down - no one will save rubles at the current inflation rate, and no one will borrow money at 19% interest. Russia will survive this. It's unlikely this will lead to bond defaults, but Russia is going to have a severe recession. Even the Russian central bank is projecting a 5% drop in GDP, which I think is optimistic.

Switzerland is having just the opposite problem - the Swiss Franc is getting too dear too fast as money flees to safety. So their central bank dropped commercial rates to -0.25%, matching the ECB. The US dollar is appreciating quickly, but we're told negative rates are not in our future, we expect the Fed to raise rates sometime next year.

There's a facility in Belgium, SWIFT - the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. If you want to send money from bank to bank across country lines, the money goes through the SWIFT system. All such transactions are reported to the US under the theory that they are all denominated in dollars and therefore backstopped by the Fed (our aptly mis-named private bank that pretends to be a government facility.) We also like to use SWIFT to cut people out; for example Iran was tossed out of the system as part of their sanctions and it's been discussed to toss Russia out over Ukraine. So Russia has announced they're starting their own system denominated in Rubles. Iran, or anyone else, could buy rubles, transmit them through the Russian system, then convert them back to dollars at the receiving bank. The US would have no idea this transaction had ever happened. Other people including Americans could use this system to transmit money to "non-compliant" banks, meaning banks that don't report deposits to the IRS. This leaves the US in the awkward position of claiming that a system competing with SWIFT would harm capitalism, and the Russians claiming that SWIFT's monopoly on international transactions is bad for capitalism.

Venezuela 2-year bonds now trade at a 60% interest rate. This is not about interest, this means traders expect a default within about 18 months.

Remember Obama's strategy for ISIL? No boots, just bombs? We're done. We've bombed pretty much everything in Iraq and Syria in ISIL territory that's worth bombing. They're still there. In fact ISIL supporters say the bombing has helped recruit fighters and win support of residents, and it has predictably driven ISIL to move assets into hospitals and schools.

Fitch lowered France's rating from AA+ to AA. EU rules say budget deficits must be no more than 3%; France's official deficit is 4.1% and it appears their 2014 deficit will come in at 4.7%. They say they will be compliant by 2017. German officials, who flaunted this same rule several years ago when it suited them, predictably objected saying this sets the precedence that countries can say they'll be compliant at some future date then push that date out in perpetuity. I think the whole point of the EU budget rules is not to obey them, but rather to promise to obey them someday.

Ford and GM are spending major money to figure out how to sell cars to Generation Y - those born between about 1980 and 2000. Gen Y's aren't getting married in any hurry, aren't very interested in owning a house, and value a top of the line smart phone and data plan over a car payment. There's a huge debate here: in the car industry it's believed they simply haven't found their message yet, that eventually these people will also buy cars by the millions. Others think Gen Y will be into ride sharing - they'll be the first to embrace using their smart phone to call a driverless electric car to taxi them across town. I'm in that latter segment, I think Ford and GM are fighting the tide. However, for as long as bad boys are desirable, so will be Harleys. And the whole driverless - ride sharing model just won't work on a Harley.


Malaria, one of the biggest killers in the world, seems to be becoming drug resistant in Myanmar. Signs of drug resistance have also been observed in Cambodia, Laos, Viet Name and Thailand. If this is a new superbug that's spreading it will cause a serious number of deaths - several million per year in Africa and Asia.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 21, 2014, 11:14:46 pm

One thing that he never seems to mention is the danger involved in the dropping oil prices.  Since Russia MUST have higher oil prices to survive, it is in their best interests to drive prices upwards.  And since cutting production would be counter productive, they must use other means.

Just about the only means left at their disposal is to create political uncertainty, which tends to drive up oil prices.  I believe this is the real reason behind their drive into the Ukraine, their buzzing NATO and Japanese air liners, close encounters with US planes, and other actions they have been taking in the past several months.  The danger, of course, is starting a war by accident.

The stock market has taken a dive off and on over the past couple of weeks, each time recovering easily.  All the talk about low oil prices causing reduction of drilling in North Dakota and Wyoming are true as far as reducing new drilling (fracking), the old wells will continue to produce, and some new wells will be created even if they start out at a loss.  And any loss of jobs in oil areas will be much more than offset by new jobs created in other parts of the country as low oil prices work their way through the economy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 21, 2014, 11:34:36 pm

Quote from: davep on December 21, 2014, 11:14:46 pm

All the talk about low oil prices causing reduction of drilling in North Dakota and Wyoming are true as far as reducing new drilling (fracking), the old wells will continue to produce, and some new wells will be created even if they start out at a loss.  And any loss of jobs in oil areas will be much more than offset by new jobs created in other parts of the country as low oil prices work their way through the economy.

The lower oil prices are also affecting production in Texas, not just fracking or with new wells.  Some wells are suspending production because they anticipate higher prices in the future, or because royalty payments make it unprofitable to remove oil when its price is so low.  No disagreement on the harm to the economy coming from difficulties for the oil industry being more than offset nationwide by the economic benefit of lower oil prices.  In some states, however, or in parts of some states, that is not the case.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 22, 2014, 08:56:18 am

There are always disruptions in localized markets in a situation like this.  Oil producing areas will suffer by reducing new exploration and drilling, some wells will be shut down for a while, and people who own oil producing property will have less disposable income.

The invention of automobiles caused buggy whip factories to go bankrupt.  Bad for those affected, but good for most others.  I, myself, am about to drive up to Virginia today.  I will save enough on gas to take JR for Morton's Steakhouse hamburgers 100 times.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 22, 2014, 11:28:30 am

Where about in VA?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on December 22, 2014, 11:31:30 am

Quote

I, myself, am about to drive up to Virginia today.  I will save enough on gas to take JR for Morton's Steakhouse hamburgers 100 times.

Exatly.  Where at is the questino.  You could take chifaninva and I to Mortons instead.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on December 22, 2014, 02:40:42 pm

LOL.

North Korea's internet service is out.  I wonder if they did it themselves or someone else?

 ??? ??? ;D ;D

Maybe they did it so that the United Nations investigation information doesn't reach North Korea?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2014, 05:09:15 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on December 22, 2014, 02:40:42 pm

LOL.

North Korea's internet service is out.

It probably only effected a couple of dozen people.  Very few people there are allowed access to the internet.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 22, 2014, 06:01:17 pm

The ones that are allowed are probably the ones causing the trouble, i.e. their 'hacking squad'. So yea, good bye to internet there for who knows how long. The Gov said some responses to the Sony hack will be seen, some won't be seen. Good to see it's already begun...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 22, 2014, 06:26:14 pm

We'll, having seen a Seth Rogan film before I almost feel like I should be sending North Korea a thank-you note.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 22, 2014, 07:17:49 pm

That's the same thing I thought...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 22, 2014, 09:46:00 pm

Quote

In other news Eric Holder is initiating an investigation into why those two racist cops caused that innocent black kid to commit suicide

Dude, never miss an opportunity to turn a tragedy into a political farce.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 22, 2014, 09:56:02 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on December 22, 2014, 11:28:30 am

Where about in VA?

My daughter retired from the Navy and now works for a government contractor at the Norfolk shipyard.  We are on our way to visit her in Cheasapeak.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 22, 2014, 10:00:59 pm

Quote

Cheasapeak

I doubt it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 22, 2014, 10:04:23 pm

Congratulations moron Staten Island conservatives! Great job justifying the murder of the "large black man" for the selling of tax free loose cigarettes while re-electing an admitted tax fraud back to congress.

Never let your white old politics get in the way.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 22, 2014, 10:08:22 pm

It is Democrats who want high taxes on cigarettes and then the crack down on the black market that was created by their policies that led to the mans death. 

But hey let's let them get away with blaming the police which led to the assassination of two officers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2014, 10:12:00 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 22, 2014, 10:04:23 pm

Congratulations moron Staten Island conservatives! Great job justifying the murder of the "large black man" for the selling of tax free loose cigarettes while re-electing an admitted tax fraud back to congress.

Never let your white old politics get in the way.

Quote from: otto105 on December 22, 2014, 09:46:00 pm

Dude, never miss an opportunity to turn a tragedy into a political farce.

I don't know if otto doesn't read his own posts, doesn't understand his own posts, thinks what he demands of others should not apply to himself, or all of the above.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 22, 2014, 10:16:35 pm

So why aren't we investigating why the two NYC cops were killed too, but then again they probably weren't black. Why does it seem only when blacks are killed do we do investigations?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 22, 2014, 10:30:19 pm

Post something original hillbilly law clerk, your still boring the **** out of everyone.


Oh wait, you can't post original thought because each attempt reads like an olde tact racist post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2014, 10:40:42 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 22, 2014, 10:16:35 pm

So why aren't we investigating why the two NYC cops were killed too, but then again they probably weren't black. Why does it seem only when blacks are killed do we do investigations?

The Department of Justice only gets involved when it is a civil rights violation which might be at issue, generally a violation which might be a result of government action.  No one is even suggesting that the shooter Saturday was in any way an arm of the government.  And while the George Zimmerman case is an example of one of the much narrower class of cases where the DOJ might investigate private action, in those cases it only investigates ossible civil rights violations where there is a possible defendant to pursue.  The shooter from Saturday is dead.  Not likely they could bring a successful civil rights action against him.  And, finally, this was only the second day after the shooting.  In neither the Garner nor Ferguson cases (or the Zimmerman case) was there any mention of any civil right violation within the first two days.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on December 22, 2014, 10:41:40 pm

Quote from: davep on December 21, 2014, 11:14:46 pm

One thing that he never seems to mention is the danger involved in the dropping oil prices.  Since Russia MUST have higher oil prices to survive, it is in their best interests to drive prices upwards.  And since cutting production would be counter productive, they must use other means.

Just about the only means left at their disposal is to create political uncertainty, which tends to drive up oil prices.  I believe this is the real reason behind their drive into the Ukraine, their buzzing NATO and Japanese air liners, close encounters with US planes, and other actions they have been taking in the past several months.  The danger, of course, is starting a war by accident.

The stock market has taken a dive off and on over the past couple of weeks, each time recovering easily.  All the talk about low oil prices causing reduction of drilling in North Dakota and Wyoming are true as far as reducing new drilling (fracking), the old wells will continue to produce, and some new wells will be created even if they start out at a loss.  And any loss of jobs in oil areas will be much more than offset by new jobs created in other parts of the country as low oil prices work their way through the economy.

Good question dave.  I'll ask Mark if he will cover that issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2014, 10:43:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 22, 2014, 10:30:19 pm

Oh wait, you can't post original thought because each attempt reads like an olde tact racist post.

Quite amusing, particularly when it comes immediately after this:

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 22, 2014, 10:12:00 pm

I don't know if otto doesn't read his own posts, doesn't understand his own posts, thinks what he demands of others should not apply to himself, or all of the above.

Could you direct me to what prior post made a similar point about your inanity?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 23, 2014, 08:26:34 am

Quote from: otto105 on December 22, 2014, 10:00:59 pm

I doubt it.

Anyone have any idea what it is that Homo doubts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 08:40:54 am

Hillbilly law clerk

How's that latest GDP number?


Better have that olde tacit racist check brietbart for a response for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 09:06:08 am

The major of 911 proves he and most conservatives are just dicks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/23/giulianis-claim-that-obama-launched-anti-police-propaganda/?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/23/giulianis-claim-that-obama-launched-anti-police-propaganda/?hpid=z1)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 23, 2014, 09:13:54 am

Quote from: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 08:40:54 am

Hillbilly law clerk

How's that latest GDP number?


Better have that olde tacit racist check brietbart for a response for you.

Is adjusting  the GDP figures upwards because of increased Obamacare spending a good thing?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 10:42:28 am

keysbart

Convince anyone of that incredibly stupid assertion.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/23/u-s-economy-grew-at-a-rate-of-5-percent-in-third-quarter-the-fastest-in-more-than-a-decade/?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/23/u-s-economy-grew-at-a-rate-of-5-percent-in-third-quarter-the-fastest-in-more-than-a-decade/?hpid=z1)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 23, 2014, 11:20:33 am

I'm apparently not the only one pointing to increased spending on healthcare. Don't get me wrong I'm happy to see some growth but it's a bit premature to throw confetti when  a big part of it is increased spending by consumers on their health care while their wages remain stagnant.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-grew-fast-5-133648403.html

In its report Tuesday, the Commerce Department sharply upgraded its estimate of third-quarter growth from its previous 3.9 percent figure. Much of the increase came from consumer spending on health care and business spending on structures and computer software.

For the third quarter, consumer spending grew at a 3.2 percent rate, the best showing this year and a full percentage point higher than the estimate the government made a month ago. That upward revision was driven by higher spending on health care.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 23, 2014, 01:18:27 pm

Is it a good thing that the GDP goes up because of increased spending on MJ and other street drugs and drug treatment facilities? Just asking. Sounds like Oddo would say yes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on December 23, 2014, 04:02:07 pm

Quote from: davep on December 21, 2014, 11:14:46 pm

One thing that he never seems to mention is the danger involved in the dropping oil prices.  Since Russia MUST have higher oil prices to survive, it is in their best interests to drive prices upwards.  And since cutting production would be counter productive, they must use other means.

Just about the only means left at their disposal is to create political uncertainty, which tends to drive up oil prices.  I believe this is the real reason behind their drive into the Ukraine, their buzzing NATO and Japanese air liners, close encounters with US planes, and other actions they have been taking in the past several months.  The danger, of course, is starting a war by accident.

The stock market has taken a dive off and on over the past couple of weeks, each time recovering easily.  All the talk about low oil prices causing reduction of drilling in North Dakota and Wyoming are true as far as reducing new drilling (fracking), the old wells will continue to produce, and some new wells will be created even if they start out at a loss.  And any loss of jobs in oil areas will be much more than offset by new jobs created in other parts of the country as low oil prices work their way through the economy.

Dave: 

Here is the response that I received from Mark Lawrence regarding your question:

Hi Al,

There's no chance the Russians will attack during the winter. Ukraine will
be more or less calm until April. imho. After that, we'll see. . .

If he emails me I'll add him to my distribution list. Although I have to
tell you, I've been doing a bit of soul-searching and I'm not certain I
want to keep doing my blog.

How have you been?

I'm in Salem OR right now, on a road trip with my middle kid, Steven.
He'll graduate from college in June and we're considering different places
to live. We're both sick of California. I'm not sure how I feel about
Oregon, personally, but Steven likes it. Next week perhaps we'll go have a
look at Nebraska - Iowa - Missouri - Kansas, but I'm displeased by Kansas
pension problems which are almost as bad as Illinois. Then in March I
think we'll go see Pittsburgh - Indianapolis. Steven wants to live where
there's a fair bit of rain and some snow.

Mark

I assume that his offer to be on his mailing list would apply to other posters on this board.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 04:13:20 pm

Hey davepebart

Which dumb state do you live in?

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-how-americans-feel-about-the-states-2013-8?fb_action_ids=10151875236859257&fb_action_types=og.recommends (http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-how-americans-feel-about-the-states-2013-8?fb_action_ids=10151875236859257&fb_action_types=og.recommends)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 04:27:40 pm

Under the category of he is a perfect fit for the t-bag party, one finds...

Grimm pleads guilty but won't resign
 


By Deirdre Walsh CNN
Published On: Dec 23, 2014

Washington (CNN) -

After pleading guilty to a judge Tuesday on a felony tax evasion charge, New York Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican, pledged to reporters he would also stay in Congress.

Grimm pled guilty in court to one count of tax evasion and was set to submit to a "statement of facts" that admits to all the conduct alleged in the 20-count federal indictment.

A statement from federal prosecutors in New York released on Tuesday after Grimm's court appearance noted that in addition to the tax evasion plea, Grimm also publicly admitted to hiring undocumented workers, lying under oath while serving in Congress, obstructing federal and state officials, and cheating employees out of employment insurance claims.

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Venizelos stated, "The public expects their elected officials at all levels of government to behave honorably, or at a minimum, lawfully. As his guilty plea demonstrates, Grimm put self-interest above public service."

Grimm apologized for his actions and took responsibility, but said the unpaid taxes from a New York restaurant he once owned were all a big mistake.

"As long as I'm able to serve I'm going to serve," Grimm said. Reelected in November, he was is set to be sworn in to a new term in January.

Prosecutors asked a judge to sentence Grimm on June 8th to 24 to 36 months of jail time. His defense team suggested 12 - 18 months.

Just means orange is the new red. BTW, just what was his stance on illegals since he was a bagger? Hire em' and build a fence with tax dollars....**** hilarious.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 05:10:09 pm

Gotta love Democratic economic polices as again the New York stock exchange peaks under a Democratic President.


And beerbelly

 How's the price of gasoline.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 23, 2014, 05:40:09 pm

That happens when politicians reward fatcat wallstreet and bankers, Otto.  I thought you hated them guys.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 06:41:01 pm

I gotta believe you don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 06:45:02 pm

Since you have never NOT supported those policies as offered by the white privilege party.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 23, 2014, 07:13:11 pm

Otto, both Democrats and Republicans do it.  The Democrats have gotten rich doing it.  They bring in more corporate money then Republicans.

Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency and did nothing but give bail outs to the rich and **** the middle class in the process.  Being pissed at both parties is fair but to only hold the Republicans to the fire for what the Democrats have done ten fold while having all the power is asinine. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 07:32:54 pm

I'd re-read that and then think of all the labor polices, health and safety issues, minimum wage, the 40-hour week....


And then realize that your last post is wonderland.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 23, 2014, 07:54:42 pm

Min wage is not middle class. 

We have tons of health and safety regulations.  In fact we have WAY to many and more are being added all the time!

These add costs to companies who then have less to give to their employees.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 23, 2014, 08:45:26 pm

Quote from: packrat on December 23, 2014, 04:02:07 pm

Dave: 

Here is the response that I received from Mark Lawrence regarding your question:

Hi Al,

There's no chance the Russians will attack during the winter. Ukraine will
be more or less calm until April. imho. After that, we'll see. . .

If he emails me I'll add him to my distribution list. Although I have to
tell you, I've been doing a bit of soul-searching and I'm not certain I
want to keep doing my blog.

How have you been?

I'm in Salem OR right now, on a road trip with my middle kid, Steven.
He'll graduate from college in June and we're considering different places
to live. We're both sick of California. I'm not sure how I feel about
Oregon, personally, but Steven likes it. Next week perhaps we'll go have a
look at Nebraska - Iowa - Missouri - Kansas, but I'm displeased by Kansas
pension problems which are almost as bad as Illinois. Then in March I
think we'll go see Pittsburgh - Indianapolis. Steven wants to live where
there's a fair bit of rain and some snow.

Mark

I assume that his offer to be on his mailing list would apply to other posters on this board.

Pack - Ukraine is just a small part of what they could do, or what they have been doing.  Buzzing military and civilian aircraft, running intercepts on our borders, attacks on our internet infrastructure that would make North Korea look like children, and a dozen other things, any of which could get out of hand.  They would all be dangerous, but desperate dictators often do dangerous things.

And the fact that Russia is not likely to attack Ukraine until spring isn't very encouraging.  Putting off a nuclear war for a few months isn't very reassuring.

Who is this guy anyway, and what are his credentials?  He says a great many things as if they are established facts, but supplies no logic or source information to double check his views.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on December 24, 2014, 07:16:36 am

Berkely MO.  Who could be so stupid to pull a gun on a cop?  Especially at this time of increased tension?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 07:55:55 am

Quote from: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 08:40:54 am

How's that latest GDP number?  Better have that olde tacit racist check brietbart for a response for you.

The latest GDP number is a good indication of the insignificance of the number.  One of the ajor components of the "improvement" was increased spending on heath care and health insurance, with those increases coming to a good deal as a result of Obamacare.  Being forced to spend more for health care and health insurance is not sign of a stronger economy, or of improved economic conditions of the public.

That said, why do you ask?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 07:57:57 am

Quote from: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 09:06:08 am

The major of 911 proves he and most conservatives are just dicks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/23/giulianis-claim-that-obama-launched-anti-police-propaganda/?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/23/giulianis-claim-that-obama-launched-anti-police-propaganda/?hpid=z1)

Before I bother reading the link, what does "The major of 911 proves he nd most conservatives are just dicks" mean?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 07:59:45 am

Quote from: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 10:42:28 am

keysbart

Convince anyone of that incredibly stupid assertion.

Keys asked  question.  His post included nothing from him other than a question.  How is a question an assertion?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 08:05:37 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 23, 2014, 01:18:27 pm

Is it a good thing that the GDP goes up because of increased spending on MJ and other street drugs and drug treatment facilities? Just asking. Sounds like Oddo would say yes.

On tht one, I would also say "Yes," and so would most economists, so long as those spending decisions were the result of free choice decisions.  It is the spending on mandated health care which would be an exception.  Of course, if the increased spending on MJ and the rest is a result simply of increased prices coming from tighter enforcement of drug laws driving up prices, it would be much like the situation with health care, and would represent no improvement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 24, 2014, 09:24:12 am

Quote from: wmljohn on December 24, 2014, 07:16:36 am

Berkely MO.  Who could be so stupid to pull a gun on a cop?  Especially at this time of increased tension?

Another dumb ass thug gone...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 09:36:33 am

Have you seen the video?

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/12/24/teen-shot-killed-in-berkeley-gas-station-parking-lot/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 09:37:39 am

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/23/deneen-borelli-black-lives-matter-and-obama-climat/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on December 24, 2014, 09:43:32 am

Five men were killed and at least 12 other people were wounded in shootings across Chicago on Tuesday.

About 10:15 p.m., a man was found shot to death in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side, police said.

Officers responding to a call of person shot in the 1100 block of North Leclaire found 38-year-old Hakizimana Scott unresponsive in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle, according to police and the Cook County medical examiner’s office.

Scott, of the 800 block of North Laramie, had been shot in the head and was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 10:50 p.m., authorities said.

Less than 90 minutes earlier, a man was found fatally shot in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood on the South Side.

The 20-year-old was found dead with a gunshot wound to the chest shortly before 9 p.m. inside a building in the 7800 block of South Lowe, police said. The medical examiner’s office confirmed the fatality but no other details were released.

An hour earlier, a 19-year-old man was shot and killed in Austin. Abraham Cooper was shot in the chest and shoulder about 8 p.m. in the 400 block of North Lawler, authorities said.

Cooper, of the 4800 block of West Fullerton, was taken to Stroger Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 8:36 p.m., a spokesman for the medical examiner’s office said. Details on the circumstances of the shooting weren’t available Wednesday morning.

About 3:15 p.m., Glenn Houston Jr., 23, was inside a store in the 400 block of East 79th Street when someone walked in and fired several shots before running away, authorities said.

Houston Jr., of the 7700 block of South Rhodes, was was shot in the chest several times and taken to Stroger Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 3:55 p.m., authorities said.

The day’s first homicide occurred in the East Garfield Park neighborhood on the West Side.

Youman McKenzie, 23, was shot in the shoulder and left thigh about 2:20 a.m. in the 500 block of South Central Park, authorities said.

Witnesses said they saw the man exchange fire with another person, police said. A weapon was recovered at the scene.

McKenzie, of the 7000 block of South Winchester, was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:55 a.m., according to the medical examiner’s office.

The most recent nonfatal shooting occurred about 10:45 p.m. in the Little Village neighborhood on the Southwest Side. Officers on patrol near Cermak Road and Marshall Boulevard saw what looked like an armed robbery taking place, police said.

The robber shot the victim in the back, police said. The officers then chased the robber and fired shots, but no one was struck.

The robber was eventually taken into custody, while the robbery victim, a 28-year-old man, was taken in serious condition to Mount Sinai Hospital, police said. The officers were not injured.

Charges were pending Wednesday morning against the alleged robber, a male whose age was not immediately known, police said.

About two hours earlier, two men were shot in the South Side Woodlawn neighborhood. The men, ages 20 and 26, were shot in the 6000 block of South Champlain at 8:51 p.m., police said.

The 20-year-old was shot twice in the abdomen and taken to Stroger Hospital. The other man was shot in the back and taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Both their conditions were stabilized, police said.

Both men have documented gang ties and were not cooperating with investigators, police said.

At least nine other people were hurt in separate shootings across the city between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. Tuesday.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 24, 2014, 09:50:02 am

Quote from: otto105 on December 23, 2014, 07:32:54 pm

I'd re-read that and then think of all the labor polices, health and safety issues, minimum wage, the 40-hour week....


And then realize that your last post is wonderland.

Think Otto realizes that OSHA was signed into law by Richard Nixon? Doubt it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 10:24:00 am

Quote from: Keysbear on December 24, 2014, 09:50:02 am

Think Otto realizes that OSHA was signed into law by Richard Nixon? Doubt it.

Yes it was.  Same as the creation of the EPA.  Both were massive mistakes.  He should have opposed both and vetoed them if the bills passed ver his opposition.

Of course he also shoudn't have bombed Cambodia, continued the war in Viet Nam for five years to finally end it on the same terms (i.e. simply abandoning South Vietnam) he could have as soon as he took office, approved the creation of the Plumbers Unit or the White House enemies list, or the Watergate coverup, or wage and price controls, or set the groundwork for OPEC to control oil prices.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on December 24, 2014, 11:14:39 am

I'd re-read that and then think of all the labor polices, health and safety issues, minimum wage, the 40-hour week....

Instead of talking about raising the min wage, why do we not talk about better jobs and a more skilled workforce? We're losing the middle class for a reason.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 24, 2014, 11:21:40 am

That video showed nothing. Can't see jack

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 12:15:23 pm

The minimum wage is one of the reasons we do not have a more skilled workforce.

Eliminate the minimum wage, and eliminate wage and hour laws, and allow what amount to apprenticeships where those who lack skills and offer very little to no value to employers can LEARN how to do the job, LEARN the job skills that are desired, and once they have the skills that make them valuable, they can demand a nice wage.  And since they will have become able to demand it as a result of the skills they have acquired, they will understand that becoming skilled leads to higher wages.

We do not need some "national plan" to produce better jobs and a more skilled workforce.  We need fewer national "plans" and fewer regulations and lower taxes which block and choke of job growth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on December 24, 2014, 12:40:41 pm

I just watched the video.  It stops at the point where you see the subject raise his arm.  It looks like he is taking aim but who knows.  You can not see anything in his hand from that far out.

I got issue with the **** in the Dodge who doesn't know how to **** park.  She needs her ass beat.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 01:02:18 pm

wmljohn, some of the news outlets have blown up the video, and you can see a gun in his hand (or at least what appears to be a gun), and a gun was found on the ground on scene afterward.

Despite all of that, some will insist the cop shoulld not have shot him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 24, 2014, 03:06:34 pm

Should have let the video run. It stops just as he raises his arm.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 24, 2014, 04:00:07 pm

Quote from: Sportster on December 24, 2014, 03:06:34 pm

Should have let the video run. It stops just as he raises his arm.

No reason to show the death. The fact that it shows him raising the gun should be enough. Showing the kid taking a bullet would only inflame the situation more.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 24, 2014, 04:51:55 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 08:05:37 am

On tht one, I would also say "Yes," and so would most economists, so long as those spending decisions were the result of free choice decisions.  It is the spending on mandated health care which would be an exception.  Of course, if the increased spending on MJ and the rest is a result simply of increased prices coming from tighter enforcement of drug laws driving up prices, it would be much like the situation with health care, and would represent no improvement.

If it is what I think it means, ie an indication drug usage is on the rise, then my opinion is that it is a bad thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 06:19:20 pm

I understand.  Freedom is a bad thing when it results in people doing things you don't like.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 24, 2014, 06:25:14 pm

So drug usage is a good thing? Of course, I forgot. Drug usage is good for America under the new America.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2014, 07:18:30 pm

Freedom is a good thing.  How someone chooses to use it is their choice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 24, 2014, 07:40:41 pm

"The 20-year-old was found dead with a gunshot wound to the chest shortly before 9 p.m. inside a building in the 7800 block of South Lowe, police said. The medical examiner’s office confirmed the fatality but no other details were released."

Before most posters on this board were born, I used to deliver newspapers on the 7800 Block of south Lowe.  Our branch was located at 7808 Walice, which was officially a street, but was really the alley behind Lowe.  Every Sunday morning I would ride my bike to the branch at quarter to four, and stuff the Sunday funnies into 2000 Harold American papers.  I an sure there were crimes committed in the neighborhood back then, but not enough that I heare of them, and I certainly never heard of any murders there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on December 24, 2014, 09:41:34 pm

Quote from: davep on December 23, 2014, 08:45:26 pm

Pack - Ukraine is just a small part of what they could do, or what they have been doing.  Buzzing military and civilian aircraft, running intercepts on our borders, attacks on our internet infrastructure that would make North Korea look like children, and a dozen other things, any of which could get out of hand.  They would all be dangerous, but desperate dictators often do dangerous things.

And the fact that Russia is not likely to attack Ukraine until spring isn't very encouraging.  Putting off a nuclear war for a few months isn't very reassuring.

Who is this guy anyway, and what are his credentials?  He says a great many things as if they are established facts, but supplies no logic or source information to double check his views.

Mark Lawrence is a guy with a genius level IQ who specializes in Nuclear physics.  He graduated from Cal Poly and taught for awhile at USC.  He has a multimillion dollar multinational company selling software to hospitals.  His staff pretty well runs the company while he develops other projects and studies.

I am in no position to respond to you with an answer but if you are truly interested I suggest you contact him, as he suggested.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on December 25, 2014, 09:46:26 am

There is no doubt in my mind that the cop should have dropped the bum.  I just couldn't see from THAT particular video if he had a gun. 

You are right though.  His mother was on the scene minutes later claiming that her "baby" was doing nothing but going to visit his GF and he doesn't own a gun.

News headlines for answercoalition.com...  Cops gun down innocent baby boy in gas station parking lot

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 25, 2014, 10:52:01 am

The guy who was shot to death already had an impressive arrest record for violent felony offenses in the just more than a year since he had turned 17.  I would bet quite heavily that he also had an ugly record before he turned 17, though those juvenile court records will likely never become public.... unless the parents are foolish enough to file suit over his death.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 27, 2014, 07:19:00 pm

Wow, so like christian s who never question when to shoot.

Bet you thanked jesus for the green light.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 27, 2014, 07:51:35 pm

No, but had I been in that situation I would have thanked Jesus for the eyesight to see the gun pointed at me and the reflexes to respond before he could shoot me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 27, 2014, 08:16:18 pm

Which situation was that again jesus?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 27, 2014, 09:42:05 pm

Oddo you think if you show a gun to police officer he is going to let you kill him? Come on. If a police officer orders you to drop the gun you'd better. I don't care if you are black, yellow or green with purple polkadots. you obey the police officer. And if the kid were white you wouldn't say peep.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 27, 2014, 10:30:40 pm

Homo never lets facts get in the way.  I'm glad that Walker is improving the educational system of Homo's backwoods state.  Maybe there is hope for future generations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 28, 2014, 07:45:52 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 27, 2014, 09:42:05 pm

Oddo....  if the kid were white you wouldn't say peep.

But if the kid were white, would otto be more coherent?  Would his posts make any sense?

Quote from: otto105 on December 27, 2014, 07:19:00 pm

Wow, so like christian s who never question when to shoot.

Bet you thanked jesus for the green light.

.... of course, not saying a peep, WOULD be more coherent, so Wshfl may have a point there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 28, 2014, 09:34:28 am

Hillbilly legal aid


Please state your straw man argument at beginning of your posts, so we can skip the boring meaningless dribble.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 28, 2014, 11:48:07 am

Amusing.

otto, could you direct me to what "straw man argument" you might have been addressing in your last post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 28, 2014, 05:46:21 pm

Leave Homo alone.  He is still in mourning over the drubbing his boys took in the last election.

But at least, his state is in good hands for once.  He will perk up if Walker runs for President.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 28, 2014, 06:02:55 pm

My state is 1.8BILLION in deficit for the next budget.

Can you explain that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 28, 2014, 07:01:45 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 28, 2014, 06:02:55 pm

My state is 1.8BILLION in deficit for the next budget.

Can you explain that?

I can.  The state spent more money than it took in and needs to cuts spending further.

Was that really too hard for you to figure out yourself?

Oh, and have you found that "straw man argument" you were addressing in your prior post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 28, 2014, 07:04:51 pm

Not even close fool.

No wonder you are a legal aid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 28, 2014, 07:57:32 pm

You can't trick Homo with facts.  He just makes up his own.

But a few years under Walker will bring him around.  He is just lucky that the State turned Republican before it was too late.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 28, 2014, 08:47:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 28, 2014, 07:04:51 pm

Not even close

So you think the deficit is NOT a result of the state spending more money than it takes in?

And, once more, have you found that "straw man argument" you were addressing in your prior post?  Or was THAT what you were referencing, meaning that you were "not even close" to being able to find an example of any straw man argument you mentioned?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 28, 2014, 09:08:50 pm

Why make it more boring and tediously obnoxious than it's need be clerk?

Why are you missing that social governor?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 28, 2014, 09:14:41 pm

The quickest way to end it if it's so tedious and boring is to simply answer the mans question. Go for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 28, 2014, 09:30:49 pm

What question would that be Keysbart?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 28, 2014, 09:42:42 pm

You referred to a"strawman argument" in a post. He simply asked what "strawman argument" you were referring to. That should not be all that difficult to answer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JBN on December 28, 2014, 09:49:08 pm

What is a Keysbart?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on December 28, 2014, 09:50:51 pm

It's what you get when you buy a car at Bart Starr's dealership?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 28, 2014, 09:51:21 pm

That's what passes for clever in Ottoworld. Unfortunately it only makes sense to him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JBN on December 28, 2014, 09:53:38 pm

Makes sense.

I'll take Dave's point of view though.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 28, 2014, 10:05:39 pm

Because we are not liberal drones he assumes we all go here for our news.

http://www.breitbart.com/

Pretty sure he thinks adding "bart" to the end of our names is a clever insult...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JBN on December 28, 2014, 10:19:02 pm

So are you Pekinbart?

Guess I don't visit as often as I used to. Little lost.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on December 28, 2014, 10:23:38 pm

Yeah anyone who disagrees with him politically is jbnbart, keysbart, davebart, etc...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JBN on December 28, 2014, 10:29:30 pm

Maybe it's the moonshine up there in the upper North.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on December 28, 2014, 11:17:50 pm

He's just dumber than ****...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 28, 2014, 11:18:21 pm

By the way, when Walker became governor of wisconsin, Oddo came out of the closet and now posts under the name of Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 29, 2014, 07:53:37 am

This has been all just plain good. Keep up the good work

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 29, 2014, 08:41:55 am

Quote from: Dave23 on December 28, 2014, 11:17:50 pm

He's just dumber than ****...

I do always love sincere efforts to elevate the level of discussion here, and also the positive role modeling of those efforts provided by the list administrators.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on December 29, 2014, 08:53:07 am

Many of us here have known Otto a lot longer than you have...but feel free to keep trying to have a sane discussion with him. Are you familiar with the definition of insanity?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on December 29, 2014, 09:01:20 am

And as far as elevating the level of discussion here, do you plan to make your first Bears-related post in 2015?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 29, 2014, 10:52:33 am

I have already made Bears related posts, both this year and last (though how making a "Bears-related post" elevates a discusion is beyond me).

As to how long I have known otto, I have known him from the Cubs boards where I began posting on the current board's predecessor in 1998, meaning I have seen more posts from him, and for far longer, than I would care to count.  That also means that unless you have known him before he began posting on the predecessor boards (perhaps knowing him in real life, outside of the internet context, in which case you have my sincere sympathies), you have not known him any longer than I have.

Now, that said, none of that relates to, justifies, or begins to explain your gratutious insults when you were not even taking part in the exchange, which might provide some excuse of frustration in dealing with a poster.  If you ever did try to explain it, you might want to look inward more than outward.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on December 29, 2014, 11:10:08 am

If you have Bears- related posts, it should be easy enough for you to find one...I'm pretty confident there's not one out there, though.

And yes, I was around pre-1998...in the days of Knue and Caldarelli...

I'm not even sure which exchange you are referring to...I don't think you have a clue either.

Now go take your meds and get back to your quest of having an "intelligent" conversation with the other resident idiot...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 29, 2014, 11:12:54 am

LOL, now take that Jes

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 29, 2014, 12:49:01 pm

Quote from: Dave23 on December 29, 2014, 11:10:08 am

I'm not even sure which exchange you are referring to...I don't think you have a clue either.

There were two different possible exchanges otto was having, one was with me, and the other was with keys, but the fact that you were jumping in there with your insult, when you now acknowledge you don't know what exchange was at issue proves my point.

Again, nice to see you continue to elevate the level of discourse here.  (Seen not only in your last post, but in your success in getting Wshfl to join in.)  No matter what else, I do have to give you credit for that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 29, 2014, 01:15:52 pm

LOL Jes. Nice to try to escape the comments. Well guess what, it wasn't successful

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 29, 2014, 01:29:56 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 29, 2014, 01:15:52 pm

LOL Jes. Nice to try to escape the comments. Well guess what, it wasn't successful

And it is also nice, Wshfl, to see you addressing the substantive merits or lack thereof in a discussion instead of engaging in ad hominems.

Do keep it up, and you and Dave23 can both elevate the level of discourse here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on December 29, 2014, 01:32:00 pm

The conversation I joined was with jbn, and keys, and Pekin...still not sure which one you were a part of, though?

I'm sure it was just more silliness involving you trying to get a straight answer from the other imbecile.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on December 29, 2014, 01:33:25 pm

LOL, any idea what the Bears record this year was, jes?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 29, 2014, 01:52:16 pm

Unless Payton has been reborn and is back in uniform, or Sayers or Butkus come out of retirement and suit up, I don't really care.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 29, 2014, 08:51:28 pm

That's rich dave32bart

When did you separate yourself from imbecile? Can you refer to that post. All I see, is you, and the other little conservative school girls trying to justify your self appointed position as limited scope posters.

At least the libertarian law clerk offers something, while you just regurgitate the same tired olde foxnews memes and look for reassurance from the same tired old posters.

Sadly, that is all you are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 29, 2014, 08:58:50 pm

What do you think you are Homo, tired old Socialist Workers Party member.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 29, 2014, 08:59:03 pm

Under the category of, not surprising one finds....

Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise Acknowledges Addressing Racist Group in 2002

By ASHLEY PARKER and ALAN RAPPEPORT
DEC. 29, 2014

WASHINGTON — Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House, addressed a group of white supremacists and neo-Nazis in 2002, a Scalise spokeswoman confirmed Monday as his party prepared to take control of both chambers of Congress.

Mr. Scalise made his remarks to the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, which was founded two years earlier by David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana politician. Mr. Scalise was a Louisiana state legislator at the time.


Its a good thing little school girls everywhere believe racism is a just black problem....Wonder what he said....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 29, 2014, 09:02:31 pm

Quote

What do you think you are Homo, tired old Socialist Workers Party member.

Really olde man? Nothing says mailing it in and tired old slogan better than that post. You must really be tired to reduce the olde commie **** pinko to that.

You need the nurse to roll you over?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 29, 2014, 09:05:27 pm

olde man

I would have posted something about the word gay, but your old enough to think it means happy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 29, 2014, 09:28:05 pm

They don't call you Homo for nothing

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 29, 2014, 09:32:09 pm

Horrible, even you should be done with you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 29, 2014, 09:42:02 pm

wasfullofit

I know in your olde fossil world gay is a big insult, but in reality even your grandkids laugh behind your back.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 29, 2014, 09:49:38 pm

At least mine don't call me gay or Homo like yours call you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 29, 2014, 11:18:18 pm

Aw hell, why wait a few days to acknowledge your big award Isfullofit.


Exodus international could not have picked a better useless example than you.


Congratulations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 01:07:51 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 29, 2014, 09:28:05 pm

They don't call you Homo for nothing

So what if he is gay?  What difference would it make?  You use the word as if it were an insult.  If so, what is insulting about it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 30, 2014, 05:36:40 am

You know what....that doesn't deserve a reply.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 30, 2014, 07:46:05 am

The word IS a insult. If you have to be told why, you've already lost the argument....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 30, 2014, 08:04:10 am

Yeppers

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 09:01:31 am

In other words you have no actual explanation for what is insulting about the wordt... other than your deep-seated bigotry and hatred.

About what I expected.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 30, 2014, 10:06:02 am

That might be your opinion but not mine

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 30, 2014, 10:41:07 am

Will you guys stop picking on Homo.  It is hard for him to admit that, with Walker as Governor, his backwards state is coming into the 21st century.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 10:55:57 am

I have found that very few bigots ever acknowledge their bigotry.

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 30, 2014, 10:06:02 am

That might be your opinion but not mine

As to the actual substance of your comment, you use the indefinite pronoun "That" to start your sentence, meaning that to truly understand it, a person has to determine exactly what the word "That" references as used.  To determine its meaning requires a look at the post it is responding to, which was the following:

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 09:01:31 am

In other words you have no actual explanation for what is insulting about the wordt... other than your deep-seated bigotry and hatred.

About what I expected.

Since the last sentence in my post as quoted above is not an opinion, one only needs to look at the first sentence to determine what the "That" is in your comment, "That might be your opinion but not mine."

But the initial portion of my first sentence, really included no opinion, instead making an observation of demonstrable fact -- that in your comments here you offer "no actual explanation for what is insulting about the word."  The only thing really left is my comment about "your deep-seated bigotry and hatred" toward gays, meaning when you write, ""That might be your opinion but not mine," you would appear to be denying that you have any bigotry or hatred toward gays... a denial you offer immediately after not only using "Homo" as an insult, but agreeing with Sportster's post that, "The word IS a insult. If you have to be told why, you've already lost the argument."

As I started here, I have found that very few bigots ever acknowledge their bigotry.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 30, 2014, 11:47:30 am

This should surprise....no one. I actually agree with some of what he said. Of course while we don't provide big screen TV's to everyone we take care of so many other needs( and wants) that they can go out and buy that big screen TV anyway so I'm not sure his analogy that we do that for other things works.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/obama-adviser-jonathan-gruber-in-2009-obamacare-will-not-be-affordable/

“There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, ‘You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.’ That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 30, 2014, 12:02:58 pm

In other words you have no actual explanation for what is insulting about the wordt... other than your deep-seated bigotry and hatred.

Again that's YOUR opinion of my beliefs, not mine. That's the end of my conversation. And since you are such a stickler on spelling and grammer what is WORDT

And in response to your question maybe you ought to look up the word insult in your Websters.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 02:02:52 pm

I really have no need to look up the word "insult" as it was used, particularly since I am the one who used it.  "Insult," as used, refers to a word (a term or a phrase, in this case the word at issue is "homo") intended to offend, demean, disparage, show contempt, and often to make the object of the insult the object of ridicule.  It is the antonym of compliment.

That is what you were doing when you used the word "homo."  You then acknowledged you intended the word as an insult when you posted your "Yeppers" in response to Sportster saying the word "IS an insult."

And the only part of the sentence of mine which you put in boldface which is opinion is stating that you are a bigot, and, while that certainly is an opinion, it is a rather inescapable one... except for you.  As I wrote before, very few bigots ever acknowledge their bigotry.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 30, 2014, 02:30:47 pm

Bigot is YOUR opinion of me.  You just stated it. That's an insult so you just admitted insulting me

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 02:36:05 pm

There no intent on my part to insult you by pointing out that you are a bigot.

Of course, there is also no concern whatsoever if you feel insulted to have a mirror held up to let you see your reflecton.

There also is no conern on my part if you continue to feel I have insulted you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on December 30, 2014, 02:45:58 pm

I am not a bigot. I responded to Sporty's post to YOU and I agreed with his definition when I said Yeppers. Now you are calling me a bigot because I agreed with his definition of an insult. Man you are just a sicko

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 30, 2014, 02:52:37 pm

At this time of year it is traditional to express thanks for your many blessings. In that spirit....thank God for the scroll wheel on my mouse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 30, 2014, 02:57:29 pm

Wshfl, you're peeing into the wind, dude. Just drop it. Who cares what Jes thinks? Let him spout his nonsense...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JBN on December 30, 2014, 02:59:49 pm

Just because someone doesn't like gay people doesn't make them a bigot.

Good grief.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 03:19:17 pm

Quote from: jbn on December 30, 2014, 02:59:49 pm

Just because someone doesn't like gay people doesn't make them a bigot.

Good grief.

Yes, if the reason you do not like them is simply because they are gay, it does make you a bigot.  It pretty much defines bigot.

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 30, 2014, 02:45:58 pm

I am not a bigot. I responded to Sporty's post to YOU and I agreed with his definition when I said Yeppers. Now you are calling me a bigot because I agreed with his definition of an insult.

Really?

You just agreed with his definition of insult?

He offered none.  All he did was point out that of course calling someone gay (or a homo) is an insult.

Quote from: Sportster on December 30, 2014, 07:46:05 am

The word IS a insult. If you have to be told why, you've already lost the argument....

No definition of insult there.

Try again.  Keep dissembling to try to avoid the reality here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 03:29:23 pm

ObamaCare advisor Jonathan Gruber doing even more of the one thing liberalism can not afford -- being honest.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/obama-adviser-jonathan-gruber-in-2009-obamacare-will-not-be-affordable/

Obama Adviser Jonathan Gruber In 2009: Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable
9:25 AM 12/30/2014

President Obama’s health care adviser Jonathan Gruber said that the Affordable Care Act would definitely not be affordable while he was writing the bill with the White House.

As Gruber continues to withhold documents while he awaits a call-back for more testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the new year, more shocking information is coming to light detailing the deceptions that went into the writing of the health-care law. (RELATED: Daily Caller Publishes First Video Of Gruber Calling The American People ‘Stupid’).

Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief, presented here exclusively by TheDC. At the time, Gruber had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team. Obama, meanwhile, told the American people that their premiums would go down dramatically.

“The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not affordable. This is going to be a major issue,” Gruber admitted in an October 2, 2009 lecture, the transcript of which comprised the policy brief.

“So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”

Gruber also said that the only way to control costs is to effectively deny treatment.

“The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’”

“There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, ‘You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.’ That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage.”

And despite the president’s pitches to the contrary, Obama also knew that his health care bill was unlikely to control costs, Gruber said.

“I wish that President Obama could have stood up and said, ‘You know, I don’t know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not. We’re doing our best. But let me tell you what it’s going to do…” Gruber said on a San Francisco podcast in 2012.

“If he could make that speech? Instead, he says ‘I’m going to pass a bill that will lower your health care costs.’ That sells. Now, I wish the world was different. I wish people cared about the 50 million uninsured in America…But, you know, they don’t. And I think, once again, I’m amazed politically that we got this bill through.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JBN on December 30, 2014, 03:43:11 pm

Yes, if the reason you do not like them is simply because they are gay, it does make you a bigot.  It pretty much defines bigot.

So if a straight person doesn't like a straight person does that make them a bigot?

Our society has become so weak over name calling and who doesn't like who for whatever reason.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 04:34:14 pm

No, jbn, a person can dislike any person without being a bigot.  If the reason you dislike them (or think less of them) is because of a physical charecteristic, whether skin color or any other physical charecteristic, or is the result of other things over which they have no control, such as ethnic background or nationality, or status of birth, or is the result of other charecteristics related to what they are and not what they do, then you are a bigot.  That pretty much tracks the definition of the word.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 30, 2014, 06:54:50 pm

Ya know, when you bigots finally get around to that little girl group hug for reaffirmation of your stupidity, somebody should point out the continued digging when you have already lost.


Hillbilly legal aid - 1
Group of bigots - 0


The more you know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 30, 2014, 07:14:22 pm

For immediate press release


The Idaho NRA would like to acknowledge the positive second amendment rights as displayed by a 2-year old in a Walmart for taking their constitutional action when threatened by an large white adult.


 Dittos are in order.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 30, 2014, 08:05:51 pm

That's stupid even for you. Poor parenting has nothing to do with the NRA but don't let that stop you from sounding foolish and juvenile.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on December 30, 2014, 08:15:28 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 04:34:14 pm

No, jbn, a person can dislike any person without being a bigot.  If the reason you dislike them......is the result of other charecteristics related to what they are and not what they do, then you are a bigot....

so  if we don't like them because they are "do"ing people of the same sex (something they do rather than a characteristic) then we are not a bigot?
It's a choice, they make a choice and we get ridiculed for not liking or supporting the choice. Some folks have a tendency for violence but we don't support them and give them money to help further their agenda so they can make it legal to beat people up on the street. It would seem though we are criminalizing law enforcement for fighting against violence.

I "like" some gay people. I have a niece that is gay. I didn't like her before she was gay. Does that make me a bigot? I don't like the choices they make but most of all I don't like that they are pushing their agenda so hard for everyone to think it is a normal and natural way of life. I don't like it that my tax dollars are going towards their agenda and it getting increased recognition by our school systems. I don't like that I have to keep ceasing to do business with corporations who promote their agenda. I don't like that our education system is so bad and so preoccupied with indoctrinating our kids but failing to actually teach them the skills that they need in life that I'll be pulling my kids out of public school next year even though I have been paying taxes like everyone else.

Most of all I don't like that I am called a bigot because I support what the Bible teaches, but then again it taught that we would be persecuted for standing for what we believe.

drum roll ....for Jes to dig up some misrepresented passage from the Old Testament and manipulate it for his next statement.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JBN on December 30, 2014, 08:18:49 pm

navigatorbart, welcome to the land of bigotry.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2014, 08:27:12 pm

Quote from: navigator on December 30, 2014, 08:15:28 pm

so  if we don't like them because they are "do"ing people of the same sex (something they do rather than a characteristic) then we are not a bigot?

Unless they are "do"ing folks in public, or in your home, you really do not know what or who they are "do"ing.  You merely have come to believe they are gay, meaning treating them, or viewing them, differently from anyone else, simply because of your belief as to their sexual preference would constitute bigotry.

Quote from: navigator on December 30, 2014, 08:15:28 pm

It would seem though we are criminalizing law enforcement for fighting against violence.

How so?  What are you talking about here?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on December 31, 2014, 06:12:33 am

JB, lol. I agree with Nav. Don't hate gays, our Pastor has a son who's gay and he's a great kid. He was molested by a relative early in life and it messed his head up. Definately agree about the indoctrination and forcing it on society, even in the NFL which is unbelievable. But there's been some backlash to all the pushing of it. People are getting fed up with hearing about it constantly. Yahoo is terrible with pushing it. So is Huffington Post, no surprise there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 31, 2014, 06:33:59 am

Thank goodness for the government to help us all in times of need.  (http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/2014_12/stateofemergency.png?h=1435&w=600)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 31, 2014, 08:46:56 am

otto has to hate things like this -- http://deadline.com/2014/12/cable-news-ratings-fox-news-channel-wins-13th-consecutive-year-1201338131/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 31, 2014, 10:29:05 am

When I got out of the Air Force in 1976, the State of Emergency created in 1950 for the Korean crisis was still in effect.  I have no idea if it ever was rescinded.  There was a clause included in every military contract at that time that referenced it as the authority to seize control of numerous metal supplies, including copper and steel.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 31, 2014, 11:58:30 am

Once government asserts a power or claims control over something, it does not easily give it up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 31, 2014, 03:57:29 pm

Once an idiot believes in his own idiocy, its permanent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 31, 2014, 04:03:42 pm

Homo admits to his own permanent idiocy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 31, 2014, 04:07:24 pm

To the racist bigot cops in NYC, three points.

1. Don't violate the Constitution.

2. Don't kill unarmed people.

3. Do your job.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on December 31, 2014, 04:12:19 pm

Davepebart


Does it not become tedious to post the same material with only you chuckling after hit on enter?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on December 31, 2014, 04:55:50 pm

Sorry, Homo.  I thought you liked name calling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on December 31, 2014, 05:11:43 pm

Otto is worried about violations of the Constitution? Now that's funny...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 31, 2014, 06:09:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 31, 2014, 04:12:19 pm

Davepebart
Does it not become tedious to post the same material with only you chuckling after hit on enter?

Oh, the irony....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on December 31, 2014, 06:18:46 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 31, 2014, 04:07:24 pm

To the racist bigot cops in NYC, three points.

1. Don't violate the Constitution.

2. Don't kill unarmed people.

3. Do your job.

Are you appearing that all police in NYC are racist?

What part of their job do you think they are not doing?  And since you did not hire them or write their job description, how would you know WHAT their job is?

What unarmed people are you talking about?  And why does it matter whether they are or aren't armed?  Is that really the relevant question, or perhaps should it be framed quite differently?

What constitutional provisions do you believe they violated, and how?

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, considering your recent concern with displays of idiocy, since you began our post with, "To the racist bigot cops in NYC," do you REALLY think this discussion board will serve as an effective means of reaching and addressing New York City police officers?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: JBN on December 31, 2014, 07:47:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on December 31, 2014, 04:07:24 pm

To the racist bigot cops in NYC, three points.

1. Don't violate the Constitution.

2. Don't kill unarmed people.

3. Do your job.

That is even worse than you posting about the American's killed in Iraq.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 01, 2015, 06:45:24 am

While the Obama administration may sometimes seem divisive when one looks at the nation as a whole, in 2014 it did a very good job uniting the Supreme Court... against the administration.  http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/30/2014-was-a-lousy-year-for-obama-at-the-s

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 01, 2015, 04:03:57 pm

"In Hobby Lobby, a 5-4 majority held that the health care law violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing several closely held religious corporations to cover certain methods of birth control in their health care plans."

This must be an inaccurate summary of the decision.  It is my understanding that each Congress is sovereign and is not bound by previous laws.  A law passed today should not be able to tie the hands of future Congresses.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 01, 2015, 10:45:34 pm

Quote from: davep on January 01, 2015, 04:03:57 pm

"In Hobby Lobby, a 5-4 majority held that the health care law violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing several closely held religious corporations to cover certain methods of birth control in their health care plans."

This must be an inaccurate summary of the decision.  It is my understanding that each Congress is sovereign and is not bound by previous laws.  A law passed today should not be able to tie the hands of future Congresses.

Your understanding is correct.  I have not read the decision to comment on the accuracy of their summary.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 02, 2015, 10:08:38 am

My guess is that what was over ruled was the implementing regulations, rather than the law itself.  Most laws are written very vaguely, (or they couldn't be passed), and give the executive department the power to write regulations that implement the law.  A practice that Obama is pushing far beyond the previously accepted limits.  But executive regulations can not over rule previous law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 02, 2015, 10:26:16 am

Quote from: davep on January 02, 2015, 10:08:38 am

My guess is that what was over ruled was the implementing regulations, rather than the law itself.  Most laws are written very vaguely, (or they couldn't be passed), and give the executive department the power to write regulations that implement the law.  A practice that Obama is pushing far beyond the previously accepted limits.  But executive regulations can not over rule previous law.

You're actually going to get me to read the damn thing... or at least skim it for the racy parts.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 02, 2015, 10:31:17 am

Didn't have to read very far.

At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA),

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 02, 2015, 10:38:09 am

Davep, it appears you were right, even if your last sentence is not worded quite right.  Exeutive branch regulations can not be contrary to the law existing at the time.  It is not really a matter of over ruling them, and certainly not really an issue with PRIOR law (since "prior law" would be law which not longer was in effect), but instead is an issue if the regs are contrary to then existing law, but you are entirely correct that Congress can implicitly repeal prior law because it is not controlled or limited by mere legislation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 02, 2015, 12:56:32 pm

I doubt any of you have heard much about the ex Governor (of Virginia) McDonnell, but he gets sentenced this next week. Looks like he's facing a long time behind bars. This whole thing is over $170,000, in which he paid $120,000 (loan) of it back. This Jonnie Williams was gifting the Governors wife, and paid for some golf outings, etc...

First off, when you give complete immunity to the person that's 'bribing", is that right? Do you really get the whole truth? How is this lawful? Then, as far as I know, they never proved that there were any favors given by the Governor for the bribes.

Then you have to think. There is 40 mil (combined) spent on a Governors race, so the candidate can earn $175,000 a year for 4 years. Maybe, just maybe, there is a bit more to this than wanting to serve the people.

When this went down, there was very little scrutiny from either side of the isle. For good reason, welcome to the way things get done no matter what state you're from.

McDonnell's biggest downfall? A greedy **** wife, money grubber..

Beware every politician in the country, yeah right..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 02, 2015, 01:17:20 pm

All I now is the guy got a jury trial, had the resources to hire whatever legal team he wanted, that legal team made decisions as to what evidence to present and what evidence and witnesses to challenge, and how to present the issues.  And he lost.  Absent some compelling evidence of clear mis-deeds on the part of the judge, jury or prosecutor, I have no reason to think he was wrongly convicted, or to think that he will not richly deserve every day in prison he serves.

There are folks serving prison time on sentences of several years when their property crime wrongdoing involved no violation of public trust and total property values or cash of less than $1,000... and I am better this guy denied clemency applications for some of them, and made certain he appointed parole board hard-liners who denied parole applications for even more.  I don't think I could shed a tear for the guy if I were peeling onions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 02, 2015, 03:14:09 pm

"McDonnell's biggest downfall? A greedy **** wife, money grubber.. "

Giving bribes to the wife is a common way for politicians and others to avoid getting caught.  I highly doubt that he didn't know where his wife was getting these things.  And as posted above, he had a trial which it is reasonable to believe was fair, since bribery is a difficult thing to prove in most cases. 

If he did it, toss is ass in jail, regardless of his political affiliations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 02, 2015, 10:58:39 pm

croatpackfan > OKGOPACK  • 8 hours ago

Probably, there is significant difference in salary! Happy New Year OKGOPACK!

OKGOPACK > croatpackfan  • 8 hours ago

Happy New Year, croat! Was that your question, from Croatia, in this morning's Ask Vic?

croatpackfan > OKGOPACK  • 8 hours ago

No, I placed several times different questions, but was not able to get attention from Vic. Obviously,I do not know how to ask right question. But doesn't matter. I enjoy reading his column as well as I'm enjoying discussion with people here..

RealCaliforniaCheese > croatpackfan  • 8 hours ago 

Just tell him you think he is a loudmouth, airbag that is a Steelers fan that cheers in the press box and will never understand

Packer fans.

croatpackfan > RealCaliforniaCheese  • 7 hours ago

I will never write that or tell that to the person I respect. I respect Vic lot, and I'm not one of those fans he needs to be mentioned to enjoy discussion here. For me all those wonderful Packers fans are just enough. I'm so happy they accepted me and actually
take my thoughts in consideration..

OKGOPACK > croatpackfan  • 7 hours ago

Keep asking, you're bound to get an answer on of these days. I've had a few answered, but yours are probably much better.

Avatar croatpackfan > OKGOPACK  • 7 hours ago 

Well, when I will have question, I will ask. I will not ask just to ask...

OKGOPACK > croatpackfan  • 7 hours ago 

Right, that's what I do, too. Of course, once he responded, but didn't really answer the question! That's a little frustrating.

ToivoIII > croatpackfan  • 6 hours ago 

I've asked dozens myself, but I guess I haven't asked the right question at the right time. Not to worry, just enjoy the conversations. GO PACK GO!!!
 
Series of responses to column about promotion of Ellliot Wolf (Ron Wolf's son) to director of Pro Personnel.  I love the patience and sincerity of this fan from Croatia.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 02, 2015, 11:05:53 pm

(http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/slides/photos/003/870/601/hi-res-260a9d07b1c8a8e06e89ebe4d84905d6_crop_north.jpg?w=630&h=420&q=75)

I see that Rodgers switched from Grape Crush for this interview.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 02, 2015, 11:13:45 pm

(http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/article/media_slots/photos/001/901/577/hi-res-d468fc82f5a70b36717974626941bf7e_crop_exact.jpg?w=650&h=433&q=85)

Five bucks to the first guy who EVER catches TT smiling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 02, 2015, 11:17:57 pm

Wrong thread again Packy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 02, 2015, 11:22:55 pm

Why Packers Fans Should Be Rooting for the Detroit Lions This Weekend.

NEVER!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 02, 2015, 11:50:11 pm

The Lions can't beat the Packers in Green Bay.  The Cowboys can.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 03, 2015, 10:15:10 am

If he did it, toss is ass in jail, regardless of his political affiliations.

He's going to jail alright, for a long ass time. He'll get at least 10 years. Yep, guilty, throw him in jail, and any other (higher) elected official in this country. Ooooops, that would probably be 90% of them. Again, you don't spend 20 mil (or whatever the number is) on an elected office to make 175k a year without looking for some other compensation, the numbers don't add up... The laws need revamping, too much money is spent on these elections, too many favors owed, and not near enough compensation for what is spent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 03, 2015, 02:35:26 pm

The other compensation does not have to be in the form of money.  Many politicians are there because of the power that comes with the office, and are willing to spend money to gain it.  Others, believe it or not, are there because they think they can do good for their country.

But those that break laws, should be sent to jail, regardless of why they entered politics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 03, 2015, 10:53:42 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on January 02, 2015, 11:17:57 pm

Wrong thread again Packy

Shoot!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 03, 2015, 10:58:34 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on January 02, 2015, 11:17:57 pm

Wrong thread again Packy

Crap. :-(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 05, 2015, 11:14:18 am

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/01/navy_vet_100_persuades_protest.html

Free speech is one of our most important rights and these protesters certainly have the right to speak but did these "hands up etc" protesters really think this was an appropriate time and place to gain any support for their cause?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 05, 2015, 05:36:04 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on January 05, 2015, 11:14:18 am

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/01/navy_vet_100_persuades_protest.html

Free speech is one of our most important rights and these protesters certainly have the right to speak but did these "hands up etc" protesters really think this was an appropriate time and place to gain any support for their cause?

They want an audience and attention.  The fact that the story was written, that you read it, and that you thought about it and commented on it, indicates they achieved their goal, and did so without breaking any laws (other than perhaps disturbing the peace, and no one was arrested, so they skated on that one), and without injuring anyone.  I suspect most of them are quite comfortable in their belief that it was perfectly appropriate.  Now, before you dismiss that type of thinking as nonsense, let me point out that the simple reality is that you and I likely would not have heard about Raschio or his heroism in WWII.  In a perverse way their show of dispespect did more to show him respect than ever would have happened had the protestors stayed home.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 05, 2015, 06:05:28 pm

And the Jews wouldn't have a homeland today if it weren't for the fact that Hitler killed so many of them.

Doesn't excuse the actions of either Hitler the protesters.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 05, 2015, 06:27:12 pm

Not even close to being the same thing, but you wingnuts....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 05, 2015, 06:57:14 pm

Mark's Market Blog
1-2-15: Deflation in Europe.
by Mark Lawrence
We had another short week because of new year's day; volume was low, momentum was uninspiring. Stocks ended 2014 by dropping, and started 2015 by dropping some more - something that hasn't happened since 2008 and is a bit unusual. Volatility continues to increase as the market goes up, a worrying sign. There's nothing seriously worrying out there right now, so I expect this little correction to turn around quickly, likely some time this week. However, the signs and portents are leaning more and more heavily towards this market forming an intermediate term drop - that is, it looks more than a little like a 10% correction is in our near term future. Perhaps we're just starting it now.
 
S&P 500 July 14 2014 to January 2 2015
Oil started the year continuing its price drop - down to $52. No bottom is currently evident an further drops would be unsurprising.

The Greece parliament tried three times to elect a new president and failed. There will be elections for a new senate on Jan.25. This is likely to be exciting and produce a new crisis for Europe. Germany says the safety nets are in place for the European banking system and they're ready for Greece to leave the Euro.

Germany put in place their minimum wage law, the first ever. Their minimum wage is €8.50, which is about $11 / hour.

Spain is now running 1.1% deflation. The ECB will consider this intolerable - this is like a kid with a cold at daycare.

Japan's Shinzo Abe is very popular inside of Japan with his money printing and spending policies. Outside of Japan? Not so much. Foreign direct investment in Japan is down 94% this year. There's a pretty strong consensus outside of Japan that this will not end well.

ISIL has killed 1878 civilians in the last two months, and another 120 muslims who flew to Syria to volunteer then wished to go home.

"The rise of populism should be a wake-up call," said the ECB's chief economist Peter Praet. "Populist parties in some countries promise quick solutions - but they offer only recipes for disaster," Praet warned. "Nobody should be under the illusion that you only need to return to the old system and everything will be better," he argued. Notice that "populist" means any party gathering significant votes that doesn't toe the unelected EU officials' party line. Europe is transitioning into a crisis of democracy v. entrenched bureaucrats. Socialists are making great progress in the southern countries ravaged by unemployment and debt; the far right is making great progress in the northern countries that are implicitly being asked to pay for past transgressions of the southern countries.

Peter had a big interview day, as he also said that inflation figures will spend a large part of 2015 in negative territory (deflation). Praet's comments are some of the most dovish to come from the ECB, making it sound all but guaranteed that the central bank will start a quantitative easing program in January. He's also given a hint towards the makeup of the likely QE program, saying that government bonds are "the only type of bond in which there is a significant market volume." This means the ECM means to start buying up, for example, Greek, Italian, Spanish and French bonds, effectively subsidizing their massive deficits. Germans fear the result of this is that they will have to pay off these subsidies. Central bankers, as I have previously noted, seem to think the bonds will never have to be paid off, they can just be rolled over in perpetuity.

Harper-Collings published maps and school books for the whole world. Curiously, H-C maps and books that ship to the middle east don't have Israel on them - instead they show most of what we consider Israel divided up between Lebanon, Syria and Jordan with a small splot for Gaza. I can't imagine the Palistinians like seeing "their" country divvyed up by the Arabs. Harper says this is a condition to import books to Saudi Arabia and other arabian countries. Personally, I think in a few years Iran will drop a few bombs on Haifa and Tel Aviv, rendering much of Israel uninhabitable.


Indians have a lot of religious ceremonies that happen in their rather wildly polluted rivers. Here's a ceremony in the Yamuna river which at the time of the photo is foaming like a washing machine going full bore. The pollution starts in a northern suburb of New Delhi, Wazirabad, and continues into the Ganges river. Interesting that a country with one of the highest birth rates places such a low value on their water.


The top .1% of earners continue to accumulate rather appalling wealth and are headed quickly for the level where, imho, capitalism breaks down and the wealth gets redistributed in the following depression. We had one of these little episodes after the 1907 banking crisis and another during the roaring 20s. That latter one was a precursor to the great depression which lead to WW II. Already outside of the US there are increasing voices saying that capitalism has run its course and is broken; one can only wonder how long until this spreads into the US. It would seem we haven't learned a thing.


Last week I put out my predictions for 2015; I'm quite bullish for the year. This week Doug Kass and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard put out their predictions; they think we're walking up to the edge of the abyss and we're going to take a bold step forwards. The world would be boring without differing opinions. They think central bankers will step up to the plate this year and strike out - the EU will not be able to take a bold enough stance to stave off European deflation, and the Fed will find that a rate increase or two will cause a major stock market correction and start a recession. They both think China will devaluate their currency in the next phase of the world wide currency wars. And Doug thinks this is the year derivatives blow up, nearly taking out a couple US banks and causing yet another massive bailout. Both of these guys are very good and cannot be dismissed out of hand. I believe I agree this is the year we learn that Super Mario has no clothes - I think it unlikely the ECB will print anywhere near enough money to save Europe. I agree about the Fed in the long run, but history repeatedly tells us the first interest rate increase doesn't cause major problems, and I doubt we'll see two rate increases this year. But the Fed will soon enough prove they're backing into a corner: zero rates are causing a bubble, and raising rates even 1.5% will put the US budget into crisis due to interest payments and cause a major recession.


In 2013 an Asiana Airlines plane was attempting a landing at San Francisco. SFO told the pilots to make a visual approach. Basically the pilots couldn't - left to their own devices, they selected an auto pilot approach and they picked the wrong autopilot mode, resulting in a crash that killed three people. Later it came out that the Korean pilots are trained to use the plane's computer systems, but untrained in how to fly the plane manually. This week we had a crash of an Indonesian plane that flew into a thunder storm. They asked for clearance from Malaysia flight control to fly over the storm; Malaysia was slow to respond. Apparently the pilots pulled back on the sticks for a last-second climb and stalled the aircraft - not entirely unlike 2009's Air France crash. It's becoming clear that the pilots flew into circumstances that the autopilot could not handle, and they too were untrained in how to fly the plane manually. The FAA tells us that this is now the #1 cause of airplane crashes: pilots losing control of otherwise good aircraft when the autopilot turns control over to the pilots.

A British 19 y/o posted a youtube video of him tearing up a koran and burning the pages. He's been arrested on suspicion of a racially or religiously aggravated public order offence. In 2011 Sion Owens filmed himself burning a copy of the Qu'ran. The clip was leaked to the British newspaper The Guardian and he was subsequently arrested. Then, the Home Office stated: "The government absolutely condemns the burning of the Qur'an. It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society. We equally condemn any attempts to create divisions between communities and are committed to ensuring that everyone has the freedom to live their lives free from fear of targeted hostility or harassment on the grounds of a particular characteristic, such as religion."

California's snow pack is at 51% of normal for this date, and 17% of normal for an entire season. And there's no rain forecast for the next 10 days. Unless things change soon, they're headed for another year of drought.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 05, 2015, 10:22:09 pm

Quote from: davep on January 05, 2015, 06:05:28 pm

And the Jews wouldn't have a homeland today if it weren't for the fact that Hitler killed so many of them.

Doesn't excuse the actions of either Hitler the protesters.

Wow.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 05, 2015, 10:46:49 pm

CNN reporting two more cops shot in NY. No details yet.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 06, 2015, 04:41:13 am

Police unions want killing of a police officer declared a hate crime.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 06, 2015, 06:02:46 am

Quote

Police unions want killing of a police officer declared a hate crime.

As it should be if done execution style.  If it happens during a liquor store robery it shouldn't be a hate crime.

If someone shoots and kills a homosexual because he/she is gay it is a hate crime.  If someone kills a cop just because he is a cop it is a hate crime.

Are there specified groups covered by hate crimes?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 06, 2015, 07:14:38 am

There should be NO hate crimes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 06, 2015, 08:50:29 am

Bingo.

But there are.

Are you talking about no hate crime laws or no hate crime.  There should be no hate crime.

I admit I am ignorant of the law but to just injure someone because you hate their group should carry a heavier punishment.  JMHO

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 06, 2015, 09:02:13 am

I actually agree with Jes on this one. Everyone's life matters. None should be discounted or put above another. If you murder someone, it sure ain't love!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 06, 2015, 09:55:39 am

Quote from: wmljohn on January 06, 2015, 06:02:46 am

As it should be if done execution style.  If it happens during a liquor store robery it shouldn't be a hate crime.

If someone shoots and kills a homosexual because he/she is gay it is a hate crime.  If someone kills a cop just because he is a cop it is a hate crime.

Are there specified groups covered by hate crimes?

Yes, there should be no such thing as a hate crime.  Murder is quite sufficient.  But the concept was used to make murder a Federal Offense and take it out of the hands of local authorities.

And yes, there are certain protected classes under the law, and hate crimes only applies to them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 06, 2015, 04:27:19 pm

Quote from: davep on January 06, 2015, 09:55:39 am

Yes, there should be no such thing as a hate crime.  Murder is quite sufficient.  But the concept was used to make murder a Federal Offense and take it out of the hands of local authorities.

Not really.  Hate crime prosecutions are generally under state law, particularly murder prosecutions.  While there may have been some federal murder prosecutions under hate crime laws, I would bet they have been exceedingly rare.  I do agree with you that there shoud be no laws making the nature of a criminal offense, or the punishment for that offense, more serious simply because the defendant acted out of hatred of the individual because the defendant thought the victim belonged to a group of people the defendant hated.

Quote from: wmljohn on January 06, 2015, 08:50:29 am

just injure someone because you hate their group should carry a heavier punishment.  JMHO

Why?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 06, 2015, 05:34:44 pm

All bigots should be prosecuted, right Jes?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 06, 2015, 05:49:41 pm

I admit that I'm not knowledgeable on the subject but I wonder how many non-white citizens have been convicted of a hate crime against a white citizen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 06, 2015, 07:11:57 pm

zero

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 06, 2015, 07:25:30 pm

Convicted? How many have even been charged?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 06, 2015, 07:26:25 pm

Its always so good to hear from the white privilege crowd in regard to the myth if reverse discrimination.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 06, 2015, 07:28:52 pm

Its very much like the stories of black police officers shooting unarmed white folks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 06, 2015, 07:31:28 pm

Homo sighting!!!!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 06, 2015, 07:42:45 pm

Wow, never expected a reaction that follows a bear playoff win just for posting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 06, 2015, 08:18:42 pm

Is "white privilege" the new liberal catch phrase since racist is worn out? Sounds like the change fro global waing to climate change.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 06, 2015, 08:48:27 pm

Bull Conner is that you?


Your post reads empty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 06, 2015, 08:56:54 pm

Can't answer my question can you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 06, 2015, 09:04:52 pm

Actually I guess you did answer. You always post something stupid when you don't have a real thought.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 06:07:57 am

Quote

Why?

Why not?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 06:52:56 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 06, 2015, 05:34:44 pm

All bigots should be prosecuted, right Jes?

Prosecuted for what?  By whom?  Why?

If your question made any sense whatsoever. I would be happy to answer it.   The question makes no sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 06:54:42 am

Quote from: otto105 on January 06, 2015, 07:26:25 pm

Its always so good to hear from the white privilege crowd in regard to the myth if reverse discrimination.

So how many non-whites HAVE been convicted of hate crimes against whites?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 06:56:36 am

Quote from: Keysbear on January 06, 2015, 08:56:54 pm

Can't answer my question can you?

I can answer the question you asked.  The answer is NO.  That is not only the response otto would likely give if he ever responded, it is the answer to the question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 07:01:05 am

Quote from: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 06:07:57 am

Why not?

Because it makes no sense to punish an ACTION more severely simply because of the actor had some animus toward the victim based on the group to which the victim belonged.

You were the one supporting such an approach, and I asked you why.  If the only reason to support that approach is, "why not," it would appear that the justification for that support or for that approach is weak enough not to be worth a great deal of consideraton.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 07, 2015, 07:04:42 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 06:52:56 am

Prosecuted for what?  By whom?  Why?

If your question made any sense whatsoever. I would be happy to answer it.   The question makes no sense.

I expected as much from you. Always evasive. In case you forgot, you called me a bigot. Lets see you start there

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 07, 2015, 09:04:33 am

Nevermind the fact that you are a bigot....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 07, 2015, 09:36:01 am

This coming from Homo, the most bigoted poster seen on this board.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 07, 2015, 11:15:42 am

Yeah and his twin Jes

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 12:33:58 pm

Quote

Because it makes no sense to punish an ACTION more severely simply because of the actor had some animus toward the victim based on the group to which the victim belonged.

You were the one supporting such an approach, and I asked you why.  If the only reason to support that approach is, "why not," it would appear that the justification for that support or for that approach is weak enough not to be worth a great deal of consideraton.

I believe the law deters some from commiting crimes of hate.  If the law only deters one person from comiting a hate crime then IMHO it is worth it.  I would assume that the law has deterred one hater from kicking the ass of a homosexual because he might be punished more harshley then he would have if he just kicked his friends ass for cheating on his girl.  If that is the case then the law is worth it.

I will give you that others who are mentally more programmed to commit the crime regardless of the resulting charges will still do it.  My opinion is that if it saved one person then the law is legitimate and worth it.  Do I like how it is enforced?  Maybe not so much.  I am sure there has been a minority from a protected group who has commited a crime against one in the majority and not been charged with the "Hate Crime" when the could have but having the law on the books and enforcing the law are two different things.

I will expand further on my opinion if you would like but now I ask you why not?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 07, 2015, 01:33:30 pm

To me a crime is a crime...I don't give a damn what you were thinking when you committed it. An assault on someone because he's black (or white), or gay, or just an **** is the same assault crime and should be punished accordingly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 01:45:44 pm

I guess the question is should the law exist?  Not how it is applied.

I say if it deters one idiot from comitting a crime it should exist.

Quote

Because it makes no sense to punish an ACTION more severely simply because of the actor had some animus toward the victim based on the group to which the victim belonged.

What about Robbery?  Isn't the action more severely punished if you perform it with a gun or knife?  It's the same action but the severity of punishment is different based on how it is done regardless of the outcome.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 02:15:29 pm

Maybe the armed robery thing doesn't fit as well as this....

Should the Boston Bomber kid be treated just like the murdere Kid (30 year old) that offed his dad the other day?

I say NOOOOO!  The Boston Bomber should be treated and punished with more prejudice then the Trust Fund Baby.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 07, 2015, 03:17:26 pm

Assuming they both did it, I think both should be executed.  No need to go further than that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 04:56:11 pm

EVERYONE should repost the images which prompted the terrorism in Paris today.
(http://s1.freebeacon.com/up/2015/01/charliehebdo-wide.png)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 05:04:05 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 07, 2015, 07:04:42 am

I expected as much from you. Always evasive. In case you forgot, you called me a bigot. Lets see you start there

I don't think it was so much that I CALLED you a bigot as much as it is that I pointed out you are a bigot, but that fact adds no cohenrence to your prior post, nor does it make my post evasive by pointing out that your question makes no sense.

Your entire post was as follows:

Quote

All bigots should be prosecuted, right Jes?

If you can explain how that makes sense, I will be happy to respond further.  As it is, I ask again, prosecuted for what, by whom, and why should they all be prosecuted?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 07, 2015, 05:04:34 pm

Yep. It's a disgrace what happened and the western world should be at war with these rotten sob's. Right now, Obaba should be sending a few cruise missiles to Yemen and that nice little Al Qaeda camp that spawned these POS and obliterate it, but our CinC is worthless and a Islamic sympathizer so he'll likely do nothing....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 07, 2015, 05:08:08 pm

One of the biggest disgraces are the fact that the police in France are unarmed. W T F  is a policeman in this day and age doing without a firearm?? He had no means to return fire and was a sitting duck for these pricks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 05:10:43 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 12:33:58 pm

I believe the law deters some from commiting crimes of hate.  If the law only deters one person from comiting a hate crime then IMHO it is worth it.  I would assume that the law has deterred one hater from kicking the ass of a homosexual because he might be punished more harshley then he would have if he just kicked his friends ass for cheating on his girl.  If that is the case then the law is worth it..

YOU might assume it has deterred something, but I seriously doubt that is the case.  And even if it were the case, that would not necessarily make it worthwhile.  And if harsher penalties were to deter more criminal offenses, by that logic, simply increase the sentence for all penalties.

Perhaps in a death penalty case, execute their dog, too, or perhaps used the electric chair to kill them the first time, and then hang the corpse.  THAT would learn 'em.

Quote from: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 12:33:58 pm

I will expand further on my opinion if you would like but now I ask you why not?

I have already addressed it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 05:11:45 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on January 07, 2015, 01:33:30 pm

To me a crime is a crime...I don't give a damn what you were thinking when you committed it. An assault on someone because he's black (or white), or gay, or just an **** is the same assault crime and should be punished accordingly.

I doubt there is a word I could change in that to make me agree with it any more.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 05:13:29 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 01:45:44 pm

What about Robbery?  Isn't the action more severely punished if you perform it with a gun or knife?  It's the same action but the severity of punishment is different based on how it is done regardless of the outcome.

You are correct, but you seem to miss the point.

HOW someone does something is rather different from WHY they do it.  You also are talking about a situation in which the different way something is does can result in a different charge or a more sever penalty.  I believe hate crime legislation generally refers to an independent and different crime.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 07, 2015, 05:15:53 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 05:11:45 pm

I doubt there is a word I could change in that to make me agree with it any more.

My God.  The Apocalypse is at hand!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 07, 2015, 05:41:35 pm

Christian radical

Do you have any idea why you post the crap that you do? The attack in France means we cruise missile Yemen?


 Seriously?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 07, 2015, 05:57:25 pm

Quote

The terrorists shouted that they were from al Qaeda in Yemen before they launched the brutal attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, according to one witness, writes the Telegraph's Holly Watt.
 
Cédric Le Béchec, a 33-year-old estate agent, witnessed the attack on the satirical magazine.

He said that the men arrived in a black car, stopping in the middle of the street. One of them was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade. They were dressed in black military-style clothing.

Mr Le Bechec said that before launching the assault, the attackers approached another man in the street saying, “Tell the media that this is Al Qaeda in Yemen.”
   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 06:20:05 pm

And assuming all of that is accurate, do you really want the U.S. to even more aggressively assume the role of the world's policeman?

If any missles are to be launched in response to this (and I am not dismissing the idea), why should they not be launched by France instead of the United States?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 07, 2015, 06:22:17 pm

Because we want them to actually hit something?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 07, 2015, 06:23:47 pm

Seriously, France has no missles.  Their army only has rifles.

It is too difficult to throw a missle away when surrendering.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 07, 2015, 06:28:57 pm

Their policemen don't have guns! Do you expect their military to have cruise missiles??  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 07, 2015, 06:37:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 07, 2015, 05:41:35 pm

Christian radical

Do you have any idea why you post the crap that you do? The attack in France means we cruise missile Yemen?


 Seriously?

They need to send a drone your way wherever you are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 07, 2015, 06:38:16 pm

Quote from: davep on January 07, 2015, 06:23:47 pm

Seriously, France has no missles.  Their army only has rifles.

It is too difficult to throw a missle away when surrendering.

Reminds me of a sign I saw at a gun show. For sale...WW2 French military rifle. Never fired. Dropped once.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 07, 2015, 06:41:02 pm

Haha. That's the way it was when the Germans crossed the river.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 07, 2015, 07:38:04 pm

The French way..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 08:47:21 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 07, 2015, 06:28:57 pm

Their policemen don't have guns!

I'm not sure about that.  I believe that SOME officers have guns, and some do not, and, depending on how they categorize things, that may not be very different from in the U.S.  If you call a meter-maid a police officer, many in this country are not armed.  And if you have a society where relatively few members of the general population are armed, then it is probably a good idea that police are either not armed or are less often heavily armed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2015, 08:50:00 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 07, 2015, 06:41:02 pm

Haha. That's the way it was when the Germans crossed the river.

France actually has a very proud military tradition.  Unfortunately for the French it generally ended about 100 years ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 07, 2015, 10:16:33 pm

Come on jes, stop throwing peanuts at the monkeys.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 08, 2015, 09:45:43 am

So you think Meter Maids are police officers?  Now that you mention it, many Cub Scouts are not armed either.  We have to allow our boys in uniform to protect themselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 08, 2015, 10:53:40 am

LOL!!! Those darned cub scouts..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 08, 2015, 11:22:03 am

Quote

So you think Meter Maids are police officers?

In some cities they are official police officers and they are not armed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 08, 2015, 02:17:16 pm

Quote

A senior U.S. intelligence source told CBS News that Mourad is the brother in law of the two brothers. The Kouachis are believed to have been connected to al Qaeda in Iraq (which later becameISIS) and have current links in Yemen, where one of them visited in 2011.
 
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the branch of the terror network considered to represent the most immediate threat to the U.S. and other Western nations, is based in Yemen. A witness to the attack on Wednesday said one of the men claimed to be acting on behalf of “al Qaeda in Yemen” during the shooting.
 

Just another shot at our resident short bus liberal....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 08, 2015, 02:29:19 pm

Lord.  Shades of Oddo.  What the heck is a "local short bus liberal"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 08, 2015, 02:32:24 pm

Dave, you are sounding like Jes. Don't go there. We've already got him to annoy us..... let me 'further explain'. Local=he posts here, Short bus=not too bright  Liberal=Otts  K?  p.s. I changed the 'local' to 'resident' to help you figure it out....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 08, 2015, 03:16:20 pm

It is fine to be "cute", but if that causes your post to become unintelligible, it defeats the purpose.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 08, 2015, 03:25:46 pm

Dave, not to be mean or hateful or anything, but take your word parsing bullshit and stuff it up your......    thanks. This isn't a lawyer forum. We're not here to define what the word 'is' is, k? I think what I said was perfectly clear for anyone not playing some wordplay bs....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 08, 2015, 03:32:16 pm

I think more of the police protesters should go through something like this...

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27788056/2015/01/07/activist-critical-of-police-undergoes-use-of-force-scenarios

PHOENIX (KSAZ) -- We've seen protests all across the country after police officers have been accused of shooting people who aren't armed.

But what would happen if one of those protesters looked at what it's like to wear a badge, and be put in a life or death situation.

Jarrett Maupin has been very vocal during the recent protests, leading marches on the Phoenix Police headquarters after officers shot an unarmed man who reportedly fought with them.

He agreed to go through a force on force training with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and went through three scenarios where you have to decide to shoot, or not to shoot.

Scenario one is a call of a man casing cars in a parking lot. Maupin approached the man and started asking questions. The suspect in the drill shot Maupin, who was asking him what kind of car he drove. It happens that fast.

FOX 10 asked him when he thought it was time for him to address the scenario with the use of force. "When he came to the back of the vehicle and started hiding, I could sense something was wrong," said Jarrett Maupin.

Scenario two is a call of two men fighting. "What's going on today gentlemen, what are you doing?" he said. He fired at the suspect in the scenario.

FOX 10 asked him why he shot the suspect. "Hey, he rushed me... I shot because he was in that zone, I didn't see him armed, he came clearly to do some harm to my person," said Maupin. "It's hard to make that call; it shakes you up."

Scenario three was a call about a possible burglar walking down the street. Maupin gets him on the ground, but the suspect is not complying. "I need you to keep your hands up sir, I need to check that's in the waistband," he said.

There were no shots fired, but the suspect did have a knife in his waistband.

FOX 10's Troy Hayden went through the scenarios too, without seeing what Maupin did.

It was the same results for both of us; things happen so fast. FOX 10 asked Maupin what his biggest take-away from the exercise will be. "I didn't understand how important compliance was, but after going through this; yes my attitude has changed, this happens in 10-15 seconds. People need to comply for their own sake," said Maupin.

FOX 10 would like to thank the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for helping us with this story.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 08, 2015, 04:14:13 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 08, 2015, 03:25:46 pm

Dave, not to be mean or hateful or anything, but take your word parsing bullshit and stuff it up your......    thanks. This isn't a lawyer forum. We're not here to define what the word 'is' is, k? I think what I said was perfectly clear for anyone not playing some wordplay bs....

You should be intelligent enough to understand that I wasn't parsing your words.  I was merely letting you know that I had no idea what you meant by what you said.  It doesn't help communication if your post is so vague as to be unintelligible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 08, 2015, 04:34:51 pm

The "short bus" is usually the shorter bus that picks up the retarded kids..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 08, 2015, 04:35:28 pm

Or,,, a ,,,, I mean the mentally disabled...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 08, 2015, 04:42:47 pm

Quote from: davep on January 08, 2015, 09:45:43 am

So you think Meter Maids are police officers?  Now that you mention it, many Cub Scouts are not armed either.  We have to allow our boys in uniform to protect themselves.

Try reading it again, davep.  Reding comprehension is a learned skill.  You can master it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 08, 2015, 04:44:45 pm

I can.  But you haven't indicated that you can.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 08, 2015, 04:44:54 pm

Quote from: davep on January 08, 2015, 03:16:20 pm

It is fine to be "cute", but if that causes your post to become unintelligible, it defeats the purpose.

Of course, it only matters for those who have an intelligible point to make.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 08, 2015, 04:46:36 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 08, 2015, 03:25:46 pm

I think what I said was perfectly clear for anyone not playing some wordplay bs....

Not at all.  Not even remotely close.

And why should anyone get upset if another person asks why they meant by a particular word or phrase?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 08, 2015, 04:48:11 pm

Quote from: davep on January 08, 2015, 04:44:45 pm

I can.  But you haven't indicated that you can.

You certainly demonstrated a problem with reading comprehension with the post at issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 08, 2015, 04:49:05 pm

Quote from: davep on January 08, 2015, 04:14:13 pm

You should be intelligent enough to understand that I wasn't parsing your words.

Yes.  He SHOULD be, but.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 08, 2015, 05:15:40 pm

LOL!

Sportys reference was perfectly clear.  Maybe it is a generational gap sort of thing.

If someone asks you, "if you rode the short bus to school?", they are insulting your intelligence.  The Special Ed kids ride the short bus.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 08, 2015, 06:22:46 pm

Shh shh shhh, Peke! I'm enjoying the Jes/Dave back and forth! Don't interrupt! Let em have at each other, maybe they'll take each other out and peace will return to the savanna once again

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 08, 2015, 07:21:52 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 08, 2015, 05:15:40 pm

LOL!

Sportys reference was perfectly clear.  Maybe it is a generational gap sort of thing.

If someone asks you, "if you rode the short bus to school?", they are insulting your intelligence.  The Special Ed kids ride the short bus.   

It probably is.. They "walked to school in 4 feet of snow"...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 08, 2015, 07:29:46 pm

Up hill both ways and had to fight off bears with their loose leaf binders...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 08, 2015, 07:31:51 pm

While wearing homemade muklucks (with holes in the bottoms), and knitted mittens..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 08, 2015, 11:04:15 pm

Hey austerity conservatives, how is the great state of California doing since it kicked the repukes out of power and changed the votes needed to raise taxes? Pass cap-n-trade and invest in infrastructure.


 As opposed to bat **** crazy in Oklahoma....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 08, 2015, 11:46:27 pm

going bankrupt. business moving out. skyrocketing taxes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 09, 2015, 05:52:18 am

Quote from: Pekin on January 08, 2015, 05:15:40 pm

LOL!

Sportys reference was perfectly clear.  Maybe it is a generational gap sort of thing.

If someone asks you, "if you rode the short bus to school?", they are insulting your intelligence.  The Special Ed kids ride the short bus.

That something was clear to one person, does not mean it was clear to another.  davep's request for clarification was neither rude, unreasonable, or in any way burdensome.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 09, 2015, 05:56:04 am

Quote from: otto105 on January 08, 2015, 11:04:15 pm

Hey austerity conservatives, how is the great state of California doing since it kicked the repukes out of power and changed the votes needed to raise taxes?

Is that a serious question?  Or have you in your total ignorance of what is actually happening in California stumbled on some liberal website suggesting things are going well in California and embraced it as gospel?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 09, 2015, 06:01:09 am

Quote from: Sportster on January 08, 2015, 06:22:46 pm

Shh shh shhh, Peke! I'm enjoying the Jes/Dave back and forth! Don't interrupt! Let em have at each other, maybe they'll take each other out and peace will return to the savanna once again

So sad... it appears Sportster was commenting about short buses based on personal familiarity with the inside of them.

Sportster, neither davep nor I have had the slightest disagreement regarding his extremely simply request that you explain what you mean with your "short bus" comment, but you seem not to be able to grasp that.  Perhaps that is why you got your panties in a wad over the request and launched into a bit of a rant becoming upset that you had to offer an explanation bringing back unpleasant memories of those rides.

That would explain an awful lot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 09, 2015, 01:33:41 pm

Give it a rest, Jethro. You're nonsense is getting old. And equating what I posted to being like Otts " Lord.  Shades of Oddo." is not considered rude? You're delusional......instead of law, maybe you should have gone into writing fiction. And I wasn't referring to you posting to me, Einstein, I was referring to your back and forth with Dave about some other nonsense you two were bickering over. Yea, I have to explain that to you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 09, 2015, 04:53:25 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 09, 2015, 01:33:41 pm

Give it a rest, Jethro. You're nonsense is getting old. And equating what I posted to being like Otts " Lord.  Shades of Oddo." is not considered rude? You're delusional......instead of law, maybe you should have gone into writing fiction. And I wasn't referring to you posting to me, Einstein, I was referring to your back and forth with Dave about some other nonsense you two were bickering over. Yea, I have to explain that to you.

Those special ed classes just didn't do all that well, did they, Sportster?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 09, 2015, 04:57:51 pm

Jes with your attitudes and values on stuff I am glad you aren't teaching my kids. And if I were doing the hiring of teachers you wouldn't have a job.  You are just a disgusting human being.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 10, 2015, 12:28:36 am

WshflThinking, then we are in complete agreement on something.  I am also glad I am not teaching your kids.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 10, 2015, 07:03:39 am

And you can kiss your alter personality Oddo wherever you have him stashed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 10, 2015, 12:00:06 pm

otto is probably happy right now with the latest jobs report.  The number of jobs is up, and earnings are down.  Great recovery.  http://www.cnbc.com/id/102324257

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 10, 2015, 12:30:32 pm

Otto = You

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 10, 2015, 12:37:57 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 10, 2015, 12:30:32 pm

Otto = You

While I frequently disagree with both Jes and Otto(usually for diffemt reasons) I have never had difficulty understanding what Jes is saying. Otto on the other hand usually posts gibberish that is not worth my time to try to decipher.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 10, 2015, 05:03:12 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on January 10, 2015, 12:37:57 pm

While I frequently disagree with both Jes and Otto(usually for diffemt reasons) I have never had difficulty understanding what Jes is saying. Otto on the other hand usually posts gibberish that is not worth my time to try to decipher.

It's useless to point such things out to someone having as much trouble as Wshfl is showing in making distinctions.  He doesn't like otto, and he doesn't like me.  With that established any other difference is set aside.  We're both identical.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 10, 2015, 05:12:37 pm

Your both trolls.  Two sides of the same coin but most definitely two different people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 10, 2015, 10:08:35 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 10, 2015, 05:12:37 pm

Your both trolls.  Two sides of the same coin but most definitely two different people.

We have gone thru this before Pekin.  You posted a link to a site offering what you embraced as your definition of "troll."  And as I pointed out at the time, the definition there fit you, but it did not fit me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 10, 2015, 10:33:33 pm

In your mind only Jes.

This is a Chicago Bears board and you never talk football. You are here only to insult people.  For some reason putting others down makes you feel better about yourself.  It is sad and pathetic.

Perhaps you truly believe you have not insulted every single person who posts in this thread at one point or another.  I doubt it but I suppose you could be that obtuse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 10, 2015, 11:08:20 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 10, 2015, 10:33:33 pm

This is a Chicago Bears board and you never talk football. You are here only to insult people.

This topic does not exist to discuss football, and you know that.

As to trolling, as defined at your link, 7 of your last 8 posts here have been personal attacks, with the 8th a rather weak joke intended to be at the expense of older posters.  You have to go back to December 23rd to find a substantive post from you here... of course YOU are not a troll.... even if your posting habits here perfectly match the definition at the thread you offered.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 11, 2015, 12:43:05 am

This topic does not exist to discuss football, and you know that.

You are correct, it doesn't. This thread was set up so that football posters had something else to post, not for non-football people to come in and dominate with stupidity

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 11, 2015, 02:18:22 am

Jes,  Seriously?  You really want to act like you are just here to have honest discussions with out adding personal attacks to them?

If that was the truth I would welcome it.  But you and I both know you can not have a discussion with someone with out insulting them unless they agree with you 100%.  You just do not have it in you.

Hell you attack people you agree with.   You could agree with them 99.9% but they are a dumb ass for that .1% where you disagree.

I quit discussing **** with you and disengaged because you act like a troll.  I treat you as you treat others.  I give you no respect.  If you decide to ever treat others with respect I will do the same to you.



 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 11, 2015, 08:03:33 am

8 of 9.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 11, 2015, 06:55:31 pm

Peke is dead on. You're a troll, period. l

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 11, 2015, 08:18:58 pm

Jes is a superb human being.  We should all aspire to be as great as him.

8 of 10...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 11, 2015, 08:25:23 pm

As other major world leaders marched down the street arm in arm....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905678/America-snubs-historic-Paris-rally-Holder-skipped-early-Kerry-India-Obama-Biden-just-stayed-home-leave-no-U-S-presence-anti-terror-march-joined-global-leaders.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 11, 2015, 08:26:12 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 11, 2015, 08:18:58 pm

Jes is a superb human being.  We should all aspire to be as great as him.

8 of 10...

You need to look back at your link for the definition you embraced.  That one now puts you at 9 out of ten.  I was actually pretty surprised when you posted the link.  Even at the time I wondered if you had read it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 11, 2015, 08:37:32 pm

A compliment is a troll post?  Damn it. 

I just can't do anything right in the eyes of Jes.  Whatever will I do?

In all seriousness Jes why do you post here?  You think we are all stupid.  Why bother?

Surely there is a message board where others of your high intellect can challenge you much better then us peons.  Why not go wherever that may be and leave us alone?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 12, 2015, 06:28:58 am

10 of 11.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on January 12, 2015, 06:50:09 am

don't feed the trolls

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 12, 2015, 08:30:38 am

All yous fucktards need lernin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 12, 2015, 09:18:20 am

Learning that the Troll wins? No thank you. Just launch him. I've had enough.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 12, 2015, 11:09:48 am

Quote from: navigator on January 12, 2015, 06:50:09 am

don't feed the trolls

That's what I've been trying to tell 'em...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 12, 2015, 12:26:17 pm

ISIS hacked Centcom's Youtube and Twitter accounts.

Who knew Centcom had a youtube and twitter account?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 12, 2015, 05:21:50 pm

ISIS.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on January 12, 2015, 05:59:33 pm

Noble wants their peace prize back.

What a horrendous administration. Classless. Unqualified ninkinpoops.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 12, 2015, 07:17:11 pm

Beerbelly


 The second failed bush presidency ended years ago, quit bitching about them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 12, 2015, 08:29:34 pm

You know that you can easily and effectively block the trolls yourself by going to your personal site and requesting the block.  It works.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 13, 2015, 08:43:15 pm

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/war-between-two-worlds#axzz3Ol5dI6Bg

Europe's sense of nation is rooted in shared history, language, ethnicity and yes, in Christianity or its heir, secularism. Europe has no concept of the nation except for these things, and Muslims share in none of them. It is difficult to imagine another outcome save for another round of ghettoization and deportation. This is repulsive to the European sensibility now, but certainly not alien to European history. Unable to distinguish radical Muslims from other Muslims, Europe will increasingly and unintentionally move in this direction.

Paradoxically, this will be exactly what the radical Muslims want because it will strengthen their position in the Islamic world in general, and North Africa and Turkey in particular. But the alternative to not strengthening the radical Islamists is living with the threat of death if they are offended. And that is not going to be endured in Europe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 13, 2015, 08:53:39 pm

Sadly I agree with this article.  The killing will keep happening until they just say enough and start deporting Muslims or not allowing them to move freely.  Innocent and guilty will be lumped together.  It is the only way to combat the militant Islamic terrorists that are amongst those who either support them, cast a blind eye, do nothing out of fear or even reject violence 100%.

They will increasingly become like Israel. 

While we are farther behind we will end up there as well eventually if things do not change. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 13, 2015, 10:10:58 pm

 

Quote from: wmljohn on January 12, 2015, 08:30:38 am

All yous fucktards need lernin.

 Screw that. I need a decent blow job. Haven't had one in over a month.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 14, 2015, 06:38:15 am

Quote from: otto105 on January 12, 2015, 07:17:11 pm

The second failed bush presidency ended years ago, quit bitching about them.

otto, if the "SECOND failed bush prediency ended years ago," what was the failure of the first Bush presidency?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 14, 2015, 07:00:09 am

Quote from: Pekin on January 13, 2015, 08:43:15 pm

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/war-between-two-worlds#axzz3Ol5dI6Bg

Europe's sense of nation is rooted in shared history, language, ethnicity and yes, in Christianity or its heir, secularism. Europe has no concept of the nation except for these things, and Muslims share in none of them. It is difficult to imagine another outcome save for another round of ghettoization and deportation. This is repulsive to the European sensibility now, but certainly not alien to European history. Unable to distinguish radical Muslims from other Muslims, Europe will increasingly and unintentionally move in this direction.

Paradoxically, this will be exactly what the radical Muslims want because it will strengthen their position in the Islamic world in general, and North Africa and Turkey in particular. But the alternative to not strengthening the radical Islamists is living with the threat of death if they are offended. And that is not going to be endured in Europe.

Quote from: Pekin on January 13, 2015, 08:53:39 pm

Sadly I agree with this article.  The killing will keep happening until they just say enough and start deporting Muslims or not allowing them to move freely.  Innocent and guilty will be lumped together.  It is the only way to combat the militant Islamic terrorists that are amongst those who either support them, cast a blind eye, do nothing out of fear or even reject violence 100%.

They will increasingly become like Israel. 

While we are farther behind we will end up there as well eventually if things do not change. 

This reads much more like a thinly veiled justification for bigotry and xenophobia, trying to cloak itself under an academic veneer than it does an actual reasoned analysis or a true effort to (quoting from the piece) "dissect the event, place it in context and try to understand what has happened and why."  The effort to deal with Christianity as monolithic and united, when thru its history Christianity has been used as the basis for centuries of persecution, killing and wars in Europe, wars of Christian against Christian, and the failure to recognize similar divisions and conflict in Islam is one of the most glaring failings of the piece and one of the sharper indications it is far from what it pretends to be.

One point on which I do strongly agree with the author is his attack of multi-culturalism, at least as he seems to define the concept -- one of true balkanization of different cultures without any strong effort at assimiliation.  That is a serious and legitimate concern, not only in Europe, but in any society wanting to avoid major civil conflict and ultimately bloodshed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 14, 2015, 11:06:20 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on January 13, 2015, 10:10:58 pm

 

 Screw that. I need a decent blow job. Haven't had one in over a month.

You have Otto's phone number?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 14, 2015, 11:22:39 am

LOL

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 14, 2015, 05:16:54 pm

Hillbilly legal aid


 Reading lips.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 14, 2015, 05:46:41 pm

Jes, Stratfor is short for strategic forecasting.  It is what they do.  People pay them for it.  Furthering some Christian agenda, bigotry or xenophobia is not what they are about.  They are simply reporting what they believe is going to happen in the future. 

Any perceived bias is simply coming from your own bias against Christianity clouding your perception.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 15, 2015, 03:13:45 am

 

Quote from: chifaninva on January 14, 2015, 11:06:20 am

You have Otto's phone number?

 Chifan,


 As stated ... a DECENT blowjob. Not someone with dentures out giving a gum job.


 Let me get back to my honey ... she's just been in a mood lately.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 15, 2015, 06:03:01 am

Not even a smidgen of scandal: http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/14/lois-lerner-tried-to-block-supervisors-visit-because-she-feared-targeting-would-be-exposed/

Lois Lerner Tried To Block Supervisor’s Visit Because She Feared Targeting Would Be Exposed
10:29 PM 01/14/2015  by         Patrick Howley
Former IRS official Lois Lerner tried to block an IRS supervisor’s visit to the Cincinnati office that she oversaw during the period in which her division was targeting conservative groups.

Lerner made clear that she didn’t want the official talking to employees involved in early congressional and inspector general probes into the “c4″ business, according to newly unearthed emails.

As The Daily Caller extensively reported, Lerner and her underling Nikole Flax unveiled the new program of nonprofit scrutiny at a 2010 conference of government workers at Washington’s Grand Hyatt hotel. IRS officials obtained donor lists for a “secret research project” that was approved by then-IRS commissioner Steven T. Miller. Lerner provided confidential taxpayer information on a conservative group to senior White House adviser Jeanne Lambrew. (RELATED: Obama Admin Refuses To Turn Over Info On IRS-White House Coordination).

Lerner wanted to stop people from poking around, according to an April 4, 2012 email uncovered by Judicial Watch, which is suing the IRS for information.

“We just go[t] an very extensive information request from Imraan [Khakoo, an IRS official] –sure looks like op review material. I’m especially concerned that information about pipeline is being asked about … Add to that the fact tha cincinnati is smack dab in the middle of the c4 Congressional inqueries and is about to get a request from TIGTA on all of that, this is NOT a good time to be asking them for anything or to be talking to them about issue in their work. Everyone is stressed to the max and at their wits end, so can we put this off please?” Lerner wrote to her IRS supervisor Joseph Grant.

“It is a visit, not an OP review … I am also interested in the questions Imraan sent to them. Some answers should be readily at hand. Others certainly won’t be,” Grant replied. “The questions just serve as a framework for a broader conversation about how things are going and what is on our respective minds.”

Lerner continued to try to stop the visit.

“I get that–but timing would be bad if we have to go to Cincy now. So, I will assume we can go over this here as I get the information I’ve already asked for? Thanks.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 15, 2015, 06:19:53 am

Quote from: Pekin on January 14, 2015, 05:46:41 pm

Jes, Stratfor is short for strategic forecasting.  It is what they do.  People pay them for it.  Furthering some Christian agenda, bigotry or xenophobia is not what they are about.  They are simply reporting what they believe is going to happen in the future. 

Any perceived bias is simply coming from your own bias against Christianity clouding your perception.   

11 for 14.

People used to (and perhaps still do) pay the KKK for their newspaper, which quite routinely included forecasts of what the future would bring.  That fact did not mean what one found in it was any less a result of bigotry, xenophobia. and an effort to advance what they saw as a Christian agenda.  And often what was written was simply a report of what they believed was going to happen in the future.

As to your contention that I am biased against Christianity, bull.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 15, 2015, 08:29:47 am

I believe you are definitely bigoted against Christians, period. I believe part of that is due to your acceptance of the 'gay' life and lifestyle which is unacceptable to Christians is at the center of it. And you bash Christians for that saying they are bigots when in fact they like gays as people but their lifestyle is repugnant to Christians. If Christians are bigoted against gays and should be guilty of hate crimes then God should be persecuted for hate crimes as being the biggest bigot. After all HE destroyed their little party at Sodom and Gommorah.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 15, 2015, 09:16:35 am

Joe Morrissey anyone?

RICHMOND, Va. –  A state lawmaker who resigned his seat following a sex scandal involving a teenage employee won it back during a special election Tuesday.

Apparently the majority of voters in Joseph D. Morrissey's Richmond-area House of Delegates conviction were OK with his conviction in the scandal involving his 17-year-old secretary, whose **** photo was found on his cellphone and allegedly shared with a friend. Morrissey has repeatedly denied the allegations, saying his phone was hacked. The young woman, who denies they had sex, is now pregnant.

In unofficial returns, Morrissey defeated Democrat Kevin J. Sullivan and Republican Matt D. Walton by a comfortable margin. Morrissey won 42 percent of the vote, compared to 33 percent for Sullivan and 24 percent for Walton.

Morrissey's victory was not unprecedented: Through four previous elections, most voters overlooked or even embraced the lawmaker's flamboyant history of fistfights, contempt-of-court citations and disbarment. The 57-year-old bachelor, who fathered three children out of wedlock with three different women, repeatedly won at least 70 percent of the vote as a Democrat.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 15, 2015, 09:17:53 am

I wonder what otter has to say about him?  How does he spin it?  Can't wait to find out how he defends him...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 15, 2015, 10:10:49 am

....Especially a long term Communist Democrat getting 70% of the vote.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 15, 2015, 10:35:08 am

Have you guys not learned anything?

otto won't defend Morrissey...he'll simply throw out the name of some disgraced Republican official as his prototypical lame response...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 15, 2015, 11:41:18 am

"Democrat"

I don't like the holier than thou ****, but that's all you need to know..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 15, 2015, 11:44:40 am

Well then imagine him banging your daughter. I doubt you'd be complementing him on that

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 15, 2015, 12:06:51 pm

Was that for me? If so, re-read.. I was saying typical Dem...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 15, 2015, 12:08:43 pm

Quote from: Dave23 on January 15, 2015, 10:35:08 am

Have you guys not learned anything?

otto won't defend Morrissey...he'll simply throw out the name of some disgraced Republican official as his prototypical lame response...

Even more likely he just ignores the situation entirely and posts a string of unrelated liberal media articles about nothing relevant to the discussion at hand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 15, 2015, 03:46:00 pm

I found this to be very interesting and I will be following how this goes further. I also will be watching the Arizona Sheriff's law suit which is now in the DC Appelate Court.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/lawsuit-states-obama-immigration/2015/01/08/id/617380/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/joe-arpaio-lawsuit-barack-obama-executive/2015/01/14/id/618665/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1603739_01152015&s=al&dkt_nbr=4suf7yeo

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 15, 2015, 05:29:52 pm

Why should anyone worry about that state election when we have the Appalachian Trail and a tax fraud from NY recently elected to federal office on the stupid conservative side.


Any wingnut comments about that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 15, 2015, 06:38:08 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 15, 2015, 05:29:52 pm

Why should anyone worry about that state election when we have the Appalachian Trail and a tax fraud from NY recently elected to federal office on the stupid conservative side.

You win Dave23...you definately know your Ottoisms

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 15, 2015, 06:51:39 pm

The Republican resigned.  Did the Democrat resign?

Homo is lucky that he lives in a state that now has no corruption in elected officials now that his hero Walker was elected again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 15, 2015, 07:48:58 pm

Keys...fish in a barrel...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 15, 2015, 08:12:24 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 15, 2015, 08:29:47 am

I believe you are definitely bigoted against Christians, period. I believe part of that is due to your acceptance of the 'gay' life and lifestyle which is unacceptable to Christians is at the center of it. And you bash Christians for that saying they are bigots when in fact they like gays as people but their lifestyle is repugnant to Christians. If Christians are bigoted against gays and should be guilty of hate crimes then God should be persecuted for hate crimes as being the biggest bigot. After all HE destroyed their little party at Sodom and Gommorah.

What is the "gay lifestyle"? 

And if you believe am "bigoted against Christians (because) of (my) acceptance" of gays, then would that make Christians who accept gays "bigoted against Christians"?  And is there any chance you could point to ANYTHING in the Bible indicating Jesus ever commented at all on homosexuality?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 15, 2015, 09:14:45 pm

Jes you are biased against all religion. Isn't that what being an atheist is all about?   Christianity seems to be the one you rail against the most but perhaps that is because there are more Christians here for you to troll then other religions.

By the way the writer of the article is Jewish.  Well at least both his parents are so I am taking a small leap of faith to assume he is as well.  He is also the CEO of the company. 

Stratfor is a business that makes money selling their strategic forecasting abilities.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 15, 2015, 09:25:07 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 15, 2015, 09:14:45 pm

Jes you are biased against all religion. Isn't that what being an atheist is all about?  .

12 of 15.

Not sure whether you don't understand the meaning of the word "bias," or of the word "atheist," but No, that is not what being an atheist is all about.

Any chance you can be persuaded to discuss the substance of any issue?

ANY issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 15, 2015, 09:36:58 pm

Bbbbbbwwwwwaaaaazhhhhhhhh


All the little school girls.



Your dads must be so proud.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 15, 2015, 09:37:10 pm

The atheists that haunt these boards are you, Cletus and Otto.  All three of you attack Christians every shot you get. 

Now I am sure there are some atheists that just want to be left alone to not believe in a higher being.  However every single person I have ever talked to that makes a point of saying they are an atheist also makes a point to attack religion.  It kind of goes hand in hand.

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 15, 2015, 09:40:11 pm

Just how is the view from the Appalachian Trail?


Even speaker orange's bartender could not take him.


Enjoy the circle guys.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 15, 2015, 09:44:08 pm

Wow peke


Way to bring the perfect story about whatever lazy, colored, good for nothing minority at just the wingnut time.


Water cooler talk at white employment inc.


Nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 15, 2015, 09:56:09 pm

I would ask what the hell Otto is talking about but the truth is I really don't give a ****.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 15, 2015, 10:45:23 pm

Anyone have any idea what Homo is moaning about with the Appalachian Trail comments.  His mind is a little too twisted for me to follow this late at night.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 15, 2015, 11:35:52 pm

Low information **** gathering together again.


Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 16, 2015, 05:49:08 am

Quote from: Pekin on January 15, 2015, 09:37:10 pm

The atheists that haunt these boards are you, Cletus and Otto.  All three of you attack Christians every shot you get. 

Now I am sure there are some atheists that just want to be left alone to not believe in a higher being.  However every single person I have ever talked to that makes a point of saying they are an atheist also makes a point to attack religion.  It kind of goes hand in hand.   

13 0f 16.

Now, since I "attack Christians every shot (I) get," and since I am on here nearly every day and could "attack Christians" with pretty much every post, any chance you could find a dozen or so of those "attacks," which must be extremely numerous, and then cut and paste them here?

And, again, is there ANY chance you could actually even TRY to discuss any substantive issues?

Any at all?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 16, 2015, 05:52:17 am

Quote from: davep on January 15, 2015, 10:45:23 pm

Anyone have any idea what Homo is moaning about with the Appalachian Trail comments.  His mind is a little too twisted for me to follow this late at night.

I haven't been able to follow any of his last three posts... and I am betting your own difficulty continues in the morning.  I don't think the problem is related to the late night hour.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 16, 2015, 06:04:16 am

I think Homo's mind is too Communist infested to make any sense out of normal people's conversation or logic

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 16, 2015, 06:06:37 am

One more time, Wshfl --

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 15, 2015, 08:29:47 am

I believe you are definitely bigoted against Christians, period. I believe part of that is due to your acceptance of the 'gay' life and lifestyle which is unacceptable to Christians is at the center of it. And you bash Christians for that saying they are bigots when in fact they like gays as people but their lifestyle is repugnant to Christians. If Christians are bigoted against gays and should be guilty of hate crimes then God should be persecuted for hate crimes as being the biggest bigot. After all HE destroyed their little party at Sodom and Gommorah.

What is the "gay lifestyle"? 

And if you believe am "bigoted against Christians (because) of (my) acceptance" of gays, then would that make Christians who accept gays "bigoted against Christians"?  And is there any chance you could point to ANYTHING in the Bible indicating Jesus ever commented at all on homosexuality?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 16, 2015, 06:13:04 am

In fact I even think you are a closet gay

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 16, 2015, 10:08:36 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 16, 2015, 05:52:17 am

I haven't been able to follow any of his last three posts... and I am betting your own difficulty continues in the morning.  I don't think the problem is related to the late night hour.

No.  I am quite active in the morning.  Which is why I try to sleep til noon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 16, 2015, 03:00:28 pm

Otto's posts always make me think of that scene in "A Christmas Story" where Ralphie receives his Little Orphan Annie decoder ring. He anxiously decodes the secret message only to find out it's a commercial for Ovaltine. In Otto's case its just a commercial for the DNC.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 16, 2015, 03:02:26 pm

...a commercial for the Socialist Workers Party

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 16, 2015, 05:05:57 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 16, 2015, 06:13:04 am

In fact I even think you are a closet gay

In other words you can not answer the very simple questions I asked.

Not surprising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 16, 2015, 05:42:02 pm

Ten years from now there are still going to be people referring to this book as proof of heaven.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/01/15/boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-going-back-to-publisher/?hpid=z5

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 16, 2015, 06:38:45 pm

Never heard of it.  Who cares?

Why do you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 16, 2015, 07:22:51 pm

I find it amusing, and I have heard of it, having seen some people cite it (and other claims by folks who had "near death experiences") as "evidence" of heaven.

The kid who made the claim now admits he lied.  Not that he might have been mistaken.  Not that he has now decided he was wrong.  But that he simply flat out lied.

And, as I wrote initially, ten years from now, people are STILL going to be citing his book as evidence of heaven.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 16, 2015, 07:44:38 pm

There are tons of people who have had near death experiences that claim seeing heaven or people who have passed (some say they have seen hell). 

One saying they lied means nothing.  It also seems the kids dad got the money and the kid and mom are a bit pissed about it so there are ulterior motives.  I took this from the article you posted because unlike you I tend to read an article before I post a comment to it.



 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on January 16, 2015, 08:37:40 pm

I think more likely people will cite Dr. Eban Alexander's book "proof of heaven"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 16, 2015, 09:29:19 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 16, 2015, 07:44:38 pm

There are tons of people who have had near death experiences that claim seeing heaven or people who have passed (some say they have seen hell). 

One saying they lied means nothing.  It also seems the kids dad got the money and the kid and mom are a bit pissed about it so there are ulterior motives.  I took this from the article you posted because unlike you I tend to read an article before I post a comment to it.

14 of 18.

Pekin, please find a single post by me when I commented on the substance of an article without reading it.

Please also note that my post did not offer any opinion on the existence of heaven, but merely on the fact that long after the kid acknowledged his claim was a lie, that people will cite the book to support THEIR claim that it exists.  Even now, in your comment, it appears you attempt to discredit his admission the original claim was a crock: " It also seems the kids dad got the money and the kid and mom are a bit pissed about it so there are ulterior motives."

Interestingly, you make that claim, despite the fact that nowhere does the article suggest the ulterior motive which you appear to have manufactured out of whole clothe, and, despite your claim to have "read the article," considering the "ulterior motive" you imagine, considering the fact that the last paragraph is rather strongly at odds with your theory, it might seem you did not read all of it.

“The idea that Alex suddenly recanted is just not true,” Johnson insists. “He’s been trying to make his voice heard as well as a teenage paraplegic boy can. There was proof everywhere that he did not stand behind the content of this book. But it was a bestselling book. Nobody in the industry wanted to kill it.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 09:44:16 pm

Keysbart


Can you check the Norsk Sagas for how 2014 compared to 1998 on the question of which year was warmer.


Cuz, it means a lot to you climate change deniers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 16, 2015, 09:55:46 pm

From the article you posted:

Last April, Alex’s mother posted a statement on her blog objecting to the memoir and its promotion: “It is both puzzling and painful to watch the book ‘The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven’ not only continue to sell, but to continue, for the most part, to not be questioned.” She goes on to say that the book is not “Biblically sound” and that her son’s objections to it have been ignored and repressed. She also notes that Alex “has not received monies from the book nor have a majority of his needs been funded by it.”

Tyndale’s book contract was only with Kevin, Alex’s father – not with Alex or his mother. Repeated attempts to reach Kevin and Beth Malarkey have not been successful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 16, 2015, 10:06:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 09:44:16 pm

Keysbart


Can you check the Norsk Sagas for how 2014 compared to 1998 on the question of which year was warmer.


Cuz, it means a lot to you climate change deniers.

It appears to mean more to you than to others. Wait till the real figures come out. We've seen how they've changed in the past. And for the record and confirmed by WGN tonight the Midwest was much colder in 2014. Its difficult to determine where the "warmth" was..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 10:13:11 pm

Its not difficult to determine unless your stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 10:21:05 pm

Isfullofit


Can you post the changes to global temperature that your refer to in your post. And who in you tiny information circle would final since I will source NASA and NOAA. While you will point to Rupert murduck.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 16, 2015, 10:26:50 pm

Who is Rupert Murdock to WGN weather reports? I don't see the connection. The Midwest had a hard cold winter in 2014, a late cool spring, a not so hot with below average 90 degree temp days during the summer and a record early snow in October. Now where is the heat?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 10:29:14 pm

You know the difference between weather and climate right?


And you know the world is round right?


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html)


Your not color blind are you old man?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 16, 2015, 10:30:00 pm

And the NOAA figures are gerrymandered. Its been proven. I don't trust them

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 10:38:33 pm

Show your "proof".

But you can't since its just misinformed opinion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 16, 2015, 10:46:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 09:44:16 pm

Keysbart


Can you check the Norsk Sagas for how 2014 compared to 1998 on the question of which year was warmer.


Cuz, it means a lot to you climate change deniers.

I suppose I could but why? I don't recall posting anything about climate unless you just came out if your drug  induced coma and are recalling something from months ago. I am also quite sure that I have never mentioned Norsk sagas. You really are an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 10:50:50 pm

Sorry Keysbart,


I was referring to davebart. Its hard to tell all you idiot conservatives apart digitally. You all post the same.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 16, 2015, 10:55:08 pm

Well, if you can't keep your head in the game stay on the bench.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 16, 2015, 11:14:28 pm

Homo - archaeologists have excavated the farmstead of the Norse in Greenland that were growing barley and wheat and shipping it to Norway.  We know this not only by the remains of their farms, but also shipping bills of lading received and recorded in Norway for the years 1288 - 1311.  These same farms are under ice most of the year today, and can grow no grain whatsoever.  How did they do that if it were colder in those years than it is today?

Dont worry Jes.  Homo won't let facts confuse him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 16, 2015, 11:53:29 pm

He has to find his head in his arse before he can pull it out of the game...it really is scary that there are people out there like Otto. Lost, dazed and very very confused....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 17, 2015, 12:12:04 am

Yeah and if Obama's lying agencies don't tell him something he is lost. And if the Huffington Post told him that **** tasted like caviar he'd believe it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 17, 2015, 08:27:18 am

Since the idiot dragged me into this climate change discussion let me just add this...which he will of course reject out of hand.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 17, 2015, 09:11:49 am

Very good Keys. Excellent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 09:45:42 am

Quote from: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 09:44:16 pm

Keysbart
Can you check the Norsk Sagas for how 2014 compared to 1998 on the question of which year was warmer.
Cuz, it means a lot to you climate change deniers.

Gee, otto, if it is really warmer, shouldn't you folks in the Chicken Little crowd go back to calling it Global Warming?

At this point, other that than the seriously uninformed very few people any longer accept the claims of the socialist spouting such nonsense in an effort to justify a government takeover of all most economic activity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 17, 2015, 10:01:39 am

Just asking to be asking because of how strange things have become, but if the liberals succeed in eliminating coal use what is going to become of all the tremendous coal reserves we have in this country? At one point in time there was talk of coal gasification. Will this become feasible now or will the "greenies" find something disagreeable about that? There has to be a more environmentally sound source of energy than nuclear. Don't tell me that greenies believe they can get everything solar.  That's not viable either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:05:43 am

Quote from: Pekin on January 16, 2015, 09:55:46 pm

From the article you posted:
Last April, Alex’s mother posted a statement on her blog objecting to the memoir and its promotion: “It is both puzzling and painful to watch the book ‘The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven’ not only continue to sell, but to continue, for the most part, to not be questioned.” She goes on to say that the book is not “Biblically sound” and that her son’s objections to it have been ignored and repressed. She also notes that Alex “has not received monies from the book nor have a majority of his needs been funded by it.”
Tyndale’s book contract was only with Kevin, Alex’s father – not with Alex or his mother. Repeated attempts to reach Kevin and Beth Malarkey have not been successful.

Yes... and nothing in that leads to the conclusion that "the kid and mom are a bit pissed about (the dad getting the money or that) there are ulterior motives."  There is no indication in the article that the mother and father are not living together or are divorced or that they were not benefiting from the sale of the book.

The reason for the popularity and acceptance of such nonsense is that it is comforting to some people and very much what they want to believe.  As I have pointed out many times, proof is merely that which is required to convince, and for those already believing something, virtually nothing is required.  Then when it is discredited, those who were eager to believe desperately look for excuses to discount whatever it was might have tended to discredit the "proof" which confirmed the pre-existing belief or bias.... something we are seeing from you right now, Pekin, as you reach the kind of conclusions you offered above.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:31:14 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 16, 2015, 10:06:52 pm

It appears to mean more to you than to others. Wait till the real figures come out. We've seen how they've changed in the past. And for the record and confirmed by WGN tonight the Midwest was much colder in 2014. Its difficult to determine where the "warmth" was..

Well, the Midwest is a fairly small sample size when you are talking about global climate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:35:51 am

Quote from: otto105 on January 16, 2015, 10:50:50 pm

Sorry Keysbart,

I was referring to davebart. Its hard to tell all you idiot conservatives apart digitally. You all post the same.

It's even harder when you deliberately butcher poster's names, replacing them with your nonsense substitute names.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:39:01 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 17, 2015, 10:01:39 am

Just asking to be asking because of how strange things have become, but if the liberals succeed in eliminating coal use what is going to become of all the tremendous coal reserves we have in this country? At one point in time there was talk of coal gasification. Will this become feasible now or will the "greenies" find something disagreeable about that? There has to be a more environmentally sound source of energy than nuclear. Don't tell me that greenies believe they can get everything solar.  That's not viable either.

Simply allow the free market to sort it out.  The worst thing that can happen is for such decisions to be made by the government collective.... unless, of course, you like socialsim and think it is the most efficient way to manage resources.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:40:08 am

For davep -- http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/15/libertarians-are-taking-over-the-republican-party/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:43:02 am

http://pagesix.com/2015/01/16/senators-husband-stands-to-profit-from-government-deal/?_ga=1.137700920.922370688.1421462337

Senator’s husband stands to profit big from government deal
By Richard Johnson
January 16, 2015 | 5:48pm

Ever wonder how lowly paid lawmakers leave office filthy rich?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is showing how it’s done.

The US Postal Service plans to sell 56 buildings — so it can lease space more expensively — and the real estate company of the California senator’s husband, Richard Blum, is set to pocket about $1 billion in commissions.

Blum’s company, CBRE, was selected in March 2011 as the sole real estate agent on sales expected to fetch $19 billion. Most voters didn’t notice that Blum is a member of CBRE’s board and served as chairman from 2001 to 2014.

This feat of federal spousal support was ignored by the media after Feinstein’s office said the senator, whose wealth is pegged at $70 million, had nothing to do with the USPS decisions.

When the national debt is $18 trillion, a billion seems like small change.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:52:14 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/us/fascination-persists-over-pets-and-the-afterlife.html

Coming soon, a book on Lassie's near death experience and visit to heaven!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 17, 2015, 11:36:00 am

Only one problem with your theory Jes.  I don't believe.

I have no clue if there is an afterlife or not.  There could be.  However the experiences have been explained away by doctors as the effects of dopamine and lack of oxygen to the brain among other things.  So maybe not. 

I do not know one way or another.   I don't see any reason to tell people that do believe that they are wrong.  Seeing as how there is no way for any of us to know for sure.  That is why it is called faith.

I will not argue further about a book I had never heard of, have no intention of ever reading, and would not have changed my mind one way or another if I had.  Just because someone believes they had an afterlife experience or didn't does not mean it is real or not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 12:30:51 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 17, 2015, 11:36:00 am

Only one problem with your theory Jes.  I don't believe.

So you have repeatedly claimed.  Of course, in what I wrote, I never said you did.  The most one could reasonably take from what I wrote is that you are "eager to believe," which is not quite the same as saying that you do.  This is not an artful dodge by me now, but instead is the result of being careful in what I wrote initialy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 17, 2015, 01:04:36 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:40:08 am

For davep -- http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/15/libertarians-are-taking-over-the-republican-party/

I hope that is true.  Libertarians are idiots on some issues, but establishment Republicans are idiots on even more issues.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on January 17, 2015, 01:09:01 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:43:02 am

http://pagesix.com/2015/01/16/senators-husband-stands-to-profit-from-government-deal/?_ga=1.137700920.922370688.1421462337

Senator’s husband stands to profit big from government deal
By Richard Johnson
January 16, 2015 | 5:48pm

Ever wonder how lowly paid lawmakers leave office filthy rich?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is showing how it’s done.

The US Postal Service plans to sell 56 buildings — so it can lease space more expensively — and the real estate company of the California senator’s husband, Richard Blum, is set to pocket about $1 billion in commissions.

Blum’s company, CBRE, was selected in March 2011 as the sole real estate agent on sales expected to fetch $19 billion. Most voters didn’t notice that Blum is a member of CBRE’s board and served as chairman from 2001 to 2014.

This feat of federal spousal support was ignored by the media after Feinstein’s office said the senator, whose wealth is pegged at $70 million, had nothing to do with the USPS decisions.

When the national debt is $18 trillion, a billion seems like small change.

I'd like to see the portfolio of usps buildings valued at $19B. That's about $325M per property which is about the same value as the top 5% or so of the Chicago CBD office market. This does not seem plausible. And, a 5% commission on large portfolio sales never happens. 1% would be a big fee and would be extremely rare on a deal of that size.  Finally, the GSA is notoriously cheap so the idea of them paying 5% even to a senators husband is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 17, 2015, 01:17:37 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:43:02 am

Ever wonder how lowly paid lawmakers leave office filthy rich?

Actually, I found out how lawmakers make money many years ago.

Around 1970 I was an instructor in Air Force Officer's Training School.  A few of the students were National Guard types, and this was a refuge for the kids of politicians.  One of them was Richard Daley's son (Sorry.  Don't remember which one, but I think it was William).  One evening I entered the barracks day room and Daley was showing the other students his monthly check from the City of Chicago.  At age 21 he was the Insurance Broker that just happened to win the business of insuring the public buildings in Chicago.  The particular check I saw was for a little over five thousand dollars.  Not bad for a kid just starting out in 1970.

By the way, not all politician's kids were a**holes.  I had Governor Connaly's kid in my flight, and he was one of the most outstanding students I had in almost 5 years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on January 17, 2015, 03:29:27 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 17, 2015, 10:01:39 am

Just asking to be asking because of how strange things have become, but if the liberals succeed in eliminating coal use what is going to become of all the tremendous coal reserves we have in this country? At one point in time there was talk of coal gasification. Will this become feasible now or will the "greenies" find something disagreeable about that? There has to be a more environmentally sound source of energy than nuclear. Don't tell me that greenies believe they can get everything solar.  That's not viable either.

The sad part is all those coal towns that have been decimated by coal not being used as much. Our church sent support to help a relief team go to a coal town in Ky that was devastated because the mines had been closed down because of all the regulations. It was so bad that kids were being taken from homes because of bed bug infestations. It seems the biggest industry there now is meth labs. One of the guys that came back, it really wasn't his type of thing. He has been a building contractor for years. He said, "I always figured, if someone was out of work they were being too picky and didn't really want to work." He said that trip changed his tune on that because there was no work.There was one story of a home with an extended family (family with kids moved back in with parents or something like that 3 generations) and the only one that could find a job was the teenage son who had to drive to the next town (in the mountains) to get a pizza delivery job.

To shed a little more light on the story, my son works for what used to be a coal plant. Because of all the regulations they are using very little coal, they mostly burn used tires that have been cut into little pieces. I can't imagine a burning tire is better for the environment than coal, even with all the systems they have in place to clean the emissions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 17, 2015, 04:40:44 pm

That can be looked at from a number of different angles.

Certainly, the Government should not have destroyed jobs they way they have through what seems to be foolish regulations (unless the purpose of the Government WAS to destroy those jobs and the product they produce).  Regardless, there is probably little they can do to change the Government's philosophy in the short run.

On the other hand, they seem to be in the same situation as the thousands in Detroit that have been put out of work, and yet failed to go to North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Texas or the entire midwest farming belt that HAS had jobs to offer.  If you can't get a job where you live, you had best move to where the jobs are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 08:24:23 pm

Quote from: davep on January 17, 2015, 01:04:36 pm

I hope that is true.  Libertarians are idiots on some issues, but establishment Republicans are idiots on even more issues.

The degree to which you have changed your tune in the last few years gives me cause for hope that there might actually be some truth to it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 08:31:13 pm

Quote from: navigator on January 17, 2015, 03:29:27 pm

One of the guys that came back, it really wasn't his type of thing. He has been a building contractor for years. He said, "I always figured, if someone was out of work they were being too picky and didn't really want to work." He said that trip changed his tune on that because there was no work.There was one story of a home with an extended family (family with kids moved back in with parents or something like that 3 generations) and the only one that could find a job was the teenage son who had to drive to the next town (in the mountains) to get a pizza delivery job.

Throughout human history when jobs or work or resources become scarce in one area, people migrate elsewhere.  I was going to wriite, "Why so many people in America today think they should not do that today is beyond me," only I realized mid-sentence that one of the reasons is actually fairly obvious: a collection of social welfare programs which give people just barely enough to survive, and which in the process discourages them from going out in the world to find and earn a decent living and to contribute to society.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 17, 2015, 08:44:55 pm

Exactly right!

Which eventually leads to there only being the ultra rich and the serfs.  No more middle class.

Everything the liberals claim to be against.  Yet their policies lead to it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 17, 2015, 08:50:48 pm

Its that they also have homes and families and schools for their kids. Its fear of the unknown. Its the fear of change.

At one time I contemplated moving to the west coast. Out there the economy is totally different than in the Midwest. Out there its fishing and canning and not manufacturing. I didn't know if I could adjust to the different job market.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 17, 2015, 09:01:25 pm

Wshfl, the thing is when you are out of security blankets you make the tough choice and do what you have to do.  The government throws out security blankets like free candy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 17, 2015, 09:26:58 pm

That would explain Otto's reluctance to leave the basement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:18:01 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 17, 2015, 08:44:55 pm

Exactly right!

Which eventually leads to there only being the ultra rich and the serfs.  No more middle class.

Everything the liberals claim to be against.  Yet their policies lead to it.

Say what?  What is it that is exactly righ  What leads to "there only being the ultra rich and the serfs.  No more middle class."

What were you responding to?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 17, 2015, 10:18:33 pm

Mark's Market Blog
1-18-15: Cars.
by Mark Lawrence
Volitility continues to dominate the markets, with large bounces happening seemingly every day. I'm at a loss to describe the direction or goal of this market. With lower volatility I might say we're headed down to S&P 1992 or so, but right now I feel like saying that is like saying a drunk hanging on a street lamp at 2am is headed home.
 
S&P 500 July 28 2014 to January 16 2015
Oil continues to drop, this week to below $45. Goldman Sachs says the bottom will be $39. They run the world so you gotta figure they know. Jim Cramer says if oil drops below $40 we're going to see some companies in serious trouble. I guess that means Warren Buffet and Goldman Sachs are going to get to buy up a bunch of Texas and N.Dakota on the cheap. This economy is starting to look like the last 10 minutes of a monopoly game - you know, where the guy who's inevitably gonna win starts buying up all the properties and putting hotels everywhere. Where is oil headed? History suggests oil trades in one of two ranges: $50-$120 or $20-$50 (current dollars). When OPEC first formed in 1974 they formed a cartel, limited supply, and oil went into a monopoly pricing regime. From 1974 to 1985, the US benchmark oil price fluctuated between $50 and $120 in today's money. From 1986 to 2004, as North Sea and Alaska oil came online and pricing became competitive, it ranged from $20 to $50 (apart from two brief aberrations after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1998 Russian devaluation). Finally, from 2005 until 2014, oil again traded in the 1974-1985 range of roughly $50 to $120, apart from two very brief spikes during the 2008-09 financial crisis. Now shale oil has moved us into a competitive area again - if Saudi Arabia wants to maintain their market share and their importance to the US as a key player in the middle east, they have to keep shale oil in the ground. Estimates of shale-oil production costs are mostly around $50, while marginal conventional oilfields generally break even at around $20. Thus, the trading range in the brave new world of competitive oil should be roughly $20 to $50 once again, for a time. Perhaps a somewhat extended time.


The Euro fell below $1.15, below its initial price of $1.175 in 1999 and the lowest its been in 11 years.

For thousands of years - well, ok, thousands of days really - for thousands of days the Swiss Franc has been pegged to the Euro, showing that even though the Swiss stand apart, they still march with the rest of Europe. Well, that's over. Officially the SF was to stay at CHF1.2 to the Euro; in fact it dropped to CHF1.35 a couple times, meaning it looked like Switzerland was trying to walk a line of compromise between the Euro and the dollar. Well, the days of compromise are over. The Swiss central bank announced they're no longer defending CHF1.2, and the SF promptly rose 28% to CHF0.87. Later it recovered about half of that to finish at about €1. Visiting Switzerland just got a lot more expensive, as did Swiss chocolate and watches. About a month ago Switzerland had a referendum on effectively putting them back on the gold standard, which failed. What's up? I think the Swiss are seeing yet more Euro crises on the horizon, the immediate threat being Greek elections in a week, and they don't want to be part of that mess. When they look around right now, the dollar seems a lot more stable than the euro. Above all else, the Swiss crave neutrality and stability. What they've done here is export their portion of European instability. All over the world foreign exchange brokers have let clients borrow money to play the markets. After this move in the Swiss franc a lot of those accounts are deeply negative, so negative that if the clients don't pay up to cover their losses the brokers will be bankrupt. New York's FXCM says it is owed $225 million in sudden negative equity by clients. The UK's Alpari says they're bankrupt, and IG group says their clients are $45 million in the red. And Everest Capital's Global Fund bet heavily on the franc going down, they're out of business having lost their entire $830 million in assets.


Russia says they expect 17% inflation this year. Russia's economy minister Alexei Ulyukayev Lenin as he said, "The era of peace is over to be replaced by an era of relatively much more impulsive, spasmodic, disastrous conflict." He further said that $50 oil will cost Russia's government $45 billion this year. Meanwhile this has not particularly slowed Putin down - he's in the process now of annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two territories that used to be part of Georgia. This is the area of the Sochi olympics, on the black sea near Crimea.

The bond insurance on Venezuela indicates that they have an 82% chance of collapse this year. No big deal, no one is stupid enough to be depending on them, but they're likely looking at some tough times ahead. This socialism stuff sounds really, really good until the bill shows up and the entire country has to wash dishes for the next eight years to pay it off.

Copper dropped 30% in the last six months, about 6% this week. Copper is required for wiring up anything electric. No matter what they tell you, if they're not buying copper they're not building anything. China's demand for copper is dropping rapidly. Is China slowing down or crashing? I think they're too clever to crash right now, but the slow down seems obvious. The stock market, which frequently behaves like a group of teenage girls gossiping in the build up to the prom, dropped on speculation that China might disappear off the earth completely.

The Saudis are worried about instability in Iraq and Syria leaking into their country - a curious parallel to how many here worry about Mexico's influence in the US. We talk about building a wall, but after a decade of talk there's no wall. The Saudis are a kingdom, they're building a wall. I suppose there was some talk for a few weeks between some princes, but that was never public and it's all over now. The Great Wall of Saudi Arabia is under construction. They're going to build one on their southern border with Yemen too - Yemen is the country where the Charlie Hebdo terrorists trained with Al Qaeda. I'd like one of these fences for the US.


Target announced this week they're leaving Canada. They have apparently been losing money in Canada for some years. I have traveled extensively through Canada and I have never seen a Target or a grocery store. Every little village has a beautiful 200 y/o Catholic church, a Petro Canada station, and a Tim Hortons coffee shop, and that's about it. As far as I can tell, Canadians live on Tim Hortons scones and coffee. With all that sugar and caffeine you would think they would be more excitable people. 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border, and many of them prefer to come to the US to shop where prices are lower and selection higher.

Best Buy is looking like they're on life support and nearing bankruptcy. Radio Shack too - they're expected to file next month, after first perhaps selling a bunch of stores to Sprint. No one drives, no one goes to the mall. If you're not online, you don't exist.

We're halfway through January, normally California's wettest month, and it's just not happening. Snow pack levels are at 35% of normal for this date and 17% of normal for an entire rainy season. Scratch almonds and olives off your snack list. But wines do better in a drought. Ann Landers famously said "People who drink to drown their sorrow should be told that sorrow knows how to swim." There's gonna be no swimming in California this year, so prepare to stock up on some nice wines.

Obama's legacy: Siegfried S. Hecker, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, has visited North Korea several times over the past decade. Hecker says, "Pyongyang likely has roughly 12 nuclear weapons with an annual manufacturing capacity of possibly four to six bombs." He believes the arsenal is primed for even greater growth in the next couple of years: "By the time the president leaves office, North Korea may conduct another nuclear test and have an arsenal of 20."

Five years ago, China's Geely Auto bought Volvo from Ford. Geely moved some production to China. Their hope was to learn how to make cars that could sell in Europe and the US, and to leverage this to become China's first auto exporter. Now they're ready for their next step. In China most businessmen have chauffeurs so large and elaborate back seats are important. Accordingly Geely made a long wheelbase version of Volvo's S60 sedan, the S60L. Volvo is a small company that can only afford one engine, so it uses Volvo's 238hp turbo charged 2 liter four cylinder - not a positive in an American luxury market that expects a 350+ hp V8. There will also be a hybrid version, but the hybrid has a surprisingly inefficient design - unlike the Prius and all other hybrids, the starter/generator attached to the engine is not used to drive the wheels, only to charge the batteries which then drive a separate rear electric motor. Their Swedish spokesman David Ibison said, "The S60L offers class- leading rear space, something that has been consistently demanded by U.S. customers." I don't think Mr.Ibison has been paying attention, we Americans are perfectly happy to shoehorn our friends into the vestigial back seat of our new Mustang as long as the car looks hot and has that uniquely American V8 rumble. At least their time with Ford resulted in the new Volvos being attractive cars instead of square white boxes.


Buick has a 14% market share in China and is GM's best selling brand in China - a fact that almost certainly kept it alive when Oldsmobile, Saturn and Pontiac bit the dust in GM's bankruptcy. Last year GM sold 2.9 million cars in the US and 3.5 million cars in China. The Avenir is a new concept vehicle which seems destined for production - it's a long wheelbase boat shown with two bucket seats in the back, exactly the configuration rich and powerful Chinese like when they're being chauffeured around. China obviously has no history of drive-in theaters and teenage rear seat passion. Volvo may make the S60L in China, but when the Avenir hits Chinese showrooms it will outsell the Volvo 50 to 1.



The Chevy Volt is being updated with slightly better range. GM loses money on each Volt they sell. They sold 18,805 last year, about half as many as Corvette sales at 34,839. Why keep making them? The Feds and California effectively require it. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said this week, "The price of oil above $100 is artificial. It's not correct." Cheap oil is not good for Volt profits. Also this week Chevy announced the Bolt, a new all-electric car with a 200 mile range. The $30,000 Bolt will be available in 2017, just in time to challenge the $35,000 Tesla model 3.


BMW is now delivering their new i8. A turbocharged 1.5 liter 3-cylinder engine plus batteries and two electric motors combine for 375hp, 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, a 155 mph top speed and Prius efficiency. If you plug it in overnight and run in eco-mode - front electric motor only - you can go 22 miles without using any gas. In sport mode everything is running and you have some rather serious performance. Deliveries are starting now, but dealers are asking for a premium over the $147,000 sticker price - one dealer getting an extra $100,000 in "Market Adjustment." I want one.


In 1966 Ford built the Ford GT40 as a Ferrari killer, with the sole purpose of winning the 24 Hours of LeMans. The GT won LeMans in '66, '67, '68, '69. Ferrari has not won since. The "40" was because the car was 40" high - extremely low. It was powered by the Mustang 4.7 liter 289 engine. The racing version used a 7.4 liter 427. 107 of these were made and we're still talking about them 50 years later. In 1995 and '96 they made some more called the Ford GT, powered by a super charged version of their 5.4 liter 327 engine. It was 43" tall, so the 40 was dropped. They built 4,038 of them for $125,000 each. Now Ford has announced that the GT is baa-aaack. The 2016 version will make over 600hp from a dual turbocharged 3.5 liter EcoBoost V6. Sorry, no pricing or performance numbers have been released. But I want one.


Honda is showing their 2016 NSX. In 1990 they released the original, a light weight supercar with a 270hp 3 liter V6 engine. They produced them until 2005 and sold 18,000 over the 16 year period. Now there's a new one. Powered by a mid-engine twin-turbo V6 and twin electric motors on the front wheels, the car has a total of 550 hp. $150,000. I want one of these too. And I already want a Corvette Z06. I'm gonna need a bigger garage.


Ok, those are all seriously sexy cars, but here's the car that really portends the future - not some 600hp 200mph gas guzzler that says "I have a damaged ego and money to try to salve it," but rather a real game changer: Google's self-driving car. You call one up on your phone, it comes to you, takes you where you want to go, then leaves. When the batteries are low it drives itself to a charging station. You won't cross Nevada in one of these anytime soon, but in cities the world over car ownership is obviously going to decline and manufacturers may well have to turn themselves into driverless taxi services. Car leases will change from 60 months to 25 minutes. It's unlikely you'll call for a GM or a Ford auto-box, you'll more likely take whatever is next up. Branding is going to take a huge hit. You may personally disagree with me, but those under 25 think this makes perfect sense. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck


As young people turn away from driving and more of our youth comes from fatherless homes and turns to gangs, gun deaths are rising while auto deaths are falling. They're crossing right now. In the future more people under 26 will be killed by guns than by cars. The new safety features in cars - lane following, automatic braking - will only accelerate this trend.


Saudi Arabia is effectively ruled by a coalition - the royal family, backed up by the wahabi imams. In the 1950s, the Saudis wished to install phone lines in the kingdom; the imams forbid it, saying that carrying voice over wire was obviously the work of the devil. An AT&T employee came up with a solution. Under the watchful eyes of the imams, using Saudi labor, they installed one single phone line from mecca to medina. The logic was, the devil could never appear in medina, and he most certainly could never appear in mecca, islam's two most holy cities. The imams agreed with this. Furthermore, the devil could never faithfully transmit the holy words of the holy koran without distorting them. Again the imams agreed. They then put an imam on each end of the phone line and the two imams read the koran back and forth to each other for eight hours to see if they could catch the devil screwing up. They didn't. Phone lines were approved. This week saudi sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid was asked if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north. He replied: "It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun." Supporters used twitter to add, "It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism," and "May God preserve the scholars, for they enjoy sharp vision and recognize matters that even Satan does not think about."

A couple muslims in Germany firebombed a newspaper that reprinted Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. No one was hurt. Is it over? The NSA has warned Europe that recently intercepted communications from muslim countries to Europe indicate that the terrorism is just getting started.

Recent work by Rice university indicates that the fall of the Mayan civilization was due to a shift in wind patterns leading to a 100 year long drought in the Yucatan. The Mayans rose in about 300AD and fell between 800AD and 900AD, the time of the drought. Their report concluded "When you have major droughts, you start to get famines and unrest." California, which appears to be heading into a fourth year of drought, has nothing to fear: this state's civilization fell a couple decades ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 10:21:25 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 17, 2015, 08:50:48 pm

Its that they also have homes and families and schools for their kids. Its fear of the unknown. Its the fear of change.

At one time I contemplated moving to the west coast. Out there the economy is totally different than in the Midwest. Out there its fishing and canning and not manufacturing. I didn't know if I could adjust to the different job market.

Through history people have also had homes and families and other ties to an area, but when you are no longer able to support yourself somewhere, it makes sense to move somewhere you can.  Most of the social welfare programs only delay this and end up effectively discouraging the kind of reallocation of resources (labor) the economy and the individual both need.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 17, 2015, 10:29:08 pm

Lol, Peke man...ain't you learned nothing dude?? Respond to Jes and he gets stupid on ya. Leave him to his own insanity....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 17, 2015, 10:46:07 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 17, 2015, 08:24:23 pm

The degree to which you have changed your tune in the last few years gives me cause for hope that there might actually be some truth to it.

All of evolve over time.  What changes have you noticed in my views over the years?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 17, 2015, 10:52:41 pm

Jes, Your post:

a collection of social welfare programs which give people just barely enough to survive, and which in the process discourages them from going out in the world to find and earn a decent living and to contribute to society.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 18, 2015, 04:16:09 am

 Confusion ...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 18, 2015, 05:07:28 am

Quote from: packrat on January 17, 2015, 10:18:33 pm

Mark's Market Blog
Copper dropped 30% in the last six months, about 6% this week. Copper is required for wiring up anything electric. No matter what they tell you, if they're not buying copper they're not building anything. China's demand for copper is dropping rapidly. Is China slowing down or crashing? I think they're too clever to crash right now, but the slow down seems obvious. The stock market, which frequently behaves like a group of teenage girls gossiping in the build up to the prom, dropped on speculation that China might disappear off the earth completely.

There are some other troubling leading indicators, too.  There is  very good chance things will again start looking quite ugly again in the next 2-3 months.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on January 18, 2015, 08:04:04 am

I would think we have China propped up quite well, unless we are going to start building things in America again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 18, 2015, 03:15:41 pm

Quote from: navigator on January 18, 2015, 08:04:04 am

I would think we have China propped up quite well, unless we are going to start building things in America again.

I'm not at all sure I understand that.

Are you suggesting that unless the United States begins manufacturing more goods China is highly unlikely to suffer a recession because the U.S. market will consume so much of what China makes that there will be no reason for a decline there?

If so it is at odds not only with economic theory, but observable reality.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on January 18, 2015, 03:29:30 pm

I'm saying we buy so much from China, I can't see them having a major crash in their economy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 18, 2015, 03:54:05 pm

We certainly don't buy so much that it would prevent them from having a major crash, and some of the leading indicators I mentioned a few post ago were slowing or outright declining sales figures in the U.S.  Unless I heard wrong (which is certainly possible, but I was listening fairly closely) retail sales in the U.S. were down from November to December this past year.  Down from November to December.  That is pretty bad.

And China had already been having problems even without that.  One other thing to keep in mind is that China trades not only with the United States, but also the rest of the world.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 18, 2015, 04:30:48 pm

Quote from: navigator on January 17, 2015, 03:29:27 pm

The sad part is all those coal towns that have been decimated by coal not being used as much. .

It is not just the coal producers or coal miners or those communities which are hurt, though certainly they are the ones suffering the most obvious pain.  The economic pain caused by strangling the coal industry extends much, much further.  Highlighting and italics are mine.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/01/16/energy-equity-vs-climate-moralizing

Fight Poverty—Use Fossil Fuels
Review of "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels"
Ronald Bailey | January 16, 2015
Energy PovertyoilseedcropsThe Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, by Alex Epstein, Portfolio/Penguin, 248 pp., $27.95.

The climate crisis, Al Gore declared in 2007, is "not a political issue, it's a moral issue." It's "a clear moral issue," the climatologist James Hansen said in 2011. "We should think of global warming in a different way—as the great moral crisis of our time," the environmentalist Bill McKibben wrote in 2001.

What has provoked this great moral crisis? Chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, which is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; if continued, most climatologists believe, this will significantly boost the average temperature of the globe. Many argue that this man-made global warming could produce catastrophic results, including widespread famines, flooded coastal cities, chaotic weather, and mass extinction. "Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice," Hansen and his colleagues claimed in a December 2013 article for PLoS One.

Moralizers do not make trade-offs between right and wrong. When a person declares an activity a moral issue, he is not engaging in debate; he is ending debate. The only thing to do is to do the right thing. In this case, climate moralizers insist that the right thing to do is for the current generation to cut, drastically, its use of fossil fuels. If someone disagrees, he is not merely mistaken. He is evil.

In The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein aims to turn this moral argument on its head. Epstein, the founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, makes a persuasive case that cheap and abundant fossil fuels are critical to enabling billions to escape conditions of Malthusian privation. But the core debate here isn’t really moral so much as it’s practical; a debate based on weighing the risks of poverty against the risks of climate change.

Epstein starts by asking, "By what standard or measure are we saying something is good or bad, great or catastrophic, right or wrong, moral or immoral?" People like McKibben, he argues, elevate the moral value of nature over that of human beings. As a result, they believe that "there is something inherently wrong with man having an impact on the climate," and that our impact on the natural environment in general should be minimized.

One of the more disturbing examples that Epstein cites comes from the National Park Service biologist David Graber, who in 1989 wrote: "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its **** of fossil-fuel consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." Wishing a plague would wipe out most of humanity is near the absolute height of immorality.

"To me," Epstein counters, "the question of what to do about fossil fuels and any other moral issue comes down to: What will promote human life? What will promote human flourishing—realizing the full potential of life?" Much of the rest of the book explores the manifold ways that energy derived from coal, oil, and natural gas has enabled human flourishing over the past two centuries.

As humanity burned more fossil fuels and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, human lives dramatically improved. "Weather, climate, and climate change matter—but not nearly as much as they used to, thanks to technology," Epstein writes. For example, the death rate from extreme weather events has dropped 98 percent since 1920. Indeed, the chief benefit of burning fossil fuels has been longer and healthier human lives. The central idea of Epstein's book is that "more energy means more ability to improve our lives; less energy mean less ability—more helplessness, more suffering, and more death."

Before the Industrial Revolution, human societies were mainly powered by human muscles. The average person burns 2,000 calories per day. A gallon of gasoline contains 31,000 calories, the amount energy a human body burns in 15 days. The machines that Americans use every day to power their homes, commute, work, and play, consume about 186,000 calories per person—the equivalent of 93 human servants consuming 2,000 calories daily.

On the other hand, billions of human beings still rely on their muscles and on biomass such as wood and animal manure. In fact, some 1.3 billion of the world's 7 billion people do not have access to electricity; about 3 billion overall are classified as not having adequate access to electricity. These people need to be connected to modern energy sources in order to flourish. Global energy production would have to quadruple to raise the rest of the world to U.S. levels of consumption.

What would using more fossil fuels to fulfill this demand do to the climate? Epstein does not subscribe to the climatological consensus that boosting atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce dangerous climate change. Among other things, he points out that the climate computer models have so far predicted more warming than has actually occurred. But let's assume man-made warming anyway. That by itself does not tell people what are the best policies to handle it.

The climate moralists frequently argue that renewable energy will fix the problem. In December 2012, for example, McKibben gushed that "there were some days this month when [Germans] got half their energy from solar panels." The reality is that after spending $130 billion, Germany gets only 4.5 percent of its gross energy supplies from solar panels. Epstein characterizes the climate catastrophists' advocacy of current renewables as trying to force everyone to use the worst energy technologies while hoping for the best.

In a nice comparison of material use, Epstein reports that one megawatt of wind generation capacity requires 542.3 tons of steel, coal generation requires 35.3 tons, and natural gas requires 5.2 tons. Of biomass energy supplied by corn ethanol, he asks the devastating question, "Why should we feed human food to machines with hundreds of times our appetites?"

So Epstein is entirely correct when he asserts that current renewable energy technologies are far too costly and not scalable—that is, not capable of being easily expanded or upgraded on demand. But I suspect that he is underestimating human ingenuity when it comes to improving their efficiencies and lowering their costs. Epstein does note that one alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear power, is safe, reliable, and scalable. But he adds that nuclear energy is expensive compared to fossil fuels due to excessive regulations, which for Epstein makes it doubtful that we can roll out substantial supplies of nuclear energy in the near term.

He may be too glum about that. Environmentalist opposition to nuclear power may be abating. In November 2013, Hansen and his colleagues published an open letter to "those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power." It forthrightly states: "Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power."

Another interesting speculative possibility is that the engineers at Lockheed Martin who announced a design for a small-scale nuclear fusion reactor last fall will get it to work. At any rate, Epstein is right that "our concern for the future should not be running out of energy resources; it should be running out of the freedom to create energy resources, including our number-one energy resource today, fossil fuels."

There is another problem with Epstein's book, one more substantial than the possibility that he has unduly pessimistic about nuclear's political prospects. Is the energy and climate debate really an argument about morality, pitting those whose standard is a flourishing humanity against those whose standard is a burgeoning natural world?

Graber's wicked musings notwithstanding, it isn't necessarily so. Epstein acknowledges, after all, that "we do want to avoid transforming our environment in a way that harms us now or in the long run." And the climate change activists cited at the beginning of this article don't merely talk about the human impact on the environment; they talk about the environment's impact on humanity, saying they don't want to transform the climate in a way that harms future generations.

Deciding how best to enhance our descendants' prospects is not a clash over right and wrong. It is a dispute over trade-offs. Will loading up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases as we generate more innovation, knowledge, technology, and wealth yield more benefits than harms for us and for future generations?

FirewooddfidEpstein is clearly right that supplying people, especially poor people in economically underdeveloped parts of the world, with cheap fossil fuel energy now will yield far more benefits than harms. What about future generations? Is the continued use of fossil fuels, as Hansen argues, an "act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice?" Not necessarily.

Based on scenarios devised for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, people living three generations hence with the worst consequences of climate change will still likely be more than eight times richer than people living today are. Without climate change, people in 2100 would supposedly be 10 times richer. It is really more just for people today with global average per capita incomes of $10,000 to sacrifice so that people living in 2100 will have average incomes of $100,000 instead of only $80,000?

There's yet another deep debate about values lurking beneath our climate arguments, one that Epstein largely ignores. Anti-market ideologues use catastrophic climate prophecies to attack an economic system they detest. In This Changes Everything, for example, activist Naomi Klein asserts, "Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war." Climate science, Klein claims, is "the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism" ever. For writers like Klein, climate change is an excuse to remold the world. Call it the green shock doctrine.

Epstein concludes that "the moral case for fossil fuels is not about fossil fuels; it's the moral case for using cheap, plentiful, reliable energy to amplify our abilities to make the world a better place—a better place for human beings." His intriguing book strongly makes the case, moral or not, that increasing energy abundance in whatever form is crucial to enhancing the human prospect.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2015, 06:24:21 am

Any time socialist/communists get control of things and try to "spread the wealth around," history has shown that the only real certainty is that the concentration of power such economic approaches require results in the very opposite of the promised goal.  The Obama administration is no exception.

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/121714-731039-under-obama-the-wealth-gap-has-reached-record-highs.htm#ixzz3PBDDxrcM

According to Pew, which used data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, upper-income median net worth in 2013 was 6.6 times greater than the median net worth of middle-income families ($639,400 vs. $96,500).

That's up from 4.5 in 2007, the last year before the recession hit, and higher than it was in 2010, when the Obama recovery was just getting started. Pew also found that, prior to Obama, the biggest wealth gap in the past three decades was 5.0.

The study notes that the net worth of wealthy families is almost 70 times that of lower-income families, which is also the widest in three decades....  An earlier Pew paper found that whites have fared far better under Obama in terms of net worth than either blacks or Hispanics.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/
December 17, 2014
America’s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record

By Richard Fry and Rakesh Kochhar
The wealth gap between America’s high income group and everyone else has reached record high levels since the economic recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-09, with a clear trajectory of increasing wealth for the upper-income families and no wealth growth for the middle- and lower-income families.

(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/12/FT_14.12.16_wealthInequality.png)

(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/12/FT_14.12.16_wealthInequality4.png)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 19, 2015, 03:30:50 pm

When Osama bin Laden died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates.
He slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed!"

James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"

Thomas Jefferson was next, beat bin Laden with a long cane and snarled "It was Evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."

The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the terrorist Leader.

As bin Laden lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared.
bin Laden wept and said, "This is not what you promised me."

The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 20, 2015, 05:24:55 pm

OBL went to the christian heaven?


Not buying.



I would however, like to thank that 5-year old in Missouri for backing the nra and shooting his younger brother in a stand her ground self-defense case.

Clearly, the NRA has to arm the month old kids left unprotected by bad guys with guns.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 20, 2015, 05:40:54 pm

The NRA is giving away guns?  I want one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 20, 2015, 07:24:25 pm

Homo was going to get one, but his mommy wouldn't let him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 20, 2015, 11:46:38 pm

 Ok so at the beginning of WW II we built some oil pipelines from Texas to New Jersey.


 In a hurry. Anyone know anything about this ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on January 21, 2015, 05:58:26 am

Jackie - No, I did not.  What was the reason for those pipelines and are they still there?

Here was a crazy idea  I thought about though.  Every few years, we have massive flooding in the Midwest from rain, the Mississippi or other major rivers swell and all of that fresh water goes into the ocean, along with the damage that the floods cause to humans and property.  I wonder why (probably way too expensive and time consuming) you couldn't dredge a huge canal west across the US and take it to regions that are dry and mostly stay dry?  Open it up during times of flood and ease the flooding and allow the fresh water to collect in a manmade reservoir out west.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on January 21, 2015, 08:08:07 am

I would  expect the Mississippi river is lower elevation than most of the land you would help. You would have to build a pipeline and pump it there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 21, 2015, 10:55:26 am

The problem of a canal to bring water to Oklahoma - Kansas - Texas has been looked at for years.  The problems are twofold.

First is altitude.  The vast majority of the excess water comes nor from rain in the spring, but snow in the winter, in the Mountains.  This snow melt is funneled into the Missouri River in Montana and North Dakota, where the altitude is much, much lower than Colorado and South Dakota.  Any canals built could not flow by gravity, but would have to be pumped over using locks, which are expensive and quite slow.

Second is the time frame.  There is little water siphon off in the summer, fall and winter.  The majority of the snow melts in just two months and builds up rapidly.  You just couldn't get that much water through the locks in that period of time.  And pipelines large enough to carry that much water are just not possible, and even if they were, the energy needed to run the pumps would be impractical.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 21, 2015, 11:05:13 am

Put Obama on it, he can fix the problem, he can fix anything. If you don't believe it, just ask him..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 21, 2015, 11:23:01 am

(https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10428662_1580441245504309_6129525881409892486_n.jpg?oh=a8d5d1e752f2291144688428decd05a0&oe=55237EFB)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 21, 2015, 01:28:52 pm

Has anyone noticed all the garbage coming out of Huffington Post?? I'm sure you have but have you noticed if you post against their little liberal ecosystem that suddenly you cannot post there any longer? I've been very cordial but to the point. Suddenly, everytime I hit 'post' I get nothing. It won't post. So this is how you stifle opposition, by simply banning it altogether. I've always wondered why so many seem for whatever nonsense they spew there and so few against. Well, now I know. Just shut out the opposition, wala! Now EVERYONE supports your view in your own little bs worldview!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 21, 2015, 02:33:20 pm

I've noticed NBC news and the rest of the liberal media has really circled the wagons around Obama again..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 21, 2015, 04:22:45 pm

And you know your circles.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 21, 2015, 04:37:17 pm

And you certainly read the Huffington Post. Its where you get your sources

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 21, 2015, 04:38:51 pm

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/state-of-the-union-obama-hates-hillary/

Interesting perspective..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 21, 2015, 05:09:37 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 21, 2015, 01:28:52 pm

Has anyone noticed all the garbage coming out of Huffington Post?? I'm sure you have but have you noticed if you post against their little liberal ecosystem that suddenly you cannot post there any longer? I've been very cordial but to the point. Suddenly, everytime I hit 'post' I get nothing. It won't post. So this is how you stifle opposition, by simply banning it altogether. I've always wondered why so many seem for whatever nonsense they spew there and so few against. Well, now I know. Just shut out the opposition, wala! Now EVERYONE supports your view in your own little bs worldview!

Many sites, both liberal and conservative to this if a poster strays too far from the orthodox view of the site.  Not just political sites.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 21, 2015, 10:11:43 pm

 

Quote from: Grizzlybear34 on January 21, 2015, 05:58:26 am

Jackie - No, I did not.  What was the reason for those pipelines and are they still there?

Here was a crazy idea  I thought about though.  Every few years, we have massive flooding in the Midwest from rain, the Mississippi or other major rivers swell and all of that fresh water goes into the ocean, along with the damage that the floods cause to humans and property.  I wonder why (probably way too expensive and time consuming) you couldn't dredge a huge canal west across the US and take it to regions that are dry and mostly stay dry?  Open it up during times of flood and ease the flooding and allow the fresh water to collect in a manmade reservoir out west.

 The idea for the pipelines was to get oil ,etc. to the east coast during wartime.


 But I dont know anything about it. All I know is they made them in a hurry.


 

Quote from: navigator on January 21, 2015, 08:08:07 am

I would  expect the Mississippi river is lower elevation than most of the land you would help. You would have to build a pipeline and pump it there.

 

Quote from: davep on January 21, 2015, 10:55:26 am

The problem of a canal to bring water to Oklahoma - Kansas - Texas has been looked at for years.  The problems are twofold.

First is altitude.  The vast majority of the excess water comes nor from rain in the spring, but snow in the winter, in the Mountains.  This snow melt is funneled into the Missouri River in Montana and North Dakota, where the altitude is much, much lower than Colorado and South Dakota.  Any canals built could not flow by gravity, but would have to be pumped over using locks, which are expensive and quite slow.

Second is the time frame.  There is little water siphon off in the summer, fall and winter.  The majority of the snow melts in just two months and builds up rapidly.  You just couldn't get that much water through the locks in that period of time.  And pipelines large enough to carry that much water are just not possible, and even if they were, the energy needed to run the pumps would be impractical.

 Gentlemen,


 I laid this out YEARS ago on JBN's board on how to get water from where it's not needed to where it's needed.


 I even figured out the whole pumping and gravity feed for it by elevation.


 I have the notes somewhere on where the pumps are needed to get it from the upper Mississippi and Missouri rivers to west Texas and New Mexico.


 One thing I remember from that civil engineering excursion ...


 you would need a pumping station at Texarkana.  ;)


 As soon as I find the notes I will post them.



 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 21, 2015, 11:47:19 pm

I thought we were trying to get water to drought stricken Cali and fill the reservoirs out there

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on January 22, 2015, 05:41:41 am

Thanks for the thoughtful responses on the canal idea.  It was just something that I had thought about and I figured some would have the answer on this.  Crawling back to the Bears boards now...  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 22, 2015, 08:57:22 am

Fresh water? From where? Nobody's giving up nothing.  Hell, the Colorado river doesn't even come close to the ocean anymore, sucked dry. Wars have been fought over water.  Nobody is going to get one drop out of the great lakes. One of the Pluses of living there, (one of the few) you don't die of thirst.  Frostbite maybe, but not thirst.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 22, 2015, 09:15:53 am

I would say they need a pipeline out of the Missesslappi and Missouri to alleviate flooding. I think the bigger problem in Cali is the overpopulation. Then do what JJ said with some desalizination of the sea water

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 22, 2015, 09:59:45 am

Hey Homo, what about this guy? I bet you just love him. Just politics as usual in Communist New York.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 22, 2015, 10:03:51 am

They already get a lot of water from the Great Lakes.  They reversed the flow of the Chicago river (the locks are in Lockport) so they can take water out of Lake Michigan and pump it into the Mississippi River (through the Illinois River) in order to keep the Mississippi deep enough in the summer and fall to float the barges that bring a fantastic amount of product to the north.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 22, 2015, 11:46:47 am

I'd read that, but not for consumption out west.  the cali bunch gets there claws on that water, cali triples in population.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 22, 2015, 12:36:09 pm

I have never heard of anyone responsible that thinks that water could be pumped from the Great Lakes to California.  There have been some proposals to transfer flood water from the Missouri and Mississippi to Kansas, Oklahoma and Northern Texas, but it falls apart when the actually look at volume and cost.

Anyone that has spent time in North or South Dakota know that during flood periods, both the Missouri and the Mississippi can overflow to the point where they are up to 10 miles wide.  A pipeline capable of carrying that much water is beyond comprehension.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 22, 2015, 01:18:28 pm

Dave, that Idea was floated (no pun intended) years ago. And quickly nixed. And your right, wt and volume make it impossible without massive expenditures. Easier for people to move to the water.
http://www.wbur.org/npr/17354828

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 22, 2015, 04:10:06 pm

The most legitimate Idea for water transfer that I have ever heard is the idea of breaking off icebergs, miles in diameter, and towing them to San Francisco Bay.  Since salt water is more dense (or less dense, I forget which), when melted, the fresh water would come to the top (or to the bottom, I forget which) and the salt water could be pumped out of the bay, essentially converting it into a fresh water lake that could be used for either drinking or irrigation.  At the time I saw the numbers, it would have been quite cost effective, with the bulk of the investment being a retention dam across the harbor that would allow for ships to enter and leave.

Can you imagine the uproar from the environmentalists if they actually tried that today?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 22, 2015, 04:12:16 pm

Depends on how thirsty they are. Nothing living can go without fresh water. I've done some reading and am astounded at how lucky we are in the U.S.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 22, 2015, 04:34:40 pm

Most of the environmental wackos are eastern and midwest city dwellers like Homo that will never lack for a glass of water.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 22, 2015, 05:11:27 pm

All environmentalists actually care about our planet unlike conservatives who treat it like toilet paper.


BTW is every conservative response to a problem to treat the symptom rather than the cause?


 Yes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2015, 05:29:28 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on January 21, 2015, 10:11:43 pm

As soon as I find the notes I will post them.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 22, 2015, 05:30:41 pm

Hey, who knew that Nike could not find Iowa, but Gardner bread footwear did.


The more know, but would like to forget. Thanks Joni.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2015, 05:37:39 pm

Quote from: davep on January 22, 2015, 12:36:09 pm

I have never heard of anyone responsible that thinks that water could be pumped from the Great Lakes to California.  There have been some proposals to transfer flood water from the Missouri and Mississippi to Kansas, Oklahoma and Northern Texas, but it falls apart when the actually look at volume and cost.

Anyone that has spent time in North or South Dakota know that during flood periods, both the Missouri and the Mississippi can overflow to the point where they are up to 10 miles wide.  A pipeline capable of carrying that much water is beyond comprehension.

.... being beyond comprehension obviously does not preclude the suggestion here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2015, 05:42:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 22, 2015, 05:30:41 pm

Hey, who knew that Nike could not find Iowa, but Gardner bread footwear did.


The more know, but would like to forget. Thanks Joni.

Please... PLEASE do not ask him to explain.  He won't be able to, but he might actually try.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2015, 05:43:46 pm

Quote from: 46 on January 22, 2015, 04:12:16 pm

Depends on how thirsty they are. Nothing living can go without fresh water.

So whales are actually dead?

Or do they sneak some bottled water somewhere?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 22, 2015, 06:13:35 pm

Ok, the resident hillbilly legal aid missed the repug response to the SOTU address response by the t-bagger balls cuttin fantasy from Iowa.

Not surprising and predictable.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 22, 2015, 06:34:42 pm

And just what is the cause of the lack of water in the southwest? Does Baal just not like the Southwest? And just how do you propose we get him to change?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 22, 2015, 07:18:34 pm

Hey Homo, read this:

New Reports: There Is No Global Warming



http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 22, 2015, 08:06:47 pm

Wshfl global warming is like a religious cult to the left.  Only a few are smart enough to figure out it is a scam.  Those that do and speak out are ostracized.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 22, 2015, 08:40:05 pm

THIS is why we cannot let hate crime laws like this come to these States! Freedom of speech, gone-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-court-convicts-three-over-homophobic-tweets-in-case-hailed-as-a-significant-victory-by-lgbt-rights-campaigners-9996878.html

I don't agree with what was said but that's the beauty of FREEDOM. You can say what you want without being thrown in jail, for the most part. Other than 'I have a bomb' on a plane or some such nonsense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 22, 2015, 09:49:58 pm

Homo answers his own questions because no one could possibly agree with him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 23, 2015, 02:11:27 am

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 22, 2015, 05:29:28 pm

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't wait.

 I'm working on it. As soon as I find it you will have it.


 BTW ... running pipelines from anywhere east of the Rockies to California is never going to happen.


 Not when pipelines have already been run from northern California to southern California when your grandfather was a kid.


 SEE : William Mulholland. Moving water from point A to point B was solved years ago.


 If the Mississippi floods ... and it's ten miles wide ... then you better take advantage of it or watch it flood out lands and all that fresh water goes into the Gulf Of Mexico.


 If you were in charge of a nation and didn't want to see this happen every time a flood season came around ... what would you do ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 23, 2015, 03:21:12 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on January 23, 2015, 02:11:27 am

BTW ... running pipelines from anywhere east of the Rockies to California is never going to happen.

In other breaking news, Disney ia NOT going to build a theme park on Pluto....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 23, 2015, 03:46:32 am

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 23, 2015, 03:21:12 am

In other breaking news, Disney ia NOT going to build a theme park on Pluto....

 Damn ! And my other investments on the outer rings of Saturn may be going up in smoke also ... I should have just stuck with supplying arms to third world country's to generate news for American TV stations.


 It's ALWAYS about entertainment motherfucker !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on January 23, 2015, 08:49:04 am

California is the highest food producing state doubling the agricultural output of any other state.

Most of the water on Cali goes toward irrigation and vast areas of farmland are shut down the last few years due to lack of water.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 23, 2015, 10:24:36 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on January 23, 2015, 02:11:27 am

 

  If you were in charge of a nation and didn't want to see this happen every time a flood season came around ... what would you do ?

For one thing, I wouldn't pay people to rebuild on the same flood plain.

Then I would build more dams and reservoirs to hold back the flood waters and release them throughout the summer.

And if anyone ever found a cost effective way to siphon enough water southwards, I would encourage industry to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 23, 2015, 10:36:05 am

The vast majority of California is a desert.  Drought is the natural state of things there.  We made farmland out of desert by bringing water down from the mountains and the north, but the growth of the cities, along with increased farmland usage puts limits on the water during extra dry years.  The system has become overloaded.

Shades of Malthusian Economics.

The problem isn't unique to California.  Irrigation has allowed the high deserts of Colorado to become very productive.  But the same irrigation is increasing the salinization of the soil substantially.  Those lands will become unable to grow crops late in this century.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 23, 2015, 12:22:07 pm

Where is ACL when you need his expert opinion?

RIP Bro! 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 23, 2015, 01:53:30 pm

I'm sure he's somewhere watching the Cardinals not lose...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 23, 2015, 02:27:06 pm

Or trying to hold his tongue to keep his spot in heaven after that collosal collapse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 23, 2015, 06:16:05 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on January 23, 2015, 03:46:32 am

It's ALWAYS about entertainment motherfucker !

Is THAT what you think you offer?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 24, 2015, 01:54:47 am

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 23, 2015, 06:16:05 pm

Is THAT what you think you offer?

 And more.


 BTW ... it's nice to have a discussion about U.S. water issues which is only going to affect all of us.


 Posters are coming up with good ideas. :)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 05:09:38 am

JJ, you are cutting into Jes's territory. He thinks he is the only entertaining thing in this thread. Ya gotta stop trying to fool Mother Nature ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 07:29:55 am

The President meets with this nutjob net sensation, has a selfie taken....but refuses to meet with the leader of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu. #prioritiessofarofftheyareonPluto

(http://cdn.firstwefeast.com/assets/2015/01/giphy-12.gif)

(http://www.theroot.com/content/dam/theroot/blogs/the_grapevine/2015/01/youtube_star_sensation_glozell_interviews_president_obama/screen_shot_20150123_at_9.21.34_am_copy.jpg.CROP.rtstoryvar-medium.21.34_am_copy.jpg)

(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/obamas-youtube-interview-selfie.jpg?w=650)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 09:02:20 am

Excerpt from Joel Rosenberg's blog-

(Costa Mesa, California) – “America, for all that we have endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this: The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.” So began President Obama on Tuesday night in his 2015 State of the Union address to the nation and to a Joint Session of Congress. He was not the first American President to declare the state of the union “strong.” But with all due respect, the President is wrong. When a nation murders 57 million innocent babies, the state of the union is not strong. When a nation overtaxes and overregulates and over burdens the economy and drives manufacturers and other businesses overseas and leaves 92 million Americans out of the labor force with no jobs and few prospects to get a good-paying job, the state of the union is not strong. When a nation heaps $18 trillion of national debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren, and keeps creating more and more national debt with no end in sight, the state of the union is not strong. When a leader says, “no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” the state of the union is not strong. (And that leader is completely clueless to boot...me)  When a leader ignores the rising  and existential threat of Radical Islam, the state of the union is not strong. When a leader does not take decisive action to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat, the state of the union is not strong. When a leader does not take decisive action to crush terrorist movements like al Qaeda and ISIS, and refuses to even mention “Islam” or “Islamism” or “Radical Islam” or even “al Qaeda” is his address to the nation, the state of the union is not strong. When the leader of the free world cannot see the gathering storm — and believes that “leading from behind” is true leadership in a world that is dark and getting darker — the state of the union is not strong.

This President and his naivete is very dangerous to this Nation and its future. He cannot see past his nose in regards to the danger this Nation faces, both without and within. If there was ever a 'leaderless' leader, it is he...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 09:53:36 am

Quote from: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 09:02:20 am

Excerpt from Joel Rosenberg's blog-
When a leader does not take decisive action to crush terrorist movements like al Qaeda and ISIS.... the state of the union is not strong.

So what would constitute "decisive action" which would also have a reasonable likelihood of being effective, have a minimal risk of blowback even greater than whatever threat it reduced, be constitutional, and be within the realm of possibility?

Just saying Obama should "crush" them, or that he should take "decisive action" to do so, without recognizing the realities of the world involved is the sort of mindless criticism you might expect from people critical of Obama not because of what he is doing or not doing, but simply because of who he is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 10:15:07 am

Yeah we know there are governments all over the world plus the United nations that don't want us to take decisive action that is in our best interest. Duh! Even a blind man can see that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 10:17:04 am

Not in light of the risk they pose to civilized societies everywhere. We are at war with radical Islam. That is a fact. The sooner we realize this and treat it as such the better. We can treat it like the paper cut Obama seems to think it is with his foolish statement about climate change being the biggest risk we face or we can get serious, start sending more troops to the fight and start talking like it is a serious threat instead of completely ignoring it and failing to even mention it in a speech to the Nation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 10:27:04 am

(http://synthstuff.com/mt/2015/01/20150116-ramirez-islam.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 10:45:31 am

I think it's pretty evident that Obama is Pro-Islam. He does nothing to risk looking like he's against them. He wouldn't even send even a delegation to the Hebdo deal in France!! He refuses to call it what it is, he and his administration. I believe he's done what he's done only with pressure on him. He doesn't even want to engage his counterparts in Israel for fear of angering his Islamic buddies. The guy cannot be trusted with the role he's in, not when we're facing a existential threat from these savages hell bent on ours and the Wests destruction!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 11:08:43 am

My post had nothing to do with Islam or religion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 11:40:36 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 10:15:07 am

Yeah we know there are governments all over the world plus the United nations that don't want us to take decisive action that is in our best interest. Duh! Even a blind man can see that.

That really did not begin to address the question.

What would the desired "decisive action" be?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 11:44:55 am

Quote from: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 10:17:04 am

Not in light of the risk they pose to civilized societies everywhere. We are at war with radical Islam. That is a fact.

Really?

When was that war declared?  By whom?  And just who is the "we" you reference, since I certainly am not.

And, if you ever actualy respond to a question (you completely ignored my simple question as to what would constitute "decisive action"), could you tell me what might realistically be viewed as "winning" the "war" in which you seem to see someone engaged?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 11:46:43 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 11:08:43 am

My post had nothing to do with Islam or religion.

Or actual thought....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 11:49:55 am

I said send more troops. Did you not catch that on purpose? And you're a blind fool to think WE are not at war with Islam. They certainly view it as a war on us! You might think otherwise, but if you had a son that was sent to fight this 'non-existent' war, you'd think differently, huh. See, Obama doesn't want it to come across as a war. That's why he refuses to say it, he and his cabinet. The rest of the US exluding you evidently see it as a war on our civilization, the West. Are you really too blind to see that?? Yea, I can see that from you...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 12:00:41 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 10:45:31 am

I think it's pretty evident that Obama is Pro-Islam. He does nothing to risk looking like he's against them.

Assuming just for the sake of discussion that he IS "Pro-Islam," what would be wrong with that?  Are you seriously suggesting that he is more "Pro-Islam than he is "Pro-Christian"?  And would you genuinely want a president to oppose an antire religion?

Did either Bush oppose Islam, the entire religion?  Did Reagan?  Were you similarly critical of them?

Or is there something about Obama which causes your criticism other than his actual policies or positions on this issue?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 12:10:41 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 11:49:55 am

I said send more troops. Did you not catch that on purpose?

No, I genuinely missed it.  I even had to go back over your posts twice to find it, perhaps because it would be so incredibly unpopular politically, and would be so costly, it is hard to see it as serious, but, since it appears you want it to be taken seriously, how many troops?  Where?  And what would you have them do, other than be viewed as occupiers, causing even more in the Middle East to hate us and to side with the terrorists.  It would be an incredible recruiting tool for al Quida.

Quote from: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 11:49:55 am

And you're a blind fool to think WE are not at war with Islam.

Now, setting aside the name calling, could you respond to my questions?

When was that war declared?  By whom?  And just who is the "we" you reference, since I certainly am not.

And what might realistically be viewed as "winning" the "war"?  In other words, at what point might it ever be over, who might negogiate a peace treaty with the United States to end the "war"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 12:13:04 pm

Yea, he's anti-Christian. His policies scream that. Pushing the gay agenda, pushing all forms of abortion even the late term bs. Not to mention he is not a strong supporter of Israel nor of Netanyahu, who is ten times the leader Obama is. Yea, for this being a Christian based nation, something I'm sure you'll disagree with, wrongly so, to be pro Islam is nothing short of blasphemy. He chooses to support Islam over Christianity. And that's a fact. And yea, the Christian people in this nation have a problem with that, rightfully so!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 12:25:28 pm

Ok, I'm done playing with the troll. ISIS ring a bell?? Fight them, maybe? Send troops?? Hell yes! There is no more wicked suckers on this earth that are screaming for vengeance against them. Either stop them now or pay the price later. Quit sending spitwads against them and stomp them the hell out!! And quit playing the idiot about what 'war' we're in, k? Unless you've lived under a rock the last 15 years, you know da!@%d well which war!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 12:30:04 pm

Amazing.

You believe Obama is " anti-Christian (because of p)ushing the gay agenda, pushing all forms of abortion," and yet you believe he is PRO-Islam, despite those positions.  Islam is much, much more clearly hostile to gays and to abortion than Christianity.

As to not supporting Israel or Netanyahu, assuming it is true, that is hardly an indication he is anti-Christian.

As to this being a Christian nation, are you aware of the fact that in the late 1700's, at a time when many members of Congress had been very active in the founding of the nation, Congress ratified a treaty sent to it by President Washington and making expressly clear that the United States was NOT a Christian nation?  Or did George just not know what he was talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 12:38:34 pm

Wrong again, Troll. Done feeding you. Off you go to annoy someone else....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 12:48:46 pm

historian John Fea notes, “If the Treaty of Tripoli is correct, and the United States was not ‘founded on the Christian religion,’ then someone forgot to tell the American people… The idea that the United States is a ‘Christian nation,’ has always been central to American identity.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 12:54:36 pm

The Founders disagreed on much, but were nearly unanimous concerning biblical morality. They understood the relationship between state and society differently than progressive thinkers today: government cannot mold man. Righteous men must mold government which requires the inculcation of virtue through vibrant churches and the transmittal of values generationally via a social structure based on families.

Usurping the First Amendment to obstruct public expressions of faith would leave the Founders aghast. Not only did the Constitution leave extant the official religions authorized in most of the states, as historian Thomas Woods explains, prohibiting prayer in public schools “runs exactly contrary to the Framers’ intent … a stupefying departure from traditional American principles and an intolerable encroachment on communities’ rights to self-government.” Jefferson ’s “wall of separation” guarded faith, or lack thereof, against political interference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 12:59:39 pm

Far from uprooting our cultural moorings, the Forefathers embraced heritage. Historian Larry Schweikart notes, “The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveal them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God.” Youth learned to read using Scripture. Universities were chartered to teach doctrine. Students could not even enter Harvard, Yale or Princeton without assenting to the Westminster Confession.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 01:03:21 pm

Paul Johnson, “The Great Awakening was thus the proto-revolutionary event, the formative moment in American history, preceding the political drive for independence and making it possible.” Adams concluded freedom sprang because the “pulpits thundered!”

Johnson continued, “The American Revolution in its origins, was a religious event, whereas the French Revolution was an anti-religious event. That fact was to shape … the nature of the independent state it brought into being.” John Adams noted, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” Citing Calvinist doctrine, Adams credited the widely read Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos as affirming that Christians could rightly revolt against ungodly despotism if led by lower magistrates.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 01:09:04 pm

So, we are a "Christian nation," because some people, like yourself say we are.

The "founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies" predate the Revolution, let alone the Constitution or the founding of the nation.  The original 13 colonies were all chartered by England, a monarchy based on the Divine Right of kings, the fact that England woould want those founding documents to embrace Christianity is not at all surprising.  It is even less significant as an indication of whether the United States was founded as a Christian nation or is one today.

And is there any chance you can actually do any of your own writing, instead of simply cutting and pasting the ideas and writing of others?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 24, 2015, 01:12:58 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 11:40:36 am

That really did not begin to address the question.

What would the desired "decisive action" be?

Start by declaring war on Iran, and after their defeat, actually take the time necessary to occupy them until we install modern governments as we did in Germany and Japan.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 01:13:28 pm

Which beliefs, central to Christianity, are embodied either in the Constitution or any of the rest of our laws, and which would not also be beliefs central to nearly every other religion?

In other words, while the Ten Commandments prohibits murder or theft, and those are illegal in the United States, I believe every other major religion in history has also frowned on murder or theft, and the laws of every other nation also make such conduct illegal.

So what is it about our law which is peculiarly "Christian" in nature?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 01:17:47 pm

Quote from: davep on January 24, 2015, 01:12:58 pm

Start by declaring war on Iran, and after their defeat, actually take the time necessary to occupy them until we install modern governments as we did in Germany and Japan.

The reception in Iran would be vastly different from what we found in Japan or Germany.  We would be seen as occupiers (and we woudl be occupiers), and the action, which would amount to an unprovoked war, would be greeted not only with hostility from other Arab or Moslem nations, but by most of the world, and would result in a tremendous recruitment boost for al Queda and like minded groups.  It would be a disaster.  It is actually hard to see that as a serious suggestion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 01:52:09 pm

Or actual thought....

Well some might but a moron wouldn't, it'd be over your head.

Again the post had nothing to do with Isis or war with radical Islam or even religion.

And NO, I don't care to discuss it with a moron.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 01:52:22 pm

Sport


If you ever want to have even a clue about the world around you, take off the fundamentalist blinders.


Until then, every "solution" that you present will just result in more misery, repression and suffering for the world community.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 02:01:59 pm

Davebart

How did the installing of the Iraqi government work?

How did the installing of the Shah of Iran work the first time?

For that matter point to any government that we have installed to prove your "it will work this time" fantasy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 24, 2015, 02:02:07 pm

The world is largely against us already, and the Mulsim world is totally against us already.

Iran is the major sponsor of terrorism worldwide, and it would hardly be an unprovoked war.

And it is one that we will have to fight anyway, and it is better to fight it before they have nuclear weapons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 02:07:41 pm

The only thing dear Davebart that your posts prove, is that religious fanatics if left unchecked would again plunge the world into the Dark Ages.


 You must be so proud.


Vote for Huckabee.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:13:26 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 01:52:09 pm

Or actual thought....

Well some might but a moron wouldn't, it'd be over your head.

Again the post had nothing to do with Isis or war with radical Islam or even religion.

And NO, I don't care to discuss it with a moron.

Ah, that was the problem, not wanting to discuss it with a moron, you didn't bother to think it over or reflect on it.

Explains a lot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:16:06 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 02:01:59 pm

For that matter point to any government that we have installed to prove your "it will work this time" fantasy.

How about the two he already mentioned -- Japan and Germany?

Speaking of which, davep, are you aware of why nothing similar was done with Italy?  They likely would have been much better off it it had been.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 02:16:39 pm

Isfullofit


 Your first and last "original thought" was in 1953 when you decided to buy a Kaiser Motors car of the future.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:25:27 pm

Quote from: davep on January 24, 2015, 02:02:07 pm

The world is largely against us already, and the Mulsim world is totally against us already.  Iran is the major sponsor of terrorism worldwide, and it would hardly be an unprovoked war.  And it is one that we will have to fight anyway, and it is better to fight it before they have nuclear weapons.

Iran still has a reasonably strong middle class, literate, educated opposition to the ruling Mullahs, but if the U.S. were to invade and occupy that opposition would do worse than evaporate -- it would end up siding with those opposing the invasion and occupation.  We would end up far worse off, with a much greater terrorist threat, than now.

But the problems considerably predate our installation of the Shah in Iran.  The problems date back to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW I.  The west carved out nations along lines which only really made sense to the western powers who won, and created political and social structure vacuums which did not fill well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:26:40 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:13:26 pm

Ah, that was the problem, not wanting to discuss it with a moron, you didn't bother to think it over or reflect on it.

Explains a lot.

And who the hell do you think you are that I owe you an explanation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:28:52 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:26:40 pm

And who the hell do you think you are that I owe you an explanation?

I never suggested that you do.  I never thought you do.

And if I had bothered to think about it, I would have quickly dismissed the notion as having been similar to expecting a bankrupt person to pay his bills.

Can't get blood from a turnip.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:31:07 pm

I don't owe morons anything. Besides whats it to you? Does it ruin your debate class?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 24, 2015, 02:32:56 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:25:27 pm

Iran still has a reasonably strong middle class, literate, educated opposition to the ruling Mullahs, but if the U.S. were to invade and occupy that opposition would do worse than evaporate -- it would end up siding with those opposing the invasion and occupation.  We would end up far worse off, with a much greater terrorist threat, than now.

But the problems considerably predate our installation of the Shah in Iran.  The problems date back to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW I.  The west carved out nations along lines which only really made sense to the western powers who won, and created political and social structure vacuums which did not fill well.

It would have been nice if we had armed and encouraged the strong middle class, literate, educated opposition to the ruling Mullahs when we had the chance, but we didn't. 

It would have been nice if we had acted in a more responsible manner after each world war when we created the various countries.  But we didn't.

It would have been nice if we had not taken away land from others in order to create a Jewish state.  But we did.

The fact remains that Iran is an enemy that is intent on destroying the western way of life, and it is better that we fight them now than after they have nuclear weapons, regardless of how it makes the strong middle class, literate, educated opposition to the ruling Mullahs feel.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 02:33:59 pm

Who cares if the point was made by me or a historical scholar? The point is the point. I don't need to rewrite it if it makes my point. And I'm not going to waste my time with you rewording a perfectly worded statement....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:37:29 pm

Sporty you cant argue with a moron. Give it up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:40:00 pm

Quote from: davep on January 24, 2015, 02:32:56 pm

It would have been nice if we had armed and encouraged the strong middle class, literate, educated opposition to the ruling Mullahs when we had the chance, but we didn't. 

It would have been nice if we had acted in a more responsible manner after each world war when we created the various countries.  But we didn't.

It would have been nice if we had not taken away land from others in order to create a Jewish state.  But we did.

The fact remains that Iran is an enemy that is intent on destroying the western way of life, and it is better that we fight them now than after they have nuclear weapons, regardless of how it makes the strong middle class, literate, educated opposition to the ruling Mullahs feel.

I agree with each of your first three paragraphs... just as I would also agree with otto that it would have been nice if we had not first installed the Shah or then propped him up.

ALL of that is water over the dam.  The relevant question now is not what it would be nice for us to have done in the past, but what we should do now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 02:43:21 pm

Davebart=Sport


Facts are impervious to conservatives? The hillbilly legal aid points out the value of an Iranian modern middle class and you religious Neanderthals just stay idiot.


Vote Huckabee.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:45:27 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 02:33:59 pm

Who cares if the point was made by me or a historical scholar? The point is the point. I don't need to rewrite it if it makes my point. And I'm not going to waste my time with you rewording a perfectly worded statement....

So now you have explained why you cut and paste (that you have difficulty thinking or writing for yourself)... but you ignored the more substantive questions.

Not surprising.  Those claiming we are a "Christian nation" or that we were founded on "Christian principles" virtually never do respond to such questions.  Reality just doesn't comport with their ideas... or lack thereof.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 02:47:23 pm

According to you, we're 'not at war with anyone' so we just sit back and wait for the bomb to be sent on over....hopefully to your backyard so you can 'enjoy' your foolish Neville Chamberlain-esque viewpoint....and I hear ya, Wsh. It's a never ending line of nonsense from him that he keeps spouting circular argument bs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:47:33 pm

Oddo we know who you vote for. You vote for the morons like that state representative from New York who solicits bribes because his is a Dumbocrat

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:51:31 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 02:47:23 pm

According to you, we're 'not at war with anyone' so we just sit back and wait for the bomb to be sent on over....hopefully to your backyard so you can 'enjoy' your foolish Neville Chamberlain-esque viewpoint....and I hear ya, Wsh. It's a never ending line of nonsense from him that he keeps spouting circular argument bs.

Sporter, instead of trying to charecterize my position on whether we are or are not at war, when I have not STATED a position, could you even try to answer the very simple questions I asked about the war you claim we are in?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:51:54 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:45:27 pm

So now you have explained why you cut and paste (that you have difficulty thinking or writing for yourself)... but you ignored the more substantive questions.

Not surprising.  Those claiming we are a "Christian nation" or that we were founded on "Christian principles" virtually never do respond to such questions.  Reality just doesn't comport with their ideas... or lack thereof.

So your position is the original colonists weren't Christians and didn't come to America for freedom of worship?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:51:58 pm

Sarah Palin running in 2016 would like be a great thing for Republicans, because it would give Republican primary voters the opportunity to soundly repudiate her entirely unserious approach to politics.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/24/palin-say-shes-seriously-interested-in-2016-campaign/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 02:53:35 pm

Already did, a few posts back. Put your bifocals in and look again. I am not going to play this stupid bs game with you Jester. We're not in court, you ain't winning the argument, all you're attempting to do is win a circular argument you create. Going round and round with you is not my idea of fun, sorry. You dodge, elude, mislead, misdirect...all lawyeresque attempts at winning the argument. When you're losing, make the other person look bad or attack their character or redirect the argument or spill your guts over tiny minutiae. We've all seen it a hundred times with you. You'll never admit to losing a argument, you just dance and dance and dance

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:54:12 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:51:54 pm

So your position is the original colonists weren't Christians and didn't come to America for freedom of worship?

The Pilgrims landed in the 1500's.  It is not a wild conclusion to think that most of them were dead by 1776, and that every last one of them was dead by the time the nation was created with the ratification of the Constitution more than a decade after that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:55:16 pm

Smart Sporty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:55:25 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 02:53:35 pm

Already did, a few posts back. Put your bifocals in and look again. I am not going to play this stupid bs game with you Jester. We're not in court, you ain't winning the argument, all you're attempting to do is win a circular argument you create. Going round and round with you is not my idea of fun, sorry

I have re-read, and you never responded.  Noting circular in my pointing that out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 02:58:01 pm

Isfulofit


He has not been convicted of anything, unlike rep grimm who was and reelected as a GOP t-bagger.

And I have to ask if you, personally, walked the Appalachian Trail?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:58:19 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:54:12 pm

The Pilgrims landed in the 1500's.  It is not a wild conclusion to think that most of them were dead by 1776, and that every last one of them was dead by the time the nation was created with the ratification of the Constitution more than a decade after that.

That is not a valid position. Values don't die because the originals weren't there when the Constitution was written.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 02:59:06 pm

Nailed it, Wsh, Exactly right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 03:07:58 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 02:58:01 pm

Isfulofit


He has not been convicted of anything, unlike rep grimm who was and reelected as a GOP t-bagger.

And I have to ask if you, personally, walked the Appalachian Trail?

So its OK if you are a Dumbocrat and accept bribes? And it was your Dumbocrat leaders in the justice department that nailed him. Imagine that . So it must be true. After all Dumbocrats wouldn't liie would they?

As for the Apalachian Trail, I have no idea where that is. Have I driven down I75? Yes I have.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 03:13:38 pm

What conviction are you pointing to?

And if a Democratic AG pressed charges against a Democratic lawmaker I assume they are following the law and not shielding follow politicians like what happens when in WI.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 03:16:41 pm

So now you are saying that Dumbocrats lie? If there was no valid reason to bring charges then it would have been whitewashed and swept under the rug, like Fast and Furious and other Dumbo scams.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 03:23:03 pm

Isfulofit


 Mark.........Sanford.........Appalachian Trail.


Where is he now?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 03:25:00 pm

Who or what is a Mark Sanford and how does he relate to I75?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 03:25:55 pm

I know Fred Sanford.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 03:27:12 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 02:58:19 pm

That is not a valid position. Values don't die because the originals weren't there when the Constitution was written.

Then what values were there when the Constitution was written which made us at that time a Christian nation... 9 years before Congress ratified a treaty expressly stating that we were NOT a Christian nation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 03:27:50 pm

Isfulofit

Exactly what are you referring too? What fast and furious or other?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 03:29:18 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 03:07:58 pm

So its OK if you are a Dumbocrat and accept bribes?

When you join otto in coming up with "cute" names which attempt to slur those you disagree with.... you are joining otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 03:32:04 pm

They have been there for a long time hillbilly legal aid.


There just using it on you now like a bunch of 3rd grade girls.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 03:44:06 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 03:27:12 pm

Then what values were there when the Constitution was written which made us at that time a Christian nation... 9 years before Congress ratified a treaty expressly stating that we were NOT a Christian nation?

So you are still saying when you die all your values and beliefs die with you, that you don't implant values upon your successors (children)? My son would certainly disagree with you.

And you wont win any debates with a supposition you cant back up, its only what you say it is. You have no proof.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 03:51:06 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 24, 2015, 03:27:50 pm

Isfulofit

Exactly what are you referring too? What fast and furious or other?

You don't know of your famous AG who has been dodging any way he can inquiries into The Fast and Furious scandal. If there weren't a scandal then everything would be made available to Congressional investigators.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 24, 2015, 04:12:58 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 02:40:00 pm

I agree with each of your first three paragraphs... just as I would also agree with otto that it would have been nice if we had not first installed the Shah or then propped him up.

ALL of that is water over the dam.  The relevant question now is not what it would be nice for us to have done in the past, but what we should do now.

Exactly.  Which is why we should conduct the war now, before they get nuclear weapons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 04:19:14 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 24, 2015, 03:44:06 pm

So you are still saying when you die all your values and beliefs die with you, that you don't implant values upon your successors (children)? My son would certainly disagree with you.

And you wont win any debates with a supposition you cant back up, its only what you say it is. You have no proof.

The Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock had all been dead for 200 years before the nation was founded.  If you want to try to attribute ancestral values that long after the fact (and also ignore all of the other intervening immigrants), perhaps you would agreed with the idea of reparations for slavery, since that was less than 200 years ago.

As to "a supposition (I) can't back up, WHAT "supposition" is it that you are taling about?  Noting in the language you quted from me included one and I can't recall one I have made in this exchange.  Of course your post quoted above, and the entire claim that the United States is now a "Christian nation" or that it was founded as a "Christian nation" is rather loaded with one, but, what the hey, I have come not to expect logical consistency from you.

And, by the way, since you want to claim we were founded as a "Christian nation," can you tell me what "Christian values" it is that were in any way evidenced in the creation of the nation, or, for that matter were generally shared by the population which ratified the Constitution, which are not values also shared by nearly every other major religion?  I asked Sportster to answer this, but he sort of ran and hid.  Would you care to try?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 24, 2015, 05:39:49 pm

For someone that likes to think he 'knows' history, he sure cannot seem to find the history of the American Nation. Amazing, ain't it? Replete with mentions of God, Almighty and His hand all through the Founding Fathers writings and he just can't seem to find anything. Isn't that amazing......I could post writ after writ from numerous FF's about how God had a hand in the founding of this nation, how He moved the founders and the peoples. It's all there in history for the asking. But hmmm.....he cannot seem to find any of it. Funny how that works....ain't it....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 24, 2015, 05:45:39 pm

 Gentlemen,


 You see but you don't see. Paraguay with it's seaports is the more obvious threat.


 The middle east with its backwater way of thinking could put a man on the moon in 2153 according to predictions.


 Paraguay's seaports have tons of Russian and Chinese arms flowing into them ...


 headed straight for Cuba from Paraguay seaports.


 These weapons are being aimed at us.


 Iran is years away from making a nuclear weapon and will launch it and have it fall back on Tehran.


 The main idea is to stay a PARANOID.


 This will allow you to sleep well at night ...


 knowing that you are under constant attack ...


 by Guinea - Bissau.  :D


 And the weapons flowing from Paraguay seaports to Cuba.


 Stay alert. And be well armed.  ;D


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2015, 08:34:13 pm

For those not catching JJ's attempt at humor -- Paraguay is in green:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/UNASUR-Paraguay.svg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2015, 06:50:42 pm

I wonder if austerity conservatives are still looking at Greece.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 25, 2015, 07:17:33 pm

What is doing so good in Greece right now? What are your Commie pubs saying now? I certainly wouldn't trust their lies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2015, 07:32:36 pm

Does your narrow mind give you bliss Isfulofit?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 25, 2015, 07:41:04 pm

Austerity never works if you only do it half way.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2015, 07:46:45 pm

Where has it worked when fully installed?


Oklahoma?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 25, 2015, 08:00:02 pm

So spend, spend,  spend and borrow 18 trillion is the way to go? I don't think so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2015, 08:03:46 pm

Wonder how two similar populations are doing in two different states.....just his does Democratic Minnesota compare to conservative austerity Wisconsin?

Can anyone help out?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 25, 2015, 08:31:45 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 25, 2015, 08:03:46 pm

Wonder how two similar populations are doing in two different states.....just his does Democratic Minnesota compare to conservative austerity Wisconsin?

Can anyone help out?

I don't know the answer, but I know that any meaningful comparison would require each of them having the same starting point at the same time, or at least adjustents for their relative positions at whatever time is determined to be the start.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 25, 2015, 09:51:04 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQCFqgAGyM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQCFqgAGyM&feature=youtu.be)


Worth a listen.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQCFqgAGyM&feature=youtube)


(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQCFqgAGyM&feature=youtu.be)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2015, 11:10:32 pm

"Sheriff" Clarke is nothing more than an **** uncle tom.


Oxygen is wasted on him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 26, 2015, 07:17:44 am

So the two of you have that in common...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 26, 2015, 07:54:23 am

Quote from: otto105 on January 25, 2015, 11:10:32 pm

"Sheriff" Clarke is nothing more than an **** uncle tom.


Oxygen is wasted on him.

The "Uncle Tom" reference has long been worn out and no longer has any meaning to any rational person. Which Alinsky tactic is that again?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 26, 2015, 09:14:42 am

We have a dangerously naive President who sees the world through a rose colored prism and is blind to very serious threats.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/24/white-house-going-nuclear-on-netanyahu/

I'd take Netanyahu over Obama as a leader ten times out of ten. Obama is dangerous for this Nation and the world....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 26, 2015, 09:56:44 am

With Otto's love of Jon Stewart I'm not sure how he missed this...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/23/jon_stewart_1700_private_jets_in_davos_is_the_height_.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 26, 2015, 11:05:41 am

The more that Wisconsin comes into the 21st century with responsible government, the more Homo moans about it.  He longs to return to the backwards state of his youth.

I thought looney libs were in favor of progress.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 26, 2015, 11:19:51 am

Only when it benefits their agenda..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Coach on January 26, 2015, 04:47:02 pm

Calling someone an "Uncle Tom" should be added to Godwin's Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 05:08:07 pm

Just keep driving Mrs. Daisy ( WISN) sheriff clarke.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 05:12:56 pm

Guys, don't you have more stupid things to tend too? Like trying to get Sarah Palin a brain by following the yellow brick road?

Vote Huckabee/Palin 16'!!!!!

Christian dumb and dumber.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 05:20:33 pm

Netinyahoo

Is burning a lot of credibility by allowing rep. Orange Guy to jerk his chain before a Democratic landslide in 2016.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 05:33:15 pm

I'm sooooo glad conservatives are ignoring the weather warnings out East, since meteorologists are using modeling to predict the storm.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 05:35:56 pm

Today ex-senator jimmy imoff released a press release stating for the people to wait until it snows in your backyard to believe anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 26, 2015, 05:43:52 pm

 Jes,


 I was wrong about Paraguay ... I meant Bolivia. My mistake.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 06:06:38 pm

Butch and Sundance are pissed....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 26, 2015, 06:08:54 pm

And dead though they are, they probably caught things better than you, otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 26, 2015, 07:06:29 pm

 Whats this fascination with being at odds with one another ?


 I never could understand that.


 Arent we all as AMERICANS on the same page ?


 But I'm feeling NO ... WHY?


 Because nobody's killed you yet.


 You'll get together and unite when one of your's is dusted by outsiders.


 Until then , you'll keep on hating each other.


 Now this is where it gets interesting at ...


 nobody is at odd's here over religion ... or politics ... or ideology ...


 it's over ... Personalty's.  ;D


 Some of you dudes just like to wail on other dudes and the gratification is self rewarding to both sides of the argument.


 All of you come out the winners ... because this is what you want.  ;)


 Nothing will ever be solved ... nor will it ever be solved ... to solve it ...


 will mean the end of the discussions.


 That will never happen ... because you LOVE each other too much.


 You can disagree and hate each other ... but you LOVE each other.


 Or else you wouldn't be on this thread.


 You're all old friends that loves each others company.


 Yes ... Otto & Jes are my Friends ... Why do I love them ?


 Because I disagree with 59.5 % of what they post.


 It's the other 39.5 % that is interesting.


 The last 1% is mine.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 26, 2015, 07:40:41 pm

Hey Comrade Oddo I guess your Commie friends in Greece are doing a bit of celebrating. Lets see if they default on all that debt they owe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 07:56:13 pm

Why are you worried about default? T-baggers wanted to default on ours.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 10:07:15 pm

"We have got to start killing pigs..."


Vote huckabee 16'!!!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 10:11:19 pm

Sarah non-grammer palin.....need a teleprompter?


Yes, crazy Steve king she does.


How wonderfully moronic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 26, 2015, 11:31:07 pm

Otto, Conservatives do not want to default on the money the country has borrowed.  We want it paid off and the budget balanced.

The problem is liberals can't cut spending.  They think we can just keep borrowing and spending, printing all the money we want forever with no consequences. 

That is not how the real world works.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 26, 2015, 11:31:17 pm

Do you suppose other looney lefters understand Homo, or does he just live in a world of his own?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 27, 2015, 04:56:48 am

Most libs I've talked to aren't near as nutty as the Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 27, 2015, 06:04:32 am

Quote

otto105
Hero Member
Posts: 1303
« Reply #4421 on: January 26, 2015, 06:33:15 pm »

I'm sooooo glad conservatives are ignoring the weather warnings out East, since meteorologists are using modeling to predict the storm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
otto105
Hero Member
Posts: 1303
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #4422 on: January 26, 2015, 06:35:56 pm »
Today ex-senator jimmy imoff released a press release stating for the people to wait until it snows in your backyard to believe anything.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blizzard-2015-may-be-falling-short-of-predictions/

That whole 6" of snow in Central Park was worth the panic for otter I guess.

A blizzard with the potential to set all-time snowfall records bore down on the East Coast into the early hours of Tuesday, although the extreme forecasts appeared to have been scaled back somewhat.

The meteorologist in charge of the National Weather Service office for South Jersey, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Gary Szatkowski, issued a public apology on Twitter early Tuesday, saying the storm was a "big forecast miss" for most of the region.

Szatkowski tweeted a map showing reduced forecasts for snowfall amounts, followed by a handful of apologetic posts. "You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn't. Once again, I'm sorry," he tweeted.

People from New York City to Boston have been prepared for the possibility of 30 inches or more of snow, while meteorologists used words like "historic" and "crippling" to describe what lay ahead.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102366606#.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 27, 2015, 06:25:58 am

Yeah Skilling  and Taft were all singing the same tune "historic". I said at the time that if they got 6" it would be a national disaster. Everything is so east coast centric, like the whole center of the world is centered on the east coast. Those people deserve a dose of reality, but no, they were even spared reality. Just pitiful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2015, 06:29:52 am

Quote from: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 07:56:13 pm

Why are you worried about default? T-baggers wanted to default on ours.

otto, how do YOU define the word "default" in the context you have used it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 27, 2015, 07:51:48 am

I kind of like the new Otto system.  Write a couple dozen nonsense posts that are easily scrolled past followed by a couple weeks of disappearing. That is a big improvement over having to see his idiocy on a daily basis.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on January 27, 2015, 02:15:38 pm

The ignore feature is nice for Otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 27, 2015, 04:41:23 pm

I just scroll, especially when most of the time they make no sense what so ever..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:05:03 pm

Hillbilly legal aid

The same way libertarians and t- baggers define it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:10:16 pm

Usually chifinva


Current events are lost on conservatives like you. But I'm sure a YouTube video of Sarah's Steve king's conservative hogfest is available even to you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:15:15 pm

Have any of you conservatives heard from rep. Howdy Cowdy and his bendoverbenghazi select committee?


 Serious question for obvious reasons....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:18:59 pm

The CBO released a new projection on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act today....


Did Matt drudge have it?


Ya know, so you guys are current.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:20:45 pm

I don't think brietbart had it up if that helps.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2015, 05:26:54 pm

Just think how expensive things would be if we didn't have ObamaCare to hold down all of the costs?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927348/Obamacare-program-costs-50-000-American-gets-health-insurance-says-bombshell-budget-report.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:27:03 pm

Billjohn

What happened 50-100 miles north of forecast area?


Your same source issue any new tweets?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:29:05 pm

Hillbilly legal aid


Wow, just wow. Even for you.


Just when did you sell your pathelic soul?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 27, 2015, 05:33:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:15:15 pm

Have any of you conservatives heard from rep. Howdy Cowdy and his bendoverbenghazi select committee?


 Serious question for obvious reasons....

If it's a serious question then why not ask it in a serious manner ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 27, 2015, 05:34:25 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:18:59 pm

The CBO released a new projection on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act today....


Did Matt drudge have it?


Ya know, so you guys are current.

You do know that CBO didn't score the tax increases don't you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2015, 05:48:18 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:18:59 pm

The CBO released a new projection on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act today....
Did Matt drudge have it?
Ya know, so you guys are current.

Do you mean the CBO report which concluded the program Obama swore he would only support if it did not cost taxpayers an additiona dime and which will actually cost a trillion and a half dollars?  THAT CBO report?  The one you will find in its entirety here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/253801993/CBO-January-2015-Outlook-on-Obamacare

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2015, 05:49:47 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on January 27, 2015, 05:33:14 pm

If it's a serious question then why not ask it in a serious manner ?

That was about as serious as otto gets.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2015, 05:54:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:05:03 pm

Hillbilly legal aid

The same way libertarians and t- baggers define it.

Since I am a libertarian, that means you are willing to accept my definition of default, and, if so, I am unaware of ANYONE voting to default.

Can you point out the individuals who did so. as well as the bills which constituted a vote for defaut?

Of course, if you want to try to offer YOUR definition of default, perhaps you woud have something more to talk about.  So far you have refused to do so and said you chose to use mine... without even knowing how I do define it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 27, 2015, 06:06:49 pm

I find it amusing that the blizzard (that was blamed on global warming) did not dump as much snow on New York as was predicted due to faulty computer models.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2015, 06:22:07 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 27, 2015, 06:06:49 pm

I find it amusing that the blizzard (that was blamed on global warming) did not dump as much snow on New York as was predicted due to faulty computer models.

And just yesterday otto seemed to be counting on the storm to prove the value of computer modeling.

Quote from: otto105 on January 26, 2015, 05:33:15 pm

I'm sooooo glad conservatives are ignoring the weather warnings out East, since meteorologists are using modeling to predict the storm.

Sure enough, it appears he may have been right... that it did prove the value of computer modeling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 07:11:12 pm

Well hillbilly legal aid who quite possibility still believes it was immoral to tax the south to pay for the Civil War.


Is not the work of libertarian James Buchanan, Murray Rothbard or Niall Ferguson for a default on debt not enough for you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 07:20:04 pm

And the the rest of you little girls....if its not in your backyard, it didn't happen.


Morons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 07:36:16 pm

Hey bought and paid for types


How does it feel to know that 300 americans just bought your political souls?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2015, 07:36:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 07:11:12 pm

Well hillbilly legal aid who quite possibility still believes it was immoral to tax the south to pay for the Civil War.
Is not the work of libertarian James Buchanan, Murray Rothbard or Niall Ferguson for a default on debt not enough for you?

~sigh~  Your first comment made no mention of libertarians, but merely referenced "T-baggers want(ing) to default."  From your prior posts that would have appeared to have been in reference to Republicans in the House who resisted Obama's call for increasing the debt limit without any restrictions on spending.

NOW you mention James Buchanan, Murray Rothbard and Niall Ferguson and identify them, not as "T-baggers" (and I STILL do not know what a "T-bagger" is), but as libertarians.

The only James Buchanan I am familiary with died in 1868, 7 years after greasing the skids for the Civil War, I have never heard of Neill Ferguson.  I have no idea, or concern, what position any of them had with regard to default, nor would it seem relevant to the discussion, since you appear to identify them as libertarians and not "T-baggers," whatever a "T-bagger" might be.  Your initial post, the one to which I responded and which provided the seed for this exchange, addressed not libertarians but "T-baggers."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 07:40:33 pm

You are stupid


Don't buy that vowel.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 27, 2015, 07:43:41 pm

Comrade Oddo its a shame that that noreaster didn't dump the whole amount of that modeled amount as predicted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 07:45:34 pm

BTW Stupid


It was the same way libertarians and t-baggers....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 07:50:49 pm

Isfulofit



Why are you so stupid so consistently?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 08:11:42 pm

-sign- you wasted soooo much time in that response.


Time minutia lost to minutia and I know that bugs you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 08:18:26 pm

But doesn't since your a dick.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 27, 2015, 08:44:38 pm

you're

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 27, 2015, 08:44:55 pm

You idiot

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 27, 2015, 09:35:05 pm

Otto is clearly channeling a third grader tonight. What's next... Calling us all poopyheads?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 10:27:18 pm

OK poopyhead, settle down.


We all know that you have graduated to shithead.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 10:46:57 pm

Mr. Netinyahoo your table is ready.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 06:50:11 am

lol....brother. Otto's on a stupid rampage. He's getting harder and harder to understand the further down the rabbit hole he goes. Get off the drugs, or start some or something. Whatever you're presently doing isn't workin'.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 28, 2015, 07:12:07 am

The problem is he probably isn't taking his prescribed meds. Right now he is out of control. He seems ready for another "Occupy Mission"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 28, 2015, 08:09:44 am

Does anybody else here remember the guy that thought lizard people were ruling us? I can't remember the name but it was Kwatski or something like that. He may have been over on the cubs board. He started out much like Otto and regressed terribly just as Otto is with his unprovoked anger.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 28, 2015, 08:12:04 am

I remember the guy.  Don't remember the username but remember him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 08:33:21 am

Lizard people? ROFL! I used to work with a guy for a number of years that one day turned to me and said 'I think I have schizophrenia'. HMMmmm. That makes one look harder over their shoulder! This is the same guy that a couple years after making that declaration attempted to rob a bank with his bum knee in the summer with a ski mask and winter jacket on. He rang the rear door of the place, they asked who it was seeing the guy on camera looking like that. They wouldn't let him in and they locked the front door which he tried to enter. He parked his van quite a ways away in some woods and, hobbling away, was caught by the police before he even got back to it,lol. Later the local newspaper headlines read 'Bumbling robber caught in attempted bank robbery'. He got six years and got out. We wondered what the heck was going on with him when a few days before he attempted that he came to work with all his eyebrow and facial hair shaved off. It was so funny and strange looking that our manager took a pic with him, lol.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 28, 2015, 08:53:21 am

Paul Kwiatkowski, or something similar to that...great entertainment!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 09:04:34 am

I used to work at a music/instrument store back in the 80's and had a guy come in with a real nice large boombox, actually nicer than the ones we had for sale. He puts it on the counter and says I want to trade this in on a new boombox. Why? He said the lemons stopped spinning on it and proceeded to grab the fragile antenna and started tugging on it. I stopped him, and checked it out. Everything worked out great. I said your radio is working great. He just ignored me and started checking out the less nice ones we had for sale. Put one on the counter and said 'I want this one'. Sir, yours is working fine. Totally ignored me and bought the cheaper one. He walked out and I was saying SIR you forgot your radio! He bolted for the door never to be seen again. We put the radio in the back and for the next month called the guy repeatedly telling him to come get his radio. Policy was if it was never claimed that one of us could then have it. I ended up with a nice boombox and a very strange story to tell, lol.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 09:10:06 am

You'd be surprised...and quite concerned...if you knew how many psycho's walk the streets with us. We had some who would come in wanting a 'radio that understood the sky computer talking to me'. Huh? 'Yea, there's this sky computer and it's talking and I can't understand what it's saying and I need a radio to communicate with it'. Alrighty,then.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 28, 2015, 09:18:15 am

Quote from: otto105 on January 27, 2015, 05:27:03 pm

Billjohn

What happened 50-100 miles north of forecast area?


Your same source issue any new tweets?

News source:  The world will be coming to and end tomorrow.  Everyone go out and live life like today is your last day because the world will end tomorrow.

Next Day News Source:  We are sorry for our missed prediction of the end of the world.  We were way off in that prediction.  In other news on the southside of Chicago a man was killed....

Otter:  They were right on with their prediction of the end of the world.  The world ended for that one guy on the southside of Chicago.  The Republican Politicians who said to wait and believe it when you see it were stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 28, 2015, 09:59:34 am

There are too many liberals out there who believe life is like the song "Home, home on the Range" and if it isnt that way its the result of global warming. Every occurance where the skies are cloudy is just more global warming. Most of that nonsense is centered in the Dumbocrat northeast. Even a little adversity they get is well deserved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on January 28, 2015, 10:23:45 am

I wonder why Otto left this out of his rant about the CBO scoring of Obamacare?

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/012715-736559-cbo-says-obamacare-will-push-10-million-of-employer-plans.htm

The Congressional Budget Office now says ObamaCare will push 10 million off employer-based coverage, a tenfold increase from its initial projection. The "keep your plan" lie just gets bigger and bigger.
The latest CBO report is supposed to be a big win for the Obama administration because the projected costs are 20% below what the CBO first projected in 2010.
But the CBO report also shows that ObamaCare will be far more disruptive to the employer-based insurance market, while being far less effective at cutting the ranks of the uninsured, than promised.
Thanks to ObamaCare, the CBO now expects that 10 million workers will lose their employer-based coverage by 2021.
This finding stands in sharp contrast to earlier CBO projections, which at one point suggested ObamaCare would increase the number of people getting coverage through work, at least in its early years.
The budget office has, in fact, increased the number it says will lose workplace coverage every year since 2011.
The latest CBO finding also thoroughly debunks the many promises ObamaCare backers made when selling the law — about how those with work-based coverage had nothing to worry about.
ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, for example, said the law was specifically designed "to leave those who are happy with their employer-sponsored insurance alone."


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/012715-736559-cbo-says-obamacare-will-push-10-million-of-employer-plans.htm#ixzz3Q8MmPJSE
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 28, 2015, 10:40:02 am

You guys were talking about Paulie.  Although he was nuts, at least his posts were written in english and spelled some of the words correctly.  Homo is merely a third grade version of Paulie.

Actually, the term "third grade" isn't fair.  Homo is a fair representation of the public school system of Madison, Wisconsin.  The neighbors are quite glad he is a homo, because otherwise he would be having children with his cousinsister like the rest of his backwoods group.  Having sex with your cousinbrother doesn't do as much damage to society.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 28, 2015, 11:20:39 am

With someone like Homo, when they have no legitimate argument or substance to their side of a discussion they just start calling people names and talk gibberish. At one time, I really thought he did this to stir the pot and draw attention to himself. Now I'm thinking that's giving him too much credit.

At some point we need to ask ourselves, does he really add anything to this board... I say he adds nothing..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 28, 2015, 01:01:21 pm

If we eliminate those who do not add to the board, we won't have much of a board.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: VJ on January 28, 2015, 01:27:56 pm

I'm getting bearandbullmarcusbearstinkycheesenophill flashbacks on this thread ...

"u r stupid"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 28, 2015, 05:16:59 pm

Typical conservative and their safe eating tactics.


Chief, don't leave the boat! Ever!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 28, 2015, 06:05:05 pm

Quote from: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 08:33:21 am

Lizard people? ROFL!

No one who believes gasoline prices are the result of a massive conspiracy by speculators able to run prices up at will should make fun of a belief in lizard people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 28, 2015, 06:18:24 pm

 What I cant get in So. Cal. for Superbowl Sunday to eat ...


 the whole menu from White Castle ...


 any donut from Dunkin Donuts.


 This is the living hell that you have to put up with in So. Cal.


 Dont move here.  ;)


Whats the Vegas spread so far ? Seattle vs. New England ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: VJ on January 28, 2015, 07:58:45 pm

Quit bitching, you got Krispy Kreme and Jack in the Box over there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 28, 2015, 08:22:37 pm

 

Quote from: VJ on January 28, 2015, 07:58:45 pm

Quit bitching, you got Krispy Kreme and Jack in the Box over there.

 We did have Krispy Kreme but most of them shut down.


 BTW ... between the two ... Dunkin Donuts was better.


 You don't have Jack in the Box ?? I thought they were nationwide. ???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 28, 2015, 09:42:24 pm

No Jack in the Box in Tennessee that I know of...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 09:46:41 pm

Quote

No one who believes gasoline prices are the result of a massive conspiracy by speculators able to run prices up at will should make fun of a belief in lizard people. 

Oil went down again today. It's continued to drop lower and lower. But our gas went up 27c just today.  ::)  Not sure why I'm feeding the troll.....sure I'll regret it....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 28, 2015, 09:47:10 pm

Actually, I take that back...there are a few up near Nashville, and I think up near APSU as well...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 28, 2015, 09:59:51 pm

I was gonna say Dave, for God sakes get over to Nashvlle, Franklin, there's one every 20 feet.  AND Krispy Kreme AND DD are everywhere.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 28, 2015, 10:04:06 pm

None here in the Memphis area...of course, we only recently got Five Guys, Panda Express, and Cheddar's...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 10:09:04 pm

Anyone had a In N' Out burger? Heard they're pretty good

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 28, 2015, 10:11:56 pm

five guys "small" would get you enough fries to feed a small north korean village, cheddars imo really good, Panda I haven't tried yet.  Got hot and sour soup? in and out is classic Cali, fantastic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 10:20:04 pm

Here's your 'speculation doesn't drive up the cost' bs, Jester. But I'm sure the Fed and other Gov agencies have no clue and some know-it-all  ::) disbarred lawyer has the answer......


http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/28/opinion/sanders-gas-speculation/index.html

Wall Street speculation drives up the cost of oil and gas; Goldman Sachs experts say it pushes prices up by 40%.



http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gas-prices-spiked-speculators-senators-claim/story?id=15847114

The Reserve's report called "Speculation in the oil market," which was just updated in February 2012, concluded there are two main factors for large price swings at the gas pump.

It says "global demand shocks," such as those caused by turmoil in the Middle East, "account for the largest share of oil price fluctuations."

The report also concludes "speculation played a significant role in the oil price increase between 2004 and 2008 and its subsequent collapse. Our results support the view that the financialization process of commodity markets explains part of the recent increase in oil prices."



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/opinion/speculators-and-the-gas-pump.html?_r=0

Research presented in Congressional testimony, academic papers, government and private studies indicate that excessive speculation, mainly by Wall Street index-fund traders, is needlessly driving up prices, with estimates ranging up to $1 a gallon in inflated gasoline costs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: VJ on January 29, 2015, 01:00:57 am

JJ, according to the Kreme site, Cali has got as many or more Kremes as some of the southern states.  Grab a dozen already!

No Jack in Mpls, but I do know they opened one up in Guam recently.  Was stuck in the drive thru for over 45 minutes a day after their grand opening.  For fast burger chains, I can settle with Five Guys or Culvers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on January 29, 2015, 05:16:22 am

Quote from: Dave23 on January 28, 2015, 09:42:24 pm

No Jack in the Box in Tennessee that I know of...

There's one in Murfreesboro on Old Fort Parkway right off of I 24...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on January 29, 2015, 05:17:48 am

I haven't had Culvers but I heard it was good.  What do you recommend?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 29, 2015, 07:01:56 am

Quote from: Sportster on January 28, 2015, 10:20:04 pm

Here's your 'speculation doesn't drive up the cost' bs, Jester. But I'm sure the Fed and other Gov agencies have no clue and some know-it-all  ::) disbarred lawyer has the answer......

Sportster, if you ever were to look back honestly and objectively at the various problems you have had to deal with in your life, this exchange might be quite instructive as to the source of a serious percentage of them.

I did not write that "speculation doesn't drive up the cost," though I have no doubt that is what you read... even though neither those words, nor that idea, was present.

First, I generally, and most recently, did not mention "cost," but "price," since they are two different words with different meanings.  Next, and more importantly, there is a huge difference between temporarily influencing a price and being able to control or determine a price, which is the position you repeatedly staked out on the issue.  Then there is the problem of blurring an activity overall (speculation) with those involved in that activity all of the time (such as the "speculators" you consider responsible), and the fact that speculation (and speculators) can temporarily influence a price downward the very same way as they can influence a price upward.

Your belief that oil speculators DETERMINE the price of oil or gasoline, or even that they are the largest factor influencing those prices, AND that they only do so in one direction, AND that they apparently only figured out how to do this and decided to do so right before the price runnup which brought about your foolishness does indeed rival belief in lizardpeople.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on January 29, 2015, 07:31:09 am

I like Five Guys but they need to use a better tasting bun.

Also tried to take home twice and had a soggy mess.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 29, 2015, 07:51:24 am

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/giphymedia/media/HRC2o6QPAJENa/giphy.gif)  (http://media3.giphy.com/media/f1ohcPEHABwWY/200.gif)
Spin, baby, spin!                                                                                             In clarifying, what I meant was, in retrospect the idea was in general that the specific thought process was....


Yep...that's about what I expected. Lawyer speak for 'you're right about speculation influencing price' but in a way that makes you sound like it's been your position all along. It hasn't but heck of a try. A for effort for sure

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 29, 2015, 08:28:48 am

Griz, Culvers on Old Fort parkway is very,very good.  Last time there had the chicken sandwich and fries. You get a number, sit with the drink, they bring it to you just cooked.
That's a nice part of Murfreesboro, I was shocked when someone told me in the Murfreesboro area there are 250,000 people. That's dare I say it, more that's in Madison Wis.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 29, 2015, 08:30:56 am

Forget it Sporty. God is always right. You cant play pin the tail on the donkey with Jes. You always lose

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on January 29, 2015, 09:25:45 am

Murfreesboro is very nice. I worry that it's getting too big, too quick...much like Austin TX did several years ago...

I could live there, easily, but the traffic at times is suffocating.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 29, 2015, 09:42:28 am

Traffic is some of the worst in the state. don't plan on doing much at lunch. They'll have some trouble sometimes around the school (mtsu), but other than that, a
nice place.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 29, 2015, 10:56:31 am

Quote from: davebear on January 29, 2015, 07:31:09 am

I like Five Guys but they need to use a better tasting bun.

Also tried to take home twice and had a soggy mess.

Exactly!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 29, 2015, 12:08:43 pm

However, if you eat it there, they are the best out there.

Other than White Castle, of course.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 29, 2015, 12:53:19 pm

Oddo's leader speaks:

http://news.yahoo.com/communist-party-usa-chairman-vows-cooperation-democratic-party-141019868.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 29, 2015, 01:13:40 pm

My nearest Jack is about 250 miles away.   :(

2,057 Jack in the Box locations in the United States.

(http://www.fastfoodmaps.com/static/jackinthebox.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:11:25 pm

Jesus, I don't which is more consistently foolish. A drug addict and their next fix or a conservative and his next communist this or that post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:15:21 pm

Probably an old white fool kicking the dead horse of the Cold War.


Isfulofit


Is it too much to ask that you move from the 1980's to present day?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:21:46 pm

Jose' you conservatives, why is the burger thread not looking for the lowest cost, loosely regulated, minimum wage worker forced to work off the clock hair-in-bun piece of soybean burger?


Really.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:27:42 pm

BTW corporate america bought the government to have it labelled as real beef.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:33:41 pm

T-baggers and **** everywhere


Nobody YouTube the Palin speech in Iowa yet?



Enjoy.


Sane conservatives have jumped the shark on her.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 29, 2015, 05:36:18 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on January 29, 2015, 08:30:56 am

Forget it Sporty. God is always right. You cant play pin the tail on the donkey with Jes. You always lose

When you and Sportster say stupid things which make no sense and which can not be defended with logic, reasoning or facts, you really should not be surprised when anyone other than an idiot fails to agree with you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 29, 2015, 05:39:05 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:21:46 pm

Jose' you conservatives, why is the burger thread not looking for the lowest cost, loosely regulated, minimum wage worker forced to work off the clock hair-in-bun piece of soybean burger?

Can anyone translate this into English?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 29, 2015, 05:41:23 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:27:42 pm

BTW corporate american bought government to have it labelled as real beef.

Why would "corporate american" want to have government labeled real beef?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:44:13 pm

Eat at Joe's



Simple, hillbilly legal aid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:46:49 pm

Why is minutia the preferred path of posting for you?


Can you explain in horribly long and tedious detail.......please....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 29, 2015, 06:01:54 pm

Quote from: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 05:46:49 pm

Why is minutia the preferred path of posting for you?  Can you explain in horribly long and tedious detail.......please....

otto, I have to wonder if you are even capable of understanding the irony in having you describe my post as minutia when it asked that someone make sense of what you had written....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 29, 2015, 07:23:17 pm

 Sporty,


 I have had the "In and Out" Burgers ...


 they are classic simple burgers served like in the past.


 Straight forward menu ... burger ... fries ... coke or milkshake.


 Fast hot juicy burger made fast.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 29, 2015, 08:06:03 pm

The more that Sherriff Clarke and Governor Walker make Wisconsin look intelligent, the harder Homo has to work to make it look stupid.

Come into the 21st century Homo.  It's just like walking towards the light.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 10:27:11 pm

Hillbilly legal aid

Who are you responding too?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on January 29, 2015, 11:04:54 pm

Resident christian soldier


What side of the bryan fischer farce from the American family association do you fall on?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 29, 2015, 11:10:56 pm

 Otto,


 Madison is a college town ... name the good burger joints there.


 There must be more then one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on January 30, 2015, 12:00:00 am

Quote

Why is minutia the preferred path of posting for you?


Can you explain in horribly long and tedious detail.......please....

Got a chuckle out of that, lol.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on January 30, 2015, 05:14:06 am

46 - The Culvers I have driven by is on Medical Center Parkway.  Is there one on OFP, or is that the one on Medical Center? 

The traffic in Murfreesboro is only really bad on a few of the streets around lunch and dinner, iMO.  I never thought of the Austin comparison, but I do recognize the sprawl.  I appreciate the size, you don't really have to leave the area for anything and probably in time could look like a twin city along with Nashville.  They are more or less connected now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on January 30, 2015, 08:52:17 am

I can not believe I was in Charlotte NC a couple of weekends ago and didn't visit a Jack in the Box!  I totally forgot they had some around there.

Breakfast jack FTW!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on January 30, 2015, 09:06:01 am

Yeah that's the one. Fairly new, I get off the exit after 840, turn left, stay in the outside turnlane to
1.-be on the right side to turn in
2.- avoid the people wanting money. whichever group is doing that, they need to learn strong healthy
people with good teeth aren't prime canidates to receive donations. Dogs, though I'll give evertime
to someone who has a healthy mutt.  Yes I'm a chump but I don't care.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 30, 2015, 12:11:42 pm

Glad to see Romney not running... Now hopefully Palin will stay on the sidelines as well..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on January 30, 2015, 05:26:48 pm

http://www.cnsnews.com/video/national/oreilly-americas-race-problem

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 31, 2015, 09:01:24 am

Quote from: chifaninva on January 30, 2015, 12:11:42 pm

Glad to see Romney not running... Now hopefully Palin will stay on the sidelines as well..

Agreed

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 31, 2015, 10:06:06 am

Jeb Bush can **** off as well!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 31, 2015, 10:19:31 am

Agree!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 31, 2015, 10:40:54 am

As much as I dislike Romney, Bush is much worse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on January 31, 2015, 12:21:55 pm

If Jeb Bush thinks he can beat the Dumbos in 2016 he is highly mistaken. Too many people remember his brother all too well. We need somebody capable of winning more than the Republican nomination. I liked Christie last time but don't want him either. We need someone more concervative and somebody who the whole party can unite behind.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 31, 2015, 12:28:42 pm

Unfortunately, the vast amount of funding for the Republican party comes from the more liberal wing of the party.  If someone other than Bush or a Bush lookalike wins the primaries, the funding will not be there to compete in the General Election.  And if Bush wins the primaries, the Conservative wing will not show up at the ballot box enough to beat Hillary.

The Republican party is it's own worst enemy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 31, 2015, 12:41:28 pm

I agree..

I still like Rand, but I'm interested to see how things shake out during the primaries..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on January 31, 2015, 02:03:30 pm

I would prefer if Rand would be more explicit in his views of foreign policy, especially the conflict with Radical Mulsim jehadists.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on January 31, 2015, 02:31:43 pm

And that's why I added "but I'm interested to see how things shake out during the primaries"... I hear what you're saying..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on January 31, 2015, 05:27:57 pm

I'm morally and fiscally conservative but I think the Republicans need a candidate that is fiscally conservative and campaigns that the responsibility of the government is to stay out of the moral arguments and let the states handle that themselves. The government needs to get smaller and not be so far reaching.

Strong border
strong foreign policy
fiscally conservative
let the states govern their own moral policy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on January 31, 2015, 05:55:43 pm

 Jeb Bush is the next President Of The United States ... if he wants it.


 DaveP and I discussed this over four years ago ... nothing's changed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 31, 2015, 08:01:55 pm

The idiots in charge of the Republican party need to get their head out of their ass and quit giving us Democrat light candidates.  The liberals are always going to vote for the more liberal candidate.  Any Republican candidate will be painted as a far right radical conservative by the media anyway.  Romney and McCain are both more liberal then JFK was.

We need a fiscal conservative that believes in the constitution and is articulate.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2015, 09:17:36 pm

Pekin, the "idiots in charge of the Republican party" as far as the nomination process is concerned are the idiots who vote in the Republican primaries.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on January 31, 2015, 11:47:15 pm

I think you are discounting the donors who provide the money for the campaigns.

However you are not entirely incorrect because the party is fractured.  You have the old guard Republicans that are pretty much just Democrat light.  They love big government because it pads their pockets.

Personally I am hoping we get a guy like Scott Walker or Ted Cruz.  I doubt it happens though.  The media will destroy the conservative candidate and praise the liberal candidates.  Happens every time.

The old guard will back the most liberal candidate, they always do.  It is not impossible for us to get a conservative candidate if they are articulate and can explain their positions to the American people in a way that is easily understood.  It is very difficult because they can't get the money.  It also takes a very brave and strong willed candidate.  A person who truly is more about the country then getting rich. 

Those type of people are getting rather rare these days. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 01, 2015, 12:29:06 am

Don't they let Dems vote in Republican primaries in some States?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 01, 2015, 07:56:08 am

Don't they let Dems vote in Republican primaries in some States?

Yes, they do here..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on February 01, 2015, 09:29:00 am

You have to consider the 40% who can vote either way.

I'm thinking Rubio with his youth, reasonably good looks, articulate may gave the best chance of winning.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 01, 2015, 10:04:54 am

FYI - people who don't vaccinate their kids should be thrown in jail.  I just don't understand how, in this day and age, such a sizable group of people could be so dangerously ignorant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on February 01, 2015, 11:11:26 am

You underestimate the power of Stupidity

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 01, 2015, 11:20:05 am

And it's not only your own child you put at risk...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 01, 2015, 11:22:09 am

Speaking of which, and this is not to compare to the measles vaccination. I got a flu shot this year, first time. I've been sick all **** Winter. WTF??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 01, 2015, 11:43:59 am

I could get on board with Rubio.  Not a fan of his immigration policy though.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 01, 2015, 12:55:27 pm

I would prefer a governor over a senator.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 01, 2015, 01:44:19 pm

Quote from: Cletus on February 01, 2015, 10:04:54 am

FYI - people who don't vaccinate their kids should be thrown in jail.  I just don't understand how, in this day and age, such a sizable group of people could be so dangerously ignorant.

You are aware that schools forbid children to come to school unless they have their shots brought up to date and its illegal for children to be out of school if they are under 16 when they are allowed to drop out of school? That puts a lot of pressure on parents to make sure their children have the proper vaccinations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on February 01, 2015, 02:20:22 pm

Chi- the mrs. is an msn, we both got our shots and still got sick.  The cdc simply missed on the type.  Its gonna happen, at least they try, and for most years get it right.  This year,
they didn't.  What gave me food for thought was having the shot it reduced the impact of the flu I had.  I can see how people die from this stuff.  One guy at work ended up with
double pneumonia and lost 25 #'s.  Joe is in his 60's and it damn near did kill him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on February 01, 2015, 02:36:52 pm

Quote from: Pekin on February 01, 2015, 11:43:59 am

I could get on board with Rubio.  Not a fan of his immigration policy though.

Any immigration policy is that gets enforced is likely better than the one we have now which is "pretend we have a policy, make a little effort to appear like we are trying to keep folks from crossing the border and when they get here don't send them back even if they commit crimes."
this has been the policy for the past 15-20 years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 01, 2015, 03:12:39 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on February 01, 2015, 01:44:19 pm

You are aware that schools forbid children to come to school unless they have their shots brought up to date and its illegal for children to be out of school if they are under 16 when they are allowed to drop out of school? That puts a lot of pressure on parents to make sure their children have the proper vaccinations.

Well that's not working because we have a rapidly growing group of people in this country that think they know better than the data and refuse to vaccinate their kids.  As a result, we have a measles outbreak now and are seeing whooping cough and mumps at a rate not seen in decades. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 01, 2015, 03:42:53 pm

Quote from: 46 on February 01, 2015, 02:20:22 pm

Chi- the mrs. is an msn, we both got our shots and still got sick.  The cdc simply missed on the type.  Its gonna happen, at least they try, and for most years get it right.  This year,
they didn't.  What gave me food for thought was having the shot it reduced the impact of the flu I had.  I can see how people die from this stuff.  One guy at work ended up with
double pneumonia and lost 25 #'s.  Joe is in his 60's and it damn near did kill him.

Yep, I've had bronchitis for 2 **** months. Can't get rid of the ****.. Finally my cough is starting to subside. I'm hopeful I'm starting to heal... What a damn Winter..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 01, 2015, 03:42:53 pm

The only policy we need is to enforce the laws that we have on the books already.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 01, 2015, 03:44:22 pm

That's exactly right, we have enough laws..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 01, 2015, 03:48:08 pm

I guess it depends on the school district and state. But I know for a fact my former school district had rules whereby the kid was suspended till they had their shots. And that was each year not just when they entered school for the first time. And it didn't matter whether they were rich or poor, the rule was the same.

Now as for flu shots, I don't know that was included. I don't  take flu shots, period. The last time I took a flu shot I got the flu and haven't had the flu or a flu shot since and that was when I was in the military. My doctor offers me a flu shot annually and I turn it down. I always ask them if they want the flu. They say NO, I don't want the flu. I say I don't either and refuse the shot offer.

As for measles. Now my memory is antiquated. But to my knowledge there are two types of measles. One is the hard measles or "German Measles" Those you get vaccinated for. The common measles or "3 day measles" anyone can get and I don't know if there s a vaccine for that. Anybody can get that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 03:51:41 pm

Quote from: Pekin on January 31, 2015, 11:47:15 pm

I think you are discounting the donors who provide the money for the campaigns.

The candidate amassing the required number of delegates wins, and delegates are largely apportioned based on who gets the most votes.

No delegates are awared based on who has the most donors or who clollected the most money in donations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 01, 2015, 03:56:00 pm

That is naïve.  The candidate with the most money has a huge advantage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 01, 2015, 03:57:59 pm

The flu shot can't give you the flu.  You can get a low grade fever as a reaction to the shot and you can get a different strain of the flu since the vaccine doesn't protect against all strains but the shot itself can not give you the flu.

German measles is rubella which is different.  But, the vaccine that kids are supposed to get and **** are refusing is the MMR - measles, mumps, and rubella. So, if people did what they should do, both the measles and rubella would be a non issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 01, 2015, 04:01:01 pm

I don't think that donors influence national delegates to the conventions. Those delegates are picked at the state level at a state convention

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 01, 2015, 04:07:41 pm

Quote from: Cletus on February 01, 2015, 03:57:59 pm

The flu shot can't give you the flu.  You can get a low grade fever as a reaction to the shot and you can get a different strain of the flu since the vaccine doesn't protect against all strains but the shot itself can not give you the flu.

German measles is rubella which is different.  But, the vaccine that kids are supposed to get and **** are refusing is the MMR - measles, mumps, and rubella. So, if people did what they should do, both the measles and rubella would be a non issue.

Here you wouldn't get by with that. If its required you take it or you are suspended from school until you get it. Your shot record has to be current each year, including boosters which may be required.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:09:54 pm

Quote from: Sportster on February 01, 2015, 12:29:06 am

Don't they let Dems vote in Republican primaries in some States?

Most states allow crossover voting in primaries, but how do you tell whether someone is or is not a Republican or Democrat, other than have them self identify and say they are?  Many who call themselves Republicans insist that a number of members elected to Congress as Republican party candidates are RINO's, Republicans In Name Only.  Presumably any sort of purity test would prevent them from voting in Republican Party primaries since they also would not be "true Republicans."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:18:55 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on February 01, 2015, 03:42:53 pm

The only policy we need is to enforce the laws that we have on the books already.

Quote from: chifaninva on February 01, 2015, 03:44:22 pm

That's exactly right, we have enough laws..

Do either of you have any idea what the current laws are?  Do you really think our immigration laws should  be based on what amount to ethnic/racial quotas?

And both of you think the current immigration law is operating well, with no need for any change, but simply the need of enforcing the law?  Might not the fact that the problems have been rather steadily growing for each of the last five administrations, presidencies of both parties, indicate that there might be some problem beyond just needing more stringent enforcement of existing law?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:23:00 pm

Quote from: 46 on February 01, 2015, 02:20:22 pm

Chi- the mrs. is an msn, we both got our shots and still got sick.  The cdc simply missed on the type.  Its gonna happen, at least they try, and for most years get it right.  This year, they didn't.

Forgive me for doubting the forces producing government action from being as effective as the forces producing free market decisions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:27:06 pm

Quote from: Pekin on February 01, 2015, 11:43:59 am

I could get on board with Rubio.  Not a fan of his immigration policy though.

In a perfect world, where you got to determine what was perfection, how would you change U.S. immigration policy?

And in a REAL world, where you have to deal with other parties in the political process in Congress and have to deal with voters and how different blocks of the electorate would react to changes, what do you think there is a realistic chance of happening?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:30:48 pm

Quote from: Cletus on February 01, 2015, 10:04:54 am

FYI - people who don't vaccinate their kids should be thrown in jail.  I just don't understand how, in this day and age, such a sizable group of people could be so dangerously ignorant.

If a vaccine prevents someone from getting an illness, how is it the fault of another person who decided not to get vaccinated if the first person (who decided not to get vaccinated) gets sick after exposure to the 2nd person?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:43:34 pm

Quote from: Pekin on February 01, 2015, 03:56:00 pm

That is naïve.  The candidate with the most money has a huge advantage.

Having an advantage is vastly different from determining the issue.  Wilt Chamberlin's height gave him a tremendous advantage in the NBA.  That advantage helped him win a total of two championships in 14 NBA seasons.

Money can help a candidate, but it does not win elections.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:44:29 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on February 01, 2015, 04:07:41 pm

Here you wouldn't get by with that. If its required you take it or you are suspended from school until you get it. Your shot record has to be current each year, including boosters which may be required.

That is the way it is in most school districts.

Of course those who are home schooled are not subject to those requirements.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 01, 2015, 04:48:56 pm

Simple immigration fix.

Fine anyone hiring illegals to work very heavily and enforce it.  Problem solved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 01, 2015, 04:57:17 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:30:48 pm

If a vaccine prevents someone from getting an illness, how is it the fault of another person who decided not to get vaccinated if the first person (who decided not to get vaccinated) gets sick after exposure to the 2nd person?

There are people that can't get the vaccine because of legitimate health reasons or, much more frequently, they are too young. Those people depend on herd immunity to protect them from these diseases.  In order for that to work, 95% of the vaccine eligible population has to be immune.  In several places across the US, the number is dipping below 95% and diseases like the measles is becoming a problem again.  The measles is extremely dangerous to young children so maintaining the herd immunity is a serious public health matter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 05:18:15 pm

Quote from: Cletus on February 01, 2015, 04:57:17 pm

There are people that can't get the vaccine because of legitimate health reasons or, much more frequently, they are too young. Those people depend on herd immunity to protect them from these diseases.

But those people are not really the ones getting sick, and for you or your kids to avoid getting sick, just get your own asses immunized without urging that others who do nto are jailed for their failure.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 05:27:03 pm

Quote from: Pekin on February 01, 2015, 04:48:56 pm

Simple immigration fix.

Fine anyone hiring illegals to work very heavily and enforce it.  Problem solved.

Have you ever hired an individual and paid them out of your own pocket, whether for domestic work, mowing a lawn or ****?

Those jobs are often done by illegals, and they very seldom follow background checks.  Other illegals set up their own businesses and sell food or services or products.  Or the employer is already engaged in illegal activity such that an added fine is not going to serve as a deterrent.  Then there are the illegals who are here illegally as family members of someone who may be here legally and who is supporting them.

Would your suggestion help?  Probably, but it would not come close to entirely solving the problem.  It also ignores all of the measures which would be required to emforce your idea with anything resembling the level required to have the "problem solved."

What I still don't understand is the idea that allowing people to immigrate here is a "problem."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 01, 2015, 08:08:36 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 03:51:41 pm

The candidate amassing the required number of delegates wins, and delegates are largely apportioned based on who gets the most votes.

No delegates are awared based on who has the most donors or who clollected the most money in donations.

That is true.  And there is no reason to believe the rumor going around that those that amass the most money in their campaign chests have a better chance of winning.  The person with absolutely no money at all can buy just as many campaign ads as those who have the backing of the big donors.  They get a "poor person's" discount.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 01, 2015, 08:12:06 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 01, 2015, 04:18:55 pm

Do either of you have any idea what the current laws are?  Do you really think our immigration laws should  be based on what amount to ethnic/racial quotas?

And both of you think the current immigration law is operating well, with no need for any change, but simply the need of enforcing the law?  Might not the fact that the problems have been rather steadily growing for each of the last five administrations, presidencies of both parties, indicate that there might be some problem beyond just needing more stringent enforcement of existing law?

The reason that the problem grows regardless of which party is in power is because neither party is willing to enforce the current laws.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 01, 2015, 08:27:05 pm

What I still don't understand is the idea that allowing unlimited people to immigrate here is a "not a problem."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 01, 2015, 11:33:29 pm

There are many getting sick and even dying from a poorly matched Flu shot this season. Supposedly it's only 40% effective. I took one, haven't had the flu yet and hope to avoid it. We're seeing more and more of these diseases we thought were gone showing back up again due to lack of vaccination but also the bugs becoming immune to our treatments. We desperately need more drugs in the pipeline to fight the growing immunity of these bugs to our drug protocol.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 01, 2015, 11:54:55 pm

What "unlimited immigration" are you referring too?   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 12:19:26 am

Quote from: davep on February 01, 2015, 08:27:05 pm

What I still don't understand is the idea that allowing unlimited people to immigrate here is a "not a problem."

I still don't understand the idea that it is.  Our primary demographic problem in the years ahead is too few workers, not too many.  As birth rates decline, and the percentage of those of worging age declines as a result of the aging boomers and earlier declines in the birth rate, we need more workers. not fewer.

Quote from: otto105 on February 01, 2015, 11:54:55 pm

What "unlimited immigration" are you referring too?

I believe he is referring to the unlimited immigration which I would allow, and I would.  I see no reason a person born here is more desirable to have in this country simply by virtue of birth than the person who came here thru considerable effort.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 12:21:50 am

Quote from: davep on February 01, 2015, 08:12:06 pm

The reason that the problem grows regardless of which party is in power is because neither party is willing to enforce the current laws.

Neither "party" has ever been responsible for enforcing the laws but five different presidents have been in the last 30 years.  When the laws have not been enforced for that long a time, with that many different presidents in office, perhaps there is a problem with the law, and perhaps the idea that we have enough laws and that they simply need to be enforced is nonsense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 12:23:52 am

Quote from: Sportster on February 01, 2015, 11:33:29 pm

There are many getting sick and even dying from a poorly matched Flu shot this season

Really?

Any data or links to support the idea that the "poorly matched Flu shot this season is killing "many" people?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 12:25:36 am

Quote from: davep on February 01, 2015, 08:08:36 pm

That is true.  And there is no reason to believe the rumor going around that those that amass the most money in their campaign chests have a better chance of winning.  The person with absolutely no money at all can buy just as many campaign ads as those who have the backing of the big donors.  They get a "poor person's" discount.

Nothing I wrote suggested money is unimportant to campaigning.  Perhaps to understand things you need to actually read a conversation before you comment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 02, 2015, 01:52:23 am

 Illegal immigration is a two way street ...


 what happens when a U.S. citizen is busted in Mexico !


 What are the consequences ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on February 02, 2015, 07:44:29 am

Most of our vegetable produce is planted and harvested by illegal workers who go back and forth across the border illegally several times a year when the work is available.

We need to change the law to allow them to cross legally since no one else in this country will do those jobs.

We need to enforce the existing law as we have too many illegals taking jobs in the areas such as construction increasing the rate of unemployment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on February 02, 2015, 08:32:08 am

Quote from: davebear on February 02, 2015, 07:44:29 am

Most of our vegetable produce is planted and harvested by illegal workers who go back and forth across the border illegally several times a year when the work is available.

We need to change the law to allow them to cross legally since no one else in this country will do those jobs.

We need to enforce the existing law as we have too many illegals taking jobs in the areas such as construction increasing the rate of unemployment.

Don't we already have laws to allow workers temporary residence?  I9's and other things?  I have a lot of non citizens where I work and they have to keep their "green cards" up to date and file their I9s every year or something like that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on February 02, 2015, 10:12:38 am

I think because they aren't continuously employed they aren't eligible

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on February 02, 2015, 10:23:01 am

Here in NC there are many in construction and landscaping fields that take jobs from citizens. They also fill our ERs because they are uninsured. Many somehow get govt assistance like food stamps. The fact that we have to print everything in two languages and have interpreters in our public schools. The fact that most also don't pay income taxes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 02, 2015, 10:44:52 am

We should certainly allow more immigration in the coming years.  There are very few that argue against that.  The questions that hang things up are how many, from what countries, and what do we do with those that are here illegally.

One compromise I have heard is to bring in citizenship to 3 million per year.

Create work visas for 6 million per year, with the provision that they be deported if they are out of work for 6 months.

Restrict the number of work visas for any country to the percentage of their country's population compared to world wide population.

Pass a constitutional amendment granting amnesty and legal residence to those here illegally as of a certain date with NO possibility of citizenship.

Such a compromise would never happen, since no power block is willing to give up any of what they want.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 02, 2015, 02:09:37 pm

Ya know, I get tired of playing with your stupid troll arse. If you'd read the news instead of spout stupid crap, you'd know what's going on....

Doctors urged to step up use of flu drugs

Flu is widespread in 46 states, including Washington, and the combination of a bad bug, a new flu strain and a poorly matched vaccine means that illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths are on the rise.

Nationwide, flu was widespread in 46 states and deaths from flu and pneumonia were at epidemic levels in the week that ended last Saturday, CDC officials reported.


http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025422327_fluseasonupdatexml.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 02, 2015, 04:08:29 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 12:25:36 am

Nothing I wrote suggested money is unimportant to campaigning.  Perhaps to understand things you need to actually read a conversation before you comment.

As usual, you fall back on the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.  No one ever said that money was the ONLY thing that determined who wins.  But it's influence is substantial in most elections.  The Senate races in both Nevada and West Virginia were lost in a landslide year because the Republican establishment refused to back the candidates with either money or organization.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 05:00:43 pm

Quote from: davep on February 02, 2015, 04:08:29 pm

As usual, you fall back on the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.  No one ever said that money was the ONLY thing that determined who wins.  But it's influence is substantial in most elections.  The Senate races in both Nevada and West Virginia were lost in a landslide year because the Republican establishment refused to back the candidates with either money or organization.

Your post was an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum.

But your comments continue to indicate you have entirely missed what the exchange or discussion was about, particularly since I also never wrote or suggested that miney has no influence in elections.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 05:10:19 pm

Quote from: davebear on February 02, 2015, 07:44:29 am

Most of our vegetable produce is planted and harvested by illegal workers who go back and forth across the border illegally several times a year when the work is available.  We need to change the law to allow them to cross legally since no one else in this country will do those jobs.

That is the last thing we should want.  People who are in any country without strong connections to it pose serious stability problems.  We would be better off allowing nearly everyone who wants to immigrate here (assuming there are no particular red flags for them individually, such as carrying an infectious illness, a troubling criminal record, an association with groups trying to bring down the government, or a particularized likelihood of needing public assistance) so long as they stay here instead of returning home.  Those staying a much more likely to assimilate, and assimilation should be the goal.  I wouldn't even allow their clock to begin running toward citizenship if they left the country at any time, and would not allow them to return to this country if they left to return home more than a couple of times before becoming a citizen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 05:28:57 pm

HB legal aid


I'll bet your really proud that Run Paul had his Meechelle Bachmann moment today on MSNBC by stating that unnamed vaccines caused children to have "profound mental disorders". Just how is an anti-vaccine policy going to play.....Don't sorry parents, the measles or polio vaccine is actually worse than getting the disease?


Run Paul, Kris Kristy table for two.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 05:30:42 pm

Quote from: Sportster on February 02, 2015, 02:09:37 pm

Ya know, I get tired of playing with your stupid troll arse. If you'd read the news instead of spout stupid crap, you'd know what's going on....

Doctors urged to step up use of flu drugs
Flu is widespread in 46 states, including Washington, and the combination of a bad bug, a new flu strain and a poorly matched vaccine means that illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths are on the rise.
Nationwide, flu was widespread in 46 states and deaths from flu and pneumonia were at epidemic levels in the week that ended last Saturday, CDC officials reported.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025422327_fluseasonupdatexml.html

Asking for data or a link is trolling?  Wow.

I specifically asked if you had "(a)ny data or links to support the idea that the "poorly matched Flu shot this season is killing 'many' people?"  I asked specifically because I DO read and your comments did not match what I had read.  I did not say you were wrong, but simply asked if you could offer anything to support your claim.

I asked about your claim that there were "many" people dying because of a poor match of the flu shot to the prevalent strains this year.

The link you provided, posted 1/9/15, stated that, "So far this season, there have been 16 confirmed deaths caused by flu; for all of last season, there were 79."

Flu season in the United States, according to wikipedia is, "considered October through May. It usually peaks in February."  January 9th would be two and a half months into the 6 month period from October thru May.

If the average year has 79 deaths in that 6 month period, and this year has had 16 in the first 40% of that period.... well, it would not exactly support your claim.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 05:34:09 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 05:28:57 pm

HB legal aid
I'll bet your really proud that Run Paul had his Meechelle Bachmann moment today on MSNBC by stating that unnamed vaccines caused children to "profound mental issues". Just how is an anti-vaccine policy going to play.....Don't sorry parents, the measles or polio vaccine is actually worse than getting the disease?

Run Paul, Kris Kristy table for two.

I am sure you thought you had a point in there somewhere, but it didn't quite make it out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 02, 2015, 05:35:16 pm

In a former life I purchased vast quantities of produce from California, Arizona and New mexico and spent substantial amounts of time in the farms in the various growing areas.  In actual fact, almost all of the produce were picked by legal migrant workers who came up from Mexico for the various harvests.  They are not only allowed to go back and forth across the border, but do so for many years.  Some of the migrant workers for Gilroy (now McCormick) and other onion and garlic producers have worked for them for over 20 years, and not only have valid green cards and valid social security cards, but are on the company's pension plan and have an extremely good retirement when they finally retire in Mexico.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 05:39:03 pm

I'm pretty sure once again current events have still to be wired to TN.


Do you have a teevee HB legal aid?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 02, 2015, 05:40:05 pm

Jes, are you seriously that retarded?? I guess you are.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 05:40:44 pm

Quote from: davep on February 02, 2015, 05:35:16 pm

In a former life I purchased vast quantities of produce from California, Arizona and New mexico and spent substantial amounts of time in the farms in the various growing areas.  In actual fact, almost all of the produce were picked by legal migrant workers who came up from Mexico for the various harvests.  They are not only allowed to go back and forth across the border, but do so for many years.  Some of the migrant workers for Gilroy (now McCormick) and other onion and garlic producers have worked for them for over 20 years, and not only have valid green cards and valid social security cards, but are on the company's pension plan and have an extremely good retirement when they finally retire in Mexico.

No doubt.

So what?

They are people who are in this country without any serious committment to it.  We need fewer of them, not more.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 05:47:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 05:39:03 pm

I'm pretty sure once again current events have still to be wired to TN.


Do you have a teevee HB legal aid?

Quote from: Sportster on February 02, 2015, 05:40:05 pm

Jes, are you seriously that retarded?? I guess you are.....

Tremendous similarity between those posts... and the posters.

Neither one makes clear what they are responding to.  Neither one offers any facts, analysis or reasoning, but instead both posters launch into personal attacks, without even attempting to explain why they believe the attack is warranted, the sort of thing one does when the position lacks things like logic, facts or reasoning to support it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 06:05:33 pm

I'm pretty sure that in a politics thread keeping current of events is not only required but makes one look stupid in absence.


 I'm not going to educate current events to you.


HB legal aid something called yo internet will help.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 02, 2015, 06:16:55 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 05:40:44 pm

No doubt.

So what?

They are people who are in this country without any serious committment to it.  We need fewer of them, not more.

Not everything is about you.  I was responding to the gentleman who said that most of our vegetable produce is planted and harvested by illegal workers

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 02, 2015, 06:21:45 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 06:05:33 pm

 I'm not going to educate current events to you.

If that is an indication of your grasp of the English language I am quite sure that you could not "educate" anyone on anything even if you wanted to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 02, 2015, 06:22:53 pm

Quote

   Neither one offers any facts, analysis or reasoning, but instead have fun with personal attacks, without even attempting to explain why they believe the attack is warranted, the sort of thing one does when the position lacks things like logic, facts blah blah more nonstop winded crap spouted by me over and over repetitively, constantly, and nonsensically..... 

(http://media2.giphy.com/media/iBrPXaAKbGyk/200.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 06:29:52 pm

Quote from: davep on February 02, 2015, 06:16:55 pm

Not everything is about you.  I was responding to the gentleman who said that most of our vegetable produce is planted and harvested by illegal workers

And so what?

Were you suggesting that your experience a few decades ago, exposing you to a fairly small sample of the whole even then, accurately reflected the picture of who plants or harvests most of our vegetables today?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 06:33:50 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on February 02, 2015, 06:21:45 pm

If that is an indication of your grasp of the English language I am quite sure that you could not "educate" anyone on anything even if you wanted to.

I am very disappointed in you, Keys.  That post would seem to indicate that before you read otto's last comment, you had thought there was some possibility that he might be able to educate someone about something.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 06:36:43 pm

HB legal aid

Does criticism of your baby Paul hurt so bad....boo **** who.


Did he not call for voluntary vaccinations in the face of a public health threat of measles by saying "profound mental disorders" on MSNBC today?


Can you deny that?


Or the anti-science barking from Kris Kristy today.


Go ahead try.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 07:01:51 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 06:36:43 pm

HB legal aid

Does criticism of your baby Paul hurt so bad....boo **** who.


Did he not call for voluntary vaccinations in the face of a public health threat of measles by saying "profound mental disorders" on MSNBC today?


Can you deny that?

I'm sorry, otto.  You make a valid point.  Anyone foolish enough to waste his time appearing on a network with an audience the size of what MSNBC provides might not merit serious consideration for the presidency.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 07:08:08 pm

Great, Western Union finally got to TN.


And that is what you offer.

Wherez the beef?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 02, 2015, 08:48:09 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 02, 2015, 06:29:52 pm

And so what?

Were you suggesting that your experience a few decades ago, exposing you to a fairly small sample of the whole even then, accurately reflected the picture of who plants or harvests most of our vegetables today?

Want to bet?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 09:47:58 pm

Quote

Anyone foolish enough to waste his time appearing on a network with an audience the size of what MSNBC provides might not merit serious consideration for the presidency.

Yup, run paul is over. Not because of extremely stupid libertarian viewpoints, but because he was not on approved media while being a bloviating ignoramus.

Thanks olde racist grandparat....er hillbilly legal aid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 09:58:40 pm

Its a choice for parents.....As in "I slowed down MY immunizations" while run was speakin today on CNBC about his children's immunization delay.

I hope his children get to experience this..

http://images.dailykos.com/images/126920/large/132_lores.jpg?1422765614 (http://images.dailykos.com/images/126920/large/132_lores.jpg?1422765614)


https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+kids+with+polio&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=649&tbm=isch&imgil=D8rUz9K981P76M%253A%253BLfI7W4qVoC49EM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fkidsfirstpediatrics.com%25252Fpolio-emergency-in-the-middle-east&source=iu&pf=m&fir=D8rUz9K981P76M%253A%252CLfI7W4qVoC49EM%252C_&usg=__t4ZQ92AHOy1bAPhYziKE1Hce-e0%3D&ved=0CDUQyjc&ei=QUnQVLn9NIqegwTMpYGICA#imgdii=_&imgrc=D8rUz9K981P76M%253A%3BLfI7W4qVoC49EM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia.npr.org%252Fassets%252Fimg%252F2012%252F10%252F12%252Fpolio_weve_been_here_before02_slide-a9b12bba3e1cd9b0185395ee73be9a628224dd30-s6-c30.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fkidsfirstpediatrics.com%252Fpolio-emergency-in-the-middle-east%3B948%3B631 (https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+kids+with+polio&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=649&tbm=isch&imgil=D8rUz9K981P76M%253A%253BLfI7W4qVoC49EM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fkidsfirstpediatrics.com%25252Fpolio-emergency-in-the-middle-east&source=iu&pf=m&fir=D8rUz9K981P76M%253A%252CLfI7W4qVoC49EM%252C_&usg=__t4ZQ92AHOy1bAPhYziKE1Hce-e0%3D&ved=0CDUQyjc&ei=QUnQVLn9NIqegwTMpYGICA#imgdii=_&imgrc=D8rUz9K981P76M%253A%3BLfI7W4qVoC49EM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia.npr.org%252Fassets%252Fimg%252F2012%252F10%252F12%252Fpolio_weve_been_here_before02_slide-a9b12bba3e1cd9b0185395ee73be9a628224dd30-s6-c30.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fkidsfirstpediatrics.com%252Fpolio-emergency-in-the-middle-east%3B948%3B631)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 02, 2015, 10:03:48 pm

Have you noticed that the more Scott Walker makes his name nationally, the more excited Homo gets.

Do you suppose he has a secret crush in him?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 02, 2015, 10:16:09 pm

Scott Walker, the Sarah Palin of 2016

[Scott Walker]: “Aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorists around the world… I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.”

[ABC News host Martha Raddatz]: “But what does that mean? I don’t know what ‘aggressive strategy’ means.”

Walker: “Ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground, if that’s what it takes.”

Raddatz: “U.S. boots on the ground in Syria?”

Walker: “Well, I don’t think that’s an immediate plan.”

Next up a cratering state budget and a Russian view claim from Northern WI.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on February 02, 2015, 10:49:32 pm

Crickets chirping..
..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2015, 05:35:26 am

Quote from: davep on February 02, 2015, 08:48:09 pm

Want to bet?

Do I want to bet on what?

I asked a question.  I made no suggestion as to the answer, or as to whether I knew the answer, or whether I care about the answer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 03, 2015, 07:16:51 am

For the anti-conservative/Rand Paul/ vaccinate babies at birth for every known disease known to man folks, this is interesting:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rand-Paul-vaccines-voluntary-measles/2015/02/02/id/622251/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1606386_02032015&s=al&dkt_nbr=q1llngsj

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 03, 2015, 07:54:28 am

For Oddo and others who believe all Dumbos are are saints.

http://preservefreedom.org/arrested-new-york-lawmaker-hopes-to-be-vindicated/

And why did the governor, a Dumbo, shut down the anti-corruption commission? My guess is he knew it was going to hit close to home and destroy politics as usual in New York.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 03, 2015, 10:38:22 am

Paul says that most (not all) vaccinations should be voluntary.  The reporter was trying to make a controversy out of that, but it doesn't seem very controversial.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 03, 2015, 01:07:55 pm

No, what Paul said wasn't as controversial as Oddo depicts, which is why I posted it. It sounds like somebody trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 03, 2015, 05:43:54 pm

Isfullofit


I believe the idea you have completely missed is that a saint is a dead Catholic guy and Democratic lawmaker is a politician.


Are you clear now?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2015, 06:26:04 pm

Quote from: davep on February 03, 2015, 10:38:22 am

Paul says that most (not all) vaccinations should be voluntary.  The reporter was trying to make a controversy out of that, but it doesn't seem very controversial.

What is interesting to me is why it should be an issue for a presidential candidate.

Might as well get concerned about what time he believes state government offices should open in the morning.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 03, 2015, 06:54:31 pm

What is interesting to me is that the media is trying to make this a republican issue.  In fact, the movement started in California, and although 48 of the 50 states allow parents to opt out for either religious or philosophical reasons, only 13,000 households asked for a religious exemption, while there are more than a million asked for on a philosophical exemption, with by far the highest exemptions coming in California and New York/New England area.  According to an article in one of the medical magazines in 2011, most exemptions were asked for by higher income, higher educated households.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 03, 2015, 08:03:08 pm

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment



by Jim Clifton

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.
 
Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.
 
None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.
 
There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
 
Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
 
There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.
 
And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.
 
Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.
 
I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.


Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 03, 2015, 09:00:49 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on February 03, 2015, 07:16:51 am

For the anti-conservative/Rand Paul/ vaccinate babies at birth for every known disease known to man folks, this is interesting:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rand-Paul-vaccines-voluntary-measles/2015/02/02/id/622251/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1606386_02032015&s=al&dkt_nbr=q1llngsj

Here's the problem with what he said:

Quote

Later in the interview, Paul said, "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.

I don't doubt that he's heard about cases like that but the problem is that there is no relationship at all between vaccines and autism. It was thought that the preservative thiomersal which, until 2001, was used in some vaccines might contribute to autism. But, that has been studied over and over and found not to be true (not to mention that it's not even in the vaccine any more).  As for the vaccines in use now, there are no links between them and autism.  The main basis of the anti-vaccine movement is the erroneous idea that the drug may cause autism. It's disheartening that a major public figure like Rand Paul - a doctor no less - would suggest that there may be a link when there simply is not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 03, 2015, 09:15:44 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 03, 2015, 05:43:54 pm

Isfullofit


I believe the idea you have completely missed is that a saint is a dead Catholic guy and Democratic lawmaker is a politician.


Are you clear now?

I think the confusion you have is that you want to separate Catholic Democratic politicians from dead Catholic saints when in fact they are one in the same. Six of one and a half-dozen of the other. Its difficult to see the difference between the two.

Furthermore we've seen corrupt Democratic politicians in New York all the way back to Boss Tweed. Its hard to imagine sainthood for New York politicians.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 03, 2015, 09:52:00 pm

 I'm loving it. You mean you aren't also ? Why not ?


 You're still alive aren't you ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 03, 2015, 10:40:39 pm

Sportbart

That wasn't worth the time that it took you to pull it off whatever lame wing nut website.


Unless you understand the different ways the BLS counts and reports unemployment you're just a worthless cog in the republic noise machine.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 03, 2015, 10:55:14 pm

 Otto,


 You have to ask yourself this very important question ...


 are you just a worthless cog in the democratic noise machine ?


 Has it ever occurred to you that you could think independent ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 03, 2015, 11:02:51 pm

Isfulllofit


You saw William Tweed? In person?


Seriously.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 03, 2015, 11:15:39 pm

JJ


Maybe you have time to mull over the musings of an idiot and his cut and paste, but not me. If a poster doesn't know the difference between the U-3 and U-6 unemployment numbers from the BLS its not my job the enlighten him.


I'm just going to point and laugh.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 03, 2015, 11:18:45 pm

BTW JJ, the BLS doesn't count the numbers different for Democratic Presidents or republic ones.


But you know that, right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 04, 2015, 12:19:03 am

BTW, that would be the CEO of the Gallup polling organization you're disparaging, Otter. Quite a few rungs up the ladder from you and your janitorial buddies....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 04, 2015, 12:51:15 am

 At some point you have to ask yourself ...


 why do you even give a **** anymore?


 Except for this : An original CHICAGO Rock & Roll band ...


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WrA0iGsYqk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WrA0iGsYqk)


 Enjoy !! You know what the motherfucker is ?


 We're better then that. Don't get moi started.


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mln0RciE2o0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mln0RciE2o0)


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNw_w-9SPoA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNw_w-9SPoA)


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 04, 2015, 10:20:51 am

Homo is getting himself worked up to go out campaigning for Walker.  He is so proud that his state has finally produced someone with an ounce of common sense.

Not only that, Milwaukee County finally elected a Sheriff that tries to do his job right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 04, 2015, 11:59:15 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on February 04, 2015, 12:51:15 am

 At some point you have to ask yourself ...


 why do you even give a **** anymore?

 

I don't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 04, 2015, 05:05:31 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on February 03, 2015, 10:55:14 pm

Otto,
 are you just a worthless cog in the democratic noise machine ?

C'mon, while otto may very well be worthless, there is no way the guy is a cog.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 04, 2015, 05:11:53 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 03, 2015, 11:15:39 pm

Maybe you have time to mull over the musings of an idiot and his cut and paste, but not me. If a poster doesn't know the difference between the U-3 and U-6 unemployment numbers from the BLS its not my job the enlighten him.
I'm just going to point and laugh.

The distinction between the the two makes no difference to the point he made.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 04, 2015, 05:17:46 pm

Quote from: Cletus on February 03, 2015, 09:00:49 pm

Here's the problem with what he said:

I don't doubt that he's heard about cases like that but the problem is that there is no relationship at all between vaccines and autism.

And he did not say that there is such a relationship.

Quote from: Cletus on February 03, 2015, 09:00:49 pm

It's disheartening that a major public figure like Rand Paul - a doctor no less - would suggest that there may be a link when there simply is not.

You need to learn the distinction between an inference, which is what you have drawn, and an implication, which is what he did nt make.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 04, 2015, 06:20:07 pm

He misremembered and thought he was in a helicopter that was hit by rockets and forced down? I would think that  something like that would be pretty clear. What an ****.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/nbc-s-brian-williams-recants-iraq-story-after-soldiers-protest-1.327792

 WASHINGTON — NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted Wednesday he was not aboard a helicopter hit and forced down by RPG fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a false claim that has been repeated by the network for years.

Williams repeated the claim Friday during NBC’s coverage of a public tribute at a New York Rangers hockey game for a retired soldier that had provided ground security for the grounded helicopters, a game to which Williams accompanied him. In an interview with Stars and Stripes, he said he had misremembered the events and was sorry.

The admission came after crew members on the 159th Aviation Regiment’s Chinook that was hit by two rockets and small arms fire told Stars and Stripes that the NBC anchor was nowhere near that aircraft or two other Chinooks flying in the formation that took fire. Williams arrived in the area about an hour later on another helicopter after the other three had made an emergency landing, the crew members said.

“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”

Williams made the claim while presenting NBC coverage of the tribute to the retired command sergeant major at the Rangers game and the fans giving the soldier a standing ovation.

“The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG,” Williams said on the broadcast. “Our traveling NBC News team was rescued, surrounded and kept alive by an armor mechanized platoon from the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry.”

Williams and his camera crew were actually aboard a Chinook in a formation that was about an hour behind the three helicopters that came under fire, according to crew member interviews.

That Chinook took no fire and landed later beside the damaged helicopter due to an impending sandstorm from the Iraqi desert, according to Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Miller, who was the flight engineer on the aircraft that carried the journalists.

“No, we never came under direct enemy fire to the aircraft,” he said Wednesday.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 04, 2015, 06:32:40 pm

I'm wondering why the previous post was offered.

Considering the dubya record on Iraqi war stories.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 04, 2015, 07:01:59 pm

Brian Williams is a piece of ****.. No doubt... Even his apology tonight made it sound as if he was directly behind the chopper that got hit..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 04, 2015, 07:14:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 04, 2015, 06:32:40 pm

I'm wondering why the previous post was offered.

Considering the dubya record on Iraqi war stories.

Hillary's helicopter downing story was the better lie. Which chapter in the "Liberalism for Dummies" book teaches about lying about being under fire?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 04, 2015, 10:19:17 pm

Well didn't phaxnews billy o'reilly cover four wars.... with a pen.


No, nope not even one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 04, 2015, 10:26:16 pm

Well since you asked Keysbart,


That would be the Ronnie Reagan school of WWII stories from a Hollywood movie set.


The more you know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 04, 2015, 10:37:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 04, 2015, 06:32:40 pm

I'm wondering why the previous post was offered.

Considering the dubya record on Iraqi war stories.

Can you tell us one or two of those Iraqi war stories?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 04, 2015, 10:42:39 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 04, 2015, 10:19:17 pm

Well didn't phaxnews billy o'reilly cover four wars.... with a pen.


No, nope not even one.

warning: diversion attempt

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 04, 2015, 10:45:04 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 04, 2015, 10:26:16 pm

Well since you asked Keysbart,


That would be the Ronnie Reagan school of WWII stories from a Hollywood movie set.


The more you know.

Ahh...so Hilary and Brian were watching old movies and thought they were actually there....got it. Give it up Otto. The POS got caught lying through his teeth and no amount of spin will change that. What somebody else did or didn't do is irrelevant. `

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 04, 2015, 11:52:05 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on February 04, 2015, 10:45:04 pm

Ahh...so Hilary and Brian were watching old movies and thought they were actually there....got it. Give it up Otto. The POS got caught lying through his teeth and no amount of spin will change that. What somebody else did or didn't do is irrelevant. `

If either Williams or NBC News had any integrity he would be gone within the next week.

I am betting he is still around.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 04, 2015, 11:54:32 pm

Quote from: davep on February 04, 2015, 10:37:20 pm

Can you tell us one or two of those Iraqi war stories?

It might be more interesting for him to tell us about some of the stories he suggested Reagan offered about combat involvement in WWII.

Quote from: otto105 on February 04, 2015, 10:26:16 pm

Well since you asked Keysbart,
That would be the Ronnie Reagan school of WWII stories from a Hollywood movie set.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on February 05, 2015, 06:58:36 am

don't forget, was it John Kerry and the swift boats?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 05, 2015, 10:55:05 am

http://news.yahoo.com/nbc-news--brian-williams-recants-story-iraq-helicopter-after-soldiers-protest-231038729.html

To read his excuse makes it even worse.. What a dirt bag!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 05, 2015, 10:56:30 am

If he (they) will lie about something like this, what's that tell you about the rest of the news they report.. **** liars!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 05, 2015, 03:34:29 pm

 
 WML and I have one thing in common ...


 we both want to **** Flo from the Progressive TV commercials.


 I'd slam the babe doggy style while she is bent over on a desk studying


 actuarial tables.


 She'll soon forget about actuarial tables.  ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 06, 2015, 08:32:10 am

Did Brian Williams Lie about Katrina too?

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/11526453-148/nbc-news-anchor-brian-williams

NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who apologized on the air Wednesday night for lying about an experience covering the Iraq War, is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.

Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq.

“I was instead in a following aircraft. We all landed after the ground fire incident and spent two harrowing nights in a sandstorm in the Iraq desert,” Williams said Wednesday. He painted his earlier description as a “bungled attempt” to thank an Iraq War veteran.

The online feeding frenzy quickly turned to the 55-year-old anchor’s signature assignment: covering Katrina from before it made landfall, when he spent the night of the storm with refuge-seekers in the Superdome and then reported on the harrowing days that followed.

“When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country,” Williams said in a 2006 interview.



And last year, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, the man he replaced in the anchor chair at NBC, Williams said:

“My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery, our hotel was overrun with gangs, I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer. We are friends to this day. And uh, it just was uh, I look back at total agony.”



But the French Quarter, the original high ground of New Orleans, was not impacted by the floodwaters that overwhelmed the vast majority of the city.

A spokesman for NBC did not immediately respond Thursday to questions about those comments, the hotel to which Williams referred, whether Williams stands by the claims or whether the network is reviewing them.

Williams has described his experiences during Katrina as personally transformative, and he has returned to the city and the topic numerous times since.

“I saw fear, I saw death, I saw depravity, I saw firearms being brandished, I saw looting,” he told the Los Angeles Times a year after Katrina made landfall.

He also recalled the danger of the moment in a 2007 interview on C-SPAN.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 06, 2015, 05:07:41 pm

If NBC wants to preserve its reputation as a serious news organization (and the fact that it has allowed MSNBC to fawn all over Obama for 7 years raises serious doubts whether it gives a damn about such things), it will replace Williams within the next several days, with the best way (for NBC) for that to happen being Williams resigning, even if the only way to get him to do so is if he is paid an obscene sum of money simply to go away.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 06, 2015, 05:53:07 pm

Quote

(and the fact that it has allowed MSNBC to fawn all over Obama for 7 years raises serious doubts whether it gives a damn about such things), 

Why would you bring a fawn into this? Is this some strange fetish you have with hooved animals? How would you know if anyone gives a damn about such things? Have you talked to anyone?

Quote

it will replace Williams within the next several days

Why should they listen to you and replace Williams? Why would you think this would be about you and they would listen to you? Are you the news police? Why would you think you were?

Quote

  with the best way (for NBC) for that to happen being Williams resigning,

How would you know what the 'best way' would be? Do you know the first thing about news reporting? Did you take classes on it? Are you a self confessed 'news nerd'? How foolish to think that Williams resigning would fix anything. You must be delusional to think such a thing. Why would you come to this foolish, unlearned conclusion??

Quote

even if the only way to get him to do so is if he is paid an obscene sum of money simply to go away.

Why would you even think this to be the only way?? What could possibly make it 'obscene'?? Are you a Oneirogmophobic?? You think the money would simply make it all 'go away'? How could you possibly be that silly to consider it would? Peke wouldn't think it obscene. JJ on the other hand...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 06, 2015, 06:54:06 pm

Sportster, I was in TV news for 10 years in 6 different markets, winning reporting awards at the state, regional and national level, with my last three years in newsroom management.  I left news in 1991 because I was bored with it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 06, 2015, 07:53:10 pm

Camden, NJ, raised public school spending to more than 25K per student.... and student performance did not improve.  http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/01/26/money-didnt-fix-camdens-failing-schools

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 06, 2015, 09:09:36 pm

LOL!!!

Brian Williams?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 08, 2015, 07:29:07 pm

Mark's Market Blog
2-8-15: Deflation and Syriza.
by Mark Lawrence
Stocks continue to trade in what seems to be a sideways range.


 
S&P 500 August 20 2014 to February 6 2015
As the dollar goes up in value and the Euro and Yen drop, unsurprisingly the US trade deficit is increasing - from $40b in November to $47b in December. This will continue, of course, until and unless we enter the currency war. Right now we're importing lots of cheap crap and, soon, we'll be exporting cheap jobs.

What happens when the Fed has to start selling off those $5 trillion in bonds in their vaults? Won't interest rates leap to economy-choking levels? Yes, and they're very aware of that. Here's a bold prediction: the bonds held by the Fed and the Bank of Japan and soon to be bought by the ECB will never be sold. Never. Those bonds will rot in deep dark vaults for all eternity. This means the respective governments got to borrow money that they never have to pay back. This is called monetizing the debt and is considered highly inflationary - exactly the policy desired in this time when deflation seems to be rearing its ugly head. What's so bad about deflation? Food prices, gasoline, rents all decrease and consumers have more money in their pockets, so what's the bad news? In Econ 101 you were told that consumers don't spend in a deflationary environment preferring to hold their money for a better deal next week, and businessmen don't invest as sales are slow and equipment prices are declining. Nonsense. Statistics from history show that it takes pretty massive deflation coupled with huge unemployment before people stop buying. Your average lower to middle class guy is going to spring for that cheap 60" TV or new 0% interest 0 Down 2015 Mustang regardless of his future price expectations - one of the primary reasons they're lower class is that they have essentially no sense of delayed gratification. Here's the real reason deflation is scary: we've seen what happens to banks when real estate prices decline below mortgage amounts or car values decline below loan amounts. Borrowers walk, leaving the bank with an almost worthless asset. Current 30 and 40 year bond prices indicate the markets are pricing in mild deflation for the next several decades. Banks, all too aware of this, are mostly refusing to write new mortgages to any but the most credit worthy. Deflation fears are about banks: the last seven years have been all about banks. I'm getting really sick of our entire lifestyle being subservient to bankers; I'm ready to have the Fed buy some of those huge Caterpillar bulldozers and simply push Wall Street into the ocean.

Last week I noted that I expect Iran will have nukes before Obama leaves office. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Today Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Kerry and other officials, "I do not believe another extension is in the interests of anybody as I did not believe this extension was either necessary or useful." Looks like the talks are about over - Obama has already agree to release Iran's frozen money by the end of the talks in July, Obama has vowed to veto any new sanctions proposed by congress, so we have nothing else Iran wants. Saudi Arabia has just renewed an accord with Pakistan to buy nukes if they wish. Saudi Arabia already has Chinese CSS-2 missiles which were designed to hold precisely the Chinese designed warhead Pakistan makes. Pakistan also has nuclear armed cruise missiles. I've also previously noted that the US anti-nuke treaty with the UAE says they won't have nukes unless another gulf state does. Obama's legacy will almost certainly include a nuclear armed gulf. We all know he doesn't like Israel, but this brings "doesn't like" to a whole new level.

We've all been trained in the last 40 years by women's lib that biology is not destiny, but apparently geography is destiny. Yemen fell this week to Iran-backed rebels. This has put Saudi Arabia in a very uncomfortable position - they're now almost completely ringed by Iran backed states. Last year Shi'ite rebels nearly overthrew the Sunni minority in Bahrain; Saudi Arabia intervened and put down the poorly armed and unorganized rebellion. Last year the Saudis tried a similar stunt in Yemen, but a couple weeks later with 200 of their men dead they retreated from Yemen with their tails tucked. Iraq's government is Iran backed; Assad in Syria would have fallen years ago but for his help from Iran. Lebanon also is largely governed by Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, as is much of Palestine / Hamas. Kuwait is very friendly to Saudi Arabia but we've already seen how long they can hold up to an invasion - a couple days. Embarrassingly, Saudi Arabia's best friend in the middle east is now Israel: the one middle east state that will never come under Iranian influence. Without question, Iran is slowly consuming the middle east. If their oil revenues allowed it they would next attempt to turn Egypt into a client state; at that point the Shia would have all but triumphed over the Sunni.


Why the sudden change in Europe, where Germany, which has been adamantly against QE for the last six years now allows a massive dose? Greece. QE will allow Germany and Super Mario to bribe Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland with ultra low bond rates to ignore Greece and that little separatist man behind the curtain. That's the carrot; the stick is that at the same time Greece has been informed that their debt is no longer acceptable as collateral at the ECB, shutting their banks out of any hope for rescue and effectively telling them no birthday cake and ice cream for you. The big fear in Brussels right now is the voters in southern Europe following Greece's example and electing a bunch of far left or far right parties that promise a better deal - with 25% unemployment and rampant corruption, those promises are going to sound quite compelling. Even France has a problem: their far right anti-immigration and anti-euro party Nation Front currently leads the polls, and their socialist president Hollande is setting new records for low approval ratings. Greece says they don't want to leave the Euro; the EU says Greece is welcome and encouraged to stay. That's the words. The actions on both sides say "Happy Trails to you." I think Greece would be far better off with their own currency; I also think as others see this it could easily spell the end of the Euro experiment.

Super Mario is now the almost-emperor of Europe it seems. A few months ago he sent some secret letters to Ireland (since made public) threatening to pull emergency funding from Irish banks if the state did not apply for a bailout, in what many saw as an overreach into the sovereign affairs of the country. The ECB later pretended that Ireland had applied for its bailout voluntarily. Now he's sent the same letters to Greece. Were I european I would be appalled and incensed about an unelected bureaucrat living across the street from a whorehouse and pushing around my elected government. Greek PM Tsipras is quickly being put in the position of toeing the line that helped produce 25% unemployment for his country or watching his entire banking system fail. Everyone knows if your banking systems fails then your life is over, but it seems to me it's always bankers and their paid political puppets who tell us this. I'm going to be watching Greece with great interest: what if they let all their banks fail and no one starves in the street? What if it turns out they can do better without banks?

Greece's new Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis says he's "the finance minister of a bankrupt country." He was recruited from the University of Texas where as an economics professor he taught game theory. He's been traveling around Europe talking about a new deal for Greece. His comments have been provocative - in Germany he said in an interview, "Germany should understand the most what it's like to be stuck in a gruesome deflation and debt crisis. When I go home today, I will go home to a country where the third-biggest party is not a neo-Nazi but a Nazi party. Germany can be proud of our fight against Nazis. We now need the German help." Friday we got an official response: The ECB will no longer allow banks to use Greek dept as collateral. In the absence of a new deal or Greece knuckling under to the current bank-breaking deal, this means they're a few weeks from running out of cash and defaulting. Apparently Super Mario has his own game theorists. Anyway, this little game is getting very exciting and very dangerous very fast. Greece is adamant that they want half their debt forgiven; Germany and the ECB are adamant that this will not happen. There is a rumor that there's an offer on the table to convert a large fraction of Greek debt to 40+ year zero interest loans, but it's not clear Greece will accept that. Tsipras got elected with a mandate to stop the austerity and he can't be seen as folding to the EU in his first month. Greek markets are going wild, down 50% in the ten days since Syriza was elected.

Germany's Merkle and France's Hollande went to Moscow to chat with Putin. They proposed a cease fire based on the current line dividing the country, and a 40 mile wide demilitarized zone - a new version of the Korean solution. Hollande said the stakes could not be higher, warning that the renewed peace plan was "one of the last chances" to halt the 10-month-old conflict. "If we fail to find a lasting peace agreement, we know the scenario perfectly well - it has a name, it is called war." In their press release they said NATO sending arms to Ukraine was a mistake and would not solve the problems there. Joe Biden immediately announced that we were going to send military aid to Kiev. I'm on record: Russia's security makes a NATO / EU Ukraine completely unacceptable, just as our security makes a soviet Mexico unacceptable. Here's a question you can ask yourself: do you have more faith in the foreign policy of Angela Merkle, born and raised in East Germany under communism, now the leading proponent of free markets in Europe, with a PhD in physics; or do you have more faith in the profoundly deep international understandings of our community organizer in chief and disbarred constitutional lawyer Barack Obama?

Last week I noted that commodities are not selling well. This is especially problematic for Australia, which bases a significant portion of their economy on mining. The Oz central bank just lowered their discount rate from 2.5% to 2.25%. The Aussie dollar immediately dropped 3%. This isn't over, folks - this is just the early shots in the world wide race to the currency bottom.

Alaska gets most of their money from taxing oil. They just saw their tax revenues drop by 50%. Everyone else in the US (well, except Texas and N.Dakota) is loving the low gas prices; the oil states, not so much.

Radio Shack is bankrupt. They're closing 1784 of their stores. The rest - about 2200 - will apparently become Sprint stores, also selling Radio Shack stuff. And the 1784? Rumors fly that Amazon is considering picking them up. Store pickup would put Amazon in position to offer more free shipping, as Walmart does, with an instant huge presence. Store pickup would allow Amazon to showcase their particular products, like the Kindle reader and FireTV. It worked for Apple. Perhaps Amazon will be coming soon to a mini-mall near you.

Thinking of dating? American Community Survey gathered info on 3,712,827 people. Select for those between 18 and 40. Now see which of those are single, have a university degree, have a job, don't live with their parents. You're left with 29,875. 3.1% of Americans are worth dating. 50% of US adults are single. There's a hint about what it's like out there dating.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 08, 2015, 07:34:19 pm

Scott Walker Could Win
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on February 3, 2015

Scott Walker is the only ambidextrous candidate in the Republican field. He appeals equally to the Republican establishment and the Tea Party/evangelical wingers.

All other candidates fit neatly in one or the other box. While Jeb Bush's record in Florida used to make him the most attractive member of his family to conservatives, he has blown that accolade with his strong support for immigration amnesty and Common Core.

Chris Christie was never the darling of conservatives, but his appeal to establishment Republicans is obvious.

Neither Bush nor Christie is a switch-hitter.

On the right, Ted Cruz's views fit the Tea Party like a glove but his brand of fiery politics may be too much for establishment ears. He is so effective and so on target that he scares the cautious GOP establishment to death. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have perfect pitch in appealing to evangelicals, but, perforce, are too out there for the more establishment types.

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio both have the potential to be transcendent, Paul because he is blazing new ideological grounds and Rubio because of his cautious, respectful tone.

But both are very young and the establishment doesn't want to take chances. Can Rubio hold his own on a national stage (without frequent gulps of water)? Can Paul's libertarian ideology catch on? The establishment would rather not find out with the presidency on the line.

Paul also runs afoul of the national security wing of the establishment, a potent part of the centrist coalition.

Rick Perry once spanned the centrist and Tea Party wings of the party -- until he imploded in 2012. Can he recover from his ungraceful exit last time? Can he overcome the phony indictment under which partisan Texas prosecutors have forced him to labor? We don't know yet.

Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Huckabee, Santorum and Perry are all are hoping to be crossovers, keeping their Tea Party base but appealing to the center as well. But Walker is effortlessly able to battle for the establishment, the Tea Party and the evangelical vote. And there is no reason for him to have trouble with national security voters, either.

The Wisconsin governor has been elected and reelected, and defeated a recall attempt in a key swing state. His combat credentials are enough to assuage worries the establishment might have about a first-time candidate. His record on job creation and fiscal discipline is admirable. He is the Christie who succeeded; Wisconsin is where the New Jersey governor dreamed his state would be.

Yet Walker's credentials as a battler against the left earn him backing from the right wing of the Republican Party, including his stand against municipal unions, amnesty and Common Core.

From the Republican point of view, he is America's most successful governor. He offers a chance to take the education issue away from Hillary Clinton. He has actually turned a school system around, ironically, by applying some of the very same remedies Clinton first proposed in Arkansas in 1982 but has long since abandoned in her sycophancy toward the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

And Walker has been vetted. He has been through a trial by fire that no other GOP presidential aspirant has. Under the constant pressure of the municipal labor unions, continuously tested in recalls (both his own and his senators'), he has survived nicely.

Energetic, young, charismatic and fresh, Walker provides just the kind of generational contrast Clinton has most to fear. And, now with Mitt Romney out of the race, he can spread his wings.

Click Here To Purchase Power Grab: Obama's Dangerous Plan For A One Party Nation

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 08, 2015, 08:00:00 pm

Good stuff Packy. Oddo will dispute that I am sure. He already has about Greece

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 08, 2015, 09:35:11 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 06, 2015, 06:54:06 pm

Sportster, I was in TV news for 10 years in 6 different markets, winning reporting awards at the state, regional and national level, with my last three years in newsroom management.  I left news in 1991 because I was bored with it.

 Geez Jes


 What the hell went wrong in your life ? Why would you want to leave a cush job outside of boredom?


 All of us know about boredom on the job ... but to leave a cush job ...
 
 What were the six markets you worked in ?


 Anyway I'm watching the Friars roast of Terry Bradshaw.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 09, 2015, 01:28:17 pm

I found this article on drug mandates interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-why-vaccine-mandates-150623488.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 09, 2015, 05:13:42 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 05:19:44 pm

Wow, more Rupert Murdoch crap on the fanatic.


Isfullofit

Why would you consider an article from a political farce and his son which considers everyone as test subject interesting?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 09, 2015, 05:23:53 pm

No dispute of what is written, but simply attacks the source.  Not surprising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 05:32:03 pm

HB legal aid


One does not have to read the "article" presented by phaxnews UK to know that it sources one climate denier sourcing another one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 05:35:05 pm

I'll bet the "article" has that photo of the polar bear on the ice, right?


It just like that burning car in Benghazi picture....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 09, 2015, 05:37:42 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 05:32:03 pm

One does not have to read the "article" presented by phaxnews UK to know that it sources one climate denier sourcing another one.

Speak of denying.... otto, your post would be an excellent example of it.

You do not even care about the data or the reasoning.  You have made up your mind, with what amounts to a religious conviction based on blind faith, and you ridicule anyone who offers an opposing position, doing so without bothering to even begin to consider that position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 09, 2015, 06:36:02 pm

Leave Homo alone.  Pretty soon his Governor will be President, and he will take all credit for it.

Nice to see something worthwhile coming out of a backwoods state like Wisconsin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 07:30:34 pm

Quote

You do not even care about the data or the reasoning

What "data" are you referring too? You mean the paraphrasing the author used to imply there was some from the other climate denier?

Quote

You have made up your mind, with what amounts to a religious conviction based on blind faith

I have made up my mind on the scientific facts and the broad consensus of actual scientists. It is the climate deniers that use religion to be blinded to science.

Quote

and you ridicule anyone who offers an opposing position

I ridicule anyone who chooses to be ignorant of facts, knowledge and science.

Quote

doing so without bothering to even begin to consider that position.

Your position has no merit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 08:50:35 pm

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gmjkb_bill-to-republicans-slamming-sarah-palin-what-took-you-so-long-video_news (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gmjkb_bill-to-republicans-slamming-sarah-palin-what-took-you-so-long-video_news)

Nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 09, 2015, 10:30:42 pm

worker representation.
 
 
 
 
No one should be forced to pay money to a union as a condition of employment. In 25 other states, government workers have the right to choose whether they want to support a union. Illinois' government workers deserve the same right.
 
 

 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 11:03:29 pm

Then they should not enjoy the benefits of that Union if they don't pay, but right to low pay and benefit laws still have them protected.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 09, 2015, 11:17:48 pm

No problem.  Don't let them benefit from the unions.  Instead, let each one bargain with the employer on their own and work for what they bargain for.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Phill23 on February 10, 2015, 12:52:21 am

Quote from: packrat on February 08, 2015, 07:34:19 pm

Scott Walker Could Win
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on February 3, 2015

DICK MORRIS!!!  hahahahahahahaha!!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 10, 2015, 10:31:04 am

Having Morris predict your win is not necessarily a positive sign.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 10, 2015, 11:55:41 am

Nope!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on February 10, 2015, 01:53:28 pm

Obama askes for AUMF...

How's that nobel peace prize looking???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on February 10, 2015, 03:06:55 pm

Tarnished and rusted, in a back closet on the floor under a huge mound of Michelle Obama's t-shirts from all the
places her, the kids and her entourage visited at my expense.  Send it back.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 10, 2015, 04:28:06 pm

 So was Jes just jacking us up about working in media ?


 Asked him 2 days ago about the 6 media markets he worked in but never got an answer.


 And he's posted since then.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 10, 2015, 05:07:11 pm

Johnbill


Once again points at an orange and loudly says apple.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 10, 2015, 05:12:53 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 07:30:34 pm

What "data" are you referring too? You mean the paraphrasing the author used to imply there was some from the other climate denier?

I mean the data you have acknowledged you did not read.

Quote from: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 07:30:34 pm

I have made up my mind on the scientific facts and the broad consensus of actual scientists. It is the climate deniers that use religion to be blinded to science.

When you do not look at the data and dismiss information without looking at it or considering it, you are not making up your mind based on scientific facts.

Quote from: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 07:30:34 pm

I ridicule anyone who chooses to be ignorant of facts, knowledge and science.

So.... you are saying that you ridicule yourself?

Quote from: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 07:30:34 pm

Your position has no merit.

I would be shocked if you could articulate my position, and since you have made clear you have not read the content at the link at issue (so much easier to dismiss things you don't read), you would not know that position, either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 10, 2015, 05:22:47 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on February 10, 2015, 04:28:06 pm

 So was Jes just jacking us up about working in media ?

 Asked him 2 days ago about the 6 media markets he worked in but never got an answer.

 And he's posted since then.

You post rampant inanity.

I generally make liberal use of the scroll bar when you post.

Was there some reason I should have read what you posted or, considering your general tone and apparent lack of seriousness, that I should have responded if I had read it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 10, 2015, 05:46:06 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 10, 2015, 05:22:47 pm

You post rampant inanity.

I generally make liberal use of the scroll bar when you post.

Was there some reason I should have read what you posted or, considering your general tone and apparent lack of seriousness, that I should have responded if I had read it?

 You sure in the **** read this one sweetheart.


 All I asked was a simple question ....


 what SIX media areas did you work in ?


 Name them. I'm not getting upset ... you are.


 Name the markets you worked in as a media person.


 You made the claim you cut coin in the media ... I didn't.


 All I am asking is what media markets you worked in that you claimed you worked in.


 As I recall I only asked what SIX media markets you worked in according to your own description of yourself.


 You only have to prove the integrity of what you claim.


 Why would you be getting defensive if what everything you said is true ?


 You know if everything you say is true about yourself  ....


 it shouldn't have to take this long to get an answer to a simple question.


 What were the SIX media outlets you worked at ?


 Name three out of six. I'm giving you a break.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 10, 2015, 05:59:31 pm

Jackie, I never have even begun to get upset at anything you have posted.  I don't take you seriously enough to get upset with your posts.  As I mentioned, most of the time I ignore them.

I interned with KGTV in San Diego in 1980.  I began as a reporter with KAIT in Jonesboro Arkansas in 1982, and after 2 years moved to KGUN in Tucson.  In 1986 I went to WNYT in Abany, leaving there after just a few months instead of joining their union (it was a closed union shop).  From there I went to KSPR in Springfield, MO, and after two years there moved to WTVC in Chattanooga, TN, working as that station's assignment's editor for three years, then leaving news.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 10, 2015, 06:31:21 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 10, 2015, 05:59:31 pm

Jackie, I never have even begun to get upset at anything you have posted.  I don't take you seriously enough to get upset with your posts.  As I mentioned, most of the time I ignore them.

I interned with KGTV in San Diego in 1980.  I began as a reporter with KAIT in Jonesboro Arkansas in 1982, and after 2 years moved to KGUN in Tucson.  In 1986 I went to WNYT in Abany, leaving there after just a few months instead of joining their union (it was a closed union shop).  From there I went to KSPR in Springfield, MO, and after two years there moved to WTVC in Chattanooga, TN, working as that station's assignment's editor for three years, then leaving news.

 Hey ... that's all the **** I ever asked to begin with.


 Stop drawing it out as a drama.


 Talk to us as friends.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 10, 2015, 07:20:17 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on February 10, 2015, 06:31:21 pm

Hey ... that's all the **** I ever asked to begin with.

 Stop drawing it out as a drama.

 Talk to us as friends.

I drew out nothing.  When I saw your post this afternoon, I responded almost immediately.  My post answering your question was 13 minutes after you restated it.  As I mentioned, I never saw your original question because I ignore most of your posts.

You make a deliberate effort to appear as a fool in your posts, so I see no reason to read them.  If you became serious, I would read them.  If your foolishness IS what you consider to be serious, then there really is no reason for me to do anything other than scroll thru them.

As to talking to you as a friend, why should I fake that?  YOU are not a friend, nor can I contemplate that you ever will be.


Now, back to the substance and origin of this thread:

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 04, 2015, 11:52:05 pm

If either Williams or NBC News had any integrity he would be gone within the next week.

I am betting he is still around.

Quote from: Sportster on February 06, 2015, 05:53:07 pm

Why should they listen to you and replace Williams? Why would you think this would be about you and they would listen to you? Are you the news police? Why would you think you were?
 
How would you know what the 'best way' would be? Do you know the first thing about news reporting? Did you take classes on it?.... How foolish to think that Williams resigning would fix anything. You must be delusional to think such a thing. Why would you come to this foolish, unlearned conclusion??

Three days ago Williams himself announced he was voluntarily stepping down for some indefinite period of time.  Within the last hour, six days after my post were I said NBC or Williams needed to be gone within the week, NBC announced it is suspending Williams without pay for at least 6 months.  I was, however, apparently wrong that NBC did not really care about being taken seriously as a news organization.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 10, 2015, 08:23:33 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 10, 2015, 07:20:17 pm

I drew out nothing.  When I saw your post this afternoon, I responded almost immediately.  My post answering your question was 13 minutes after you restated it.  As I mentioned, I never saw your original question because I ignore most of your posts.

You make a deliberate effort to appear as a fool in your posts, so I see no reason to read them.  If you became serious, I would read them.  If your foolishness IS what you consider to be serious, then there really is no reason for me to do anything other than scroll thru them.

As to talking to you as a friend, why should I fake that?  YOU are not a friend, nor can I contemplate that you ever will be.

 Jes , I love you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 10, 2015, 09:56:24 pm

Quote

I mean the data you have acknowledged you did not read.

The "author" of the "article" has provided no new data. As a wingnut hack who merely "saw the headline on a climate blog" to type his big report to be picked up hopefully by phaxnews US, phaxnews UK, powerline, WND and Drudge. A headline and story by blogger Paul Homewood who proves proves that he doesn't know anything about weather related data collection other than wetting his finger and holding it in the air.

Quote

When you do not look at the data and dismiss information without looking at it or considering it, you are not making up your mind based on scientific facts.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that adjustments to the temperature record are necessary to "account for a variety of non-climate related" factors and are validated by numerous peer-reviewed studies. NOAA in a statement said numerous peer-reviewed studies continue to find that the temperature record is reliable. To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods called homogenization, to adjust temperature readings to account for a variety of non-climate related affects such as changes in station location, changes in observation methods, changes in instrumentation such as thermometers, and the growth of urban heat islands that occur through time. Such changes in observing systems cause false shifts in temperature readings. Paraguay is one example of where these false shifts artificially lower the true station temperature trend.  However, around the world, the opposite is true a little less than half of the time.  Homogenization methods take out these false shifts.

While you have a wingnut writer sourcing a blogger hoping to get picked up by limbaugh.

Quote

So.... you are saying that you ridicule yourself?

I'm ridiculing you, your response, the original post, the blogger who wrote it and the wingnut media cycle jerk that you picked it off of.

Quote

I would be shocked if you could articulate my position, and since you have made clear you have not read the content at the link at issue (so much easier to dismiss things you don't read), you would not know that position, either.

I would be shocked if you could articulate of the position blogger who you have sourced.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 10, 2015, 10:29:20 pm

http://www.westernjournalism.com/scott-walker-will-next-president-united-states/#D4uhjUJgoXIcBGQg.97

OK.  Here is my 2016 vote for POTUS:


The next Ronald Reagan.  No Rino, here.  Out with the ****-ants and in with a true leader.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 10, 2015, 10:32:38 pm

Rich


Today the Wall Street journal called t-baggers in the house a rump minority.


 Great start guys.


Olde tacit racist


Did Reagan only have an high school diploma too? Maybe that explains selling arms to terrorists.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 10, 2015, 11:42:05 pm

http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-walker-is-a-campaign-veteran-2015-2

Walker is campaign veteran.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 11, 2015, 04:56:00 am

Now the question is, do they find someone less drab than Lester Holt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 11, 2015, 10:53:15 am

Finally something useful coming out of the Hillbilly state of Wisconsin.  Homo will be so proud.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 11, 2015, 01:06:06 pm

Useful?

davebart can you ask candidate high school diploma what exactly he dislikes about the Wisconsin Idea? Ya know, besides the fact he had to have someone read it to him.

Candidate high school diploma is really just a male Caribou Barbie. The sooner that you realize that, the better off you will be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 11, 2015, 01:12:32 pm

You seem to be making light of a high school diploma.  Would'nt you life be much better if you had one?

The important thing is that he stood up to the government employees union that was sucking the lifeblood of your hillbilly state.  It seems that he didn't need more than a high school diploma to do that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 11, 2015, 01:50:49 pm

I am glad our Governments are getting involved with the important aspects of our lives.

Bake sales are out, healthier school fundraisers are in

By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - When it comes to school fundraisers, bake sale tables loaded with sugary goodies are out. Fun runs, auctions and sales of healthier treats are in.

Government rules requiring schools to hold more nutritious fundraisers, along with a trend toward healthier eating in schools, could mean trouble for the long-beloved bake sale. In response, schools are selling everything from fruit to kid-friendly shoe laces.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 11, 2015, 04:53:05 pm

 

Quote from: chifaninva on February 11, 2015, 04:56:00 am

Now the question is, do they find someone less drab than Lester Holt.

 LOL !! I got it. I love that inside humor.


 Brian Williams will now be able to attend every NASCAR event for the next six months.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 11, 2015, 04:58:59 pm

The bar is pretty low Davebart.


After today maybe candidate punt is more appropriate. Course, with just a high school diploma and a desire to erase the meaning behind the Wisconsin Idea for our leading University......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 11, 2015, 05:01:45 pm

He can parley a non-answer on evolution into a WINNING strategy to capture caribou barbies voters....


Davebart send him loads of your cash now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 11, 2015, 05:41:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 11, 2015, 01:06:06 pm

can you ask candidate high school diploma....

Have you heard the one about people in glass houses?

Just what is your education, otto?

Please just identify the school, the degree, the year you obtained the degree, and your GPA.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 11, 2015, 05:43:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 11, 2015, 05:01:45 pm

He can parley a non-answer on evolution into a WINNING strategy to capture caribou barbies voters....

And whatever that education was, did it include how to use an apostrophe?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 11, 2015, 06:00:13 pm

 Seriously ... who makes the best FRENCH FRIES ever?
 
 I'd still have to rank McDonald's #1.


 Going in at #2 it would be Wendy's.


 Carl's Jr./Hardees #3.


 Der Wienerschnitzel ... best copy of McDonald's fries. #4.


 After that it falls off ...


 Jack In The Box  ... barely edible.


 Burger King ... they cant get french fries right.


 YOUR LOCAL BURGER JOINT ... mom and pop restaurant ... THE BEST !!


 French fries with a tinge of garlic ... that's genius.


 


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 11, 2015, 06:03:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 11, 2015, 04:58:59 pm

The bar is pretty low Davebart.


After today maybe candidate punt is more appropriate. Course, with just a high school diploma and a desire to erase the meaning behind the Wisconsin Idea for our leading University......

I would hate for someone that had a high school diploma to become president.  None of the good ones had one.  Lincoln comes to mind.

In fairness, a high school diploma is about equivalent to a BA from the University of Wisconsin.  Except that those with a BA from the University of Wisconsin can't get a job or write a complete sentence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 11, 2015, 06:22:22 pm

Lincoln was a horrible president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 11, 2015, 06:23:49 pm

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-poll-warren-leads-clinton-in-iowa-n.h./article/2560098

Nothing really even mildly surprising about the poll.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 11, 2015, 07:03:07 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 11, 2015, 06:22:22 pm

Lincoln was a horrible president.

 George Washington was an even more horrible President.


 He led us down this road to godless communism and lack of humor.


 However he could flip a pretty good burger at Monticello.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 11, 2015, 07:06:15 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 10, 2015, 09:56:24 pm

The "author" of the "article" has provided no new data.

How would you know, if, as you have posted, you have not read it and will not read it?

Quote from: otto105 on February 10, 2015, 09:56:24 pm

As a wingnut hack who merely "saw the headline on a climate blog" to type his big report to be picked up hopefully by phaxnews US, phaxnews UK, powerline, WND and Drudge. A headline and story by blogger Paul Homewood who proves proves that he doesn't know anything about weather related data collection other than wetting his finger and holding it in the air.

So have you now read the article and the internal links in it, which might make it remotely reasonable to discuss it with you... or have you NOT read it, which you have claimed?  If you have NOT read it, then your comments are exceedingly foolish and there is no reason to discuss the particulars with you.  If you HAVE read it, then I suppose I should simply accept the fact that you lied when you said you hadn't and did not read such things, and simply focus on the fact that you STILL have not responded to the data at issue or written anything actually challenging the data.

Quote from: otto105 on February 10, 2015, 09:56:24 pm

To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods called homogenization, to adjust temperature readings to account for a variety of non-climate related affects such as changes in station location, changes in observation methods, changes in instrumentation such as thermometers, and the growth of urban heat islands that occur through time. Such changes in observing systems cause false shifts in temperature readings. Paraguay is one example of where these false shifts artificially lower the true station temperature trend.

Amazing double-talk here.  Heat islands would be a reason to lower current temperature readings, not in the past, and not to raise temperatures now.

Quote from: otto105 on February 10, 2015, 09:56:24 pm

I'm ridiculing you, your response, the original post, the blogger who wrote it and the wingnut media cycle jerk that you picked it off of.

So you have decided to riducle someone other that what had been a perfect description of yourself:

Quote from: otto105 on February 09, 2015, 07:30:34 pm

I ridicule anyone who chooses to be ignorant of facts, knowledge and science.

Quote from: otto105 on February 10, 2015, 09:56:24 pm

I would be shocked if you could articulate of the position blogger who you have sourced.

I would also be shocked, since I did not source a blogger.  But I do notice that you have not attempted to articulate my position, which was the challenge I made to you.  Probably a good decision on your part since articulating anything has never been one of your strong suits.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on February 11, 2015, 07:13:56 pm

In light of Brian William's admission of his lies about taking an RPG on the copter, does anyone think that if Hillary is the candidate that she won't be drilled about her honesty ducking sniper fire, over and over?

I can't see Republicans letting that die quietly...  Maybe they are just keeping it in the pocket until it matters

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on February 11, 2015, 07:32:40 pm

might as well get used to it, the Clinton machine is massive, and I don't think any amount of any thing will stop it.  Unless she has another stroke.  She didn't just "fall down".  What a venomous Harpy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 11, 2015, 09:38:02 pm

HG legal aid

When you actually hold a position which hss merit or cite a source which has one on the issue of global climate change, we can discuss.


Until then no.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 11, 2015, 10:11:26 pm

It is amazing how far Homo will go to avoid an actual discussion.  Comes from combining ignorance with stupidity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 12, 2015, 12:27:18 pm

The only side going to far far far far awayland are the climate deniers such as yourself. Who jump up like carnival barkers when one pens another falsehood.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 12, 2015, 02:30:22 pm

Coming from someone that can't even write his own name without cutting and pasting.

Don't worry.  Scott Walker will ensure that the hillbilly school system doesn't produce more like Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 12, 2015, 05:06:16 pm

Candidate Punt's educational system if left to t-baggers will produce people just like him. A person looking to marry a white old rich guy to take care of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 12, 2015, 06:16:23 pm

Who is the male candidate otto is babbling about who is trying to find a rich old white guy to marry?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 12, 2015, 06:27:59 pm

Homo is still worried about the fact that Scott Walker and Bill Gates never earned their college degrees.  He should start working on his GED, and perhaps he could learn to write a complete sentence.

Of course, a sentence has been defined as a complete thought, and Homo has never had one of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 12, 2015, 07:36:07 pm

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/army-approves-hormone-therapy-treatment-wikileaker-chelsea-manning-n305446

According to the officials, since Manning has been clinically diagnosed as a transgender and is confined to the military prison, the Army is obligated to provide and pay for her hormone treatments — just as if she was confined to a civilian federal prison.

Why?  I get that we need to pay for medical care for people in prison but is this not beyond **** stupid?  I don't give two **** if a person wants to pay for this kind of stuff on their own but why in the world should taxpayers have to pay?  This country is so far off the rails...

Oh and he is a he.  PERIOD!  Just because he wants to be female doesn't mean he is.  So **** stupid!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 12, 2015, 10:13:01 pm

Agreed, Peke. We're being run by fools. Here's a perfect example:

Biden calls his friend 'butt buddy'
"Neal Smith," Biden said, "an old butt buddy. Are you here, Neal? Neal, I miss you man. I miss you."

Biden is a f'ing lunatic and yet he's one bullet hit from being President of this country. Insanity....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 12, 2015, 10:53:36 pm

Great, moronic and idiotic are chatting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 12, 2015, 11:32:58 pm

And Homo jumps into the conversation about butt buddies.

No surprise there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 11:24:27 am

From the desk of candidate yellow.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scott-walkers-yellow-politics/2015/02/12/1dde50c0-b2fa-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html?hpid=z2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scott-walkers-yellow-politics/2015/02/12/1dde50c0-b2fa-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html?hpid=z2)



I'm sure candidate punt will have a good answer when asked about it, unless he punts it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 13, 2015, 12:31:04 pm

I think it is a great idea to drug test anyone receiving benefits out of tax money.  I don't mind helping those who suffer through no fault of their own, but if you have money to buy drugs, you don't need welfare.

By the way, I feel the same way about alcohol. 

Homo is right to be proud of the first worthwhile politician that his state had produced in decades.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 02:52:18 pm

Worthwhile, something that costs the state more money is worthwhile? Oh, that's right just like voter ID laws and blocking the PPACA Medicaid expansion which cost all those red states more money. That worthwhile.


**** in the cup old man and we may give you your SS check this next month.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 13, 2015, 03:01:57 pm

It only costs more money if no one is on drugs.  If there are those on drugs, the program will actually save money.

But all that is irrelevant.  The important thing is that taxpayers should not be paying for anyone's drug habits.

You have every right to be proud of Walker.  He eliminated some unfair bargaining tactics by the government unions, and now he is trying to rescue your broken welfare system.  Under his leadership Wisconsin will not remain the hillbilly state it has been, and he might even help repair the damage that the Madison idiots have done for years.

Now, if he can just create an educational system that can teach Homo to write in complete sentences.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 04:11:30 pm

While watching phaxnews and feeling uncomfortable about being white in America, he notices a 57-year old Indian man on HIS block NEAR HIS HOUSE with HIS WIFE (bare foot in the kitchen) soon to be home WITHOUT HIM. He takes action only sean handity can appreciate....


Alabama police fire, arrest the officer who badly injured Indian grandfather during sidewalk stop


http://video-embed.al.com/services/player/bcpid1949044313001?bctid=4049615536001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMIMAE~,kKetLjW2WxUgiRmvwWvrX1zHOEtf9iIT (http://video-embed.al.com/services/player/bcpid1949044313001?bctid=4049615536001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMIMAE~,kKetLjW2WxUgiRmvwWvrX1zHOEtf9iIT)


One can only hope his fellow city of Madison neighbors will enjoy the lower bond rating and huge legal settlement their taxes will now pay for.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 04:14:00 pm

This is why any attempt at discussion with a conservative water carrier is not possible.

Quote

It only costs more money if no one is on drugs.  If there are those on drugs, the program will actually save money.

But all that is irrelevant.  The important thing is that taxpayers should not be paying for anyone's drug habits.

In the movie Dumb and Dumber, which one were you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2015, 04:24:07 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 12, 2015, 10:53:36 pm

Great, moronic and idiotic are chatting.

Talking to yourself?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 04:28:30 pm

The Western Union Telegram carrying the nations news slow today HB legal aid?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2015, 04:29:44 pm

Quote from: davep on February 13, 2015, 12:31:04 pm

I don't mind helping those who suffer through no fault of their own, but if you have money to buy drugs, you don't need welfare.

If YOU do not mind helping someone, whomever it might be, or whatever the reason (even the needy pole dancer at your local strip club), you go right ahead and do so out of YOUR pocket.  But leave my pocket, and whatever I might have in it, alone.

Whether someone is or is not using drugs makes no difference to me as to whether they should get a check from the government.  I say no check for them regardless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 04:34:24 pm

Since its a slow day HB legal aid


Where on this planet has your libertarian philosophy ever been implemented much less succeeded?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2015, 04:35:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 11:24:27 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scott-walkers-yellow-politics/2015/02/12/1dde50c0-b2fa-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html?hpid=z2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scott-walkers-yellow-politics/2015/02/12/1dde50c0-b2fa-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html?hpid=z2)
I'm sure candidate punt will have a good answer when asked about it, unless he punts it.

His answer will likely be the same as what davep has posted, though he will probably add that the screens are actually compassionate in that they will help to keep people clean and reduce drug use.  And that is an answer which will play remarkably well with the vast majority of voters, not just the Republican base needed to win the nomination, but also the independents needed to win the general election.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2015, 04:40:45 pm

otto, the United States grew from very insignificant status in the late 1700's to become an economic jaugernaut by the mid-1920's, and the lrgest part of that growth was a result of the United States much more closely embracing libertarian ideals during that period than the rest of the world.

Idiots who call for an example of where libertarianism has worked instantly demonstrate that they are remarkably ignorant of history.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 04:54:28 pm

The United States of America as an example of libertarian success?


An "economic jaugernaut by the mid-1920's" because of what libertarian law?


BTW "jaugernaut" is spelled wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 05:00:40 pm

Additionally, American didn't become an economic juggernaut until government spending for WWII and it's aftermath.

Read some economic history.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 05:21:24 pm

Just acknowledge the truth HB legal aid, your economic theory has NOT been even tried anywhere on the planet because it doesn't work.


Your pointing to America as an example defies the rise of government and worker Unions during your mentioned bliss era. What that period did produce was monopoly, oligarchy and war profiteers. Hardly the benevolent corporation to replace the government vacuum you do so desperately believe in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on February 13, 2015, 06:03:59 pm

Quote

BTW "jaugernaut" is spelled wrong.

otter pointing out someone's spelling mistake...

Classic...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 13, 2015, 06:20:19 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 05:00:40 pm

Additionally, American didn't become an economic juggernaut until government spending for WWII and it's aftermath.

Read some economic history.

America grew as an economic juggernaut in the period after the Civil War through WWI.  Once the oil fields were developed, the rest of the world was left far behind.

Talk about not reading economic history - Home really takes the cake.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 07:05:24 pm

So davebart

You really know nothing about our economic development as a nation.

Oil? Just when did it become an economic driver that you suggest in the legal aid's time frame?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 13, 2015, 07:48:12 pm

It drove the automobile industry and the steel industry

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 07:51:44 pm

God, you are a moron.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 13, 2015, 09:33:13 pm

One thing consistent with Homo is that he isn't reticent about showing off his ignorance.  The less he knows on a subject, the more certain that he is right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 14, 2015, 08:59:12 am

Quote from: otto105 on February 13, 2015, 05:21:24 pm

Just acknowledge the truth HB legal aid, your economic theory has NOT been even tried anywhere on the planet because it doesn't work.


Your pointing to America as an example defies the rise of government and worker Unions during your mentioned bliss era. What that period did produce was monopoly, oligarchy and war profiteers. Hardly the benevolent corporation to replace the government vacuum you do so desperately believe in.

First, as I pointed out, it was tried, and the fact that the United States enjoyed much more economic freedom than what was found in the rest of the world was central to our nation's economic growth from the founding until about 1930.  Smoot Hawley, FDR's alphabet soup regulation and the rise of the labor unions then ended that competitve advantage.  After WW II our economic growth was largely a result fo the fact that we were competing with an industrialized world hit far harder by WW II than we had been.  By the 1970's, when that advantage had eroded, the U.S. competitive economic advantage was pretty much gone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 14, 2015, 02:55:52 pm

HB legal aid

The Smoot-Hawley Act was proposed by Republican from Oregon and signed into law by Hoover in June of 1930.


Please why you did not know that in addition to your very low understanding of economics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 14, 2015, 03:07:46 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 14, 2015, 02:55:52 pm

HB legal aid

The Smoot-Hawley Act was proposed by Republican from Oregon and signed into law by Hoover in June of 1930.


Please why you did not know that in addition to your very low understanding of economics.

Otto.  That symbol after the words "smoot-hawley" in Jes' post is called a comma. You might want to look up what it means and how it effects the meaning of the sentence it appears in. Nowhere in Jes' post does he say who proposed smoot-Hawley.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 14, 2015, 03:32:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 14, 2015, 02:55:52 pm

HB legal aid

The Smoot-Hawley Act was proposed by Republican from Oregon and signed into law by Hoover in June of 1930.


Please why you did not know that in addition to your very low understanding of economics.

What's your point.  Republicans can be as stupid as Democrats.

Not as often, but sometimes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 14, 2015, 07:29:07 pm

Note the powerful debunking of global warming.


Mark's Market Blog
2-15-15: Why I Don't Believe in Global Warming.
by Mark Lawrence
Putin has Agreed to a Cease Fire in Ukraine! The Greeks Will Be Cowed by the Germans and Pay Their Debts! All the big threats are behind us. The markets shot upwards to new record levels - the S&P nearing 2100 and the DOW breaking 18,000 - on very unconvincing volume. Is this it? Volatility is behind us and we can now look forward to a year of uninterrupted gains? Not bloody likely. imho. Putin's record on keeping his promises is not very reassuring, and Greece simply cannot afford to pay back these debts, either financially or politically.
 
S&P 500 August 25 2014 to February 13 2015
Inventories are rising and are now at a level that predicts recession. I don't know what to make of this, as I don't believe we're near a recession. I imagine part of the problem is slowing exports, as much of the rest of the world slides into recession.

On Thursday a Ukraine cease fire was announced by Merkle, Hollande and Putin. European markets leaped upwards a couple percent on the news. The cease fire would start Sunday, followed by the withdrawal of heavy weapons. Meanwhile Obama and congress continue to debate sending arms to Ukraine. The Leader of the Free World was conspicuously absent from the negotiations. While the talks were ongoing Putin had 50 tanks and 40 missile launchers moved into Ukraine. Fighting continues to be intense around the rail yard city of Debaltseve and near Mariupol; it seems the Russian backed rebels are intent on adding this to their territory before the cease fire. The IMF announced a $40 billion bailout package for Ukraine. Is it over? We'll see. It's still winter there, an easy time to agree to a cease fire. Even WW I shut down the first couple of years for a christmas break. Perhaps in a couple months the snow will melt and there will be "unexpected" provocations.


News of an accord between the EU and Greece was leaked where Greece agreed they would pay all their debts and continue with austerity and talks would continue - this would have represented a complete cave in to EU demands by the new Greek government. An hour later the accord was denied vigorously by Tsipras in Athens, who would not survive the winter if he agreed to such a thing. Then there were claims that his finance minister Varoufakis had agreed only to have Tsipris pull the rug. This seems unlikely to me - the entire team is committed to a 50% cut in Greek debt. I think ECB president Draghi and German finance minister Schauble are playing games with the press, trying to make the Greeks look disorganized and indecisive. The Greeks have approached these negotiations in a rather provocative fashion, leaving the Germans feeling rather strongly disrespected; perhaps a more politic road could have been taken. However it's clear to me the current deal is choking the life out of Greece and anyone who thinks the new government will be satisfied with a few tweeks around the edges is failing to understand the situation in Athens. The Greeks are a proud people who consider their country to be the home of democracy and rational scientific thought - indeed, "democracy" itself is a Greek word - and the idea that a 3,000 year old democracy would be pushed around by Germany, a country which has only existed for about 125 years, does not sell well in Greece. Without question Greece needs some major reforms - hairdressers retiring at age 52 on full pensions, more than half the workforce working for the government, everyone cheating on their taxes, these things must all stop. But these reforms must be agreed upon by the Greeks themselves after debate, not imposed from outside by unelected bureaucrats who are perceived, correctly I think, to just be spokes- puppets for the banks and the Germans. The EU is in a contradictory state where there is no federal union that can agree to europe wide standards, yet the EU bureaucrats think they can push around democratically elected sovereign leaders.

Apple is borrowing $1 billion by selling Swiss franc bonds. Swiss government bonds currently pay -0.07%, you have to pay them to hold your money. Apple will pay 0.3% on 9 year bonds and 0.75% on 15 year bonds. Why is a company with $140 billion in cash borrowing money? To buy back shares and pay their dividend, of course - if they repatriate their cash they have to pay 35% income tax, but no tax on loans.

Apple has noticed that the Tesla is basically an iPad with wheels. Rumor is they're working on their own car, the Titan. They hope to leap-frog Tesla, as they're apparently working on a google type self driving car. With a huge iPad. I don't really understand this - the Tesla screen is for navigation and control, but a self-driving car needs neither. And since cars in the near future will all be wifi spots, you'll use your own laptop or netbook, not the car screen for internet work. I'm unclear on what an iCar brings to the table.

GM, Ford, Toyota and VW have to be very concerned that their future competition is likely not each other but Silicon Valley. As cars become electric they turn into software projects more than automotive engineering projects - it's a big trick to get 30mpg out of a 650hp Corvette gas motor, but it's no big trick to get both mileage and performance out of an electric motor, you just use bigger magnets. Of course these new cars are by the liberals, for the liberals and of the liberals, that liberals may not perish from the earth. In the bulk of America, the low population density conservative "fly-over" portion, electric self-driving cars make almost no sense. However, we can foresee a time when farm equipment and long haul trucks are self-driving diesels and the latest Mercedes luxo-boxes do a credible job of self-driving on the freeway. Commercial aircraft already are pretty much self-driving; most of the latest crashes happen when the computers decide they can't handle things and then it turns out the foreign trained pilots can't either. Perhaps soon the Daytona 500 and Indy 500 record laps will be held by a computer. Will we cheer on a Charlotte 500 wire-to-wire race between Apple/Chevy and Google/Ford? Will the new Ford GT appear at the 24 hours of LeMans with self-driving features?


When will gasoline prices go back to $4/gallon? Maybe never. Depending on who you believe, sometime in 2016 to 2018 the price of solar energy drops below coal for energy generation. For those who are worried about global warming, the days of coal and oil are numbered. It's clear that in the next ten years we're going to see a revolution where new power grids let us generate solar power during the day in deserts like southern New Mexico and west Texas; store excess power for morning and evening use perhaps in mountainous regions like Colorado, and use the power all over the country for our new self-driving urban electric google or apple boxes. In fact a couple of people have speculated that this changeover will result in a massive stock market crash in 2016, the deepest ever seen, as energy companies like Exxon bite the dust, followed by a historic multi-decade bull market as we invest heavily in solar panels, a new smart electric grid, and all new transportation systems. Huge soviet-style apartment buildings will perhaps become "popular" as we move people from gas-guzzling suburbs into efficient cities. Will it happen? I dunno about market crashes, but companies and economies that are completely dependent on oil are clearly going to go into long-term decline. More than anything else this will bring peace to the planet as oil money is no longer available to fund muslim terrorism. And the oil states - Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Norway, Nigeria - they will be in real trouble if they can't find an alternative source of revenue. Perhaps new solar states will emerge - tropical countries that are near major economies might find they can generate and export solar power. Winners? Central America, Spain, Thailand and Vietnam. The US and Canada are major oil producers but we have other ways of making money, we'll recover. And coal, that amazingly cheap and nasty substance, that's going to stay in the ground where it belongs. Motor oil and plastics will more and more be synthesized from natural gas, not from oil or coal. I agree, we're at the dawn of a new era, and major changes like this require major shifts in markets. Look at the Fortune 10 - it's dominated by oil and car companies, Exxon-mobil (2), Chevron (3), GM (7), Ford (8), Valero (10), and all of these companies are vulnerable. Not all of them will successfully make the transition. I wonder how we'll get trucks, trains, ships and aircraft off oil dependency. This will take a bit more time than houses, buildings and urban cars, obviously.

At my college we had a saying, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Samsung's new SmartTV with voice activation has an interesting property - everything the TV hears is sent over the internet to third parties for analysis. So Samsung is quietly warning people to not discuss sensitive information near their TV. And that doesn't even count if your TV is hacked. Also police could get access to these recordings without ever showing you a warrant.

Samsung is having a bad news week. It seems Samsung signed a deal with Yahoo to insert pop up ads into shows on the SmarTV. These are popping up even when you show your own content, like a home movie.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several of my readers have encouraged me to including something like this. I wrote this originally as a reply to a professor at Cornell who asserts that the drought in California is caused by man-made CO2 emissions and was likely, according to his computer models, to persist for 20+ more years. This global warming computer model stuff is, imho, completely out of control, and the people promoting the models are fortune telling fear-mongering self-proclaimed wizards calling up spirits from the vasty deeps. They're the high priests of a low order. Feel free to copy this around.

Why I Don't believe in Global Warming and You Shouldn't Either
by Mark Lawrence
We're being told repeatedly that 2014 was the hottest year on record. 2014 just barely brought us back into the ±2 standard deviation model prediction range. This indicates there's a roughly 2.5% chance that the climate models are right and a 97.5% change that the models are garbage.


As of December 2014, the earth's actual temperature is far below the NASA model based on actual CO2 emissions and is tracking NASA's model for freezing C02 emissions at 2000 levels - actually a little below, and even more below if you prefer the data from the jokers at HadCRUT.


Perhaps I'm cheating and just using a particularly poor set of models? Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "have failed miserably." Spencer compared 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data. 95% of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)."


Why this failure of the models? Recently we've been told the heat is still building up, but it's being absorbed by the oceans and not visible in surface or atmospheric temperatures. Climate scientists claim that Pacific trade winds have caused the planet to stop warming. Stronger winds in the last two decades may have forced warmer water deeper while bringing cooler water to the surface. The NOAA has released a graph seemingly showing an exponential rise in ocean temperatures. The Y axis is labeled in Joules, a unit of energy, not temperature. Why Joules? When I convert the Y axis to degrees centigrade, the ocean temperature has risen by 0.036°c. I don't believe you can measure sea water in situ to that accuracy, and I don't believe you can lift sea water to the surface and maintain the temperature to that accuracy. That's why the Y axis is presented in Joules. 'Cause if it were degrees centigrade, we would all laugh.


As you see, the climate models suck. Seriously suck. -2 standard deviation suck. 95%+ suck. If Boeing's models sucked like that you would never get on an airplane. If the Fed's models sucked like that they would wind up doing something insanely stupid like buying $5 trillion of US bonds and no one would benefit but Wall Street bankers.

And what if the data is wrong and the models are right? What if Climate Change is, against all logic and measurement and odds, due to man made emissions? What happens if we don't actually cut our emissions in half and decimate our economy and lifestyle as the Climate Scientists demand? Well, here's another of their fine computer models of who gets hurt most by global warming:


Presuming the models mean anything at all, who gets hurt most by global warming? The very people who continue to breed irresponsibly and have six kids per "family." The very people who are most polluting their air and water, who are cutting down jungles and rain forests, who are dumping 8 million metric tons of plastic into the ocean every year and over-fishing them to near extinction levels. We're supposed to go back to a 1950s lifestyle so that Africa, India, SE Asia and Brazil can continue to be the real problem? Forget it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, this is 'way off topic, normally I don't go here. I'm not a religious person, but I am very spiritual; I believe we come back to earth repeatedly to polish ourselves and learn to handle ourselves and others with love and tolerance. I'm not very close to done. Here's an interview with a young muslim girl, the youngest person ever to win a Nobel prize (peace), and I'm here to tell you she's a couple thousand lives ahead of me. . . Malala was shot in the head at age 14 by the taliban for speaking out for education for girls. She recovered, and her voice has not been silenced. I Am Malala.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 14, 2015, 08:58:35 pm

Good stuff

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 15, 2015, 08:14:58 am

Run Hilary run. We need more sex scandals to engage us.

http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 15, 2015, 09:46:04 pm

Quote from: Keysbear on February 14, 2015, 03:07:46 pm

Otto.  That symbol after the words "smoot-hawley" in Jes' post is called a comma. You might want to look up what it means and how it effects the meaning of the sentence it appears in. Nowhere in Jes' post does he say who proposed smoot-Hawley.

Don't you think you are getting a bit hyper-technical by referring to what I actually did or did not write?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 16, 2015, 01:43:11 am

 Do you know who makes up my mind for me ?


 You do.


 Do you know who makes up your mind for you ?


 They do.


 Who is they in a media filled world in which every angle is played out in a non-stop scenario as to who is right and whose wrong in a plethora of endless information that you can never get a handle on.


 There will be more of it coming tomorrow ... in fact it will never end.


 Your goal is to try to stay on top of it in order to further whatever ideology that you espouse.


 The thing is you are never going to get there ... what you are espousing today will be changed by the top kicks tomorrow.


 You will never be up to date ...


 always one day behind in whatever ideology that you adhere to.


 Because of whatever ideology you adhere to ...


 A NEW ONE IS BEING INVENTED TOMORROW ...


 maybe you should find your soul.


 I need a light for my cigarette ... anybody got a match ?


 Jes ... are you up to giving your ol' buddy JJ a light ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm

HB legal aid

I thought that when you are proven wrong an admission of it would follow. What happened this time?

And if the minutia needs replaying I can repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.


When I was at the UW part of my course work include a biology class. I'm now considered a double major according to Run Paul.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 16, 2015, 05:38:17 pm

I think it is safe to say Homo's other major wasn't English.

And to think I didn't know that UW had a kindergarden.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 16, 2015, 05:48:11 pm

His double major was pants wetting and paste eating

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 06:31:26 pm

I'm very thankful that you older gentlemen can offer daily reaffirmations to each other. Its very important to to guard against caretaker over reliance like Mr. Cub.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 06:41:21 pm

HB legal aid


Can you clarify how many of the plaintiffs have standing in the King v. Burwell case*?










*Farce

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 06:50:19 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/16/rep-paul-ryans-double-standard-only-the-working-poor-must-comply-with-the-tax-code/?tid=HP_posteverything (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/16/rep-paul-ryans-double-standard-only-the-working-poor-must-comply-with-the-tax-code/?tid=HP_posteverything)


Good question .

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 16, 2015, 07:36:50 pm

Homo.  Can you tell us in what way businesses do not have to comply with the tax code?

You may cut and past if that is the best you can do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 17, 2015, 01:00:07 pm

When you can read the article correctly, and only until then, you may be able to ask a good question about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on February 17, 2015, 01:27:32 pm

So he can only ask a good question about it until he can read the article correctly? What happens after he reads it?

Being an idiot just comes easily to you, doesn't it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 17, 2015, 03:28:42 pm

Homo, I have read the article.  When you read it, can you tell me which businesses he referred to that do not have to comply with the tax code?

You don't have to use complete sentences, but don't let your participle dangle.  That is between you and your partner.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 17, 2015, 04:53:52 pm

Again, when you can ask an intelligent question regarding the article.

Hint, is it so hard for you to figure out the writers point or are you just going minutia boy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:24:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm

HB legal aid

I thought that when you are proven wrong an admission of it would follow. What happened this time?

I'm not sure who you are addressing, but if I had to bet, I would put money on the idea that what happened was that you hadn't proven anything.

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm

And if the minutia needs replaying I can repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.

If you are suggesting that you can repost your "proof," certainly you are free to do so, but you might want to bolster it a bit if your first effort was somewhat less than convincing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:26:33 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm

When I was at the UW part of my course work include a biology class. I'm now considered a double major according to Run Paul.

Could we see a transcript?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:32:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 06:41:21 pm

HB legal aid
Can you clarify how many of the plaintiffs have standing in the King v. Burwell case*?
*Farce

Who are you addressing, and if it is me, you need to revise it before I would bother with an answer.

Additionally, if it is me, is this a case I am somehow associated with have commented on here, or have reported on?  If is not one of those, why would you be asking me?  And if it IS one of those, and you are attempting to address me, have you generally found it effective to first insult someone when trying to ask them a question where you genuinely hoped to get an answer from them?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 17, 2015, 06:01:21 pm

Homo's idea of an answer is "so's your old man".

So, Homo, which are the businesses he referred to that do not have to comply with the tax code?  He didn't spell them out or mention even one example, but I bet a product of the University of Wisconsin preschool program like you can give some examples.

By the way, do you actually have a diploma from the University of Wisconsin preschool program?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 09:19:21 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-rebrands-obamas-frat-house-as-her-own/2015/02/17/1d0ab0fc-b6e8-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 18, 2015, 05:00:01 am

Same old bucket, just a different handle..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 18, 2015, 06:10:34 pm

HB legal aid

I see your managing Run Paul's Pinterest page since it was taken down for sexist content.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 18, 2015, 07:17:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 18, 2015, 06:10:34 pm

HB legal aid

I see your managing Run Paul's Pinterest page since it was taken down for sexist content.

Ron Paul's Pinterest page.  Now there's some important **** to be concerned about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 18, 2015, 09:17:31 pm

11.4 Million PPACA sign ups and counting...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 18, 2015, 09:19:49 pm

Hey Homo.  Which small businesses don't have to follow the tax code.  You can cut and paste if you can't actually read the article.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 18, 2015, 10:15:15 pm

Davebart


Can you articulate the point of the article or not?

Last chance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 18, 2015, 10:24:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 18, 2015, 09:17:31 pm

11.4 Million PPACA sign ups and counting...

Incredible what people will do under threat of government force.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 18, 2015, 10:33:27 pm

Homo.  don't embarrass yourself any more than you have to.  Just answer the question.  The article you posted said that there were some small businesses that didn't have to follow the tax code.

Which small businesses don't have to follow the tax code, and which parts do they not have to follow.

Even someone as illiterate as you should be able to answer one simple question.  Ask your mommy to help you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 19, 2015, 03:36:40 am

 Sickest pun joke ever told :


 There was a friar in a monastery who decided to raise flowers as a side job ...


 well the side job got so big that he neglected his friar duty's.


 The other friars in the monastery asked him to quit and go back to his duty's but he ignored them and continued to sell flowers.


 Finally the other friars figured they better get him back into line so they called in Hugh the ogre to give him a scare.


 Hugh the ogre did such a good job of scaring him that he gave up selling flowers and went back to full time friar duty's.


 And do you know what the moral of the story is ?


 ONLY HUGH CAN PREVENT FLORIST FRIARS !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 19, 2015, 07:03:17 am

Quote from: otto105 on February 18, 2015, 10:15:15 pm

Davebart
Can you articulate the point of the article or not?
Last chance.

otto, why should someone other than YOU articulate the point of an article YOU post?  So far it appears you have not articulated it.  Are you just asking for help in doing so?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 19, 2015, 07:05:08 am

Quote from: Keysbear on February 18, 2015, 10:24:57 pm

Incredible what people will do under threat of government force.

And even then it is far less than what the program supporters predicted, and far less than what they said would be needed for the program to be considered successful.  Didn't supporters say they would want at east 14M in the first year to be considered successful?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on February 19, 2015, 07:27:57 am

I have experienced the rationed health care but not the lower premiums promised.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 19, 2015, 07:51:34 am

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/021815-739840-obama-touts-114-million-sign-ups-for-obamacare.htm#disqus_thread

In a staged video released on Tuesday, HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell tells President Obama that 11.4 million had signed up through ObamaCare exchanges in its second year.
"The Affordable Care Act is working," Obama says. "It's working a little bit better than we anticipated."
He goes on to say how this number "gives you some sense of how hungry people were out there for affordable, accessible health insurance."
Actually, it doesn't show either of those things.
First, that 11.4 million number is just as bogus as the 8 million number Obama was extolling last year.
In both cases, the administration simply counted all those who picked plans, not those who have actually paid for insurance. When they finally produced an accurate count last year, the number was 6.7 million. If that same drop-off occurs this year, the real enrollment number will be more like 9.5 million.
That's about where the administration's lowered forecast put it, and significantly below the Congressional Budget Office's 13 million forecast.
So much for working "better than we anticipated."
Even if 11.4 million had signed up, this is hardly a sign that the law is a big success.
Before ObamaCare, roughly 16 million owned insurance on the individual market — and they all managed to buy it without any government hand-holding or taxpayer-subsidized premiums. Even if you count those who bought plans off the exchanges, the number today isn't much changed from that.
And a new Heritage Foundation study finds that, while the individual market has expanded, it's largely because ObamaCare has pushed millions off their employer plans. Heritage found that in the first nine months of last year, the individual market increased by 5.8 million, but 4.9 million had lost employer coverage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 19, 2015, 09:01:42 am

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/18/white-house-overhypes-obamacare-enrollme

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 19, 2015, 09:59:09 am

Of course they would

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 19, 2015, 04:39:43 pm

otto, I asked you three questions on the 17th.  So far you have not responded.

The links to my three posts are as follow:
http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/4775/

http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg211207/#msg211207

http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg211207/#msg211207

Could you perhaps respond?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 04:57:19 pm

Having a discussion with you, minutia boy,  over when America became on economic powerhouse is laughable. Your period includes lower education rates, lower economic activity and misses entirely our most important economic driver....the Middle Class.


Until you can reconcile that any so called discussion with you is pointless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 05:05:29 pm

Keysbart

Final PPACA  numbers from last year 9.6M signups/8.4M paid.

Numbers as of 2/18/2015 11.65M with many state exchanges still open.


But you just continue to eat paste and cut.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 05:07:57 pm

HB legal aid


Prove post #4788.


I'll wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 19, 2015, 06:11:58 pm

Hey Homo - did you ever get a chance to read the article you posted?  If so, did you find out what small businesses do not have to follow the tax code.

It seems like a very simple article.  Are you too stupid to read it, or are you just afraid to answer.

Of course, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on February 19, 2015, 06:40:19 pm

honestly, I don't know anyone who has insurance now because of Obamacare that didn't have it before.
I expect there are some kids in the 22-26yo range that can still get under their parent's plan but as far as someone that didn't have insurance before that has insurance now that Obamacare has just saved them, I don't know anyone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 07:14:06 pm

Davebart

Love the complete level of stupidity presented by you. Can YOU point to the part of the article which generates your question?

Because its clear you can't explain unreported income.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 19, 2015, 07:22:51 pm

What unreported income are YOU talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 09:57:29 pm

I'm wondering why you had nothing once again to offer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 19, 2015, 11:13:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 07:14:06 pm

Davebart

Love the complete level of stupidity presented by you. Can YOU point to the part of the article which generates your question?

Because its clear you can't explain unreported income.

No problem Homo.  This is the quote from the article.

The poor must comply with the tax code. The business community? Not so much.

But he doesn't say who in the business community does not have to comply with the tax code and how.  Can you give us the specifics that he seems to have omitted?  You can have your partner help you with spelling and grammar if he went to an out of state school.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 20, 2015, 07:30:41 am

•“Liberal cable news host Chris Matthews called out American apathy in the wake of the latest Islamic State massacre, saying the United States is being “morally humiliated” by the terrorists,” noted National Review Online. “Islamists associated with the Islamic State murdered 21 innocent Egyptian Christians in Libya on February 15, filming their mass beheading and posting the video online.”
 
“Can we do nothing?” the MSNBC host asked. ”Can we just look at the pictures, ask what’s for supper? What’s on TV tonight? What’s the weather like tomorrow morning? And go on with our lives warding off the knowledge that these people are being killed in demonstration against us?”
 
“I know, we all know we need a plan,” Matthews continued. “We need a route that takes us to a destroyed ISIS, because the alternative is too sick, too un-American, too un-human. We can’t see people killed like this in our face and simply flip to the sports page or the financial news or what’s at the movies or who’s going to win the Oscars and act like America, our country, is not being morally humiliated.”
 
“Because it is, with the lives of at least some of these people, who must, in their last minutes, have to be wondering if there’s any chance the people in the United States could be coming to their rescue,” he said. “Because that’s how we were taught that we conduct ourselves. We don’t leave people behind.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on February 20, 2015, 07:37:05 am

The White House is out of control stupid.

The islamic extremists just need jobs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 20, 2015, 07:49:16 am

Quote from: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 05:05:29 pm

Keysbart

Final PPACA  numbers from last year 9.6M signups/8.4M paid.

Numbers as of 2/18/2015 11.65M with many state exchanges still open.


But you just continue to eat paste and cut.

If you think those are good numbers than you are easily satisfied. How many are still uninsured? How many people that didn't have insurance before have it now? Counting people who lost their coverage due to Obamacare and then had no other choice but to sign up lest they face the government fines is disingenuous but not at all unexpected from this administration.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 20, 2015, 07:53:52 am

Quote from: davebear on February 20, 2015, 07:37:05 am

The White House is out of control stupid.

The islamic extremists just need jobs.

Don't worry...I'm sure that we are sending a group from Kelly Services over there to host a job fair. All is well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 20, 2015, 08:20:02 am

Then they can count them as well in the AHCA sign ups..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 20, 2015, 05:28:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 05:07:57 pm

HB legal aid
Prove post #4788.
I'll wait.

otto, who are you asking to prove what I posted?

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 19, 2015, 07:05:08 am

And even then it is far less than what the program supporters predicted, and far less than what they said would be needed for the program to be considered successful.  Didn't supporters say they would want at east 14M in the first year to be considered successful?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 20, 2015, 05:55:43 pm

otto, yesterday afternoon I posted the following:

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 19, 2015, 04:39:43 pm

otto, I asked you three questions on the 17th.  So far you have not responded.

The links to my three posts are as follow:
http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/4775/

http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg211207/#msg211207

http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg211207/#msg211207

Could you perhaps respond?

Nothing in that post, or in any of posts that post linked to were in any way insulting or constituted any personal attack.

Your response was the following:

Quote from: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 04:57:19 pm

Having a discussion with you, minutia boy,  over when America became on economic powerhouse is laughable. Your period includes lower education rates, lower economic activity and misses entirely our most important economic driver....the Middle Class.

Until you can reconcile that any so called discussion with you is pointless.

For the moment I'll ignore your effort at a personal attack and simply point out that your response only attempts to respond to one of the three posts.

For ease of reference, the three posts I yesterday asked you to respond to were as follows:

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:32:03 pm

Who are you addressing, and if it is me, you need to revise it before I would bother with an answer.

Additionally, if it is me, is this a case I am somehow associated with have commented on here, or have reported on?  If is not one of those, why would you be asking me?  And if it IS one of those, and you are attempting to address me, have you generally found it effective to first insult someone when trying to ask them a question where you genuinely hoped to get an answer from them?

To keep things clear the post from you I was responding to read as follows:

Quote

HB legal aid
Can you clarify how many of the plaintiffs have standing in the King v. Burwell case*?  *Farce

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:26:33 pm

Could we see a transcript?   

That was in response to the claim you made in a now deleted post that you earned a "double major... at the UW."

Your deletion of that post also appears to have created a problem in accessing via the 2nd of the 3 posts of mine I yesterday asked you a 2nd time to respond to, or at least a problem in accessing them via the links I posted.

That 2nd post of mine, also asking questions you have chosed to ignore only makes sense if it includes the portion of your original posts I was responding to.  For that reason, I am including your port of my post in red italics.

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:24:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm
HB legal aid

I thought that when you are proven wrong an admission of it would follow. What happened this time?

I'm not sure who you are addressing, but if I had to bet, I would put money on the idea that what happened was that you hadn't proven anything.

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm
And if the minutia needs replaying I can repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.

If you are suggesting that you can repost your "proof," certainly you are free to do so, but you might want to bolster it a bit if your first effort was somewhat less than convincing.

So in short I don't really see where ANY of my three quetions to you in any way dealt with "when America became on economic powerhouse," (I gave up that exhange as utterly pointless) meaning all three of them remain for your response.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 20, 2015, 05:56:56 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 07:14:06 pm

Davebart
Love the complete level of stupidity presented by you. Can YOU point to the part of the article which generates your question?
Because its clear you can't explain unreported income.

Why did his question need to have been generated by the article?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on February 20, 2015, 09:02:40 pm

Not to support Otto in anything but I am sure there are all kinds of small businesses (landscapers, mechanics, plumbers, barbers etc) that when they get paid in cash never report it as income. I think that is one of the keys to usher in the mark of the beast. A cashless society where the govt can track all the money. No one can buy or sell without it, use it to story medical history, reduce identity theft, reduce illegals etc. It will appear to solve all kinds of issues.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 20, 2015, 09:42:24 pm

And believe it or not, there are probably quite a few individuals that fail to report income they get when paid in cash.  And I have heard of one or two people that fail to report any profit they make when they sell something on Ebay.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 21, 2015, 06:55:04 am

Nav, we're definately moving in that direction. Cash money will become worthless and everything will be done electronically, making it easy to control trade. Technology right now is advanced enough to control darned near everything we do, and to track where we go and who we talk to. The mark on the right hand or forehead will show allegiance to the antichrist and allow trade. But: Revelation 14:9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 21, 2015, 06:04:29 pm

HB legal aid


Love the boring moron posts! I've never laughed harder.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 21, 2015, 07:08:39 pm

At least he answers questions.  He doesn't hide from them like Home does.

Hey Homo.  Which businesses do not have to follow the tax codes.  That should be a simple enough question for a simple guy like you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 21, 2015, 10:13:29 pm

Quote from: Sportster on February 21, 2015, 06:55:04 am

Nav, we're definately moving in that direction. Cash money will become worthless and everything will be done electronically, making it easy to control trade. Technology right now is advanced enough to control darned near everything we do, and to track where we go and who we talk to. The mark on the right hand or forehead will show allegiance to the antichrist and allow trade. But: Revelation 14:9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

Revelations is proof folks have been using mind altering drugs for at least two thousand years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2015, 06:45:32 am

Unfortunately regardless what is found or what conclusions are reached, those who hold some other belief now will reject them.  Many will only believe what they want to believe.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA
re government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.

    @caerbannog666 expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise
    — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 20, 2015

Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate.

Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming. Lately, the California Republican has criticizing NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for allegedly tampering with temperature data to create an artificial warming trend. Such data is then used to justify regulations aimed at curbing fossil fuel use and other industrial activities.

    @grngamine journalist investigation shows records of various weather stations altered by AGW advocates to make it appear to be warming.
    — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015

    @caerbannog666 U seem unaware of latest revelation of data manipulation. NASA reported higher temp than what was record at weather stations
    — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015

Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.

“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”

For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.

Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.

“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.

“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”

NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.

“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.

Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.

But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”

“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.

UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.

“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 22, 2015, 01:25:13 pm

I like this strategy.  Do something aggressive.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865622533/Republicans-should-abolish-filibuster-now-challenge-president.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 22, 2015, 01:47:17 pm

I agree with that article. Et tu Harry.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2015, 06:07:29 pm

Quote from: packrat on February 22, 2015, 01:25:13 pm

I like this strategy.  Do something aggressive.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865622533/Republicans-should-abolish-filibuster-now-challenge-president.html

And when the Republicans are once again out of the majority?

The founding fathers deliberately designed a cumbersome system, one which did not move abruptly or quickly, or respomd too readily to the momentary passions of a simple majority, and which was further limited by the Bill of Rights and other restrictions on the exercise of government power.

The problem is not one of it having beome too difficult for a majority to effect its will.

There are tools enough for a majority to accomplish what is needed.  Changing long standing accepted procedures to achieve short term goals which could otherwise be achieved and which in the process make it easier the next time for a simple majority to defeat the delicate balance created by the founders would be a corruption those now calling for it would sorely regret.

The current fillibuster rules are essentially a crude method of reimposing some of the institutional roadblocks to federal action which were created by having the Senate representing not the people of the states, but the states themselves.  Krauthammer's proposal is not even one intended to effect good policy, but simply to apportion political blame: Abolish the filibuster.  Then immediately pass the House homeland security bill and send it to the president. He is likely to veto it, but the politics will have been radically changed. The current storyline is: Republican Congress won't fund DHS, threatening to shut it down. New storyline: Obama vetoes funding for DHS, threatening to shut it down.  The latter narrative is more accurate: Democrats are stopping the funding. Moreover, a presidential veto would lead to a more fair allocation of blame.

This is incredibly shortsighted and reveals Krauthammer as little more than a partisan hack, unconcerned with longterm consequences and focusing exclusively on the short term partisan benefit or loss.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2015, 06:14:36 pm

Oh, and, yes, if it were in my control I would repeal the 17th Amendment and end mandatory direct election of the Senate, leaving states free to have Senators appointed by state legislatures or governors.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2015, 06:38:28 pm

otto, once more, with feeling, three days ago, I posted the following:
otto, I asked you three questions on the 17th.  So far you have not responded.

Quote

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 19, 2015, 04:39:43 pm
The links to my three posts are as follow:
http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/4775/
http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg211207/#msg211207
http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg211207/#msg211207
Could you perhaps respond?

Nothing in that post, or in any of posts that post linked to were in any way insulting or constituted any personal attack.  Your response was the following:

Quote

Quote from: otto105 on February 19, 2015, 04:57:19 pm
Having a discussion with you, minutia boy,  over when America became on economic powerhouse is laughable. Your period includes lower education rates, lower economic activity and misses entirely our most important economic driver....the Middle Class.  Until you can reconcile that any so called discussion with you is pointless.

For the moment I'll ignore your effort at a personal attack and simply point out that your response only attempts to respond to one of the three posts.  For ease of reference, the three posts I yesterday asked you to respond to were as follow:

Quote

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:32:03 pm
    Who are you addressing, and if it is me, you need to revise it before I would bother with an answer.
    Additionally, if it is me, is this a case I am somehow associated with have commented on here, or have reported on?  If is not one of those, why would you be asking me?  And if it IS one of those, and you are attempting to address me, have you generally found it effective to first insult someone when trying to ask them a question where you genuinely hoped to get an answer from them?

To keep things clear the post from you I was responding to read as follows:

Quote

HB legal aid
Can you clarify how many of the plaintiffs have standing in the King v. Burwell case*?  *Farce

Quote

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:26:33 pm
    Could we see a transcript?   

That was in response to the claim you made in a now deleted post that you earned a "double major... at the UW."

Your deletion of that post also appears to have created a problem in accessing via the 2nd of the 3 posts of mine I three days ago asked you a 2nd time to respond to, or at least a problem in accessing them via the links I posted.

That 2nd post of mine, also asking questions you have chosen to ignore only makes sense if it includes the portion of your original posts I was responding to.  For that reason, I am including your port of my post in red italics.

Quote

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 17, 2015, 05:24:31 pm

    Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm
    HB legal aid

    I thought that when you are proven wrong an admission of it would follow. What happened this time?

    I'm not sure who you are addressing, but if I had to bet, I would put money on the idea that what happened was that you hadn't proven anything.

    Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm
    And if the minutia needs replaying I can repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.

    If you are suggesting that you can repost your "proof," certainly you are free to do so, but you might want to bolster it a bit if your first effort was somewhat less than convincing.

So in short I don't really see where ANY of my three questions to you in any way dealt with "when America became on economic powerhouse," (I gave up that exhange as utterly pointless) meaning all three of them remain for your response.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2015, 07:52:14 pm

(https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/p600x600/10641017_862337647159699_8906811916134041165_n.jpg?oh=682863febfc3ac7a2a6a956ce1b14c54&oe=558C70DD)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 22, 2015, 08:43:34 pm

I would use the same rules to get rid of obamacare the funding off allowing illegal immigrants to that the Dems used to pass it.  No need for anything further.

The problem is the leaders of the Republican party are no different then the Democrats.  They want power and to weld it with out listening to the people.  We need more conservatives and less RINO's and Democrats.  We finally control both houses but it means nothing because the Republican leadership are not conservatives.  They are Democrat light. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2015, 08:59:49 pm

Quote from: Pekin on February 22, 2015, 08:43:34 pm

The problem is the leaders of the Republican party are no different then the Democrats.  They want power and to weld it with out listening to the people.

So how is it that the current leaders of the Republican Party get any additional power by leaving ObamaCare in place?

And if the Supreme Court is set to strike the heart of the plan by the end of June, would it make a great deal of sense to spend the political capital required to repeal it before then, and to suffer the political fallout from it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 22, 2015, 09:17:12 pm

Government grows and becomes more powerful. That increases their power.  Which is the reason government always keeps growing.

I simply have zero confidence the law will be struck down.  I was hoping it would be last time and they ruled it a tax.  I will not be fooled again.  I sadly believe we are on the march to socialism and losing our rights.  That natural order of man in a society is oppression.  Sadly we are heading that way.  Our constitution held it off but now that it is being ignored we are headed that way again.     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2015, 12:47:02 am

But those who are not controlling the mechanisms of a government agency (such as those in a party not controlling the executive branch) do not become more powerful simply because government grows.  In fact they may well beome less significant and less powerful.

I have no doubt that you have accurately set out your beliefs.  You merely have not done anything remotely close to coherently explaining the reason for those beliefs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 23, 2015, 04:16:01 am

 SUCKERS !


 Who think they are in charge that will NEVER be in charge.


 CRETINS personifying on boards that will lead to NOTHING!


 YOU ARE HERE !!


 YOU ... are the audience of which you have no control over.


 An audience of your own mind on an internet in which you have no influence ...


 but the satisfaction of your own ego by posting.


 But let me ask you this most important question while you are blazing away at each other on this GOD given Human made idea of this we call the INTERNET...


 What are you doing for your children ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 23, 2015, 04:25:50 am

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E12YAuAYjLQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E12YAuAYjLQ)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 23, 2015, 10:37:21 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on February 23, 2015, 12:47:02 am

But those who are not controlling the mechanisms of a government agency (such as those in a party not controlling the executive branch) do not become more powerful simply because government grows.  In fact they may well beome less significant and less powerful.

I have no doubt that you have accurately set out your beliefs.  You merely have not done anything remotely close to coherently explaining the reason for those beliefs.

Not true.  When the government grows in power and scope, both parties gain power, since no party stays in power forever, and sooner or later the other guys will gain control of the larger government.

And, of course, with the larger government comes a greater amount of bribe (campaign) money paid to politicians of both parties.  Even the losing side usually gets to stuff things inside a bill that have nothing to do with the purported purpose of that bill.  Rock and Roll HOF in Cleveland.  Cowboy HOF in Oklahoma.  Bridges to Nowhere.  The more money a politician can gather, the greater their power.  The various "Leadership Pacs" of the Speaker, Committee Chairmen, etc expands their power exponentially, since they then pass that money out to individual Congressman in need of Campaign Funds.

A major source of power is the tax code, which is so massive and complex that it is easy to hide "favors" to businesses or individuals in the form of tax breaks, something that would be difficult with the "Fair Tax", which is why we will never see it implemented.

Both sides would lose much of their power if it came into being.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2015, 02:36:06 pm

Quote from: davep on February 23, 2015, 10:37:21 am

Not true.  When the government grows in power and scope, both parties gain power, since no party stays in power forever, and sooner or later the other guys will gain control of the larger government.

And, of course, with the larger government comes a greater amount of bribe (campaign) money paid to politicians of both parties.  Even the losing side usually gets to stuff things inside a bill that have nothing to do with the purported purpose of that bill.  Rock and Roll HOF in Cleveland.  Cowboy HOF in Oklahoma.  Bridges to Nowhere.  The more money a politician can gather, the greater their power.  The various "Leadership Pacs" of the Speaker, Committee Chairmen, etc expands their power exponentially, since they then pass that money out to individual Congressman in need of Campaign Funds.

A major source of power is the tax code, which is so massive and complex that it is easy to hide "favors" to businesses or individuals in the form of tax breaks, something that would be difficult with the "Fair Tax", which is why we will never see it implemented.

Both sides would lose much of their power if it came into being.

My comments were rather clearly directed to ObamaCare, and I still am quite comfortable with them.

None of the Republican Congressional leadership is made more powerful, enriched or accorded higher status by virtue of its passage, though they likely would achieve that trifecta if they were to defeat it.  Pekin's conclusion that they actually support it because it "increases their power," appears to be a conclusion at odds with the facts.  And your conclusion that "(w)hen the government grows in power and scope, both parties gain power, since no party stays in power forever, and sooner or later the other guys will gain control of the larger government," seems to ignore the fact that power is a relative thing, and the important thing is often less a matter of how much aggregate power one has than it is how much power one has compared to others in the political process... it also seems to ignore the fact that if your position reflected reailty there would have been a rush by both parties to nationalize health care 100 years ago when such things were first discussed.  In fact there would be virtually no real obstacle by either party to absolute totalitarianism on any and all issues -- economic, cultural, social, moral, you name it.

You are both far more fatalistic than makes sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 23, 2015, 04:07:00 pm

Everyone has their priorities.  Nothing that you said refutes the fact that in general, the larger the government, the more powerful are the people that run that government.  Power is indeed relative, but increased power is more power, even though someone else has even more.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2015, 04:26:52 pm

So, davep, since you believe Boehner and McConnell actually support larger government, since that means more powerful government and makes them more powerful, why would they not have supported a far more expansive plan in 2010?  Why not complete nationalized health care?  The problem with your explanation is that it is clearly at odds with reality and does not explain what it purports to explain.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 23, 2015, 06:27:23 pm

They didn't support more expansive plans because the people that elected them would probably have thrown them out.

In general, a great many of the Republicans in the house and senate do not want a small federal government.  They merely want a large Republican federal government.  Government spending under Bush went up substantially.  Government spending authorized by the Republican House still goes up.  It isn't necessary for every single one to want government expansion.  All that is required is that a majority would rather increase government spending rather than lose their jobs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 23, 2015, 06:43:34 pm

Mark's Market Blog
2-22-15: Greece and Peace!
by Mark Lawrence
Putin has Agreed to a Cease Fire in Ukraine! The Greeks Will Be Cowed by the Germans and Pay Their Debts! All the big threats are behind us. The markets shot upwards to new record levels - the S&P breaking 2100 and the DOW breaking 18,000 - on very unconvincing volume. Is this it? Volatility is behind us and we can now look forward to a year of uninterrupted gains? Not bloody likely. imho. Putin's record on keeping his promises is not very reassuring, and Greece simply cannot afford to pay back these debts, either financially or politically.
 
S&P 500 September 1 2014 to February 20 2015
Greece and the EU agreed to a 4 month extension on bailout funding for Greece, subject to Greece presenting an austerity plan tomorrow. Then they'll have four more months to spit at each other. Greece has been offered $3b in emergency bank loans, far less than then $10b they had asked for, and the Germans insist that all loans must be paid back in full. I can't see how they can ever pay back these loans. Greek GDP is down by 25% in the last seven years, and their unemployment is 27%. Tsipras was elected on a platform that Greece would determine their own economic future without "the humiliation of foreigners dictating Greek economic policy." The Greeks are still having to submit plans for approval. The Greek voters are said to be furious at Syriza for selling them "illusions," but they're happy they're still in the Euro. I can't see a path to Greece recovering economically while in the euro zone, and they have people more than smart enough to see this same thing.

Germany, France and Russia agreed to a cease fire in Ukraine. Russia never stopped fighting, and bragged that Russian forces had captured Debaltseve. There's also a puch near Mariupol, which obviously would be intended to join up with Crimea. Obviously what the cease fire means is that Germany and France have no stomach for a fight, and Putin correctly read this. Rumors fly fast and furious that he'll invade the Baltics next - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Will he? Why not? Who's going to stop him? Dr.Doom? (oh, sorry, he lives in Latveria.) The truth is this is a ground war on Russia's borders and I don't believe any combination of NATO forces can stop him unless we attack Russia directly, most likely starting WW III. Russia has been building up their army for several years and it's really quite impressive compared to NATOs ground forces. I think it's bad policy to threaten if you're not willing to back it up.


A nuclear deal with Iran is taking shape - apparently we've tentatively agreed that they can have 6500 centrifuges, which is enough to make a bomb a year or perhaps a bit better. The US doesn't have any centrifuges - if we want enhanced uranium, we buy it from Russia. It's not at all clear that there will be a deal with Iran; it's not at all clear that congress would ratify any deal Obama negotiated; it's not at all clear that Iran would honor a deal. I think we're being played. It seems more and more clear that Iran is working with N.Korea, and every N.Korea nuclear test has Iranian help and scientists and is a joint test. Basically Obama thinks he can negotiate that they will be a year away from a bomb forever and that he'll know when they start building one; I think they already have a bomb or two. If I were president these negotiations would have ended a couple years ago; I would have said "In a month you will have no capabilities to build a bomb. Would you like to agree to that, or would you like me to take care of that for you?" Well, that sounds nice but if they already have bombs in N.Korea I don't know what I would do about it. If you attack N.Korea, you lose Seoul. In about 24 hours. Seoul is about 80% of the economic activity of S.Korea. China seems to think it's perfectly ok for all these nutcases to have bombs. I think they're making a huge mistake - a nuclear war affects all of us. But then the Chinese put poison in their own children's milk, what do they care if a bunch of Europeans die of fallout? Or Chinese, for that matter. I'm confident they have a plan for the "important" people to survive a couple bombs on the Korean peninsula.

After attacks on Jews in both France and Belgium, Israel is calling for European Jews to immigrate. If I were a European Jew, perhaps I would leave Europe; especially the Scandinavian countries. But I don't think I'd go to Israel, 'cause I'm not sure Israel will still be around in ten years.

In December investors started dumping Canadian securities and bonds, withdrawing $13.5B from the country. Two-thirds of that money was bonds. Canadians also started moving money across the border, buying nearly $15b of US bonds. The Bank of Canada has warned about a Canadian housing bubble and what an implosion would do to the banks. Then in January, oil-and-gas data provider CanOils said "less than 20%" of the top 50 Canadian oil companies would be able to sustain operations with oil at US$50 per barrel.

Apparently ISIL has a new trick: after they cut people's heads off, they have doctors remove kidneys and livers to sell to the transplant market. Bodies are turning up in mass graves with incisions and missing pieces.

Obama refuses to call ISIL an islamic nation, saying they're just a bunch of terrorists. Yet thousands are gathering to ISIL from all over the world - Europe, US, Australia, S.America. What's the attraction? The koran says that if a devout muslim gets control of some territory and starts a true islamic republic, then he must declare he's a caliph and all muslims world wide owe him allegiance. This has happened in ISIL. Furthermore their territory includes the Syrian city of Dabiq - the place where the prophesied muslim apocalypse will happen. The prophecy maintains that after a battle in Dabiq, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul, then cover the entire Earth. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate's fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus — the second-most-revered prophet in islam — will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory. As you see, Jesus is going to be a very busy guy, what with killing off both the anti-christ and the Dajjal and then apparently ruling both a christian and a muslim paradise on earth. Curious that Jesus would be the chosen executioner by so many.

India just dedicated a multi-billion dollar plan to modernize their navy to counter Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean. They're intending to build six nuclear powered submarines ($8b), and a whole mess of frigates. There can't be a WW III until everyone is ready, and we're a few years away from that. You can't have a proper party until everyone has bought their party dress.

Thailand just bought an aircraft carrier for much the same reason. Unfortunately, Thailand has no jets than can land on a carrier and no pilots that are trained. Perhaps you can rent it out for a birthday bash / touch football game.

Oil and gas prices are up in the last couple of weeks. Have we seen the bottom? I don't think so. We're still producing more oil each day than the world is using, and oil storage facilities are 80% - 85% full. Some hedge funds are renting oil tankers to hold oil in hopes of a price rebound. When the storage facilities are completely full then either oil production or oil prices must drop. As of right now, oil production is continuing to increase. Goldman says oil will bottom at $39. Citi says $20. Gary Shilling says $10. Expect to see gas prices back below $2/gallon soon. Perhaps much lower, possibly approaching $1 in some places.

Walmart announced that their minimum wage in 2015 would be $9, rising to $10 for current employees in 2016. This is putting pressure on McDonalds to raise wages if they want to continue to have their choice of employees. And it means the Fed now has some concrete evidence that the labor market is tightening, raising the chances of an interest rate increase this year.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 23, 2015, 07:51:09 pm

Global Warming Watch:
 February 20 2015 set new records in 72 locations for the coldest temperature ever recorded. New York's new record is 2 degrees.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 23, 2015, 08:10:40 pm

Watch for more temperature tampering to further the global warming goals

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 23, 2015, 09:19:34 pm

Quote from: packrat on February 23, 2015, 07:51:09 pm

Global Warming Watch:
 February 20 2015 set new records in 72 locations for the coldest temperature ever recorded. New York's new record is 2 degrees.

It's odd that you didn't mention the record warm temps in the western part of the US this month.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 23, 2015, 09:34:32 pm

Strange the troll didn't mention the record cold from New England to Texas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 23, 2015, 10:22:20 pm

An old troll fullofit


Is just trolling the phaxnews channel today with the stupid watters "reporter" on the streets of Boston. Old dude...

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-sees-a-warm-winter-us-west/#.VOv8Q8awCxo (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-sees-a-warm-winter-us-west/#.VOv8Q8awCxo)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 23, 2015, 10:27:40 pm

Anybody check the fairly unbalanced "NEWS" today for the report on law breaking from the incredibility shrinking fat guy from NJ or the fact they don't care to enough to be an actual news outlet by firing a reporter who clearly has lied about past.

Even NBC had more respect for itself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 23, 2015, 10:35:19 pm

legal aid


When republic pols offer a bill to give a voting card to EVERY PERSON IN AMERICAN TO VOTE I will take your lame post serious.

Until then, not so much.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 23, 2015, 10:52:59 pm

Homo - by every person in America to vote" do you include non-citizens?  I personally think it would be a great idea for every state to require a picture ID in order for every citizen to vote.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 24, 2015, 08:16:17 am

Quote from: otto105 on February 23, 2015, 10:35:19 pm

legal aid


When republic pols offer a bill to give a voting card to EVERY PERSON IN AMERICAN TO VOTE I will take your lame post serious.

Until then, not so much.

Ya know dodo bird that felons aren't allowed to vote as well as people trying to vote several times and non-citizens. You need to prove you are ELGIBLE to vote. Its why voter ID's are an excellent tool to stop voter fraud.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 24, 2015, 08:39:40 am

Quote from: otto105 on February 23, 2015, 10:27:40 pm

Even NBC had more respect for itself.

Now that's funny...can you quack like a duck?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Keysbear on February 24, 2015, 08:50:39 am

The JV team strikes again...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/activists-is-militants-kidnap-dozens-of-christians-in-syria/ar-BBhUuu4



BEIRUT (AP) — Islamic State militants have abducted at least 70 Christians, including women and children, after overrunning a string of villages in northeastern Syria, activists and relatives said Tuesday.

The Sunni extremists, who follow a radical interpretation of Islam, have repeatedly targeted religious and ethnic minorities in Syria and Iraq since seizing control of large swaths of both countries. The group's fighters have ransacked churches, demolished Shiite and Sunni Muslim shrines, and enslaved women of the Yazidi community, a tiny sect IS considers heretical.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 24, 2015, 10:48:30 am

Quote

  The US doesn't have any centrifuges - if we want enhanced uranium, we buy it from Russia.   

Not smart, at all. Same goes for relying on them for the engines for our space program....

ISIS will get worse until we get serious about wiping them off this planet and Obama doesn't appear concerned. Maybe if they wipe enough Muslims out, he'll get there.....until then, just give them jobs.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on February 24, 2015, 12:20:44 pm

DOJ Announces No Charges Against George Zimmerman...

"Federal prosecutors concluded there is not sufficient evidence to prove Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman in Sanford, Fla., intentionally violated Martin’s civil rights, sources told ABC News."

Well no ****...  I wonder how much of my tax dollars were spent on this stupidity?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 24, 2015, 01:00:23 pm

None. All were spent from Oddo'd taxes, but he probably doesn't pay any.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 24, 2015, 01:13:12 pm

The guy is found innocent, he is tried in another court. Found innocent, drag him before another one...innocent. Push civil rights nonsense on him, innocent. How many fricking more times is this going to go round the same block?? The Obama admin is determined to find this guy guilty come hell or high water

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on February 24, 2015, 02:06:59 pm

I am sure there are plenty of other things they can pin on him.  They just want to save face.

Zimmerman certainly isn't a model citizen but in this case he didn't do anything wrong.  Find something else to pin on him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 24, 2015, 07:12:26 pm

Same old ****, fan the race card..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 24, 2015, 07:46:58 pm

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/intersection-three-crises?mc_cid=b4d47921da&mc_eid=06e6f72c93

Within the past two weeks, a temporary deal to keep Greece in the eurozone was reached in Brussels, a cease-fire roadmap was agreed to in Minsk and Iranian negotiators advanced a potential nuclear deal in Geneva. Squadrons of diplomats have forestalled one geopolitical crisis after another. Yet it would be premature, even reckless, to assume that the fault lines defining these issues are effectively stable. Understanding how these crises are inextricably linked is the first step toward assessing when and where the next flare-up is likely to occur.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 24, 2015, 10:47:25 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on February 24, 2015, 07:46:58 pm

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/intersection-three-crises?mc_cid=b4d47921da&mc_eid=06e6f72c93 (https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/intersection-three-crises?mc_cid=b4d47921da&mc_eid=06e6f72c93)

Within the past two weeks, a temporary deal to keep Greece in the eurozone was reached in Brussels, a cease-fire roadmap was agreed to in Minsk and Iranian negotiators advanced a potential nuclear deal in Geneva. Squadrons of diplomats have forestalled one geopolitical crisis after another. Yet it would be premature, even reckless, to assume that the fault lines defining these issues are effectively stable. Understanding how these crises are inextricably linked is the first step toward assessing when and where the next flare-up is likely to occur.

 Duck,


 I and you ... need gigs as worldwide negotiators and diplomats.  ;D


 Get to jet around  ... expense account ... meetin the local babes.


 And a chance to bring about world peace.  :D


 Who knows ...


 in our travels we could find that Running Back,


 that could be the future of CHICAGO BEARS.


 It could happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 25, 2015, 12:47:23 am

Quote from: Sportster on February 24, 2015, 01:13:12 pm

The guy is found innocent, he is tried in another court. Found innocent, drag him before another one...innocent.

Zimmerman was tried in three different courts?

And how did he get a jury to find him innocent?  Juries in this country find defendants Guilty or Not Guilty.  They never find anyone "innocent."  It is not even an option.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 25, 2015, 07:37:45 am

Honestly, can you possibly be any more annoying than you are?? Innocent to me, in this case, means he didn't go to jail. Innocent, not guilty, to the average individual is about the same dang thing. Unless you're a former lawyer who specializes in breaking every @%@# sentence down to the nano particle. I'm not going to play that game. You know what I meant..... and as for Zimmerman being in court, seems everytime you turned on the TV, he was in court again for this or that trumped up charge or some nonsense! It was in the news continually! A false gun charge, speeding, a domestic charge, etc etc. One thing after another....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 25, 2015, 02:55:13 pm

Quote from: Sportster on February 25, 2015, 07:37:45 am

Honestly, can you possibly be any more annoying than you are?? Innocent to me, in this case, means he didn't go to jail. Innocent, not guilty, to the average individual is about the same dang thing. Unless you're a former lawyer who specializes in breaking every @%@# sentence down to the nano particle. I'm not going to play that game. You know what I meant..... and as for Zimmerman being in court, seems everytime you turned on the TV, he was in court again for this or that trumped up charge or some nonsense! It was in the news continually! A false gun charge, speeding, a domestic charge, etc etc. One thing after another....

Sportster, you get annoyed when you say something foolish or wrong and have it pointed out to you.  Instead of getting annoyed when your mistakes are pointed out (and here it appears that half of it was not even pointing out your error, but merely asking you about it to see if you might actually have been referring to something I was unaware of), you might try to make fewer foolish statements.

While "innocent" to YOU may mean "didn't go to jail," that is not by any stretch what the term means, or how most people understand it.

As to playing a game, I quite genuinely and sincerely asked my question as to having been in three different courts because I readily accepted the possibility that I was wrong about what had happened, had missed something or forgotten it.  There was no "game" involved.  There was instead on that issue a perfectly sincere effort to determine what you meant or were talking about.  I did not argue with you or try to say you were wrong on the point before I truly knew what you were talking about and knew you were wrong.  As to the issue of being "found innocent," on that there was no doubt you were wrong, and that your error was a misunderstanding common to those not directly familiar with the American legal system.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 25, 2015, 05:28:11 pm

otto. for more than a week now I have been trying to get you to respond to three questions.

Once more I am presenting them here for you.

1) You wrote on the 16th that you had a double-major from "the UW."  Is there any chance you might share here a copy of your transcript?

2) The second question was not express, but implied and in response to thefollowing post from you:

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 06:41:21 pm

HB legal aid   Can you clarify how many of the plaintiffs have standing in the King v. Burwell case*?    *Farce

Who are you addressing in that post?   If it is me, you need to revise your question before I would bother with an answer.   Additionally, if it is me, is this a case I am somehow associated with, have commented on here, or have reported on?  If is not one of those, why would you be asking me?  And if it IS one of those, and you are attempting to address me, have you generally found it effective to first insult someone when trying to ask them a question where you genuinely hoped to get an answer from them?

3) The third question is in response to this post from you:

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm

HB legal aid     I thought that when you are proven wrong an admission of it would follow. What happened this time?      And if the minutia needs replaying I can repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.

Again, who are you addressing?   And regardless who you may have been addressing, on what issue is it that you are referencing where you believe someone here other than you has been proven wrong?  And, to save time, if you can identify the poster, go ahead and also identify the position you believe that poster took, copy and paste the actual post from the poster, and (to quote you) also "repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity."

And, no, you are not by any means required to respond in any way to perfectly reasonable questions about your posts.  You can instead chose to make even more painfully obvious than normal your true character and the nature of your posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on February 25, 2015, 05:58:45 pm

Who's the dumbass...Otto, or the one still expecting a genuine response?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 25, 2015, 07:34:02 pm

Quote from: Dave23 on February 25, 2015, 05:58:45 pm

Who's the dumbass...Otto, or the one still expecting a genuine response?

I'm unaware of anyone who expects a genuine response from otto, Dave23.  Are you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 25, 2015, 09:38:31 pm

1) You wrote on the 16th that you had a double-major from "the UW."  Is there any chance you might share here a copy of your transcript?

Hillbilly legal aid, I posted no such assertion. Can you correct? Ya know, in the interest of actual truth.

2) The second question was not express, but implied and in response to thefollowing post from you:
Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 06:41:21 pm

    HB legal aid   Can you clarify how many of the plaintiffs have standing in the King v. Burwell case*?    *Farce


Who are you addressing in that post?   If it is me, you need to revise your question before I would bother with an answer.   Additionally, if it is me, is this a case I am somehow associated with, have commented on here, or have reported on?  If is not one of those, why would you be asking me?  And if it IS one of those, and you are attempting to address me, have you generally found it effective to first insult someone when trying to ask them a question where you genuinely hoped to get an answer from them?

Apparently, you don't have legal standing or actual facts to support such a farce either. Thanks for the answer.

3) The third question is in response to this post from you:
Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm

    HB legal aid     I thought that when you are proven wrong an admission of it would follow. What happened this time?      And if the minutia needs replaying I can repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.


Again, who are you addressing?   And regardless who you may have been addressing, on what issue is it that you are referencing where you believe someone here other than you has been proven wrong?  And, to save time, if you can identify the poster, go ahead and also identify the position you believe that poster took, copy and paste the actual post from the poster, and (to quote you) also "repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity."

And, no, you are not by any means required to respond in any way to perfectly reasonable questions about your posts.  You can instead chose to make even more painfully obvious than normal your true character and the nature of your posts.

Again, I don't believe any actual historian or economic scholar would support your libertarian theory that America reached it's economic zenith in the 1920's just before the republic Great Depression and Smoot-Hawley. So you can take your pointy little head and head over to the free republic.

Who's the dumbass?


Anyone who espouses libertarian theory as fact.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 25, 2015, 10:17:14 pm

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk5hZ83TlGU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk5hZ83TlGU)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on February 26, 2015, 08:35:59 am

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

Ok, so we've got a President who thinks he is above the law and can dictate to the other branches of government. Those ICE agents saw the ruling by the judge precluding the Presidents exec action, basically shutting it down. So now that ICE agent has a choice: follow the judicial branch or follow the executive branch. And now the President is threatening these people. This guy is out of control. He cannot get out of office soon enough for the good of this Country.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 26, 2015, 12:27:41 pm

Religious Nut Case


Until President Barack Hussein Obama threaten to put the in the kill zone I won't worry. And what is he threatening again?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 26, 2015, 12:32:11 pm

More on phony global warming.

THE RECENT SPATE OF COLD WEATHER NOTWITHSTSANDING
 
This Is Directly From The "Washington Post" :
The Arctic Ocean is warming up. Icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to
theCommerce Department yesterday from our Consulat, at Bergen, Norway.

 
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical
change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the
Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100
meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,
the report continued, [Mean] while at many points well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the
eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.
 
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise
and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
*************************************************************************************************
Oh, oh, I must apologize, I neglected to mention that this alarmist article taken from
November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the vaunted
"Washington Post" - some 93 years ago!!
 
True: http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 26, 2015, 12:34:19 pm

Cpacked political action confefrence


#questions for the speaker of the conservative group hug that I would like to ask.

1) Is it true that the beverage vendors will NOT sell coffee black?

2) Which is least desirable in a person, empathy or education?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 26, 2015, 12:43:15 pm

OH, oh, global cooling on the way?

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/global_cooling_new_evidence_suggests_climate_change_may_be_on_hold.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 26, 2015, 12:44:13 pm

Needless to say about the oldetacit racists post concerning Global Climate Change...

From the end of the Snopes post.

Quote

As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn't substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.

Once again a local weather event is mistaken for climate. Typical of a party which thinks cancer is like a fungus and that if a female swallows a small camera it comes out her vargina.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 26, 2015, 01:08:27 pm

Do you suppose other whackos understand what Homo says, or is he speaking a language only he can decipher?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 26, 2015, 01:19:58 pm

Hey dodo bird, the United States is 50% covered by snow. What would you call it if 90% were covered by snow and the great glaciers were moving south into the lower 48 states, would that be climate warming or climate cooling? My guess  is you would still call that global warming. I would also guess you would be happy with that happening.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 26, 2015, 02:27:02 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on February 26, 2015, 01:19:58 pm

Hey dodo bird, the United States is 50% covered by snow. What would you call it if 90% were covered by snow and the great glaciers were moving south into the lower 48 states, would that be climate warming or climate cooling? My guess  is you would still call that global warming. I would also guess you would be happy with that happening.

The United States represents 4% of the total surface area of the earth. The weather conditions in this country are, at best, a small indication of overall global climate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 26, 2015, 03:01:06 pm

Quote from: Cletus on February 26, 2015, 02:27:02 pm

The United States represents 4% of the total surface area of the earth. The weather conditions in this country are, at best, a small indication of overall global climate.

While your point may be correct, the United States is one of the greatest farm belts of the world and having the great glaciers return to the Midwest would destroy that. So why is it that Americans who are supposed to love their country want so desperately to destroy it? Why do you want to turn this country into a desolate snowy wasteland? How do we feed the starving masses of the world if we cant farm our land? And how are the people of the United States supposed to heat their homes in such horrid weather? Solar? Please don't insult us. Nuclear energy? And Liberals still haven't figured out how to dispose of the spent fuel rods.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 26, 2015, 03:32:34 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on February 26, 2015, 03:01:06 pm

While your point may be correct, the United States is one of the greatest farm belts of the world and having the great glaciers return to the Midwest would destroy that. So why is it that Americans who are supposed to love their country want so desperately to destroy it? Why do you want to turn this country into a desolate snowy wasteland? How do we feed the starving masses of the world if we cant farm our land? And how are the people of the United States supposed to heat their homes in such horrid weather? Solar? Please don't insult us. Nuclear energy? And Liberals still haven't figured out how to dispose of the spent fuel rods.

You should tell the farmers in California that too much ice and snow is a problem.  It would be interesting to see what they say about that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 26, 2015, 03:52:56 pm

Why not try answering the questions

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 26, 2015, 04:38:33 pm

Those were serious questions?  There is no risk of glaciers returning to the midwest or the country becoming a snowy wasteland.  If there is any real risk to our agriculture, it's due to drought in the west not cold in the midwest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2015, 04:42:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 25, 2015, 09:38:31 pm

1) You wrote on the 16th that you had a double-major from "the UW."  Is there any chance you might share here a copy of your transcript?

Hillbilly legal aid, I posted no such assertion. Can you correct? Ya know, in the interest of actual truth.

Quote

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm
When I was at the UW part of my course work include a biology class. I'm now considered a double major according to Run Paul.

To that I simply asked if we could see see a transcript.  You then promptly deleted your post.  Of course if you now want to claim that you did not really say you have a double major from UW or anyplace else, but merely that "Run Paul" said you have one, could you point to where it is that anyone named "Run Paul" ever said you did?

Quote from: otto105 on February 25, 2015, 09:38:31 pm

2) The second question was not express, but implied and in response to thefollowing post from you:
Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 06:41:21 pm
    HB legal aid   Can you clarify how many of the plaintiffs have standing in the King v. Burwell case*?    *Farce
Who are you addressing in that post?   If it is me, you need to revise your question before I would bother with an answer.   Additionally, if it is me, is this a case I am somehow associated with, have commented on here, or have reported on?  If is not one of those, why would you be asking me?  And if it IS one of those, and you are attempting to address me, have you generally found it effective to first insult someone when trying to ask them a question where you genuinely hoped to get an answer from them?

Apparently, you don't have legal standing or actual facts to support such a farce either. Thanks for the answer.

I have attempted no answer yet to that post.  I will ask you again, who are you addressing in that post?   If it is me, you need to revise your question before I would bother with an answer.   Additionally, if it is me, is this a case I am somehow associated with, have commented on here, or have reported on?  If is not one of those, why would you be asking me?  And if it IS one of those, and you are attempting to address me, have you generally found it effective to first insult someone when trying to ask them a question where you genuinely hoped to get an answer from them?

Quote from: otto105 on February 25, 2015, 09:38:31 pm

3) The third question is in response to this post from you:
Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 05:14:10 pm
    HB legal aid     I thought that when you are proven wrong an admission of it would follow. What happened this time?      And if the minutia needs replaying I can repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.


Again, who are you addressing?   And regardless who you may have been addressing, on what issue is it that you are referencing where you believe someone here other than you has been proven wrong?  And, to save time, if you can identify the poster, go ahead and also identify the position you believe that poster took, copy and paste the actual post from the poster, and (to quote you) also "repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity."

Again, I don't believe any actual historian or economic scholar would support your libertarian theory that America reached it's economic zenith in the 1920's just before the republic Great Depression and Smoot-Hawley. 

As I asked, and will ask again, "to save time... identify the poster, go ahead and also identify the position you believe that poster took, copy and paste the actual post from the poster, and... 'repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.'"  You not only failed to do that, you complete mischarecterized my position or any position taken by anyone else here.  NO ONE here has even suggested that "America reached it's economic zenith in the 1920's."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2015, 04:46:19 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 26, 2015, 12:27:41 pm

Until President Barack Hussein Obama threaten to put the in the kill zone I won't worry. And what is he threatening again?

Say what?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2015, 04:50:19 pm

Quote from: davep on February 26, 2015, 01:08:27 pm

Do you suppose other whackos understand what Homo says, or is he speaking a language only he can decipher?

davep, I doubt otto can decipher all of his own posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2015, 05:24:27 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on February 26, 2015, 03:52:56 pm

Why not try answering the questions

Why not try asking questions which at least having a passing familiarity with sanity?

The questions you posed do not merit ANY response.  If you were to ask even remotely sane or serious questions, I doubt you would have any difficulty getting answers.  You have done this before when you were posing "questions" to me shich were so flipping absurd it was genuinely difficult to attempt to answer.

Attempt to ask real questions, and you have a much better chance of getting actual responses and a real discussion.  Ask why those who support the Global Warming agenda "want (to) desperately to destroy it (the United States)?" and "Why (they) want to turn this country into a desolate snowy wasteland?" and "How do we feed the starving masses of the world if we cant farm our land?" and "how are the people of the United States supposed to heat their homes in such horrid weather?" and sane people are not going to bother trying to substantively respond.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 26, 2015, 05:48:44 pm

Simply because they really don't care, that's why. They have an agenda to bring down the United States and are going to do it unless they are stopped. And its they who aren't sane.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2015, 06:15:54 pm

Quote from: Sportster on February 26, 2015, 08:35:59 am

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

Ok, so we've got a President who thinks he is above the law and can dictate to the other branches of government. Those ICE agents saw the ruling by the judge precluding the Presidents exec action, basically shutting it down. So now that ICE agent has a choice: follow the judicial branch or follow the executive branch. And now the President is threatening these people. This guy is out of control. He cannot get out of office soon enough for the good of this Country.....

Sportster, I had to look for a transcript of that to make sure that video was actually of him making those statements AFTER the judges decision, and remarkably they are.  Then one I had the full transcript in front of me and I looked at it, it was even WORSE.  The transcript is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/25/remarks-president-immigration-town-hall-miami-fl

At one point the interviewer, Diaz-Balart, who has repeatedly made clear his support for complete amnesty for everyone here and an easy route to citizenship and essentially open borders, seems incredulous at Obama's contention that what he is doing with immigration policy is no different from what any other president has done.
MR. DIAZ-BALART: The numbers are unprecedented.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the numbers are unprecedented only relatively speaking.  I mean, if you look at what George H.W. Bush did, he, proportionally to what was then the immigrant population, was very aggressive in expanding.  The difference is, is that Democrats didn’t challenge what he did for largely political reasons.

MR. DIAZ-BALART:  And there was a bill already underway.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there was a bill underway, but in some ways, you could make an argument that since a bill had passed that didn’t solve that problem, Congress had been very direct in saying we don’t want to solve that problem.  And he went ahead and did it anyway, because it’s in his authority to implement, using prosecutorial discretion, the limited resources of Department of Homeland Security.

When the position a president is taking is actually tough for his own natural supporters to swallow... he may have more trouble than he imagines.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 26, 2015, 06:36:55 pm

Obama has two years left and he is going to do everything in his power to fundamentally transform America just like he promised.  Amnesty, Net Neutrality and banning bullets for the AR-15 are just the beginning. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 26, 2015, 06:38:04 pm

You think net neutrality is bad?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on February 26, 2015, 06:43:03 pm

Cletus I don't know for sure because no one has been able to read what is in it.  Second the government regulating something generally makes it worse and less efficient.  Third the Affordable Care Act did the exact opposite of what it was named and promised to do.  I suspect that is the case with this as well.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on February 26, 2015, 07:49:36 pm

A very lucid explanation, by Newt Gingrich, of our war against Islamism, which we losing.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529407/newt-gingrich-war-radical-islamism

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on February 26, 2015, 10:12:50 pm

 

Quote from: packrat on February 26, 2015, 07:49:36 pm

A very lucid explanation, by Newt Gingrich, of our war against Islamism, which we losing.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529407/newt-gingrich-war-radical-islamism (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529407/newt-gingrich-war-radical-islamism)

 Hey Packy ... **** ISLAM ... and **** the goddamn horse they rode in on ...


 if those motherfuckers are into a croak game then let the goddamn motherfuckers get it AWN !


 ITS ENTERTAINMENT ! NO MOTHERFUCKING AMERICAN BETTER DIE FOR IT.


 It's their **** problem. Not ours.


 If we need UNITED STATES involvement in a certain area of the world because we have to be involved in everybody's business other than our own ...


 PARAGUAY !!


 Those motherfuckers are arming and pulling **** LOADS of armor into their seaports.


 We fail to see the mission of those who are going to kill us ...


 while ignoring those that are really going to kill us.


 HOLY **** LOOK OUT !!!


 Whew ... that was close ... a missile from nowhere attacking no one.


 You know whats good for business?


 Ignoring the idiots that want to kill themselves.


 And getting with business that wants to get on with business.


 There's a certain element of humanity that is obsessed with self destruction ...


 we are not going to see any Moon launches from these people anytime soon ...


 so the idea being to ignore them ... let them continue to have their way with each other in a continual downward spiral.


 Do not bring the rest of us along for the ride.


 In 1973 the world of advancement came to a halt.


 From that point on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA became a vassel state with the


  military armor to protect middle east oil interests.


 Because if they turn off the oil taps ... AMERICA doesn't run.


 America found out a hard thing about itself ...


 AMERICA ... wasn't in charge of AMERICA ...


 and it stayed that way for the next 35 years or so ...


 all of that **** about landing on Mars and going forward beyond that ...


 that was all taken away from you.


 Instead you found yourself in a morass of the Middle East ...


 which you could have never even giving a **** of a care about.


 Except they have been running your life and your children for the past ...


 42 motherfucking years. Let moi repeat that ... 42 motherfucking years.


 Here's where it gets interesting at :


 That's your grandparents ...


 YOU ...


 and your children. That's a motherfucker ain't it ?


 Now go back to arguing among yourselves ...


 how many issues have you rectified while posting to each other after all these years ?


 Has it just occurred to you that you are the Middle East ?


 An issue debated that will never land any Human on another planet.


 The main thing to remember is your point of view is always right.


 Being right is a scary thing to have when you are always's right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2015, 10:18:00 pm

Quote from: Cletus on February 26, 2015, 06:38:04 pm

You think net neutrality is bad?

Yes?  Do you actually think it is NOT bad?

The nice name does not alter the basic fact that it is government economic regulation when there is no need for regulation.  It is the regulation of communications when none of the scarcity justifications used to create the FCC in the first place exist in the internet context.  And it is government regulation of one of the only rapidly growing sectors of the economy, and historically government regulation strangles growth and innovation.

I would echo all of Pekin's response and loudly amplify his 2nd and 3rd sentences.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on February 27, 2015, 04:59:22 am

I second that!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 27, 2015, 06:26:48 am

I concurr

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 27, 2015, 06:28:10 am

For all the global warming crapologists:

https://gma.yahoo.com/record-breaking-winter-even-south-cant-escape-225427108--abc-news-topstories.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2015, 07:04:46 am

“So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote.  I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”  http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-go-ahead-have-vote-whether-what-i-m-doing-legal-i-will-veto

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2015, 07:07:27 am

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/26/irs-watchdog-reveals-lois-lerner-missing-emails-no/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on February 27, 2015, 07:09:58 am

Hail to the king.  His Majesty Barack Hussein Obama.  Long live the king...

****PUKE****

At least he would have otter and the court jester.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2015, 07:29:49 am

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/26/irs-watchdog-reveals-lois-lerner-missing-emails-no/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on February 27, 2015, 09:20:05 am

I wish I didnt know what I know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 27, 2015, 09:52:25 am

You don't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 27, 2015, 09:58:17 am

Homo is an expert on not knowing things.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on February 27, 2015, 04:37:38 pm

Local t-bagger libertarian idiots


Stop posting crap about local weather when attempting to deny Global Climate changes.


**** idiots.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on February 27, 2015, 06:05:19 pm

Homo is cute when he tries to actually form his own sentences.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on February 27, 2015, 07:04:42 pm

I didn't know dodo birds could be cute

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2015, 07:31:19 pm

otto, for at least the 5th time now:

1) Can we see your transcript reflecting that double major from UW?

2) Who were you referencing in your post where you mentioned the King v. Burwell case?  If it is me, you need to revise your question before I would bother with an answer.   Additionally, if it is me, is this a case I am somehow associated with, have commented on here, or have reported on?  If is not one of those, why would you be asking me?  And if it IS one of those, and you are attempting to address me, have you generally found it effective to first insult someone when trying to ask them a question where you genuinely hoped to get an answer from them?

3)  On the 16th you wrote 

Quote

HB legal aid     I thought that when you are proven wrong an admission of it would follow. What happened this time?  And if the minutia needs replaying I can repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity.

   Again, who are you addressing?   And regardless who you may have been addressing, on what issue is it that you are referencing where you believe someone here other than you has been proven wrong?  And, to save time, if you can identify the poster, go ahead and also identify the position you believe that poster took, copy and paste the actual post from the poster, and (to quote you) also "repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on February 28, 2015, 08:41:43 pm

Ahem* Point of clarafication, he can't be a dodo. They're all dead.  A long, long time ago. He's not. As proof, I offer all the whiny, mealy mouthed, slur ridden posts he cranks out every day. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 01, 2015, 05:32:53 am

dodo birds are extinct, so are his ideas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 01, 2015, 05:28:58 pm

Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes heading to Iran to bomb their nuke sites

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191966#.VPOe65t0wuQ

This absolutely INFURIATES me!! I have got not one good thing, not a d@%ned single thing good to say about this worthless POS we have in office right now!! He IS the worst "President" we've had that I can remember, back to Carter. The guy disgusts me no end. And SHAME on you if you voted for this man!!!  >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2015, 09:35:51 pm

hillbilly legal aid

For the second time now.

1) I believe Run Paul has certified that, check with him.

2) If you don't know, stop craving the attention.

3) See previous.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2015, 09:37:47 pm

Attention religious fringe wacko


Its better if your stop trolling all wingnut websites.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 01, 2015, 09:40:21 pm

Includes more debunking of the fool-hardy crowd's global warming dream.

Mark's Market Blog
3-1-15: ISIL destroys 3000 year old statues
by Mark Lawrence
Slow week. Nothing happened and the markets went nowhere on minuscule volume. This looks to me a lot like the tops in late November and late December; I think we're likely to see more volatility in March.
 
S&P 500 September 8 2014 to February 27 2015
Greeks continue to pull their money out of Greek banks. I can't imagine why there's any money left in the banks at all; I would have pulled mine months ago. At the current rates of losing deposits, the banks will last about another couple of weeks, tops. Greece is still to continue with their EU imposed economy-wrecking austerity plan. Current estimates are that a Greek default would cost Europe $350 billion and wipe out all the capital of the European central bank. And Tsipras is being accused at home of folding under German pressure. As I see it, if Greece stays in the EU under anything like the current plan they will be all but destroyed, and if they leave the EU they will have enormous trouble and Europe will almost certainly fall into a serious recession with more political problems to come. Europe has brought themselves into a lose-lose situation.

Russia has offered to sell Iran their latest Antey-2500 anti-aircraft missiles, apparently to help Iran protect against air strikes on their nuclear facilities by the US or Israel. Russia needs the money, Iran wants the protection.

I met a young Ukrainian woman this week. She said her parents were in Mariupol, and in the evening when the city noise quieted down they could hear the Russian guns. She said her parents hoped they would stop outside the city. I told her I was sorry that my country helped start this - something that she understood well - and that unfortunately it was obvious to me that the Russians would continue through Mariupol until they linked up with Crimea. Debaltseve fell ten days ago, of course, that portion of the map is out of date. In the German popular press the headlines already call the cease fire a joke, a charade.


ISIL has become very active in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city. They're pulling books out of libraries and burning them, and tearing down 3000 year old statues in museums and destroying them. This infuriates me even more than the beheadings - Iraq is likely the cradle of human civilization, and these artifacts, imho, belong to all mankind. They're destroying the common history of all of us, claming that god wants the statues destroyed as they are idols and represent idol worship. Idiots. Congenital idiots. This is what happens when your prophet is a **** and you all marry your 1st cousins.


Obama has a plan to free Mosul, but with no American boots. He plans to trains 20,000 - 25,000 Iraqi soldiers and they will attack from the south. Meanwhile Kurds will circle the east, north and west of Mosul to contain ISIL. The problem? So far we're only in the process of training the first 2500 Iraqis. We're having problems keeping even this group on the same page, as Shi'ites and Sunnis hate each other and won't cooperate, and Baathists hate everyone. To get to Mosul they're going to have to march through three major villages held by ISIL so you can forget about surprise. The Iraqi government is feeling great political pressure and wants to start immediately - something the Pentagon thinks is doomed to historic failure. Obama wants to keep everyone happy until late fall, then attack. Of course I know all this and I'm just some nutcase american, so there's no mystery, no surprise in Iraq. Some in the pentagon are already worried this will be a major "Charlie Foxtrot." I'm not worried at all. You worry about uncertainties. This will certainly be a major "Charlie Foxtrot."

I'm pretty upset about how Obama has allowed, one could even say encouraged Iran and N.Korea to jointly develop nukes. I believe sincerely that the result will be a second holocaust within this decade - another 7 million Jews killed. When this happens I will personally think Obama has a significant amount of blame. Liberals, imho, live in deep denial believing that Obama is a christian because he hid out in a "christian" church for years while developing his political career. Those of us on the right never believed it. Well, here's what's called the Muslim Salute - one finger meaning "one God, Allah, one prophet, Mohammed." The second picture is from the August 2014 U.S.-African Leaders' Summit in Washington D.C.

Global Warming Watch: The east coast is having the coldest and snowiest winter on record. Niagra falls partially froze over. Boston had to dig out from under about seven feet of snow. And New York harbor froze over in record low temperatures of 2° requiring the city to hire an ice breaker.

Meanwhile out here in the People's Republic of California there continues to be essentially no rain or snow. The snow pack is at 19% of normal for March 1, with no rain scheduled for the coming week. It's looking pretty grim for farmers this year. In the foothills wells are drying up and cities are passing new laws and major fines protecting their water. Contractors all over the state are stealing water from fire hydrants; residents are too. Farmers are illegally diverting water through new secret ditches. In North San Juan, a little city in the hills where I used to live, someone stole 800 gallons out of the fire truck.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2015, 11:10:57 pm

Quote from: Sportster on March 01, 2015, 05:28:58 pm

Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes heading to Iran to bomb their nuke sites

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191966#.VPOe65t0wuQ

The account is not credible.  The U.S. would not have had fighter jets in position to have intercepted and shot down a bombing attack from Israel on Iran if Israel had in fact decided to send one.

Additionally the Zbigniew Brzezinski interview the link claims took place with the Daily Beast can not be found on the internet -- in other words it did not happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 01, 2015, 11:11:23 pm

Quote from: Sportster on March 01, 2015, 05:28:58 pm

Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes heading to Iran to bomb their nuke sites

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191966#.VPOe65t0wuQ

This absolutely INFURIATES me!! I have got not one good thing, not a d@%ned single thing good to say about this worthless POS we have in office right now!! He IS the worst "President" we've had that I can remember, back to Carter. The guy disgusts me no end. And SHAME on you if you voted for this man!!!  >:( >:( >:(

And you suddenly believe a Muslim newspaper?  One claiming an unnamed source?  It's time to get a grip on yourself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2015, 11:19:05 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 01, 2015, 09:35:51 pm

For the second time now.
1) I believe Run Paul has certified that, check with him.

Okay, in other words you have no degree, so you could not post share our transcript.

Quote from: otto105 on March 01, 2015, 09:35:51 pm

2) If you don't know, stop craving the attention.

Asking you a question is not exactly the same thing as craving attention, but if you dont care enough to explain your question about King v. Burrell, I certainly don't care about answering it.

Quote from: otto105 on March 01, 2015, 09:35:51 pm

3) See previous.

Ah, so you CAN'T identify a poster you believe you had proven wrong or identify the position you believe that poster took, copy and paste the actual post from the poster, and (to quote you) also "repost complete with the defensive posts from the little serfs of stupidity."

Gotcha.

About as expected.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 02, 2015, 07:11:30 pm

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030215-741519-illegal-immigrants-will-elect-democrats-under-obama-plan.htm?p=full

But I'm sure this is all bull, too, huh guys.....if you don't certainly think it's possible Obama would send fighters against Israel's Iranian attack, you have not been paying attention. He had fighters all over Iraq and to say he couldn't have shot some of the Israeli attacks down from Iraq is disengenuous at best and abolutely foolish at worst....the man is no friend of Israels and certainly not of Mr. Netanyahu....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 02, 2015, 08:45:51 pm

Quote from: Sportster on March 02, 2015, 07:11:30 pm

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030215-741519-illegal-immigrants-will-elect-democrats-under-obama-plan.htm?p=full

But I'm sure this is all bull, too, huh guys.....if you don't certainly think it's possible Obama would send fighters against Israel's Iranian attack, you have not been paying attention. He had fighters all over Iraq and to say he couldn't have shot some of the Israeli attacks down from Iraq is disengenuous at best and abolutely foolish at worst....the man is no friend of Israels and certainly not of Mr. Netanyahu....

It certainly would be possible for our planes to shoot down Israeli planes.  It would also be possible for them to shoot down the Mexican Air Force, The Canadian Air Force and any number of civilian aircraft.

But having the possibility to do so does not mean that we would do so. 

I'm not sure what the relationship of the speculation about Illegal Alien voters is to the report in a muslim newspaper citing an unnamed Israeli source for the threat by Obama.  Do you consider muslim newspapers to be respectable news sources, or do you only accept them when they feed you prejudices?

As far as illegal aliens voting, many of them do now, and I think it is likely that more of them will do so in the future.  Did you read that is a muslim newspaper?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 02, 2015, 09:42:38 pm

 Ahhh for the the good ol' days of ZOUT & CARLTON CARTWRIGHT's debates.


 Anybody remember them ? They weren't calling each other idiots in every other post.


 There was a discussion that was moving forward.


 In fact the whole Religion & Politics forum was built around them back in the day.  :D


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 03, 2015, 01:11:12 am

The level of animosity that exists between Obama and Netanyahu and Israel in general is apparent. It's only been in the news the past month with Netanyahu coming for a visit that Obama despises. There's no love lost between the parties, so for that news report to be true does not at all take a great leap of faith....maybe to you it does.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 03, 2015, 06:33:20 am

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 03, 2015, 06:45:32 am

Yeah Obama sure does. Good call.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 03, 2015, 10:46:54 am

Quote from: Sportster on March 03, 2015, 01:11:12 am

The level of animosity that exists between Obama and Netanyahu and Israel in general is apparent. It's only been in the news the past month with Netanyahu coming for a visit that Obama despises. There's no love lost between the parties, so for that news report to be true does not at all take a great leap of faith....maybe to you it does.....

There seems to be a level of animosity between you and JesBeard, but if I heard a report in a muslim newspaper that you planned to shoot down each other's planes, I would probably disregard it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 03, 2015, 05:03:41 pm

Quote from: davep on March 03, 2015, 10:46:54 am

There seems to be a level of animosity between you and JesBeard, but if I heard a report in a muslim newspaper that you planned to shoot down each other's planes, I would probably disregard it.

Trust me, if I see him in a plane.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 05:05:43 pm

If god wanted sporty to fly he would have gave him Red Bull.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 03, 2015, 07:08:39 pm

I'm sorry, did someone fart, crap their pants and then roll in it?.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on March 03, 2015, 07:17:22 pm

Her magesty HRC ( the first), during her tenure as secratary of state. felt compelled to ignore fed regs (beneath her, like all of us), and used a personal email account for ALL emails. No need to burden the great unwashed with knowledge they can neither understand nor comprehend its use.
Such arrongance.  And yes, she got away with it. 4 **** years! Nobody said a word.  If ever you were confused over who worked for who, need wonder no more.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 07:40:53 pm

sport

I don't know, its your family.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 07:45:07 pm

Quote

Her magesty HRC ( the first), during her tenure as secratary of state. felt compelled to ignore fed regs (beneath her, like all of us), and used a personal email account for ALL emails. No need to burden the great unwashed with knowledge they can neither understand nor comprehend its use.
Such arrongance.  And yes, she got away with it. 4 **** years! Nobody said a word.  If ever you were confused over who worked for who, need wonder no more.

yawn....



His magesty SW (our idiot governor from WI), during his tenure as county executive of Milwaukee County. felt compelled to ignore the law (beneath him, like all of us), and used a personal email account for ALL emails. No need to burden the great unwashed with knowledge they can neither understand nor comprehend its use.
Such arrongance.  And yes, he got away with it, except for 6 people in his office who were convicted from it.  If ever you were confused over who worked for who, need wonder no more.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 07:53:41 pm

Quote

Yeah Obama sure does. Good call.

BBBBBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 03, 2015, 07:58:49 pm

She also got hacked and all her personal e-mails were handed over to the Russians.  Her personal e-mail account that she was doing all her state department business with.

Whatever happens to Patreaus should happen to her ten fold.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 08:18:28 pm

peke

I'm curious, which rightwingnut rock did you turn over to find that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 03, 2015, 08:25:27 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/03/clinton-may-not-have-sent-classified-e-mail-from-her-personal-account-but-that-may-not-matter/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-used-personal-email-account-for-state-department-business-1425357910

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 08:37:48 pm

peke

The Washington Post article hardly proves anything that your hyper-bias post contains. How do you reconcile this excerpt.

Quote

Clinton's use of a private e-mail address was not unique to her position, a State Department official who declined to be named said, noting that former secretary of state Colin Powell wrote in his book about using a personal laptop and e-mail account to connect with assistants and foreign ministers.

Did the Russian hack the shrub's regime?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 03, 2015, 08:45:00 pm

Don't you love it when Homo puts on his big boy pants and tries to talk with the grownups?  His partner must be proud of him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 08:58:36 pm

Don't you love it when the guy who bases his current day climate decisions on the Norsk Sagas again posts the pointless little school girl meme.

davebart

Whose ass is rep. orangman kissing today after another legislative fail?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 03, 2015, 09:49:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 08:37:48 pm

peke

The Washington Post article hardly proves anything that your hyper-bias post contains. How do you reconcile this excerpt.

What was there to reconcile?

What that you cut and pasted was in any way in conflict with what Pekin posted?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 03, 2015, 09:54:15 pm

Good news, otto, you need not feel insecure about things any more.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/most-penises-normal-more-research-says-144020273.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 10:22:54 pm

Going all the way to my **** is bigger than yours stick libertarian?

Is your milkshake better too?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 03, 2015, 10:29:26 pm

Don't worry Homo.  At the rate that Scott Walker is improving the Wisconsin school system, you should be able to go back to school and get your GED soon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 10:32:40 pm

Well, milkshake legal aid

How does the Post story back up peke's hacked email claim?

How does it back up the Russian claim?

How does it back up peke's claim of "doing official State Dept. Business"?


Just for staters milkshake boy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 10:37:14 pm

Really Davebart

Is anything original from you? Enjoy your walker fail.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on March 03, 2015, 10:39:12 pm

Otts- is your governor running for president of the united states of america? I didn't know. my bad.  Is your governor  a walk away from the president?
I'm sure your governor knows where Washinton D.C. is.  I doubt that Hilary know where madison is (no caps for your Capitol is deliberate).  She was a federal employee subject to federal guidelines and law which she ignored.  she worked for me.  I'd like some record of what she did.  Her business is hers, and she can use her own email address until the cows come home ( wis. reference fyi) BUT federal business is a different matter, and you know it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 10:46:27 pm

Whose Hilary?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 03, 2015, 11:00:41 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 10:22:54 pm

Going all the way to my **** is bigger than yours stick libertarian?

Is your milkshake better too?

I'm sorry, otto, I only speak English, and only standard English at that.  I have no idea what your second sentence is about.  And nowhere did anything I write even suggest that I HAVE a ****, let alone that I either think it is bigger than yours, or that I would care.

Reading comprehension is a learned skill, otto.  With a bit of effort you might one day even master it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 03, 2015, 11:04:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 03, 2015, 10:32:40 pm

Well, milkshake legal aid

How does the Post story back up peke's hacked email claim?  How does it back up the Russian claim?  How does it back up peke's claim of "doing official State Dept. Business"?

Just for staters milkshake boy.

Who are you addressing?  And who, other than Pekin, even suggested that the links he offered in any way "back up peke's hacked email claim.... (or) the Russian claim.... (or his) claim of 'doing official State Dept. Business'"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 04, 2015, 05:27:09 pm

Just more attention grabbing crap from the milkshake guy from Tennessee.

Could you please be less boring.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 04, 2015, 05:38:37 pm

English? The King's English


Your problem seems to be more obsessive/compulsive disorder.

Can you explain?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 04, 2015, 06:08:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 04, 2015, 05:38:37 pm

English? The King's English     Your problem seems to be more obsessive/compulsive disorder.
Can you explain?

Can I explain?  Probably, if you first posed a coherent question which you asked me to explain.  At the moment it would appear you are asking why it is that to you I "seem" to have obsessive/compulsive disorder."  To that, the explaination is that I seem to you to have obsessive/compulsive disorder because you don't really know what obsessive/compulsive disorder is and further because you are an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 04, 2015, 06:11:38 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 04, 2015, 05:27:09 pm

Just more attention grabbing crap from the milkshake guy from Tennessee.

Could you please be less boring.

In other words, in response to my question asking you to explain who, other than Pekin, even suggested that the links he offered in any way "back up peke's hacked email claim.... (or) the Russian claim.... (or his) claim of 'doing official State Dept. Business'" you have absolutely nothing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 04, 2015, 06:22:07 pm

Hard to imagine that Homo and Walker come from the same state.  Fortunately, Walker is slowly bringing Wisconsin out of the 19th century.  Of course, that still leaves them a century behind more advanced states like Mississippi and Alabama.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 04, 2015, 06:26:27 pm

Amazing.  http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/would-obama-raise-taxes-his-own-wh-not-going-rule-anything-or-out

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 04, 2015, 06:37:53 pm

Quote from: otto105 on February 16, 2015, 06:41:21 pm

Can you clarify how many of the plaintiffs have standing in the King v. Burwell case*?

Was the ObamaCare case argued today before the Supreme Court the case you were aking about?

If so, you might find your question about the standing of the plaintiffs here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/ruth-bader-ginsburg-attacks-standing-of-anti-obamacare-plaintiffs-20150304

Just to help you out, since I know you have a problem with reading comprehension, it appears the attorney defending ObamaCare for the federal government rendered the standing question moot.  He essentially conceeded the issue during oral argument today.  ""I'm willing to accept from the absence of a representation [from the plaintiffs that they have no standing] that there is a case for controversy," Verrilli said."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 05, 2015, 08:07:18 pm

In 2007 Hillary Clinton was blasting the Bush administration for "shredding the Constitution" by allowing members of the administration to use "secret e-mail accounts." A year and a half later she was creating her own for use in the Obama administration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCwmYHr-_M Hilary is nothing if not consistent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 05, 2015, 09:05:38 pm

At least Hillary would push for equal treatment of women in the workplace. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/men-make-top-8-most-highly-compensated-clinton-foundation-employees_876054.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 06, 2015, 06:20:50 am

She's got some baggage for sure.. Who else do the Dems have, Biden? Biden puts his foot in his mouth every other word, Hillary's a close second..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 06, 2015, 06:57:07 am

In 1976, 88, 92 and 08 at this time the Democrat's eventual nominee was one almost no one would have predicted getting the nomination.  The fact that you see none on the horizon means little.  Mallory, Webb, and Elizabeth Warren are the credible known candidates.  And others out there are also doubtless sniffing the air even if we are not yet aware of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 06, 2015, 10:08:49 am

Elizabeth Warren.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 06, 2015, 10:10:05 am

Hilary Clinton has a lot of baggage including Whitwater too.  And NO, I wouldn't vote for her. If it were solely a woman that people wanted in the White House my vote would go for Condolesa Rice and not Hilary. Just my two cents worth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 06, 2015, 10:15:06 am

Rice's name popped up in my mind recently when I heard her mentioned as a possible California Senate candidate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 06, 2015, 11:16:32 am

I doubt Whitewater would be much of a factor, not with more recent events..

At first I thought, "****, that **** will win the White house". I don't think it's automatic anymore..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 06, 2015, 11:55:15 am

No she has put her foot in her mouth enough that she is vulnerable, just like Romney did. And they really have nobody else.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2015, 12:25:38 pm

How to tell if your an old white t-bag fossil

When discussing Hillary Clinton you bring up and try to explain Whitewater.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2015, 12:28:01 pm

Quote

Just my two cents worth

Stop the price gouging.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2015, 12:33:36 pm

An example of foot in mouth disease


While being a high school graduate overnor you attempt to criticize someone for using private email on official government business while avoiding questions about the 6 people convicted of same in your office.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 06, 2015, 01:01:16 pm

Homo is concerned about Walker having a high school diploma, because he wishes he had one himself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 06, 2015, 01:12:43 pm

And one shouldn't be telling others about their foot being in their mouth when they need major surgery to extricate their foot from their own mouth. And you probably believe hoof and mouth disease is an indication of global warming because of all the hot air screaming you do, so STFU dodo

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 06, 2015, 01:57:51 pm

You spelled homo wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 06, 2015, 03:33:38 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/robert-menendez-criminal-corruption-charges-planned/

Hmmm...funny the timing of this. Menendez is a supporter of Israel and attended the Netanyahu speech, against the wishes of Dictat...uh, President Obama and spoke vehemently in support of Israel and against the Presidents ill advised Iranian proposed deal. A democrat speaking out against his boss? Can't have that!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2015, 04:28:14 pm

Attention religious fanatic


Your ability to understand the story severely limits your ability to accurately opinion on it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 06, 2015, 04:29:51 pm

Just curious but lets say the President agrees to some sort of agreements with the Iranians wouldn't the Senate have to ratify the agreement? Doubt that flies .

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 06, 2015, 04:37:49 pm

'Opine' on it....you really are a dipshit.... ::)

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?iso=20161108T07&p0=611&msg=Countdown+until+Obama+is+OUT+OF+OFFICE

For the remainder of sane individuals here, there is a light at the end of this friggin nightmare....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2015, 05:31:21 pm

"Opine"? Seriously?


You don't opine, you just opinion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on March 06, 2015, 05:50:49 pm

lol that makes my day Jethro

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 06, 2015, 06:01:35 pm

When Homo flunked out if High School, it was probably because he couldn't pass English.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2015, 06:21:19 pm

Guys

You don't opine on anything. That would sound way to foreign and "liberal". You guyd have american opinions. Opinions not based in fact, but like "freedom fries" define your base stupidity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 06, 2015, 08:35:40 pm

Give it up, lol....you're making it worse....'guyd'.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 06, 2015, 08:54:19 pm

Interesting that a Democrat that got out of line is now being punished.  Menendez is learning what it means to cross Obama.

And they have begun the destruction of Hillary.  Make way for Indian Princess Warren.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 06, 2015, 10:16:21 pm

I suspect you are right.  Obama wants to pick his successor.  The Obama's and Clinton's hate each other.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 07, 2015, 01:57:53 am

 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

You wanna know why your kids wont be speaking English in this country in the future ?

Because everyone there will have moved here.

A NATION so ROTTEN ... that every motherfucker wants to come here ...

instead of fighting for their own motherfucking COUNTRY.

A refugee area of a country accepting cowards instead of fighters for their own motherfucking country.

Like we are going to solve any motherfuckers problems unless they do ...

you can run ... but you can't hide.

And one day ... you have to face up and go home.

Because your people are back there that you left behind and you have to go back and fight for them.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is not the solution ...

YOU standing up and taking your country back is the solution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 07, 2015, 03:42:05 pm

You wanna know why your kids wont be speaking English in this country in the future ?

Because they wont close the border and it wont be long before the Hispanics will outnumber the English speaking population. Spanish will then be declared our national language.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 07, 2015, 07:51:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 06, 2015, 12:25:38 pm

How to tell if your an old white t-bag fossil

When discussing Hillary Clinton you bring up and try to explain Whitewater.

But no one here has tried to explain it... least of all the Clintons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 07, 2015, 07:55:05 pm

Barack Obama today essentially called former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson a murderer.  Here is the quote, from Obama's speech on the anniversary of the Selma march:  "What happened in Ferguson may not be unique, but it’s no longer endemic.  It’s no longer sanctioned by law or by custom."  You can find the entire text here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/07/remarks-president-50th-anniversary-selma-montgomery-marches  Saying what Wilson did was not "sanctioned by law" is to say he was NOT acting in self defense and that he murdered Michael Brown.  I would truly love to see Wilson file a defamation action against Obama, and, since the remarks were broadcast or published over the entire country, Wilson could effectively forum shop and find a jurisdiction where the jury pool would likely be made up almost entirely of prospective jurors very sympathetic to him.... and that would give him an excellent chance of winning.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 07, 2015, 08:11:57 pm

The Clintons post here?


And whitey got his BVDs in a bunch.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 07, 2015, 08:16:48 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 07, 2015, 07:51:16 pm

But no one here has tried to explain it... least of all the Clintons.

And nobody has been able to explain away the deaths of the state troopers who were murdered who had ties to the Clintons and Whitewater either

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 08, 2015, 03:06:00 pm

President Obama says he first learned from news reports that his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, used a private email account during her tenure, amid reports the White House and State Department may have known as far back as last August that Clinton did not use government email.

“The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports,” Obama told CBS’ Bill Plante, in response to a question of when the president learned of Clinton’s use of a private email account for conducting government business.

Yeah right...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 03:33:19 pm

'Huge gaps' in Clinton email record, Benghazi probe chief says

http://news.yahoo.com/huge-gaps-clinton-email-record-benghazi-probe-chief-192615720.html

Of course

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2015, 04:40:06 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 07, 2015, 08:16:48 pm

And nobody has been able to explain away the deaths of the state troopers who were murdered who had ties to the Clintons and Whitewater either

Boy someone has really bought into the nutjob stories.

What murders are you talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 04:57:49 pm

It goes back too far to pull up

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 08, 2015, 05:08:17 pm

Then why did you pull it up?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2015, 05:16:10 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 04:57:49 pm

It goes back too far to pull up

What does the "it" in that sentence reference, and what do you mean by "pull up"?

Are you saying the "murders" your prior post claimed happened too long ago for you to find any information about them... and yet, despite not being able to find any information about them you are making claims about them as if they actually exsted?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 08, 2015, 05:21:25 pm

That certainly wouldn't be appropriate in a court of law.  Of course, this isn't a court of law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 05:25:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 08, 2015, 05:16:10 pm

What does the "it" in that sentence reference, and what do you mean by "pull up"?

Are you saying the "murders" your prior post claimed happened too long ago for you to find any information about them... and yet, despite not being able to find any information about them you are making claims about them as if they actually exsted?

Yes

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2015, 05:34:23 pm

If they happened too long ago for you to find any information about them.... how do you know about them to make the bullshit claim in the first place?  And why can I find information on the internet about King Tut's murder, when that was more than a couple of years before anything involving Bill Clinton?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2015, 05:35:23 pm

Quote from: davep on March 08, 2015, 05:21:25 pm

That certainly wouldn't be appropriate in a court of law.  Of course, this isn't a court of law.

What is the "that" you reference?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 05:36:06 pm

Why are you sure its bullshit. Did you eat it all?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 05:37:07 pm

You know certain stuff is shoved under the rug to protect the Clintons

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 05:39:11 pm

And how long ago did the Whitwater stuff happen? 25-30 years ago?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 05:40:27 pm

And you really expect to find that stuff in publication? Haha. Yeah right, sure

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 05:45:22 pm

And of course you would expect somebody to go to some legal library or some such thing to do your own stuff for you. Seems to me that if you want to know bad enough you'll find out on your own

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 08, 2015, 05:57:11 pm

Friday, Mar 6, 2015 03:15 PM CST



Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings


Google could launch an effort to keep trolls and bad information at bay, with a program that would rank websites according to veracity, and sort results according to those rankings. Currently, the search engine ranks pages according to popularity, which means that pages containing unsubstantiated celebrity gossip or conspiracy theories, for example, show up very high.

New Scientist’s Hal Hodson reports on the proposed Knowledge-Based Trust score:

    The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google has recently implemented a kind of Knowledge-Based Truth score lite with it’s medical search results. Now, doctors and real medical experts vet search results about health conditions, meaning anti-vaxx propaganda will not appear in the top results for a “measles” search, for instance.

Even though the former program is just in the research stage, some anti-science advocates are upset about the potential development, likely because their websites will become buried under content that is, well, true.

“I worry about this issue greatly,” said Anthony Watts, founder of climate denying website “Watts Up With That,” in an interview with FoxNews.com. “My site gets a significant portion of its daily traffic from Google… It is a very slippery and dangerous slope because there’s no arguing with a machine.”


Or facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 08, 2015, 07:06:00 pm

 You **** seem to be pretty smart ...


 why can't you unite together to solve things ?


 Or is that beyond your grasp because the hatred towards each other is more rewarding?


 If that's the truth ... imagine how **** up you are.


 You'd rather send the planet down the toilet ... instead of shaking each others hands.


 Just so you can get in a jab at a punk that you don't know and will never meet ...


 actually you motherfuckers could meet up someday.


 I'd like to be there to pour the first beer for all of you.


 It is probably going to be COORS ... but what the **** ...


 the idea is not to be choosy ... but fuckin party !


 You boys like to party? I'll be there for you.   ;D :D ;) :) :P :-* ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 09, 2015, 12:32:22 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 08, 2015, 05:45:22 pm

And of course you would expect somebody to go to some legal library or some such thing to do your own stuff for you. Seems to me that if you want to know bad enough you'll find out on your own

To do my own stuff for ME?

YOU are the one who made the bullshit claim.  All I did was challenge you to back it up.  You can't, so now you contend it should be my responsibility to prove a claim which YOU made, and which I do not believe, and which was so vague it would be impossible for anyone to even try to demonstrate was false.

There is plenty around about Whitewater, but that is not the claim at issue.  The claim from you at issue was that multiple troopers who would have had damaging information about the Clintons were mysteriously murdered.  That claim is bullshit.

You just don't like being called on it and aren't man enough to acknowledge it was bullshit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 09, 2015, 05:18:02 am

you heard it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 09, 2015, 06:03:14 am

That's what lawyers (liars) do

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 09, 2015, 12:06:31 pm

One of the reasons this kind of outrageous conduct is seen from prosecuting attorneys is because the courts tolerate it, and do so without blinking an eye. http://www.usatoday.com/…/justice-honesty-governm…/24611623/

(I)in the California case of The People v. Efrain Velasco-Palacios. In the course of negotiating a plea bargain with the defendant, a Kern County prosecutor committed what the California appeals court called "outrageous government misconduct."

What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant's interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession. The defense attorney got a copy of the audio tape of the interrogation, but it "ended abruptly." Eventually, Murray admitted to falsifying the transcript, presumably in the hopes of either coercing a plea deal, or ensuring a victory at trial.

When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

Well, no. It just involved an officer of the court knowingly producing a fraudulent document in order to secure an illicit advantage. If Harris really thinks that knowingly producing a fraudulent document to secure an illicit advantage isn't "outrageous," then perhaps she slept through her legal ethics courses.

The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District didn't buy Harris's argument, and upheld the dismissal of charges. That means the defendant went free.

On one level, that's fair: The prosecution should pay a price when it engages in outrageous misconduct. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the defendant was actually guilty (sure, Murray was trying to railroad him, but you can railroad a guilty man) and now the charges against him have been dropped. If he's guilty, taxpayers are at risk for future crimes.

Meanwhile, Murray suffered no actual punishment for his wrongdoing. As a report in the New York Observer notes: "For reasons beyond comprehension, he still works for the District Attorney Lisa Green in Kern County, Calif." Murray does face the possibility of discipline from the California bar, but even disbarment would be a light punishment for knowingly producing a false document in a criminal proceeding.

Our criminal justice system depends on honesty. It's also based on the principle that people who do wrong should be punished. Prosecutors, however, often avoid any consequences for their misbehavior, even when it is repeated.

Worse yet, prosecutors are also immune from civil suit, under a Supreme Court-created doctrine called "absolute immunity" that is one of the greatest, though least discussed, examples of judicial activism in history. So prosecutors won't punish prosecutors, and victims of prosecutors' wrongdoing can't even sue them for damages.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 09, 2015, 02:08:53 pm

Perhaps one way to help strengthen Social Security would be to assure that everyone getting benefits is, you know, still alive...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/ig-audit-65-million-people-active-social-security-numbers-are-112-or-older

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 09, 2015, 02:10:44 pm

That, of course is an extreme action, and one that is obviously unethical and should be criminal.  On a similar subject, I have always thought that when an accused has not been given his rights, and confesses to a crime, that confession should not be thrown out, but rather the officer that failed to give the rights should receive substantial punishment, especially when it appears that the omission was deliberate.

Also, I have always wondered about the ethics of a situation that TV shows would make us think is a routine situation.  Two people are suspected of a crime, and the police question them separately.  Each is then told by the police that the other has confessed and incriminated him.  Obviously, not the same as producing a false confession and giving it to the lawyer, but at what point do we decide that lies by law enforcement officers are acceptable?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 09, 2015, 02:25:39 pm

Quote from: davep on March 09, 2015, 02:10:44 pm

I have always wondered about the ethics of a situation that TV shows would make us think is a routine situation.  Two people are suspected of a crime, and the police question them separately.  Each is then told by the police that the other has confessed and incriminated him.  Obviously, not the same as producing a false confession and giving it to the lawyer, but at what point do we decide that lies by law enforcement officers are acceptable?

It is considered perfectely ethical for either police or prosecuting attornies to do this, and I don't have a problem with it myself, though it would NOT be considered ethical and might be considered grounds for disbarment for a private attorney to do the same thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 09, 2015, 02:56:36 pm

I don't have a problem with it either, and for that matter, I have little problem with much of what is labeled as entrapment.

But at what differentiates the above from the actions of the prosecutor in the article?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 09, 2015, 06:51:59 pm

Quote from: davep on March 09, 2015, 02:56:36 pm

I don't have a problem with it either, and for that matter, I have little problem with much of what is labeled as entrapment.

But at what differentiates the above from the actions of the prosecutor in the article?

Because one is in an informal setting (the police lying to a suspect or a prosecutor telling a defendant that a co-defendant is talking), and the othe is in a formal setting.

To me it is the equivalent of the difference between a guy falsely telling a woman he is a millionaire when he is trying to pick her up for the evening and exchanging bogus financial records indicating he is a millionaire when he is negotiating the terms of a pre-marital agreement.

My personal sense of ethics would not approve of any of them, but I don't believe the misleading pickup line or the false statements I mentioned in a court setting intended to get the defendant/suspect to be more forthcoming should bring any legal punishment for the person responsible for the falsity.

One lie is intended to get a person to speak or to do something without permanent consequences.  The other is intended to get a person to lock themselves into a decision which is difficult to impossible to reverse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 09, 2015, 07:00:40 pm

Wouldn't a confession obtained that way "get a person to lock themselves into a decision which is difficult to impossible to reverse"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 09, 2015, 07:01:57 pm

 The main idea is to have fun.


 No matter what you post here ... nothing is going to change ever.


 You can shrill at the top of your lungs on a product known as the Internet ...


 but it is going to get you ... and all of us ... virtually nowhere.


 Instead what is going to happen is an incessant mind numbing replay of an argument that was started years ago in a display of the ultimate pissing contest in which there are no winners ... and no friends.




 YOU ... ARE ... THERE!!


 Kinda makes you look back in wonder and figure ...


 what the **** have I been doing with my life ?


 We could be solving things ... but NAH ... it's better to attack each other.


 You're never going to change ... it's not in your DNA to do so.


 Have at it mates. I love the entertainment.  :D   ;D   ::)


 One of you may be proven right in 50 years or so.  ???


 I'm loving it.  ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 09, 2015, 07:04:31 pm

jj, In this particular case I am not trying to change his mind about anything. I am just asking for a clarification.  I am simply curious I am not trying to argue about anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 09, 2015, 07:08:19 pm

Good luck wit that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 09, 2015, 07:12:59 pm

 Hey I'm just posting ... it has nothing to do with any other post in that it stands on it's own merits as that post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 09, 2015, 07:37:22 pm

davep, here is the appellate decision in the underlying case: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/F068833.PDF

Quote from: Pekin on March 09, 2015, 07:00:40 pm

Wouldn't a confession obtained that way "get a person to lock themselves into a decision which is difficult to impossible to reverse"?

Perhaps... and that would rather clearly not be a situation of getting "a person to speak or to do something without permanent consequences."  I also am not contending I have done a great job of distinguishing the differences in the two situations, but falsely telling a suspect during interrogationthat you already have a great deal of evidence against him so he might as well tell where he hid the handgun used to kill someone so it is recovered before a child finds it and accidentally shoots someone is rather different from telling a defendant and his defense attorney over a course of weeks or months during ongoing plea agreement talks that the prosecution has damaging evidence which it in fact lacks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 09, 2015, 07:54:26 pm

Fair enough.

I think most people would concede that in a matter of public safety it would be acceptable to lie about the evidence they have.  However isn't it common practice to lie about the evidence they have in cases that have nothing to do with public safety?  I thought that was just the way they did things.  Maybe I have just seen to many police shows on tv but I have personal experience that tells me otherwise.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 10, 2015, 07:49:09 am

Quote from: Pekin on March 09, 2015, 07:04:31 pm

jj, In this particular case I am not trying to change his mind about anything. I am just asking for a clarification.  I am simply curious I am not trying to argue about anything.

You know what they say about that can of worms..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 10, 2015, 09:25:36 am

I know what my daddy used to say. He said you can defecate in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up faster.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 10, 2015, 07:12:56 pm

Mark's Market Blog
3-8-15: This is a bad deal.
by Mark Lawrence
Last week I predicted volatility would return in March. Here it is. I'm very excited, I don't call them correctly very often. Anyway, stocks have been dropping for a week and are likely to continue to drop for a few more days. There's no particular reason for it of which I'm aware, they're just dropping because they can. Next week I expect they'll rebound, again because they can.
 
S&P 500 September 18 2014 to March 10 2015
The Euro, worth $1.40 just a year ago, is $1.08 and dropping like a rock. This is the lowest it's been in ten years. At current rates it will hit $1 sometime in April. Of course this is exactly the point of Super Mario's QE, to drop the value of the Euro thus boosting exports and jobs at the cost of imports and our jobs. Will we react? I find this an interesting question. Germany's five year bonds fell to a record low of -0.118% - people are now paying the German government to hold their money. Meanwhile start planning your suddenly 30% cheaper European vacation.

Greece continues to negotiate with Europe over their "bailout" - meaning the terms they must obey so that Europe will continue to buy Greek bonds from German and French banks and throw the Greeks a bone from time to time. Meanwhile Greece appears to be sliding back into recession, a recession far worse than the US experienced in the Great Depression. Greece's greatest critics have emerged to be not the Germans, who are intensely skeptical of the Greek work ethic, but rather the "centrist" and corrupt governments of Portugal, Spain and Italy, who fear the example of Syriza succeeding in Greece would further fuel the leftist parties in their countries who are equally tired of unemployment, declining property values and continued bank bailouts. The other Mediterranean governments see themselves as having a vested interest in Greece failing.



China has property developers going bankrupt as property values drop and China's anti-corruption program proceeds. It's starting to look a lot like a major property value crash over there. Development has been one of their major suppliers of jobs; this will have a huge impact on employment, investments, and the security of the government. I'm enjoying watching this develop.

The world is experiencing a period of great immigration. Who's gaining and who's losing people? It turns out it's a rather curious list:


Apparently the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, has died after undergoing surgery for cancer. IMHO, he's learning right now that Allah is not who he thinks. . . Meanwhile, it's now entirely unclear with whom Obama is negotiating.

Obama is negotiating a deal with Iraq. Bibi Netenyahu, the prime minister of Israel, spoke this week before the US congress saying "This is a bad deal." The deal is not complete, but as it stands right now Iran is allowed to keep 6,500 centrifuges, enough to make a bomb in about a year starting from scratch. They're not starting from scratch, of course - they have lots of enriched uranium laying around, Allah alone knows how much and how enriched. Furthermore, since they're jointly developing the bomb with N.Korea,and since N.Korea has about ten bombs we can safely assume five of those belong to Iran. Obama says the point of the "treaty" is to keep Iran perpetually, or at least until 2025 when the "treaty" expires, one year away from having a bomb. Iran looks like a country deeply invested in becoming nuclear with facilities spread all over the country, apparently to make them harder to bomb.


Saudi Arabia just this week called the Pakistani ambassador in to renew Pakistan's vows to supply Saudi Arabia with nukes if Iran gets them. Saudi Arabia will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The UAE has similar plans. Pakistan insists its weapons are safe, but the outside world cannot shake the fear that they may fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists, or even religious zealots within its own armed forces. When history catches up with North Korea's Kim dynasty, as sooner or later it must, nobody knows what will happen to its nukes--whether they might be inherited, sold, eliminated or, in a last futile gesture, detonated. Russia has started to wield nuclear threats as an offensive weapon in its strategy of intimidation. Its military exercises routinely stage dummy nuclear attacks on such capitals as Warsaw and Stockholm. Mr Putin's speeches contain veiled nuclear threats. Dmitry Kiselev, one of the Kremlin's mouthpieces, has declared with relish that Russian nuclear forces could turn America into "radioactive ash". In addition Japan, seeing China's conventional military strength, may feel it can no longer rely on America for protection. If so, Japan and South Korea could go for the bomb, creating, with North Korea, another petrifying regional stand-off. We're looking at a major nuclear proliferation, and all the guess work and crisis management that goes with it. Curiously Obama has presided over treaties with Russia to limit US warheads from the current 4,800 to 1,550 by 2018, in accord with his promise in 2009 to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but under Obama we have at least two new nuclear states, and Russia's defense spending is up a bit over 50% since 2007, a third of that devoted to nuclear weapons. I can't say it's a win for the US, but apparently Obama enjoys unilateral disarmament.

Iran has angered all their arabian neighbors with their support of Hamas, Hezbollah, groups in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Bahrain, to the point that when Netanyahu spoke poorly of Obama's deal he was given editorial support by commentators on arabian TV stations all over - Saudi, Jordanian, Palestinian - all telling Obama to listen to Netanyahu. Netanyahu argues that removing the sanctions on Iran should include not just controls on their developing a bomb, but Iran withdrawing their support for terrorist organizations all over the arab world. The Sunni arabs want no part of living in a world with a shi'ite bomb and don't like Iran's support for anti-sunni organizations. You have to admire Obama for this: for my entire adult life presidents have attempted to forge a peace between Israel and the arabs, and Obama has actually succeeded in uniting them on some major issues. Including both their mistrust of Iran and their mistrust of Obama. On our side, reports are that Obama sent a message to Israel that the US air force would defend Iran from an Israeli attack and would shoot down Israeli aircraft flying towards Iran. The arabs are equally against the lifting of Iran sanctions, as they think letting Iran return to a fully functioning economy would just lead to more sponsorship of adventurism and terrorism.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty. A formal treaty requires approval of 67 US senators, and that's simply not happening in the current political environment. Obama plans to do a deal with Iran by executive order. Senate republicans sent a letter to Iran warning them that our constitution placed firm limits on Obama making a deal without the consent of the senate; that any such deal would likely be negated by Obama's successor, and that congress can pass laws to modify the agreement terms at any time. Bills are already floating around the senate to require Obama to submit his deal to the senate, where it would be flogged and tortured. Since any executive deal cannot override the current senate approved sanctions against Iran, it's unclear what Obama has to offer. On Iran's part, an executive deal does not carry the legal weight of a treaty and cannot be enforced in world courts or the UN. Of course if Iran were to sign a deal then find Obama could not lift the sanctions, it's likely they would refuse to give up their 12,000 excess centrifuges. All things considered, I can't see right now how this multi-year negotiation is going to end on a positive note.

ISIL, in their continuing goal of destroying all history before mohammed, has bulldozed the 3500+ year old city of Nimrud. Again, I see this as both part of the history of Iraq and world civilization, and I'm simply appalled at these microcephalic congenital muslim idiots.


China has a new law that technology firms that produce encryption devices - this includes smart phones - must hand over all encryption keys to the Chinese government and install backdoors so that Chinese security can get in. Several Chinese firms like Xiaomi are making clones of the iPhone and Samsung android phones that they sell for about $100 - now those will not appear in the US any time soon. Xiaomi is the largest smart phone manufacturer in the world. I wonder how countries like India and Brazil will react to this.

UC President Janet Napolitano announced that non-resident enrollment at UCLA and Berkeley will be capped at current levels, about 20% of all students. She's caught in some competing trends - non-state students (read: Chinese) pay fill tuition and are a big help to her budget; however that doesn't leave enough slots to fill up with illegal aliens, as of course the future of science and business are completely dependent on diversity. If Einstein lived today he would obviously be unable to work without an attendant committee or 20 or so, carefully chosen to reflect his social matrix and diversity goals. California governor Brown has told her that she will not get increased funding if she raises tuition. Unspoken here is that it's illegal to use quotas to guarantee diversity, and the locals are now so packed with the children of illegals that they are unable to effectively compete against the best out of state students. I've said earlier that the UC system, once probably the world's best public universities, are in decline. This will not slow that trend.

Volvo has a new automatic braking system for semis that does collision avoidance. Everyone else is working on this too; Mercedes has an experimental truck that you drive with an ipad. I don't imagine my readers include a lot of truck drivers, but if you're a driver your days are numbered.

Russia's surgeon general Gennady Onishchenko said of McDonalds and Coca Cola "The aggressive marketing they carry out - which has nothing to do with our culinary traditions - is comparable to a war against our people." Senior Russian lawmaker Alexei Pushkov tweeted, "Don't McDonald's and Coca-Cola want to support Obama's sanctions and rid us of their products? They would stick to principles and we would be healthier." I agree with this.

New York public schools will begin closing to observe two Muslim holidays beginning next school year, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on Wednesday. The city's public school system is the largest in the country with 1.1 million students; Muslim students make up approximately 12% of the population. The move fulfills a promise de Blasio made to the Muslim community during the 2013 campaign that made him the first Democrat to run City Hall in 20 years. "Eid al-Adha, which will be observed Sept. 24 this year, commemorates Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son for God. Eid al-Fitr, which will occur in July 2016, marks the end of the holy month of fasting known as Ramadan." The New York Times described the decision as "a watershed moment for a group that has endured suspicion and hostility since the Sept. 11 attacks."

We've reached an important milestone in the US - in January, for the first time ever, food sales at restaurants and bars exceeded sales at grocery stores. It appears this trend will only continue as there's few left in this country who know how to cook.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 10, 2015, 07:28:02 pm

Only in Muslim America. Good Grief

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 10, 2015, 07:41:55 pm

It is not a matter of no one knowing how to cook.  It is cheaper to eat at a restaurant then it is to cook at home anymore. 

On weekends the wife and I can go out to eat 6 oz. filet mignon kabobs, baked potato, texas toast and salad bar with a soda for $15 each at a very nice restaurant at lunch time and we do not need to eat the rest of the day.  Try making that at home for less.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 10, 2015, 09:02:53 pm

The more I learn about Scott Walker the less I like about him.  http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/scott-walker-flip-flops-in-favor-of-fede  Much as I would like it to be the case, I doubt that otto's hatred of him is not going to be enough to make me embrace Walker.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 10, 2015, 09:27:11 pm

Scott Walker has warts.  All the Republican candidates do.  However right now he is definitely in my top 3 choices as he is conservative and knows how to handle the liberal attacks.

Right now Walker, Rubio and Cruz are my top choices.  I like Ben Carson as well but as much as I like him I don't think he is a good enough politician to win (to good of a man).  He may very well make the best president of the bunch though.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 11, 2015, 12:47:09 am

Peke...you eat once a day on the weekends?? Dude, how thin are you? If you turn sideways, do you disappear?? We've found it's much much more expensive to eat out than to eat at home. It's running us $35 to $60 for the five of us to eat out vs less than half that to eat at home. We eat out way too much and are trying to cut back. It's easy to do when it hits $50 a shot....

Quote

Apparently the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, has died after undergoing surgery for cancer. IMHO, he's learning right now that Allah is not who he thinks. . . 

Amen to that. How those 70 virgin devils working out for ya?.....


Obama's foreign policy is a disaster and will result in the entire Middle East with nukes. And once again, there's that deal with him threatening to shoot down Israeli warplanes headed for Iran.

This Country is losing its mind. Only here would we grant holidays to a group that threatens to kill us and take our heads off- Islam. They destroy two of our towers, idiots in New York, the VERY same spot this occurred on, say HEY, lets let these people put a mosque near ground zero and lets have a couple holidays for em!!

Idiots, all.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 11, 2015, 02:40:01 am

 Gotta love politics !


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBb_tPPA8E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBb_tPPA8E)

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWq15lDh8yM&list=PLRb-FpYD7fbD0RHlVdqZPO-hnUIWOUlP5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWq15lDh8yM&list=PLRb-FpYD7fbD0RHlVdqZPO-hnUIWOUlP5)


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv87NJ2xX0k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv87NJ2xX0k)


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVx6bXoCnC0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVx6bXoCnC0)



 


 


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 11, 2015, 04:57:23 am

$50 for five? Where the heck are you eating, McDonalds?  Though I do have to agree, cheaper to eat at home..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on March 11, 2015, 05:09:01 am

We order out once per week, and for 4 adults it averages $55.  Where it get's expensive when you eat out is buying a couple of beers along with the meal, then the ticket gets to $90 in a hurry.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 11, 2015, 09:42:43 am

Well I too have narrowed my choice down to 3, probably not your same 3. I like what Walker has done in Wisconsin and respect that but I am not so sure his anti-labor stance is going to get him elected POTUS. INOW I doubt he is electable if nominated. At this point in time my front runner is Rand Paul. I am anti-big government and oppressive ones at that. We need somebody to stand up to that. Rand Paul seems to be the best candidate for that. I really don't know just where Cruz and Rubio stand. Perry is attractive but he has a lot of liabilities too. We need somebody who is familiar with the border issues to end them permanently and a Texan should know best how to accomplish that. It just has to stop, and it wont stop under Clinton or any other Dumbo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 11, 2015, 04:58:56 pm

Soooo yesterday... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKrLMAf3xN0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 11, 2015, 05:22:05 pm

Dorian Gray.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 11, 2015, 05:23:37 pm

The 50 states if the population gradient were equal.

(https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/_I3Qr5MpJktl3Rse2y1WumFPGh4=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/785302/electoral10-1100.0.jpg.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 11, 2015, 05:26:03 pm

Quote from: packrat on March 11, 2015, 05:22:05 pm

Dorian Gray.

Dorian didn't age and maintained a young, good looking appearance.

Somehow that would not seem to apply.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 11, 2015, 05:32:09 pm

I should have said eating out for two is cheaper.  Well unless you want to eat leftovers for a long time. 

Sporty on weekends we go out to eat for lunch, run a few errands then I start drinking beer.  I am good for the day. 

I am not thin but I don't want to be fat either.  During the week I eat a light lunch and a decent dinner.  I stick to diet soda or water when I am not drinking beer.  I rarely eat anything for breakfast.  I am usually not hungry right away and I really don't have time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 11, 2015, 05:43:45 pm

Actually, the reverse.  Sorry, Jes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 11, 2015, 05:46:21 pm

Interesting comparison.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/6/8157905/suprising-maps-America

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 11, 2015, 05:48:41 pm

Really? http://reason.com/blog/2015/…/11/florida-circumcision-battle


Arrest Warrant Issued for Florida Mom Who Refuses to Get Son Circumcised
What's the state's interest in this boy's foreskin?

Elizabeth Nolan Brown|Mar. 11, 2015 9:20 am.

Can the state of Florida force a mother to have her 4-year-old son circumcised? It seems so. Last Friday, a Palm Beach County judge told Heather Hironimus to get the boy the circumcision or be jailed. .

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 11, 2015, 05:50:03 pm

Quote from: packrat on March 11, 2015, 05:43:45 pm

Actually, the reverse.  Sorry, Jes.

~sigh~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray
Dorian Gray is the subject of a full-length portrait in oil by Basil Hallward, an artist who is impressed and infatuated by Dorian's beauty; he believes that Dorian’s beauty is responsible for the new mode in his art as a painter. Through Basil, Dorian meets Lord Henry Wotton, and he soon is enthralled by the aristocrat's hedonistic worldview: that beauty and sensual fulfilment are the only things worth pursuing in life.

Understanding that his beauty will fade, Dorian expresses the desire to sell his soul, to ensure that the picture, rather than he, will age and fade. The wish is granted, and Dorian pursues a libertine life of varied and amoral experiences; all the while his portrait ages and records every soul-corrupting sin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 11, 2015, 08:46:02 pm

 Jeb Bush is the next POTUS unless he gets caught up in some kind of scandal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on March 11, 2015, 08:52:39 pm

nah, Jeb won't make it unless he can change his last name.

I heard on the radio today that there was some study to show which cities in the country had the best ROI on their tax dollars.
They ranked things like education, law enforcement, parks and some other criteria.
I think 8 of the top 10 cities were in Tx, the other two were Pittsburgh and Philly.
Lubbock Tx was #1.

I think most of the bottom 10 were in CA and NY.

Seems we should be looking at the folks that run TX and PA to run our country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 11, 2015, 09:23:44 pm

Yeah the name Bush wont get him elected after his brother.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 11, 2015, 09:26:50 pm

If Jeb Bush wins the Republican primary due to donor cash he will suffer the same fate as the liberals McCain and Romney.  No way he wins because the conservatives will stay home.

How does the Republican leadership not get this?  Or perhaps they do and the leadership of both parties want the people of this country on the fast march to being dependent and repressed by government. 

A conservative leader that can speak the truth and make people understand it wins hands down against the liberal Democrat lies.  If you put up a Liberal Democrat light candidate you lose.  The people that want liberalism will vote Democrat anyway. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 11, 2015, 09:27:28 pm

Personally I don't think Bush can win the nomination.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 11, 2015, 09:29:28 pm

I hope not

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 11, 2015, 10:24:48 pm

I also hope not, but I still think he is the odds on favorite at this time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 11, 2015, 10:30:35 pm

ABO.....Anyone But Obama. I'm at that point now.....Hillary is a step up even from OB, he's that bad. Not a big step up, a little teeny one.... but Bush is a huge step up from him. So, again ABO>.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on March 12, 2015, 01:57:44 pm

Obamacare at it's best.  Took my wife for an MRI on her foot last night.  They told me it was $300 up front before they would do it?  WHAT?  Usually we get billed.  The lady said they are required to get payment first up front because of the ACA, better known as Obamacare.  "She has an MRI scheduled for Monday too this one for the head.  What about that?"  They receptionist replied...  $600 due on Monday.  Different prices due to different parts of the anatomy.  Understandable but to pay up front?

WTF?  We have always had Aetna and nothing changed with our insurance.  The imaging center said their rules had to change for collecting the copay and coinsurance up front, before service, if any is due.  I fell bad for anyone who can't afford to pay that.

I told the chick I had a $20 bill on me take that till Monday when she comes back or she leaves with the broken foot.  They did the MRI...

That is the most ignorant thing I have heard about Obamacare outside of if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on March 12, 2015, 02:04:14 pm

They didn't report you to social services for Spousal Abuse?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: method on March 12, 2015, 02:43:18 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on March 12, 2015, 01:57:44 pm

Obamacare at it's best.  Took my wife for an MRI on her foot last night.  They told me it was $300 up front before they would do it?  WHAT?  Usually we get billed.  The lady said they are required to get payment first up front because of the ACA, better known as Obamacare.  "She has an MRI scheduled for Monday too this one for the head.  What about that?"  They receptionist replied...  $600 due on Monday.  Different prices due to different parts of the anatomy.  Understandable but to pay up front?

WTF?  We have always had Aetna and nothing changed with our insurance.  The imaging center said their rules had to change for collecting the copay and coinsurance up front, before service, if any is due.  I fell bad for anyone who can't afford to pay that.

I told the chick I had a $20 bill on me take that till Monday when she comes back or she leaves with the broken foot.  They did the MRI...

That is the most ignorant thing I have heard about Obamacare outside of if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

WML my wife had to do a sleep study for sleep apnea last month... we too have aetna and have never had issues with co-insurance deductable bs...

The hospital required 780 dollar payment up front... 60 days later now... aetna paid the claim and said my share was only 50 dollars... i have placed about 50 calls with the billing department trying to get my 730 bucks back...

Her doc asked for a second sleep study.... even though the hospital now knows my insurance will cover it... and they owe me 730 dollars from the last one... they refuse to schedule it without another 780 dollar payment up front...

If we dont do it soon, the 1st study expires and we have to redo both.

basically we get to give the hospital 1400 bucks to hold for god knows how long interest free.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 12, 2015, 03:35:43 pm

That's a mess!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 12, 2015, 08:33:07 pm

Quote from: wmljohn on March 12, 2015, 01:57:44 pm

Obamacare at it's best.  Took my wife for an MRI on her foot last night.  They told me it was $300 up front before they would do it?  WHAT?  Usually we get billed.  The lady said they are required to get payment first up front because of the ACA, better known as Obamacare.

I am not doubting what you say were told, but assuming it is true that is what you were told, I put absolutely no stock in the accuracy of what you were told.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 12, 2015, 09:06:43 pm

http://www.pantagraph.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/advocates-of-illinois-youths-unfit-for-military/article_3a747556-ef79-5adb-ad18-6f429be0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 12, 2015, 09:54:15 pm

Quote from: packrat on March 12, 2015, 09:06:43 pm

http://www.pantagraph.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/advocates-of-illinois-youths-unfit-for-military/article_3a747556-ef79-5adb-ad18-6f429be0

It says "Sorry, that page doesn't exist!"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 12, 2015, 11:33:40 pm

I think if Obama runs this treaty through the United Nations Congress should impeach him.

http://news.yahoo.com/senator-warns-obama--don-t-skip-congress-for-u-n--on-iran-175835014.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on March 13, 2015, 07:50:53 am

My wife was refused her annual female test as he doc said it is only "allowed" every 3 years under Obamacare rules.

Granted I pay, along with my employer well over $20K for health insurance through Blue Cross (who allows the test and pays the bill every year)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 08:43:37 am

Quote from: davebear on March 13, 2015, 07:50:53 am

My wife was refused her annual female test as he doc said it is only "allowed" every 3 years under Obamacare rules.  Granted I pay, along with my employer well over $20K for health insurance through Blue Cross (who allows the test and pays the bill every year)

Did you offer to self-pay, making clear that you were willing to pay in cash out of your pocket?

One of the things many seem to ignore is the degree to which it is human nature to try to explain things very, very easily, and in doing so to rely on whatever excuse (or reason) which migh be reasily accepted, even if not true.  In other words, even when someone in a doctor's office SAYS they are doing or not doing something because of ObamaCare, that does not really mean ObamaCare was in fact involved at all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 08:45:10 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 12, 2015, 11:33:40 pm

I think if Obama runs this treaty through the United Nations Congress should impeach him.

http://news.yahoo.com/senator-warns-obama--don-t-skip-congress-for-u-n--on-iran-175835014.html

Why?  And what do you mean by "runs this treaty (which does not yet exist) through the United Nations"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 13, 2015, 09:14:07 am

You obviously didn't read the article first, just flapped your lip. If you had read it talk was that instead of allowing the Senate, which is their responsibility to ratify treaties, to ratify a proposed Iran treaty, he would give it to the UN Security council to ratify, thus bypassing congressional opposition to allowing the Iranians to become a neuclear power.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 09:48:40 am

Wshfl, there is not yet an agreement, let alone a treaty (which only exists once an agreement is ratified by the Senate), to ratify, or even to be concerned about.  As to giving "it to the UN Security council to ratify, thus bypassing congressional opposition," could you explain exactly how that would work?

It would be about like be negotiating an agreement on your behalf with otto, and then not presenting it to you for your approval but presenting it to davep for him to approve it, even though he was not a party to the agreement.  It would bypass nothing.  It would be meaningless.

The link you offered presents only one source supporting the concern about any agreement being presented to the UN.  That link is here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/how-a-u-n-security-council-resolution-transforms-a-non-binding-agreement-with-iran-into-a-binding-obligation-under-international-law-without-any-new-senatorial-or-congressional-vote/  And this is the first, and only actually significant sentence at that link, written by Harvard Law School profesor Jack Goldsmith: "It is now clear that any deal with Iran will by its terms be a non-binding agreement."

The professor did run thru a scenario which would result in the agreement becoming international law (it would NOT be a treaty to which the U.S. was a party and this approach would not be having, as you have written, "the UN Security council to ratify" the agreement), though he also concluded the piece by acknowledging that any president trying that approach would likely face domestic political feedback far too great to have him even consider it.  (He also failed to acknowledge that even if it DID become international law, that would not require the U.S. to observe it.  And he also failed to acknowledge that since the current negotiations at multi-national the approach he said COULD happen could also happen even if the U.S. takes no part whatsoever in the current talks and actually openly opposes them.)

So I ask again, since your definition of things and your concerns need not be the same as the meaningless ones offered at your link (and since your definition and concerns might actually make sense): Why would you support impeachment for this?  And what do you mean by "runs this treaty (which does not yet exist) through the United Nations"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on March 13, 2015, 10:01:17 am

Jes,

my post was completely factual.  The doctor said she could not do the test due to Obama care regardless of payment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 13, 2015, 10:14:44 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 09:48:40 am

Wshfl, there is not yet an agreement, let alone a treaty (which only exists once an agreement is ratified by the Senate), to ratify, or even to be concerned about.  As to giving "it to the UN Security council to ratify, thus bypassing congressional opposition," could you explain exactly how that would work?

We belong to the United Nations through a treaty that has been ratified by a previous Senate.  Some legal scholars say that this treaty obligates us to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions.  If the agreement (which would affect a great many countries other than merely Iran and the United States) is presented to and passed by the United Nations Security Council, the United States would be legally obligated to follow it.

I have not read the United Nations Treaty, so I have no idea if this is accurate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 10:26:57 am

Quote from: davebear on March 13, 2015, 10:01:17 am

Jes, my post was completely factual.  The doctor said she could not do the test due to Obama care regardless of payment.

If I failed to make this clear before, I apologize: I am not disputing that anyone was told this.  I am disputing that what they were told accurately reflected reality, if the way it was related here is accurate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 10:31:51 am

Quote from: davep on March 13, 2015, 10:14:44 am

We belong to the United Nations through a treaty that has been ratified by a previous Senate.  Some legal scholars say that this treaty obligates us to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions.  If the agreement (which would affect a great many countries other than merely Iran and the United States) is presented to and passed by the United Nations Security Council, the United States would be legally obligated to follow it.

I have not read the United Nations Treaty, so I have no idea if this is accurate.

No, it wouldn't, but, as the professor pointed out, he felt the possibility of any president (even this one) being willing to deal with the political fallout which would result if he tried to make an end run around Congress that way and then insisted the U.S. was bound by it is more than mildly remote.

Back to your contention it would bind us, I believe there are no Supreme Court decisions to that effect, and it would violate standard principles of law.

This is much ado about nothing until we first at least see what agreement, if any, results from the talks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on March 13, 2015, 10:44:36 am

Jes,

My sister in another state works for an OBGYN group and she told me the same thing: they can only test every 3 years per the ACA.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 11:03:03 am

Again, I am not disputing what anyone was told, only whether it is true.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on March 13, 2015, 11:10:03 am

Quote

I am not doubting what you say were told, but assuming it is true that is what you were told, I put absolutely no stock in the accuracy of what you were told. - Jes

As much as I don't like Obama, and would love to lay blame on this stupid ACA, I told my wife the same thing.  This may just be the imaging center/hospital changing their procedures and blaming it on the ACA so they get paid first.  I just have no interest to look it up or not because it doesn't matter what the cause of the change is they are still going to uphold their "new" policy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 11:14:14 am

It is also entirely possible the issue is not whether the ACA will ALLOW annual testing, but whether it will allow complying insurance companies to COVER annual testing.  That is why I suggested asking about self-pay.  There is a huge difference between not allowing something and simply not paying for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on March 13, 2015, 11:24:58 am

John,

I have private insurance so the  doctor is paid directly.  Since they can't do the test they are paid nothing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 13, 2015, 11:43:34 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 09:48:40 am

Wshfl, there is not yet an agreement, let alone a treaty (which only exists once an agreement is ratified by the Senate), to ratify, or even to be concerned about.  As to giving "it to the UN Security council to ratify, thus bypassing congressional opposition," could you explain exactly how that would work?

It would be about like be negotiating an agreement on your behalf with otto, and then not presenting it to you for your approval but presenting it to davep for him to approve it, even though he was not a party to the agreement.  It would bypass nothing.  It would be meaningless.

The link you offered presents only one source supporting the concern about any agreement being presented to the UN.  That link is here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/how-a-u-n-security-council-resolution-transforms-a-non-binding-agreement-with-iran-into-a-binding-obligation-under-international-law-without-any-new-senatorial-or-congressional-vote/  And this is the first, and only actually significant sentence at that link, written by Harvard Law School profesor Jack Goldsmith: "It is now clear that any deal with Iran will by its terms be a non-binding agreement."

The professor did run thru a scenario which would result in the agreement becoming international law (it would NOT be a treaty to which the U.S. was a party and this approach would not be having, as you have written, "the UN Security council to ratify" the agreement), though he also concluded the piece by acknowledging that any president trying that approach would likely face domestic political feedback far too great to have him even consider it.  (He also failed to acknowledge that even if it DID become international law, that would not require the U.S. to observe it.  And he also failed to acknowledge that since the current negotiations at multi-national the approach he said COULD happen could also happen even if the U.S. takes no part whatsoever in the current talks and actually openly opposes them.)

So I ask again, since your definition of things and your concerns need not be the same as the meaningless ones offered at your link (and since your definition and concerns might actually make sense): Why would you support impeachment for this?  And what do you mean by "runs this treaty (which does not yet exist) through the United Nations"?

If there ever becomes an agreement, which you so aptly point out hasn't happened, and Obama bypasses Congress, and takes the proposed agreement to the UN Security council, I believe the Congress would be justified to impeach Obama. I believe that would fall under the "political ramifications" which you aluded to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 13, 2015, 01:00:51 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 10:31:51 am

Back to your contention it would bind us, I believe there are no Supreme Court decisions to that effect, and it would violate standard principles of law.

This is much ado about nothing until we first at least see what agreement, if any, results from the talks.

If you had read my post, you would know that it was not MY contention that it would bind us.  I was quite clear that there were some that said we would be legally bound, and I was quite clear that I, personally, did not know if we would be bound or not.

Of course, you seldom bother to read, or if you read, you seldom try to understand, what the poster actually said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 13, 2015, 06:44:46 pm

 Has it ever seemed strange that although you are UNITED STATES Citizens ...


 you are not in charge of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?


 Whose Country is it ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 13, 2015, 06:52:08 pm

Which one of us do you think should be in charge?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 13, 2015, 07:56:07 pm

 

Quote from: davep on March 13, 2015, 06:52:08 pm

Which one of us do you think should be in charge?

 How about all of us ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 10:21:22 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 13, 2015, 11:43:34 am

If there ever becomes an agreement, which you so aptly point out hasn't happened, and Obama bypasses Congress, and takes the proposed agreement to the UN Security council, I believe the Congress would be justified to impeach Obama. I believe that would fall under the "political ramifications" which you aluded to.

~sigh~  No, that would fall under foolishness.

The Constitution provides two different grounds for impeachment -- High Crimes being the first and Misdemeanors being the second.

So what would the crime be there?

It would not be grounds for impeachment, and even any of his harshest critics would not want to create the precedent of removing a president from office simply for doing something which was very unpopular.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 10:32:04 pm

Quote from: davep on March 13, 2015, 01:00:51 pm

If you had read my post, you would know that it was not MY contention that it would bind us.  I was quite clear that there were some that said we would be legally bound, and I was quite clear that I, personally, did not know if we would be bound or not.

Of course, you seldom bother to read, or if you read, you seldom try to understand, what the poster actually said.

I read what you wrote and understood it without difficulty, and my response reflected an accurate understanigd of what you wrote.  Now, I will acknowledge that might not have been what you INTENDED, but that is a problem with your writing, not my reading.

Your earlier post included the following:

Quote from: davep on March 13, 2015, 10:14:44 am

If the agreement (which would affect a great many countries other than merely Iran and the United States) is presented to and passed by the United Nations Security Council, the United States would be legally obligated to follow it.

Now, you may well have intended that sentence to have been part of your prior sentence in which you set out what "some legal scholars say," but you did not do so.  You presented the sentence above without attributing the position to anyone, making it your own.

Now, as I have acknowledged here, you may not have INTENDED what you wrote, but it is what you wrote.

If there was a problem of misunderstanding in out exchange, it was not one created by any faulty reading of mine, but instead one of your writing.

Perhaps you would be well served by writing what you compose before you post it instead of complaining that someone who read it correctly did not do a good job of mind-reading to determine your actual intent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 13, 2015, 10:53:59 pm

And once again Jes turns it into a flame fest...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 13, 2015, 11:00:08 pm

Surprised??....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 13, 2015, 11:15:48 pm

Nope.  Trolls will be trolls.

He did hold it together for a bit though.

He never did flame me but then I wasn't debating him.

He just can't help himself he has to insult someone.  Then when they give him **** right back he goes nuclear and the flame war is on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 14, 2015, 07:50:28 am

Quote from: Pekin on March 13, 2015, 10:53:59 pm

And once again Jes turns it into a flame fest...

Quote

Of course, you seldom bother to read, or if you read, you seldom try to understand, what the poster actually said.

That did not come from me, it came from davep, and it not only failed to address the exchange which was going on, it made a bogus claim that I "seldom bother to read, or if (I) read, (I) seldom try to understand" what I am responding to.  My response was in kind.  It initiated nothing, and it quite directly pointed davep to the language in his post making clear that he had written exactly as I understood, meaning if anything in the exchange was out of line, it was his post, not mine.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 08:21:37 am

Jes, You insult someone's intelligence by making some condescending remark. When they go back at you in anyway you take it as an attack and flame away.  This is a pattern I have seen over and over here.

Perhaps you don't mean to be troll and don't think you are being insulting.  I am not it sure it really matters what your intent is because as long as you engage in the same behavior you are going to get the same results.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 14, 2015, 09:12:18 am

This isn't Jes's thread is it? So why should he set the rules of conversation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 14, 2015, 09:24:46 am

Quote from: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 08:21:37 am

Jes, You insult someone's intelligence by making some condescending remark. When they go back at you in anyway you take it as an attack and flame away.  This is a pattern I have seen over and over here.

Perhaps you don't mean to be troll and don't think you are being insulting.  I am not it sure it really matters what your intent is because as long as you engage in the same behavior you are going to get the same results.

And what I have seen from you at least four consecutive times now, dating back at least to September of last year, is for you to attack me in generalities and to avoid specifics.  You are doing that here and now.

I made NO condescending comment to davep before his claim that I had not read or understood what he had written.  As I have pointed out, I did read it and I did understand what was written, even if it was not what he intended.

To save you time, here is the entire post of mine to davep which your post immediately above suggests was somehow condescending:

Quote

No, it wouldn't, but, as the professor pointed out, he felt the possibility of any president (even this one) being willing to deal with the political fallout which would result if he tried to make an end run around Congress that way and then insisted the U.S. was bound by it is more than mildly remote.

Back to your contention it would bind us, I believe there are no Supreme Court decisions to that effect, and it would violate standard principles of law.

This is much ado about nothing until we first at least see what agreement, if any, results from the talks.

I may be on the road most of the day and unable to see your response for a while, but please point out to me what part of that post was in any way condescending.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 14, 2015, 09:27:27 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 14, 2015, 09:12:18 am

This isn't Jes's thread is it? So why should he set the rules of conversation?

Amusing... where did I try to do so?  When did I even suggest what a person could or could not post or discuss?  When did I attempt to dictate the manner in which they would engage in conversation?  Where might my rules be, if I did set up any?  WHAT might those rules be?  When have I suggested that any poster be banned or ignored?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 14, 2015, 11:08:46 am

Quote from: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 08:21:37 am

Jes, You insult someone's intelligence by making some condescending remark.

It is not his condescending remarks that are the problem.  It is his stupid remarks.  He still thinks that he is talking to the jury, and anything that convinces the most stupid jurist negates the fact that the rest of them realize he is an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 14, 2015, 11:32:30 am

Uh Oh. I smell trouble coming. His Excelency wont like that

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 14, 2015, 03:06:51 pm

So, Davep, are you actually contending that when you wrote, "If the agreement (which would affect a great many countries other than merely Iran and the United States) is presented to and passed by the United Nations Security Council, the United States would be legally obligated to follow it," and offered it as a complete sentence, without being attributed to anyone other than you, a reader should have understood it as being something other than your own contention and that we should have attributed it to someone else?

If so, might you explain how or why a reader should have had that understanding?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 14, 2015, 07:01:32 pm

 Jes I love you.


 You know why I love you?


 Because you're Otto.  ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 07:58:15 pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/ar-AA9M9B5

This **** is too funny!  Liberals have no shame.  These two things are no where near the same.  Not even close.  Yet the liberal media has no problem defending Hillary and acting as if, "well he did it too!". 

But hell if they drag down another liberal more power to them.  No way in hell another Bush is ever going to get elected president anyway.  Let them destroy him so he can't destroy the Republican chances of winning the presidency.  Hopefully one that is conservative.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 14, 2015, 08:08:09 pm

Most voters are bright enough to be able to distinguish the difference, but for Bush I suspect it will be a complete non-factor in his primary race.  In the primary he has way bigger problems than anything related to email.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 14, 2015, 08:10:52 pm

Oh, and, Pekin, again, please do point out to me where in my respose to davep was condescending.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 14, 2015, 08:15:07 pm

Quote

Most voters are bright enough to be able to distinguish the difference 

Wrongo. If most voters were bright, we wouldn't be sitting with a twice elected failed community organizer as Pres.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 14, 2015, 08:26:41 pm

This should be rich.


OK peke, what did Sec. Of State Hillary Clinton do?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 08:29:39 pm

Jes, Your post to him was not condescending.  It was your posts to those posting about the ACA.  You started out well but then kept being more insulting.  I honestly don't think you meant to be. 

I can't speak for others but when I read through you insulting people for two pages I get to the point where I just assume your next post is an insult even if you don't mean it to be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 14, 2015, 08:30:36 pm

And as an aside, if you are complaining about the intelligence of voters....you have lost the battle of ideas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 14, 2015, 08:34:20 pm

Of course, religious zealotry never stops playing a losing hand.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 08:35:24 pm

Otto, if you have no clue what Hillary did wrong I am not sure what to say to you.

I am sick of people thinking it is ok for a politician to be dirty just because they are the party they vote for. 

For instance Aaron Schock  is in a lot of hot water right now and if he broke the law I hope he goes to jail.  If he simply broke rules then I hope he loses next primary and someone with better morals replaces him.  He will not get another vote from me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 14, 2015, 08:40:53 pm

Peke


She like Sec. Of State before her kept a private email. What are you alleging that she did exactly?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 09:03:04 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/hillary-clinton-emails_n_6791530.html

Federal law says letters and emails written and received by federal officials are government records that must be retained, according to the paper. Regulations at the time Clinton served as secretary of state called for emails on personal accounts to be preserved as well, the paper said.

The Times said most experts believed private email accounts should only be used for official government business in emergencies, according to the Times.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 09:07:19 pm

I don't care if the person before her did something wrong that does not make it alright for her to do something wrong.  Also the person before her is not planning to be the next president of the United States of America.

This is the Aaron Schock defense.  Well everyone does it.  That does not make it right.  IMO every single one of them should be audited and if they broke a law be arrested and go to court.  If they broke rules then they should be voted out.

It is not OK for politicians to take advantage of their position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 12:38:29 am

Quote from: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 08:29:39 pm

Jes, Your post to him was not condescending.  It was your posts to those posting about the ACA.  You started out well but then kept being more insulting.  I honestly don't think you meant to be. 

I can't speak for others but when I read through you insulting people for two pages I get to the point where I just assume your next post is an insult even if you don't mean it to be.

So you acknowledge that your complaint about my response to davep was unwarranted and that you did not really bother to read the exchange and simply made an assumption which fit your preconcieved notion and that you then complained that I "insult(ed) someone.... (and went) nuclear."

That's progress.  Now, if we could only get davep to address how it was I should have understood the sentence he included without attribution was not his opinion, and also why in the world that made a difference warranting his attack.....  Would have been very easy for him to simply have pointed out that he had meant that contention to have been attributed to someone else and not to have claimed it as his own, and would have also allowed the discussion to remain on focus instead of getting off track in such petty bullshit as this.

One last point, as to your claim that I was, "condescending.... to those posting about the ACA(, that I) started out well but then kept being more insulting," is there any possibility you could point to any condescention in any of my posts about the ACA in the last several days, or to any insult in my posts about the ACA during that period?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 12:53:55 am

Quote from: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 09:07:19 pm

IMO every single one of them should be audited and if they broke a law be arrested and go to court.  If they broke rules then they should be voted out..

Quite often laws regulating the conduct of those in government (whether at a state or federal level) involve no criminal punishment for those who violate them.  And that would appear to be the case here, if there was any violation of the law by Hillary.  In other words, those upset that she violated the law and wanting to make sure that "the law" is always followed would appear to be a bit inconsistant to call for her arrest and prosecution over her email when arrest and prosecution would itself not be following the law.

Quote from: Pekin on March 14, 2015, 09:07:19 pm

If they broke rules then they should be voted out.

In Hillary's case, she is already "out" and she was at the time holding an office for which she never stood for election.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 01:27:39 am

I can't speak for them.  I took it that you were stating that the doctors office staff were giving them that information but that the doctors staff was ill informed.  I personally still don't know what is in the ACA because it is a huge pile of steaming ****.  No one read it before it was passed.  Yet people are surprised it is a horrible bill.  We still do not know all that is in it. 

I however can see with your past behavior why they would assume you are insulting their intelligence.  That is generally where you start and get worse from there.  On top of which this bill is huge, has many aspects of which only get placed after a time and those time tables are changed on a whim by the administration.  There is reason for paranoia. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 01:42:42 am

So you also can not find anything where I was condescending toward anyone in my posts regarding the ACA.  I don't really see how anyone could even have MIS-read either of my posts and thought they were condescending.

A normal person might apologize at this point, but I notice you have not done that, and likely will not.

As to your comments about ObamaCare (that name seems much more fitting than calling it the ACA), that pretty much reflects my position, as well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 02:07:17 am

This is not a court of law and you are not going to win (nor will I).  The court of public opinion is against you however. 

I am not making it up that you are condescending.  You have a track record of it and a day of posts does not make up for it or change public opinion.  In this instance I don't think you are completely wrong.  Which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt.  I am pretty sure a lot of folks around here are done giving you that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 15, 2015, 06:27:11 am

You got that right Peke.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 09:53:57 am

Quote from: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 02:07:17 am

This is not a court of law

Pekin, is there anyone who suggested that it was?

Quote from: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 02:07:17 am

you are not going to win (nor will I).

So what would constitute winning?  And is there some reason that posts here are to be limited to those discusions which those which one person might "win"?  And doesn't viewing discussions as those which can be won or lost (which appears to be what you are doing) frame them in a particularly confrontational manner?

Quote from: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 02:07:17 am

The court of public opinion is against you however.

What is with your obsession with courts?  And why is it that you appear to believe that once you think others agree with you that you should no longer actually discuss a substantive issue.

Quote from: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 02:07:17 am

I am not making it up that you are condescending.  You have a track record of it and a day of posts does not make up for it or change public opinion.  In this instance I don't think you are completely wrong.  Which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

This exchange is not about whether I am or am not condescending, or whether I have a track record of it.  It is about whether in the specific exchanges at issue any of my posts were in any way or to any degree condescending.

It appears you are now acknowledging that they were not.. though, of course you do not apologize for the claim, and instead want to maintain your claim that I "have a track record of it" in order to assure that "public opinion" remains with you.

As I mentioned earlier, Pekin, this is at least the fourth time you have done this since September, and you did it at least a few times before then.  Each time you have inserted yourself into an exchange in which you were not taking part and attacked me for what you perceived was my condescending tone or unwarranted criticism of another poster or misrepresenting a position or the like, and at least three of those times you also made it a point to call me a troll (even though YOUR conduct in those posts perfectly met the definition you offered from "troll" in the first of your posts calling me a troll, and MY conduct in those posts did not), and each time I have challenged you on it, asking you to point to the specifics in my posts at issue which for which you were criticising me.... and I believe that each time (this now being at least the fourth) you ultimately fail to point to anything in my posts at issue and instead simply fall back on the same thing you do here -- that your criticism simply applies to me in general, whether your specific claims are accurate or not.  And each time you fail to apologize.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 10:03:58 am

And one more time, now, if we could only get davep to explain how it was when he set out a position without attributing it to having come from anyone else I was supposed to know that it was not his own position and was instead someone else, I would sincerely appreciate it.

I ask this not for the purpose of trying to determine who was right or who was wrong, or in the hope of ever seeing davep apologize for this:

Quote from: davep on March 13, 2015, 01:00:51 pm

If you had read my post, you would know that it was not MY contention that it would bind us.  I was quite clear that there were some that said we would be legally bound, and I was quite clear that I, personally, did not know if we would be bound or not. Of course, you seldom bother to read, or if you read, you seldom try to understand, what the poster actually said.

or for this:

Quote from: davep on March 14, 2015, 11:08:46 am

It is not his condescending remarks that are the problem.  It is his stupid remarks.  He still thinks that he is talking to the jury, and anything that convinces the most stupid jurist negates the fact that the rest of them realize he is an idiot.

I mean, idiot that I am, even I do not expect to see an apology from davep, but I instead ask how when he sets out a position without attributing it to having come from anyone else I should know it is not own position, because it would be nice in the future to understand his posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 15, 2015, 01:21:33 pm

If I thought somebody deserved an apology for something I did, I'd give it, but to Jes that would be very difficult after all he's said and done. He isn't deserving enough

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 05:44:56 pm

All I have said and done?  You mean pointing out the foolishness of some of your posts?

Sure.

It is actually much easier in dealing with folks such as davep and Pekin and you and otto who refuse to apologize, because it is easier to dismiss your criticism.  I really have not even asked for an apology from davep, or any admission that he was wrong.  I have instead asked him to show how he could possibly have been right, and what it is I need to do in reading his posts in the future so I do not again make the mistake of focusing on what he writes instead of what he means.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 06:05:00 pm

And there you go throwing insults around again...

I would have no problem apologizing if you: A. apologized to those you insulted and B. stopped insulting people.  You will do neither. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 06:12:27 pm

Pekin, where is the insult in my last post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 06:39:56 pm

There are two of them to two different people.  Neither probably cares what you think of them or their posts but they are insults none the less.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 06:51:13 pm

I did not ask you to count them.  I asked you to point them out: "where is the insult in my last post?"

I have just re-read it.  No insult there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 06:54:21 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 15, 2015, 05:44:56 pm

All I have said and done?  You mean pointing out the foolishness of some of your posts?

Sure.

It is actually much easier in dealing with folks such as davep and Pekin and you and otto who refuse to apologize, because it is easier to dismiss your criticism.  I really have not even asked for an apology from davep, or any admission that he was wrong. I have instead asked him to show how he could possibly have been right, and what it is I need to do in reading his posts in the future so I do not again make the mistake of focusing on what he writes instead of what he means.

Does that help?  Or are you to obtuse to see it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 15, 2015, 07:15:54 pm

You're whizzing into the wind, Peke.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 15, 2015, 07:38:36 pm

Saw this on Yahoo and had to 'post' it, lol! Too funny and so true....

""While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, who's hand was caught in the squeeze gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his role as our president.
 
The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'Post Turtle.'
 
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him, what a 'post turtle' was.
 
The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road
 and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'
 
The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain.
 
"You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, he's elevated beyond his ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of dimwit put him up there to begin with." "

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 15, 2015, 11:55:55 pm

A meaningless post from a guy who thought Sarah Palin would have made a good president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 16, 2015, 12:01:23 am

Didn't say that but I'd take her in a quick minute over the Muslim-in-chief. Say...how was that Iranian celebration at the White House yesterday? What's it called?  Munzer or something? Yea.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2015, 12:24:14 am

Quote from: Sportster on March 16, 2015, 12:01:23 am

Didn't say that but I'd take her in a quick minute over the Muslim-in-chief. Say...how was that Iranian celebration at the White House yesterday? What's it called?  Munzer or something? Yea.....

He did not write that you SAID it.  He wrote that you THOUGHT it, and, from your post, it appears he was correct.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2015, 12:41:23 am

Quote from: Pekin on March 15, 2015, 06:54:21 pm

Does that help?  Or are you to obtuse to see it?

You have two sentences in bold.  The first is in no way an insult of the poster.  It addresses what he posted, not what he might be.

The second one you put in bold I truly can not see how you read it as an insult.  (Now YOU and davep and Wshfl have all tossed clear and unquestioned insults in this exchange, but those obviously are just fine with you.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 16, 2015, 02:01:26 am

Quote

He did not write that you SAID it.  He wrote that you THOUGHT it, and, from your post, it appears Jes has stuck his nose where it doesn't belong, again...

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/ec8c6aa1be8475ff7e6307a6e6e104b0/tumblr_mew49lqR1v1qmhyymo1_500.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 16, 2015, 07:59:00 am

How can anyone deny even a moron could be better than Obama.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 16, 2015, 01:21:41 pm

Just look at your republic party and note how being led and supported by morons governs.

Obama derangement syndrome is just adults acting like 2-year olds.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 05:02:10 pm

So we have established you know an insult when it is directed at you.  You just can't recognize when you are insulting someone else.  I suppose that is some sort of progress.

You must be a hoot at parties...

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2015, 05:12:45 pm

Pekin, let's see if we can come to a common definition of insult, used as a noun -- you go first.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 05:41:56 pm

We all know an insult when we see one.

I could post the definition of insult but then you would still claim yours do not apply.  So let's just forego that silliness shall we.

I believe it comes down to ego.  You believe your opinion is fact therefore you don't think you are insulting somebody because you truly believe "you are just posting a fact".  It isn't your fault someone posts are foolish.  You are just pointing it out.

There is very little difference between calling someone a fool and pointing out what they say or post is foolishness.  You are still insinuating they are a fool.

The other line you are more subtle but still insulting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 16, 2015, 06:33:01 pm

Mark's Market Blog
3-15-15: Khamenei still lives, but Putin is missing.
by Mark Lawrence
Stocks dropped all week on news that stocks were dropping. Next week they'll likely go up on news that stocks are going up. Meanwhile the dollar continues to go up, the outbound carry trades continue to be unwound to the extreme detriment of third world nations who were getting huge amounts of money, the Yen carry trade continues to fuel asset appreciation in the US, and now we have a burgeoning Euro carry trade. I really don't see how US markets can go significantly down - more than, say, 5% to 7% - in an environment where people the world over are simply flooding the US with money. Unless Iran nukes Israel, or Putin dies, or Japan declares themselves a nuclear state. Then all bets are off.
 
S&P 500 September 18 2014 to March 13 2015
Last week I reported that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, had apparently died. While it was an excellent idea, apparently it hasn't happened. Yet. But almost certainly soon, as he has advanced cancer. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Iran has only had two supreme leaders, meaning there's only been a single power transition in 35 years. Khamenei has ruled as Iran's supreme leader since 1989 after the death of the first supreme leader, Ruhollah Khomeini. After Khamenei's death, Iran's constitution stipulates that the next supreme leader is to be chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a body which hasn't been consulted in decades. The assembly, comprised of 86 elected religious leaders, would have the ultimate say in who will replace Khamenei. His replacement is all but certain to be another hard liner, so if you're hoping for moderation good luck with that. You might reasonably ask how 86 white beards who had collectively read perhaps a dozen books outside of the koran get to be called an Assembly of Experts. My answer: the same way it got to be called the People's Democratic Republic of China. Khamenei did take time out of his busy day lying in a hospital bed to warn that the US "is deceitful and stabs in the back," and branded a letter from Republican lawmakers as a sign of America's "extreme decadence of political ethics and the collapse of the American system from within."

Putin has not been seen in public since March 5th, canceling at least two high level meetings, leading to a lot of speculation and rumors - is he dead? in the hospital? locked away? dealing with a power sturggle? On Friday, Russian state television released footage of the "perfectly healthy" 62-year-old leader meeting with Supreme Court chairman Vyacheslav Lebedev to discuss judicial reform system. Unfortunately it turns out that video was originally seen in October of last year, so the effect was only to heighten suspicion. Next they announced he'd had a lovely meeting with Kyrgyzstan President Almazbek Atambayev — even though the meeting is tomorrow. Two weeks ago prominent opposition figure Boris Nemtsov was assassinated within site of the Kremlin's walls. In 2006 Alexander Litvinenko, a highly prominent critic of Putin, died of radiation poisoning in London. This week it came out that he was poisoned with polonium that could only have come from the Avangard facility in Russia, meaning he was obviously killed and Putin almost certainly knew about it. What's going on? I have no clue. Putin is ridiculously popular in Russia, if there has been a coup it will be taken badly by the citizens.

Spain is an interesting country with a long history, but little of that history includes democracy. In Spain there is pretty much no such thing as bankruptcy. Banks in Spain, as in most countries, have the right to auction houses in foreclosure. But if no buyers appear, the bank can take ownership of the house for 60% of its face value. The banks then have 15 years to go after the homeowner. Indeed, most Spanish foreclosure victims end up personally liable for not only much of the outstanding loan, but also thousands of euros in penalty interest charges and tens of thousands of euros in court fees. In the end they could end up owing more than the original mortgage. Put simply, in Spain debt is for life and bankruptcy is never an option. Other countries in the European Union also have personal debt mortgages, but you can go to the courts and get relief. Not in Spain. This has lead to an interesting situation - since their housing crash in 2008, Spanish banks have been evicting thousands of homeowners each month - 68,091 in 2014. When word gets out frequently neighbors will stand between the house and the riot police which show up to perform the eviction. Standing passively and non-violently in front of the police is also a crime with penalties of thousands of euros. The government has put themselves in the position of enforcing bank rules and arresting and fining citizens €1,000 to €30,000 for protesting. This is why the Spanish government so desperately wants to see the Greek government fail: in Spanish elections this fall there's an excellent chance this entire system will go down in flames. The election of a far left party in Spain would almost certainly lead to a crisis for the Euro.


Retail sales in the US have been abysmal so far this year, due almost certainly to the horrible winter weather over most of the country. We had the same affect last year although this year it's perhaps even more pronounced. Expect most company profits to be well below trend for the first quarter. I'm sure many in New England would have been thrilled to ship a lot of their lifestyle-crushing snow here to the P.R. of California, where we desperately need it.

Oil rose briefly the last few weeks in what's called a "dead cat bounce," but it's on the way down again now. US oil inventories are the highest they've ever been for this time of year and growing - we're making oil faster than we use it. European inventories are also starting to grow. California gas prices remain well above $3 because we use "special" gas and there was an explosion at a California refinery limiting production; the rest of the country is seeing gas prices drop quickly to $2 and is likely headed back below $2.

Relations between Germany and Greece are very tense right now. The Greek minister of justice is publicly threatening to allow Greeks to seize German property as reparations for WW II; German ministers are talking about shoving Greece out of the Euro, saying it's like amputating a gangrenous limp to save the Eurozone body. Will Rogers said, "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock." There isn't much "nice doggie" happening between Germans an Greeks right now.

Between 2003 and 2013 right-to-work states generated 3.6m new jobs, had wages increase by 15% and manufacturing gdp increased by 26%. The other 26 states generated 1.5m new jobs, had their wages rise by 8.2% and manufacturing gdp rose by 13.8%. Put simply, right to work states out performed union states by about a factor of two. Before Obama I had never heard of SEIU; now it seems I see their signs at least weekly here in the People's Republic of California, effectively chanting for fewer jobs and slower growth.


The dollar has gone up 25% in the last 9 months. Meanwhile, in the last couple of years foreign corporations have been on a borrowing spree, selling dollar denominated bonds at historically low rates. The result is there is now $9 trillion in dollar denominated bonds outstanding in emerging countries while the Fed is getting set to raise rates, perhaps as many as three times this year according to our lords and masters the Bank for International Settlements. The last time this happened in the late 90s the dollar rise was not nearly as steep and the foreign borrowing not nearly as large, yet Russia basically went bankrupt and most all of Asia went deeply into crisis. Here in the US this was reflected in the bankruptcy of LTCM and the Fed choreographed panic level bailout. To make matters worse, as Japan and Europe devalue their currencies to improve their economics, the rest of the world including China is obliged to follow or get economically left behind. And as the dollar continues to rise the carry trade - where people borrow in one currency like yen and loan in another like dollars - is increasingly sending foreign money to the US, which is only driving the dollar up further and inducing the Fed to raise rates sooner and more strongly. There's some massive positive feedback going on here and the end will not be pretty (btw, feedback is one of those rare things where "negative" is good and "positive" is bad.) Historically when the dollar hits extremes in value it causes serious problems for someone. Expect a growing international crisis starting roughly this summer and continuing through the rest of the year, with a lot of foreign companies in serious trouble, perhaps many even in existential trouble. Also there have been a lot of home mortgages priced in dollars in several countries; these people will require a bailout or their countries will risk a housing collapse. Some of this will be reflected back in our economy as the very predictable rush to buy dollars will force many foreigners to sell US assets to raise money, causing at the least a pause in our real estate markets. The days of Chinese buying New York hotels for a multiple of their value are quickly coming to an end, and some of those wildly over priced properties are likely to hit the market at fire sale prices. Much like when Japan went crazy in the late 80s.


On March 12, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry said to the Atlantic Council in Washington, "When an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics. Science tells us that gravity exists, and no one disputes that. Science also tells us that when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to ice. No one disputes that. So when science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, 'well, I dispute that, or I deny that elementary truth?'" Apparently I do not have the right to question either the laws of gravity or the laws of climate change. I feel I must apologize to my readers for my presumptuousness. Well, none the less, with a complete lack of respect for Secretary Kerry's credentials either in the field of science or freedom of speech, my response is available here .

Here in the People's Republic of California, water is getting serious. The snow pack is at 17% of normal for this date. This is the 4th year of drought. What's happening is a persistent high pressure system sits over PR Ca in January and February, pushing the jet stream up into Canada. The jet stream picks up a bunch of Canadian and Arctic water, then comes back down into the US around N.Dakota or Minnesota, resulting in massive snow falls and very cold weather in the east and warm and dry winters on the west coast. A similar thing in Europe results in cold snowy weather in Europe and relatively warm, dry winters in SIberia. This pattern is historically what generates ice ages - during an ice age Siberia and California are relatively livable; New England and northern Europe are not. And Siberians walk across to Alaska and down into California and points south. Jay Famiglietti, the senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Caltech wrote in an LA Times opinion piece, "...the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly disappearing. California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought..." Anyway, so far the government here isn't doing much of anything - no warnings, no visible preparation. What's up? I've met governor Brown, he's an exceedingly smart and amoral person, and I promise you he has a plan. He will wait until July or August when there's an obvious crisis and people are screaming for him to do something, anything, and then he will present his plan. Tunnels under the Sacramento river delta. Meters on private wells. New quotas for farmers and cities. Restrictions on watering lawns and washing cars. I obviously don't know the details. Right now California water is run by an uneasy coalition of three powers - the California Water Resources Control Board, LA's Metropolitan Water District, and the Feds who manage the dams and outflow. Everyone here would like to cut the Feds out of the pie. There are also a lot of historic rights to streams and rivers. I expect some bills that will attempt to change all that radically, and we voters will not find out for quite a while what the bills mean. Brown is far too smart to waste a good crisis, either by inaction or by acting too soon.


Hoping to retire someday? JP Morgan offers this handy chart to tell you how far behind you are. Move across the top to your salary, then move down that row to your age. If your salary is $150,000 and your age is 50, you find the number 5.3. Multiply your salary by this number $150,000 * 5.3 = $795,000. That's how much money you should have saved up. At 65 with a salary of $150,000 you should have $1,740,000. Read it and weep.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2015, 06:46:00 pm

Quote from: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 05:41:56 pm

We all know an insult when we see one.

Well, it would appear not because I don't seen the insults you claim to see.

Quote from: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 05:41:56 pm

I could post the definition of insult but then you would still claim yours do not apply.  So let's just forego that silliness shall we.

That's a real easy dodge to avoid challenges where you expect to fail.  Almost as good as davep simply not responding to my question as to how a person was supposed to tell that when he posted something which included a position he attributed to no one that he actually meant it was another person's position and not his own.

Quote from: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 05:41:56 pm

I believe it comes down to ego.  You believe your opinion is fact therefore you don't think you are insulting somebody because you truly believe "you are just posting a fact".  It isn't your fault someone posts are foolish.

Just a question, but is this to imply that it IS my fault some else's posts are foolish?

Quote from: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 05:41:56 pm

There is very little difference between calling someone a fool and pointing out what they say or post is foolishness.  You are still insinuating they are a fool.

No.  I was insuating nothing.  I was pointing out the foolishness of a position set out in the post.

The fact that you drew an inference when I made no implication or insuation is something you did, not something I did.

I am quite capable of insulting others and have not shown any great hesitation in doing so.  That comment to Wshfl does not qualify.  Even you acknowledge there is a difference, even if you see it as a little difference.  I was pointing out that it would be foolish for Congress to try to impeach Obama for submitting to the UN any agreement his administration might reach with Iran.  It would be, as is suggesting that Congress would try to impeach for that if he does so.

Quote from: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 05:41:56 pm

The other line you are more subtle but still insulting.

It was insulting to ask davep how I should have understood the position he stated was not his own?  Really?  Not only do I see nothing insulting about it, but considering the post from him I was immediately responding to, I think mine showed a good deal of restraint.  Just to refresh your memory:

Quote from: davep on March 13, 2015, 01:00:51 pm

If you had read my post, you would know that it was not MY contention that it would bind us.  I was quite clear that there were some that said we would be legally bound, and I was quite clear that I, personally, did not know if we would be bound or not.  Of course, you seldom bother to read, or if you read, you seldom try to understand, what the poster actually said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 16, 2015, 06:57:41 pm

Pekin, do you take your shoes off and run through the yard hoping to step in dog ****?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 07:34:13 pm

And the silliness ensues...

That nitpicking BS is exactly what I am trying to avoid.  I simply do not care about all the minutiae.


Quote from: Pekin on Today at 05:41:56 pm

There is very little difference between calling someone a fool and pointing out what they say or post is foolishness.  You are still insinuating they are a fool.

No.  I was insuating nothing.  I was pointing out the foolishness of a position set out in the post.



It is not your fault you find a post foolish it is your fault for pointing it out in an insulting manner.  You can disagree with out calling it foolish.  What don't you get about that? 

For instance you could say, "it would be foolish for congress to impeach Obama for going to the UN due to these reasons".  This way you are debating the idea instead of attacking the poster.

With Dave you are smugly telling him he didn't write what he thought he wrote.  How is that not insulting?  There is very little difference between what you think his insult was and yours.  They are quite similar in tone. 

I would actually say yours is nastier.  That could be because I am a direct person and abhor passive aggressiveness, back handed compliments and the way you belittle people in a snarky way while acting as if you are above it all.  It just rubs me the wrong way.

I am guessing I am not alone in this.   
     

   

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 07:40:29 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on March 16, 2015, 06:57:41 pm

Pekin, do you take your shoes off and run through the yard hoping to step in dog ****?

LOL!

In all honesty I think Jes is an intelligent guy.  I don't agree with him about everything but a lot of things. 

I just don't understand why he feels the need to insult everyone he engages with.  Perhaps he really thinks he isn't being insulting.  If that is the case he needs to be educated on the matter.

If he continues to do so afterwards that is on him.



 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 16, 2015, 07:57:11 pm

Quote from: Pekin on Today at 05:41:56 pm

I could post the definition of insult but then you would still claim yours do not apply.  So let's just forego that silliness shall we.




That's a real easy dodge to avoid challenges where you expect to fail.  Almost as good as davep simply not responding to my question as to how a person was supposed to tell that when he posted something which included a position he attributed to no one that he actually meant it was another person's position and not his own.

No its just we know that whenever we have evidence its fruitless to even bring it up. Even if God Almighty had an argument for you, you would still argue with HIM and you would end up insulting HIM

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 08:24:33 pm

Wshful, He is an atheist.  You are not helping my case.  ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 16, 2015, 08:28:04 pm

I figured that out on my own but thanks. The point is he thinks he is right all the time

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2015, 09:59:33 pm

Quote from: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 08:24:33 pm

Wshful, He is an atheist.  You are not helping my case.  ;)

Can't find the video clip I want here... of Jed Clampett from The Beverly Hillbillies looking at his nephew, Jethro, and telling him, "Don't help me, boy."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2015, 09:59:39 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 16, 2015, 08:28:04 pm

I figured that out on my own but thanks. The point is he thinks he is right all the time

And, Wshfl, do you generally offer opinion on matters where you believe you are WRONG?

Of COURSE I believe I am right.  I also remain open to being shown I am wrong.  I have been before, will again, and acknowledge it when it happens.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2015, 10:01:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on March 16, 2015, 07:34:13 pm

That nitpicking BS is exactly what I am trying to avoid.  I simply do not care about all the minutiae.

Yes, facts are such annoying things to deal with when instead you can toss your own insults and make unfounded claims based on how you feel.  And you are right that you are not alone in that.

To go back to the post in response to Wshfl which appears to have set you off, that post was my third to Wshfl in that thread.  The first one was very simple:

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 13, 2015, 08:45:10 am

Why?  And what do you mean by "runs this treaty (which does not yet exist) through the United Nations"?

Was anything about that condescending or insulting?

In response, Wshfl, who doesn't like it when someone is too sure of himself, and who doesn't like to be "insulted," posted the following:

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 13, 2015, 09:14:07 am

You obviously didn't read the article first, just flapped your lip. If you had read it talk was that instead of allowing the Senate, which is their responsibility to ratify treaties, to ratify a proposed Iran treaty, he would give it to the UN Security council to ratify, thus bypassing congressional opposition to allowing the Iranians to become a neuclear power.

Not only had I read it, I had also read the internal link in the article which supposedly provided legal analysis behind the idea Obama might take the U.N. route, and when I responded to Wshfl, completely ignoring his attempt at an insult, I posted five perfectly reasonable paragraphs, not attacking him in any way oor even suggesting there was any faulty reasoning on his part.  Here that post is:

Quote

Wshfl, there is not yet an agreement, let alone a treaty (which only exists once an agreement is ratified by the Senate), to ratify, or even to be concerned about.  As to giving "it to the UN Security council to ratify, thus bypassing congressional opposition," could you explain exactly how that would work?

It would be about like be negotiating an agreement on your behalf with otto, and then not presenting it to you for your approval but presenting it to davep for him to approve it, even though he was not a party to the agreement.  It would bypass nothing.  It would be meaningless.

The link you offered presents only one source supporting the concern about any agreement being presented to the UN.  That link is here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/how-a-u-n-security-council-resolution-transforms-a-non-binding-agreement-with-iran-into-a-binding-obligation-under-international-law-without-any-new-senatorial-or-congressional-vote/  And this is the first, and only actually significant sentence at that link, written by Harvard Law School profesor Jack Goldsmith: "It is now clear that any deal with Iran will by its terms be a non-binding agreement."

The professor did run thru a scenario which would result in the agreement becoming international law (it would NOT be a treaty to which the U.S. was a party and this approach would not be having, as you have written, "the UN Security council to ratify" the agreement), though he also concluded the piece by acknowledging that any president trying that approach would likely face domestic political feedback far too great to have him even consider it.  (He also failed to acknowledge that even if it DID become international law, that would not require the U.S. to observe it.  And he also failed to acknowledge that since the current negotiations at multi-national the approach he said COULD happen could also happen even if the U.S. takes no part whatsoever in the current talks and actually openly opposes them.)

So I ask again, since your definition of things and your concerns need not be the same as the meaningless ones offered at your link (and since your definition and concerns might actually make sense): Why would you support impeachment for this?  And what do you mean by "runs this treaty (which does not yet exist) through the United Nations"?

It was only when Wshfl responded to that by writing that if Obama did present an agreement to the U.N. for approval that he believed "Congress would be justified to impeach Obama (and that doing so) would fall under the 'political ramifications' which you aluded to."

Only after that did I use the word "foolish," and even then, it was not to say Wshfl was foolish, but that the position he offered on impeachment on such grounds, which would be a political disaster and would also be contrary to the Constitution, "would fall under foolishness."

So I can understand wanting to "avoid.... all the minutiae," those petty things called facts and details showing context.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 17, 2015, 06:46:01 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 16, 2015, 09:59:39 pm

And, Wshfl, do you generally offer opinion on matters where you believe you are WRONG?

Of COURSE I believe I am right.  I also remain open to being shown I am wrong.  I have been before, will again, and acknowledge it when it happens.

Never! Again you'd argue with God Almighty till he eliminated you. You remind me of the picture of the bird about to be captured and eaten by the eagle defiantly giving the eagle the middle finger.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2015, 07:05:05 am

Wshfl, go back to September and look at the discussion here on the Michale Brown case.  I admitted I was quite wrong in my early comments on that.  I have also never tried to pretend I repeatedly announced the end of Obama in the 2012 election - Obama's toast.  There have been others.  I recall once here (and by "here" I include the Cubs forum) acknowledging one three different things in one day that I was wrong.

Of course, if you could demonstrate here that I never admit I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong on this.  : -)

Now, let me offer a more meaningful challenge.  Why don't you look back at the exchange on this issue in the last few days and count the number of instances in which you or others posted insults of ME in the exchange, and then also count the number of times in the exchange I insulted them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2015, 07:07:15 am

Damn... who would have imagined this?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/smooch-study-of-130213-stories-shows-obama-bias-in-2012-election/article/2561554

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 04:47:34 pm

Let me get this straight


A conservative libertarian nutcase posts an article produced for and marketed by the wing nut noise machine and we are supposed to all slap our forehead in what?


Are you really just the tacit Olde racist?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 05:28:18 pm

Peke


Yes, you did elect a thief for your house of representative **** in aaron schhuckster.

But feel completely free to elect another one without even thinking.

That's what you do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 05:39:05 pm

I wonder if rep. orangeman and fellow idiot t-baggers are enjoying the resounding win by Israeli PM netinyahoo today?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 17, 2015, 05:45:22 pm

Corrupt politicians deserve the boot.  I hope he goes to jail if he broke the law. 

If he was a liberal in a liberal district he would have not needed to resign.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 05:56:46 pm

A post which proves my point.

vote walker 2016?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 06:15:01 pm

What is it like for you supporters of children in congress?

Today the children in congress scraped the human trafficking bill over an abortion rider. With chinless from kentucky pooping his pants over.

Why can't conservstives pass any bill or confirm any position in government without it turning into a constitution crisis for house man child's.

Can somebody offer something more than continued stupidity?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2015, 06:21:22 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 06:15:01 pm

What is it like for you supporters of children in congress?

Today the children in congress scraped the human trafficking bill over an abortion rider. With chinless from kentucky pooping his pants over.

Why can't conservstives pass any bill or confirm any position in government without it turning into a constitution crisis for house man child's.

Can somebody offer something more than continued stupidity?

Can somebody translate this into English?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 06:32:08 pm

Nobody cares if you choose to miss the point.

We celebrate it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 06:32:46 pm

Less minutia is good for all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2015, 06:33:28 pm

Quote from: Pekin on March 17, 2015, 05:45:22 pm

Corrupt politicians deserve the boot.  I hope he goes to jail if he broke the law.

Quote from: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 05:28:18 pm

Peke  Yes, you did elect a thief for your house of representative **** in aaron schhuckster.  But feel completely free to elect another one without even thinking.  That's what you do.

Yes, if the guy was illegally using campaign funds to pay for his lavish personal expenses and that fits neatly under federal law as an offense carrying prison time (which I would guess it does), I hope he gets sent off.  (Perhaps he could even share a cell with Jesse Jackson, Jr.)

But while that might qualify as corruption, it  bothers me far less than the corruption involved in members of Congress taxing people producing income and giving it to voters they hope will vote for them or to businesses owned by campaign donors.  Far less money is involved in what Schock did, and it was given to him voluntarily.  What he did currupts him and really hurts no one.  The other has corrupted the system and is strangling the economy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2015, 06:34:44 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 17, 2015, 06:32:08 pm

Nobody cares if you choose to miss the point.

We celebrate it.

There was a point?

Other than otto, is there anyone who can identify it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 17, 2015, 08:17:20 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 17, 2015, 06:34:44 pm

There was a point?

Other than otto, is there anyone who can identify it?

 Yes. I can, the point is to keep me entertained. Carry on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2015, 08:32:37 pm

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin

The key part of the article: "a federal criminal law makes it a felony when any custodian of official government records 'willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.' The crime is punishable by up to three years in prison. And interestingly, Congress felt strongly enough about the crime that it included the unusual provision that the perpetrator shall 'forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.'"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 17, 2015, 08:37:07 pm

 Thanks Jes ,


 Right on schedule in keeping moi entertained .

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2015, 08:37:09 pm

I thought Al Gore was still in his lock box.... http://www.vox.com/2015/3/16/8220537/al-gore-president-2016

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 17, 2015, 08:39:46 pm

 It's like a drug that they keep satisfying me with.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 17, 2015, 10:28:17 pm

Hey Otto are you and Obama crying in your green beer over the Bibi win?

Obama sent some of his staff and money to help Netanyahu's opponents and yet he still won. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 18, 2015, 12:32:50 am

Love it. Obama has got to be raging, lol. Netanyahu had three people to contact, two of those represent coalition gov folks, the third....the President of the United States. 'I'm back, sucker!!'   ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 18, 2015, 11:25:24 am

http://news.yahoo.com/us-sets-record-denying-censoring-government-files-071519617--politics.html

The most transparent administration ever... right....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 18, 2015, 04:22:30 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on March 18, 2015, 11:25:24 am

http://news.yahoo.com/us-sets-record-denying-censoring-government-files-071519617--politics.html
The most transparent administration ever... right....

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/sharyl_attkisson_and_the_transparency_lie.html
CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson knew all too well just how preposterous a lie this was. As she documents in her stunning new book, Stonewalled, there has never been a more deceptive administration, nor one more dedicated to destroying those who tell the truth. In the words of David Sanger, the veteran chief Washington correspondent of the New York Times, “This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2015, 05:45:02 pm

Ya, sure.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 18, 2015, 07:53:15 pm

Otto, I thought Obama's leftist puppet was going to win in Israel.  What happened?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2015, 09:04:20 pm

Just more conservative divisive and racist politics which lead to economic austerity and war.

Netinyahoo is in a weakened and more extreme position sorta like ted cruz.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 18, 2015, 09:12:01 pm

So, Netanyahu is in a wekened position from where he would have been if he lost?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 18, 2015, 09:13:30 pm

The Washington Post appears not to love Hillary.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/17/hillary-clinton-is-increasingly-unpopular-its-not-because-of-her-e-mails/?tid=pm_politics_pop

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2015, 09:36:26 pm

Hardly, the Post appears to like your traveling clownshow even less.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/17/poll.2016.pdf (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/17/poll.2016.pdf)

Since you posted it, how does Sen. Hillary Clinton perform against said clownshow?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2015, 09:49:05 pm

Conservative t-bagger and high school diploma for president flapping jaw in Iowa...

Speaking to a roomful of Iowa farmers and agricultural executives at the Iowa Ag Summit earlier this month, governor scott college degreeless said...

"We invested not only more money in rural health care, we put more money in to train primary care physicians and other health care assistants. And then we put money in our hospitals to help do residencies, so that we weren’t just training—we were actually getting physicians to do their residencies at rural hospitals," degreeless said at the Ag Summit on March 7.

"The idea being that if someone comes to a rural community, they do their residency there, they make a connection with the hospital staff—more importantly, they start to know the people in that town and that community and that county — chances are pretty good they’re going to realize it’s pretty good living, with the people around there," he said. "But if you try to recruit them from somewhere else, from either coast out there, it’s a pretty difficult challenge out there. Again, those are things we’ve done."

Meanwhile in Madison, republic pols working on his proposed budget are tasked with a budget from him which eliminates the program.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 18, 2015, 09:55:00 pm

Still down 6% since November. which is excellent news to me. I am still waiting for the criminal charges to come down.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 18, 2015, 10:21:34 pm

The more Hillary Clinton is out there the lower her numbers go.  I think that is why she has been hiding from the media until this e-mail scandal required her to come out.

I think she is a vile human being and even fellow Democrats who have been around her hate her.  Bill has charisma.  She has none.

I suspect the Democrat party will find someone to run against her and they will get behind that person.  Just like they did with Obama.  While not impossible I would be shocked if Hillary or Jeb for that matter win the whitehouse.

They are the same candidate except one is a female with a D by her name and the other is a man with an R by his name.  They are both terrible candidates and neither should be president.   

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2015, 10:37:59 pm

From the article that you didn't read.

"A casualty of her e-mail problems? Perhaps. But that doesn't really explain why the percentage of people who say they would be proud to have her as president has risen over the same span. While it was 50 percent in March 2014, it's 57 percent today."

Benghazi a tragedy.

Eghazi a myth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 18, 2015, 10:59:12 pm

I see no way she is our next president.  The media and her own party are desperately looking for someone else.  The media is part of the Democrat party.

I believe the American people are sick of our president being named Clinton or Bush.  Just because the last unknown was an abject failure does not mean we have to go to the old names.

We have had 20 years under these two families.  Look where we are at.

We need the next Reagan.  We are going through Carter 2.1 right now pretty much the same results.

Walker, Cruz or Rubio are my choices.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 18, 2015, 10:59:29 pm

This is still a year before the primaries begin. I don't see any problems yet. Lets see where the investigations get in the next year. We have a Republican Congress now. Clinton cant hide forever. Enough damaging stuff will begin to be exposed that hurt her even more.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2015, 11:21:24 pm

I got yer raygun right here little peke...


Reagan spent money like a poet on payday, and then pranced out of office to let someone else clean up his mess. He sent weapons to Iran and Central America, and then claimed senility when called out on it. Even worse, he allowed thousands to die of AIDS before he even acknowledged it existed -- because of homophobia.


And tell us all how the American economy is anything like it was under President Jimmy Carter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2015, 11:27:57 pm

Bibi Will Make History

MARCH 18, 2015
Thomas L. Friedman

New York Times


Well, it’s pretty clear now: Benjamin Netanyahu is going to be a major figure in Israeli history — not because he’s heading to become the longest-serving Israeli prime minister, but because he’s heading to be the most impactful. Having won the Israeli elections — in part by declaring that he will never permit a two state-solution between Israelis and Palestinians — it means Netanyahu will be the father of the one-state solution. And the one-state solution means that Israel will become, in time, either a non-Jewish democracy or Jewish non-democracy.

Yes, sir, Bibi is going to make history. And the leader in the world who is most happy that Netanyahu ran on — and won on — a one-state solution is the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Oh, my goodness. They must have been doing high-fives and “Allahu akbars” all night in the ruling circles of Tehran when they saw how low Bibi sank to win. What better way to isolate Israel globally and deflect attention from Iran’s behavior?

The biggest losers in all of this, besides all the Israelis who did not vote for Netanyahu, are American Jews and non-Jews who support Israel. What Bibi did to win this election was move the Likud Party from a center-right party to a far-right one. The additional votes he got were all grabbed from the other far-right parties — not from the center. When the official government of Israel is a far-right party that rejects a two-state solution and employs anti-Arab dog whistles to get elected, it will split the basic unity of the American Jewish community on Israel. How many American Jews want to defend a one-state solution in Washington or on their college campuses? Is Aipac, the Israel lobby, now going to push for a one-state solution on Capitol Hill? How many Democrats and Republicans would endorse that?

Warning: Real trouble ahead.

You cannot win that dirty and just walk away like nothing happened. In the days before Israelis went to the polls, Netanyahu was asked by the Israeli news site, NRG, if it was true that a Palestinian state would never be formed on his watch as prime minister, Netanyahu replied, “Indeed,” adding: “Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel.”

This makes null and void his speech in June 2009 at Bar Ilan University, where Netanyahu had laid out a different “vision of peace,” saying: “In this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side by side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.” Provided the Palestinian state recognizes Israel’s Jewish character and accepts demilitarization, he added, “We will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.”

Now, if there are not going to be two states for two peoples in the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean, then there is going to be only one state — and that one state will either be a Jewish democracy that systematically denies the voting rights of about one-third of its people or it will be a democracy and systematically erodes the Jewish character of Israel.

Just look at the numbers: In 2014, the estimated Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank was 2.72 million, with roughly 40 percent under the age of 14. There are already 1.7 million Israeli Arabs citizens — who assembled all their parties together in the latest election onto one list and came in third. Together, the West Bankers and Israeli Arabs constitute 4.4 million people. There are 6.2 million Israeli Jews. According to statistics from the Jewish Virtual Library, the Jewish population of Israel grew by 1.7 percent over the past year, and the Arab population grew by 2.2 percent.

If there is only one state, Israel cannot be Jewish and permit West Bank Palestinians to exercise any voting rights alongside Israeli Arabs. But if Israel is one state and wants to be democratic, how does it continue depriving West Bankers of the vote — when you can be sure they will make it their No. 1 demand.

I doubt, in the heat of the campaign, Netanyahu gave any of this much thought when he tossed the two-state solution out the window of his campaign bus in a successful 11th-hour grab for far-right voters. To be sure, he could disavow his two-state disavowal tomorrow. It would not surprise me. He is that cynical. But, if he doesn’t — if the official platform of his new government is that there is no more two-state solution — it will produce both a hostile global reaction and, in time, a Palestinian move in the West Bank for voting rights in Israel, combined with an attempt to put Israel in the docket in the International Criminal Court. How far is the Obama administration going to go in defending Israel after it officially rejects a two-state solution? I don’t know. But we’ll be in a new world.

No one on the planet will enjoy watching Israel and America caught on the horns of this dilemma more than the clerical regime in Tehran. It is a godsend for them. Iran’s unstated position is that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem must be perpetuated forever. Because few things serve Iran’s interests more than having radical Jewish settlers in a never-ending grinding conflict with Palestinians — and the more bloodshed and squashing of any two-state diplomatic options the better. Because, in that conflict, the Palestinians are almost always depicted as the underdogs and the Israelis as the bullies trying to deprive them of basic rights.

From Iran’s point of view, it makes fantastic TV on Al Jazeera, and all the European networks; it undermines Israel’s legitimacy with the young generation on college campuses around the globe; and it keeps the whole world much more focused on Israeli civil rights abuses against Palestinians rather than the massive civil rights abuses perpetrated by the Iranian regime against its own people.

It is stunning how much Bibi’s actions serve Tehran’s strategic interests.

And that is why I am certain that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to be a historic, very impactful prime minister in Jewish history. I just hope that — somehow — a Jewish democratic Israel survives his tenure.

And who else is a big friend of Tehran?

#47traitors.....


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 19, 2015, 02:28:37 am

 The Middle East used to be a deal to contend with because as AMERICANS we drank their drug.


 Now that's changed. AMERICA doesn't need the middle east anymore.


 Nor their drug.


 You better come up with a whole new way of thinking about what AMERICA should be involved in.


 ITSELF!


 "What AMERICA needs is a rebuild of it's infrastructure, this will put AMERICA back to work building the greatest country on this planet!"


 -- BEARD/OTTO ticket for 2016 Presidential run.


 I told yah I always knew something about these motherfuckers ...


 they have our own best interests at heart as AMERICANS!


 How could you not vote for them ?


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 19, 2015, 06:56:28 am

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-exclusive-interview-with-katie-couric-092359394.html 

Interesting interview.. I will say, Couric is one liberal ****..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 19, 2015, 07:09:22 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 18, 2015, 09:55:00 pm

Still down 6% since November. which is excellent news to me. I am still waiting for the criminal charges to come down.

I would rather see Clinton get the noination.  She seems the least likely to be able to win.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 19, 2015, 07:18:18 am

Quote from: otto105 on March 18, 2015, 09:36:26 pm

Hardly, the Post appears to like your traveling clownshow even less.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/17/poll.2016.pdf (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/17/poll.2016.pdf)

Since you posted it, how does Sen. Hillary Clinton perform against said clownshow?

Seriously? 44% unfavorable?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 19, 2015, 12:48:06 pm

So how do you combat 44% unfavorable? Lots of illegal aliens and big city voters voting 2 and 3 times. Sounds like we need to open the flood gates from Mexico. Hmm, lets give the illegals amnesty, voting rights, and paths to citizenship. Just don't be shocked.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 19, 2015, 04:07:02 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 19, 2015, 12:48:06 pm

So how do you combat 44% unfavorable?

Many candidates have won election when 44% of the potential electorate had unfavorable views of them, and many voters have voted for candidates those voters viewed unfavorably.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 19, 2015, 05:24:31 pm

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5391/france-iran-talks

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 19, 2015, 06:31:24 pm

Quote from: packrat on March 19, 2015, 05:24:31 pm

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5391/france-iran-talks

Isn't France one of the parties to the talks?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 19, 2015, 06:39:57 pm

 Hey guys,


 Any info on what is the TPP trade agreement ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 19, 2015, 07:58:08 pm

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/as-ratings-plunge-msnbc-faces-shakeup-116207_Page2.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 19, 2015, 08:43:12 pm

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/harvard-smithsonian-physicist-computer-models-used-un-overstate

(http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/images/Projections-Observations.jpg?1426697981)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 19, 2015, 10:43:56 pm

Wsh, Obama's method of flooding the US with what he thinks are going to be surefire Dem voters....open the floodgates to illegals and now he is considering pushing for a mandatory vote law. Flood, register, force em to vote....yep.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 20, 2015, 05:02:14 am

And sometimes plans backfire..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 20, 2015, 07:16:49 am

http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-a-smith-black-americans-should-vote-republican-gop-election-140317220.html

Interesting

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 10:16:41 am

Hillbilly law clerk

Do you have source for the "atmospheric reemployment" that doesn't involve being a deliverable?


Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ
FEB. 21, 2015
New York Times


For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.


The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.


Maybe you can post again how the ice in Antarctica is increasing....when it isn't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 10:35:15 am

Just when I thought ignorance slipped to #2 on the list of things all christian wackos must possess behind intolerance our resident religious wacko posts.

Ignorance remains a solid #1.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 20, 2015, 01:27:41 pm

Homo is spouting his gibberish again.  How proud he must be that Walker is bringing his state into the 21st century.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 20, 2015, 05:26:31 pm

Otto, you do realize all the climate warming hoaxers are getting paid a ton of money as well right?

Also I am not aware of him faking data, or getting caught in e-mails admitting to it.  If you can provide that information perhaps I will listen.

I am still waiting for one of their climate models to be right. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 05:34:11 pm

Please present your "evidence" of faked data and email which prove it.

Please provide your evidence of "ton of money" being paid to agencies like NOAA and NASA which would prove bias.

As for my evidence, I have soon himself.

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Deny that

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 05:44:52 pm

As for your waiting for a climate model, I offer the following.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/04/no-climate-models-didnt-overestimate-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/04/no-climate-models-didnt-overestimate-global-warming/)

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14117.epdf?referrer_access_token=-IZNCfz9f2gGnmA-QCnieNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NQ9JoZh4DL5B4vJaZ-VA1572Y5l2ijyYWCMD6fMMbWPaVzbaBQ5DW6DJXSu1Sok-G50BDMl88vtiGaaz5_BWji4xbrFwIVPrwwZtJs6R-iebiwtDsVBiCB5aSrcuTjDpc6U4aNwhQisbCpHPPnOEx9oeVcm1Dy5v_GorOug7SqOO9KKgtNzH4F2yCMvwpD0QVV5aEgsfIdi_UHBYOZZhtTiyOIxUcIkkbYzzj8wUuAqQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com (http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14117.epdf?referrer_access_token=-IZNCfz9f2gGnmA-QCnieNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NQ9JoZh4DL5B4vJaZ-VA1572Y5l2ijyYWCMD6fMMbWPaVzbaBQ5DW6DJXSu1Sok-G50BDMl88vtiGaaz5_BWji4xbrFwIVPrwwZtJs6R-iebiwtDsVBiCB5aSrcuTjDpc6U4aNwhQisbCpHPPnOEx9oeVcm1Dy5v_GorOug7SqOO9KKgtNzH4F2yCMvwpD0QVV5aEgsfIdi_UHBYOZZhtTiyOIxUcIkkbYzzj8wUuAqQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 20, 2015, 05:49:40 pm

Proof is merely that which is required to convince someone.  Most of us are already convinced data has been faked, and otto has repeatedlyh denied or dismissed or ignored anything presented.  Presenting ANYTHING in response to otto's challenge would seem to define the phrase "fool's errand."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 05:54:24 pm

You don't provide the evidence to convince because you have no evidence to convince.

If you had it Hillbilly, YOU, would have presented it and not run for the first hill as you have.

As for my evidence to convince I have the following.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html)


Now Hillbilly, its time to post your evidence to convince from any of the rupert murdoch noise machine deliverables.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 05:56:37 pm

And peke

Any time you want you can present your evidence to convince that environmentalist groups have funneled money to the EPA to do (Ya know) actual science.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 20, 2015, 06:04:31 pm

I never said environmentalist paid them money.    I said they were paid money and they have been.

How many millions has Al Gore made off the global warming hoax?

How many of your "scientists"  make a very comfortable living from making climate models that are wrong year after year?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 06:15:08 pm

peke

I have actual scientists (see EPA link above) you have deliverables.

You can't notice a difference? Seriously, you can only make yourself look more foolish if you can't.

Al Gore was not and is not wrong on Global Climate change being caused by human activity. He was rich before he made the choice to be a spokesperson for the cause.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 06:33:45 pm

Science denying climate confusers


I keep hearing about those hacked emails. Please provide any evidence that can convince which would refute the facts in the link below.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 20, 2015, 06:42:28 pm

We have provided Homo with the evidence over and over.  He merely pretends that they are wrong.

And of course, he knows that Soon IS a scientist, and a good one.  But because he is also an honest one, Homo pretends that he is not.

Fortunately, living in the same state as Scott Walker is bound to rub off on him sooner or later.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 20, 2015, 06:43:22 pm

By the way, Al Gore made a lot more money from the Global Warming hoax than he ever inherited from his racist father.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 20, 2015, 07:13:18 pm

What evidence to convince have you presented?

If it has been over and over where is it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 20, 2015, 08:19:05 pm

How many of your "scientists"  make a very comfortable living from making climate models that are wrong year after year?

Now that's telling it like it is

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 20, 2015, 08:36:37 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/2/


Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century?
 

Well, we had a warm summer here in the United States, and that brought some of the climate change alarmists out again. Looks like it’s time for another rebuttal!

John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, and various other critics have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a “hoax.” It is, but it’s more than that, it’s criminal.

Here are some of the scientific questions at the core of this issue:

Is the climate changing? Of course. The climate always has changed and always will.

Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it weren’t getting warmer.  Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.

Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not, since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years. By the way, does anybody know what the “right” amount of global heat is?

Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.




It’s even possible that CO2 may not affect global warming at all. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect.

Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive.

Shifting gears, let’s assume that the alarmists are right and that man-made CO2 emissions are making the world warmer. If so, what changes would they hope to accomplish and at what cost?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 20, 2015, 08:37:06 pm

During the cap-and-trade debates in 2009 and 2010, proponents cited scientific studies predicting that curtailing American CO2 emission reductions would shave a few hundredths of a degree off future temperatures. And the costs? The United Nations published an estimate that the total planetary cost could reach $552 trillion (approximately a decade’s worth of global GDP) over the course of the 21st century.

One is tempted to say that proposing so colossal a cost for so minuscule an alleged benefit is insane; remember, for plants, animals, and people, warmer is better. When one begins to grasp the magnitude of the burden that people would bear as a result of spending so much to tilt at the carbon dioxide windmill, it’s worse than insane; it’s criminal.

Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda? Only the political and politically connected elite—the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies. And think of the power that governments would have if they controlled energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people. No wonder governments have spent tens of billions of dollars promoting this scenario and supporting political panels like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to disseminate the desired “findings.”




Who would lose if governments gain the power to order a significant reduction in CO2 emissions? Around the world, millions of people at the margins of survival would die. It would be a dispersed holocaust. Millions of others would suffer unnecessary impoverishment and deprivation. Even in wealthier countries, people who are affluent enough to afford the monetary costs could find their lives heavily regimented by government bureaucrats monitoring and limiting how many miles they may travel and what activities they may undertake.

This is the ugly truth about what potentially could be the crime of the century. In my next two columns, I will look at two alternative national energy policies. The first will be Obama’s and the second is what I hope would be Romney’s.

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: method on March 20, 2015, 09:07:36 pm

The world is not heating up... glaciers are not melting away... dont worry about extreme weather, its more likely a liberal hoax then remotely believable that humans anything to do with it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 20, 2015, 10:39:54 pm

No method it is not even remotely possible humans are causing it.  We do not have that much power.  We are but insects crawling on a globe.

The climate has changed long before we were here and will do so long after we are gone.

The liberals are using global warming to control the masses just like religion was used in the past.   Two sides of the same coin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 20, 2015, 10:40:48 pm

The weather is not a hoax.  The misreporting of it certainly is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 20, 2015, 10:54:18 pm

I really don't care whether it is real or not.  If global warming is real, I don't care whether it is man made or not.  If it is real or man made, I don't even care whether human beings are able to determine how to slow, stop or reverse it or not.  If we are able to determine what should be done, I don't even care whether we would then have the expertise and ability to do it.

I am simply focused on the fact that giving to central government (and it would have to be a worldwide government to be effective) the degree of control over the economy and our personal lives would be far worse than the worst nightmare scenarios offered by the alarmists.  It is an effort to lead us to socialism.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 20, 2015, 11:17:58 pm

I would add it is an effort to lead us to a worldwide totalitarian socialist government.  Government would lead every aspect of your life. 

The government is lead by people and people are flawed.  They will always look out for themselves first.  Communism is great in theory but does not work in real life because those who have power will never allow it to all be equal.  It always ends up with the few controlling the masses.

Much like Al Gore they would deem they are allowed to expend whatever they want.  The rules would only apply to the rest of us.

I don't understand why liberals are so determined to put us all in chains including themselves.  Our system is not perfect but it is the best system that man has found so far.  So might as well blow it all up and start from chains again right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 20, 2015, 11:37:06 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/03/19/federal-judge-admonished-doj-over-apparent-deception-i-was-made-to-look-like-an-idiot/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 21, 2015, 12:56:13 am

I read that and my sincere question is what is the judge going to do about it? Cry? Hold them in contempt? Make the injunction permanent, which Obama would violate anyways. The law or a judge's ruling is meaningless to him. I doubt Obama would stop because of a piddly judge in south Texas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 21, 2015, 05:46:26 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 21, 2015, 12:56:13 am

I read that and my sincere question is what is the judge going to do about it? Cry? Hold them in contempt? Make the injunction permanent, which Obama would violate anyways. The law or a judge's ruling is meaningless to him. I doubt Obama would stop because of a piddly judge in south Texas.

Just to put things in context, in roughly 1830, when the Cherokee nation's case challenging plans to remove them was finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court with a decision sayign the Cherokee were right and that the United States could not forcibly remove them, when the decision was delivered to president Andrew Jackson and he finished reaing it, Jackson responded by saying, "Justice Marshall (that was Chief Justice John Marshall) has delivered his opinion.  Now let us see him enforce it."  Jackson was simply pointing out the obvious -- that the Court had not troops under its command and that Jackson did.

I am not minimizing what Obama is doing, but simply pointing out that this would be a LONG way from the first time.

As to what can or will be done, it matters entirely on what the people and Congress want.

In 1830, the people and Congress WANTED the Cherokee (and the other four "civilized nations" -- Choctaw, Seminole, Cree and the Creek.... I believe) forcibly removed.  In other words, they did not like the Supreme Court decision and agreed with Jackson that the law should be violated.  Today, that may not be the case.

If Congress and the public don't like Obama violating a federal court order and he persists, it would be grounds for impeachment and removal.... though those supporting that approach might not want the political fight and simply count on letting him leave office when his term ends in less than two years and leaving it to the next president to undo the mess.

More immediately, the District Court Judge might well order into jail for contempt a few underlings responsible and to keep them there until he is persuaded he is getting compliance.  Hard to imagine he would order to jail the person ultimately responsible for the defiance of the Court order, particularly since Obama would insist that he never really knew about it until he read it in the newspapers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 21, 2015, 08:44:42 am

As to what can or will be done, it matters entirely on what the people and Congress want.

And if Congress passes a law Obama just vetoes it. You aren't going to get bipartisan support for that. We have seen enough of that. To me this has to go to the Supreme Court. If my memory is correct 26 states are behind this lawsuit and the Supreme Court would have to listen to what 26 states have to say. The trouble is the Supreme Court is so stacked with Obama supporters I doubt you get 5 justices to support the proper move.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 21, 2015, 11:03:21 am

In regards to global warming. I'll take it more seriously when I see the libs riding bicycles to work and rubbing their hind legs together to stay warm in the Winter. Until then, they can go **** themselves..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on March 21, 2015, 03:01:37 pm

N Myrtle Beach this weekend.  They have the Huge Annual Pee Dee hot rod car show going on this weekend.  Thousand of gas guzzeling hot rods on display!  It's awesome. The smell of exhaust everywhere.  Awesome!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/wmljohn/Facebook/Mobile%20Uploads/11000166_10206593988912545_787278600970369854_n.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/wmljohn/Facebook/Mobile%20Uploads/10659328_10206593969832068_508687997785447374_n.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/wmljohn/Facebook/Mobile%20Uploads/10015173_10206593959351806_436132717576154703_n.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/wmljohn/Facebook/Mobile%20Uploads/10580081_10206593987752516_2375367251020028139_n.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/wmljohn/Facebook/Mobile%20Uploads/11054814_10206593987472509_2740981512064193301_n.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/wmljohn/Facebook/Mobile%20Uploads/11064940_10206593966671989_4334607580044885296_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 21, 2015, 04:27:49 pm

Nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 21, 2015, 07:25:42 pm

 WML,


 I like the last pic of the aircraft flying over Southern California.  ;)   :D   :)


 Go back and look at it dude ... looks just like it!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on March 21, 2015, 09:26:14 pm

Quote

Go back and look at it dude ... looks just like it!

LOL!  I started scrolling up and when that one corner came on the screen I knew exactly what you were talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 22, 2015, 04:20:42 am

http://www.krgv.com/news/local-news/Undocumented-Immigrants-Failing-To-Appear-At-Hearings-Increasing/31937898

WASHINGTON D.C. -

The federal government said the number of undocumented immigrants failing to appear at deportation hearings is on the rise.

According to the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the number of people who did not show after being released on bond or on their own recognizance grew by 153 percent in the last four years.

Immigration judges ordered deportations for those no-shows.

About 30 to 40 percent of undocumented immigrants failed to appear at their hearings last year.

The statistics also show that judges grant asylum less than 50-percent of the time while immigrants from Central American countries get asylum an average of 2-percent of the time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 22, 2015, 07:27:29 am

  Israel: Beware of Obama 
by Michael Goodwin  NYTimes

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.
 
He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.
 
Now he’s coming for Israel.
 
Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?
 
Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.
 
Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.
 
Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.
 
Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.
 
If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.
 
For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.
 
His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.
 
That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists, “the descendants of apes and pigs.”
 
Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.
 
It is a clear and glaring double standard.
 
Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.
 
The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?
 
Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.
 
They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.

This is one of the most concise descriptions of Obama I've seen. This guy gets it. We have a dangerous, wicked President.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 22, 2015, 05:29:47 pm

 

Quote from: wmljohn on March 21, 2015, 09:26:14 pm

LOL!  I started scrolling up and when that one corner came on the screen I knew exactly what you were talking about.

 True Bro,


 Looks like a 1956 Mercury going on a bombing run from high altitude over So.Cal.!


 You gotta love it !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on March 23, 2015, 07:07:55 am

wmlJohn, Myrtle beach is only about an hr away from me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 23, 2015, 12:41:11 pm

Attention religious wacko

 Israel: Beware of Obama
by Michael Goodwin  NYTimes


The conservative hack is a writer for which New York Paper?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 23, 2015, 05:14:45 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 23, 2015, 12:41:11 pm

Attention religious wacko
 Israel: Beware of Obama
by Michael Goodwin  NYTimes
The conservative hack is a writer for which New York Paper?

Can anyone decipher otto's post for me?  What is he trying to say?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 23, 2015, 07:01:38 pm

Attention Hillbilly legal aid


Are you now considering yourself to be a religious wacko? If so,  that would expand your legal aid representation to include hill trash.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 23, 2015, 07:04:53 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 23, 2015, 05:14:45 pm

Can anyone decipher otto's post for me?  What is he trying to say?

Unless you understand gibberish, forget it..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 23, 2015, 07:12:56 pm

I was asking because I don't understand gibberish, which means I generally do not understand his posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 23, 2015, 07:14:00 pm

Apparently, chief you have hill trash as family. Sorry to hear, but that doesn't change who michael goodwin scribbles for.

But thanks for playing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 23, 2015, 07:18:13 pm

Hillbilly legal clerk

I don't expect you to be anything less than repetitive, tedious, pointlessly argumentive and exceptionally boring either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on March 23, 2015, 08:11:56 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 23, 2015, 07:12:56 pm

I was asking because I don't understand gibberish, which means I generally do not understand his posts.

that is why I have him on ignore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 23, 2015, 08:17:54 pm

Anyone have any idea who Michael Goodwin is?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 23, 2015, 09:01:44 pm

Yes.  Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist with the NY Post who worked for the NY Times for ten years before moving to the Post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 23, 2015, 09:12:26 pm

Is he Homo's partner or something?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 23, 2015, 09:36:42 pm

http://thehillarydaily.com/hillary-cant-type-look-to-humas-and-cheryls-emails/

Hillary Can’t Type: Look To Huma’s and Cheryl’s Emails
By Dick Morris

Don’t expect a gold mine of emails on Hillary’s private account. Why not? Because she doesn’t know how to type. That’s right. She writes everything out in longhand. Really. Anyone who has spent time in meetings with her knows about her endless yellow pads.

So her emails will most likely turn out to be very short and quick. She wouldn’t spend a lot of time pecking out long letters. No way. That’s why the Benghazi Committee needs to also look very closely at the emails on private accounts that Hillary’s closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, maintained. Anything more than a few lines were most likely written by someone else on her behalf. There’s a reason why Hillary set up and used private emails with them for official business: all the important emails were likely written by her staff. Without access to them, we won’t know what was going on.

The Clintons never used the White House computer for their own work. Hillary even wrote (or copied) her book manuscripts in long hand. Although ghost writer Barbara Fineman was paid $120,000 for writing It Takes A Village, she proudly waved hundreds of hand-written pages on yellow legal pads to pretend she wrote it all herself. She never acknowledged Fineman’s work.

Bill can’t type either. When I wrote his 1995 State of the Union Speech, I typed it on an IBM Selectric that the White House dug up from the basement. He told me that he didn’t want me to put it in the official computer system, because then his staff would see it.

So, he carefully copied every word in his distinctive left hand penmanship. I still have a copy of it. Then he pretended that he had written it himself.

The Clintons have figured out every which way to avoid disclosure of what they want to keep private. So don’t expect a smoking gun in Hillary’s emails.

Look, instead, to Huma, Cheryl, Jake Sullivan, and Philippe Reines — if they still exist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 23, 2015, 09:48:28 pm

With many younger voters the fact that Hilary can't type will likely be more damaging than anything that could possibly come out about Benghazi or he email concealment or destruction.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 23, 2015, 10:24:05 pm

Interesting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 23, 2015, 10:49:12 pm

A typical stupid post from a libertarian or l-bagger goes as follows...

Quote

Yes.  Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist with the NY Post

Actual facts added to the aforementioned post.


Yes. Goodwin is a (He was the editorial page editor at the Daily News, where he directed a series of reports on the Apollo Theater that won the Pulitzer)prize winning columnist editor directing other reporters work with the NY Post.


Next up for the L-Bagger is more from toe sucking dick morris.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 24, 2015, 07:08:16 am

People who write regular opinion pieces with a byline are columnists, even if their job also includes editorial functions.  Goodwin is a columnist.  He WAS the editorial page editor for the NY Post when the Post's editorial page was awarded a Pulitzer prize, and much like a movie director who directs a film which wins an Oscar is referred to as having won an Oscar, an editorial page editor of a newspaper winning a Pulitzer for its editorial page is considered in the industry to have won the Pulitzer.  The 1999 award was NOT for reporting or for directing other reporters, but was instead for editorial writing and an editorial campaign. http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/1999-Editorial-Writing

                                           (http://www.pulitzer.org/files/dailynewsed99.jpg)

                                           Columbia University Provost Jonathan R. Cole (left)
                                           presents Michael Goodwin of the Daily News with the
                                           Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing.

otto, for someone who routinely complains about minutiae, you might want to actually get it right when you insist on quibbling over it, though I can see how if remembering reports of Dick Morris sucking a hooker's toes gets you excited it might be "hard" for you to keep details straight.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 24, 2015, 10:42:13 am

Isn't it interesting that Homo thinks that toe-sucking is bad.  When Madison gets Shiria law, he will be in big trouble.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 24, 2015, 04:42:55 pm

Oh, one more point on whether Goodwin is or is not a "columnist," since that was part of the minutiae otto wanted to quibble over -- http://nypost.com/columnists/

If goodwin is not one, someone ought to let the NY Post know... since their link listing all of their columnists includes Goodwin, and includes him as a columnist.... but what do they know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 24, 2015, 04:53:54 pm

Exactly, what do they know.



Not much. Goodwin is a columnist in the same vein phax is considered a new organization.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 24, 2015, 05:15:35 pm

Homo seems to be in a good mood today.  Do you suppose his partner is a Republican?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 24, 2015, 07:36:08 pm

I'm always in a good mood.

I'm not a conservative in phax crisis mode everyday I wake.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 24, 2015, 08:25:32 pm

I have never known any liberal that was in a good mood all the time. Heck, not even more often then not.  Playing the victim does not allow for it...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 24, 2015, 08:37:17 pm

Homo has good reason to be in a good mood.  His state finally has a good governor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 24, 2015, 08:43:37 pm

Yeah buddy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 24, 2015, 08:46:57 pm

I see Dan Coates is retiring. That could mean both Indiana senators up for re-election in 2016. Hopefully Pence runs for one of the seats.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 25, 2015, 07:15:08 am

Wshfl, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you one who has regularly been critical of professional politicians and RINO's, and now you appear to support Pence for the Senate?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 25, 2015, 07:31:40 am

Pence has been a good governor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 25, 2015, 01:00:25 pm

peke

You want to read the rantings of old white conservatives who are unhappy all the time....go over the the free republic.


Nobody and I mean nobody plays the victim card better than conservatives. All you true victim believers believe that the media is against them, public schools and colleges are against them, all of government is against them, the World is against them, the environment is against them, they are against each other and they will whine forever about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 25, 2015, 02:00:29 pm

Homo is being cute again.  Amazing how someone that is semi-literate at best can manage to cut and paste so well.

To bad he can never defend what he cuts and pastes.

But at least he can be proud of his Governor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 25, 2015, 05:29:11 pm

Ha

Peke

You want to hear the conservative victimhood syndrome? Just tune into any of your blowhards on radio and hear victimhood calling in about Canadian born ted cruz and the PPACA.

That has to be **** hilarious.

BTW Canadian ted doesn't have to buy insurance thru the PPACA. You morons know that, right?


BBBBBBBWWWEEWEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 25, 2015, 07:01:23 pm

Too bad Cruz isn't an American Indian like Elizabeth Warren.

Although he could be.  He could just lie on the form like she did.

Homo can explain it better than I.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 25, 2015, 07:05:24 pm

Cruz, no experience (could be a good thing, although it wasn't with Obama), and a little too much religious garble..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 26, 2015, 05:36:46 am

Don't you look forward to a return of the Clintons in the White House?  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/report-cites-favoritism-for-terry-mcauliffe-and-brother-of-hillary-clinton-116370.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 26, 2015, 06:09:27 am

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/25/its-ok-to-leak-government-secrets-as-long-as-it-benefits-politicians

When it comes to classified information, some leaks are more equal than others. If you are a whistleblower like Edward Snowden, who tells the press about illegal, immoral or embarrassing government actions, you will face jail time. But it’s often another story for US government officials leaking information for their own political benefit.

Two stories this week perfectly illustrate this hypocrisy and how, despite their unprecedented crackdown on sources and whistleblowers, the Obama administration - like every administration before it - loves to use leaks, if and when it suits them.

Consider a government leak that ran in the New York Times on Monday. The article was about 300 of Hillary Clinton’s now notorious State Department emails, which had been hidden away on her private server for years and were turned over to Congress as part of the never-ending Benghazi investigation. “Four senior government officials” described the content of her emails to New York Times journalists in minute detail “on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information”.

Surely the Obama administration will promptly root out and prosecute those leakers, right? After all, the emails haven’t gone through a security review and the chances of them discussing classified information are extremely high. (Even if they don’t, the Espionage Act doesn’t require the information to be classified anyways, only that information leaked be “related to national defense”.) But those emails supposedly clear Clinton of any wrongdoing in the Benghazi affair, which likely makes the leak in the administration’s interest.

But that disclosure was nothing compared to what appeared in the Wall Street Journal a day later, in the wake of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s underhanded attempts to derail a nuclear deal with Iran. The Journal reported on Tuesday that not only did Israel spy on Americans negotiating with Iran, but they gave that information to Republicans in Congress, in an attempt to scuttle the deal.

How does the US know this? Well, according to the Journal and its government sources, the US itself intercepted communications between Israeli officials that discussed information that could have only come from the US-Iran talks. The disclosure of this fact sounds exactly like the vaunted “sources and methods” - i.e. how the US conducts surveillance and gets intelligence - that the government continually claims is the most sensitive information they have. It’s why they claim Edward Snowden belongs in jail for decades. So while it’s apparently unacceptable to leak details about surveillance that affects ordinary citizens’ privacy, its OK for officials to do so for their own political benefit - and no one raises an eyebrow.

We can be quite certain that no one will be prosecuted for the leaks given that they benefitted the administration’s powerful former Secretary of State, and bolsters its position in its public dust-up with Israel.

When it comes to leaks, the powerful play by different rules than everyone else - despite the fact that they’ve violated the same law they’ve accused so many other leakers of breaking. That’s why David Petraeus was given a sweetheart plea deal with no jail time after leaking highly classified information to his biographer and lover. (He’s apparently already back advising the White House, despite leaking and then lying to the FBI about the identities of countless covert officers).

It’s also the same reason why investigations into a leak suspected to have involved General Cartwright, once known as “Obama’s favorite general”, have stalled. As the Washington Post reported: the defense “might try to put the White House’s relationship with reporters and the use of authorized leaks on display, creating a potentially embarrassing distraction for the administration”.

Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling faces sentencing next month after being found guilty of leaking information to New York Times reporter James Risen. Sterling’s problem is that he leaked information showing a spectacular and embarrassing failure on the CIA’s part - which did not help a powerful politician score points. He is also not a general.

As a result, he faces decades in jail.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 26, 2015, 06:33:10 am

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Is-Obama-strong-arming-Netanyahu-into-unity-deal-with-the-left-395078


Is Obama strong-arming Netanyahu into unity deal with the left?

TEL AVIV - The Obama administration’s most recent threat to “re-evaluate” the US approach toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be exposed for what it is: a backhanded attempt to influence the composition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s forthcoming ruling coalition and pressure him into a unity deal with left-wing parties.

Following his Likud party’s decisive victory in last week’s elections, Netanyahu will soon be tasked by Israel’s president with forming a coalition government that must constitute at least 61 seats in the country’s 120-seat Knesset.

The various potential allied parties are already preparing their list of conditions for entering the coalition as Netanyahu prepares for a Herculean politico-diplomatic process of balancing egos, overcoming conflict, responding to outlandish demands, and forging a stable coalition to move the new government forward.

With Likud’s 30 seats, Netanyahu maintains the possibility of forming a coalition with right-wing parties that will leave his biggest rival, Isaac Herzog of the left-leaning Zionist Union, in the opposition.

Pending the outcome of coalition negotiations, Netanyahu also could potentially form a coalition without the center-left Yesh Atid party, led by Yair Lapid, who was fired as finance minister last year after he repeatedly accused Netanyahu of fostering bad relations with the White House.

If the economy-centric Kulanu party, led by Moshe Kahlon, joins Netanyahu’s coalition, as is widely expected, the prime minister will be able to form a coalition with right-wing and religious parties, most of whom share Netanyahu’s overall ideology and agenda, particularly with regard to delaying the formation of a Palestinian state and continued Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Herzog’s party, by contrast, stands in sharp opposition to Netanyahu on those and many other core issues; calling for an immediate resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks and repeatedly criticizing the prime minister over expanding Jewish housing projects in the so-called pre-1967 borders.

However, it seems the White House has been sending not-so-clandestine signals that the US administration will punish Netanyahu if he forms a coalition with the right instead of a unity coalition with leftist parties.

Indeed, last Thursday, Foreign Policy magazine quoted Western diplomats stating the Obama administration is “edging closer” to abandoning years of blocking UN Security Council resolutions imposing so-called peace talks.

The magazine reported that the US administration may back a resolution calling for the resumption of talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state, according to the unnamed Western diplomats.

The magazine indicated that the Obama administration’s willingness to accept a UN resolution depends on the politics of Netanyahu’s soon-to-be formed coalition. If the new governing coalition consists of right-wing parties instead of a unity deal with the left, the likelihood of the US supporting UN action would increase, the magazine indicated.

Foreign Policy wrote:

US officials signaled a willingness to consider a UN resolution in the event that Netanyahu was re-elected and formed a coalition government opposed to peace talks. The United States has not yet circulated a draft, but diplomats say Washington has set some red lines and is unwilling to agree to set a fixed deadline for political talks to conclude.

“The more the new government veers to the right the more likely you will see something in New York,” the magazine quoted one unnamed Western diplomat as saying.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest affirmed to reporters the US will “re-evaluate our approach” toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Netanyahu made election remarks appearing to back away from support for a Palestinian state.

That message was directly conveyed to Netanyahu during a phone call with Obama last week, according to a White House official speaking to the New York Times.

Obama’s latest excuse for a crisis with Bibi? On the eve of last week’s elections, Netanyahu stated in a video interview with Israel’s NRG news website: “I think that anyone who's going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving away territory to be used by radical Islamists to attack Israel.”

He said anyone “who ignores this is sticking his head in the sand.”

“The left does this time and time again,” Netanyahu said. “We are realistic and understand.”

The interviewer asked Netanyahu specifically if he meant that a Palestinian state would not be established under his premiership if he were re-elected. “Correct,” he replied.

Netanyahu has since given numerous interviews to the international media explaining he still supports a two-state solution. He said his election comments did not conflict with his acceptance of a roadmap aimed at creating a Palestinian state.

Instead, Netanyahu related, his remarks were expressing concern with the timing of creating such a state while the region undergoes turmoil and Israel finds itself threatened by Hamas in Gaza, by ISIS militants fighting Iranian Guards to the north, and ISIS allies arrested in the strategic West Bank.

Netanyahu affirmed to NBC News, "I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful, two-state solution."

Yet Obama persisted in his criticism of Netanyahu. “We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn't happen during his prime ministership, and so that's why we've got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don't see a chaotic situation in the region."

If only Obama applied this same logic to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah party routinely incites anti-Jewish hatred, names streets and soccer stadiums after suicide bombers, calls for the destruction of Israel and maintains a “military wing,” the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, responsible for the wilful murder of hundreds of Israeli civilians. 

Meanwhile, Obama isn’t waiting on the sidelines. His administration’s seeming threats aimed at affecting the composition of Netanyahu’s next coalition represent only the latest US interference in Israel’s democratic process.

In a Jerusalem Post column last December, I first questioned whether or not the Obama administration was intentionally generating a crisis in US-Israeli relations, an entanglement utilized at every twist and turn by Netanyahu’s political rivals to shake up the country’s leadership. Did White House tentacles help inflame the coalition drama that provoked Netanyahu’s hesitant decision that month to dissolve parliament and schedule early elections?

The US administration has since faced a slew of questions about State Department funding to nonprofit groups tied to Israeli NGOs that tried, unsuccessfully, to defeat Netanyahu during the latest elections here. Whether or not Obama’s latest ploy prospers - that of strong-arming Netanyahu into what would surely be a highly dysfunctional left-right unity coalition - remains to be seen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on March 26, 2015, 09:04:48 pm

Why should we think Iran would obey any agreement.

Heck, middle east culture doesn't even see lying as a negative thing.

I'm sure they'll shake hands sign some papers and go back to doing what they want.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 27, 2015, 05:35:11 am

Quote from: davebear on March 26, 2015, 09:04:48 pm

Why should we think Iran would obey any agreement.  Heck, middle east culture doesn't even see lying as a negative thing.  I'm sure they'll shake hands sign some papers and go back to doing what they want.

Ah, American hypocrisy is rich.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 27, 2015, 12:17:22 pm

Hmmm...ya think?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/no-official-confirmation-that-killer-co-pilot-of-germanwings-airbus-was-a-muslim-convert/?AID=7236

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 27, 2015, 01:27:31 pm

After reading your link, you have removed all doubt as to you being a hypocrite.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 27, 2015, 04:35:10 pm

 A. Go to war and waste all of the motherfuckers.


 B. Cut a trade deal.


 Which one do you think would be more prosperous for the planet ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 27, 2015, 04:41:24 pm

A is probably what should do. B is what Obama would do while down on his knees.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 27, 2015, 04:53:45 pm

 Wsh,


 Which motherfuckers would you waste first?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 27, 2015, 04:56:44 pm

Probably the same as you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 27, 2015, 04:59:01 pm

Isfulofit

Would waste everyone not from his church of phaxnews. Wonder how his personal jesus would judge that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 27, 2015, 05:43:09 pm

You arent worth a reply

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 27, 2015, 06:29:15 pm

Leave Homo alone.  His partner just told him that he voted for Walker.

Three times.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 27, 2015, 10:57:30 pm

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/281761-results-hillarys-email-debacle-lets-just-say-america-didnt-like/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Politics

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 10:16:42 am

Still scared of her hillbilly legal aid?


About right for a old white confederate scared of change.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 10:22:49 am

Hmmm...ya think?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/report-co-pilot-on-doomed-flight-had-psychological-treatments-in-past/2015/03/27/b1818c48-d40b-11e4-8b1e-274d670aa9c9_story.html?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/report-co-pilot-on-doomed-flight-had-psychological-treatments-in-past/2015/03/27/b1818c48-d40b-11e4-8b1e-274d670aa9c9_story.html?hpid=z1)


That the word depression means Muslim to idiot phaxnews white folks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 10:26:50 am

Saturday morning laughs...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/politics/late-night-laughs-ted-cruz-2016-edition/2015/03/27/f4466428-d496-11e4-8b1e-274d670aa9c9_video.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/politics/late-night-laughs-ted-cruz-2016-edition/2015/03/27/f4466428-d496-11e4-8b1e-274d670aa9c9_video.html)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 28, 2015, 11:11:06 am

Do you suppose that Homo's partner posts under the name of JesBeard?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 28, 2015, 04:10:24 pm

 

Quote from: davep on March 28, 2015, 11:11:06 am

Do you suppose that Homo's partner posts under the name of JesBeard?

It's an interesting partnership depending on which side of the discussion is in play.


 There are those that can be complete **** (SEE : Jackiejokeman) and others


 that migrate from one philosophy to another depending on the individuals point of view concerning what topic.


 I think that's called thinking for yourself. It's a radical concept ... maybe you should try it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 07:26:17 pm

Its a nice wish for the writer, but conservatives don't learn.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/03/27/ted-cruz-loss-would-help-gop-recover/u7Ro0AJbkuxSd7ppLcOKJP/story.html (http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/03/27/ted-cruz-loss-would-help-gop-recover/u7Ro0AJbkuxSd7ppLcOKJP/story.html)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 28, 2015, 08:23:22 pm

If he can get past the liberals in the Republican party he will be the best president this country has had since Reagan.

I however doubt very much he gets the nomination.  Way to much money being given by the elite rich donors to the Democrats and RINO's to make sure no man can become president that is not beholden to them.

He will be attacked and mocked by the media and the Republican leadership.  They will try and make him sound like he is a far right wing loon.

But hey Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton will make a fine president.  Lining her pockets and looking down on us peons from up high.  The rules don't apply to Clintons.  Just the rest of us.

Of course Jeb Bush would be no different then her they are after all pretty much the same candidate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 08:34:37 pm

Latest entry into the victimhood society that is your conservative party...


Indiana governor jackass mike pence step up.

Quote

"I just can’t account for the hostility that’s been directed at our state," he said. "I’ve been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill."

Really, mikey. You just signed a bill that allows religious discrimination in your state. Abill which you signed behind closed doors and you didn't have enough foresight to see that a majority of Americans in 2015 would have a negative reaction to the law?

You are just another weak link an increasingly dumb party.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 08:44:12 pm

Latest entry into the victimhood society which is your current conservative party.

Quote

If he can get past the liberals in the Republican party

Quote

Way to much money being given by the elite rich donors to the Democrats and RINO's to make sure no man can become president that is not beholden to them.

Really? It's very hard to take you serious with idiotic crap like this.

Quote

He will be attacked and mocked by the media and the Republican leadership.  They will try and make him sound like he is a far right wing loon.

He is a far right loon. And why the whine about the media sarah?

Quote

Lining her pockets and looking down on us peons from up high.  The rules don't apply to Clintons.  Just the rest of us.

Is there a victimhood walk of fame for this in Peoria?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 28, 2015, 08:48:39 pm

You need to make up to your homey Scott Walker

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 09:07:22 pm

So, as a conservative, your saying our degree-less governor is a closeted homosexual?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 28, 2015, 09:27:56 pm

If championing small government and personal responsibility is far rightwing loon then sign me up.  I thought that was just a common sense approach.

The bigger government gets the less efficient it generally gets.  Private companies work the same way however they have checks and balances that work.  If they are paying to much and not making enough money they either downsize and cut expenses or go out of business.

Government never goes out of business it just keeps growing.  Our politicians tell us they will cut spending 5% but what they really mean is they will cut the INCREASE of spending by 5%.  Private companies decrease their budget all the time.  The government does not.  They just increase it less. 

In government you spend the budget or lose it.  So they spend it on stupid ****.  If they don't spend it their budget is decreased the next year.

At the post office they don't get rid of anyone.  They just slowly wait for folks to retire and not replace them or replace them with people making less.  They still promote folks right at the end of their career and let them work tons of overtime to pad their pensions.

Do away with pensions in government and you will fix a lot of problems.  The private sector long ago figured out how ridiculously expensive pensions are now that people live a lot longer.  Give them 401k's like the rest of us.     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 09:45:12 pm

I don't discuss slogans.

But, can you point to a country in the world which has the size government you advocate and we can assess their success.

Bet you can't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 28, 2015, 10:40:00 pm

Well the US was pretty successful until we abandoned it.

The rise of big government in the US pretty much has coincided with our decline.  Many Socialist (even communist) governments have realized they need to become more capitalistic in nature to compete.  Look at China for instance.  With out embracing capitalism they would not be where they are.

The key is finding the balance between government and individual rights.  Sadly most people are perfectly fine with giving up rights for hand outs.  I find it sad and pathetic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 10:44:05 pm

I ask for an example of a small government that you can point to and you give me America in the early to mid 1800's?


When do you want to be taken seriously?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 28, 2015, 10:53:11 pm

Well give me a well working government example that is big.  Keep in mind we would like to maintain individual rights as well as the ability to move up in wealth based on ones ability.  Not by just being lucky enough to being born into the right family.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 28, 2015, 11:32:57 pm

Why work at all? The government will take care of you anyways.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 28, 2015, 11:42:10 pm

That's just like the Roman Empire. The Romans were the eliteists and the slaves (foreigners) did all the work. Even their military towards the end was all foreigners. We are getting that way now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on March 29, 2015, 03:04:00 am

 Humans as **** up as are have built a better telephone ,


 built a better automobile ,


 built better medicine ,


 built a better hamburger ,


 One thing humans keep **** up at though is building a better economy.


 Any issues you have with the planet you are born on can be traced to the **** up  system that keeps situations alive for further conflict.


 And further gain.


 How did we become so **** up that labor by those that do enrich the coffers that those that don't labor?


 There's a yacht in the Caribbean that you aren't on ... but you'll defend to your death the right of the people on that yacht to be there that you put them on.


 You don't even get to be a deckhand.


 Sooner or later ... you'll figure your way out of it ...


 you don't have any motherfuckin choice ...


 because now it comes down to your kids.


 Trust me ... you'll get wise to this **** ... because your kids hang in the balance.


 What do you want for your kids ?


 What is ... or what could be?


 You have the answer. World ... the ball's in your court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:06:33 am

Quote from: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 10:16:42 am

Still scared of her hillbilly legal aid?  About right for a old white confederate scared of change.

Who is scared of Hilary?  Or of change?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:16:02 am

Quote from: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 07:26:17 pm

Its a nice wish for the writer


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/03/27/ted-cruz-loss-would-help-gop-recover/u7Ro0AJbkuxSd7ppLcOKJP/story.html (http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/03/27/ted-cruz-loss-would-help-gop-recover/u7Ro0AJbkuxSd7ppLcOKJP/story.html)

The only wish the writer clearly articulates is that Cruz gets the nomination.

The writer might end up serving as another example that we should watch what we wish for.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:23:43 am

Quote from: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 08:34:37 pm

mike pence.... just signed a bill... behind closed doors

Don't you love it when a Hilary supporter complains about a lack of transparency?

And, otto, just in case you aren't aware of it, MOST legislation is signed into law behind closed doors.  There is no real discussion, debate or amendment of things at that time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:33:56 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 27, 2015, 12:17:22 pm

Hmmm...ya think?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/no-official-confirmation-that-killer-co-pilot-of-germanwings-airbus-was-a-muslim-convert/?AID=7236

In the absence of anything whatsoever supporting the theory that the co-pilot was a Muslim, how long do you think it will be before someone such as Wshflthinking admits he was wrong in jumping to that confusion?

I would be willing to take the "over" on any bet that it will be one second short of "never."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:43:14 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 28, 2015, 11:42:10 pm

That's just like the Roman Empire. The Romans were the eliteists and the slaves (foreigners) did all the work. Even their military towards the end was all foreigners. We are getting that way now.

What makes someone a "foreigner" as you use the term here?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:47:24 am

Quote from: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 10:44:05 pm

I ask for an example of a small government that you can point to and you give me America in the early to mid 1800's? 
When do you want to be taken seriously?

otto, the fact that YOU refuse to take it seriously, does not mean something should not be taken seriously.  Your response here is another illustration of my frequent point that "proof" is merely that which is required to convince someone, and that for someone with a closed mind, no proof is needed convince them of the position they have aready taken, and no proof will ever persuade them that position is wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:49:27 am

Quote from: otto105 on March 28, 2015, 09:45:12 pm

I don't discuss slogans.

Interesting... since most of otto's posts are little more than slogans.  Of course, I do have to agree that he seldom actually engages in any actual discussion of those slogans.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 29, 2015, 06:53:17 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:43:14 am

What makes someone a "foreigner" as you use the term here?

Someone who wasn't Roman. Simple enough for you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 29, 2015, 06:59:34 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 06:33:56 am

In the absence of anything whatsoever supporting the theory that the co-pilot was a Muslim, how long do you think it will be before someone such as Wshflthinking admits he was wrong in jumping to that confusion?

I would be willing to take the "over" on any bet that it will be one second short of "never."

Show me anywhere where I said the pilot was Muslim. I put it out there for thought and discussion. If you can show me where I said the co-pilot was Muslim then I will admit I was wrong. I'll be waiting forever for that one. More Jes trumped up charges.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 07:04:05 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 29, 2015, 06:59:34 am

Show me anywhere where I said the pilot was Muslim. I put it out there for thought and discussion. If you can show me where I said the co-pilot was Muslim then I will admit I was wrong. I'll be waiting forever for that one. More Jes trumped up charges.

So I was correct.  You will never admit any error in that post.

Thank you for proving my point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 07:05:29 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 29, 2015, 06:53:17 am

Someone who wasn't Roman. Simple enough for you?

It is actually too simple.  It is only meaningful if you first define what it was to be "Roman" as you are using the term.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 07:41:25 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lDN5b6ET0I

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 11:04:02 am

While the definition of "racism" may vary depending on its use, it would seem that treating people differently, or viewing them differently, solely on the basis of race, would clearly qualify as racist. With that in mind, what would the public response be if a white First Lady were to appear before a group of all white girls and shouted to the group, "White girls rock!"
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michelle-obama-declares-black-girls-rock/ar-AAa9QEc

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 29, 2015, 03:09:04 pm

I saw that and thought the very same thing.. The only thing that rocks is the thought of them leaving the white house..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 07:31:41 pm

Idiot.  http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2015/03/27/arizona-lawmaker-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory/

Yes, I know the headline distorts a bit what she said, but what she said still shows her to be an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 29, 2015, 08:29:46 pm

Show me an error

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 29, 2015, 08:58:41 pm

What day were you conceived?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 09:02:52 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 29, 2015, 08:29:46 pm

Show me an error

Read her quote at the link.  She never actually said that "church attendance should be mandatory," which is what the headline claimed.  That is a distortion.  Not an error, which would suggest a mistake, but a distortion, which covers both intent and incompetence.

“I believe what’s happening to our country is that there’s a moral erosion of the soul of America,” Allen said.

Allen said more people may feel the need to carry weapons if a “moral rebirth” doesn’t occur in America.

“It’s the soul that is corrupt. How we get back to a moral rebirth I don’t know. Since we are slowly eroding religion at every opportunity that we have. Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth,” she told the committee, as reported by KPHO.

“But since that would not be allowed and we would not even be debating that, I’m going to vote yes that people who are responsible who have a CCW permit don’t have to worry about their guns as they’re out and about and doing business in whatever building they’re in except ones that where they aren’t allowed,” Allen went on to say.

She makes clear that she does not "know" the way to reach her goal of a moral rebirth, so it should be clear that she is not saying it should be accomplished by mandatory church attendance.  The fact that she suggested they should be DEBATING such a proposal is not quite the same thing as saying it sould become law.

If I say we should be debating whether Hilary Clinton should be president, I would hope you would not assume that to mean I was suggesting she should be president.

Distortion, not error.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 29, 2015, 09:04:22 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 29, 2015, 08:58:41 pm

What day were you conceived?

otto, just because your parents explained to you that you were an accident they greatly regretted, an "error," so to speak, does not mean that all of us were.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 30, 2015, 12:17:02 am

It's so fricking stupid. That lawmaker did not say 'let's create a law to force everyone to go to church' but that's how idiot atheists and the left saw it. She was right, alot of what is the problem in the world is a corrupt soul. She even said she knows a bill like that couldn't happen and they wouldn't even be debating it. But the lefts and crazy liberals and atheists and now gays are having a heyday with the Indiana Religious protection bill. Let em foam at the mouth.....most of these people now think gays can't be served at restaurants now. Not even close to the truth...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on March 30, 2015, 06:38:50 am

it is a headline to get you to read the article, it happens everyday and it worked. 10 people on this site read the article that never would have read it normally.

When I was a kid, everyone I knew went to church. We left our houses unlocked and the keys in our cars.
Now we have to lock everything up. We are getting ready to install an alarm system in our small town rural church because we just had our 2nd break in in the past year.

Then virtually no one carried concealed handguns, now a lot of folks are carrying them.
It is no coincidence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 30, 2015, 06:43:06 am

Quote from: Sportster on March 30, 2015, 12:17:02 am

It's so fricking stupid. That lawmaker did not say 'let's create a law to force everyone to go to church' but that's how idiot atheists and the left saw it. She was right, alot of what is the problem in the world is a corrupt soul. She even said she knows a bill like that couldn't happen and they wouldn't even be debating it. But the lefts and crazy liberals and atheists and now gays are having a heyday with the Indiana Religious protection bill. Let em foam at the mouth.....most of these people now think gays can't be served at restaurants now. Not even close to the truth...

WshflThinking's post asking me to, "Show (him) an error," would seem to indicate that he also saw it that way.

Does that mean, Sportster, that you also see him as one of those "idiot atheist and the left"?

And I did NOT see it that way, but I am most assuredly an atheist, and I believe you have also called me an idiot at least a few times.

Is it at all possible that your description of who might have misconstrued her remarks has no relationship to religious beliefs and that the reason for the headline was not related to atheism but instead a result of the inherent desire in the news for sensationalism?

And if much of what is wrong with the world today is a result of corrupt souls, were souls any less corrupt when slavery was accepted, or is slavery not a result of a corrupt soul?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 30, 2015, 08:43:32 am

Jes, You have to be right next to Oddo the moron. I only posted an article that brought up the possibility that the German co-pilot may have converted to Muslim, not some of this gibberish you are attributing to me. And nowhere did I state that that was my opinion. Now you go prove that what I said, Ya think, indicates somehow that that its my opinion. That was only posted to show that others have that opinion.

And I will be waiting for my apology.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 30, 2015, 11:43:01 am

With reports of radical muslims around the world performing heinous acts, and with what this country witnessed on 9/11 I think it's only natural to have a thought that the co-pilot could have somehow been associated with islam.. What's the big deal?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 30, 2015, 04:54:39 pm

Obama stumbled coming off AF1. Not unusual, he's stumbling and bumbling his way through his job....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 30, 2015, 05:09:37 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 30, 2015, 08:43:32 am

Jes, You have to be right next to Oddo the moron. I only posted an article that brought up the possibility that the German co-pilot may have converted to Muslim, not some of this gibberish you are attributing to me. And nowhere did I state that that was my opinion. Now you go prove that what I said, Ya think, indicates somehow that that its my opinion. That was only posted to show that others have that opinion.

And I will be waiting for my apology.

You are waiting for your apology for what?  And what "gibberish" is it that you believe I have attributed to you?  Nowhere did you state WHAT was your opinion, and where did I write that you did?  And what in the world did you mean by, "Now you go prove that what I said, Ya think, indicates somehow that that its my opinion"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 30, 2015, 06:08:45 pm

Mark's Market Blog
3-29-15: Saudi Arabia and Iran at war
by Mark Lawrence
Last week I predicted stock would go up for the rest of March. Almost immediately after I said that a proxy war broke out between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen, sending oil prices up and raising uncertainty in much of the gulf. US markets immediately plummeted, finding yet another way to make me look stupid. Well, that's their job, to make everyone who makes a prediction look stupid, and the markets do it well. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday the market closed at its low for the day - in the chart below on those three days there's no little tail dropping down. This is called "Three Black Crows" and is considered very bearish, a strong sign that the market will continue to move downwards. We're now moving quickly towards the S&P 2010 level, where sits both this month's 1st support level and the 200 day moving average. If this little downturn drops below both we could easily be looking at a much more significant correction.
 
S&P 500 October 5 2014 to March 27 2015
A German airplane flying from Spain to Germany crashed in the French Alps near the Italian border killing all 500 on board. During the process of the crash the pilot was locked out of the control room and was pounding on the door with an ax to get in. Weather was clear and good. Investigators now believe the plane was deliberately crashed by the copilot, 28-year-old Andreas Lubitz, who descended from 34,000 feet to 6,000 feet in order to get up close and personal with the mountains. Apparently copilot suicide. Lots of karma here.

Everyone is fighting ISIL. Saudi Arabia is attacking Iranian backed rebels in Yemen, while Iran deplores their incursion. If you're a pro-Iran Shi'ite militia in Iraq, you get US air cover. If you're a pro-Iran Shi'ite militia in Yemen, US helps bomb you. And we're simultaneously negotiating a nuclear treaty with Iran. If you find Obama's middle east strategy confusing you're just part of the majority, which is everyone who doesn't work in the White house. Poland is training to hold off Russia. Estonia is preparing for a Russian incursion and land grab. Greece is doing everything they can to **** off Germany, and the Greeks have 3000 years experience at pissing people off, they must be regarded as experts in this. China is testing anti-satellite and anti-aircraft carrier missiles and being provocative in the south China sea against Viet Nam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan. India is building submarines to counter Chinese incursions into the Indian ocean. We live in interesting times.

Rebels backed by Iran have taken over Yemen. Saudi Arabia considers this unacceptable, and is now attacking shi'ite positions in Yemen with air strikes. They have also moved men and tanks to the border. They're backed by a coalition of 9 arab countries. Of course historically we would have backed Saudi Arabia in this, but Obama seems much more supportive of Iran. Meanwhile it seems we are providing "intelligence sharing, targeting assistance, and advisory and logistical support for strikes." The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain said they would answer a request from Yemen's president Hadi "to protect Yemen and his dear people from the aggression of the Houthi militias which were and are still a tool in the hands of foreign powers that don't stop meddling with the security and stability of brotherly Yemen." Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco and Sudan also announced political and military support, saying they are ready to send ground troops if necessary. Saudi Arabia has a large shi'ite population in their southern borders along Yemen and fears that the Yemen conflict could spread into their country. As I see it Iran is trying to pull a fast one over on Obama this month in the nuclear negotiations, and this provocative incursion into Yemen politics now throws the nuclear negotiations into serious question. I don't see Iran acting in a mature fashion. Obviously oil prices are going up as everyone wonders if this will stay a proxy war or spread into direct Saudi - Iranian conflict. Personally, I'm not a fan of either country and if they start shooting each other up I have no big problem with that. This is one time I'm willing to pay a big more at the pump to get a good international result. In the map below we would be told that the good guys are gray, the Hadis, and the bad guys are in yellow, the al-Houthis. I'm using the word "good guys" very loosely - "least worst" would be a better description imho. As usual these days, we're a big part of this behind the scenes. We had been backing the al-Houthis with arms and training because they were fighting al-queda in Yemen. Obama sees Iran, Hezbollah and even the Syrian government — except for President Bashar al Assad — as partners in the fight against the Islamic State, a development Saudi Arabia finds threatening. Expect Obama to take in a bunch of yemenis as refugee immigrants - just what we need, more militant muslims transplanted to the US.


It appears that Houthis, under direction from Iran, targeted a particular airbase in Yemen with the goal of obtaining US intelligence information. They seem to have succeeded. Iran now has lists of military and intelligence operations and operators across the horn of Africa. Iran is apparently using this information in their negotiations with Obama - the threat is that if he does not make further concessions resulting in a deal favorable to Iran, they will use this information to target US citizens. Let's be honest for just a minute: we're trying to negotiate with terrorists.

We're coming up fast on Obama's latest deadline for an agreement with Iran - the end of this month. Iran now says all sanctions must stop the day the agreement is signed; then later we'll find out if they deliver on their promises. Much later, as they now say they refuse to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency access to their records and reactors and centrifuges, thus denying the IAEA any idea of how close to a bomb they are. In the last 18 months, Iran exceeded negotiated oil export caps, grew its stockpile of 5% enriched uranium by 11%; fed uranium into an advanced centrifuge in violation of the JPOA's terms, and failed to answer 11 of 12 questions IAEA posed about their nuclear weaponization research. Not the track record of a reliable treaty partner. My favorite part of the "treaty:" it's classified, only people with a government secret clearance will be allowed to read it. It took about eight years to put together the coalition that imposes the sanctions; if we stop them it's unobvious they could be turned back on. An unnamed Iranian diplomat who is in the talks said Saturday, "The fact is that we will conserve a substantial number of centrifuges, that no site will be closed, in particular Fordo. These are the basis of the talks." And all this to allegedly keep Iran six to twelve months away from a working bomb. Of course I believe they already have several bombs, they're just storing them in N.Korea for the duration. Me, I would have pulled the plug on this little charade long ago. In any case, I expect there's a good chance Obama will announce a deal in the next few days, but that deal apparently will have absolutely no teeth - as Netanyahu said, "It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb." It's painfully clear that any such deal will result in Saudi Arabia obtaining the bomb soon, likely followed closely by Egypt, UAE and others.

From 2007 to at least 2010, there was a bi-weekly flight from Caracas, Venezuela to Tehran, Iran that made a stop in Damascus, Syria. Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly called it 'Aeroterror.' According to US government testimony and a report by Brazilian paper Veja, the plane was laden with no civilian passengers; instead it carried a few government officials, drugs, weapons, and cash. Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman died mysteriously in January, the day before he planned to testify that the Argentine government had covered up Iran's involvement in a 1994 Buenos Aires terrorist attack. He had spent about a decade investigating Iran and Hezbollah's growing presence in the Western hemisphere. High- level Venezuelan defectors then started talking to Veja journalist Leonardo Coutinho. They told Veja that Aeroterror carried drugs and cash to finance Iran's activities in South America, and that it would stop in Damascus to pick up fake passports and other documents to ensure that Iran's agents could move freely once they arrived in Caracas. "The Venezuelan state-owned airline, Conviasa, operates regular service from Caracas to Damascus and Tehran – providing Iran, Hezbollah, and associated narco-traffickers a surreptitious means to move personnel, weapons, contraband and other materiel," former Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Roger F. Noriega said in Senate testimony back in 2012.


In June 2010 someone, widely believed to be Mossad and the NSA, unleashed a new virus, Struxnet, on Iran, and destroyed thousands of their centrifuges. Stunningly, Iran responded by training 1500 cyber warriors. "Five years ago, I would have never imagined Iran to be where they are today," said cyber security expert David Kennedy, founder of information security firm TrustedSec. "Iran was once considered a D-grade cyber threat. Now it's almost on the same level as Russia or China. Russia has probably helped Iran a lot in stepping up its cyber capabilities in the event of a conflict with NATO," Kennedy said. "If they [the Iranians] want to topple the US' financial sector, or cripple the military's ability to communicate, they can do that. Iran's cyber warriors ask themselves one question: Can I entrench myself in key sensitive areas and take the US down in the event of a conflict?"

Fun fact: that word Hitler used all the time, "Aryan," and the name of the country "Iran:" same word, same roots, same basic meaning. The Semitic people just can't seem to get away from this concept.

World Jewish Congress (WJC) president Ronald Lauder, a billionaire businessman who inherited a fortune from his mother Estee Lauder's cosmetics empire, told a congressional committee in Washington, "Once again, like the 1930s, European Jews live in fear. The United States can and must speak loudly and clearly to condemn this evil for what it is –- the radical Islamic hatred of Jews." Roger Cukierman, a French Jewish leader, added: "This is a war against Western modern civilization. And the Jews are seen by these Jihadists as a privileged target. We Jews are the sentinels at the forefront of this war. But we are not the only victims. Military forces, policemen and women, journalists were also targeted and killed."

The US is training Polish to use Patriot missiles - the anti-missile system favored by Israel. Now, who do you suppose we might think the Poles are likely to have to defend against all the sudden? We also sent the 31st fighter wing (fourteen F-16 fighters) to Estonia for "bilateral training."

China has been disgusted for some time with the IMF, which frequently dictates economic policy to 3rd world nations in trouble but which is heavily dominated by the US and a couple European countries. So China has announced the creation of their own international bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). They've been lobbying hard to get other nations to join them, and now basically all of the EU has signed up. At this point the only major countries that are holding out are the US and Japan. Obama has expressed concern the new bank will allow looser lending standards for the environment, labor rights and financial transparency, undercutting the World Bank, where the U.S. has the most clout, and the Asian Development Bank, where it is the second-largest shareholder after Japan. Now, however, with Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Australia joining mostly we look like a petulant child that mad about someone else's birthday party. China's state newspaper accused the U.S. of "sour grapes" and hypocrisy, noting that President Barack Obama has urged a rising China to shoulder more international obligations.

Greece is quickly running out of cash. Depending on who you believe, they have about two to four weeks left. Greece continues to be unwilling to make the severe reforms that would lead to further EU loans - cutting pensions, laying off government workers, selling off assets, raising taxes. Everyone is now denying a Grexit seemingly on a daily basis, leading the Telegraph to invent a new word, "Grexident." Negotiations seem to consist of Greece calling Germany names and insisting on war reparations, while Germany continues to say no, grow up and pay your bills. What's next? That's pretty easy to predict: a default on payments to the IMF, coming up in a days. Perhaps a default on Greek T-bills, also coming up in a few days. Remember, Greeks invented theatre 3,000 years ago and their new prime minister Tripras and finance minister Varoufakis have shown great talent in this area.


Russia is proposing a new multi-trillion dollar trans-siberia highway that would make it possible to drive from New York to London. I don't know if it will happen, but if it does I'll definitely ride it on my Harley.


The Senate and House have each passed a budget with about $5 trillion in savings over the next ten years, balancing the budget by 2025 without raising taxes. Each budget raises defense spending incrementally while making deep cuts to welfare spending. Each budget also changes the parliamentary rules on Obamacare so that it can be modified or reversed by a simple majority vote instead of a 60% vote. The two budgets still need to be reconciled and then the compromise bill passed again by both the house and the senate, but the two budgets are very close and no one expects any difficulties. In six years under democratic rule we have not had a single budget passed. The new budget will not be a law, but will be a strong guideline to individual appropriations bills for various departments.

The vice-president race in heating up. Bobby Jindal, governor of Lousiana, and Carly Fiorina, ex-CEO of HP have both declared for the presidency. Neither has a realistic chance of being the republican nominee, but both are extremely intelligent and excellent speakers, one's a minority and the other a woman. Both are, imho, extremely strong candidates for vice president - just what you want as your designated attack dog. On the Democrat side currently no one is willing to challenge Hillary.


James Carville said: "I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody." Corporations are selling bonds like crazy - they can't believe how cheap it is to borrow billions of dollars. Apple has sold $39 billion in the last two years at about 3.5% interest. Two years ago Verizon sold $49 billion. Activas just sold $21 billion. Corporate bonds are going out a bit faster than $400 billion per quarter, well north of $1.5 trillion per year. Corporations obviously think interest rates are going up, so the time to lock in long term money is now. Hedge and pension funds obviously think interest rates will stay low for the rest of my life. Who's right? If it's the corporations, this could all unravel quickly. If bonds go up in interest quickly funds will be losing money and need to raise cash for investors who want to bail. They start selling bonds into a slow market, prices drop further, more investors bail. Liquidity dries up and prices for everything start to drop, bonds, stocks, cars, everything. After six years of global QE and interest rate repression, absurdly inflated valuations – from government bonds with negative yields to junk bonds with ultra-low yields – have become the norm. But liquidity has become, to use the Bank of England's expression, 'more fragile." Last week the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) rang the alarm bells on liquidity, fretting that bond markets have become vulnerable to these sorts of shocks. And yesterday, the Bank of England Financial Policy Committee released the statement of its March 24 meeting that was jam-packed with warnings about "market liquidity risks" and potential "sharp adjustments in financial markets." Who's right? Can central banks buy bonds in every increasing amounts for all eternity, or is there an actual limit? We'll see. But I'd put my dollar on the BIS, the secret lords of all creation.

Every time you walk through Home Depot you'll be accosted by kids selling Solar City leases. They put solar panels on your house for free, you agree to buy the power at a fixed price for 25 years, then you own the panels. Since current solar panels have a useful life of about 25 years this is of questionable value. Now it turns out if you go to sell you home during the lease you could be in trouble. Buyers are routinely backing out of offers due to the leases, or requiring home owners to exercise the buyout clause for $20,000 to $30,000 before they will close escrow. It turns out what you may think is a great thing during the sales pitch is not as widely appreciated. To work properly solar panels must face south, where they can have unfettered access to the sun from 9am to 3pm. A neighbor of mine just put in a 9kw installation. About 3kw faces east, another 4kw faces west, and 2kw faces south, which means he paid for 9kw but is actually getting more like 5kw. There's simply no way I would buy his house and agree to 20+ years of payments for this dog.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 30, 2015, 06:09:02 pm

California's snow pack is at 8% of normal. To an excellent approximation California doesn't have a snow pack this year. What is the government doing about it? Restaurants are to serve water only when asked and motels aren't to change sheets for repeat customers. And we're not to water our lawns more than twice a week. There are $500 fines in Los Angeles for taking too many showers. Personal water use in California is 4% of all usage, so these measures just by themselves may solve perhaps almost 1% of the problem while annoying pretty much everyone - a bureaucrat's dream, make sure the pain is spread around so that everyone knows you're doing something, especially if you're not. Where does the water go? Agriculture takes over 80%. All by themselves almond groves take 10%, and alfalfa for cattle feed takes 20%.

Why is Illinois in trouble? David Piccioli is a retired Illinois Federation of Teachers lobbyist who spent 25 years wining and dining state legislators, but for one magical day worked as a substitute teacher at a Springfield school. He's getting a $30,000 per year pension for the years he worked on the union's legislative staff. He's also getting a $31,483 per year pension due to a 2007 Illinois law that entitles union members to receive teacher's retirement benefits regardless of the tenure they served as a teacher. And he's suing Illinois, claiming that their teacher pension calculations are unconstitutional for him and he's owed an additional $36,000 per year pension for his one day of work. He says he has 25 years of union membership so he's owed a teacher's pension for 25 years of service - based on his one single day of work. He has a very decent chance of winning $67,000+ per year for life for one day of work.

Gilead Sciences has a new "miracle" drug, Sovaldi, which purportedly cures hepatitis C. They're selling the pills for $1000 each - a 12 week course of treatment costs $84,000. Firms in Bangladesh and India have already made copies of the drug, and India, along with many other countries, refuses to grant Gilead a patent. So Gilead negotiated with the Indian government and granted a license to India's Natco Pharma to make a generic. In India Sovaldi generic costs $10 per pill, $840 for a course of treatment. And it's available now in 91 countries. Less for a twelve week supply than a single pill costs here. Why don't we just buy the pills from India? Medicare and Medicaid rules forbid negotiating drug prices or importing generics.

We were told Obamacare would result in $2,400 per year savings for the average family. How's that working out, five years on? The National Bureau of Economic Research studied the numbers and issued a report. The average insurance bill for people outside the Obamacare exchanges has gone up by 24.4% more than trend line. And for those using the exchanges? Taxpayer contributions are up 24% on average. What a stunning result: you give nearly free insurance to a several million people and the result is that someone else has to pay.

Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street. Big Wall Street banks are so upset with Senator Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest. Although I'm quite conservative, I was a big fan of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Sam Nunn, and now I find myself really liking Elizabeth Warren. Let's be honest: Wall Street isn't capitalism, it's a bunch of really smart psychopaths gone wild and they desperately need some serious limits.

Kraft is merging with Heinz, forming the 3rd biggest food and beverage company in N.America and the 9th largest in the world. Kraft shareholders get 49% of the new company, Kraft-Heinz, and $16.50 per share cash payment. Heinz shareholders get the remaining 51%. Warren Buffet is financing the deal with $10b in cash to fund the payout. Buffett and 3G capital bought Heinz for $23b in 2013, and Buffett also already owned 193,000 shares of Kraft. Kraft has recently been doing poorly with several of their brands losing market share. Since Buffett bought Heinz they have fired hundreds and closed several factories; we can assume that Kraft will experience a similar result, which has already started since they fired their president a few months ago. Wall Street is very upset about this deal: you're not supposed to be able to do a merger or aquisition without paying them a ton of money and giving them a piece of the action. Since Buffet was self financing none of the big Wall Street houses got anything.

A twelve year old girl in Colorado has been arrested and charged with attempted murder. She put bleach in her mother's smoothies and drinking water in an attempt to kill her for taking away her iPhone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on March 30, 2015, 06:16:54 pm

BIBI AND BARRY

Those who have never previously
heard Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were left in awe of his command presence when taking the stage.  They were also awed by his ability to rhetorically demolish Obama’s absurd rhetoric about a nuclear Iran.
On the outside, we can all see the visible attributes that makes Bibi such an incredible leader, and wish we had a leader who stood up to terrorists and Islamofascists instead of appeasing them.
But what you probably didn’t know is that Bibi was quite the badass in his youth.   Before taking over as Israel’s leader, he racked up quite the impressive list of accomplishments and also made incredible sacrifices for his country.
As compiled by IJReview, here are five badass things you probably didn’t know about Bibi:
1. War hero
The Israeli leader enlisted in the IDF at the young age of 18, serving in an elite commando unit.
He went on to fight in three different wars for his country.
http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/bibi.jpg
Below: Bibi during a special forces assault of a terror compound
http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BIBI-BATTLE.jpg
2. Has taken bullets for his country
Deployed on many dangerous special forces missions throughout his military career, Bibi took a bullet in the shoulder while attempting to rescue the passengers of a plane hijacked by terrorists in 1972. He served on the front lines in the Yom Kippur War, where he was almost killed in the Suez Canal.
http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/bibi2.jpg
Above: Lieutenant Benjamin Netanyahu during a ceremony to honor the Soldiers from his Sayeret Matkal commando unit. Here he is greeted by then Israeli President Zalman Shazar.
 
3. His family paid the ultimate sacrifice for Israel
During the famous “Raid on Entebbe” in Uganda, Lt. Colonel Jonathan Netanyahu, Bibi’s brother, paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country, as he was killed in action while leading his special forces troops attempting to rescue 100 of his countrymen who had been held hostage on a hijacked flight by Palestinian and East German terrorists.
 
Not a single hostage was killed, and Netanyahu — the siege’s commander — was the sole Israeli casaulty in an operation that is still taught in military schools to this day. (Hollywood even made a film of it starring Charles Bronson.)
http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/yoni.jpg
4. Super Smart
Not only a tough as nails soldier, Bibi is also as smart as a whip.
He earned degrees in Management and Architecture,
from two of the most prestigious schools in the US — Harvard and MIT.
 
He would go on to be recruited to work for Boston Consulting in 1976,
as a coworker of Mitt Romney and eventually becoming a personal friend.
http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/bibi-old.jpg
5. One of the most accomplished civic servants in history
http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/bibi-7.jpg
Netanyahu has held these positions since entering Israeli politics:
·        Deputy Chief of Mission, Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC (’82-’84)
·        Ambassador of Israel to the United Nations (’84-’88)
·        Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (’88-’91)
·        Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office (’91-’92)
·        Chairman of Likud, Leader of the Opposition (’93-’96)
·        Prime Minister (’96-’99 & ’09-present)
·        Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister (’02-’03)
·        Israeli Finance Minister (’03-’05)
·        All around badass (1949-present)
Netanyahu has now addressed Congress as many times as Winston Churchill.
http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/churchill.jpeg
So before Barack Obama tries to mess further with challenging Netanyahu
(photos below at the same age: a drug-addled “Choom Gang” guy vs. a hardened military commando)
he might be wise to review the information above.  Barry is definitely no  Bibi!
http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/obama-bibi.jpg
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 30, 2015, 07:38:29 pm

Something I find amusing is that as liberalism takes over college campuses comedy is dead.  The kids have become so PC they don't laugh at comedians anymore.  They are outraged instead of laughing.

Comedian after comedian are stopping doing shows at colleges.  Now Jamie Foxx is getting bashed for making jokes about Bruce Jenner. 

Really?  If you can't make fun of Bruce Jenner who can you make fun of?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 30, 2015, 08:00:12 pm

Quote from: Pekin on March 30, 2015, 07:38:29 pm

Really?  If you can't make fun of Bruce Jenner who can you make fun of?

Conservatives, white traditional Americans, the wealthy, and Christians, and particularly anyone meeting each of those descriptions.

Bruce Jenner would fall into the category of freak, and not the category of a "traditional American," meaning poking fun of him for being a bit unusual is taboo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 30, 2015, 08:06:21 pm

Liberalism and PC is a brain disorder, Peke. A true sickness. The brain rots from within as it tries to digest the loads and loads of BS pushed on it.....just melts....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 30, 2015, 08:13:36 pm

Ooooooooooooooooo, a victim parade.


Is phax covering all the hot air floats with megan kelly? Cuz, she knows Santa Claus is white like jesus?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 30, 2015, 08:20:13 pm

Peke

Gave up on the right wing size government search already? Can't say I blame you since it only exists in erin rands day dreams.

Or Run Paul legal aid's ass.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 30, 2015, 08:54:39 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 30, 2015, 08:20:13 pm

Peke

Gave up on the right wing size government search already?

He already answered.  The fact that you don't like the answer changes nothing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 30, 2015, 09:11:25 pm

What answer would that be hillbilly legal aid?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 30, 2015, 09:46:18 pm

Do people still respond to Homo's posts?  He never had the balls to respond to other people's posts, except to ridicule them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 30, 2015, 10:19:15 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on March 30, 2015, 05:09:37 pm

You are waiting for your apology for what?  And what "gibberish" is it that you believe I have attributed to you?  Nowhere did you state WHAT was your opinion, and where did I write that you did?  And what in the world did you mean by, "Now you go prove that what I said, Ya think, indicates somehow that that its my opinion"?

I never responded to Sportster's post. When I said show me an error I was responding to your comment to my post

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 31, 2015, 04:57:07 am

Really?  If you can't make fun of Bruce Jenner who can you make fun of?

Isn't that the truth..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 31, 2015, 07:17:25 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 30, 2015, 10:19:15 pm

I never responded to Sportster's post. When I said show me an error I was responding to your comment to my post

You responded to none of my questions.  At this point, I have no idea what post of Sportster's you are talking about or what comment of mine you are talking about, or what you are talking about in general.

If you were to more often include in your responses the relevant portion of the comment you are responding to, to might make it easier to follow what in the world you are writing about.

So I ask again, you are waiting for your apology for what?  And what "gibberish" is it that you believe I have attributed to you?  Nowhere did you state WHAT was your opinion, and where did I write that you did?  And what in the world did you mean by, "Now you go prove that what I said, Ya think, indicates somehow that that its my opinion"?

Would help this discussion if you responded to each question individually.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 31, 2015, 09:36:58 am

Again I had nothing to do with Sportys post and never had anything to comment about so therefore your post asking about it is null and void and is not going to get a response from me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 31, 2015, 02:53:32 pm

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/apple-bashes-indiana-but-gladly-does-business-with-countries-that-execute-gays/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on March 31, 2015, 03:23:30 pm

Take it for what it's worth, were talking about Tim Cook..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on March 31, 2015, 04:45:44 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on March 31, 2015, 09:36:58 am

Again I had nothing to do with Sportys post and never had anything to comment about so therefore your post asking about it is null and void and is not going to get a response from me.

I never asked you about Sportster's post.  I asked you about YOUR post, not that I really expected to get a response from you.

Oh, and regarding "null and void," you might want to check what it means.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 05:44:08 pm

Just renamed the 2016 republic nomination for president America's Next Top Bigot.

Thanks to Indiana and soon to be Arkansas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 05:58:50 pm

Chifer

Don't understand your last post. What is it about CEO Cook that would disqualify his opinion?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 31, 2015, 06:05:26 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 05:44:08 pm

Just renamed the 2016 republic nomination for president America's Next Top Bigot.

Thanks to Indiana and soon to be Arkansas.

Otto you do realize the Federal version of the same bill was signed by Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy was the one who sponsored it right?  Harry Reid voted for it.

25 other states already have a similar bill.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 06:10:47 pm

Apparently, you have no idea how wrong you are.


Can you explain?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 06:13:38 pm

Or more precisely, can you define similar as you used it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 31, 2015, 06:29:19 pm

My bad it is 21 not 25.  Although more are working on bills.  And there is the federal bill as well.



There are 21 states that have a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enacted by their legislature:

Alabama (state constitution amendment)[22][23]
Arizona[24]
Arkansas[25]
Connecticut[26]
Florida[26]
Idaho[26]
Illinois[26]
Indiana[27]
Kansas[26]
Kentucky[28]
Louisiana[26]
Mississippi[29][30]
Missouri[26]
New Mexico[26]
Oklahoma[31]
Pennsylvania[26]
Rhode Island[26]
South Carolina[26]
Tennessee[26]
Texas[26]
Virginia[26]

If states with RFRA-like provisions that have been provided by state court decisions—rather than via legislation—are included, the list also contains[32]:

Alaska
Hawaii
Ohio
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
North Carolina
Washington
Wisconsin

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 31, 2015, 06:30:32 pm

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."[1] The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[2] passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on March 31, 2015, 08:05:12 pm

Obama's plan to flood the US with foreign workers
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416245/obamas-other-executive-action-immigration-ryan-lovelace

This is just stunningly unreal. Our Government has become our enemy!! They allow corporations to overrule the will of the people to line their pockets. They can get these L1 visas and replace our jobs OUR jobs with them and save a buck doing so. It's absolutely disgusting what our Government is doing! I really believe we're headed for another revolution and this time it will be directed AT the Government! They seem determined to undermine the populace, get us stupid and lemmings to follow them, make sure we're poor and dependant on them for everything. THis has got to stop!!!!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 08:47:34 pm

Attention religious wacko

Your choice (or not) of fundamentalist christianty has made you ignorant and your choice of political party revels in it.

Please stop trying to spread the disease.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 31, 2015, 09:11:15 pm

Moron Oddo, do you believe that Christian churches would be discriminating against gay couples if they refused to marry gay couples?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 09:18:41 pm

Your not good at arguing are you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 31, 2015, 09:34:49 pm

Homo is quite good at avoiding all direct communication.  He posts his lunacy and then ignores responses.  Can you imagine his conversations with his partner?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 31, 2015, 09:36:57 pm

One persons rights stop when they start stepping on someone else's rights.

No church should ever be forced to perform a gay marriage.  While at the same time any church that chooses to perform a gay marriage should be allowed to.

I am only against gay marriage because of the cause and effect.  I really don't care who gets married.  I only care about people being forced to participate in gay marriages if they choose not to due to religious beliefs.

If Otto and his partner want to get married so be it.  They should not however be able to force a pastor to perform who chooses not to due to his religious beliefs.  There are tons of bakers who would be happy to take their money and bake a cake for said wedding.  Why force one who does not want to?  For that matter why would you want someone to bake you a cake they did not want to make?

That makes zero sense.  Same for a photographer.  Why would you force someone to take pictures of your wedding who does not want to do it?  Do you really think you are going to get their best work?

This is all a bunch of made up drama and bullshit.  It is just liberals pushing their agenda. 



   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 09:53:30 pm

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/)


So, not the same and written to discriminate.


And peke, this was not pushed by liberals. This is republic PC drama and it is bullshit...but you scoop it up and eat it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on March 31, 2015, 10:11:16 pm

Homo - how does the Indiana law differ from the law currently in effect in 30 other states across the nation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 10:38:45 pm

norsk saga climate denier


In addition to getting the number of states wrong, are you asserting that the indiana law was NOT written to discriminate against gay marriage?

Because if you are, the bills supporters disagree with you.

http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1846 (http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1846)

That also makes republic governor a liar and an imbecile.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 31, 2015, 11:11:11 pm

How is it discrimination?  Gay people can get married.  Do they have a right to force Muslims to marry them? 

Oh wait Muslims would kill them.  So they only want to force Christians who just don't want to be forced to participate in the ceremony.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on March 31, 2015, 11:23:53 pm

I do not give two **** who gets married.  Men & women, men & men, women & women, multiple men and women, multiple women and men, whatever.  I really don't care.  I do however care if they are forcing others to participate.

Otto, if you want to suck your boyfriend off, I don't care.  However I should not have to watch or be forced to clean up the semen you didn't swallow even if you are paying me.  I should be able to refuse to do that.

You being gay does not mean I have to do whatever the **** you want me to do.  Minorities should not be discriminated against.  But neither should any one else. 

This seems like common sense to me but it seems this world is running short of that lately.
   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on March 31, 2015, 11:46:46 pm

Moron, you don't do good arguing do you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 07:07:25 am

Quote from: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 10:38:45 pm

That also makes republic governor a liar and an imbecile.

Rich to see otto call anyone else either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 01, 2015, 10:03:02 am

Quote from: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 10:38:45 pm

norsk saga climate denier


In addition to getting the number of states wrong, are you asserting that the indiana law was NOT written to discriminate against gay marriage?

Because if you are, the bills supporters disagree with you.

http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1846 (http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1846)

That also makes republic governor a liar and an imbecile.

The law was written to prevent people from being forced to abandon their personal views. 

Everyone has the right to discriminate in their choice of association.  You wish to have the right to discriminate against women in your choice of partners.  Others want to choose who to bake a cake for.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 01, 2015, 01:33:29 pm

Just how does providing a service (which you're in business to do) cause abandoned personal views?

Anybody heard of the o'conner family and their small town pizza shop Memories Pizza in walkerton, in? Seems they think they can use the law to discriminate not only against gays, but people of other religions.


Jose, wonder how that imbecile pence feels now?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 01, 2015, 01:39:55 pm

Jose peke

Do you ever argue with facts instead of emotions?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 01, 2015, 02:23:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 01, 2015, 01:33:29 pm

Just how does providing a service (which you're in business to do) cause abandoned personal views?

Anybody heard of the o'conner family and their small town pizza shop Memories Pizza in walkerton, in? Seems they think they can use the law to discriminate not only against gays, but people of other religions.

Jose, wonder how that imbecile pence feels now?

No, I have not heard of the O'Connor family, but if they want to cook pizzas only for Catholics, I have no problem with it.

Baptists or Homosexuals do not have the constitutional right to eat pizzas cooked by Catholics.

In what way does the proposed Indiana law restrict the rights of homosexuals?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 04:19:45 pm

Personally I never knew they even had a pizza shop in Walkerton. And it sure cant do much business either considering it only has a population of 2774 people. And you have the nerve to drag up some obscure place in a diminutive town? And you probably haven't even heard of the place. You probably read about it in some Homo magazine. Now were that some pizza shop in a major city such as Gary or South Bend or Indianapolis you might really have something important to talk about, but only a moron would drag up something so stupid. It would be like me bringing up some pizza shop in Grass Creek that only served Homos. Good grief!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 01, 2015, 04:23:01 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 04:19:45 pm

only a moron would drag up something so stupid.

Talk about answering your own question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:25:55 pm

Quote from: Pekin on March 31, 2015, 09:36:57 pm

One persons rights stop when they start stepping on someone else's rights.

No church should ever be forced to perform a gay marriage.  While at the same time any church that chooses to perform a gay marriage should be allowed to.

So should a restaurant owner who believes as a matter of his religious faith that blacks and whites should not "mix" be forced to serve both in the same restaurant?  Or should he be allowed to maintain a segregated restaurant?  I am not asking about what the law does or doesn't allow, but simply whether the religious belief rational you want to apply to gay marriage would also apply to a business owner or individual providing business services to the public should be allowed to refuse to provide those business person to someone based on race, if that denial was based on a sincere relgious belief that the races should not mix.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 04:28:57 pm

That subject would be a personal feeling or belief and not founded in a religious belief. I know of no religious foundation for such a belief

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:29:51 pm

Quote from: Sportster on March 31, 2015, 08:05:12 pm

Obama's plan to flood the US with foreign workers
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416245/obamas-other-executive-action-immigration-ryan-lovelace

This is just stunningly unreal. Our Government has become our enemy!! They allow corporations to overrule the will of the people to line their pockets. They can get these L1 visas and replace our jobs OUR jobs with them and save a buck doing so. It's absolutely disgusting what our Government is doing! I really believe we're headed for another revolution and this time it will be directed AT the Government! They seem determined to undermine the populace, get us stupid and lemmings to follow them, make sure we're poor and dependant on them for everything. THis has got to stop!!!!!!

OUR jobs?

How did they become OUR jobs?

Would you rather that the company move jobs out of the U.S?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 04:39:39 pm

Imagine the labor outcry for increased wages if this $15/hr minimum wage actually flew. They'd want their wages doubled too. Then companies would move out. I believe that the idea of everybody making the same hourly wage is moronic. Income equality belongs only in Fantasy Island.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:41:17 pm

Quote from: otto105 on March 31, 2015, 09:53:30 pm

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/)

So, not the same and written to discriminate.

It seems the primary difference in the two statutes is that the Indiana statute was better written, allowing it to be used as a defense in a private lawsuit (of course the defense still has to be proven to the satisfaction of the jury).  Not much of a difference.  And how again is it that you KNOW the reason it was written, and the reason everyone in the legislature voted for it (which might well be quite different from the reason it was written)?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:43:36 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 04:28:57 pm

That subject would be a personal feeling or belief and not founded in a religious belief. I know of no religious foundation for such a belief

The fact that YOU know of one, does not mean none exists.  I know of no religious foundation for the belief that there is anything wrong with gay marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:48:42 pm

Quote from: davep on April 01, 2015, 10:03:02 am

Everyone has the right to discriminate in their choice of association.  You wish to have the right to discriminate against women in your choice of partners.  Others want to choose who to bake a cake for.

So racist restaurant owners, who believe their religion dictates separation of the races, should be free to operate a restaurant and refuse to serve a prospective customer based on race?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 01, 2015, 04:48:56 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:25:55 pm

So should a restaurant owner who believes as a matter of his religious faith that blacks and whites should not "mix" be forced to serve both in the same restaurant?  Or should he be allowed to maintain a segregated restaurant?  I am not asking about what the law does or doesn't allow, but simply whether the religious belief rational you want to apply to gay marriage would also apply to a business owner or individual providing business services to the public should be allowed to refuse to provide those business person to someone based on race, if that denial was based on a sincere relgious belief that the races should not mix.

If you are not talking about what the law is, but rather what the law should be, the answer is simple.

The owner of a business should be able to serve anyone they wish, or refuse to serve anyone they wish, whether from religious reasons or merely from whim.

If a Muslim wants to own a restaurant that only serves women if they are wearing a burka, that should be no one's business other than his own, and that of his potential customers.  The same with a black that wants to serve only whites, or vice versa.  I think anyone doing so would be stupid, and certainly scumbags, but stupidity or scumbaggery should not be issues for government or courts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 04:51:54 pm

Quote

So should a restaurant owner who believes as a matter of his religious faith that blacks and whites should not "mix" be forced to serve both in the same restaurant?

Is being black a sin??? Huge difference here.....show me the scripture that says 'blacks shall not enter heaven'....


And they became OUR jobs when they're in OUR Country!! For OUR Goverment to allow OTHER countries workers to stream in to take OUR people's jobs away, then yea, I got a very very serious problem with that! Displacing workers here who could easily or even WERE doing the jobs is wrong, PERIOD! If they wanna pull that crap, then yea, get out of the US. Get rid of em!! I want companies here who want to employ OUR people, not bring some people from other Countries here so they can pay them crap and our unemployment skyrockets!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:54:30 pm

Quote from: davep on April 01, 2015, 04:48:56 pm

If you are not talking about what the law is, but rather what the law should be....

Quote

I am not asking about what the law does or doesn't allow,

Was there really any question about what I was talking about?

And is there any chance you could ever explain to me how it was a week or so ago when you got upset that I had not properly read your post I should have understood that the idea you set out in your post without attributing it to someone else was not your idea but was in fact someone else's?

Or was your failure to ever respond to my repeated requests for that at the time your way of quitely aknowledging that your rant about misreading your post was a tad out of line?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:56:11 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 04:51:54 pm

Is being black a sin??? Huge difference here.....show me the scripture that says 'blacks shall not enter heaven'....

Did anyone ask if it was?  And did I miss your response to my questions?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 01, 2015, 05:15:47 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:25:55 pm

So should a restaurant owner who believes as a matter of his religious faith that blacks and whites should not "mix" be forced to serve both in the same restaurant?  Or should he be allowed to maintain a segregated restaurant?  I am not asking about what the law does or doesn't allow, but simply whether the religious belief rational you want to apply to gay marriage would also apply to a business owner or individual providing business services to the public should be allowed to refuse to provide those business person to someone based on race, if that denial was based on a sincere relgious belief that the races should not mix.

Why not?  The guy is an idiot and would soon be out of business but it should be his right to run his business the way he wants to.   

I seem to remember when I was young almost all stores having a sign on the door that said, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".  You don't see those anymore.

I agree with Dave.  A business owner should be able to pick and choose who he does business with.  Most do every day.  Why should a business that serves the public be any different?

For instance if a bakery owned by a gay man wanted to refuse to make a cake with a anti-gay message on it they should have every right to do so.  A black owner of a hotel that wants to refuse to allow the KKK to hold a convention in it should be allowed to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 05:31:39 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 04:43:36 pm

The fact that YOU know of one, does not mean none exists.  I know of no religious foundation for the belief that there is anything wrong with gay marriage.

Of course you wouldn't being an atheist. The biblical problem with it is the union cant produce children. Also the sexual acts performed are unnaturaland against procreation. If God felt those acts were a good thing he wouldn't have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 05:43:03 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 05:31:39 pm

Of course you wouldn't being an atheist. The biblical problem with it is the union cant produce children. Also the sexual acts performed are unnaturaland against procreation. If God felt those acts were a good thing he wouldn't have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

By that logic, my wife and I should not have been allowed to marry since the union can't produce children -- she had a hysterectomy years ago, and was well past menopause when we married even if she had not (she also had her tubes tied before she was 25), and I had a vasectomy 20 years before we married.

There is no requirement that those who marry are able to produce children.  Offering that as a justification is nonsense.  Are you suggesting that two senior citizens in a nursing home not be allowed to marry?

And are you suggesting that there is some requirement that married couples actually have sex, or that by not allowing them to marry that you will prevent sex?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 05:46:20 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 01, 2015, 05:15:47 pm

Why not?  The guy is an idiot and would soon be out of business but it should be his right to run his business the way he wants to.   

I am not disagreeing at all with your postion or davep's on this at all, but merely wanting to make sure it is understood where the reasoning goes.

One of the points Milton Friedman repeatedly made is that without government action encouraging racial discrimination by businesses, you are unlikely to have many businesses taking that approach because it is not a very good way to make money, and is one heck of a good way to lose money.

I would not patronize a business which I knew to refuse service (or employment) to anyone based on their race, or religion, or national origin, or ethnicity.... or sexual orientation.

And while any bakery or photographer should be free to refuse to provide their professional or business services to a gay couple wanting a wedding cake or wedding photos, I am also free not to take my business to bigots, and I would certainly not patronize either.  I suspect there are enough like-minded people that not many businesses woud be foolish enough to refuse to provide their services, and if they were foolish enough to do so, they should also be free to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 05:53:11 pm

Well its a good thing you have no offspring. What a bastard of a father you would have been. They probably would have killed you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 06:36:59 pm

'Mixing' a black with a white is not sin, hence the comment 'is being black sinful?'. Moses was married to a Ethiopian woman. I O W  homosexuality is considered sinful, being black or marrying black with white is not sinful....I'm sure I'm wasting my breath once again, but I like poking the independant atheist former lawyer now word parser every now and then....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 07:15:21 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 05:53:11 pm

Well its a good thing you have no offspring. What a bastard of a father you would have been. They probably would have killed you

And it is a good thing you chose not to defend or explain your nonsensical position here and instead launch into a personal attack.... 'cause it has always appeared you are not capable of defending or explaining a position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 07:22:47 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 06:36:59 pm

'Mixing' a black with a white is not sin, hence the comment 'is being black sinful?'. Moses was married to a Ethiopian woman. I O W  homosexuality is considered sinful, being black or marrying black with white is not sinful....I'm sure I'm wasting my breath once again, but I like poking the independant atheist former lawyer now word parser every now and then....

So are you suggesting that Moses never sinned?  While there is some legitimate argument that the Bible does condemn homosexuality (I am not persuaded the argument has any merit, but I will acknowledge it exists), I am unaware of ANY which claims the Bible describes it as a sin for a business to provide services, such as a wedding cake or wedding photos to a gay couple getting married.  If so, wouldn't it also be sinful to employ someone who was gay (or engaging in gay sex in their private lives) or to sell them a home or rent them an apartment or even to sell them food?  Should we all have a Biblical obligation to stone them to death?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 08:20:09 pm

Nah, simply called convictions. Someone feels it ain't right to support something they don't believe in, and they have Biblical authority for it. No such thing as 'gay marriage' anymore than there's a 'Christian thief' or 'Christian murderers club'. Christians feel gay marriage has been forced on us by the courts, not by the will of the people. Heck, many who aren't Christians feel that way!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2015, 08:35:50 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 08:20:09 pm

Nah, simply called convictions. Someone feels it ain't right to support something they don't believe in, and they have Biblical authority for it. No such thing as 'gay marriage' anymore than there's a 'Christian thief' or 'Christian murderers club'. Christians feel gay marriage has been forced on us by the courts, not by the will of the people. Heck, many who aren't Christians feel that way!

So you have NO Biblical authority suggesting that a good Christian should refuse to provide services to a homosexual.

At least that is clear.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 09:05:22 pm

Why do I play with this guy?....sigh..... didn't say 'don't provide services', DID say 'don't provide for a gay wedding'. See the difference?? That means yea they can go to the bakery and get a cake, no they can't make a cake for a gay nuptial. Specifically: GAY NUPTIAL <<<<<

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 01, 2015, 09:06:37 pm

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
You know, you could download the english St. James version, its free.  Jes obviously didn't like it in Indiana and left.  Those of you who don't like what they do or do not do, don't go there, don't spend money there. Pretty simple.  Btw, me posting that is not a reflection of what I do or do not beiieve in.
I do however, think these things are best left to the presons in the state.  If someone doesn' t want them to do something, they should be forced?
 The double standards of the left are hysterical.  Apple inc condems Indiana and its laws.  Ok.  But gleefully does landoffice business with the Saudi's.  Who just as gleefully execute gays. Execute, not exile. Execute. If I owned a business that catered to weddings of any sort, I personally would welcome any business from anyone and wish them all the best.  As an old geezer, I've seen to many people be miserable until they die.  You don't have the right to happiness, but you sure as hell have the right to pursue it. I betcha no one gets turned away. No one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 01, 2015, 09:58:03 pm

Impressive guys, just when I thought ya'll couldn't any dumber...you guys find another gear.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBd98xeVAAAKZrB.jpg (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBd98xeVAAAKZrB.jpg)


Indiana business owners are airing their disapproval of the law: When the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette tried to sell ads to businesses announcing that they'd serve everyone, the owner of the Firefly Coffee House had another idea:

        "We feel that maybe those businesses who wish to discriminate ought to have to put signs on their doors stating their support of this draconian law and then list the requirements for being able to be served."

In his Tuesday press conference, Pence said that "I think the Indiana press has had this right from early on." Well, not only did Indiana's largest newspaper, the Indianapolis Star, run a front-page editorial against the law, it's followed that up with an op-ed flaying Pence as "a stunningly ineffective leader" and "above all an ideologue ... [who] doesn't truly understand what it takes to take on the state's massive challenges."

Political observers everywhere are saying bye-bye to any presidential hopes Pence might have had, while Indiana says bye-bye to conferences and concerts and a good chunk of its reputation, what with people like this in the news and enabled by the state government.


Ya know, if you're going to be a bigot, why not be mean-spirited too. Right isfullofit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 01, 2015, 10:16:41 pm

Once a moron always a moron, right Oddo?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 01, 2015, 10:27:32 pm

If it takes Pence out of the presidential race, it was all worth it.

Leaves room for Homo's mentor, Scott Walker.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 01, 2015, 11:15:43 pm

Do you think he may run?  (sharp intake of breath) what if he won?  Someone would have to talk otto back off the ledge. volunteers for the duty? Anyone?  Oh.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 12:58:15 am

Frigging unbelievable that this would at all take Pence out of any running for President;simply trying to protect Religious rights. And instead homosexuals are put on some pedestal?!? Does anyone see something sick and perverse about this, AT all?? When right becomes wrong and wrong, right, we're in a world of hurt as a Country, folks!! We better wake up....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 07:29:51 am

Quote from: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 12:58:15 am

Frigging unbelievable that this would at all take Pence out of any running for President;simply trying to protect Religious rights. And instead homosexuals are put on some pedestal?!? Does anyone see something sick and perverse about this, AT all?? When right becomes wrong and wrong, right, we're in a world of hurt as a Country, folks!! We better wake up....

Pence's problem in any presidential bid would NOT be that he was protecting religious rights, but that after first protecting them he is now trying to toss them under the bus.  He will have alienated both sides of the issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 02, 2015, 01:16:23 pm

Indiana imbecile governor pence's problem is that Americans fall on the expansion of rights for people, not the denial of.

BTW where is he today.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 02, 2015, 02:54:58 pm

Fortunately, Scott Walker will take the nomination.  The first worthwhile thing to come out of the backwards state of Wisconsin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 03:08:08 pm

Quote

Pence's problem in any presidential bid would NOT be that he was protecting religious rights, but that after first protecting them he is now trying to toss them under the bus.  He will have alienated both sides of the issue.

Oh my..something I actually agree with Jes about....wow...  I would like a candidate that actually stands by his principles. Anyone with moveable principles doesn't really have any to begin with. Pence is now blowing it with the religious constituents. Showing you are both for and against the same thing is the worst of what people see in a politician. I'll vote for whoever the candidate is whether it's Walker or Huckabee (my choice...) or whomever. We absolutely cannot have another Obama or this Country may not survive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 04:22:24 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 09:05:22 pm

Why do I play with this guy?....sigh..... didn't say 'don't provide services',

True.  Perfectly true, so far.

Quote from: Sportster on April 01, 2015, 09:05:22 pm

DID say 'don't provide for a gay wedding'.

False.  Perfectly false.  You are either lieing here, or you would seem to have a seriously flawed understanding.

If you can search thru your prior posts and find in any of them that you used those exact words (and when you put something in quotes as you have here, you are offering it as an exact quote) and can then copy and post it in your response here so I can see where and when it was in this discussion (as opposed to months ago) where you did use the phrase, I will sincerely and profoundly apologize.

Until then you are merely moving the goal posts of a discussion, and lieing about moving them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 04:33:09 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 02, 2015, 01:16:23 pm

Indiana imbecile governor pence's problem is that Americans fall on the expansion of rights for people, not the denial of.

BTW where is he today.

What is a "right," otto?  And are rights being "expanded" when an individual or a business is not legally allowed to make a decision which causes no direct harm to anyone?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 04:40:17 pm

Quote from: 46 on April 01, 2015, 11:15:43 pm

Do you think he may run?  (sharp intake of breath) what if he won?  Someone would have to talk otto back off the ledge. volunteers for the duty? Anyone?  Oh.

If the "he" you reference is Pence, then, no, at this point I don't believe he would, and, if he did, I do not believe he would have any chance of winning, for the reasons I have already explained.  He offended the left by signing the bill into law originally.  And when he then backed away from the bill and caved into the critics and called for amenment of it (or the gutting of it), he alienated the religious right (see Sportster's last post for example), he kicked out fron underneath himself his base political support.

Rest assured, as a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president, Pence is toast.

 :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 05:39:06 pm

Quote from: 46 on April 01, 2015, 09:06:37 pm

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Not only is that Old Testament, and not New Testament (yes, I know they are both part of the Bible, but Leviticus gives directions on how to make burnt animal sacrifices to your god, and for some reason I am willing to bet that you ignore that, because in your mind the New Testament supercedes all of that "old law," such as making it a sin to eat any animal fat 7:22-25, or to eat rabit or pork or ever touch a pigskin football 11:6-7, or eat clams or oysters 11:10-11, or even touch a woman during her menstral cycle 12:2 and 15:19, or to rely on your priest for medical treatment as commanded in Leviticus 13, or planting two different kinds of seed on your property 19:19, or wearing clothing made from more than one material 19:19 -- Leviticus is a veritable treasure trove of nuttiness Christians today have the good sense to ignore.... except for those things they want to condemn all along, such as homosexuality), it says it is a sin for a person to engage in homosexual acts, not that it is a sin to provide them with wedding photos or a wedding cake.

You have quoted a passage addressing sexual acts, not addressing marriage.  There are plenty of sexless marriages, and also plenty of sex outside of marriage.  You don't actually know when a gay couple (or a straight couple) gets married whether they will ever engage in sex.

Quote from: 46 on April 01, 2015, 09:06:37 pm

You know, you could download the english St. James version, its free.

Why would I want to?

Quote from: 46 on April 01, 2015, 09:06:37 pm

Jes obviously didn't like it in Indiana and left.

You might want to recalibrate your obvious meter.  It seems to be giving you a rather flawed reading.

Quote from: 46 on April 01, 2015, 09:06:37 pm

I betcha no one gets turned away. No one.

They already have been.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 06:15:47 pm

Good.  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58447a404ff34413be536de642a38a99/former-atlanta-educators-jailed-test-cheating-scandal

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 06:29:48 pm

Aaand he comes on and proceeds to cough up nonsense. Welcome back.....
Lessee, where to start with all the bs....oh yea, 'gay nuptials' deal. Listen, I don't personally care what you think or even if you do, what I said is true. It is about gay nuptials and that alone. I know you hear what you want, don't care, don't wanna play your foolish games. I'm telling you right now, it's about providing for a gay marriage and has nothing to do with providing service for a gay individual(s). End of ridiculous coversation....

Secondly...good grief, following you around on your ignorant posts is like trying to chase a arsonist starting fire after fire. Here's a New Testament post for ya...

Romans 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


As for all the other JEWISH Old Testament laws you posted, are we Jews? Are we living in the Old Testament?? No, we are not Jews living in the Old Testament under the Old Covenant. Not eating pork was done away with in the New Testament, as were all the old Jewish laws pertaining to cutting the 'Beard' or not eating certain animals or menstruation or good grief, all of those old Jewish laws. This is what happens when someone doesn't know what he's talking about and tries to show otherwise....don't turn out well for him....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 06:59:00 pm

So you can't find where it is that you wrote as you claimed: "don't provide for a gay wedding".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 07:26:57 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 06:29:48 pm

As for all the other JEWISH Old Testament laws you posted, are we Jews? Are we living in the Old Testament??

Ah... so it is now a different god, and what that old one considered "unclean" no longer is.  Good.  Makes perfect sense.

Quote from: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 06:29:48 pm

Not eating pork was done away with in the New Testament, as were all the old Jewish laws pertaining to cutting the 'Beard' or not eating certain animals or menstruation or good grief, all of those old Jewish laws.

And where, other than in the book of Sportster, does it say that in the Bible?

You know, the chapter and verse were it says it's now fine to eat pig meat?  (Mark 7:18-19 does not really qualify since it merely says a person is not defiled or made impure by what they eat, NOT that the god who ordered that certain foods not be eaten had changed his mind about it.)

Quote from: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 06:29:48 pm

Romans 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Nothing there about gay marriage.
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Nothing there about gay marriage.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Nothing there about gay marriage.
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Nothing there about gay marriage.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Nothing there about gay marriage.
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Nothing there about gay marriage.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Nothing there about gay marriage.
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Nothing there about gay marriage.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Nothing there about gay marriage.
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Nothing there about gay marriage.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Nothing there about gay marriage.
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Nothing there about gay marriage -- though fornicators (hey, Sportster, were you a virgin when you married?), liars, whisperers, those critical of others, those "filled with... debate" or envy do not come off well.
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Nothing there about gay marriage.
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Nothing there about gay marriage.
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Nothing there about gay marriage.

Nothing there about gay marriage.

Quote from: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 06:29:48 pm

when someone doesn't know what he's talking about and tries to show otherwise....don't turn out well for him....

Speaking from personal knowledge there, Sportster?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 07:27:50 pm

Anyone have a stun gun and some duct tape?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 07:29:55 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 07:27:50 pm

Anyone have a stun gun and some duct tape?

Quote from: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 06:29:48 pm

29Being filled with...  maliciousness

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 02, 2015, 07:32:35 pm

Is that a Beard attempt at humor? lol....someone might wanna make note as it may be the first time ever seen!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 02, 2015, 09:12:16 pm

Attention religious fanatic


Conservative bigots lack the ability to smile and laugh which is critical to humor. Cackling after diminishing other peoples rights or freedoms is not humor.

Like this poor vindictive conservative bastard from alabama.

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/he_lost_his_wife_in_childbirth.html (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/he_lost_his_wife_in_childbirth.html)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 02, 2015, 09:21:45 pm

Is there anyone with less a sense of humor than a liberal.

Perhaps a homosexual liberal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 02, 2015, 10:41:08 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 02, 2015, 09:12:16 pm

Attention religious fanatic


Conservative bigots lack the ability to smile and laugh which is critical to humor. Cackling after diminishing other peoples rights or freedoms is not humor.

What is a "right," otto?  And are rights being "expanded" when an individual or a business is not legally allowed to make a decision which causes no direct harm to anyone?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 02, 2015, 11:05:36 pm

Denial of service is direct harm hillbilly legal aid.

And "rights" aren't a static list of what old white libertarians want to argue about. Their infinite and evolving.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 03, 2015, 05:30:11 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 02, 2015, 11:05:36 pm

Denial of service is direct harm hillbilly legal aid.

It MIGHT be if someone could not get service as a result of the denial, but not getting service from one person or business is not even remotely close to not getting service.

In most of these cases the plaintiffs have had to aggressively look for someone who would deny them service because most businesses or individuals providing such services simply do not care.  You have to look fairly hard to find those operating a business or individuals providing business or professional services who are as extreme as Sportster and who would turn away business for such a reason.  Folks like that tend to go OUT of business fairly quickly.

If you and your "partner" are not able to get the Sportster Bakery to bake your wedding cake to your upcoming gay wedding, but 20 other area bakeries would do so, what was your injury?

What was the direct harm?  Learning that Sportster did not approve of what you were doing?

Quote from: otto105 on April 02, 2015, 11:05:36 pm

And "rights" aren't a static list of what old white libertarians want to argue about. Their infinite and evolving.

I did not ask for a list.  I asked for a definition.

I'll let you try again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 03, 2015, 05:32:41 pm

At least the economy is still burning things up...  http://news.yahoo.com/pace-us-hiring-weakens-just-126k-jobs-added-123112636--finance.html

http://247wallst.com/economy/2015/04/03/us-growth-forecast-chopped-to-zero/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 03, 2015, 09:08:25 pm

 We need more White Rhinoceros Horn as an aphrodisiac!


 Iv'e been using this stuff for a few days now and my **** length has gone from 7" to 21".


 IT WORKS !


 My message to you my brothers is to get in on this action while it lasts ...


 because once it runs out there ain't no more.


 See'in a babe squat down on your 21" **** while others are lined up is what it's all about.


 Get in on it before the Rhino's are gone forever.  ;D


 Best sex ever ... and that's all that counts.


 Now Iv'e heard some rumors about Blue Whale juice ...


 that it make's your sweetie insatiable for you ... non stop.


 It takes four Blue Whales for your sweetie to drink this and get going ...


 so why aren't we farming the oceans to get this going ?


 I'm ready for it.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 05, 2015, 10:04:20 pm

In the pantheon of bad ideas, we have a new addition.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/02/new-york-city-non-citizens-local-elections

This is the heart of the argument for extending voting rights to non-citizens:

Supporters of the legislation claim that politicians can overlook the needs of entire communities if non-citizens don’t have voting rights. According to Vattamala, council redistricting has deliberately carved up many immigrant neighborhoods, portioning their non-citizen residents to several districts.
     “Elected officials salivate at the prospect of districts with people they don’t have to respond to,” he says. “Many of these communities have lots of non-naturalized residents or newly naturalized residents who are not yet practiced in voting. They get treated like human fillers.” Advocates believe that legal residents should have a say in the daily matters that affect them, like transportation, public safety, affordable housing, language access and translation services, sanitation, schools and parks.

There is some actual merit in the idea that those using government services should have real input into what is being provided.... of course, if government were not interfering in the private market by itself providing services which should instead be provided by the private market (transportation, housing, translation services, and education and parks) even that justification would vanish.  Leave those things to be provided by the private marketplace and consumers will have their interests well represented through their purchasing decisions.  It is only when government enters the market, crowds out competitors or outright prohibits them and makes competition illegal, that there is any need for having government measure consumer desires in any manner, and government does a **** porr job of doing it, even when it tries.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 05, 2015, 10:47:16 pm

Quote

There is some actual merit in the idea that those using government services should have real input into what is being provided.... of course, if government were not interfering in the private market by itself providing services which should instead be provided by the private market (transportation, housing, translation services, and education and parks) even that justification would vanish.  Leave those things to be provided by the private marketplace and consumers will have their interests well represented through their purchasing decisions.  It is only when government enters the market, crowds out competitors or outright prohibits them and makes competition illegal, that there is any need for having government measure consumer desires in any manner, and government does a **** porr job of doing it, even when it tries

Where in the world does this type of corporate utopia exist so that we can evaluate the results? Because I just see you advocating people as test subjects.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 05, 2015, 11:16:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 05, 2015, 10:47:16 pm

Where in the world does this type of corporate utopia exist so that we can evaluate the results? Because I just see you advocating people as test subjects.

Uber is not exactly "corporate utopia."  It is simply an example of free market competition to government transportation services (or to heavily regulated marketplace transportation services -- cabs), and many municipalities have expressly outlawed it.  The free market also provides transportation services, and does a pretty good job offering schools and park services, despite heavily subsidized government versions of the same thing, services which are only able to attract anyone because they charge either nothing or virtually nothing to the actual consumer.  And the the marketplace still provides the bulk of housing.

How is it you would consider any of those services to require some "corporate utopia" to see that they work?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 05, 2015, 11:48:26 pm

Government transportation services? Private cab companies are now considered government transportation services?

I'd love to see yer face when at 3:00am you Uber up the only guy working that hour is a unwashed pervert in a Ford Econoline van.

And you have to take the ride because you don't believe in vehicle safety standards, driver background checks and 24-hour service.

Quote

The free market also provides transportation services, and does a pretty good job offering schools and park services, despite heavily subsidized government versions of the same thing, services which are only able to attract anyone because they charge either nothing or virtually nothing to the actual consumer.  And the the marketplace still provides the bulk of housing.

What the **** kind of olde tacit racist gibberish are you posting about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 06, 2015, 06:49:33 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 05, 2015, 11:48:26 pm

Government transportation services?

CTA  Chicago Transit AUTHORITY.  Most cities of any size have a comparable government.  And local or state laws generally make it illegal for anyone to offer any competing service.

Quote from: otto105 on April 05, 2015, 11:48:26 pm

Private cab companies are now considered government transportation services?

Could you point to where I even suggested that?  I wrote: (or to heavily regulated marketplace transportation services -- cabs)

Note the "heavily regulate" portion of that phrase.  Not "operated," but heavily regulated.

Quote from: otto105 on April 05, 2015, 11:48:26 pm

And you have to take the ride because you don't believe in vehicle safety standards, driver background checks and 24-hour service.

You do not "have to" do anything other than eventually die.  Allow competition and you are more likely to have safe vehicles, extended service and background checks for drivers.  Deny competition and you will have what the government decides to allow and what the black market offers.

Quote from: otto105 on April 05, 2015, 11:48:26 pm

What the **** kind of olde tacit racist gibberish are you posting about?

I am posting about reality.  You might want to consider visiting it from time to time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 06, 2015, 10:36:39 am

Jesbeard is a homophobe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 06, 2015, 12:01:26 pm

insane_man

This isn't the free republic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 06, 2015, 12:15:38 pm

Quote

CTA  Chicago Transit AUTHORITY.  Most cities of any size have a comparable government.  And local or state laws generally make it illegal for anyone to offer any competing service.

You're comparing Uber to the CTA? Are you a **** moron?

Quote

Could you point to where I even suggested that?  I wrote: (or to heavily regulated marketplace transportation services -- cabs)

Note the "heavily regulate" portion of that phrase.  Not "operated," but heavily regulated

YOU keep posting about "heavily regulated", but heavy in your world would be a 1lb barbell.

Where's the beef?

Quote

Allow competition and you are more likely to have safe vehicles, extended service and background checks for drivers

Where in your little utopian world does this exist? Can you point to any place in the world where this has happened. Reality in corporate competition free world would have each cab company cutting corners to wage fare wars to increase market share. Sacrificing safety and worker benefits to do so and when competitors all are in a weakened position buy each other until two companies survive and have monopoly. The result being high fares, low wages and no real competition.

Reality is something your libertarian theory should embrace.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 06, 2015, 03:05:34 pm

Don't you love it when Homo tries to write in complete sentences?  A product of the People's Republic of Madison education system.

In fairness, he didn't quite make it to 6th grade.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 06, 2015, 03:54:37 pm

 JJ makes comedy posts on this forum on 4-3-2015 that shuts it off until 4-5-2015.


 It's GOOD to be DA KING !


 Maybe that should tell you something.


 Although what ... I have no idea.  ;D
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 06, 2015, 04:29:34 pm

"Jeb Bush once said he was Hispanic on voter registration form"

That will make an interesting race if he runs against Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 06, 2015, 04:41:50 pm

 

Quote from: davep on April 06, 2015, 04:29:34 pm

"Jeb Bush once said he was Hispanic on voter registration form"

That will make an interesting race if he runs against Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren.

 Dave,


 I've got question for you ... why do you dislike Elisabeth Warren ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 06, 2015, 04:47:32 pm

I treat everyone that lies about their origins equally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 06, 2015, 04:58:58 pm

Quote from: davep on April 06, 2015, 10:36:39 am

Jesbeard is a homophobe.

perhaps an ottophobe, but not a homophobe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 06, 2015, 05:08:34 pm

Quote from: davep on April 06, 2015, 04:29:34 pm

"Jeb Bush once said he was Hispanic on voter registration form"  That will make an interesting race if he runs against Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren.

Exactly what difference would it make on a voter registration form?

Would he get some sort of preferential treatment in a hiring decision, or perhaps get paid more as a hiring institution wanting to meet its minority hiring quotas offered a higher salary to a minority applicant in order to persuade them to accept a job offer?

Would he get to vote twice?

Did he get to hang out with the cool kids at lunch?

If there was no benefit whatsoever coming from checking that box on a form, is there any possibility that he merely accidentally checked the wrong box?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 06, 2015, 05:19:45 pm

 

Quote from: davep on April 06, 2015, 04:47:32 pm

I treat everyone that lies about their origins equally.

 Has she done anything good for you as a consumer?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 06, 2015, 06:00:34 pm

Quote from: davep on April 06, 2015, 03:05:34 pm

Don't you love it when Homo tries to write in complete sentences?  A product of the People's Republic of Madison education system.  In fairness, he didn't quite make it to 6th grade.

I love it even more when he tries to engage in an actual discussion.... like here.

Quote from: otto105 on April 06, 2015, 12:15:38 pm

You're comparing Uber to the CTA? Are you a **** moron?

No.  I pointed out merely that CTA is a government operated transportation service.  You had written: "Government transportation services?"  The implication of your post was that you thought there were none.  I offered CTA in response to your question to give you an example of a government transportation service.  Are you contending now that CTA is not one, or are you unable to follow a conversation which actually directly responds to questions to ask or comments which you make?

Quote from: otto105 on April 06, 2015, 12:15:38 pm

YOU keep posting about "heavily regulated", but heavy in your world would be a 1lb barbell.

So are you suggesting that taxi services are not heavily regulated?  If not, what more would you like reguated about them?  Regulations cover who can own a cab, who can drive a cab, who can own a cab company, where the cabs can and can't run, when they can run, what insurance they must carry, their maximum fares, their minimum fares, and sometimes the routes they have to drive.  Their drivers are all finger-printed and photographed and their licenses are required to be posted in their vehicles.

Quote from: otto105 on April 06, 2015, 12:15:38 pm

Where's the beef?

The reason I oppose the ciminalization of marijuana or sex for pay is exactly the same reason I oppose the regulation of cab services, or any transportation services (in other words my "beef") is that it prevents people from freely entering into the relationships (including business relationships and using the goods and services one seeks to buy and the other to sell) they desire when neither the relationship nor the consumption of the good or service causes injury to anyone.

In other words, I support freedom.  You, as a good liberal, do not.

The core of libertarian belief is that it is wrong to initiate force against another person.  The core of modern liberal belief is that it is not only perfectly acceptable for the collective to initiate force others, it is often required for the collective to do so in order to force others to conform to the behavior AND thought which the collective believes is appropriate even if it is not going to be required of everyone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 06, 2015, 06:02:42 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 06, 2015, 05:19:45 pm

 

 Has she done anything good for you as a consumer?

No.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 06, 2015, 06:08:33 pm

 

Quote from: davep on April 06, 2015, 06:02:42 pm

No.

 Well there you have it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 06, 2015, 07:36:39 pm

Pretty much.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 06, 2015, 08:41:33 pm

Wrong on so many levels -- at a Chicago public school assembly, during school hours, featuring the principal of the school and organized by the principal of the school, dealing with a "black lives matter" theme, only black students (the principal is also black) were allowed to attend.  No Asian students, no white students, no non-black Hispanic students.  http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-black-lives-matter-tl-0312-20150306-story.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 07, 2015, 12:12:57 am

Sorry hillbilly legal aid

Never has so little been made from one who has tried so hard to make anything from nothing.

Try again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 07, 2015, 07:39:26 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/06/gay-woman-who-donated-20-to-christian-owned-indiana-pizzeria-reveals-why-she-took-bold-stand/

Interesting analogy..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 07, 2015, 07:44:26 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 06, 2015, 08:41:33 pm

Wrong on so many levels -- at a Chicago public school assembly, during school hours, featuring the principal of the school and organized by the principal of the school, dealing with a "black lives matter" theme, only black students (the principal is also black) were allowed to attend.  No Asian students, no white students, no non-black Hispanic students.  http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-black-lives-matter-tl-0312-20150306-story.html

Have an all white rally and see how that goes over. I don't care what the excuse is, it's wrong. The agenda by some are to keep the decisiveness going..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 07, 2015, 10:33:14 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 07, 2015, 12:12:57 am

Sorry hillbilly legal aid

Never has so little been made from one who has tried so hard to make anything from nothing.

Try again.

Backwoods Wisconsin talk for "I surrender".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 07, 2015, 01:43:21 pm

Run Rand, run

http://news.yahoo.com/watch-live--rand-paul-presidential-announcement-131608798.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 07, 2015, 04:11:27 pm

Rand's sharp for sure..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 07, 2015, 07:52:45 pm

Sharp?

Yea......not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 07, 2015, 07:58:48 pm

Sharper than you moron

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 07, 2015, 11:00:32 pm

 THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES :


 JEB BUSH.


 You clowns don't have any say in the matter.


 Although you think you do ... you don't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 07, 2015, 11:24:36 pm

To quote molly hatchet, dreams I'll never see, jackie.  besides, the 46 is pretty **** sick of anyone named clinton or bush.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 07, 2015, 11:39:14 pm

 

Quote from: 46 on April 07, 2015, 11:24:36 pm

To quote molly hatchet, dreams I'll never see, jackie.  besides, the 46 is pretty **** sick of anyone named clinton or bush.

Fine for you ... it's not going to change anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 08, 2015, 04:51:24 am

No way Jeb Bush makes it.. and I'm pretty certain Hillary doesn't make it either.. I will say this, long way to go, I guess anything is possible..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 08, 2015, 07:36:13 am

Definitely a long way to go. I too don't want to see another Bush or Clinton in the White House.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 08, 2015, 12:49:38 pm

Can one of you flat-earth society members answer the following?

Why is it OK for the NRA to push guns in schools, malls...anywhere, but not actual working guns on the floor of their big convention?

Irony?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 08, 2015, 02:02:23 pm

Can one of you flat-earth society members answer the following?

Who are you referring to? That doesn't apply to me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 08, 2015, 05:26:07 pm

Of course it doesn't refer to you. You're not intelligent enough to be considered for the group. You're still only aware of your immediate surroundings.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 08, 2015, 05:36:16 pm

Count me in as not wanting a Clinton or a Bush to ever hold that office again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 08, 2015, 07:03:38 pm

Hmmmm- Yahoo article about Obama and how the "climate change" problem was personnel for him when his oldest suffered and asthma attach when age four.  Of course, being a lib, it didn't stop him from chuffing up to 3 packs a day around  her.  two faced prick.  I'm astounded even yahoo would publish that tripe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 08, 2015, 07:38:52 pm

Not an unusual question, but does anyone have any idea what Homo is talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 08, 2015, 08:15:04 pm

Quote from: davep on April 08, 2015, 07:38:52 pm

Not an unusual question, but does anyone have any idea what Homo is talking about?

I probably don't, but then I don't know who "Homo" is.

Is there someone who posts here with that name?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 08, 2015, 08:22:34 pm

http://www.westernjournalism.com/boom-krauthammer-just-dropped-the-p-bomb-as-he-guts-obamas-attack-on-scott-walker/#I1wsOhkCDMTpDRHG.99

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 08, 2015, 08:49:20 pm

Well I am certainly aware of the difference between round and flat having been around the world unlike a moron who hasn't been out of communist Madison.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 08, 2015, 09:06:55 pm

http://fusion.net/story/116356/historic-poll-obama-is-nearly-twice-as-popular-in-cuba-as-he-is-in-the-u-s/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 08, 2015, 10:47:07 pm

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-bans-working-guns-annual-onvention-article-1.2177038 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-bans-working-guns-annual-onvention-article-1.2177038)


Posted the relieve you low information rusty limpthought listeners

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 08, 2015, 10:52:48 pm

Posted the relieve what??? Do you even know what you're saying???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 08, 2015, 10:56:55 pm

People coming in are allowed to bring their own operable guns as long as they are properly licensed and following the laws you moron!

They only want display models to be inoperable.  Not every person coming there would have the knowledge of how to handle a gun.  It is an intelligent decision. 

If they allowed them to be in working order the liberal media would be beating them up about that.  Do liberals ever get sick of lying and distorting things to advance their agenda?

*sigh*, Sadly no.  They never do.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 08, 2015, 10:58:20 pm

By the way that was stated in the article you posted otto. 

Why do you hate liberty and our constitution so much?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 08, 2015, 11:42:37 pm

Otts is the result of our horrible liberal minded education system. It poisons the mind, making gods out of men and blinding them to the truth. There's no room for God, or truth or even common sense and these lemmings will believe whatever a liberal minded Prof spews, hook line and sinker.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 09, 2015, 07:12:16 am

Quote from: Sportster on April 08, 2015, 10:52:48 pm

Posted the relieve what??? Do you even know what you're saying???

You really have to ask?

Quote from: Pekin on April 08, 2015, 10:58:20 pm

By the way that was stated in the article you posted otto. 

Why do you hate liberty and our constitution so much?

It may simply be that he hates reading and thinking.

Quote from: Sportster on April 08, 2015, 11:42:37 pm

Otts is the result of our horrible liberal minded education system. It poisons the mind, making gods out of men and blinding them to the truth.

otto is not the result of a poor education system.  He has to personally take responsibility for what he is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 09, 2015, 10:25:55 am

Quote from: Sportster on April 08, 2015, 11:42:37 pm

Otts is the result of our horrible liberal minded education system.

Can you imagine what he would be like if he had gotten beyond 6th grade?

Of course, 6th grade is pretty good for the backwoods state he lives in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 12:52:30 pm

Ah, the bland existence of your typical humorless, odorless and unacknowledged white t-bagging conservative.

Previous posts will all be entered as exhibit A for why there can never be a funny conservative.

The NRA hosts the largest gun show in the country with all non-working guns. All the while they want to fill every area of your life with people armed with working guns.

Oh irony, it is lost on the humorless among us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 01:13:14 pm

Nice article.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-longer-the-party-of-lincoln/2015/04/08/bcc46068-de19-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html?hpid=z2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-longer-the-party-of-lincoln/2015/04/08/bcc46068-de19-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html?hpid=z2)

excerpt


"The Southernization of the Republican Party and the increasing domination of Wall Street’s brand of shareholder capitalism over the nation’s economic life have combined to erode both the income and the power of U.S. workers. Unions are anathema to Wall Street and the GOP. Federal regulations empowering consumers and employees are opposed by both.

Fueled by the mega-donations of the mega-rich, today’s Republican Party is not just far from being the party of Lincoln: It’s really the party of Jefferson Davis. It suppresses black voting; it opposes federal efforts to mitigate poverty; it objects to federal investment in infrastructure and education just as the antebellum South opposed internal improvements and rejected public education; it scorns compromise. It is nearly all white. It is the lineal descendant of Lee’s army, and the descendants of Grant’s have yet to subdue it. "

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 09, 2015, 02:41:29 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 12:52:30 pm

Ah, the bland existence of your typical humorless, odorless and unacknowledged white t-bagging conservative.

Previous posts will all be entered as exhibit A for why there can never be a funny conservative.

The NRA hosts the largest gun show in the country with all non-working guns. All the while they want to fill every area of your life with people armed with working guns.

Oh irony, it is lost on the humorless among us.

Humorless?  Not recognizing irony?

This coming from a guy that saw no irony or humor in World Wide conferences on the dangers of Global Warming coming during periods of record cold.

This coming from a guy that thinks that the greatest threat to Homosexuals is the inability to have pizza catered at their weddings.

This coming from a guy that expounds on the ignorance of the other side, in sentences that do not come up to third grade standards.

This coming from a guy that resents the fact that his backwards state has finally found a governor that will lead them into the 20th century.  (The 21st century will have to wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 09, 2015, 04:18:16 pm

I kind of like being "odorless".       in fact I wish more liberals were.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 09, 2015, 04:42:26 pm

the Republican Party and the increasing domination of Wall Street’s brand of shareholder capitalism

 I would say wall street has done pretty well under the Obama administration.. Much better than main street has..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 09, 2015, 05:03:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 12:52:30 pm

Ah, the bland existence of your typical humorless, odorless and unacknowledged white t-bagging conservative.

Previous posts will all be entered as exhibit A for why there can never be a funny conservative.

The NRA hosts the largest gun show in the country with all non-working guns. All the while they want to fill every area of your life with people armed with working guns.

Oh irony, it is lost on the humorless among us.

There was no irony there to lose.  Sort of makes me wonder, otto, are you sure you know the meaning of the word "irony"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 05:55:03 pm

Apparently, minutia filled legal aid you're struggling with the meaning of contradiction.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 09, 2015, 05:56:24 pm

 I love having my balls sucked on.


 Is there anyone else here that loves having their balls sucked on ?


 Well, other than Sailorgirl who at last check ... has no balls.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 06:11:11 pm

Attention norsk saga climate denier

Responding to a post about bland white t-bagging monotony with more inspid moth-eaten mundaneness proves my point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 09, 2015, 06:17:13 pm

 I still like having my balls sucked on.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 06:20:21 pm

Those balls have algae on them?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 09, 2015, 06:30:01 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 06:20:21 pm

Those balls have algae on them?

 One of four. No wonder I have a problem with trousers fitting right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: VJ on April 09, 2015, 10:56:56 pm

My thoughts and prayers go out to victims of tornados that hit Fairdale and N. Illinois.  I grew up in Rochelle and it looks like that town escaped damage.  But there will be some serious rebuilding elsewhere.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 11:46:34 pm

Irony defined: A libertarian prick from kentucky delivering a speech on a taxpayer bought, maintained and staffed aircraft carrier while standing behind a sign which reads "Defeat the Washington Power".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 09, 2015, 11:50:01 pm

Speaking of guns, I just bought a new S&W M&P Shield 9mm. Very nice small semi auto. Shoots real nice. I've got a Glock 27 in 40sw that I keep a 33 357Sig barrel in, but it's a bit thick during the summer months, so I wanted something still decently powerful but thinner and easier to carry during the summer. This should fit the bill perfectly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 11:54:04 pm

Religious fanantic

What kind of gun did jesus carry? Ya know, just in case poor people would show up at one of his speeches hungry without money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 10, 2015, 12:07:55 am

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/594d66701e1d5ccfe34394abc0c565ab/tumblr_mqjracsw6r1qe89guo1_400.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 10, 2015, 06:08:40 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 09, 2015, 06:11:11 pm

Attention norsk saga climate denier

Responding to a post about bland white t-bagging monotony with more inspid moth-eaten mundaneness proves my point.

Speaking of irony.... here we have otto writing about having a point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 10, 2015, 08:44:07 am

I think he wants his auto to protect himself from otto.  Who can blame him?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 10, 2015, 10:20:43 am

What kind of car did Jesus drive?  What internet server did Jesus use?  Did Jesus vote for homosexual marriage?  Did he ever say that the state should steal from some citizens to give the money to other citizens (or non-citizens)?

Homo loves to spout idiocies. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 10, 2015, 10:45:33 am

I've only met one person that's as bad as he is. She was a cranky old **** that watched MSNBC all **** day long..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 10:47:51 am

What kind of car did Jesus drive?  He drives a blue Tesla model S for cruisin chicks and a Chevy Volt to **** off rupert murduch.


What internet server did Jesus use? He doesn't use the internets. You have to call him.


Did Jesus vote for homosexual marriage? He never thought that he would have to vote on it, since he made gay people as part of the god's image.


Did he ever say that the state should steal from some citizens to give the money to other citizens (or non-citizens)?  Again, jesus provided guidance of actions with his 'feeding the multitudes' gift of beard and fish from a young boy to feed thousands. And the whole Caesar thing...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 10, 2015, 11:02:58 am

Quote from: chifaninva on April 10, 2015, 10:45:33 am

I've only met one person that's as bad as he is. She was a cranky old **** that watched MSNBC all **** day long..

I though Homo was a cranky old ****.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 10, 2015, 11:06:35 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 10:47:51 am

Did he ever say that the state should steal from some citizens to give the money to other citizens (or non-citizens)?  Again, jesus provided guidance of actions with his 'feeding the multitudes' gift of beard and fish from a young boy to feed thousands. And the whole Caesar thing...

Right.  Jesus fed the multitude.  He didn't ask Ceasar to steal from people and give it to the multitude.

The whole Ceasar thing talked about what we should give to Ceasar, not what Ceasar should give to us.

Instead of quoting excerpts that you don't understand, why not read the whole thing and learn something.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 10, 2015, 11:08:51 am

Did Jesus vote for homosexual marriage? He never thought that he would have to vote on it, since he made gay people as part of the god's image.

So thats why God the Father destroyed Sodom and Gormrrah.  I don't believe for one moment Jesus would go against the Father anymore than you would go against your father Obama

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 11:15:07 am

Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him (a typical t-bagger), loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he (the typical t-bagger) heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.


Seems as a believer, you are commanded.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 11:18:01 am

Luke 14:12-14 He said also to the one who had invited him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

god said a lot of things about the poor and giving. None of which you hear.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 11:19:55 am

Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.


Say 'Hi' to Scrooge while your there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 11:23:43 am

One of the miracles of Jesus, told in the Gospel of Matthew 17:24-27.

In the Gospel account, in Capernaum the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax ask Peter whether Jesus pays the tax, and he replies that he does. When Peter returns to where they are staying, Jesus speaks of the matter, asking his opinion: "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own children or from others?" Peter answers, "from others," and Jesus replies: "Then the children are exempt. But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."


Seems jesus did pay his taxes and others.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 01:01:03 pm

Quote

I though Homo was a cranky old ****.

I thought that I was an uppity black man.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 10, 2015, 01:41:42 pm

Not one of Homo's posts says anything about having the government take money from rich people and give it to the poor.  It is the rich who are told to give it directly.

(By the way, have you noticed how Homo seems to be obsessed with tea bagging?)

Conservatives give much more of their own money to charity.  Liberals want to give other people's money to charity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 10, 2015, 03:37:50 pm

You're definitely right about conservatives giving more than liberals. Liberals think only of themselves....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 10, 2015, 04:11:56 pm

How can anybody who loves America want so badly to destroy what makes America great? Just because someone runs for office doesn't mean he loves America. It means he wants to line his pockets and screw everybody else

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 10, 2015, 04:36:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 10:47:51 am

Did Jesus vote for homosexual marriage? He never thought that he would have to vote on it, since he made gay people as part of the god's image.

Then did he not also make murderers, rapists, child molestors and blasphemers "... as part of the god's image"?

I do not oppose gay marriage.  And I actually put no stock in the Bible, but if you are going to try to use it to support an argument, or to try to show that those you are addressing and who do embrace the Bible are acting inconsistently with its teachings, at least have a faint clue of what is in it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on April 10, 2015, 07:43:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 10, 2015, 11:15:07 am

Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him (a typical t-bagger), loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he (the typical t-bagger) heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.


Seems as a believer, you are commanded.

You missed the main point of this lesson. This man said he had kept all the commandments since he was little. He was basically saying he wasn't a sinner. He missed the first commandment of "thou shalt have no other gods before Me." He showed he loved money more than God, money was his god and he wouldn't give it up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 10, 2015, 10:06:06 pm

 According to all religious doctrine that any of us adhere to ...


 we are all gone motherfuckers ... there is no escape not only for you but your offspring,


 the whole thing is going to be wiped ...


 BUT ... depending on how you behave now ...


 there could be some payoff after you pass ...


 depending of course on which page of which book you turn to.


 It would be smart to learn them all ... this increases your chances of nirvana.


 Otherwise you could wake up tomorrow and be an NFC North fan .  :o

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on April 11, 2015, 09:22:58 am

LOL!  Typical of otter to post a bunch of stuff to prove his point when in all actuallity it directly disproves his point.

Everyone of those bible quotes are instructions to donate and support the poor.  Not to form a government to take your money and have them give it to the poor.

As far as the Cesar thing...  Didn't he say give unto Cesar that which is Cesars?  How is my money the governments money to take?  Because the government say's it is?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 10:18:13 am

Can ANY of you conservative-baggers point to a government in this world which has the size government that YOU advocate. One of you please point to the country where the benevolent corporation provides for all.....

Living in your own little self-centered world, voting for only things that directly effect you and throwing your savior under the bus when he doesn't back your greed.

Your beliefs are a joke.

I'll wait for the country so we can evaluate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 11, 2015, 10:32:27 am

But I sure see the ones who adhere to your beliefs that the country is going bankrupt such as Greece, with Spain a distant second

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 10:36:27 am

Quote

You missed the main point of this lesson. This man said he had kept all the commandments since he was little. He was basically saying he wasn't a sinner. He missed the first commandment of "thou shalt have no other gods before Me." He showed he loved money more than God, money was his god and he wouldn't give it up.

The Rich Young Man

17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” 28 Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”


1. The conservative-bagger asked “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" The bagger had said that he kept the commandments to which jesus said he lacked one thing. You apparently lack the same thing. Good luck with the needle.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 11, 2015, 11:01:14 am

That can mean that all these liberals you worship wont go to heaven also.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 11:18:02 am

I don't worship anyone and I don't worry about heaven.

It's not real.

isfullofit

Why not cite Germany or Japan or China (a managed economy that conservative-baggers love) just to name a few.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 11, 2015, 11:35:55 am

What a **** up situation in Charleston. I understand things happening in the heat of the moment, but come on.. Scott shouldn't have run, but that's no reason for the cop to shoot him in the back, 8 times.. The trial shouldn't take long, at least from what I've seen. There's no doubt that these cops get so intertwined with the happenings in these cities that they lose site and focus.

 A big problem is the "us against them". I don't know how you stop this when we have so many leaders in this country that continually want to divide, including our own president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 11, 2015, 12:16:23 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 11:18:02 am

I don't worship anyone and I don't worry about heaven.

It's not real.

isfullofit

Why not cite Germany or Japan or China (a managed economy that conservative-baggers love) just to name a few.

That's a lie. You do. You just think you don't. Its just  like nothing Obama does is wrong. Its like all the misleading climate change people who you idolize as right. That's a form of idol worship. And you are guilty as charged. That's a fact.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 11, 2015, 12:56:33 pm

https://projectveritas.com/california-universities-video-launch

Colleges and pledging money to Hamas an ISIS.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 03:49:33 pm

Quote

A big problem is the "us against them". I don't know how you stop this when we have so many leaders in this country that continually want to divide, including our own president.

You conservative-baggers can repeat this lie as long as you want. The only people who believe it are already in the choir.


"Us against them" defines the traveling clown show that is the republic nomination for second place 2016. Just tune in anyday and watch the division that you claim to care anything about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 11, 2015, 04:30:28 pm

Wish, that was simply murder.  What horrifies me more than anything, is the Blasie attitiude the cop took afterward, dropping the taser next to the dying man, CUFFING him has he died to support all cop proticol, his attitude alone saying "nothing will come of this".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2015, 05:19:11 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 11:18:02 am

.... China (a managed economy that conservative-baggers love)....

I frequently ask otto who he is referencing when he uses the pet names he sucks out of his ass, and usually he makes no attempt to explain.

Here he offered it in his original post -- a "conservative-bagger" (which I think is a new pet name from otto) is apparently someone who loves China's managed economy.  And judging from the comments of posters here, the only one I can think of who might fight that description would be otto, who loudly applauds Obama at every turn, which would include picking economic winners and losers such as Tesla, Solyndra and other buddies of the administration.

So.... otto... a "consdervative bagger."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2015, 05:28:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 10:18:13 am

Can ANY of you conservative-baggers point to a government in this world which has the size government that YOU advocate. One of you please point to the country where the benevolent corporation provides for all.....

The latter does not logically follow the former.

otto, other than you, I am unaware of anyone here who has ever even suggested that either government or corporations should "provide for all."  Most here seem to recognize that we as individuals and society at large both tend to do much, much better when individuals care for themselves, and not when government tries to take care of them.  And most posters seem less concerned with the "size" of government than the scope of government.  I for one would be happy to see the United States government increase its size (the number of employees and the amount spent on operating the government) if it were matched by a corresponding reduction in its scope -- the degree to which it regulates the economy and private lives, the number of people and the things for which it imprisons people, and the redistribution of wealth.  (The last thing I want is to get all of the government we pay for.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2015, 05:30:51 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 11, 2015, 12:16:23 pm

That's a lie. You do. You just think you don't. Its just  like nothing Obama does is wrong. Its like all the misleading climate change people who you idolize as right. That's a form of idol worship. And you are guilty as charged. That's a fact.

You might want to look at the difference between "fact" and "opinion."  Calling one the other does not make it so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2015, 05:33:15 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 03:49:33 pm

You conservative-baggers can repeat this lie as long as you want. The only people who believe it are already in the choir.

"Us against them" defines the traveling clown show that is the republic nomination for second place 2016. Just tune in anyday and watch the division that you claim to care anything about.

I'm sure glad I figured out who the "conservative-bagger" is that otto keeps talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2015, 05:35:53 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on April 11, 2015, 11:35:55 am

What a **** up situation in Charleston. I understand things happening in the heat of the moment, but come on.. Scott shouldn't have run, but that's no reason for the cop to shoot him in the back, 8 times.. The trial shouldn't take long, at least from what I've seen. There's no doubt that these cops get so intertwined with the happenings in these cities that they lose site and focus..

Lumping all police officers with the murderer in South Carolina makes no sense.  More police every day show remarkable restraint in NOT using deadly force when they would have been justified in doing so than use deadly force when they should not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 11, 2015, 06:08:52 pm

Hopefully, the officer's partner will also be punished, if in fact he filed a false police report, protecting the shooter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2015, 06:36:05 pm

If he did, I'd like to see him charged as an accessory after the fact.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 07:57:50 pm

More of the hillbilly legal aids finest...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/11/california-sheriff-suspends-10-deputies-following-brutal-beating-of-horse-thief/?hpid=z4 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/11/california-sheriff-suspends-10-deputies-following-brutal-beating-of-horse-thief/?hpid=z4)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 08:14:11 pm

The c-baggers on parade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/opinion/sunday/a-new-phase-in-anti-obama-attacks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/opinion/sunday/a-new-phase-in-anti-obama-attacks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0)


Only one set of idiots can claim the divisive politics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 11, 2015, 08:15:50 pm

Right we just need to let thieves go. Its just a theft and stealing from the rich isn't a crime.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 11, 2015, 08:26:26 pm

46, agreed. He very comfortably shoots this guy, who btw wasn't exactly speedy Gonzales, in the back like he's target shooting 8 times. Now, it was really stupid of the guy to run to begin with. Where did he think he was going? Did he actually think his slow as hades trot was going to get away from the cops?? Stupid move on his part, but that does not mean the guy deserved to be shot in the back 8 times. And yea, the nonchalant attitude afterwards was like the guy shot clay pidgeons and not a human being. Disgusting. BUT he wasn't the only cop there, either. They were in absolutely no hurry to try to save this guy, but rather to secure the crime scene and putting that taser down near him tells me he was setting the guy up for a charge of attacking the cop with it. This cops ability to so easily kill a man and not blink definately puts it in the murder category to me....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 08:34:35 pm

isfullofit


Thanks for once again proving that c-baggers are incapable of having an intelligent discussion on anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_8knBHEyw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_8knBHEyw)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 11, 2015, 10:08:50 pm

Intelligent by whom? YOU? Haha I don't think so. Morons don't talk intelligent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2015, 10:20:18 pm

You got that right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGT299Mm4nY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGT299Mm4nY)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 12, 2015, 12:00:21 am

Where christian conservatives want to go....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 12, 2015, 11:58:27 am

Sooooooooo, the 2016 traveling clownshow wants to do in dealing with Iran as rant paul summed, "I believe in applying Reagan's approach to foreign policy to the Iran issue."

Ok, what did reagan do that all the clowns want to repeat?

Reagan at Reykjavik had offered to dismantle the entire American nuclear arsenal and denounced the Israeli raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. After all, while President Obama is not about to "give the Iranians nuclear weapons," President Ronald Reagan sent the mullahs in Tehran a cake, a Bible and U.S. weapons. And even before the Iran-Contra scandal that nearly brought down his presidency, Reagan was humiliated by Iran's Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon and its ally in Syria just prior to retreating in disgrace.

But before he earned the title as the U.S. president who actually negotiated with terrorists, Ronald Reagan's intervention in the Lebanese civil war was a disaster both for American policy in the Middle East and the U.S. armed services sent to implement it. And when Reagan wasn't trying to buy the release of American hostages from Iranian-backed terrorists beginning in 1986, he happily accepted the unlikely help of others in freeing U.S. captives from the Assad regime in Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/12/world/reagan-voices-regret-to-arabs-but-assures-israel-on-ties.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/12/world/reagan-voices-regret-to-arabs-but-assures-israel-on-ties.html)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R67CH-qhXJs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R67CH-qhXJs)


What a predictable and pathetic spectacle to try to emulate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 12, 2015, 12:24:00 pm

Reagan was by far the best president of the century (the only one close was Truman).

Like every other president, he made some mistakes, but he single handedly brought down the Russian Empire.

Of course, Obama is doing all he can to restore the Russian Empire.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 12, 2015, 12:39:06 pm

Pretty much just type whatever **** comes into your mind. Not surprisingly predictable and pathetic for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 12, 2015, 12:40:37 pm

Homo seems hung over this morning.  I suppose it is the only way he can be hung.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 12, 2015, 04:08:15 pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/comedy/snl-the-clintons-are-back/vi-AAaTRMa

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 12, 2015, 07:12:53 pm

I would think even the Dems are ready for a new face..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 12, 2015, 08:28:07 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on April 12, 2015, 07:12:53 pm

I would think even the Dems are ready for a new face..

Democrats historically are eager for new faces.  In the last 55 years, the only time they have NOT nominated someone who was a new face was when they nominated an incumbent or the party's last VP.  JFK, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry and Obama were all new faces when they first got the nomination.  Every other time the nomination went either to the incumbernt or the pary's last VP.  LBJ, Humphrey, Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, and Obama.  The argument might be made that Hilary has a stature comparable to the party's last VP, so she might be an exception and might get the nomination.  If she does, history is against her winning the general election: Humphrey, Mondale and Gore all won the nomination, but lost the general election.  That covers the last 15 election cycles.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 12, 2015, 09:08:28 pm

Quote

If she does, history is against her winning the general election: Humphrey, Mondale and Gore all won the nomination, but lost the general election.  That covers the last 15 election cycles.

Let's hope that plays out as true. The Repubs finally have some solid,viable candidates capable of winning it all. I'd pretty much take any of them over what we've had to deal with the last few years....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 12, 2015, 09:35:09 pm

Mark's Market Blog
4-12-15: Greece, again.
by Mark Lawrence
Markets went up all week, closing Friday near the all-time high and the 1st resistance. Nothing really good happened except we got a bad jobs report, which made everyone happy 'cause they think it means no Fed interest rate rise in June. Bad news is now good. I think markets have to go down next week 'cause it's not time to be making all new highs. All this sideways meandering so far this year has us getting closer and closer to the 200 day moving average. A correction - a 10% or more drop - in the next couple of months would not be the biggest surprise ever.
 
S&P 500 October 13 2014 to April 10 2015
Greece's banks continue to hemorrhage money. Their net deposits will be zero by about the end of this year on current trends; if there's a banking panic, which I think likely, it could happen in a few weeks. The European central bank is refusing Greek banks access to the Emergency Liquidity Assistance program, designed precisely to protect saver's deposits in the face of a crisis. The conclusion is clear at this point: if the ECB does not change their stance, which I do not foresee, Greek depositors are going to get screwed. This is the latest EU policy, invented during the Cyprus bailout: deposits over €100,000 are not protected and basically count as stock - they're paid off after all the bond holders. I assume most Greek large depositors know this, but it seems inevitable a few will still get screwed. Europe is sending a message that banks are not really safe. I'm not sure they're going to like where this message takes them when the problems spread to Spain, Portugal, Italy, and perhaps finally France.

The Apple watch is out for preorder and apparently most stores sold out in the first few minutes, less than an hour. Even the $17,000 version. Reviews are mixed, with some loving the interaction, others saying you need munchkin fingers to use it and when you're in a meeting it's vibrating every three minutes to tell you you have a tweet or a facebook post or something to entertain you. Personally, I don't get it. No one wears watches anymore, why is an apple watch different? The currently accepted answer is that it's not a watch, it's an accessory for your iPhone. As Clairee Belcher famously said, "The only thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to accessorize."

Last November, just one week after his re-election, Governor Paul LePage of Maine did something unusual — he made good on a major campaign promise, by slashing funds for cities who give welfare to illegal aliens. The policy has already had a huge impact, with illegals fleeing in droves, and Democrat mayors having to defend giving handouts to illegal invaders before angry voters. Now, just 6 months later, LePage is making good on another promise: to put an end to welfare leeches in his state. Governor LePage passed a measure last year that requires recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program (SNAP) to complete a certain number of work, job-training, or volunteer hours in order to be eligible for assistance. The new requirement has resulted in a dramatic decline in food stamp enrollment, resulting in a logical win-win for all of Maine. At the end of 2014 the enrollment count for SNAP was approximately 12,000 individuals. Now that individuals have to complete either 20 hours of part- time work a week, volunteer for at least 24 hours per month, or get involved in a vocational program, the amount of SNAP recipients has dramatically dropped to approximately 2,500 by the end of March — a nearly 80% reduction in welfare.

The sardine population off the coast of California has dropped by 90% due to over fishing, leading to the mass starvation of thousands of sea lions and uncounted numbers of pelicans. Officials expect to ban all sardine fishing later this year. Curiously, just a month ago I read that the sea lions were being killed by global warming. The Quinault Indian Nation in Washington state plans to fish for 1,000 metric tons of sardines in the upcoming fishing season, which begins on July 1. They say treaty terms mean they cannot be stopped by federal or stat agencies. It's ok if Indians fish for sardines, 'cause that's natural. It's only when white guys fish for sardines that you get population collapse.

Where does California's water go? Agriculture. Farming brings in 2% of California's economy and produces half the fruits and nuts eaten in the US, one quarter of all US food. Here's a table of the water consumed by agriculture:

Food Water
Almonds, one nut 1 gallon
Broccoli, one head 5.4 gallons
Cantaloupe, one 50 gallons
Corn, one ear 40 gallons
Cow, one 20 gallons per day
Lettuce, one head 8 gallons
Orange, one 14 gallons
Olives, one pound 520 gallons
Pistachio, one nut 3/4 gallon
Rice, one pound 400 gallons
Strawberry, one 0.4 gallon
Tomato, one 3.3 gallons Walnut, one 5 gallons

Watermelon, one 168 gallons

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 13, 2015, 04:39:14 pm

CNN's Wolf Blitzer is right now interviewing former U.S. intelligence figures (3 of them) about how and why it is acceptable, necessary and even a great idea to identify enemies of America, whether they are or are not U.S. citizens, and then to have them targeted for and executed by drone strikes.  And Blitzer is not pressing them on it at all.

And many here have also made clear that they, too, are perfectly happy with this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 13, 2015, 04:40:16 pm

Prediction for the 2016 presidential election: the ticket will be Rubio and Kasich.... though not necessarily in that order.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 13, 2015, 04:49:07 pm

Talk about dark horses.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 13, 2015, 05:20:49 pm

Rubio is not a dark horse at all, and if he wins the nomination, Kasich would provide cinsiderable balance to the ticket, while offering a VP who quite credibly could assume the presidency if needed, and who would offend very little of the core Republican party base.  And if Kasich, as many expect, gets into the race in lat summer or early fall, and take the nomination on his own, Rubio would offer much the same type of blance.

I am not offering it as the candidates I would like to see, but the ones I think are right now most likely.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 06:16:55 pm

Spellcheck hillbilly legal aid


As for that rubio clown.

http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/04/10/rubios-standing-with-latino-voters/

He doesn't even make it to Florida.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 13, 2015, 06:25:38 pm

One in five millenials self-identify as libertarian.  http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/13/millennials-rand-paul-libertarianism

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 13, 2015, 06:35:19 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 06:16:55 pm

As for that rubio clown.

http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/04/10/rubios-standing-with-latino-voters/

He doesn't even make it to Florida.

At this point in 2008, most black voters had not heard of Obama, and even as late as January of 2008, he was well behind Hilary with black voters.  Since Rubio is not running for the nomination as the Hispanic candidate for president, nor is he running to become the president of Hispanics, but instead is running for the nomination as the Republican candidate for president of the nation, his current popularity with Hispanics is much less important than his popularity with Republican primary voters early next year and with voters overall in November of 2016.

But, otto, it is nice to see liberals like you concerned about him this early.

Would be hilarious to see him matched up against Hilary in 2016.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 06:38:51 pm

Wonder if 1 in 5 will like their libertarian military.   http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/ex-blackwater-guards-sentenced-to-prison-in-2007-killings-of-iraqi-civilians.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/ex-blackwater-guards-sentenced-to-prison-in-2007-killings-of-iraqi-civilians.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 06:41:50 pm

Clown car passenger rubio has even less standing with conservatives and you think Liberals are worried about him.

Don't dilute yourself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 13, 2015, 06:49:48 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 06:38:51 pm

Wonder if 1 in 5 will like their libertarian military. 

Mercenaries, or mercenary services, are not exactly a "libertarian military."

As to what the Republican base will or will not embrace, for some reason I would not look to you as a source of insight into the question of what they are likely to do or how they think.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 07:02:50 pm

Are YOU really calling blackwater "Mercenaries, or mercenary services?" because if you are, your **** retarted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 07:13:36 pm

And while we are at it, why don't you explain marco rubio's base as it stands now. Who or what are they?


He has all the shelf life of 5 day old bread.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 08:02:41 pm

hillbilly legal aid

Can you clarify Rant Paul's libertarian position on gay marriage?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 11:46:41 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbuDPO2LSX4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbuDPO2LSX4)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 11:59:35 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmEd2O6bUM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmEd2O6bUM)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 14, 2015, 01:49:42 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 13, 2015, 07:02:50 pm

Are YOU really calling blackwater "Mercenaries, or mercenary services?" because if you are, your **** retarted.

Can you offer a working definition of "mercenary" and "mercenary services" which would NOT include Blackwater, considering that you have already referred to them as a "libertarian military"?

If you do, and actually attempt to engage in a conversation on the point, it might make some degree of sense to engage you on the other issues you have tried to raise here.

But if you fail to do so, since I am "**** retarded," there would seem to be no point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 14, 2015, 07:30:42 am

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-surprises-early-attack-ceo-pay-190527044--finance.html

Same old tired wore out rhetoric... She is seriously grasping at straws. She could easily shoot herself in the foot before she gets out of the starting gate..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 14, 2015, 12:27:25 pm

There usually is not point engaging in "discussion" with you. I will give you that mr. **** retarded. But since you need a definition Webster's noun is a good place to start.

Mercenary: a soldier hired by a foreign country to fight in it's army.

While blackwater as it was in Iraq was an private American military company and security firm. The United States hired them to provide security for our operation.


So,  Mr. **** Retard start moving the goalposts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 14, 2015, 03:53:53 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 14, 2015, 12:27:25 pm

There usually is not point engaging in "discussion" with you. I will give you that mr. **** retarded. But since you need a definition Webster's noun is a good place to start.

Mercenary: a soldier hired by a foreign country to fight in it's army.

While blackwater as it was in Iraq was an private American military company and security firm. The United States hired them to provide security for our operation.

Since you reference Webster, let's actually go there: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mercenary

1mercenary
noun mer·ce·nary \ˈmər-sə-ˌner-ē, -ne-rē\

: a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army : a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him
plural mer·ce·nar·ies
Full Definition of MERCENARY
: one that serves merely for wages; especially :  a soldier hired into foreign service
    an army of foreign mercenaries

Origin of MERCENARY
Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages — more at mercy
First Known Use: 14th century

2 mercenary
adjective
: hired to fight
: caring only about making money

Full Definition of MERCENARY
1  :  serving merely for pay or sordid advantage :  venal; also :  greedy
2  :  hired for service in the army of a foreign country   (While the emphasis is added, everything there is taken directly from the link.)


Those with Blackwater were not fulfilling any military service obligation, had not been drafted, and were not serving a term of enlistment where they signed up under any sense of patriotic duty.  They were, according to Webster, mercenaries, in the pure sense of the word, undertaking a military role purely for money.  The reason you so often hear the phrase "foreign mercenary" is because there is no requirement that mercenaries ARE foreign; if, as you seem to contend, the word "mercenary" includes "foreign" as part of its definition, then using the two words together would be utterly redundant.

Now, let's address the issue of whether I am "**** retarded" for considering Blackwater as having been made up up mercenaries or having been a mercenary service.  They did things for money, purely and simply.  I genuinely look forward to your response.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 14, 2015, 07:11:06 pm

I genuinely look forward to your response.

You may, but I assure you that the rest of us don't...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 14, 2015, 07:29:40 pm

He will probably post a video of Hillary going to Chipotle which in his mind means she is new and fresh...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 14, 2015, 11:23:37 pm

Wow, minutia-boy I thought that you were merely going to move the goalposts a few boring yards at a time. But you, decided to pull them out and take em' to stupidville.


mercenary
noun mer·ce·nary \ˈmər-sə-ˌner-ē, -ne-rē\

: a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army : a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him
plural mer·ce·nar·ies


The Blackwater employees were not hired by Iraq (foreign country), were not paid by the Iraqi government nor did they join the Iraqi military to fight anyone in the country.

 
The American security company Blackwater was contracted by the US government to provide security for diplomats, bureaucrats and members of Congress that visited Iraq. They were not contracted to provide any combat (fighting) role with the US military.

The fact they as a non-military bunch of corporate **** screwed that outsourcing job up so badly doesn't stop you from defending them is sad, but predictable.

Seems to me, "in the pure sense of the word" you are still **** retarded.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 14, 2015, 11:41:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 14, 2015, 11:23:37 pm

Wow, minutia-boy I thought that you were merely going to move the goalposts a few boring yards at a time. But you, decided to pull them out and take em' to stupidville.


mercenary
noun mer·ce·nary \ˈmər-sə-ˌner-ē, -ne-rē\

: a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight ]in its army : a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him
plural mer·ce·nar·ies


The Blackwater employees were not hired by Iraq (foreign country), were not paid by the Iraqi government nor did they join the Iraqi military to fight anyone in the country.

 
The American security company Blackwater was contracted by the US government to provide security for diplomats, bureaucrats and members of Congress that visited Iraq. They were not contracted to provide any combat (fighting) role with the US military.

The fact they as a non-military bunch of corporate **** screwed that outsourcing job up so badly doesn't stop you from defending them is sad, but predictable.

Seems to me, "in the pure sense of the word" you are still **** retarded.

otto. poor boy, when a word has multiple definitions, it has multiple definitions.  Even in the portion of the definition which you chose to include in your post above, the definition fits my use of the word, and it was my use of the word which you contended showed I am "**** retarded."

Now, instead of continuing a discussion of semantics in which you are showing both that you do not know the meaning of the word you want to debate, and also that you do not understand how to use a dictionary, could you stop trying to dodge the original issue, which was my dispute of your contention that Blackwater was (or is) a "libertarian military."  Libertarians have no problem with the military.  The idea that Blackwater, whether you ever admit they were mercenaries or not, was a "libertarian military" is nonsense. 

Now, as to your contendion (in the last sentence in your post above) that I have been in any way or to any degree "defending them" in this exchange, please go back and find any language of mine where I did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 16, 2015, 01:43:02 pm

https://pitchforkpatriots.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/al-sharpton-you-are-a-waste-of-human-flesh/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 16, 2015, 04:19:28 pm

Quote from: packrat on April 16, 2015, 01:43:02 pm

https://pitchforkpatriots.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/al-sharpton-you-are-a-waste-of-human-flesh/

I don't know... if you are saying Sharpton is a waste of human flesh, haven't you assumed that he IS human flesh in the first place?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 04:43:47 pm

Wow. You guys are really treading on Oddo's cape.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 16, 2015, 04:48:21 pm

 Why I am ashamed to be AMERICAN ...


 electricity


 railroads


 motion pictures


 automobiles


 aircraft


 radio


 television


 saulk vaccine


 Taking an area of land to feed the world


 FIGHTING for what is RIGHT


 Computer


 The 1955 Chevrolet


 Putting a man on the moon


 Space Shuttle Endeavor


 Internet


 You


 


 


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 16, 2015, 05:05:53 pm

 The overwhelming SINS of the AMERICAN Culture can never be errassed from this planet ...


 and there ain't one motherfucker on this planet that wants it that way.


 When you're dealing the deck that everyone wants from your hand.


 You have to ask yourself ... what is it that you are doing so right that everyone wants a piece of that action ?


 You also have to ask yourself this question ...


 Why are the people you built selling you out?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 16, 2015, 05:11:05 pm

 What AMERICA needs is us ...


 ask yourself

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 16, 2015, 07:54:18 pm

Hmmmmmmm, one little young parent controlled human flesh boy should consider the path of Jonathan Krohn before he wets his pants.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 16, 2015, 08:00:16 pm

It looks like Scott Walker has the government unions on the run.  Homo must be so proud.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 16, 2015, 08:55:30 pm

If he could do what he did in the public sector unions in Wisconsin for the federal government imagine how much money the tax payers could be saved.  Heck might even go a long way towards balancing the budget.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 09:14:24 pm

ABC 7 says the SEIU has spent 24 million on this campaign to raise the minimum wage to 15/hr. Imagine all the other unions pushing for double their wages. I mean if the unskilled are worth 15/hr what are skilled workers worth? This economy is way out of whack. Another thing, imagine where SEIU is getting this 24 Million to finance this escapade. If this becomes law imagine what the other sectors of the economy will do such as housing, food and store prices.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 16, 2015, 09:19:33 pm

The other unions won't be pushing to double their wages, but they would get a pretty big bump.  Many union contract contain a clause in which if the minimum wage goes up, union wages go up.  If they don't have that clause, it still gives them great leverage in the next contract negotiation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 16, 2015, 09:36:42 pm

It is not just contract negotiations, but simple economics.  If business is forced to pay a minimum wage which exceeds the value a low-skilled worker provides to the business, it does not hire that person at all, but it may well either automate OR hire higher-skilled workers at a much higher wage who offer the business a value in excess of (or at least equal to) the wage paid.

Minumum wage laws do not help the low skilled workers, but instead hurt them.  Minimum wage laws do, however, raise the wages paid to those with job skills making them more valuable to employers than the new minimum wage.  It ends up increasing the demad for those workers and driving up their wages, whether they are union workers who work under a contract is irrelevant to the picture.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 10:05:17 pm

If wages go up prices for goods and service go up. That fuels inflation. And that's not good for an economy on the brink of a depression. There would be demands for wage and price controls. Imagine Obumma invoking the Taft Hartley Act. Imagine what that would do to our balance of trade.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 16, 2015, 10:36:32 pm

Image a world in which isfullofit had a brain or mr. **** retarded actually having a real world example of his crackpot theories.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 10:39:08 pm

Imagine a union dumbo having a real thought

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 16, 2015, 10:42:42 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 10:05:17 pm

If wages go up prices for goods and service go up.

Not necesarily.  There is no real cause and effect link there.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 10:05:17 pm

That fuels inflation.

Not necesarily.  There is no real cause and effect link there.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 10:05:17 pm

And that's not good for an economy on the brink of a depression.

Well, inflation, in and of itself, is seldom "good for an economy," but it is far less harmful to an economy on the brink of a depression than during other economic conditions.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 10:05:17 pm

There would be demands for wage and price controls.

A minimum wage law IS a wage control.  And there is no reason to believe a minimum wage increase would result in any inflation, let alone enough to bring demands for price controls.  In reality, an quick increase to $15/hour would likely hurt the economy so much that overall wages would fall and there would be no call for even more controls on wages, particularly controls on wage increases.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 16, 2015, 10:05:17 pm

Imagine Obumma invoking the Taft Hartley Act. Imagine what that would do to our balance of trade.

Uh... do have any idea what the Taft-Hartley Act does?  It does not involve international trade.  It instead restricts organized labor.  It is an ANTI-labor bill.  I will not be invoked by Obama, at least not to any meaningful degree which would amount to anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 16, 2015, 10:45:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 16, 2015, 10:36:32 pm

Image a world in which isfullofit had a brain or mr. **** retarded actually having a real world example of his crackpot theories.

Hey, otto, are you still looking for an example of where I in any way was defending Blackwater?

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 14, 2015, 11:41:30 pm

Now, as to your contendion (in the last sentence in your post above) that I have been in any way or to any degree "defending them" in this exchange, please go back and find any language of mine where I did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 16, 2015, 10:52:47 pm

Apparently several moronic c-baggers from out of state have not read the current polling.

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/ (https://law.marquette.edu/poll/)


Enjoy your little wet dream fellas

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 16, 2015, 11:14:00 pm

My first choice is Ted Cruz.  Second is a toss up between Scott Walker and Rand Paul.  Third Marco Rubio. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 17, 2015, 04:00:49 am

 Medicine


 Electronics


 Caterpillars


 The microwave oven you toast your tasties in ...


 everything is getting better including automobiles and aircraft ...


 except for this one idea that is the crux of the matter ...


 the economist.


 What's the PISSER is HUMANS should have this under control by now ...


 AND WE DON'T ???


 What the **** does that say about us as a species ?


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 17, 2015, 07:11:47 am

These very low skilled food workers, not all of them but probably the vast majority who didn't finish High School and are barely able to even do a food service job that are pushing for this higher wage don't understand it, but they are pushing to lose their jobs. If I'm the owner of, say, a McDonalds and I am forced to pay $15/hr for a worker, I am going to be looking for the 'cream of the crop' and hire them. That means those who have never held a job, have 'not so fantastic' a job record or couldn't pass a aptitude test to save their lives would be on the far outside looking in. So they are fighting to lose their jobs. Not everyone at McDonalds is a slouch, not by a long stretch. But there are too many that are and they'll lose out....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 17, 2015, 09:58:12 am

Having worked quite closely with McDonalds and other fast food companies in a former life, I can add a little.

McDonalds is already hiring the "cream of the crop".  Unfortunately, there is not enough cream that wants to work for them, and they also have to hire a lot of crap.  This has been a problem for the industry for decades, and is getting worse.  Everyone has had a policy of eliminating jobs whenever possible at the store level, for no other reason than then just can't get enough warm bodies willing to work at all.  The company I worked for (Griffith Labs in Alsip) made a living not only providing product to McDonalds and others, but providing it in a way that was as labor free for the store as possible.  They have already eliminated or automated all the jobs that they can without undergoing additional expense.

An increase in wages for their workers will merely force them to eliminate more jobs, by bringing in even more ready-to-serve items.  Salads are not made at many stores.  They come in prepackaged.  Hamburgers are cooked in a mechanized assembly line, and workers do little more than add ketchup, mustard and other condiments.  In many stores, even this is automated, and more will now come.

If they actually get that minimum wage increase, soon your McDonalds store will serve food that is "untouched by human hands".  Not necessarily a bad thing, except for the million or so former employees that can't find any kind of job.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2015, 11:01:07 am

This isn't just about McDonalds and other fast food giants this is also about hospital workers, orderlies care givers, and even baby sitters. Even your local lawn mower kid or snow shoveler.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 17, 2015, 11:05:28 am

The funny thing, when I hear a liberal crying for $15 an hour min wage, I wonder if they're also ready to pay $10 for a Big Mac. I doubt it..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 17, 2015, 12:29:41 pm

You miss the point.  Liberals don't eat Big Macs.  Nor do they care if people have to pay extra if Walmart goes out of business.  they don't go there themselves.

Now if veggieburgers went up in price..............

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 17, 2015, 01:24:03 pm

Yep, you're right.. What was I thinking..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2015, 05:45:53 pm

Yep, foolish thinking...slap..slap (slaps self in face)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2015, 05:51:00 pm

Liberals eat what they desire.

And nobody would cry if Walmart disappeared as Costco already fills the moronic c-bagger void.

Next.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2015, 05:53:53 pm

10 buck Big Mac?

Having a Bob Dole moment nobody wants to remember are we...

I bet pizzas double in price too.


**** morons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2015, 05:59:06 pm

Attention religious fanatic

So contemptuous is your christian heart, may the raft of your god fall upon you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 17, 2015, 06:05:06 pm

Davepebart

No mention of Scottie (I'm a college dropout) governor and losing my state by 12% points to Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Rudham Clinton.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 17, 2015, 06:06:35 pm

Isn't it amazing that Homo is worried about workers make, but is perfectly willing to cause Walmart to go under, putting a hundred thousand people totally out of work?

Can you say Hypocrite?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 17, 2015, 06:09:19 pm

Quote from: davep on April 17, 2015, 06:06:35 pm

Isn't it amazing that Homo is worried about workers make, but is perfectly willing to cause Walmart to go under, putting a hundred thousand people totally out of work?

Can you say Hypocrite?

We could, but once we say "otto," wouldn't adding "hypocrite" after it be redundant?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 17, 2015, 06:15:23 pm

"So contemptuous is your christian heart, may the raft of your god fall upon you."

raft as in life raft? Its no wonder morons like you drop out of college. They just don't spell like you do, do they? What a torture for a professor to have to read a paper you turn in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 17, 2015, 08:12:10 pm

Leave Homo alone.  He is the result of the liberal education system of the People's Republic of Madison.  In fact, he was named littledicktorian.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 18, 2015, 12:01:51 am

Otts, tipping the bottle a little early there, ain't ya? Wasted and stupid is no way to go through life, dude....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 18, 2015, 11:10:43 am

In Homo's case, sober and stupid is his only other option, and that would be even worse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 18, 2015, 11:35:47 am

At one time I thought he was trying to be funny. Now I think what a dumb ass!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2015, 07:59:21 pm

 Any swinging dick on this planet that is paid more money spends more money.


 Thats just the honest to goddamn motherfucking truth.


 Your parents came out of a society that built for more productivity and was paid more wages.


 In other word's is your parents did more ... they got paid more ...


 which lead to ... YOU!


 However somebody jacked your ass up along the line ...


 somebody figured out a way to jack your ass as a worker and send the MONEY back to them while you cheered them on while seeing your WAGES never INCREASE.


 ARE YOU IN DEBT TO WHAT BANK ?


 Honest to GOD motherfucker ... Shouldn't you have every thing you ever worked for to be PAID OFF by now ?


 WHY does it just keep on going on ?


 YOU ARE THE SUCKER !!


 YOU ARE THE AMERICAN.
 
 You know what's scary ... ?


 You just keep putting up with it without fighting back.


 I don't know what political party you adhere to and frankly I don't give a **** ...


 what I do know is this ...


 you mother fuckers are all on the same page.


 The only thing that is stopping you from running this GOVERMENT that you believe in is your own ego's.


 If you could get past that ...


 all of you might have a GOVERNMENT that you could all really enjoy.


 A GOVERNMENT that is built around YOUR needs.


 Remember  ... YOUR NEEDS may conflict with OTHER'S NEEDS.


 Therein lies the concept of GOVERNMENT.


 It's worked so far.


 JJ's got a CHICAGO BEARS TEAM that he doesn't know what to do with.  :P

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 19, 2015, 08:29:55 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2015, 07:59:21 pm

 Your parents came out of a society that built for more productivity and was paid more wages.

Shouldn't you have every thing you ever worked for to be PAID OFF by now ?

My father worked at the First National Bank of Chicago.  They hired him in 1926 as a 13 tear old page boy, and when the depression hit, they kept him on throughout.  In fact, they never laid off a single employee through the entire depression.

He became engaged to my mother in 1931.  They were engaged for 6 years, finally marrying in 1937.  They were engaged so long because the Bank had a rule.  An employee couldn't get married until they made a minimum of 25 dollars per week.  If you married before that, you would be fired.

If you were seen at a race track or a casino (at that time, only in Las Vegas), you would be fired.

If you borrowed money from a Loan Company, you would be fired.

He worked there until he died in 1967.

My mother still draws his pension.  She will be 106 on August 1.

The times you are talking about, never existed, except in your imagination.  They certainly were different.  They might have been better.  But they never were as you described.

By the way, everything I worked for has been paid off.  That is because when I made more money, I didn't spend more money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 19, 2015, 08:52:25 pm

 

Quote from: davep on April 19, 2015, 08:29:55 pm

My father worked at the First National Bank of Chicago.  They hired him in 1926 as a 13 tear old page boy, and when the depression hit, they kept him on throughout.  In fact, they never laid off a single employee through the entire depression.

He became engaged to my mother in 1931.  They were engaged for 6 years, finally marrying in 1937.  They were engaged so long because the Bank had a rule.  An employee couldn't get married until they made a minimum of 25 dollars per week.  If you married before that, you would be fired.

If you were seen at a race track or a casino (at that time, only in Las Vegas), you would be fired.

If you borrowed money from a Loan Company, you would be fired.

He worked there until he died in 1967.

My mother still draws his pension.  She will be 106 on August 1.

The times you are talking about, never existed, except in your imagination.  They certainly were different.  They might have been better.  But they never were as you described.

By the way, everything I worked for has been paid off.  That is because when I made more money, I didn't spend more money.

 You made more money when there was more money to be made.


 What you will never understand is that things have changed from your working days to our working days.


 You cannot apply the thinking of the 1960's to 2015.


 DAVE ...Happy Birthday to your Mom at 106 !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 19, 2015, 09:12:48 pm

Thanks for the Happy Birthday, Jackie.  I will pass it on to her.

We could apply 1960's thinking today if we also applied 1960's work ethic today.  Too many people think that the Government should give them the things they are too foolish to work for.

You seem to be worried that your employer owns you.  That is nothing compared to the extent that the Government will own you if you rely on it to give you everything you think you need.

Has Elisabeth Warren helped us as consumers?  if so, Elisabeth owns us.  I would rather be free.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 19, 2015, 09:53:22 pm

AMEN!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2015, 06:55:20 am

It's a good thing America's working men and women have Hilary Clinton to fight for us.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 20, 2015, 01:20:36 pm

Mark's Market Blog
4-19-15: Greece, yet again.
by Mark Lawrence
Markets dropped at the end of the week on news that Greece is still Greece. Default now looks inevitable; what's next after that is completely unclear, but almost certainly indecisive and chaotic. Markets hate indecisive and chaotic. Expect a rough few weeks in the market.
 
S&P 500 October 20 2014 to April 17 2015
China's stock market, which impressively is even less regulated than our Las Vegas casino-style market, is parabolically shooting for the moon. Looks like a bubble? Like Japan just before 1990, the US just before 2000? Any good bubble, like any good ponzi scheme, needs a next sucker. In China the "next sucker," represented by new investor accounts, is just over 67% to have less than a 9th grade education. And they now account for over a third of the total money in the market. Meanwhile Chinese growth has completely stalled, electricity demand is going negative, their money supply is stagnant and their banks are sitting on a ton of bad loans just waiting to implode. This is going to be fun to watch. You know, from the other side of an ocean. I can't imagine that it will last much longer - perhaps the rest of this year, perhaps less. And then? Lots of Chinese 9th graders jumping out of windows. Fortunately I believe most of them live in 1 story structures, so the death rate should be relatively low.


China's exports fell last month by 15% year on year, even though the dollar keeps rising making them cheaper. Imports fell by 13% in spite of the best efforts of China's youth. Power generation is showing zero growth. All the tea leaves say China is entering their version of a recession. Fast and Furious 7 opened in China this weekend, resulting in a crash of several expensive cars including a red Ferrari and a green Lamborghini. The Beijing police reported the crash as involving green and red "small passenger-carrying vehicles." The drivers were almost certainly 20- something children of government officials. Crashing exports, crashing economy, crashing Italian cars.


For a couple years now I've been writing about the affects of China and India having a huge surplus of men. That affect is growing quickly now and will continue to grow for the next 40+ years. Both India and China are going to have 30% to 45% of their young men unable to find wives. This is new, uncharted social territory and is going to bring many changes.


Everyone now expects Greece to default - Greece does, Germany does and the UK does. Greek bonds are dropping quickly in price reflecting the new views of their risk. After the default, likely about May 12, there will be almost certainly be capital controls to keep money from fleeing Greece. Then there will be several months of nail biting while we see if Greece can actually both default and stay in the Euro. S&P downgraded Greek debt from B- (junk) to CCC (deeper into junk). Super Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, said it was "urgent" to resolve the dispute between Greece and its creditors. A default, he said, would send the global economy into "uncharted waters" and the extent of the possible damage would be hard to estimate. He told reporters that he did not want to even contemplate the chance of a default. This is more than a little hyperbolic; there have been 303 sovereign defaults in the last 200 years, so there's nothing unthinkable or even all that unusual about a 304th.

European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor said, "Many streets in our European cities have become hunting grounds for Jews, and some Jews are now forced to avoid community institutions and synagogues as a result. Some are choosing to leave the continent, many are afraid to walk the streets and even more are retreating behind high walls and barbed wire. This has become the new reality of Jewish life in Europe. The fight must be taken to the attackers instead of allowing it to affect the everyday lives of the victims. We need to move from defense to offense." Armed attacks doubled to 68 in comparison to 2013 and a further 101 cases without weapons were recorded. Arson tripled, and there were 412 cases of vandalism. Of those, 114 were attacks on synagogues — and increase of 70%. A further 118 cemeteries and memorial sites, and 171 private properties were vandalized in anti-Jewish attacks."

Russia says they will sell S-300 air defense systems to Iran. These missiles are excellent against F-15, F-16 and F-18 fighters, which means after Iran takes delivery late this year Israel doesn't have planes that can reliably penetrate Iranian air space. Such defenses can be neutralized only by stealth fighters, and we haven't sold Israel any of those. So if Israel wants to strike Iran without US backing they're going to have to do it in about the next five months or so, or wait for a US president who is less willing to talk for years on end.

Hillary announced her candidacy for the president. She says she wants to be the champion of every day americans. She who took in millions in donations from foreign countries while secretary of state; who charges $300,000 to speak to college seniors who are, on average, $38,000 in debt; she who has made $300,000,000 in the last decade and had another $100,000,000 donated by foreign governments to her foundation. Yup. She understands every day americans. She would be 69 at her inauguration, the second oldest president ever elected after only Reagan. She will not be elected. Look at the last 100 years of presidencies. Presidencies go by generation. Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. were all of the same generation; then Bill was 20 years younger, matched by Bush Jr. Obama another 15 years younger. Our next president will be someone born after about 1958, and Hillary fails that rather badly. Her window closed when Obama was elected. Us old guys have trouble letting go, but the torch has been passed and it's never passed back. Besides, outside of the media and die-hard liberals, is there anyone left who trusts her? None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the republican candidate, whoever that turns out to be. A similar math exercise showed that McCain had no chance against Obama, but that didn't mean Obama was great.

The Navy has a new toy - an electromagnetic rail gun that fires 45 pound projectiles at mach 7.5. The gun can fire ten times per minute and hit targets up to 100 miles away. At mach 7.5 the 100 mile journey takes about 90 seconds. It costs about $25,000 to fire an individual round. The Navy plans on mounting a rail gun on the new stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt. I dunno what this is all good for, but it's just too sexy for words.


California has announced that cities must consume 25% less water. This is huge: 38 million people will be severely inconvenienced with the net effect of saving about 1% of our total use. Meanwhile 40% of our water use goes directly or indirectly to cows. Perhaps it's time to allow that Wisconsin and Oregon have certain advantages over California in producing milk and cheese: it actually rains in those two states. But this is what governments do: screw up our water and airports so that they look like they're doing something. Building new outdoor swimming pools is now more or less illegal, even though swimming pools and the associated patios and decks lose less water to evaporation than the grass they replace. Meanwhile, governor Brown says he will not regulate alfalfa or almonds because "That's a big brother move."


Then end of an era? Boeing and Airbus are finding it very difficult to sell more 747s and A380s. Not a single one was sold last year, even at discounts of up to 50%, leaving Boeing with firm orders for only about 40 747s. And there are 82 perfectly functional 747s sitting in the desert which are available cheap. Meanwhile the slightly smaller 777 sold 283 least year giving Boeing a backlog of 547. The A380 now only sells to a single customer, Emirates; no one else has any interest. The biggest jumbo jets carry as many as 525 people, but are less fuel efficient on most routes than the newest two engine jets. At a very simple level more moving parts equals more friction and more fuel burned, and that math is starting to dominate. Moreover to continue to be competitive the planes must be updated with improved wings, composite materials and engines, and it's impossible to entertain multi-billion dollar engineering projects for a product that isn't selling. Boeing has only a 2.5 year backlog of 747 orders and that's after slowing production by 20% recently.

As Americans get wider, Southwest airline is trying to keep up with new seats that are 0.7" wider. I suppose this means the flight attendants have to get narrower.

In Back to the Future, Doc gets parts for his Delorean Time machine and brings them back 30 years to 1985. Including his little fusion reactor that lets him power the car with banana peels. That's this year - 2015 is 30 years ahead of 1985. We're not driving flying cars powered by kitchen trash yet. In fact we're in a limbo where it's unclear what we should drive. The Tesla has an 85kwh battery; if we imagine a 10 minute recharge we're talking about 2500 amps at 220 volts, enough to power as many as 1000 homes. More than en ought to light a car on fire from time to time. If you try to imagine charging stations all over the interstates which are handing all the interstate traffic you're talking about a very expensive complete rebuild of our electric grid, and adding perhaps a thousand power stations at a time when we're trying to close several hundred coal fired plants. Toyota's chief engineer says their calculations are this is simply not cost feasible, which is why Toyota continues to work on hydrogen fuel cells.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 20, 2015, 04:29:14 pm

 Packy whats brilliant is you and I.


 You do realize by now that this planet is way off the charts when it comes to sanity.


 Actually ... THE CHICAGO BEARS & GREEN BAY PACKERS are the only path to ...


 SANITY ... nobody's getting killed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 20, 2015, 05:23:48 pm

Quote from: packrat on April 20, 2015, 01:20:36 pm

Mark's Market Blog

The Navy has a new toy - an electromagnetic rail gun that fires 45 pound projectiles at mach 7.5. The gun can fire ten times per minute and hit targets up to 100 miles away. At mach 7.5 the 100 mile journey takes about 90 seconds. It costs about $25,000 to fire an individual round. The Navy plans on mounting a rail gun on the new stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt.

Wow.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 21, 2015, 09:22:32 am

The question is how in the world is targeting going to work on a dumb round like that?? 100miles? With what precision?? We're back to the big guns of the battleships, only advanced to 2015. Shoot and hope you hit the target. It's obviously being done to save $$ because it's still makes more sense if you want to really hit your target with any accuracy, you need some form of guidance to do that. This is simply a ultra fast, huge caliper rifle shot...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 21, 2015, 11:19:28 am

When it said "hit a target" 100 miles away. I took that as it has accuracy 100 miles away. Don't know..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 21, 2015, 11:51:18 am

A missle is 1.5 million. shell 25 grand. can pump out what, 10 a minute? travels over 5000 miles per hour, Navy is very confidant about accuracy, no powder magazine
or solid propellant, if your going to become senior ****-you-all-up, what's not to like? Just the blast wave at 5000 mph will turn most stuff to slurry. Hell, head strieght
west of japan for about 550 miles and start pumping shells at our best buddys, the north Koreans. Just think how many more shells you can carry.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2015, 04:46:50 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 21, 2015, 09:22:32 am

This is simply a ultra fast, huge caliper rifle shot...

"Simply"?

An ultra fast, huge caliber rifle shot that fires ten rounds a minute and is accurate to 100 miles sounds incredibly valuable to me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2015, 04:50:19 pm

It is a game changer.  One hit on any ship and it is sunk.

Plus not having to carry explosives around on your ship is a huge bonus. 

However I am thinking where it would really shine is the ability to pound the enemy on land from the sea.  I wonder how effective it would be against Iran's hardened nuclear sites? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 21, 2015, 05:50:02 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 21, 2015, 04:46:50 pm

"Simply"?

An ultra fast, huge caliber rifle shot that fires ten rounds a minute and is accurate to 100 miles sounds incredibly valuable to me.

Of course, the question is whether or not it IS accurate to 100 miles.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 21, 2015, 07:20:42 pm

Quote from: davep on April 21, 2015, 05:50:02 pm

Of course, the question is whether or not it IS accurate to 100 miles.

I have never heard of it before.  I suppose the question is also whether it exists.  I am for the sake of this discussion accepting what were were told about it at face value, and at face value this to me is very much a "Wow."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on April 21, 2015, 08:01:41 pm

don't a lot of anti-missile defense systems key off of heat signatures? Wouldn't this projectile be much cooler than a missile? Sounds like besides it being fast, acccurate and "cheap" it might be harder to detect.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 21, 2015, 08:12:27 pm

That right there is 22nd century tech. Period. The Navy is going to start stuffing them on everything. I hope.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2015, 08:53:45 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/us-navy-unveils-high-speed-rail-gun/

According to this video it is highly accurate.  So accurate in fact they can hit incoming missiles with it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 21, 2015, 09:03:16 pm

http://www.gizmag.com/us-navy-electromagnetic-railgun-sea-trials/31551/

A little more in depth look at it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 22, 2015, 05:01:24 am

cool ****!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 22, 2015, 11:29:41 am

Interesting fire control system that lets a dumb round hit anything with pinpoint accuracy that far away.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 22, 2015, 11:34:52 am

Wait till the Army gets a hold of it. ISIS P/U trucks wont stand a chance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 22, 2015, 03:41:58 pm

Tronics in the nose of the round. I wonder if the Navy would object to the 46 getting a couple with about 1000 rounds. And the reactor to power it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 22, 2015, 07:00:42 pm

Maybe we could all put in the good word for ya..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on April 22, 2015, 08:24:11 pm

Would you? Being a Bears fan, you know I'm brilliant and able to stand up to fantastic setbacks wlthout cracking under pressure .  The 46 would then mount one on a boat, er, ship, and do a great lakes tour, with a display of firepower on lake superior, around, oh, I dont know, Greenbay? A certain target comes to mind....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 22, 2015, 09:23:33 pm

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=perry18earthday

Some ammunition for oddo from his equally ignorant Earth Day. Shysters. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 22, 2015, 09:27:48 pm

packrat they just rolled all of that BS into one big ball and call it global warming now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2015, 10:34:22 pm

 I don't want to kill Green Bay or North Korea ... I want to trade with them.


 Green Bay could be difficult to trade with ... North Korea ... much easier.


 Once western technology is introduced to both of these backwater ports ...


 the people will come around as is due with Cuba.


 You don't want to be left out of the future no matter what dictators rule you.


 Dictators are always temporary.


 Ask Stalin and Hitler.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2015, 10:44:25 pm

 Do you know who I love ? The Koch brothers. Why? They do my thinking for me.


 I don't have to have a care in the world. What they think for me is also right for you.


 Why would you want to think for yourself when they do a better job of it for you?


 OBEY AND VOTE !!


 Remember ... you don't know what you're talking about ... but they do.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 22, 2015, 10:52:55 pm

 Now watch this ... this is really going to get interesting ...


 some motherfucker is going to post here that your ass being bought and sold ...


 is better then you thinking for yourself.


 It's going to happen. The fucker will come in like BEARBOT.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 23, 2015, 04:42:13 am

Quote from: Pekin on April 22, 2015, 09:27:48 pm

packrat they just rolled all of that BS into one big ball and call it global warming now.

Climate change

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 23, 2015, 06:44:10 am

I see Rands son has been cited for DUI and crashing a vehicle. What a dumb ass... Kids sure do stupid ****. Not like his father is running for local treasurer..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 23, 2015, 07:45:19 am

Yea, think it's going by the name 'Climate change' now. Global warming had too much of a negative connotation to it, stirred up the waters too much or some such bs.....whatever works to further their agenda....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2015, 08:00:54 am

I see Baal is still alive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 23, 2015, 02:48:07 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 23, 2015, 08:00:54 am

I see Baal is still alive.

 We must worship Baal. Baal feeds us and protects us.


 Baal has shown us what we must do ... a stick is used like this ...


 and struck on the head of the humans.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 23, 2015, 02:49:38 pm

 

Quote from: Sportster on April 23, 2015, 07:45:19 am

Yea, think it's going by the name 'Climate change' now. Global warming had too much of a negative connotation to it, stirred up the waters too much or some such bs.....whatever works to further their agenda....

 Sporty what the hell is the agenda?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 23, 2015, 03:07:25 pm

Control, JJ.....control....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 23, 2015, 03:21:57 pm

 

Quote from: Sportster on April 23, 2015, 03:07:25 pm

Control, JJ.....control....

 Like we haven't been all along.


 BTW ... aren't you supposed to be at work instead of goofing off?


 I have no choice but to report you to your SECTOR COMMANDER in DISTRICT 9.


 Sorry. It's what I'm paid for.  :(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 23, 2015, 03:34:42 pm

Every time they had a earth summit it snowed or was cold as hell.. so they had to change the name to climate change..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2015, 03:48:10 pm

And don't think they aren't happy with those snowy cold days. They would be happy if the Midwest glacier returned.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 23, 2015, 06:04:01 pm

I'll bet even your god is embarrassed by conservatives and their ignorance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 23, 2015, 06:31:01 pm

No warming for 18 years and counting...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 23, 2015, 06:44:35 pm

Hey, don't believe anything in the article linked to below either. Its just science.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/science/space/unforgettable-hubble-space-telescope-photos.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/science/space/unforgettable-hubble-space-telescope-photos.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0)

Peke

How flat is the earth?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 23, 2015, 07:12:56 pm

The earth is round.  It is you global warming zealots that say the science is settled when it most definitely is not that are most similar to the people who thought the earth was flat and anyone who said otherwise was blasphemous.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 23, 2015, 07:40:41 pm

500 years ago it was settled science that the earth was flat.  Not the "flat earthers" believe that mankind is causing the weather to warm, even as it fails to warm.

Those as ignorant as Homo don't worry about facts.  They believe what their religion tells them to believe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 23, 2015, 08:14:38 pm

Is it just me or does it look like the Obama administration is leaking information to the press to sink Hillary Clinton?

From what I have been seeing it looks like she is done.  But then she is a Clinton so maybe it won't stick.   But damn even if I was a Democrat I would be saying WTF?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 23, 2015, 08:19:23 pm

That's the way it looks Peke

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 23, 2015, 08:54:51 pm

Wednesday, April 22 is Earth Day. To hear the experts like Usher and Al Gore tell the story, the planet is in a miserable state. We're running out of our natural resources, we're overpopulating the globe and running out of room, the air that we breathe is becoming toxic, the oceans are rising and soon major coastal cities will be underwater, and the Earth is, of course, heating up, except when it is cooling down.

This is perhaps the single greatest misinformation campaign in world history. Virtually none of these claims are even close to the truth -- except for the fact that our climate is always changing as it has for hundreds of thousands of years.

Earth Day should be a day of joy and celebration that life on this bountiful planet is better than anytime in human history.

Since the first Earth Day back in the 1970s, the environmentalists -- those who worship the creation rather than the Creator have issued one false prediction of Armageddon after another and yet despite the fact that their batting average is zero, the media and our schools keep parroting their declinism as if they were oracles not shysters.

Here are the factual realities we should be celebrating on Earth Day.


1. Natural resources are more abundant and affordable today than ever before in history. ‎Short term (sometimes decades-long) the price of most natural resources -- from cocoa to cotton to coal -- is cheaper today in real terms than 50, 100, or 500 years ago. This has happened even as the world's population has nearly tripled. Technology has far outpaced depletion of the earth's resources.

2. Energy -- the master resource -- is super-abundant. Remember when people like Stanford biologist Paul R. Ehrlich warned nearly 50 years ago (and Barack Obama just three years ago) that we were running out of oil and gas? Today, thanks to fracking ushering in a new age of oil and gas, the United States has hundreds of years of petroleum at its disposal and at least an estimated 290 years of coal. Keep in mind, this may be a low-ball estimate; since 2000, the Energy Information Administration's estimates of recoverable reserves have actually increased by more than 7 percent.

We're not running out of energy, we are running into it.

3. Our air and water are cleaner. Since the late 1970s, pollutants in the air have plunged. Lead pollution plunged by more than 90 percent, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide by more than 50 percent, with ozone and nitrogen dioxide declining as well. This means that emissions per capita have declined even as the economy in terms of real GDP nearly tripled. By nearly every standard measure, it is much, much, much cleaner today in the United States than 50 or even 100 years ago. The air is so clean now that the EPA worries about carbon dioxide -- which isn't even a pollutant. ‎(And, by the way, carbon emissions are falling too, thanks to fracking.). One hundred years ago, about one in four deaths in the U.S. was due to contaminants in drinking water. But from 1971-2002, fewer than 3 people per year in the U.S. were documented to have died from water contamination.

4. There is no Malthusian nightmare of overpopulation. Birth rates have fallen by about  one-half around the world over the last 50 years. ‎ Developed countries are having too few kids, not too many. Even with a population of 7.3 billion people, average incomes, especially in poor countries, have surged over the last forty years. The number of people in abject poverty fell by almost one billion from 1981 to 2011, even as global population increased by more than 1.5 billion.

5. Global per capita food production is 40 percent higher today than as recently as 1950. In most nations the nutrition problem today is obesity -- too many calories consumed -- not hunger. The number of famines and related deaths over the last 100 years has fallen in half. More than 12 million lives on average were lost each decade from the 1920s-1960s to famine. Since then, fewer than 4 million lives on average per decade were lost. Tragically, these famines are often caused by political corruption -- not nature. Furthermore, the price of food has fallen steadily in the U.S. And most nations steadily for 200 years.

6. The rate of death and physical destruction from natural disasters or severe weather changes has plummeted over the last 50 to 100 years. Loss of life from hurricanes, floods, hurricanes, heat, droughts, and so on is at or near record lows. This is because we have much better advance warning systems, our infrastructure is much more durable, and we have inventions like air conditioning, to adapt to weather changes. ‎We are constantly discovering new ways to harness and even tame nature.

Earth Day should be a day of joy and celebration that life on this bountiful planet is better than anytime in human history.

The state of the planet has never been in such fine shape by almost every objective measure. The Chicken Littles are as wrong today as they were 50 years ago. This is very good news for those who believe that one of our primary missions as human beings is to make life better over time and to leave our planet better off for future generations.

Happy Earth Day.



Stephen Moore is a Fox News contributor. Moore is the Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, at The Heritage Foundation. Prior to joining Heritage he  wrote on the economy and public policy for The Wall Street Journal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 23, 2015, 09:22:34 pm

The earth is round. 

Wow, you can learn.


It is you global warming zealots that say the science is settled...

Yes, it is settled. Been settled for a while now.

when it most definitely is not that are most similar to the people who thought the earth was flat and anyone who said otherwise was blasphemous.

Science definitely had the world as round and the people who believed in science over christianty kept pushing it forward. You religious zealots and the uneducated shepple were the flat earthers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 23, 2015, 09:33:34 pm

500 years ago it was settled science that the earth was flat. 

500 years ago science had the world as round, you have heard of Copernicus even whatever bible belt you live in right? It was you christians who forced the world to be flat based on the political decisions made by conservative leaders who feared change. Just as now.

Not the "flat earthers" believe that mankind is causing the weather to warm, even as it fails to warm.

Last year was the hottest for the world in record history and this year is above it. History will not be kind to your climate deniers.

Those as ignorant as Homo don't worry about facts. 

You don't have facts on your side. Your side just tries to create doubt which is paid for by the oil & gas interests. If you had facts you would show them

They believe what their religion tells them to believe.

Science isn't based on beliefs. You know the difference right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 23, 2015, 09:46:23 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 23, 2015, 09:22:34 pm

The earth is round. 

Wow, you can learn.


It is you global warming zealots that say the science is settled...

Yes, it is settled. Been settled for a while now.

when it most definitely is not that are most similar to the people who thought the earth was flat and anyone who said otherwise was blasphemous.

Science definitely had the world as round and the people who believed in science over christianty kept pushing it forward. You religious zealots and the uneducated shepple were the flat earthers.

When one of their climate models is correct we can talk, until then it is total BS.  There are tons of warmer scientists that I call "hoaxers" who make a living from their "research" and not one of them has produced a climate model that has been correct.  Not one EVER!!!

Not even one time by accident.

I believe in proven science not unproven theories.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 23, 2015, 09:51:46 pm

Apparently irony escapes otto. 

You are the one following dogma on blind faith.  Except this time it is liberal dogma instead of religious dogma.

I try and keep an open mind to all possibilities.  Giving more credence to those that seem to have facts backing them up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 23, 2015, 10:26:48 pm

Choke on them flat earth society member.


http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_models_accuracy.html (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_models_accuracy.html)


http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm)


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/)


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/)

Now show your proof.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 23, 2015, 10:43:40 pm

Or this.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 23, 2015, 10:45:31 pm

That is wonderful Otto but none of them have been correct EVER! 

None of the places have flooded they said would flood.  The temperatures have not gone up like they predicted.  They just keep moving the goals posts as they continue to collect money to keep on "researching".

Al Gore made millions and all of his predictions based on "science" have been proven wrong.  Climate change dogma is no different then the religious dogma!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 23, 2015, 11:57:30 pm

otto, suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that everyone agreed with you and the alarmists that global warming is in fact real, is happening, will continue to happen, and that it is all, completely and total the cause of human activity.

What, if anything, would you propose if such agreement existed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 24, 2015, 05:02:23 am

When all the libs start riding bicycles and stop flying in jets, I'll listen (maybe)..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 24, 2015, 11:55:25 am

There ya go, Chif. Exactly. Peke, great article. We need to be thankful for what we've got.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 25, 2015, 09:32:30 am

Quote from: Pekin on April 23, 2015, 08:54:51 pm

Wednesday, April 22 is Earth Day. To hear the experts like Usher and Al Gore tell the story, the planet is in a miserable state. We're running out of our natural resources, we're overpopulating the globe and running out of room, the air that we breathe is becoming toxic, the oceans are rising and soon major coastal cities will be underwater, and the Earth is, of course, heating up, except when it is cooling down.

This is perhaps the single greatest misinformation campaign in world history. Virtually none of these claims are even close to the truth -- except for the fact that our climate is always changing as it has for hundreds of thousands of years.

Earth Day should be a day of joy and celebration that life on this bountiful planet is better than anytime in human history.

Since the first Earth Day back in the 1970s, the environmentalists -- those who worship the creation rather than the Creator have issued one false prediction of Armageddon after another and yet despite the fact that their batting average is zero, the media and our schools keep parroting their declinism as if they were oracles not shysters.

Here are the factual realities we should be celebrating on Earth Day.


1. Natural resources are more abundant and affordable today than ever before in history. ‎Short term (sometimes decades-long) the price of most natural resources -- from cocoa to cotton to coal -- is cheaper today in real terms than 50, 100, or 500 years ago. This has happened even as the world's population has nearly tripled. Technology has far outpaced depletion of the earth's resources.

2. Energy -- the master resource -- is super-abundant. Remember when people like Stanford biologist Paul R. Ehrlich warned nearly 50 years ago (and Barack Obama just three years ago) that we were running out of oil and gas? Today, thanks to fracking ushering in a new age of oil and gas, the United States has hundreds of years of petroleum at its disposal and at least an estimated 290 years of coal. Keep in mind, this may be a low-ball estimate; since 2000, the Energy Information Administration's estimates of recoverable reserves have actually increased by more than 7 percent.

We're not running out of energy, we are running into it.

3. Our air and water are cleaner. Since the late 1970s, pollutants in the air have plunged. Lead pollution plunged by more than 90 percent, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide by more than 50 percent, with ozone and nitrogen dioxide declining as well. This means that emissions per capita have declined even as the economy in terms of real GDP nearly tripled. By nearly every standard measure, it is much, much, much cleaner today in the United States than 50 or even 100 years ago. The air is so clean now that the EPA worries about carbon dioxide -- which isn't even a pollutant. ‎(And, by the way, carbon emissions are falling too, thanks to fracking.). One hundred years ago, about one in four deaths in the U.S. was due to contaminants in drinking water. But from 1971-2002, fewer than 3 people per year in the U.S. were documented to have died from water contamination.

4. There is no Malthusian nightmare of overpopulation. Birth rates have fallen by about  one-half around the world over the last 50 years. ‎ Developed countries are having too few kids, not too many. Even with a population of 7.3 billion people, average incomes, especially in poor countries, have surged over the last forty years. The number of people in abject poverty fell by almost one billion from 1981 to 2011, even as global population increased by more than 1.5 billion.

5. Global per capita food production is 40 percent higher today than as recently as 1950. In most nations the nutrition problem today is obesity -- too many calories consumed -- not hunger. The number of famines and related deaths over the last 100 years has fallen in half. More than 12 million lives on average were lost each decade from the 1920s-1960s to famine. Since then, fewer than 4 million lives on average per decade were lost. Tragically, these famines are often caused by political corruption -- not nature. Furthermore, the price of food has fallen steadily in the U.S. And most nations steadily for 200 years.

6. The rate of death and physical destruction from natural disasters or severe weather changes has plummeted over the last 50 to 100 years. Loss of life from hurricanes, floods, hurricanes, heat, droughts, and so on is at or near record lows. This is because we have much better advance warning systems, our infrastructure is much more durable, and we have inventions like air conditioning, to adapt to weather changes. ‎We are constantly discovering new ways to harness and even tame nature.

Earth Day should be a day of joy and celebration that life on this bountiful planet is better than anytime in human history.

The state of the planet has never been in such fine shape by almost every objective measure. The Chicken Littles are as wrong today as they were 50 years ago. This is very good news for those who believe that one of our primary missions as human beings is to make life better over time and to leave our planet better off for future generations.

Happy Earth Day.



Stephen Moore is a Fox News contributor. Moore is the Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, at The Heritage Foundation. Prior to joining Heritage he  wrote on the economy and public policy for The Wall Street Journal.

Too bad that those who need to read that never will.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 25, 2015, 06:03:49 pm

 What the **** FUEL are you going to use as humans to get your ASS off this PLANET and DO what you're supposed to do ?


 The rest of the UNIVERSE wants to know.


 No wonder they laugh at us.


 We're the backwater ... and we actually take pride in it.


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2Bc3lGG7c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2Bc3lGG7c)


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 26, 2015, 09:44:14 pm

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html?utm_source=Liberty_Headlines_Is_Giving_Your_Site_Free_Traffic_for_Now&AID=7236

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 26, 2015, 11:46:38 pm

Mark's Market Blog
4-26-15: China slows down?
by Mark Lawrence
Markets were stuck inside what's called a "flag pattern." That ended Friday, when the Nasdaq broke 5000, setting a new all time record. The S&P also set a new record. Good times are back. Meanwhile, US investors have pulled a net of $79 billion out of the market year to date including net outflows in 9 of the last 10 weeks. It's not US money propping up the market; as I've said several times, this is the Japanese and European carry trade.
 
S&P 500 October 27 2014 to April 24 2015

Both the Baltic Dry Index and the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index are at all time lows. This means there's a lot of ships out there that are sitting empty instead of hauling ore to China or containers from Asia to Europe or the US. It's considered a strong indicator that the world economy is not at all healthy. Drewry Maritime Research calculates that at current rates 85% of ships are unprofitable. Commodity prices continue to decline, which casts doubt on the validity of the current bull markets - if companies were doing all that well, they'd be buying more ores.


The IMF has issued a warning that "markets could be increasingly susceptible to episodes in which liquidity suddenly vanishes and volatility spikes." Soc Gen's global head of economics, Michala Marcussen, wrote "The IMF is not alone in issuing these warnings and it is no surprise that the IMF's Global Financial Stability Map showed an increase in risks." He goes on to say that the increase in correlation between various markets means there are "greater risks of contagion across asset classes or borders." In plain english, this means the faint hearted should be in cash or US government bonds, everyone else hold on to your butts, we may be going for Mr.Toad's wild ride later this year.

We're coming down to the wire on Greece. They're running out of cash quickly and their options are disappearing. The EU says Greece must cut pensions dramatically, privatize more government businesses and functions and liberalize laws for business. Syriza, Greece's new far left ruling party is not on board with any of this, they want to increase pensions and government employment. The EU believes Greece can default and/or leave the Euro with minimal side effects. I've been clear in my mind for some time that we're going to see a default, almost certainly by the end of May, capital controls, and an exit from the Euro. Pensions will be cut, not by lowering the amount of the check, but by lowering the value of the Drachma. So long as Greece stays in the Euro, they have no ability to adjust their wages and prices and there will be no solution short of a politically impossible massive bailout by the Germans.

Later this year China, Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore will start to live with an affect that Japan and southern Europe have lived with for some time: their working age population, those between 15 and 64, will start to shrink while the numbers of those over 65 will continue to grow. This leads to deflation, zero or negative growth, and in extreme cases political instability. Coupled with China's 20 million excess unmarriageable 20-something men, it looks like an interesting brew.

China is going to invest $46 billion in making a transportation corridor through Pakistan. Roads, trains, internet, oil pipeline. They want to get access to the Indian ocean and have an alternative to shipping oil past Singapore and through the south China sea, where they correctly forecast a strong likelihood of conflict. Japan has managed to navigate these waters with some success: they have had persistent problems with deflation, but their per-capita GDP has held constant or perhaps even gone up a bit. Southern Europe, of course, is a bunch of basket cases now looking forwards to massive political instability as parties on the far left and far right promise solutions. How will the Chinese do?


China warns the US that their estimate is N.Korea has 20 bombs (double the 10 I wrote about a couple weeks ago) and enough weapons grade uranium to make 20 more this year. Of course I think this means Iran and N.Korea have 10 each and will have 20 each soon. Johns Hopkins estimates that N.Korea could have up to 100 bombs within 5 years. U.S. Admiral William Gortney said the U.S. military believes North Korea has the ability to miniaturize a warhead and mount it on a ballistic missile. In 2009 William Forstchen wrote a very realistic book, One Second After, about a rogue nation sneaking three nuclear missiles on a barge up into Baja California, launching them at the US, then blowing them up at 250,000 feet. The blasts made no direct damage and went largely unnoticed; but the resulting EMPs shut the entire US down for over a year, resulting in over 100,000,00 deaths. Forstchen has testified several times before congress and is a popular speaker on the beltway now. The world is getting seriously scary.

China is trying to crack down on government corruption - mid level government officials who profit off public resources and have 20-something kids who crash Ferraris. They have a list of the 100 most wanted from their "Sky Net" operation. 40 of these 100 are currently living in the US along with their allegedly ill-gotten gains. Sadly, China, who has refused for years to extradite, now finds itself on the other end of that stick: Europe and the US are showing a profound lack of interest in rounding up their fugitives and returning the people and the money.


Europe is in crisis over immigration. Last week an Italian fishing boat carrying about 700 refugees sank, killing everyone. This raises the death toll to over 1300 in the last three weeks. What's at risk here? Europe is a puddle away from Africa, where war, famine, disease, overpopulation and oppressive governments are making lives miserable for roughly a billion people. Europe could make thinks much better, in the short run, by taking in a few hundred million of them, but then Europe would no longer be Europe. Far left liberals hate the thought of watching all that human suffering next door without doing something, preferably something we conservative see as intensely self-destructive. However it's become painfully clear that most of these immigrants fail rather badly to integrate themselves with a modern capitalist democracy; instead they bring joblessness, welfare dependence, hatred and violence with them. We're told frequently that if you improve the health and education and economic prospects for women they will have fewer children on their own. It's not working - all the wealth of Croesus Gates has proven unable to slow the overpowering tide of underfed and unhealthy babies. Even though great inroads are being made in eradicating diseases like malaria, every couple of years the estimates for future population of Africa go up. I know my solution: a bit of humanitarian aid and a lot of free contraceptives - I'd send sacks of rice, fresh water, doctors and nurses and drugs, and literally billions of condoms, IUDs and implants. People getting food and water would also get immunizations and birth control counseling, meaning I'd pretty much make an IUD a requirement for free food. It's very clear to me that continued uncontrolled breeding will destroy this planet, not to mention pleasant tiny little hamlets like Europe. What will Europe choose to do? I'm watching with great interest. The Roman empire was brought down by a combination of corruption, plague and immigration - the barbarians. Modern Europe already has the corruption. Europe is a laboratory that will foretell some possible futures for the US.

Last week I reported that Russia will deliver S-300 air defense rockets to Iran later this year, making Iran almost impossible to attack with conventional aircraft. Today VP Biden announced that the US will supply Israel with F-35 5th generation stealth fighters, which can attack and penetrate the S-300 rockets. Or so we're assured. We're back to cold war tactics where Russian and US arms dealers profit immensely from tensions in the world. Lockheed has to be very happy about this, as NATO allies have been very reluctant to commit to buying the $170m aircraft.


Puerto Rico is running out of money quickly. They have $70 billion in debt against 3.5 million people and a GDP of about $100m. They're trying to pass new taxes and are threatening that the government will be forced to shut down entirely by August without the additional tax revenue. Their bonds are trading above 20%, indicating that investors are concerned about a default.

JP Morgan Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., recently enacted a policy restricting the use of cash in selected markets; bans cash payments for credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans; and disallows the storage of "any cash or coins" in safe deposit boxes. Citigroup's Chief Economist Willem Buiter speaks of "the cost that the anonymity of currency presents to society." France's finance minister Michel Sapin puts much of the blame for the Charlie Hebdo murders on the assailants' ability to buy guns with cash. Shortly thereafter he announced a €1,000 cap on cash payments, down from €3,000. Such radical counter measures were necessary, he said, to "fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy." Guillermo de la Dehesa, a Spanish economist, international advisor to Banco Santander and Goldman Sachs, says, "Without cash, we would live in a much safer, less violent world with enhanced social cohesion, since the major incentive fueling all illegal activity [i.e. cash] would disappear." Corporations and governments agree: without cash they can keep much better track of you.

GM made $2.2b in the first quarter, mostly because cheap gas is helping sales of their big pickups and SUVs. The average Cadillac Escalade sells for $83,000, and you can just forget about rebates or any of that nonsense. The Texas assembly plant that makes Tahoes and Suburbans and Escalades is running 3 shifts, 24/7, and failing to keep up. What happens to GM when gas prices go up again? Don't worry, gas prices will stay low forever, of course, and GM will be profitable forever, of course.

Google is changing the world again with "Mobilegeddon." Starting April 21, web sites that are not "mobile friendly" are now ranked much lower in their search results. About 60% of online traffic is now from mobile, and they've decided that web pages will look good on phones or they won't be shown anymore. If you have a web site, Google has a test page that will tell you if your web site passes. Mine failed rather miserably, but it turns out it only took me about 90 minutes to fix it. My customers are all pretty much over 50, meaning if they want to see something on their phone they hand the phone to a kid and ask them to find it and read it to them, but Google doesn't care about any of that. I used code from here to test if my page was being viewed by a phone. If so I redirected you from "index.html" to "indexMobile.html." Then I edited that page until it looked good, which basically meant instead of the three columns I had been using on a proper screen I dropped down to one column. I also added phone links.

Three years ago scientists at Berkeley had a breakthrough in genetic editing - they could do it on fetuses with about 40% success. The biologists published a paper, then called for research in this field to stop before it got out of hand. Unsurprisingly, China kept working on it. They have announced success at editing the genomes of monkey fetuses.

Retired Navy Captain Jerry Hendrix makes the case that aircraft carriers are simply not suited to the future of naval warfare. "At $14 billion apiece, one of them can cost the equivalent of nearly an entire year’s shipbuilding budget. Each carrier holds the population of a small town. Americans are willing to risk their lives for important reasons, but they have also become increasingly averse to casualties." Beijing has also invested heavily in anti-ship cruise missiles and submarines that could target US aircraft carriers while evading the US Navy's Aegis Defense System. "For this reason, the modern carrier violates a core principle of war: Never introduce an element that you cannot afford to lose," Hendrix writes.

Boston College psychologist Peter Gray says that the helicoptering can smother a child's development. "My historical research on this question suggests that there's never really been a time or place in history, aside from times of slavery and intense child labor, when children have been less free than they are today in our society. This is a very, very serious issue." Recently a Maryland family let their kids walk home from parks alone. Child Protective Services charged the parents with "unsubstantiated child neglect" in March. Is the smothering a reaction to a dangerous world? Hardly. Statistics show how much safer things have gotten for kids in the US:
• The physical abuse of children fell by 55% from 1992 to 2011.
• Sexual abuse fell by 64% from 1992 to 2011.
• Abductions by strangers fell by 51% 1997 to 2012.
• Motor vehicle deaths for children under 13 years old fell by 43% in the past decade.
• In 1935, there were just under 450 deaths for every 100,000 kids between ages 1 and 4. Now there are 30 deaths per 100,000.
• More than 800 child pedestrians were killed from being hit by a car in 1993. There were fewer than 250 such deaths in 2013.
• Reports on missing persons under age 18 have gone down 40% from 1997 to 2014.

The Apple watch - an accessory for your iPhone - sold out initial production in the first few hours. Market researcher Carl Howe from Think Big Analytics estimates that Apple almost instantly sold more than 3 million units: 1.8 million Sports, 1.3 million Watches, and 40,000 Editions, for total revenue of $2 billion. He estimates their gross profit margin at 60%.

Men give directions like a GPS: go four lights, turn south. Women prefer landmarks: turn left at the cute little house with the white picket fence and roses. Apple has filed a patent on giving map directions based on landmarks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 27, 2015, 12:38:49 am

Hmm, cashless society....just right for the antichrist when he pops on scene....

If we were smart, which we're not, we'd be hardening our electronics against EMP's.

The only thing that's gonna save either the US or Europe is returning to biblical precepts, and that is a absolute fact. When man becomes god and ignores the real God things get ugly real fast.

Evidently the Obaba admin is trying to get on the 'good side' of a whole lot of angry Jewish supporters who are tired of his nonsense against Israel by getting them access to the F-35. Still doesn't mean he isn't pro Islam, anti Jew/Christian...

There's a whole lot of folks making a whole lotta money on the backs of cheap labor these days. Most companies aren't spending to raise wages or hire folks, but sitting on mountains of cash. Companies like Walmart can make billions and not give their workers raises or give them "raises" and then reduce their working hours. It's tough for workers nowadays. The economy doesn't grow and prosper from a handful of ultra rich people, but from workers who buy fridges and cars and houses and mowers, etc etc etc. I really really fear for the future of this land. So so much going so wrong in so many ways.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 01:01:49 pm

Quote

Apparently irony escapes otto. 

I understand irony and I understand that all the facts on Global Climate Change are on the side of science. All the faith is once again on the blind believer side.


But you have phaxnews contributor steve moore and his list of unrelated stuff. Most stuff that was shaped to a greater good by Democratic/Liberal policies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 27, 2015, 02:36:12 pm

Homo bases his beliefs on a faith that contradicts scientific facts, and then he laughs at others that show a more realistic faith.  Ain't Liberals cute?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 04:56:55 pm

Davepbart

Can you clarify that ramble? Maybe show me where the scientific community is first....


Great.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 05:05:15 pm

Wow, just wow. Say conservative hack writer...if you can't defend the premise of your book "Clinton Cash" on phaxnews...it's time to go back to breitless bart where you don't have to be a real writer.


WALLACE: Nine separate agencies and they point out there's no hard evidence, and you don't cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?
 
SCHWEIZER: Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal.

That plus the **** Canadian Government and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


Pete, your table is ready.


Simply pathetic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 05:26:43 pm

Can one of you conservative lapdogs explain the wingnut story that the mob beat up Senator Harry Reid?

Ya know, the one rush limpthought, beck, breitless Bart and Laura ingramed pushed from a powerline story.


That a guy made up....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 27, 2015, 05:29:07 pm

 All of you are being played.


 What's important is that if you banded together ...


 you'd run out of arguing with each other.


 This planet is in your hands to get to other planets.


 You'll get it ... believe me you don't have any **** choice.


 Or otherwise **** you're fuckin dead.


 Wasting time arguing amongst yourselves is dooming you all.


 There is no right or wrong in CHICAGO BEARS or GREEN BAY PACKERS.


 There is only the GAME PLAYED.


 What NFL FOOTBALL has done ... A Planet of TEAM Spirit !


 YOU ... are this close to landing on MARS ... and beyond.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 05:49:42 pm

Otto, Actually Harry's brother beat him up.   

Speaking of Harry Reid, I am guessing you had no problem with him lying about Mitt Romney not paying his taxes. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 05:54:18 pm

Or so the story goes.  Someone beat him up you don't get those injuries falling off a tread mill.

I just wish whoever did it had finished the job.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 05:56:02 pm

Oh wait now I read that it was a liberal lying about it being Harry's brother who beat him up trying to make conservatives look bad.  Imagine that.  A liberal lying to further his agenda...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 27, 2015, 05:56:24 pm

 Oh well just let them keep beating up on each other.


 No wonder this planet keeps being bypassed for sanity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 06:19:53 pm

So peke, you have no problem with the reporting (parroting) of a false story by your wingnuts?

Since, the plant story was the Mob, not Senator Harry Reid's brother.

Way to be wrong consistently to the lie.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 06:33:26 pm

Neither Beck or Rush ever claimed it was fact.  They both think the story of him having an accident while exercising seems fishy. 

Beck and his crew have joked about it being the mafia who beat him up.  I don't think Rush ever has.

Rush did relate the story he was told by the guy who claimed Larry Reid beat up Harry Reid but made it clear it had not been verified.  He said he was just passing on the story he was told.  It was a pretty convincing story.  Now I read it was a liberal who was trying to make conservative talk shows look bad. 

Harry Reid stated as a matter of fact that Romney had not paid his taxes in years even though he knew it was false.  He did this to help Obama get re-elected against Romney.  Harry Reid is an elected official and is proud of the fact he knowingly lied to the American people to further his agenda.   

Rush and Beck are talk shows hosts.  It is pretty evident to see which is worse.

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 06:35:36 pm

And peke for another falsehood put forward this week by the limpthought that our governor Scott walker is a victim of anything....

"His description of the investigation as a 'political witch hunt' is offensive when he knows that the investigation was authorized by a bipartisan group of judges and is directed by a Republican special prosecutor appointed at the request of a bipartisan group of district attorneys," [special prosecutor Francis] Schmitz's statement said.

He called Walker's comments inaccurate but didn't detail why.

"I invite the governor to join me in seeking judicial approval to lawfully release information now under seal which would be responsive to the allegations that have been made," his statement said. "Such information, when lawfully released, will show that these recent allegations are patently false."

In short, put up or shut up. Let us go public with what we've got, and then the public can assess whether you're innocent or guilty, or technically innocent but really sleazy. Walker, of course, is not interested in having more information released.


Our governor release anytime....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 06:45:52 pm

Maybe he will release them if Hillary ever produces those e-mails...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 06:46:32 pm

Peke

Limpthought is playing it hard...you swallowing?


Yes, yes you are....gladly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 06:50:00 pm

Peke

What are those emails going to show? Really what are you hoping against hope for?

That idiot howdy gowdy is wondering too. Can you help him?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 07:06:15 pm

I have no clue but there must have been something or she wouldn't have deleted them. 

Really all she had to do was turn them over to a neutral third party to look through and decide which ones were government related and should be released as is required by law.  Or better yet not set up a private server and use the .gov account.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 07:16:17 pm

All the government related emails should be on the email of other government personal.

All her private emails would not right.

So what are you asking for?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 07:25:15 pm

What about e-mails to people outside the US government like foreign government officials?  That is still related to state department business but would not be captured by US government servers.

What about e-mails to state department employees private e-mails that could have been kept on the Clinton private server as well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 07:29:48 pm

So she is communicating with foreign leaders in silence to her staff or the President she serves?

How would that be possible? How would she tell the foreign leaders to keep it private?

Just how would that be done?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 07:39:17 pm

I have no clue who she sent e-mails to that were state department business.  Certainly members of foreign governments that held the same position as hers I would assume.   I just know the law requires those e-mails be saved.  Hillary and her lawyers decided what should be saved all on their own.

That is not right.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on April 27, 2015, 08:06:39 pm

She has lived a life based on lies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2015, 08:42:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 06:19:53 pm

So peke, you have no problem with the reporting (parroting) of a false story by your wingnuts?

Since, the plant story was the Mob, not Senator Harry Reid's brother.

Way to be wrong consistently to the lie.

Who cares?  It is not something remotely likely to influence anyone's desision about anything, nor was it intended to, quite different from what Reid said about Romney not paying his taxes, a claim which Reid KNEW was bullshit, but which he intended to influence an election.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2015, 08:43:50 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 06:35:36 pm

.... In short, put up or shut up. Let us go public with what we've got, and then the public can assess whether you're innocent or guilty, or technically innocent but really sleazy. Walker, of course, is not interested in having more information released.

For a moment I thought otto was calling on Hilary to produce her email records... until I saw the reference to Walker.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2015, 08:44:55 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 06:50:00 pm

Peke

What are those emails going to show?

Whatever it might be, it is something Hilary quite clearly did not want anyone to see.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 09:23:59 pm

Sorry legal aid, you have less than nothing.


You have you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 09:27:35 pm

Again legal aid, all that you offer is more pathetic.

Any comment on emails from anyone will be met with a walker reference of stonewalling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 09:33:09 pm

How long will American's continue to pay for white conservative racist police and their supporters?


How many more bad cops will Americans allow to drag down entire police forces?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 27, 2015, 10:02:36 pm

If a cop is breaking the law he needs to be arrested and put on trial.

People looting and burning **** is **** stupid and does nothing to help the problem.  In fact it only reinforces the racists beliefs.

I am all for peaceful demonstrations but this is ridiculous.  The police should be either arresting these people or shooting them.

After all Obama and the rest of the Democrats say the government is the answer to everything.  Citizens do not need guns to protect themselves because the government can do it.  Well where is the government in Baltimore? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 10:20:15 pm

Peke

Are you stupid? Violence seems to solve a lot of problems according to conservatives. The war in Iraq, war in Syria or Iran or wherever colored or different religious people sre who do not do as conservatives demand. Violence worked for the KKK for years. Don rumsfedt called Iraqi looting while we guarded to oil ministry a natural reaction to freedom.

Police violence and your advocacy of it just reinforces a larger violent response.

You're a hypocrit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 27, 2015, 11:24:09 pm

Why not throw out all the laws and make crimes legal? Like if you don't have anything make it legal to steal whatever you want. Like if you aren't getting enough tang make **** on the subway legal. Lets just have some old fashioned anarchy which is rampant in Baltimore. And the mayor is even black there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 28, 2015, 09:17:09 am

Quote from: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 09:33:09 pm

How long will American's continue to pay for white conservative racist police and their supporters?


How many more bad cops will Americans allow to drag down entire police forces?

Who was the bad cop who did what bad things in Baltimore, and which of the looted or burned businesses was it that the bad cop owned?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 28, 2015, 10:48:58 am

We need more mothers like this: http://imgur.com/gallery/ZfUCxXO

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 28, 2015, 10:59:50 am

Nothing but thugs looting in Baltimore. How much longer do we pander to these **** idiots..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 11:59:38 am

I watched WGN last night. They were talking to some black attorney there who said there was a video of Gray getting shot in the back before he was put in the police van. Of course nobody here has heard about said video. And why hasn't the Baltimore mayor talked about this? If validated why hasn't the police officer been suspended? Why hasn't the AG been there?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: method on April 28, 2015, 12:12:07 pm

Nothing but idiots beating and using excessive force against citizens. when will we stop pandering those thugs?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 28, 2015, 12:32:44 pm

Quote from: otto105 on April 27, 2015, 09:33:09 pm

How long will American's continue to pay for white conservative racist police and their supporters?


How many more bad cops will Americans allow to drag down entire police forces?

The voting population in Baltimore is more than two thirds black.

The Mayor of Baltimore is Black.

The Chief of Police in Baltimore is Black.

Most of the Police Officers in Baltimore are Black or Latino.

Homo lives in his own little world, where facts and reason have no impact upon his beliefs.  Sounds like a religion to me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 28, 2015, 01:05:42 pm

Quote from: davep on April 28, 2015, 12:32:44 pm

The voting population in Baltimore is more than two thirds black.

The Mayor of Baltimore is Black.

The Chief of Police in Baltimore is Black.

Most of the Police Officers in Baltimore are Black or Latino.

Homo lives in his own little world, where facts and reason have no impact upon his beliefs.  Sounds like a religion to me.

You're talking sense and logic, you know you're just going to confuse him...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 28, 2015, 01:55:20 pm

Quote from: method on April 28, 2015, 12:12:07 pm

Nothing but idiots beating and using excessive force against citizens. when will we stop pandering those thugs?

What credible reports are there that the POLICE used excessive force in Baltimore?

If you want to complain about the arrest itself, I am right with you.  (It was, however, the logical consequence of the "war on drugs," a war we should end.) There was no legal basis for the arrest, and his family will presumably bring a successful civil rights action against the arresting officers and the police department over it, but the arrest would not appear to have caused the injury to his spinal cord, and at this point I have not heard anything indicating authorities have any idea who did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 04:39:52 pm

(It was, however, the logical consequence of the "war on drugs," a war we should end.)

That's a matter for debate. I wouldn't agree with legalizing drugs, period

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 28, 2015, 04:57:18 pm

They should be legalized for anyone over 21.  And Governments should not pay for drug rehab, nor should insurance policies be required to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 28, 2015, 05:01:08 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 04:39:52 pm

(It was, however, the logical consequence of the "war on drugs," a war we should end.)

That's a matter for debate. I wouldn't agree with legalizing drugs, period

I understand you would not agree with legalization, just as there were some in 1930 who opposed ending prohibition.

What I don't understand is how you can deny that the original arrest was a result of the "war on drugs."

That is exactly what brings about the foolishness of police thinking they should arrest anyone who immediately leaves the area after making eye contact with them, when there is no actual basis to believe the person was engaged in any criminal conduct... other than perhaps having drugs on them

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 05:10:46 pm

Screw the analysis with prohibition of alcohol. Street drugs are rampant in America despite being illegal. What happens if its legalized? The drug cartels would then be free to distribute drugs legally. Drug are already a medical problem, and you want to increase that? That would ruin America just as Obumma has. I am not in favor of that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 28, 2015, 05:15:31 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 05:10:46 pm

Screw the analysis with prohibition of alcohol. Street drugs are rampant in America despite being illegal. What happens if its legalized? The drug cartels would then be free to distribute drugs legally. Drug are already a medical problem, and you want to increase that? That would ruin America just as Obumma has. I am not in favor of that.

Do you mean the "analysis" or comparison?

Your response underscores the validity of the comparison and the problems of criminalization.

You acknowledge that criminalization is an abysmal failure ("Street drugs are rampant in America despite being illegal"), but then say you want to continue it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 05:17:13 pm

If its already a major problem why make it worse by legalizing it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 28, 2015, 05:35:56 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 05:17:13 pm

If its already a major problem why make it worse by legalizing it?

Ypur response makes clear that those who want access to it have no difficulty, just as was the case with prohibition, so legalization would not worsen problems associated with use, while it would entirely eliminate or dramatically reduce most of the problems associated with the criminalization, just as we saw with the end of prohibition.

Roughly half of those in prison in this country are there as a result of the criminalization of drugs, and it is very expensive to keep them in prison, and seriously disrupts families and lives.

Criminalization also encourages traditional police corruption in the form of bribery and also at least as seriously enclourages police and the courts to turn a blind eye at law enforcement's violation of search and seizure laws, essentially encouraging police to lie about the basis of their stops and arrests and to then lie in court about it.

Criminalization also empowers the drug cartels, funding a wide array of even more offensive criminal conduct, iincluding terrorism.

Legalization would not make the problems worse.  It would pretty much entirely eliminate many of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 28, 2015, 07:08:33 pm

They should be legalized for anyone over 21

Yep, agree..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 28, 2015, 07:11:36 pm

Why should someones life be ruined from a bad decision when they were 18 years old (pot). The war on drugs are a huge failure. Regulate the drugs and put the cartels out of business...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 28, 2015, 07:11:47 pm

Agreed as well.  Right now kids can get drugs fairly easy.  Alcohol not so much. 

Make it all legal and you would have a lot less kids abusing early in life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 28, 2015, 07:12:47 pm

Plus we could keep the real criminals in jail a lot longer since we wouldn't be wasting resources on somebody who was just holding a little weed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 28, 2015, 07:23:15 pm

Plus your putting kids in prison with hardened criminals... Hardly a good lesson..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on April 28, 2015, 07:29:07 pm

Kids can get alcohol and drugs if they want them.
Most kids caught with a little weed get of pretty easy.
Folks are breaking into houses and stealing to buy prescription drugs in addition to illegal drugs.
If you make drugs legal, you have to deal with all the dependency issues and how the addicts will pay for their drugs. Therein lies part of the problem, how do addicts pay for their drugs? They steal.

I expect if the figures were released, we spend a lot more money on alcohol related issues today than they spent before prohibition.
Think about all the folks killed by alcohol each year, those maimed due to accidents, all the families destroyed by alcohol. I expect the percentages were a lot lower before it was legalized.

One study I found from 2006 said excessive drinking cost the US over $200Billion in 2006 alone. I expect the cost is much higher than that.
http://www.cdc.gov/features/alcoholconsumption/

If you legalize drugs, I expect you increase those costs by a large margin

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 28, 2015, 07:39:45 pm

Making it illegal DOESN'T STOP IT if it is something a vast amount of people want to do.

They could make **** your wife illegal tomorrow and we would have a lot of criminals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 07:40:21 pm

Are you clowns saying you think **** and heroine should be legal or just weed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 28, 2015, 07:40:54 pm

I should say making a husband **** their own wife illegal.  I was not trying to be insulting. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 28, 2015, 07:43:27 pm

I would start with weed and see how it goes.  Which by the way is coming.

Weed will be legal in every state with in the next ten years is my guess.  It will go from needing a prescription to just legal. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 08:06:14 pm

Personally speaking I wouldn't want drug wacks on the street than I want alcololic wacks on the street. Impaired drivers kill people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 28, 2015, 08:36:00 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 05:10:46 pm

Screw the analysis with prohibition of alcohol. Street drugs are rampant in America despite being illegal. What happens if its legalized? The drug cartels would then be free to distribute drugs legally. Drug are already a medical problem, and you want to increase that? That would ruin America just as Obumma has. I am not in favor of that.

If the drugs were legal, there wouldn't BE any drug cartels.  They only exist because legal companies can not sell the product.  If nothing else, the prices would be so low that the cartels would be out of business.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 28, 2015, 08:44:34 pm

The common wisdom was that if prohibition was ended, alcoholism would go up.  It didn't.  There is no reason to think that drug use would go up if legalized.

Don't know if I qualify as a clown, but yes, I think all recreational drugs should be legalized.  At the same time, I would like to see driving under the influence a crime with severe penalties.

Drug addicts already steal to support their habit.  The FBI estimates that almost 80 % of shoplifting is done to support drug habits.  This would likely go down rather than up, as the prices go down.

The United States spends more than 100 billion dollars per year fighting drugs, and yet anyone that wishes could get all the drugs they wish in half an hour.  Well over half of our prisoners are there on drug related charges.  It would be different if we were winning the war, but in fact, we are having no effect on drug usage at all.  When the Netherlands legalized drugs, usage didn't even have an upwards blip.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 28, 2015, 09:50:30 pm

Police could target intoxicated drivers even more if they weren't wasting their time fighting the war on drugs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 28, 2015, 11:14:38 pm

In addition, when it comes down to it, if adults want to burn out their brains, the Government shouldn't try to stop them.  The Government forces us to do too much "for our own good".

They should, however come down hard on those who endanger others by driving while under the influence, both of alcohol and drugs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2015, 06:31:50 am

Quote from: davep on April 28, 2015, 08:44:34 pm

The FBI estimates that almost 80 % of shoplifting is done to support drug habits.

If the FBI ever actually came up with such a figure the person responsible for it was not thinking very clearly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2015, 06:31:59 am

Quote from: navigator on April 28, 2015, 07:29:07 pm

how do addicts pay for their drugs? They steal.

And when you make the drugs illegal you wildly increase their prices and end up with much more stealing in order to pay for them.  Legalization reduces crime, not just because possession, use and sale are no longer illegal, but becasue even the heavy user can pay for their drug use more easily than they can pay for their food use -- every one of us is addicted to food, but very few of us steal to support that habit.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 07:40:21 pm

Are you clowns saying you think **** and heroine should be legal or just weed?

I would legalize crack ****, crystal meth, and bleach, despite the harm consuming any of them might cause.

Oh, wait, bleach is already legal, even though drinking it would cause more harm than smoking crack

If you want to harm your body, it is YOUR body to harm -- have at it.

Of course I also would not give anyone any government assistance to keep themselves fed, clothed, housed, or to get themselves off drugs when they want to stop.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 28, 2015, 08:06:14 pm

Personally speaking I wouldn't want drug wacks on the street than I want alcololic wacks on the street. Impaired drivers kill people.

That's an excellent point, since making drug use illegal has done such a good job of assuring no one who uses drugs is ever out in public (on the street) or driving when they are impaired.

Making something illegal no more eliminates it or its use than making it legal necessarily increases its use.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 29, 2015, 07:03:18 am

We don't need to be making it easier for our kids to fry their brains. If anything, drug use should be more curtailed and made unavailable. The easy stuff is a gateway to the harder stuff. Nothing good comes from drug use. MUCH bad comes from drug use. Our small town is becoming overrun by wastoids on Meth. And like Wsh said, I don't want some idiot Spiccoli's running around wasted on drugs driving and half asleep from their brain being dulled by drugs. It's ridiculous this is even being discussed to legalize it! But that's what this society is coming to. We've lost all touch with morals and how to raise your kids right and hey, let's let everything be legal and 'see how it goes'.....crazy crazy....I've heard Colorado is already regretting legalizing the stuff....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on April 29, 2015, 08:06:57 am

I believe if drugs are legalized millions who wouldn't otherwise use would start.

The cartels shouldn't be underestimated by legalization because they can easily undercut the legal prices.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 29, 2015, 10:39:58 am

Quote from: davebear on April 29, 2015, 08:06:57 am

I believe if drugs are legalized millions who wouldn't otherwise use would start.

The cartels shouldn't be underestimated by legalization because they can easily undercut the legal prices.

An increase in usage didn't happen when prohibition was ended.

And very few people make a living running Canadian Club across our northern border.  Nor are there a lot of stills in Kentucky producing tons of moonshine.  And when the cartels cut prices on their products, there will no longer be any reason to stay in the business.

Of course, there will be substantial hardship on all the opium growers in Afghanistan and Iran that are controlled by Al Caida and other organizations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 29, 2015, 11:27:19 am

You guys are in the Minority of this country. The majority of adults in this country think pot should be legal. It's coming, like it or not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 29, 2015, 11:31:48 am

Maybe the majority of young people, who also seem to think gays should get married, but I don't believe the majority of people in this Country....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 29, 2015, 11:37:14 am

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/majority-of-americans-now-support-legal-pot-poll-says/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 29, 2015, 12:48:07 pm

Yea, the polls said same thing about gay marriage, but funny how they dare not let it come down to a vote. They'd lose badly in most places....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 29, 2015, 02:02:09 pm

The majority is not in favor of legalizing drugs, other than perhaps marijuana.  The discussion was not about what WILL be done, but about what SHOULD be done.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 29, 2015, 03:12:57 pm

I think pot should be legal, I am for sure not for the legalization of Meth. Meth plain and simply ruins people. Pot? May get a bag of Doritos ruined..

Many times you read of someone going into an alcoholic rage, not so with weed...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 05:08:31 pm

I think people of post Vietnam support the use of drugs. I've seen plenty of marriages ruined over drug use. I am not a fan. And I've seen it used in the workplace too which I am against. You are just opening the door to further ruin the American society. I say no. I'd like to know if there is some correlation of drug use and all these deformed children being born.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on April 29, 2015, 05:13:49 pm

All those deformed children?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2015, 05:41:28 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 05:08:31 pm

I've seen plenty of marriages ruined over drug use.

I am willing to bet that infidelity has ruined far more marriages than drug use.

Should infidelity be criminalized?

I would even bet more marriages have been ruined by a spouse being lazy and not wanting to work.  Should THAT also be criminalized?

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 05:08:31 pm

I am not a fan.

Good.

So don't use.  I am unaware of anyone likely to try to force you to do so.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 05:08:31 pm

And I've seen it used in the workplace too which I am against.

Employers can prohibit employees using and can drug screen to assure compliance, firing those who violate the policy, and you can limit the employers you work for to employers who have such a strict approach to drug use.  So the fact that you oppose use in the workplace is no reason to oppose legalization.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 05:08:31 pm

You are just opening the door to further ruin the American society.

Overeating and racism are far more harmful to American society, and I would not support making either illegal.  We have a nation which was supposedly based on the idea of allowing individual liberty to the maximum extent possible, even when that meant the individual was making decisions which were not good for their personal well-being... and you seem not to like that.  And if I am not wrong, YOU have quite regularly called for allowing individual freedom and opposed greater government regulation of a wide range of human behavior, including economic decisions and business conduct, but you seem to ignore that on this issue.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 05:08:31 pm

I'd like to know if there is some correlation of drug use and all these deformed children being born.

Research has been funded and completed, and no correlation found.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2015, 05:46:30 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 29, 2015, 07:03:18 am

We've lost all touch with morals and how to raise your kids right and hey....

Yeah, things were so much better when it was considered moral to own slaves or kill off the natives.

People who complain about morality today and either implicitly or sometimes even expressly compartively extol the morality of the nation 150 or more years ago seem to ignore a boatload of history.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2015, 05:55:16 pm

Quote from: davebear on April 29, 2015, 08:06:57 am

I believe if drugs are legalized millions who wouldn't otherwise use would start.

Would you genuinely smoke crack or meth or shoot up heroin if they were legal?  And if not, do you really think you are somehow better than those who would?

Quote from: davebear on April 29, 2015, 08:06:57 am

The cartels shouldn't be underestimated by legalization because they can easily undercut the legal prices.

The cartels are only involved because of the profit margins, margins which would be gone if it were legal, profit margins which would likely become quite small if people are allowed to grow their own in the back yard without concern it will get them sent to prison and lose their home.

Quote from: Sportster on April 29, 2015, 11:31:48 am

Maybe the majority of young people, who also seem to think gays should get married, but I don't believe the majority of people in this Country....

As others have posted, take a look at the polling data.  You are mistaken.

Quote from: chifaninva on April 29, 2015, 03:12:57 pm

I think pot should be legal, I am for sure not for the legalization of Meth. Meth plain and simply ruins people.

Shouldn't I be free to ruin my life if I wish?

Whose life it it?  MY life, or your's?  If our life belongs to the government and government should determine how we should or shouldn't live it, where does it stop?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 06:47:30 pm

If I were on the school board where you teach and you spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs I would have you fired.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 29, 2015, 07:08:51 pm

I understand the argument, no different than wearing a motorcycle helmet. I've seen first hand what meth does to people. Should people be allowed to do whatever to themselves? Seems like they should... Meth is terrible, plain and simple...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 29, 2015, 07:19:15 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 06:47:30 pm

If I were on the school board where you teach and you spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs I would have you fired.

I must have missed it.  Dis someone advocate that kids should be allowed to use drugs?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 29, 2015, 07:22:24 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on April 29, 2015, 07:08:51 pm

I understand the argument, no different than wearing a motorcycle helmet. I've seen first hand what meth does to people. Should people be allowed to do whatever to themselves? Seems like they should... Meth is terrible, plain and simple...

No adult of sound mind should be prohibited from doing something that physically harms only himself.  Adults should be allowed to decide what risks they want to take.  That includes decisions about whether or not to wear motorcycle helmets, wear seat belts, or use crack.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 29, 2015, 07:24:34 pm

When that crack addict is breaking into your house and looking for your cash for his next hit, I'm sure you'd change your mind about it harming only him.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 29, 2015, 07:29:41 pm

Addicts will be addicts.  They are going to use no matter the laws.

Kids get hooked because some other kid in the school yard gives them their first hit for free.  If they are legal and you are required to be 21 to buy them the odds of that happening are much less.

I can state as a kid I could not get alcohol easily.  I could get pot anytime I wanted.  Drug dealers don't care about your age, legal stores do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2015, 08:20:51 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 06:47:30 pm

If I were on the school board where you teach and you spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs I would have you fired.

Where is it that I "spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs"?

Where did I write ANYTHING about kids and drugs?

And where is it that I am teaching kids (since I would genuinely like to know)?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2015, 08:25:33 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 29, 2015, 07:24:34 pm

When that crack addict is breaking into your house and looking for your cash for his next hit, I'm sure you'd change your mind about it harming only him.....

Crack addicts are far more likely to need to resort to burglary or robbery or some other criminal behavior to support their drug habit if it is illegal, thereby pushing the price up wildly beyond the cost of production.  Over the long term, free market forces tend to generally push the retail price of products to be relatively close to the cost of production, meaning legal crack would also be very cheap crack, cheap enough most users would have little trouble supporting their habit by flipping bugers at McDonalds.

One of the strongest arguments for legalization is the massive reduction in related crime we would see.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on April 29, 2015, 08:40:26 pm

 What happens when your ass is out of a job?


 You spent your whole life bringing in drugs ...


 you spent your whole life stopping drugs from being brought in.


 If the whole thing becomes legal, what are your qualification skills after you are out of a job?


 Is there re-education for out of work workers ?


 After all ... nobody's in this for their health ... but money.


 If you can put a drug network into THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...


 how good would you be at putting anything into IRAN or RUSSIA or CHINA?


 How good would the people whose jobs were involved in intersecting you ...


 be good at helping you? Scary thought ain't it ?


 SEE : The French ship Normandie in New York Harbor, 1941.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 29, 2015, 08:42:38 pm

The drug cartels lose their money stream they lose their power and their power to create havoc.  Much like the crime syndicates that came to power during prohibition and lost it afterwards.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on April 30, 2015, 06:45:50 am

who would support all those crack heads that couldn't work any longer?
Who pays for their rehab?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 07:19:05 am

Quote from: navigator on April 30, 2015, 06:45:50 am

who would support all those crack heads that couldn't work any longer?
Who pays for their rehab?

Who said anyone would be given rehab?  If they want it, THEY can pay for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2015, 08:12:22 am

Humbug! Obamacare would be expanded....and who pays for that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on April 30, 2015, 09:39:17 am

Exactly

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2015, 10:24:39 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on April 29, 2015, 08:40:26 pm

 What happens when your ass is out of a job?


 You spent your whole life bringing in drugs ...


 you spent your whole life stopping drugs from being brought in.


 If the whole thing becomes legal, what are your qualification skills after you are out of a job?


 Is there re-education for out of work workers ?

When the Viet Nam war ended, I was out of a job.  I had spent my entire adult life in that activity, and had no skills for civilian life.  There was no re-education for me.

I got a job, and went on to do pretty well.

I could care less if people that have spent their entire life dealing in or fighting drugs lose their occupations.  There are millions of jobs that they can do that will be more productive for themselves and their country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2015, 10:28:05 am

We are talking about what SHOULD be done, not what will be done.  While we legalize drugs, we can eliminate Obamacare.

One way or another, the country and 99 percent of it's population would be much better off is we ended the worthless "war on crime".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 10:42:38 am

Couldn't disagree more. Drugs are a terrible blight on society. Those who are hooked on it are suffering addiction and their families suffer, their work if they have any suffers. Drugs are straight from the pit of hell, causing untold suffering. We should be fighting it harder and on more fronts instead of giving in to it!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2015, 10:53:12 am

Drugs are indeed a terrible thing.  I wish God had created a world where drugs didn't exist.

However, they DO exist.  And the policies that we have put into place not only do not reduce the evils of drugs, but they create untold additional evils.  We can't convince God to eliminate drugs, but we CAN change our counterproductive policies and actions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2015, 11:38:51 am

So the best thing to do is make them legal so everybody else suffers too because we don't and cant deal with the problem. That's where the failure is. Legalizing drugs is like throwing up your hands at the problem and saying I give up. It'll just make the problem worse in other ways. I just hate to see the next generation of youths captured by the drug plague.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:05:44 pm

Don't blame God for the evils we bring on ourselves. He said 'the soul that sinneth shall surely die'. We sin, we died. Along with the trouble we brought on ourselves by disobeying Him, we also caused grief to the rest of His creation on this planet.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:08:38 pm

Agreed, Wsh. Giving in is never the answer. Tougher punishments would help. Slapping your kids wrists when he does something bad just tells the kid you're not serious about stopping his behaviour....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2015, 12:12:23 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:05:44 pm

Don't blame God for the evils we bring on ourselves. He said 'the soul that sinneth shall surely die'. We sin, we died. Along with the trouble we brought on ourselves by disobeying Him, we also caused grief to the rest of His creation on this planet.

You need to read more closely.  I didn't blame God for the drug problem.  I merely mentioned that he created them, along with everything else, and it is up to us to decide what to do with them.

I am not advocating that we give up.  I am advocating that we not make things worse.  There is no one in America that couldn't get any drugs they want on a half hour's notice.  Our policies do damage in other areas while having no effect at all on drug usage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:17:18 pm

You're bringing God into it is implying He had something to do with it. Otherwise why would you interject that into the conversation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 30, 2015, 12:21:55 pm

having no effect at all on drug usage.

Yes, they have an effect, they make things worse.. Like you say, who the heck can't buy drugs now?

The one that kills me is the spike in heroin usage. It's gone crazy here. I personally know someone that just got out of rehab for a heroin addiction. My age (50's), I'm like, "what the **** were you thinking?"

I don't have the answers (neither do the lawmakers), but in my opinion, it makes no sense to keep pot illegal. Regulate it just like alcohol, including driving under the influence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2015, 12:23:21 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:17:18 pm

You're bringing God into it is implying He had something to do with it. Otherwise why would you interject that into the conversation?

He is saying God created ALL living things so He created the drugs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on April 30, 2015, 12:24:49 pm

we also caused grief to the rest of His creation on this planet.

From people smoking pot? Tell me how..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2015, 12:28:02 pm

I don't have the answers (neither do the lawmakers), but in my opinion, it makes no sense to keep pot illegal. Regulate it just like alcohol, including driving under the influence.

Tax the hell out of it, like they do alcohol and cigarettes. Last I heard they were trying to increase revenues.  ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on April 30, 2015, 12:29:37 pm

Thinning of the herd - makes the species stronger as a whole

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2015, 02:17:19 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:17:18 pm

You're bringing God into it is implying He had something to do with it. Otherwise why would you interject that into the conversation?

I interjected it because I thought you would be intelligent enough to read it without letting your prejudices enter into the conversation. 

God does not bring evil into the world.  But mankind can use neutral objects or actions in an evil way. 

Does that statement conflict with what you believe?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 03:23:04 pm

Quote

  God does not bring evil into the world.  But mankind can use neutral objects or actions in an evil way.   

That's accurate

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 04:14:21 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 30, 2015, 11:38:51 am

So the best thing to do is make them legal

Yes.

I deleted the rest of your post, not just because I did not agree with it, but because it displayed a troubling problem with reading comprehension and muddy thinking.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 04:16:54 pm

Quote from: davep on April 30, 2015, 02:17:19 pm

I interjected it because I thought you would be intelligent enough to read it without letting your prejudices enter into the conversation.

You fool...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 04:19:45 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:05:44 pm

Along with the trouble we brought on ourselves by disobeying Him, we also caused grief to the rest of His creation on this planet.

So where is it that the Bible says people should not use pot or heroin or meth or LSD?

How is anyone disobeying your god by using drugs?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 04:28:25 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:08:38 pm

Agreed, Wsh. Giving in is never the answer. Tougher punishments would help. Slapping your kids wrists when he does something bad just tells the kid you're not serious about stopping his behaviour....

Drug prosecution and punishment increased dramatically in the 1960's... and drug use increased dramatically right afterward.

Nixon declared a "war" on drugs about 1972... and drug use increased right afterward.

In the 1990's the federal government dramatically increased federal drug prosecutions, and states likewise followed... and drug use increased.

We as a society have a track record of increasing punishment and prosecutions and a track record of results showing increased drug use after the increased punishment.

In other words the prescription you recommend has been tried, found to not only have failed but to have been COUNTER-productive, and you call for more of it.

On this issue you sound remarkably like the liberal who looks at his aggressive wealth redistribution and sees it has not only failed to bring the results they claimed to have wanted, but that it has worsened the problem, and instead of recognizing the effort is a failure and counter-productive... and you call for more of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 04:33:39 pm

Sorry, not gonna bow to your ignorance. Neither will I agree that prosecuting drug crimes is wrong or a waste of time....nope, never....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 04:38:26 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 10:42:38 am

Couldn't disagree more. Drugs are a terrible blight on society. Those who are hooked on it are suffering addiction and their families suffer, their work if they have any suffers. Drugs are straight from the pit of hell, causing untold suffering. We should be fighting it harder and on more fronts instead of giving in to it!!!

Only after Sportster makes a religious reference does davep make a reference to a god.

Quote from: davep on April 30, 2015, 10:53:12 am

Drugs are indeed a terrible thing.  I wish God had created a world where drugs didn't exist.  However, they DO exist.  And the policies that we have put into place not only do not reduce the evils of drugs, but they create untold additional evils.  We can't convince God to eliminate drugs, but we CAN change our counterproductive policies and actions.

And once he does, Sportster goes nuts.

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 12:05:44 pm

Don't blame God for the evils we bring on ourselves. He said 'the soul that sinneth shall surely die'. We sin, we died. Along with the trouble we brought on ourselves by disobeying Him, we also caused grief to the rest of His creation on this planet.

It is about like a woman who wears a top cut so low her nipples are visible and who then complains when a man looks.

Once your comments (such as commenting about hell)  invite a particular response, it seems foolish to get upset when the response comes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2015, 04:41:08 pm

I am absolutely in favor of prosecuting drug crimes.  That isn't the issue.

Use and sale of recreational drugs by or to adults should not BE crimes, any more than the use or sale of alcohol to adults should be a crime.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 04:47:17 pm

We will have to agree to disagree. Nothing good comes from legalizing drugs.....we've already got enough wastoids wandering our streets....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on April 30, 2015, 04:49:20 pm

Man if you think cigarette taxes are high drug taxes ought to be ten times higher. And if a cop stops a car and the driver rolls the window and the cop smells pot that should be an automatic trip to jail for 30 days and an automatic fine of AT LEAST 2000

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 04:50:25 pm

Quote from: Sportster on April 30, 2015, 04:33:39 pm

Sorry, not gonna bow to your ignorance. Neither will I agree that prosecuting drug crimes is wrong or a waste of time....nope, never....

Reminds me of the immortal Carl Sandman, a Republican Congressman who was determined to defend Richard Nixon in the face of a tidal wave of evidence regarding Nixon's involvement in Watergate.  When someone asked Sandman if the evidence was changing his position, Sandman replied, "My mind is made up.  Don't confuse me with the facts."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 30, 2015, 05:39:41 pm

The taxes would be high but you can only make them so high as to still have legal drugs be cheaper then illegal drugs.  The reason for this is because if legal drugs are more expensive then illegal drugs you continue to have the problem with organized crime and gangs.

See New York where they have taxed cigarettes so high they have created a black market of untaxed cigarettes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 30, 2015, 05:48:34 pm

Sporty prohibition did not stop people from drinking.  Making drugs illegal does not stop people from using them.

A kid can get drugs from a classmate any time of the day right now.  If they were legal you would have to be 21 to get them.  The only way kids could get them was to steal them or find an adult to buy them for them.  Certainly that would happen like with alcohol but it would be minimal. 

I still remember in school all my friends who liked to smoke pot, take pills or drop acid always had what they wanted.  Those of us that just wanted to drink had a much harder time getting it.  I actually smoked pot a few times because I couldn't get alcohol.  It just was never really my thing.  Didn't care for the high.

The reason Marijuana is a gateway drug is because it gets kids involved with drug dealers.  Those drug dealers then offer up a free hit of this or that to get them hooked on something else.  If it is legal and they have to go to a store and show ID this does not happen. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 05:49:10 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 30, 2015, 05:39:41 pm

The taxes would be high but you can only make them so high as to still have legal drugs be cheaper then illegal drugs.  The reason for this is because if legal drugs are more expensive then illegal drugs you continue to have the problem with organized crime and gangs.

See New York where they have taxed cigarettes so high they have created a black market of untaxed cigarettes.

Of course... but why bother with the point when talking with people who oppose legalization in the first place? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 30, 2015, 06:07:09 pm

Because Wshful made a statement that the taxes needed to be high on them.  Which means he was at least coming off his original position a little bit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2015, 07:34:39 pm

christianity kills.


sporty Google Leelah Alcorn, and tell me those parents did the christian thing right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on April 30, 2015, 07:40:20 pm

Homo spotting with another arcane comment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on April 30, 2015, 07:56:40 pm

davepbart

Please go back indoors the outside world is scary.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 08:24:36 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 30, 2015, 06:07:09 pm

Because Wshful made a statement that the taxes needed to be high on them.  Which means he was at least coming off his original position a little bit.

Not really.  His comments make clear that if pot were legalized he would support virtually criminalizing it thru hgh taxes.  In other words, instead of seeing his comments as indicating he had comeoff his original position at all (since he still wants to keep it illegal), it simply shows he is a dishonest broker when presenting his own positions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 30, 2015, 08:39:54 pm

The fact is pot will be legalized nationwide in ten years or less no matter what he thinks.  I took his post as "if it is going to be legal it must be highly taxed".  It will be.  Maybe not as high as he would like though.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on April 30, 2015, 08:51:47 pm

Quote from: Pekin on April 30, 2015, 08:39:54 pm

The fact is pot will be legalized nationwide in ten years or less no matter what he thinks.  I took his post as "if it is going to be legal it must be highly taxed".  It will be.  Maybe not as high as he would like though.

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 30, 2015, 04:49:20 pm

Man if you think cigarette taxes are high drug taxes ought to be ten times higher. And if a cop stops a car and the driver rolls the window and the cop smells pot that should be an automatic trip to jail for 30 days and an automatic fine of AT LEAST 2000

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on April 30, 2015, 11:33:00 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/30/baltimore-police-hand-results-freddie-gray-probe-over-to-state-offer-few/

Hurt himself trying to make it as if the police hurt him so he could sue is my guess...

Just like the "gentle giant" who beat up the store owner and stole cigars and then attacked a police officer, this guy was a moron.  Probably thought if he hurt himself he could sue or use it as a bargaining tool to get out of going to jail.  The idiot did it to himself and how many people have been hurt, lost their business or their job do to it?  Unreal

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 01, 2015, 04:11:38 am

 Gentlemen,


 You could ALWAYS buy marijuana/cannabis/hemp if you had the TAX STAMP on it.

 That's a FACT.

 In 1914 **** and heroin were made illegal.

 As a result of that law, **** and heroin(TRADEMARKED by Bayer) were never seen

in this country again.
 
 Agents Seize 20 Tons of **** In Raid on Los Angeles Warehouse

By SETH MYDANS, Special to The New York TimesPublished: September 30, 1989


LOS ANGELES, Sept. 29— Breaking a $6 padlock on an unguarded warehouse in the San Fernando Valley, drug agents seized a cache of at least 20 tons of **** and more than $10 million in cash today in what they said was the biggest drug haul in history.Officials linked the drugs, whose wholesale value they estimated at $2 billion or more, with drug gangs operating out of Medellin and Cali in Colombia. They said three men were arrested and one was being sought.

WHATS WRONG ?



CRIME is a BUSINESS on BOTH sides of the LAW.

It keeps everyone occupied that plays in that field of endeavor.

MEANWHILE ... you just built a better table ... or a better integrated circuit.

And it has nothing to do with the LAW ... which occupy's so much of your TAX dollars.

This Planet has a universe to discover ...

the idea being to get everyone on the same page.

BTW ... getting back to EARTH ... the packers still suck. :D


 Great posts by all posters lately.  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on May 01, 2015, 05:18:28 am

The only issue I see with legalizing marijuana is that it is probably as easy to grow yourself once it is legalized.  There may be some initial market, but if it is legal I could see people keeping their own little potted planters of pot.  Everytime I see a bust on TV of a local pot farm the plants look to be thriving and tall.

Not like you are trying to grow orchids...   ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2015, 07:16:15 am

Quote from: Grizzlybear34 on May 01, 2015, 05:18:28 am

The only issue I see with legalizing marijuana is that it is probably as easy to grow yourself once it is legalized.  There may be some initial market, but if it is legal I could see people keeping their own little potted planters of pot.  Everytime I see a bust on TV of a local pot farm the plants look to be thriving and tall.

Not like you are trying to grow orchids...   ;)

How is that an "issue"?

That is one of the advantages which would come from legalization.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 08:59:10 am

No tax revenue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 01, 2015, 09:15:51 am

No tax revenue and no regulation, unless you regulate how much you could grow. Then again people can grow tobacco and they still buy cigs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 01, 2015, 10:37:20 am

Whoops peke

Looks like Freddie Gray had a little help getting hurt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 01, 2015, 10:55:12 am

Kris khristy


Your table is ready.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 11:10:21 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 01, 2015, 10:55:12 am

Kris khristy


Your table is ready.

How do you know. Your little birdies tell you that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 11:13:27 am

I heard one black attorney on WGN TV say he saw a video purporting Gray was shot in the back by police. That has been proven false by autopsy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 01, 2015, 11:43:46 am

They charged the cop that was driving with second degree murder, because they didn't strap him in... And now, the guy that was in the other half of the lock up that said Freddie was trying to hurt himself is backtracking like crazy..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 01, 2015, 12:41:37 pm

They did more than charge the driver.

I'll bet fat white limpthought us having meltdown today. So sad white cops can't kill a African-American kid....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 01, 2015, 01:00:54 pm

Wasn'tthinking

Two new bridgegate indictments and the guilty plea of David Wildstein.

Fat governor like our idiot governor stupid now share the fact that they both have people who worked for them in jail.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 01:14:40 pm

You are talking to the wrong person about Christie. All down easterners are crooked, Republican or Democrat. New Jersey is rampant with corruption, just like New York is. So lets not say corruption is solely a Christie/Republican thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 01, 2015, 01:38:33 pm

Homo finally got a Governor that does a good job, and he doesn't know how to deal with it.

Just think how proud he will be when his Governor becomes his President.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2015, 04:13:16 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 08:59:10 am

No tax revenue.

So how is no tax revenue an issue?  What difference does it make?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2015, 04:14:57 pm

Quote from: navigator on May 01, 2015, 09:15:51 am

No tax revenue and no regulation, unless you regulate how much you could grow. Then again people can grow tobacco and they still buy cigs.

Tobacco is not nearly as easy to grow, and will not grow at all in much (if not most) of the country.  Pot will grow almost anywhere.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 04:50:01 pm

Ya gotta have tax revenue. Ya cant make it free. Anything that should be banned should be taxed if its legal just like alcohol and cigarettes. And it should be taxed heavily to be regulated and  restrict usage. Why would you want it free....so everybody uses it like you probably do?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2015, 05:13:31 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 04:50:01 pm

Ya gotta have tax revenue. Ya can make it free. Anything that should be banned should be taxed if its legal just like alcohol and cigarettes. And it should be taxed heavily to be regulated and  restrict usage. Why would you want it free....so everybody uses it like you probably do?

Oh, Wshfl, you just keep addressing what you WISH to be true instead of dealing with reality.

Pot should not be banned.  Period.  So your argument that it should be taxed heavily because "Anything that should be banned should be taxed if its legal" makes no sense.

And your comment that I "probably" use pot makes even less sense.  Nothing I have posted suggests that I use, and I don't.

Additionally nothing I have posted has suggested that I "want it free."

And, by the way, let me repeat a few questions I asked you two days ago, and which you have ignored:

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 06:47:30 pm

If I were on the school board where you teach and you spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs I would have you fired.

Where is it that I "spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs"?

Where did I write ANYTHING about kids and drugs?

And where is it that I am teaching kids (since I would genuinely like to know)?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 06:58:57 pm

Oh, Wshfl, you just keep addressing what you WISH to be true instead of dealing with reality.

Screw your reality and the horse it rode in on

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 01, 2015, 07:04:52 pm

You will only be allowed to grow enough for personal use.  Probably have to buy a license that is renewed yearly to do so. 

Trust me the government always finds ways to get their sin tax money. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 07:10:59 pm

Where is it that I "spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs"?

Oh, if it free its free to everybody, no restrictions. You haven't advocated any restrictions

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 07:13:37 pm

You have always been against restrictions

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 01, 2015, 10:13:42 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 04:50:01 pm

Ya gotta have tax revenue. Ya cant make it free. Anything that should be banned should be taxed if its legal just like alcohol and cigarettes. And it should be taxed heavily to be regulated and  restrict usage. Why would you want it free....so everybody uses it like you probably do?

I assume you directed that at Jes, but you don't have to be a user to believe that recreational drugs should be legal.  I may be the only one in my generation that has never used any illegal recreational drug whatsoever, but I believe they should be legal.  and for that matter, although I have no problem taxing them, I don't much care one way or the other.

Every competent adult should be able to decide without the Government's help what to do with their own body.  The Government has a legitimate interest in trying to prevent acts that are likely to injure others, such as driving while under the influence, but beyond that, should stay out of our lives.  The same goes for those of us that have decided not to use them.  There is no legitimate reason to force others to abide by our personal decisions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 04:39:38 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 07:10:59 pm

Where is it that I "spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs"?

Oh, if it free its free to everybody, no restrictions. You haven't advocated any restrictions

I have never even suggested that it should be "free to everybody."  I have never even suggested that pot should be free to ANYbody.  And while I may not have advocated any restrictions, I also have not indicated support of NO restrictions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 08:59:38 am

Cop out...phony balony..your pants are on fire.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 09:52:04 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 08:59:38 am

Cop out...phony balony..your pants are on fire.

So you make a false statement, have absolutely nothing to support it, and when you are flatly told the statement is false, your only response is to sound like a 3rd grader on the playground.

Not surprising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 09:57:22 am

And your denials are 3rd grade denials too

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 10:15:33 am

So what would you consider an appropriate denial?  "Nanner-nanner-boo-boo... you don't know what you are talking about"?

You make a bullshit claim, it is pointed out to you and you are challenged to find ANYTHING that supports your claim, you are not able to do so because your claim is a crock... and you lack the gonads to admit your error.

Again, not surprising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 10:23:31 am

Again you are a person who believes in freedom of choice. That has always been your position. You don't want government regulation. That has always been your contention from day one here. Now you advocate legalizing pot and other street drugs. That means for everybody including kids who then would also have the freedom of choice to indulge, which now you are denying them the right to do????? Who are you crapping?  You cant keep talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 02, 2015, 10:54:20 am

I began this discussion by saying that all recreational drugs should be legal, for anyone over 21.  Jes did not disagree with the "over 21" part, and anyone that has read any of Jes's posts knows that if he finds ANY TINY PORTION of a post that he disagrees with, he spouts off incessantly. 

No such spouting came forth.  Concluding that he was in favor of legalizing recreational drugs for children is speaking out of prejudice rather than facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 11:35:55 am

Again he hasn't come out and said one way or another which means he really supports it. You cant be in favor of choice for one and not another. You cant be against regulation and then  support regulation. That's out of character. You cant talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Its time to come out of the closet. Either **** or get off the pot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 11:49:24 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 11:35:55 am

Again he hasn't come out and said one way or another which means he really supports it.

I also have never come out against having you anally **** by a rhino, but that does not mean I support it.  Your position is laughably stupid.

Quote from: davep on May 02, 2015, 10:54:20 am

Concluding that he was in favor of legalizing recreational drugs for children is speaking out of prejudice rather than facts.

No, it is more like speaking out of his ass.

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 10:23:31 am

Again you are a person who believes in freedom of choice. That has always been your position. You don't want government regulation. That has always been your contention from day one here. Now you advocate legalizing pot and other street drugs. That means for everybody including kids who then would also have the freedom of choice to indulge, which now you are denying them the right to do????? Who are you crapping?  You cant keep talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

I have many times in my life, and at least a few here, expressed support for criminally prosecuting and convicting and punishing murderers.  This is support of government regulation against murder.

I have many times in my life, and at least a few here, expressed support for criminally prosecuting and convicting and punishing rapists.  This is support of government regulation of ****.

I have many times in my life, and at least a few here, expressed support for criminalizing abortion.  This is support of government regulation of abortion.

I have many times in my life, and at least a few here, expressed support for maintaining our borders.  This is support of government regulation of immigration.

I have many times in my life, and at least a few here, expressed support for assuring that only citizens eligible to vote are allowed to vote and that no one else be allowed to vote.  This is support of government regulation of the ballot.

I have also many times pointed out that some of your posts are incredibly stupid, such as your idea here that I always oppose any government regulation of anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 11:52:37 am

Stonewall it Jes

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 11:58:31 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 11:52:37 am

Stonewall it Jes

Perhaps even more stupid is what appears to be your idea that you can stop someone from pointing out the foolishess of your posts by telling them to "stonewall it."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 12:06:58 pm

This is precious:

Quote from: WshflThinking on December 20, 2014, 08:30:37 am

You aren't even man enough to admit your mistakes. I bet you believe you never made a mistake in your life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 02, 2015, 02:01:41 pm

So, Jes, are you in favor of allowing children free access to recreational drugs?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 02:38:50 pm

Quote from: davep on May 02, 2015, 02:01:41 pm

So, Jes, are you in favor of allowing children free access to recreational drugs?

No, I don't... but I'm not quite certain about whether I favor or oppose having a rhino anally **** WshflThinking.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 03:30:02 pm

http://theweek.com/articles/552655/frightening-power-emboldened-police
In Baltimore....
The cops filed a preliminary report to state investigators, but its promised release to the public has been postponed. Why is it taking so long?

One reason is the "cooling off" — or as The Washington Post's Radley Balko calls it, "getting your stories straight" — period that Maryland cops enjoy, thanks to their bill of rights. During this time, they don't have to answer any questions till they've found a lawyer of their choice — and then only for "reasonable" periods of time in the presence of a union representative....

A chilling Baltimore Sun investigation last September found that in one instance, a plainclothes cop assaulted a young black man getting carryout food, for no apparent reason. The cop broke the young man's nose and fractured his face. Yet in court he accused the victim of injuring himself, an explanation that the jury dismissed before awarding damages.

The Sun investigation found that between 2011 and 2014, the Baltimore Police Department paid about $5.7 million in settlement or court-awarded verdicts to victims of police brutality (and spent an equal amount in legal fees), a figure that would certainly be much, much higher if municipal damages in most instances weren't capped at a measly $200,000. (Cleveland and Dallas have paid between $500,000 and more than $1 million to settle individual police misconduct cases.) Indeed, since 2012, 3,048 complaints have been filed against 850 BPD officers — or nearly 30 percent of its police force. In most instances, the accused officers remain employed because it is very difficult to fire a police officer without an actual conviction, thanks to the police bill of rights and other protections. And most cases don't reach that stage.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who has been widely pilloried for her ill-advised remark about giving Gray's protesters the "space to destroy" personal property, has been trying to assert half-hearted control over the department. Whatever her other flaws, she hired a tough new police commissioner with a reputation for controlling police misconduct.

She has also lobbied state lawmakers for reform of the police bill of rights and to pass laws requiring police officers to wear body cameras. She campaigned to make "misconduct in office" a felony, although she hasn't gone so far as to demand the scrapping of the 10-day grace period. But state legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, afraid of the powerful police unions, killed these measures — just days before the Gray encounter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 04:18:31 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 02, 2015, 02:38:50 pm

No, I don't... but I'm not quite certain about whether I favor or oppose having a rhino anally **** WshflThinking.

Yeah I bet. Your attitude pretty much sums it up for me that you even thought up such a thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 07:43:54 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 02, 2015, 04:18:31 pm

Yeah I bet. Your attitude pretty much sums it up for me that you even thought up such a thing.

Yes, to be distinguished from your perfectly reasonable claim that I favored making all drugs available to all children with no restrictions....

When the tone, tenor or approach of your own foolish or offensive posts is directed back at you, instead of either apologizing, or even simply stopping, you cry or pout or demand that the OTHER poster stop doing what you were doing.

You seem utterly incapable to see any offense or slight unless it is one which you imagine to be directed at you.

And as to my attitude summing anything up for you.... you don't even know what my attitude is toward you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 12:27:42 pm

You left it hang and left it hang and then beat around the bush when confronted. It wouldn't surprise me that despite your denial you believe drugs for kids isn't a bad idea. After all whats a lie to you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 01:30:58 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 12:27:42 pm

You left it hang and left it hang and then beat around the bush when confronted.

I let WHAT hang?

You wrote the following:

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 01, 2015, 04:50:01 pm

Ya gotta have tax revenue. Ya cant make it free. Anything that should be banned should be taxed if its legal just like alcohol and cigarettes. And it should be taxed heavily to be regulated and  restrict usage. Why would you want it free....so everybody uses it like you probably do?

And the next post in the topic was mine, challenging you to offer ANYTHING I have ever written to that effect.

Before that, on the 29th, you came up with your baseless claim that I supported kids being allowed to use drugs:

Quote from: WshflThinking on April 29, 2015, 06:47:30 pm

If I were on the school board where you teach and you spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs I would have you fired.

I challenged you on it within two hours:

Quote from: Jes Beard on April 29, 2015, 08:20:51 pm

Where is it that I "spouted off about kids being allowed to use drugs"?

Where did I write ANYTHING about kids and drugs?

And where is it that I am teaching kids (since I would genuinely like to know)?

You not only failed to respond to that, you followed it up with your lie that I supported absolutely unrestricted drug availability to minors, and then, as above here, you followed up my challenge to that bullshit claim from you by contending your post was reasonable because I "left it hang and left it hang and then beat around the bush when confronted."

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 12:27:42 pm

After all whats a lie to you?

It is the kind of thing I see from you here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 01:41:24 pm

It is what what it is. You have to tell it and call it like you see it. If that's what you  believe then you say it. I did that. You don't like what I said, stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Wipe the tears from your eyes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 01:53:17 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 01:41:24 pm

It is what what it is. You have to tell it and call it like you see it. If that's what you  believe then you say it. I did that. You don't like what I said, stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Wipe the tears from your eyes.

You are correct.  it is what is is.  It (your claim) is a lie.

And you are what you are, which is to say you lack what is required to admit when you are wrong, when you have lied, or when you simply make **** up... and this after, as I have shown, you have (inaccurately) complained about that trait in others.

But I'm not crying or upset about it.  I am not demanding an apology.

I am simply pointing out that you are a liar.  Much preferable to me to be able to do that than to have you ask to be forgiven for posts which would appear to be so truly indicative of who and what you are as a person that any apology would be utterly insincere, though some readers might take it as heartfelt.

No tears here.  I am perfectly happy to see you show yourself for what you truly are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 03, 2015, 02:07:50 pm

Wshful,

In this particular case Jes never did anything wrong but disagree with you.  You were the one throwing insults first.

I am not saying this for any other reason then to let you know you have lost the high ground.  If he drives you this crazy it is probably best to put him on ignore and move on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 02:16:02 pm

I am not wrong. You gave your unqualified support for the legalization of street drugs. You didn't say when only under THESE circumstances, did you? You didn't say but it has to be regulated, did you, or restricted to adults? So what has a sane person to believe? Then you were cornered and flat out asked and you denied support for children. And I bet you don't consider teenagers as children either. And you said you didn't support drugs for kids. Then you start weaseling around like you always do. I'll stick to calling it like I see it. If you don't like my statements then move on. Life is short. I see you as twisting stuff around to suit yourself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 02:18:41 pm

Peke, I love ya man, just back away

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 03, 2015, 02:28:20 pm

It's not that important..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 02:35:11 pm

No, he isn't important.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 03, 2015, 02:36:44 pm

It really isn't.

A few people arguing on a message board is not going to change what is going to happen.  Which is marijuana is going to be legal but regulated it is just a matter of time unless for some reason public opinion changes.  Which I firmly believe if it does will be for an even bigger majority to support legalizing it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 02:42:13 pm

I honestly believe this stuff in Colorado and Illinois is going to be watched closely. I expect it to be legalized state by state. Its sad. I don't like it but I believe its coming and we cant stop a freight train. I think its wrong and the problems are going to snowball. I certainly hope I am wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 03, 2015, 02:52:29 pm

Well Colorado has had problems from it.  I believe a lot of this is due to them being the first one.  They got a huge influx of useless people who do nothing but smoke pot all day.

Anyone who moves across the country for legal pot is probably a chronic user.  So being first they took on the lion share of problems.  I doubt it is as big of an issue once more states legalize it.

However it certainly is worth watching to see how it all unfolds.  Of course both sides will alter the stats to back up their own position.  I would love to see an honest cost analysis based on all aspects.  Such as the reduced prison population, increased tax revenue vs. people on welfare who just get high all day and other pot related costs.

If we could get an honest evaluation I would back whichever side it came down on. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 03:38:00 pm

They got a huge influx of useless people who do nothing but smoke pot all day.

I am afraid that's all you are going to get out of it. NO work either. Who is going to support them and their habit? Crime? So does there then become a relaxation of work permission? After all its legal. How can you then say a failed drug test is grounds for dismissal if its legal? I just see the problems exploding. You know the legal challenges will mount.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 03, 2015, 04:10:41 pm

A company can have a policy of no marijuana use on the job, just as they can have a policy of no alcohol use on the job, even though it is legal.

Who cares if they smoke off the job if it is legal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 04:39:00 pm

You misunderstand. Because its an illegal drug they are allowed to prohibit the usage. A pre-employment drug test and random drug tests allowed by current law will be challenged in court once its legal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 03, 2015, 04:48:44 pm

You misunderstand.  If you drive under the influence of alcohol, you can be arrested.  If you drive under the influence of legal marijuana, you can be arrested.

If you show up to work under the influence of alcohol, you can be fired.  Why not if you show up under the influence of legal marijuana.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 03, 2015, 04:56:34 pm

In both Colorado and Washington, employers can still use drug tests as a basis of hiring or ongoing employment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 04:56:47 pm

Also MJ stays in your system longer than alcohol, a lot longer which makes recreational use harder to hide.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 05:03:29 pm

In both Colorado and Washington, employers can still use drug tests as a basis of hiring or ongoing employment.

That's good, but I truly believe there will be legal challenges to that. Maybe even state level work law changes enacted.  This isn't cut and dried. Its like gay marriage, you open a window and its just the beginning of legal problems.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 03, 2015, 07:26:08 pm

There have been legal challenges to people being fired for alcohol use.  So far, so good.  No reason to think it would be different with drugs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 09:28:27 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 03, 2015, 02:52:29 pm

However it certainly is worth watching to see how it all unfolds.  Of course both sides will alter the stats to back up their own position.  I would love to see an honest cost analysis based on all aspects.  Such as the reduced prison population, increased tax revenue vs. people on welfare who just get high all day and other pot related costs.

If we could get an honest evaluation I would back whichever side it came down on.

If your decision is based on a cost benefit analysis, then you also are not supporting freedom.

Why not support government deciding what and when we can eat if it can be shown that brilliant central planners like otto supports can make healthier nutritional choices than we would make ourselves?  I strongly suspect that most of us would live longer, be healthier, be more productive at work, pay more in taxes, consume fewer scarce medical resources, and be better little drones operating for the advancement of the state if we did have our diet dictated by the government.

I also strongly suspect that on such an issue you would immediately and unalterably oppose such measures, even though the logic for supporting them would be exactly the same as what you offer for why you might oppose drug legalization.

The issue is not one of how we will be most productive in advancing the interests of the state, but is instead one of fundamental liberty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 09:28:35 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 02:16:02 pm

I am not wrong. You gave your unqualified support for the legalization of street drugs. You didn't say when only under THESE circumstances, did you? You didn't say but it has to be regulated, did you, or restricted to adults? So what has a sane person to believe? Then you were cornered and flat out asked and you denied support for children. And I bet you don't consider teenagers as children either. And you said you didn't support drugs for kids. Then you start weaseling around like you always do. I'll stick to calling it like I see it. If you don't like my statements then move on. Life is short. I see you as twisting stuff around to suit yourself.

So sad.

As I have asked you to do multiple times, find the language in any of my posts where I wrote as you claim.

As to your "calling it like (you) see it," you are either not doing so and simply stubbornly continuing to lie even when your lie has been pointed out, or you are really so delusional as to believe what you are saying.

Take your pick.

One last point, I have never wrote or said I "support drugs for kids," or for anyone else.  I merely support allowing adults to make their own decision as to whether to use or not use.  I support freedom.  You obviously do not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 09:28:42 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 03, 2015, 04:39:00 pm

You misunderstand. Because its an illegal drug they are allowed to prohibit the usage. A pre-employment drug test and random drug tests allowed by current law will be challenged in court once its legal.

You are, once again, wrong.  Employers can and do screen for alcohol consumption in drug screens and can, and do, terminate people for testing positive.  Legalization will have no effect whatsoever on an employer's ability to terminate for cause those who test positive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 03, 2015, 09:47:00 pm

Jes, I support freedom.  However I have common sense unlike most libertarians. 

If it shakes out as fairly even then side on freedom.  However if we have a breakdown due to legalizing it that requires ridiculous law enforcement costs or welfare costs which would actually reduce freedom then I would support not having it legal.

My guess is legalizing it will not create undue hardships for law enforcement or anyone else.  Probably the exact opposite.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 10:17:30 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 03, 2015, 09:47:00 pm

If it shakes out as fairly even then side on freedom.

Allowing us the freedom to make our own dietary choices compared to what would be seen with Big Brother (or, whatever adjective you might wish to use, Michelle) dictating what we eat and when would almost certainly "shake out" as nowhere close to being fairly even.

If you want to screw up your life, whether thru drug use, poor diet, rooting for the Cubs, or anything else that does not directly harn another person, you should be free to do so.  Cost benefit analysis be damned.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 03, 2015, 11:56:57 pm

If I were a business owner, I'd do a drug test and if your butt failed it, you'd be looking for work elsewhere. No one wants some stoned out idiot running a crane with a 20ton coil on it or driving a forklift or driving a truck, etc etc etc. Only a fool would hire someone like that and take on that risk....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 10:18:37 am

But if I were a betting man I would bet that the ACLU and maybe others will be poking and testing that in courts. I expect it to eventually hit the Supreme Court just as gay marriage  has done. Its like Pandora's box. You open it and you are in for trouble.

And getting around to that subject. Clarence Thomas brought up the subject of equalization of all marriages quite clearly. Its not just equalizing services by Christian providers. It will eventually turn to weddings too. The door has been getting wider and wider and they want it open even wider. I think now that I have more time to think about it is a good thing that Indiana passed that law. We have already seen that wedding chapel in Cor'd Elaine (sp) shut down. The fear isn't just imagined.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 10:57:28 am

I would be surprised if the ACLU didn't bring drug testing to court.  In fact, I assume that they already have, since it's illegality has nothing to do with the civil right use it.  And making it legal would not have any effect on whether or not a person has the civil right to use it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 11:00:14 am

Another law that should be eliminated is the requirement for adults to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets.  It is not the
Government's role to decide how much of a risk a competent adult should take, when it affects no one but himself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 04, 2015, 11:14:24 am

The argument is, if that person is hurt badly and doesn't have money, society will have to pay..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 04, 2015, 11:35:28 am

I think there is much more to the gay marriage issue than meets the eye. Don't gay people have civil union? Doesn't that entitle them to the same benefits as married people? Sometimes I feel it's more about throwing it in the face of church going christians.
Then on the other hand, I feel like church going christians think of gays as nothing but promiscuous perverts and don't deserve the feeling and happiness of having a partner they can call "husband" or "wife".
For me, I feel like who the hell am I to judge. I really don't care if they get married, as long as it doesn't involve forcing a church to perform the ceremony when it goes against their beliefs.
I know several gay people (men and women), and they're nothing other than that, people...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 12:52:53 pm

Society doesn't HAVE to pay.  If society CHOOSES to pay, so be it.  But society choosing to do that does not give society the right to take away individual freedom.  Using the current justification, Jes is right.  Eating poorly is likely to cause increased medical costs as you grow older.  Does that give society the right to tell you you can't eat fatty foods?  Or pasta?

Just pass a law that free medical assistance will not be given to anyone injured while not wearing seat belts or not wearing a helmet.  and then have the balls to actually carry that law out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 04, 2015, 01:22:16 pm

Even if the person has insurance, it still cost those paying insurance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 01:25:36 pm

When a plan costs more to maintain the cost of the plan goes up per all individuals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 02:59:17 pm

When you buy anything, it causes the cost of that product to go up, whether it is medical insurance or gasoline.  That is not reason for the government to prohibit it's purchase.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 04, 2015, 04:25:27 pm

Quote from: davep on May 04, 2015, 02:59:17 pm

When you buy anything, it causes the cost of that product to go up, whether it is medical insurance or gasoline.  That is not reason for the government to prohibit it's purchase.

Not necessarily, only when demand exceeds supply. Once the demand rises, prices rise. This usually triggers more suppliers to enter the market which causes competition and efficiencies to be gained which causes prices to come down. The problem with medical is that more providers are getting out  due to regulations and  the demand continues to increase.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 04:38:57 pm

No.  The price is derived by the intersection of demand at a given price and the supply at that price.  A person entering the market at a given price adds to the demand for that price, and if supply at that price remaind stable, the price rises.

Supply and demand are both aggregate, and as a practical matter, the action of one person does not affect most markets.  Any more than one person having an accident without a seat belt is going to move the price of insurance. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2015, 04:42:33 pm

 PEOPLE ... have been trying to get out of their own gourds ...


  since the BEGINNING OF TIME.


 WHY ? Whats the **** alternative?


 Hey sweetheart you are going to be munched by leopards.


 Maybe in a time of between being EATIN ...


 You're ass wanting to relax for awhile before you were the next meal.


 Theres no **** way your ancestors could account for you.


 You motherfuckers are a fluke.


 And you better be happy about it.


 You're actually what survived.


 CHICAGO BEARS !!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 04:52:18 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 04, 2015, 11:14:24 am

The argument is, if that person is hurt badly and doesn't have money, society will have to pay..

But society DOESN'T have to pay, and a decision by society to pay does not justify society using the power of government and the threat of imprisonment to force individuals to behave as society would like.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 04:59:26 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 10:18:37 am

And getting around to that subject. Clarence Thomas brought up the subject of equalization of all marriages quite clearly. Its not just equalizing services by Christian providers. It will eventually turn to weddings too.

What in the world are you talking about?  And, since Clarence Thomas can probably do a better job of explaining his position than you can, instead of trying to explain what it was you believe Thomas brought up (not to be insulting or anything, but right now I am not too high on your reading comprehension), could you direct us to anyplace where we could read or listen to what Thomas wrote or said that you are referencing?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2015, 05:03:15 pm

 What all of us are talking about is prosperity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 05:06:10 pm

Stop yourself. If you want to find out what Clarence Thomas said, do it yourself. Stop trying to get others to do your work if you want to know something.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2015, 05:18:14 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 05:06:10 pm

Stop yourself. If you want to find out what Clarence Thomas said, do it yourself. Stop trying to get others to do your work if you want to know something.

 Wsh,


 What Clarence Thomas did for me is I own him.


 What you will have to ask yourself is how to own a Judge.


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 05:23:36 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 04, 2015, 11:35:28 am

Don't gay people have civil union?

I don't believe it is just "gay people" who have "civil union."  I believe straights could also enter into a civil union... and none do.  There is a qualitative difference between the two

Quote from: chifaninva on May 04, 2015, 11:35:28 am

Doesn't that entitle them to the same benefits as married people?

Not really.  If it did straights would enter into it as often as they married, and they do not.  Ever.

Quote from: chifaninva on May 04, 2015, 11:35:28 am

Sometimes I feel it's more about throwing it in the face of church going christians.

While that may be the case with some, for the vast majority it is more a matter of not being treated like second-class citizens allowed only some special, and lesser, relationship.  Beubg recognized by law, being recognized and accepted by society is not only important to may people, that importance is understandable.

Quote from: chifaninva on May 04, 2015, 11:35:28 am

Then on the other hand, I feel like church going christians think of gays as nothing but promiscuous perverts and don't deserve the feeling and happiness of having a partner they can call "husband" or "wife".

Almost complete agreement, though I would replace "church going" with "Bible thumping," since many fitting your description do NOT regularly go to church, even if they do regularly cite the Bible as the justification of their bigotry.  See Sportster here as an example.

Quote from: chifaninva on May 04, 2015, 11:35:28 am

For me, I feel like who the hell am I to judge. I really don't care if they get married, as long as it doesn't involve forcing a church to perform the ceremony when it goes against their beliefs.
I know several gay people (men and women), and they're nothing other than that, people...

Complete agreement with every word of those last three sentences.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 05:29:45 pm

Quote from: davep on May 04, 2015, 02:59:17 pm

When you buy anything, it causes the cost of that product to go up, whether it is medical insurance or gasoline. 

Usually, but not always.  Think of economies of scale.  Sometimes increased demand (increased consumption) will actually reduce price.  Not the norm, but it is also not at all unusual.

Quote from: davep on May 04, 2015, 02:59:17 pm

That is not reason for the government to prohibit it's purchase.

Complete agreement, but I would go further to say it is a reason government should NOT compel or prohibit such decisions since doing so screws with the normal economic feedback loops designed to let an economy know when to provide more or less of something.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 04, 2015, 05:37:51 pm

 
 The question has to be asked now that's it's OK ...

would you **** a queer in his ass?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 05:44:51 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 01:25:36 pm

When a plan costs more to maintain the cost of the plan goes up per all individuals.

Not really.

Suppose you own such an insurance company and you have ten competitors.  For a variety of reasons, YOUR costs (the costs of the insurance plan your company offers) go up.  You WANT to increase the rates you charge (of course you would also like to increase the rates you charge even if your costs go down), but none of your competitors are increasing their rates.

If you raise your rates, you are going to lose plan subcribers and lose even more money than you would if you absorbed the higher costs without getting higher premiums from your insured.  And if that is the case, you are very unlikely to raise your rates, meaning the cost of the plan will not go up.

If the costs of ALL of the insurance companies go up, then premium costs in general will tend to rise, but some companies may do a better job of holding down their costs, such as not covering motor cycle riders at all, or specifically exluding coverage for certain activities.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 05:49:27 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 05:29:45 pm

Usually, but not always.  Think of economies of scale.  Sometimes increased demand (increased consumption) will actually reduce price.  Not the norm, but it is also not at all unusual.

Complete agreement, but I would go further to say it is a reason government should NOT compel or prohibit such decisions since doing so screws with the normal economic feedback loops designed to let an economy know when to provide more or less of something.

Economy of scale have no impact on near term markets.  By definition, price is defined by the intersection of the amount of product people wish to buy today various prices, the amount of product that people are willing to sell at various prices.  Adding a particular buyer or seller creates new demand or supply charts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 06:16:45 pm

As I have said from the very beginning I am only against gay marriage because churches and pastors will be forced to marry them.

I believe it has already been proven that I am correct about this.

If it weren't for that I say by all means let them marry.  If they can't force anyone else to participate or marry them or to use a church to get married in who does it hurt?  Absolutely no one.

Sadly there is always some jack ass that wants to force their views on others.  We already have had bakers put out of business.  A pizza restaurant attacked by the media because some young woman said they would not cater a gay wedding.  Who uses a pizza place to cater a wedding?

Trust me churches and pastors are next.  They will be sued and forced to marry gay couples or at the very least be forced to hire expensive lawyers to fight it.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 06:28:48 pm

Has any minister or church been forced to marry gays?  I don't really try to keep up, but I haven't heard of any.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 06:39:17 pm

Quote from: davep on May 04, 2015, 06:28:48 pm

Has any minister or church been forced to marry gays?  I don't really try to keep up, but I haven't heard of any.

Neither has anyone else.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 06:42:13 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 06:16:45 pm

As I have said from the very beginning I am only against gay marriage because churches and pastors will be forced to marry them.

I believe it has already been proven that I am correct about this.

If it has been proven, where is the proof?

Since all churches and pastors have the option of marrying no one, I doubt that they could be forced to marry a gay couple.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2015, 06:48:15 pm

Quote from: davep on May 04, 2015, 05:49:27 pm

Economy of scale have no impact on near term markets.  By definition, price is defined by the intersection of the amount of product people wish to buy today various prices, the amount of product that people are willing to sell at various prices.

Yes, and at some point one additional sale may be enough to encourage a seller to pursue the competitive advantage of economies of scale and will lower prices instead of raising them.

I am not saying that is what generally happens, or disagreeing at all that price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand, but simply pointing out that it is not quite as simple as each additional sale increasing the sales price, or at least tending to do so to some marginal degree.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 06:56:06 pm

It will happen.  Florists and bakers are already under assault.  Churches will be next.   

It is only a matter of time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 07:01:51 pm

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18464-danish-churches-forced-to-perform-same-sex-marriages

Thursday, 12 June 2014   
Will the U.S. One Day Force Same-sex "Marriage" on the Church?
 Written by  Selwyn Duke 
 
Will the U.S. One Day Force Same-sex &quot;Marriage&quot; on the Church?   
 

Perhaps you haven't heard. If you take a position that has been the default for 2000 years, a position most of the world subscribes to today, you're intolerant, a hater, and a bigot. That would be the position in favor of marriage.

Britain's "equality minister," Lynne Featherstone, said that the Church of England's and Catholic Church's language in opposition to faux (same-sex) marriage "belongs in the Dark Ages." Britain's "justice and policing" minister, Nick Herbert, opined that opposition to legalized faux marriage is "not acceptable." Meanwhile, Denmark decided two years ago that it was acceptable to force churches to perform faux marriages. You see, Denmark is further down the road of secularism than is the UK. And why should this matter to us?

For one thing, point out many observers, America is on that road, too.

As for the Danish "evolution," to use Barack Obama's terminology, Lifesite News’ Ben Johnson wrote in 2012:

The nation of Denmark has voted to force churches in the established Evangelical Lutheran Church to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies inside their sanctuaries, although one-third of all the denomination’s priests say they will not participate in such rituals.

Danish parliament voted by an overwhelming 85-24 margin to compel churches to carry out unions for same-sex couples that are identical to heterosexual marriage celebrations.

...Since 1997, homosexuals have been able to get “married” in a blessing ceremony after the normal church service.

Under the new law, priests may opt out of performing the “wedding” service for theological reasons. However, a bishop must arrange for a replacement.

And with bakers now being forced to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples and the Obama administration applying its contraception mandate to even religious businessmen, many worry that it won’t be too long before the United States follows the Danes’ lead. For instance, a prospective military chaplain writing last year under the pseudonym “Sergeant Thomas O’Neal” (for fear of persecution) at American Thinker warned:

We have already seen test cases where individuals have been found guilty of "discrimination" because they wanted to practice their First Amendment rights. Take the case of the Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Hawaii. A judge ruled that the owners discriminated against two lesbians by not renting them a room based on their religious beliefs. There are cases from Washington to North Carolina with similar entanglements. Private businesses, especially those that are wedding-based like florists, cake makers, etc., are being sued for discrimination against homosexuals while their First Amendment Rights are being ignored.

More striking still is that certain measures and proposals affect churches directly. Municipalities such as Hutchinson, Kansas, and Jacksonville, Florida, have considered ordinances that would force churches that rent property to the public to allow same-sex marriages on that property. And a judge ruled in 2012 that a Christian retreat house in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, must permit same-sex couples to perform ceremonies on its premises.

So it seems that a movement whose rallying cry once was “stay out of my bedroom” now wants its bed in your room. This has prompted Sgt. O’Neal to ask, “Taking the next logical step, what happens when a homosexual couple demands access to using a Catholic, Baptist, or Mormon church for their wedding and are rejected? The groundwork for that lawsuit has been laid in the private business cases.”

For sure, say some analysts, Denmark could be a dire portent. After all, the only cultural difference between that nation and the United States is, once again, that it is further down the road of secularism. Danes’ church attendance is far lower than Americans’, and just as telling is that their “church minister,” Manu Sareen, is an agnostic.

Of course, there is the governmental difference, too. Some will point out that the Evangelical Lutheran Church is Denmark's official government church, and that our separation of church and state will prevent such meddling. But will it really prevent it — or only delay it?

In addition to the examples of state-church trespass already provided, consider that it isn’t just through the contraception mandate that some American politicians have served notice that religious freedom should be subordinated to sexual “rights.” Last year, New Jersey Assembly majority leader Lou Greenwald and his fellow Democrats refused to work to pass a faux marriage bill for the very reason that it contained a religious-exemption provision.

And reading between the lines reveals something truly ominous. As Sgt. O’Neal also pointed out, “There should be no need for ‘religious protection’ written into any law. The religious protection should come from the First Amendment!” If the legislators in question truly believed that the First Amendment were respected enough to be a guarantor of the given religious rights, there would be no thought of protecting them via statutory law. They clearly don’t believe the Constitution still carries this weight, and, sadly, they’re correct. Conclusion?

Unless some civilizational turning point radically alters our cultural trajectory, there’s no reason to think that politicians in the not-too-distant future would view the First Amendment as an impediment to the imposition of faux marriage upon churches.

The tussle over inclusion of religious exemptions is tacit admission that many politicians consider such decisions the domain of legislatures, which may trump religious rights “to balance other important societal goals,” as the judge in the Ocean Grove case wrote. It should also be noted that this is simply the next step in the process of constitutional trespass. After all, there is such thing as federal anti-discrimination law as well, and there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the central government the power to trump the freedom of association of any business owner — be he religious or secular.

Of course, say many critics, these politicians simply reflect their constituencies, citizens who increasingly seem to view our nation as a “democracy” and not a constitutional republic. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams wrote in 2012, “Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a measure is a good idea or a bad idea should determine its passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution.”

And that way lies not only faux marriage, but the divorce between America and liberty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 07:23:56 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 06:56:06 pm

It will happen.  Florists and bakers are already under assault.  Churches will be next.   

It is only a matter of time.

Florists and bakers offer their services to the general public.  Ministers and churches do not.  It is still legal for the Catholic Church to refuse to ordain women, as do some other religions.  For that matter, if your church doesn't want to allow black (or white) members, they can do so.

If homosexuals want to pretend that they are normal, why would you care?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 07:37:38 pm

I think they are normal, well at least as much as any of us are.  We all have our quirks.

I believe they should be allowed to have a civil union that gives them the exact same rights as marriage.  If a church should chose to marry them then by all means have at it.

They should not be allowed to force any baker to make a cake for a gay marriage or a florist to make arrangements for a gay marriage or any restaurant to cater a gay marriage.  Nor should they be able to force churches to marry them.

They have equal rights however 2% of the population should not be trampling other people rights.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 04, 2015, 08:47:36 pm

Mark's Market Blog
5-3-15: Iran and Saudi Arabia
by Mark Lawrence
Last week I noted the market was stuck inside a triangle formation. Well, we broke out to the upside. Then dropped down back in. This market cannot establish any momentum, which makes me think we will have a 5% - 10% correction soonish to clear the air a bit.
 
S&P 500 October 27 2014 to April 24 2015
China's steel production dropped in Q1. This is the first drop they've experienced in 20 years. You have to take things like this seriously.

General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, said Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen were "shamelessly and disgracefully bombing and killing a nation. Saudi Arabia is following in the Zionist (Israel) regime's footsteps in the Islamic world. The house of Saud will be toppled. The House of Saud is on the edge of disintegration. We hope this will happen soon." I assure you, in Riyadh these are fighting words. Meanwhile, Obama has said, "There can be no solution to Yemen without Iran." Immediately after Obama's comments, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, said, "Iran is part of the problem in Yemen, not part of the solution." Obama is now negotiating directly with the Iranians over the head of the Saudis. As things stand right now, it appears Obama will return several tens of billions of dollars to the Iranian government immediately after signing an agreement, perhaps in late June. The Saudis believe firmly that that money will be used to destabilize the Sunni / Arab middle east. I find all this extremely curious - it's common knowledge on the right in this country that the Saudis paid for Obama's Columbia and Harvard degrees and were financially supportive of his run for the presidency; if any of that is true, the Saudis must now be thinking they're getting a very poor return on their investment.

On thursday an Iranian warship fired across the bow of a Marshall Islands-flagged container ship, ordered it into Iranian waters, and took control of the ship and its crew of 34 people after accusing the ship of trespassing on its territorial waters. Iran says they have an unresolved claim, but no one else seems to know what this claim is. The Bloomberg report points out, "The incident seems a direct response to President Barack Obama's decision last week to send warships to the Arabian Sea" to prevent Iran from shipping arms to Yemen. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams tells Right Turn, "Iran is throwing its weight around in a way that expresses contempt for the United States and for President Obama. They know full well that Congress and the nation are weighing the nuclear deal, but that doesn't constrain them because they know the administration will do literally anything to keep the deal alive. So even in these weeks when the deal hangs in the balance they charge Jason Rezaian of The Washington Post with espionage, and now they interfere with freedom of navigation in the Gulf. The U.S. looks like a helpless giant, which is precisely Iran's goal. Our allies and friends in the region are cringing and so should Americans be. Is there any conduct at all that will awaken the administration to the nature and intentions of that vicious regime?"

Japan is considering joining the US in sea patrols in the South China sea. "We have to show China that it doesn't own the sea," said a Japanese source." Provocative Chinese behavior is now leading to provocative Japanese behavior. These patrols would include air patrols, requiring Japanese aircraft to land in the Philippines to refuel. Japan and the Philippines currently have no military cooperation agreement; a left over from WWII when they were antagonists. Now they find themselves on the same side of the chess board. The president of the Philippines is visiting Japan in June; it will be surprising if they don't reach some sort of military exchange agreement. $5 trillion worth of shipping passes through the S.China sea each year, and ceding control to China is not considered an option.

Grexit: will it solve Greece's problems? Merril Lynch held a round table discussion. Their results? There would be an almost 50% effective cut in wages as most products are imported and the Drachma would sink almost instantaneously. There would be a huge recession, perhaps a 15% or even 20% contraction. Most transactions in Greece would continue to be in Euros (I disagree with this one - it's well known in economics that a bad currency drives a good currency out of circulation). There would be years of lawsuits over payments and Greece was likely to lose most of them. And the economy would only turn around if the government made most of the policy changes Europe is requiring. Their final decision was Greece is better off in the Euro where external pressure can help them reform.

Spain had a quarter of growth, their first in about seven years. Will it continue? Will it save the government in the coming elections? Too little too late imho. Unemployment still hovers above 20%.

Apple, which is sitting on about $200 billion in untaxed cash, has announced that this money will go to the shareholders. They've raised their dividend by a small amount; more importantly they're going to borrow $140 billion and use it to buy back shares. Presumably the cash will be used to pay off the loans, in the fullness of time. T.Boone Pickens once said, "I owned a stock once that paid a dividend. I got a check in the mail. It drove me nuts. I sold the stock a few days later." Many think that paying a dividend is an admission that you have no idea how to invest your money for a good return. Or perhaps the APple board just wants to see their stock price soar.

Walmart closed five stores earlier this month for no obvious reason. One was in Pico Rivera, a small area in LA. Pico Rivera suddenly finds themselves with 500 newly unemployed and sales tax revenues down by 10%. The Pico Rivera store has a history of the employees trying to unionize.

Oil - Who makes it? Here's the world's largest oil producers in 2013:

country production
1000 barrels / day
World 93003
United States 13973
Saudi Arabia 11624
Russia 10853
China 4526
Canada 4383
Europe 3870
United Arab Emirates 3471
Iran 3380
Iraq 3371
Brazil 2950
Mexico 2812
Kuwait 2780
Venezuela 2689
Nigeria 2427
Qatar 2055
Norway 1904
Angola 1756
Algeria 1721
Kazakhstan 1719
Colombia 1016
India 977
Oman 951
Indonesia 913
Azerbaijan 856
United Kingdom 820
Argentina 711
Malaysia 696
Egypt 661
Ecuador 557
Libya 516
Australia 477
Thailand 450

Like Superhero movies? Maybe not. If not, I have bad news for you: as Willie Sutton said about robbing banks, "It's where the money is." Here's the top five movies by opening weekend:

Movie Release Date Opening Weekend Worldwide Gross
The Avengers 5/4/2012 $207.4 million $1.5 billion
Avengers: Age of Ultron 5/1/2015 $187.6 million $626 million so far
Iron Man 3 5/3/2013 $174.1 million $1.2 billion
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 7/15/2011 $169.2 million $1.3 billion
The Dark Knight Rises 7/20/2012 $160.9 million $1.1 billion

In the latest survey, 51% of Americans identify themselves as middle class - down from a more normal 60%. 48% identify themselves as working class.

Global Warming Watch: How's that ice doing? We're just past the Arctic ice maximum. How did we do? There was a dip in the ice coverage in March which meant this year had the least coverage ever recorded in the satellite era - about 7% lower than the 1981-2010 average, beating out the previous low set in 2006. Snow over the US west is at extremely low levels, just as I reported based on my travels with Charlie a couple months ago. In the graph below, blacks and blues are bad, bad, bad. But the US east, of course, had record snowfall. Meanwhile the Antarctic had record sea ice last September. All told the portents and signs were in every possible direction, just as they have been for 16 years.

As usual, the graphs do not appear in the copy of Mark's Blog.  If you wish to seem them you will need to contact him and request a direct issue.  He doesn't charge for them.  The blog is clearer with the graphs and tables.  (Oddo will not be happy about the global warming facts).

 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 08:51:00 pm

It happened in a little wedding chapel where gays wanted to get married and they refused. That happened in Cor'd aline Idaho (sp) The state told them they had to and I believe fined them and they closed up the wedding chapel. Its coming as Pekin said.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 09:12:26 pm

The Couer d'Aline Wedding Chapel is not a church, but a for-profit business that offers marriage to the public for pay.  If you do that, you forfit your rights as a religious institution.

Personally, I think they, like restaurants and other businesses, should be allowed to serve or refuse to serve whoever they want.  Regardless, it has no part in a discussion about what churches and ministers are allowed to do under the law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 09:20:13 pm

davep did you read post 5874?

And I don't want to hear any BS about the US constitution protects against it because that document is being shredded daily by this administration and no one seems to be doing anything about it.  It will just get worse with future presidents.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 04, 2015, 10:10:14 pm

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/christian-nation-2/idaho-city-tells-pastors-do-gay-marriages-or-face-jail-time

"Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines."

You're a fool if you believe they'll leave Christians and Pastors alone......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 04, 2015, 11:07:31 pm

Attention religious fanatic

One, did you read your lame ass stupid **** article?

You know the difference between a real church and a business wedding chapel right? You have never seen the movie "The Hangover" goddie?

**** idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 11:12:52 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 09:20:13 pm

davep did you read post 5874?

And I don't want to hear any BS about the US constitution protects against it because that document is being shredded daily by this administration and no one seems to be doing anything about it.  It will just get worse with future presidents.

Laws in Denmark have no bearing on United States law.  And if you don't want to hear facts contrary to your prejudices, then there is no point in going on with the discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 11:14:20 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 04, 2015, 10:10:14 pm

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/christian-nation-2/idaho-city-tells-pastors-do-gay-marriages-or-face-jail-time

"Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines."

You're a fool if you believe they'll leave Christians and Pastors alone......

How many have been prosecuted under this law (which, by the way, has never been passed).

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 11:15:59 pm

My God, I am on the same side as Homo.

If I ever agree with Jes on anything, please put me on ignore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 04, 2015, 11:17:50 pm

And whadya know, the local fool shows his head.... 
These people are 'ordained ministers', not some lay people who took the test to do marriages. You do understand this, right? Heck no, you don't, who am I kidding....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 11:20:43 pm

No, Davep, we'll ready the firing squad.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 04, 2015, 11:22:29 pm

Ordained ministers do not get special privileges to violate civil rights when they are acting in public business.  A for profit wedding chapel could not refuse to hire blacks or refuse to marry homosexuals merely because they are ordained.  Which anyone can be for 10 bucks on the internet.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 04, 2015, 11:23:37 pm

Do you honestly think that gays will stop with simply having "rights" to marriage? Realize there were laws against sodomy and homosexual behaviour for ages. Did that change?? Yep. So now you think, strangely enough, that a simple law on some books will stop the pushing of their agenda. They pushed and pushed against the laws that stopped them from getting married and changed that, what makes you think any law saying a Pastor doesn't have to marry gays couldn't also be overturned??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 11:29:17 pm

Davep, those pastors in Idaho do have a church there too. You might be correct that the chapel is considered a business, but still businesses are people and people shouldn't have to perform acts that are against their religious beliefs. Our church has a policy of not marrying individuals who aren't members of the church. They believe that protects them from such weddings. While I see their point, I don't believe its all that safe as they think.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 05, 2015, 10:41:44 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 04, 2015, 11:29:17 pm

Davep, those pastors in Idaho do have a church there too. You might be correct that the chapel is considered a business, but still businesses are people and people shouldn't have to perform acts that are against their religious beliefs. Our church has a policy of not marrying individuals who aren't members of the church. They believe that protects them from such weddings. While I see their point, I don't believe its all that safe as they think.

Those ministers that have churches of their own do not have to perform homosexual marriages in those churches.  It is only when they go into business, offering marriages to the general public, that they have to follow civil rights laws.

As I said before, I think that people engaging in business should be allowed to engage in it in whatever manner they wish.  If I own a restaurant, I should be able to decide whether or not to allow people to smoke on my property.  I should be able to decide who to serve and to whom to refuse service, even based upon race, color or creed.

However, although I don't agree with the law, the difference between them and what you are decrying is substantial.  The government has NOT told churches of any religion what they can or can not teach, nor what sacraments to perform and when to perform them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 05, 2015, 10:46:49 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 04, 2015, 11:23:37 pm

Do you honestly think that gays will stop with simply having "rights" to marriage? Realize there were laws against sodomy and homosexual behaviour for ages. Did that change?? Yep. So now you think, strangely enough, that a simple law on some books will stop the pushing of their agenda. They pushed and pushed against the laws that stopped them from getting married and changed that, what makes you think any law saying a Pastor doesn't have to marry gays couldn't also be overturned??

They certainly should have changed.  There is no reason why any act between two consenting adults should be illegal. 

So they legalized it.

But has anyone passed a law saying that YOU have to engage in a homosexual act?

Has anyone passed a law saying that YOU have to engage in sodomy?

The government (and you) have no business telling people what they should do, or not do, in private, if it affects no one other than themselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 04:17:05 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 04, 2015, 06:56:06 pm

It will happen.  Florists and bakers are already under assault.  Churches will be next.   

It is only a matter of time.

Okay, so you have changed your contention that it has already happened, and that you have been "proven right," to implicitly acknowledging that it has not happened, but that at some point in the future, perhaps long after everyone now alive is long, it WILL happen, and you seem to think that what has happened in Denmark helps establish that, since presumably everyone knows the United States closely follows all legal trends set in Denmark.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 04:20:52 pm

Is there any reason TWO consenting adults should not be allowed to marry TWO consenting adults?? Is there any reason THREE should be allowed? FOUR? "consenting adults" nonsense. Look, whether you like it or not, there are morals in society. One of them has been two of the same sex is wrong. That has been the rule of law forever, until recently. Just because you see no problem with the degradation of morals in society does not mean everyone believes the same as you, thankfully, or we'd live in one disgusting society. Society has moral acceptance. It's like that for ****, murder, theft, sexual immorality, on and on. I don't care if you 'want' to do something or not. I DO care about what God says is acceptable and whether my conscience and just PLAIN MORAL COMMON SENSE says. Society and God has said homosexuality is wrong and immoral.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 05, 2015, 04:29:01 pm

The government has NOT told churches of any religion what they can or can not teach, nor what sacraments to perform and when to perform them.

I had a pastor tell me that is false. He told me that he cant teach what the bible says about homosexuality for fear of prosecution for sexual orientation discrimination.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 04:40:30 pm

Quote from: davep on May 05, 2015, 10:46:49 am

But has anyone passed a law saying that YOU have to engage in a homosexual act?.

I think Sportster IS a homosexual act.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 04:44:08 pm

True colors coming out of Jessy....closeted still??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 04:47:53 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 05, 2015, 04:29:01 pm

The government has NOT told churches of any religion what they can or can not teach, nor what sacraments to perform and when to perform them.

I had a pastor tell me that is false. He told me that he cant teach what the bible says about homosexuality for fear of prosecution for sexual orientation discrimination.

Unfounded fears are not necesarily RATIONAL... and that is assuming that this time you have made any effort to be truthful, and also that this time you actually understood that someone was telling you.  Right now, considering your reccent track record, I would not assume either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 04:50:20 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 04:20:52 pm

It's like that for ****, murder, theft, sexual immorality, on and on.

****, murder and theft are illegal because in each one person is causing injury to another.  That is not the case with "sexual immorality."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 04:53:22 pm

Where do you think **** comes from? From a perverted mind, hence 'immorality'. A guy doesn't just suddenly think 'hey, I'm gonna go out and **** a woman'. It comes from inside first, and then what's inside becomes actions. This comes from immorality and when we let it run rampant in society,we will reap the fruits of it....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 04:58:50 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 04:53:22 pm

Where do you think **** comes from? From a perverted mind, hence 'immorality'. A guy doesn't just suddenly think 'hey, I'm gonna go out and **** a woman'. It comes from inside first, and then what's inside becomes actions. This comes from immorality and when we let it run rampant in society,we will reap the fruits of it....

I said nothing of where **** "comes from".  I simply pointed out that immorality is not illegal.   Theft, murder and **** are illegal because one party injures another.  I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your post above.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 05:11:55 pm

One simple question: where does **** come from? Do people suddenly just become rapers?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 05:19:08 pm

Sportster, your question is irrelevant.

**** is illegal because it involved one person injuring another.

Immorality is NOT illegal because of nutjobs like you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 05, 2015, 05:45:18 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 04:20:52 pm

Is there any reason TWO consenting adults should not be allowed to marry TWO consenting adults?? Is there any reason THREE should be allowed? FOUR? "consenting adults" nonsense.

Actually, probably not.

Quote from: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 04:20:52 pm

Look, whether you like it or not, there are morals in society. One of them has been two of the same sex is wrong. That has been the rule of law forever, until recently. Just because you see no problem with the degradation of morals in society does not mean everyone believes the same as you, thankfully, or we'd live in one disgusting society. Society has moral acceptance. It's like that for ****, murder, theft, sexual immorality, on and on. I don't care if you 'want' to do something or not. I DO care about what God says is acceptable and whether my conscience and just PLAIN MORAL COMMON SENSE says. Society and God has said homosexuality is wrong and immoral.

I, also, care about what God says is acceptable, and do my best to live up to them.  But I see no reason why the Government should force those who don't agree with me to follow my precepts.  If people sin, God will deal with that on Judgement Day.  Forcing them to refrain from sinning is not particularly moral, and does neither them nor I any good.

Murder, ****, theft and homosexuality are all immoral.  I agree with that completely.  But murder, **** and theft all affect innocent people, and should be crimes.  Homosexuality does not affect innocent people, and should be left up to the individual and God.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 05:51:31 pm

Okay, so you have changed your contention that it has already happened, and that you have been "proven right," to implicitly acknowledging that it has not happened, but that at some point in the future, perhaps long after everyone now alive is long, it WILL happen, and you seem to think that what has happened in Denmark helps establish that, since presumably everyone knows the United States closely follows all legal trends set in Denmark.


I told you over a year ago that bakers and florists would be sued and you told me that was nonsense.  No one would sue someone when they could easily get the service elsewhere.  Or some other nonsensical argument.  Do you remember that discussion?

Did you ever imagine a day when a bar owner would not be able to allow smoking in their business?  How about the NSA spying on US citizens with out warrants?  Blowing up US citizens with drones with no oversight? 


Our rights are slowly being stepped on.  The constitution be damned.  Like a frog slowly being boiled. 

When a church gets sued to perform gay marriage I will be here to say I told you so.  Oh wait it already has happened but they provide services to the public so that doesn't count.

When one gets sued that does not provide services I will still be here to say I told you so.  It will happen sooner rather then later. 

Count on it. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 06:52:00 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 05:51:31 pm

I told you over a year ago that bakers and florists would be sued and you told me that was nonsense.  No one would sue someone when they could easily get the service elsewhere.  Or some other nonsensical argument.  Do you remember that discussion?
 

I remember the conversation, and you were right, and I was wrong.  You are now wrong, however, as to my response in expanation of why it would not happen.  You are right, however, that whatever reason I gave for my prediction, I was wrong.

Quote from: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 05:51:31 pm

Did you ever imagine a day when a bar owner would not be able to allow smoking in their business?  How about the NSA spying on US citizens with out warrants?  Blowing up US citizens with drones with no oversight? 
 

Yes, yes, and yes.  I am not even surprised that the public is in support of the presidentil kill list.  It was rather predictable when the nation was so approving of those the U.S. took into custody after invading Iraq, holding them without trial, charges or even the opportunity to have meaningful counsel.  And my posts on the predecessor board to this one pretty much said as much -- label a person a terrorist and the current sentiment is sadly that such person no longer has any rights.

Quote from: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 05:51:31 pm

Our rights are slowly being stepped on.  The constitution be damned.  Like a frog slowly being boiled. 

When a church gets sued to perform gay marriage I will be here to say I told you so.  Oh wait it already has happened but they provide services to the public so that doesn't count.  When one gets sued that does not provide services I will still be here to say I told you so.  It will happen sooner rather then later.  Count on it. 

Getting sued and having the suit go anywhere or amounting to anything of any significance are rather different things.

I could sue you for assassinating Lincoln.  The suit would go nowhere and be of no significance, but it could be filed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 07:05:38 pm

Jes, Thanks for the response.  I honestly do not remember what your reasoning was for saying it wouldn't happen.  Just that we did in fact have those positions.

So if you foresaw the three things I mentioned why do you see no way that churches or clergy could be sued (or being successful) for refusing to perform gay marriages?

The Catholic church has plenty of money to fight lawsuits.  Some small local church does not have that luxury.  They would need to either perform the marriage or close shop. 

It may take longer but they will keep chipping away at it until it happens, imo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 05, 2015, 07:12:49 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 04:47:53 pm

Unfounded fears are not necesarily RATIONAL... and that is assuming that this time you have made any effort to be truthful, and also that this time you actually understood that someone was telling you.  Right now, considering your reccent track record, I would not assume either.

The pastor would be arrested and charged with a hate crime. Wake up. Sniff the coffee. Its happening. Get real.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 07:25:15 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 07:05:38 pm

So if you foresaw the three things I mentioned why do you see no way that churches or clergy could be sued (or being successful) for refusing to perform gay marriages?

For the same reason I see no way Martians are going to invade and take over the planet.  Neither make any sense or seem remotely credible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 05, 2015, 07:41:03 pm

Nor does it seem remotely possible that people like you are allowed to inhabit this planet

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 05, 2015, 07:58:43 pm

Quote from: davep on May 05, 2015, 05:45:18 pm

Actually, probably not.

I, also, care about what God says is acceptable, and do my best to live up to them.  But I see no reason why the Government should force those who don't agree with me to follow my precepts.  If people sin, God will deal with that on Judgement Day.  Forcing them to refrain from sinning is not particularly moral, and does neither them nor I any good.

Murder, ****, theft and homosexuality are all immoral.  I agree with that completely.  But murder, **** and theft all affect innocent people, and should be crimes.  Homosexuality does not affect innocent people, and should be left up to the individual and God.

Dave, the thing is, if you think homosexuality is wrong, you should stand against it. It does affect innocent people. When all outlets are telling everyone it is ok, it has an affect, especially on young minds. Teenagers are thinking they are "gay" because they are impressionable and it is the new thing.

If I am trying to teach my kids God's precepts but everything they hear from the world says I am wrong, that will have an impact on them. It is ultimately up to them to decide but it would help if the the loud minority wasn't what was blaring at them from all sides.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 05, 2015, 08:02:42 pm

I am 73 years old.  When I was growing up, everything I heard was that my parents were wrong.  When my children were growing up, everything they heard was that I was wrong.  My grandchildren now hear that my daughter is wrong.

Christians (you understand how I am using the term) have always been in the minority.  And yet we have survived.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 08:25:14 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 05, 2015, 07:25:15 pm

For the same reason I see no way Martians are going to invade and take over the planet.  Neither make any sense or seem remotely credible.

You said the same about bakers being sued.  Yet it happened.  States have imposed fines on them.  People have lost their businesses.

The IRS has targeted conservatives and gotten away with it.  Give illegals the ability to vote and crush the religious right and we have a one party system.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 05, 2015, 08:35:09 pm

Quote from: davep on May 05, 2015, 08:02:42 pm

I am 73 years old.  When I was growing up, everything I heard was that my parents were wrong.  When my children were growing up, everything they heard was that I was wrong.  My grandchildren now hear that my daughter is wrong.

Christians (you understand how I am using the term) have always been in the minority.  And yet we have survived.

The moral right were once the majority, we are in the mess we are now because that is no longer the case.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 08:51:04 pm

Christians are not the minority in this country.  They are only made to feel they are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 05, 2015, 09:03:35 pm

Everyone defines the term differently.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 05, 2015, 09:40:57 pm

What, the term 'Christian'? There are lots of 'Christians' nowadays, some who say homosexuality is ok and living with your partner is ok and doing drugs is ok, premarital sex, ok. A Christian is not perfect, this is true, but a true Christian is sorry for their sins and tries to live right before God. They don't flaunt or support sin! We need to remember God is Holy and He commands us to be Holy as well- Be Holy because I am Holy. He will judge sin, whether it's individual sin or a nations sin. This is the absolute key reason to follow what He says is right. Do you want blessings or cursing, for yourself or this nation?? God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.
Nav is right. Our daughters friend once said 'I think I'm gay' and wanted to kiss my daughter! Not because she's really gay but because it is so pushed on them in this society. They are force fed it day and night in the TV they watch and the movies they go see. Darned near every tv show, including childrens programming, include some gay character. We dealt with it with her parents and now she's totally boy crazy. But kids are impressionable and this is not a victimless deal. Catholic priests that have molested young boys, I've heard some gay supporters spout 'they're heterosexual predators'. That is totally absurd! They are homosexual predators! Normal men do not do this to men OR boys!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 05:24:35 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 05, 2015, 07:41:03 pm

Nor does it seem remotely possible that people like you are allowed to inhabit this planet

A sane person might take the fact that I do inhabit this lanet as an indication that your belief system, or your understanding or perception (or all three) are seriously skewed.  Of course, that would be a SANE person.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 05:28:02 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 05, 2015, 08:25:14 pm

You said the same about bakers being sued.  Yet it happened.  States have imposed fines on them.  People have lost their businesses.

The IRS has targeted conservatives and gotten away with it.  Give illegals the ability to vote and crush the religious right and we have a one party system.

Dpn't look now, Pekin, but the sky is falling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 05:33:07 am

Quote from: navigator on May 05, 2015, 08:35:09 pm

The moral right were once the majority, we are in the mess we are now because that is no longer the case.

The "moral right" once not only blessed slavery, they insisted that it was "god's will" and that slaves were better for it.  The "moral right" once not only blessed seizing land from the natives of America, they insisted that taking the land and killing the heathens was "god's will."  And the "moral right" once not only blessed discriminating against gays, then insisted that prosecuting them criminally or beating them senseless whenever the opportunity presented itself wa actually what their god WANTED them to do.

Than goodness for the demise of the "moral right."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 06, 2015, 05:59:53 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 05:24:35 am

A sane person might take the fact that I do inhabit this lanet as an indication that your belief system, or your understanding or perception (or all three) are seriously skewed.  Of course, that would be a SANE person.

Seems like its time for you to re-visit your pet rhino, then again you probably already get it in the butt from your partner every night. Of course that's a sane thing to do anyways.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on May 06, 2015, 08:10:47 am

I always get a kick out of people having to go back 150 years to find their chosen examples of what's wrong with Christianity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 06, 2015, 09:01:41 am

The sky is not falling.  More like a slow burn.  We may or may not hit the tipping point in my lifetime. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 04:15:45 pm

Quote from: davebear on May 06, 2015, 08:10:47 am

I always get a kick out of people having to go back 150 years to find their chosen examples of what's wrong with Christianity.

You don't have to go back 100 years ago to find it used as an excuse to kill native Americans and take their land.  You don't have to go back 100 years ago to find it used as an excuse for Jim Crow laws.  And you don't have to go back 150 eyars to find it used as an excuse for discriminating against gays or for prosecuting them criminally or beating them senseless whenever the opportunity presented itself.  And when those things are mentioned in response to a comment about how the "moral right were once the majority (and that) we are in the mess we are now because that is no longer the case," it is more than reasonable to address just how "moral" that "moral right" once was when things in the U.S. were presumably so much rosier than they are today.

NOTHING in my comment even began to suggest that there is anything wrong with Christianity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 06, 2015, 04:24:18 pm

When did we kill native americans and take there land in the last 100 years?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 04:36:01 pm

Quote from: davep on May 06, 2015, 04:24:18 pm

When did we kill native americans and take there land in the last 100 years?

You mean 1870 to 1890 wasn't within the last 100 years?

Damn.  Seems like only yesterday.

Both of the references to 100 years in my last response should have been references to 150 years, just as my reference to "eyars" should have been a reference to "years".... just as in your post I assume that where you used "there" you meant "their."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on May 06, 2015, 05:10:09 pm

while certainly some Christians use and have used religion to harm others, I have never attended a Church that supports causing harm to others.  Therefore I don't see Christian morality as harmful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 06, 2015, 05:13:18 pm

 We are going to learn to get along and play with one another.


 This PLANET is evolving into something that is going to leave the STUPID behind.


 So long isis ... Your'e a Mini Culture of THE INTERNET.


 You had one shot to play at it and you **** it up big time.


 This is why these **** aren't brought into job interviews to be mid level bank managers in Dubai.


 Wanna know what's real interesting ?


 These fuckers clean them own-self out.


 Basically all you have to do is sit back and watch the game played.


 You don't have to lift a motherfuckin finger.


 NO AMERICAN SHOULD EVER BE INVOLVED.  :D   ;)   :)   ;D




 MEANWHILE ... THE CHICAGO BEARS DRAFT !!


 I think we did pretty good.  :-*


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 05:46:07 pm

Quote from: davebear on May 06, 2015, 05:10:09 pm

while certainly some Christians use and have used religion to harm others, I have never attended a Church that supports causing harm to others.  Therefore I don't see Christian morality as harmful.

Well, damn, good for you.  Nobody else has indicated they have seen it as harmful.

If you think I have, please direct me to the language I wrote which did so.  And, to help you point to my language, instead of having you simply tell me about your impression of what I wrote, I am cutting and posting my two posts here:

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 05:33:07 am

The "moral right" once not only blessed slavery, they insisted that it was "god's will" and that slaves were better for it.  The "moral right" once not only blessed seizing land from the natives of America, they insisted that taking the land and killing the heathens was "god's will."  And the "moral right" once not only blessed discriminating against gays, then insisted that prosecuting them criminally or beating them senseless whenever the opportunity presented itself wa actually what their god WANTED them to do.

Than goodness for the demise of the "moral right."

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 04:15:45 pm

You don't have to go back 100 years ago to find it used as an excuse to kill native Americans and take their land.  You don't have to go back 100 years ago to find it used as an excuse for Jim Crow laws.  And you don't have to go back 150 eyars to find it used as an excuse for discriminating against gays or for prosecuting them criminally or beating them senseless whenever the opportunity presented itself.  And when those things are mentioned in response to a comment about how the "moral right were once the majority (and that) we are in the mess we are now because that is no longer the case," it is more than reasonable to address just how "moral" that "moral right" once was when things in the U.S. were presumably so much rosier than they are today.

NOTHING in my comment even began to suggest that there is anything wrong with Christianity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 06, 2015, 05:58:09 pm

Jes, you're so full of it. You post a bunch of drivel about how Christianity has done this and Christianity has done that, and then you spout 'I never said it was harmful'. Stupid wordplay nonsense. You're right in line with Hitler. Except Hitler used Christianity to help control and manipulate the people but behind the scenes he was relieving himself of the religious beliefs from his childhood, declaring 'I feel as fresh as a colt let out to pasture' while he systematically killed millions of religious Jews, Christians and others. With you, there is no hiding your hatred of Christianity....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 06, 2015, 06:02:36 pm

 Otto Beard knows better then to **** with JJ.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 06, 2015, 06:20:50 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 06, 2015, 04:36:01 pm

You mean 1870 to 1890 wasn't within the last 100 years?

Damn. 
Both of the references to 100 years in my last response should have been references to 150 years, just as my reference to "eyars" should have been a reference to "years".... just as in your post I assume that where you used "there" you meant "their."

So you feel that a grammatical error is equivalent to a factual error.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 06, 2015, 09:24:35 pm

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Ballmer.shtml


Ballmer: A Race War in Slow Motion
May 5, 2015

As a certified member of the curmudgeon's tribe, practicing our dismal and lonely trade, I am delighted by the events in Baltimore. Among curmudgeons, almost our only joy is the gratification of confirmation of our dark expectionions of humanity. In the case of Ballmer, a particular source of somber joy is the gap separating the Talking-Heads Chorale and reality. Wanton foolishness is ever a curmudgeonly delight.

The Talking-Heads Chorale will see the riots, are seeing the riots, not as an intensification of the undeclared racial war, but as a protest against racist police or the racism of whites. Oh, quite. Never mind that Ballmer’s black government sets standards for the hiring, training, and behavior of its police, and half of the accused cops are black. But the conduct of their police cannot be the fault of blacks, because nothing is.



Feral white women, characterized by low IQ and poor impulse-control, try to steal a black man's purse. Note chair--a white chair-- in upper left. It is a White Supremacist chair, and feels itself to be above blacks in Baltimore.

Ominous for the future, though, is the solidarity of blacks in favor of the looters and arsonists. Our black president Obama, protecting his people, attributes the riots to racism and Republicans. Black leaders, e.g. Al Sharpton, see the villainy of whites as the cause. (I am inclined to agree that the riots involved racism, considering that black rioters reportedly burned chiefly Asian businesses.) The city’s black mayor first said “give them space” to loot. Later she told the police to stand down and let the rioters loot and burn. She has the intelligence of a raisin, but she knows whose side she is on. She isn’t alone. Supportive riots and attacks on whites, e.g. in Charleston have occurred.

The fundamentally racial attitudes of blacks from Obama down appear in the one-sided approach to racial violence. Our black president and black attorney general express sympathy for any black who runs afoul of the police, but none at all for the victims of the unending, undeniable, multitudinous, vicious racial attacks on whites by blacks: The Knockout Game. Obama and Holder cannot possibly be unaware of these attacks.  Obama and his tribe are not neutral.

The Chorale says that the Knockout Game is a “myth,” but it demonstrably is not. For any who have the slightest doubt, I recommend Colin Flaherty’s latest, Don't Make the Black Kids Angry, documenting, in Kindle format with countless clickable links to original sources, attacks on whites. “Low-intensity race war” is not wild exaggeration, and summer comes.

Several effects will follow on the riots. First, whites will buy guns when they realize that it can happen to them, that a howling mob desirous of kicking them to death and burning their homes really can appear at any moment. Fear of blacks is a major, major sub-text in debate of the Second Amendment. We must not say it, though.The Chorale, safe in high-rise condos with security desks, will call the buyers Gun Nuts and say that they are over-reacting. There is nothing like a complete misunderstanding of motivations to make for good journalism.

Second, whites will sensibly move out of Ballmer, leaving it blacker and poorer and of less interest to anyone but its black residents. The Chorale will sing of White Flight and Abandonment, instead of common sense and self-preservation. (Note that when whites move into a black city, blacks complain of colonization, and when they move out, of abandonment. It’s like a toggle switch.)

Third, burned-out business will not return to be burned again. The city will thus have fewer jobs, fewer amenities, and no pharmacy, as they sacked and torched their CVS outlet. The Chorale will attribute this withdrawal to racism, slavery, oppression, White Privilege, and microaggressions. What else could account for not wanting one’s store burned?

In particular, blacks, having burned their pharmacy, will complain that it isn’t there. They will not see a connection between its burning it and its not-thereness. The Chorale will not see in this behavior low intelligence, short time-horizons, and inability to control impulses or to foresee consequences. No. It is the ineradicable racism of whites that makes a burned pharmacy not be there.

Two hundred businesses destroyed in Baltimore: Breitbart: . This makes sense. When something happens that I don't like, I usually go to the local Walmart, steal everything I can carry, and then burn the store. Don't you? What is really comic though is from Larry Hogan, the governor of Maryland: It “will take a little while to get back to normal, but let’s get people back to normal, get people back in the city to visit devastated shops.” Since many of those shps didn't have barbaric-population insurance, they will not reopn, and if they do, it won't be in black Ballmer.Which is what the city deserve.

It is the weird emotionalism and what appears to be utter brainlessness that grabs attention. Let us assume that, as may be the case, the police (hired and trained by a black government) did indeed do the things of which they are accused. This might reasonably explain attacks on the police. How does it explain burning a pharmacy? Or businesses that had nothing to do with the police? The phrase “thieving moronic savages” would not be politically correct and so, hewing as I do to the standards of society, I won’t use it. It may flash across my mind, though.

What we see, methinks, is a hunter-gatherer society, in which blacks hunt whites and gather expensive tennis shoes. In the absence of yams and kudus, this I suppose is understandable. Gather ye yams while ye may….

Where does this lead? The Chorale will speak in unison, with the rhythmic thump-thump-thump of a migraine, of White Privilege, Jim Crow, racism, institutional racism, White Supremacy, and so on. (Funny: I do not think I have ever met a White Supremacist. I have met a very great many white people who want to be allowed to live where they want with whom they want, among people who share their values and do not engage in crime, looting, arson, and the Knockoutt Game.)

What we have are irreconcilably different peoples. The looting classes are not going to turn into whites, not going to become academically diligent, speak normal English, give up crime and illegitimacy. If they were going to, they would have. There is no sign of change, and no sign that there ever will be change. We have what we are going to have. And yes, as many will point out, there are large numbers of blacks, indeed most blacks, who do not do these disagrteeable things. But that has been true of every city which has ever rioted, and it did not prevent the riots.

Not too brightly, the rioters seem to be looking for a race war. The Black Panthers say that they are “willing to kill.” We hear “No justice, no peace.” Calls resound to kill the police, to kill whites. This is not smart, considering that whites and Hispanics, who do not like blacks, vastly outnumber them, and out-gun them, and food does not come from burned-out Safeways but from distant farms owned by whites. But they are used to being allowed to burn and lootl as they think interesting. They seem to have little idea of the future, and what will happen if the Chorale loses its grip and whites say, as many privately do, “Let’s get it on.”

If you find this warlike behavior inexplicable, remember that the rioters live in a head-space entirely different from that of people who read on-line columns. Most can’t read, or barely can and so don’t. Most probably can’t spell “slavery,” don’t know the dates of the Civil War, and have only the pathetic and distorted notions of history that the Chorale allows them to be taught. Nothing can be done about this. We have what we are going to have.

So what to do? Separate the races. Stop trying to push together peoples that have nothing in common. End “Fair” Housing Laws. Write laws that encourage whites to get out of Dodge. Let black suburbs be black by their own choice, and white, white. Allow historically-white colleges to be white if they choose. Let white regions escape what they do not want, and let blacks have what they do want. In particular, if blacks have only black police forces, and whites have white (conservation of parity) then greater racial peace will follow.

This is not an ideal solution, there being no ideal solution. It is obvious that blacks, or at least the urban underclass, cannot on average support themselves in a modern technological civilization. We are not supposed to say this but, I suspect, most of us know it. Fine. Keep  the welfare flowing. Regard it as equivalent to a golf handicap. (The other day I saw that some city is going to make both breakfast and lunch free in schools. This is better than letting them go hungry. It is also a step toward an undisguised custodial state.) But if the riots go on, and spread more widely as they seem likely to do, and the attacks on whites coninte, the danger is that one day whites will shoot back. The country would never recover.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 06, 2015, 09:53:18 pm

The racist Democrats created the permanent black underclass and destroyed their family values for votes.  Then they blame it on the rest of us.

It is evil but brilliant in it's execution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 12:41:03 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 06, 2015, 05:58:09 pm

Jes, you're so full of it. You post a bunch of drivel about how Christianity has done this and Christianity has done that, and then you spout 'I never said it was harmful'. Stupid wordplay nonsense. You're right in line with Hitler. Except Hitler used Christianity to help control and manipulate the people but behind the scenes he was relieving himself of the religious beliefs from his childhood, declaring 'I feel as fresh as a colt let out to pasture' while he systematically killed millions of religious Jews, Christians and others. With you, there is no hiding your hatred of Christianity....

Reading comprehension, Sportster, is a learned skill.  Work a bit harder and you might master it.

Please look back at what I wrote and find anyplace where I reference Christianity.

I was responding to your nonsense about the "moral right."  Perhaps YOU consider them to be Christians.  I certainly don't, and nothing in my two posts attributed anything to Christianity.  I instead addressed the actions taken by those you would identify as the "moral right."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 12:48:56 am

Quote from: davep on May 06, 2015, 06:20:50 pm

So you feel that a grammatical error is equivalent to a factual error.

I don't consider your error a grammatical error, so much as a typing error, just as mine were also more in the nature of typing errors than grammatical errors.  Look at my sentence structure.  It should be apparent I was mimicking what had been written in the post to which I was responding, which referenced 150 years, not 100, and in one of my three sentences in the sequence I did type 150 years.

In your post, though you used "there" when you should have used "their," I have no doubt you know the difference.

Neither your error, nor mine, actually indicate any real misunderstanding of what we were writing or posed any difficulty in understanding the point being made.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 07, 2015, 01:37:12 am

Who would you be referencing when you say they thought it 'God's will' if it wasn't Christians?? It's just more of your wordplay bs. Sorry pal, ain't gonna fly....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 02:46:04 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 07, 2015, 01:37:12 am

Who would you be referencing when you say they thought it 'God's will' if it wasn't Christians?? It's just more of your wordplay bs. Sorry pal, ain't gonna fly....

Again, Sportster, work on your reading comprehension.

I did not write that ANYone "thought it 'God's will'",  I wrote that the "moral right" (which was your phrase) insisted what they did was "god's will."  The diference is significant.  It is not wordplay.  And believe it or not Christians are not only not the only ones who believe there is a god, and a great many people who profess to by Christians and who insist their beliefs and their actions are outgrowth of Christianity are not Christians at all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 07, 2015, 04:56:13 am

Quote from: Pekin on May 06, 2015, 09:53:18 pm

The racist Democrats created the permanent black underclass and destroyed their family values for votes.  Then they blame it on the rest of us.

It is evil but brilliant in it's execution.

Totally agree

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 07, 2015, 05:17:08 am

Not playing your ridiculous games there, Jessy. You know you meant Christians when you said they thought they were doing 'God's will'. You didn't mean Buddhists or Shinto or Muslims or any such nonsense and you know it....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 06:29:28 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 07, 2015, 05:17:08 am

Not playing your ridiculous games there, Jessy. You know you meant Christians when you said they thought they were doing 'God's will'. You didn't mean Buddhists or Shinto or Muslims or any such nonsense and you know it....

Translation -- "Damn.  There really is nothing that supports my postion, but I certainly can't admit that to you."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 12:57:38 pm

Quote

The racist Democrats created the permanent black underclass and destroyed their family values for votes.  Then they blame it on the rest of us.

It is evil but brilliant in it's execution.

You guys can keep telling yourselves that, but everyone knows who the Dixiecrats were and whose house they now vote. For an example of which party is racist, just read the last post by the olde tacit racist.

He's one of yours.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 01:04:08 pm

A new study from the Rand Corporation finds that 16.9 million people became newly enrolled in insurance of all types as of February 2015.

    Researchers estimate that from September 2013 to February 2015, 22.8 million Americans became newly insured and 5.9 million lost coverage, for a net of 16.9 million newly insured Americans.

    Among those newly gaining coverage, 9.6 million people enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans, followed by Medicaid (6.5 million), the individual marketplaces (4.1 million), nonmarketplace individual plans (1.2 million) and other insurance sources (1.5 million).

    The study also estimates that 125.2 million Americans—about 80 percent of the nonelderly population that had insurance in September 2013—experienced no change in the source of insurance during the period, according to findings published online by the journal Health Affairs.

Get that? Eighty percent of insured people kept the plans they liked!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 07, 2015, 01:22:04 pm

Dixiecrats were Democrats.  All the doubletalk and rationalization from Homo can't change that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 07, 2015, 04:44:16 pm

Otto, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 07, 2015, 05:25:00 pm

Otto more history lessons for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the U.S. South for freedmen, the African Americans who had formerly been slaves, and former free blacks. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting. Extensive voter fraud was also used. Gubernatorial elections were close and had been disputed in Louisiana for years, with increasing violence against blacks during campaigns from 1868 onward. In 1877, a national Democratic Party compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the government's withdrawing the last of the federal troops from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state.[3] These Southern, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, officially segregating black people from the white population.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 05:35:47 pm

And Lincoln would be a modern day Democrat.

Dixiecrats were Democrats in name only. Which is why we never looked back when they moved to the republic party.

You guys love em, stop bitchin about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 05:39:51 pm

And peke...


Your party now owns that legacy. Those Dixiecrats now push voter ID laws, gerrymander legislative districts and push xenophobic immigration laws.


Once again embrace them and enjoy the ride.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 05:41:37 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 05:35:47 pm

Dixiecrats were Democrats in name only. Which is why we never looked back when they moved to the republic party.

A relative handful of elected officials in Congress left the Democratic party amd became Republicans. Most either died or were voted out of office.  They did not move to the Republican party.  They moved to the cemetary.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 05:42:25 pm

The olde tacit racist just posted an article about just that kind if separation.


Enjoy him too.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 05:44:55 pm

Hillbilly legal aid


Wow, in denial much. Maybe you like **** sandwiches, but nobody wants a food review of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 05:52:17 pm

Hillbilly legal aid

How many of your websites of libertarian conservative bias justify the Democratic Party racial politics with disclaimer of  "democrats of the south"?

Hell must conservatives in the south still think the Civil War is still going....you included.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 05:53:59 pm

But arguing over who supported Jim Crow, which party freed the slaves, who supported or opposed the civil rights legislation and voting rights legislation of the 1960's and who opposed it or where those folks would be on the political spectrum today is an excercise at mis-direction when the issue is which party or policies created the permanent underclass.

Quote from: Pekin on May 06, 2015, 09:53:18 pm

The racist Democrats created the permanent black underclass and destroyed their family values for votes.  Then they blame it on the rest of us.

It is evil but brilliant in it's execution.

And on THAT front the Democrats are clearly out there leading the way.  The point is that the social welfare programs and education policies which have created the level of dependence producing a permanent black underclass (such as is seen in Baltimore and Ferguson) are the result of racism, even if passed with the backing of liberals.  The problem, otto, would appear to be that you are completely missing the very essence of Pekiin's point -- that the policies of Obama and of the Ted Kennedy's of Congress are not compassionate but are instead racist, hate-filled and evil.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 06:03:12 pm

Ok, libertarian goof.

Just how have the polices of welfare and education caused Baltimore and Ferguson? Be very specific. Because it seems the policies of republic lawmakers in Ferguson of white dominance are way more to blame. Sucking money out of certain school districts, aggressive police tactics and a government manta of making poor minorities pay for government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 06:05:06 pm

Try not to be a walking slogan in your Kennedy less answer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 06:15:27 pm

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417899/inconvenient-truth-about-ghetto-communities-social-breakdown-thomas-sowell

The Inconvenient Truth about Ghetto Communities’ Social Breakdown
by Thomas Sowell May 5, 2015 12:00 AM

Among the many painful ironies in the current racial turmoil is that communities scattered across the country were disrupted by riots and looting because of the demonstrable lie that Michael Brown was shot in the back by a white policeman in Missouri — but there was not nearly as much turmoil created by the demonstrable fact that a fleeing black man was shot dead by a white policeman in South Carolina.

Totally ignored was the fact that a black policeman in Alabama fatally shot an unarmed white teenager, and was cleared of any charges, at about the same time that a white policeman was cleared of charges in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

In a world where the truth means so little, and headstrong preconceptions seem to be all that matter, what hope is there for rational words or rational behavior, much less mutual understanding across racial lines?

When the recorded fatal shooting of a fleeing man in South Carolina brought instant condemnation by whites and blacks alike, and by the most conservative as well as the most liberal commentators, that moment of mutual understanding was very fleeting, as if mutual understanding were something to be avoided, as a threat to a vision of “us against them” that was more popular.

That vision is nowhere more clearly expressed than in attempts to automatically depict whatever social problems exist in ghetto communities as being caused by the sins or negligence of whites, whether racism in general or a “legacy of slavery” in particular. Like most emotionally powerful visions, it is seldom, if ever, subjected to the test of evidence.

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

Such trends are not unique to blacks, nor even to the United States. The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. Just read Life at the Bottom, by Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician who worked in a hospital in a white slum neighborhood.

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.

One key fact that keeps getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits every year since 1994. Behavior matters and facts matter, more than the prevailing social visions or political empires built on those visions.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is www.tsowell.com. © 2015 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 07, 2015, 06:17:37 pm

“Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” — Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate”, in a letter written in 1944, after he quit the KKK.

“I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state …. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia …. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va …. I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities.” — Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate”, in a letter written in 1946, after he quit the KKK.

“These laws [segregation] are still constitutional and I promise you that until they are removed from the ordinance books of Birmingham and the statute books of Alabama, they will be enforced in Birmingham to the utmost of my ability and by all lawful means.” — Democrat Bull Connor (1957), Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, Alabama

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” — Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”

(On New York) “K*ketown.” — Harry Truman in a personal letter

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a **** from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.” Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess

“There’s some people who’ve gone over the state and said, ‘Well, George Wallace has talked too strong about segregation.’ Now let me ask you this: how in the name of common sense can you be too strong about it? You’re either for it or you’re against it. There’s not any middle ground as I know of.” — Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace (1959)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 06:18:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 06:03:12 pm

Just how have the polices of welfare and education caused Baltimore and Ferguson? Be very specific. Because it seems the policies of republic lawmakers in Ferguson of white dominance are way more to blame. Sucking money out of certain school districts, aggressive police tactics and a government manta of making poor minorities pay for government.

Baltimore schools spend more per public school student than all but about four school districts in the country.  "Sucking money out of certain school districts" has nothing to do with the plight of those in either community.  Liberal social welfare programs do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 06:20:00 pm

Hillybilly legal aid

Having a hard time backing your assertion? An article by tommy sowellIgetpaidforthis is not an acceptable answer to your assertion of welfare and education caused this post.

Try again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 06:21:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 06:20:00 pm

Having a hard time backing your assertion? An article by tommy sowellIgetpaidforthis is not an acceptable answer to your assertion of welfare and education caused this post.

Try again.

Why bother?  Trying to persuade you on such matters is pointless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 06:27:20 pm

I'll note that you can't back an assertion that you made. Cutting and pasting....


No wonder you lost that law license.


The south will rise again....


**** moron.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 07, 2015, 06:33:25 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/07/revealed-four-clinton-foundation-trustees-charged-or-convicted-of-financial-crimes/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 07, 2015, 06:55:30 pm

Moved on from baseless claims to more useless claims...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 07, 2015, 08:36:25 pm

If Homo can believe that it was the Democrats that were in favor of Civil Rights, it is understandable how he can believe in mankind caused Global Warming.

It is amazing that he can come from the same state as future President Scott Walker.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 07, 2015, 09:03:55 pm

Imagine if he found out what planned parenthood was started for.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 07, 2015, 10:42:10 pm

LOL.. That's a rich one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 12:54:19 pm

Women's control of their bodies and reproductive rights is a problem for you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 12:59:52 pm

Democrats were the drivers of civil rights laws and you guys were the opposition.

Martin Luther King found that out and switched from a republic to a Democratic member.

Global Climate Change and your denial of just means that once again you're on the wrong side of history and knowledge.


Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 08, 2015, 01:32:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 12:54:19 pm

Women's control of their bodies and reproductive rights is a problem for you?

Not as long as they don't murder someone else's body.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 08, 2015, 02:05:47 pm

Six Quotes Hint Why Marget Sanger Received "a dozen invitations" to speak at Ku Klux Klan Rallies



Margaret Sanger wrote about her Ku Klux Klan speech in her autobiography, "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

What did she say in her talk at the KKK Rally that led to twelve more invitations? Well, take a look at some of her past quotes:


1) "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

2) "Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."

Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

3) "Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

4) "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

5) "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

6) "Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.Margaret Sanger. "

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 05:03:28 pm

Must be nice living in a conservative world which has been frozen in time.

Is real life black and white like dreams?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 08, 2015, 05:05:16 pm

Well the purpose of planned parenthood is certainly BLACK and white

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 08, 2015, 05:10:26 pm

 All of you are being played as suckers and fools being turned back on your self for eternity.


 I CONTROL YOU !

If I dont control you ... can you imagine who does control you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 08, 2015, 05:15:27 pm

 You better be fuckin scared dude ... at least I'm nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2015, 05:38:48 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 12:54:19 pm

Women's control of their bodies and reproductive rights is a problem for you?

The question was what it was started for, not what it might do now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2015, 05:45:43 pm

I am betting that otto is not even capable of seeing the irony in this.

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 05:03:28 pm

Must be nice living in a conservative world which has been frozen in time.

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 12:59:52 pm

Democrats were the drivers of civil rights laws and you guys were the opposition.

Martin Luther King found that out and switched from a republic to a Democratic member.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 08, 2015, 06:44:29 pm

 I have this cummed filled condom and am wondering on which side to turn it over to in the advancement of humanity.


 The right ? The left ? The idiots of both ?


 Who decided on which side you're on ?


 You didn't.


 You were raised into any environment that said this is what you must do.


 You didn't have any say in the matter. You were just there.


 You were born and raised into whatever way you think.


 The concept of thinking on your own may be becoming aware to you.


 Ain't that going to be a motherfucker when that happens ?


 What do you think will happen?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 07:27:03 pm

Margret Sanger wasn't black and white so I'm not sure what point you guys are trying to make.

Quote

Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term birth control, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Sanger was also a writer. She used this method to help promote her way of thinking as a way of helping other women feel safe. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was okay to come back. Sanger never stopped trying to complete her goal- to help women realize that they could have control over their body. She was a feminist, and she wanted to fight for women's rights. Sanger's efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion and has also been criticized for supporting eugenics, but remains an iconic figure in the American reproductive rights movement

Rather than the obnoxious black/white of this ambiguous post.

Quote

Quote from: otto105 on Today at 05:03:28 pm
Must be nice living in a conservative world which has been frozen in time.

Quote from: otto105 on Today at 12:59:52 pm
Democrats were the drivers of civil rights laws and you guys were the opposition.

Martin Luther King found that out and switched from a republic to a Democratic member.

The irony is HLA is that youeither  don't understand MLK, his decision regarding African-Americans and the republic party (which he rejected do to it not having a concern for Civil Rights) or that your post is just lazy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 08, 2015, 07:46:55 pm

 OttoBeard,


 You'll NEVER get it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 08, 2015, 08:02:21 pm

Otto she was a racist and created planned parenthood to keep the black population down.  She thought they were polluting the gene pool.  Damn you are thick!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 08:05:07 pm

JJ


I get all of it. I'm just not accepting of the rank ignorance of the right as you are.

Maybe you can go from advocating algae is an energy substitute to being a fracking ass, but I can't.

Maybe you can accept job creation in other countries as good economic policy, but I can't.

Maybe you can accept their bemoaning the fundraising of Senator/Secretary of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton while ignoring their candidates bending over for billionaire bucks, but I can't.

You're owed by them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 08:09:08 pm

peke

Do you understand that she did not want to eliminate all black people (or any other race) but rather the "undesirable of any race".

The better off you will be.

Try reading first, posting second.

Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit. In “The Morality of Birth Control,” a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the educated and informed class that regulated the size of their families, the intelligent and responsible who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the irresponsible and reckless people whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating. Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 08, 2015, 08:16:49 pm

Since she spoke at KKK rallies many times I suspect she found the black race undesirable and felt they were muddying the gene pool.  She did not however promote abortion she thought that was wrong. She was only for contraception.  She made a point to put the clinics in black neighborhoods for population control.

Planned Parenthood started being pro-abortion after her death.  So even a racist **** knew killing unborn babies was wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 08:34:48 pm

No wonder your governor wants to cut education funding by 30%.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 08:40:39 pm

State senator accused of sexual assault


Mike Donoghue,
Burlington Free Press, 11:59 a.m. EDT May 8, 2015

Vermont state senator is facing criminal charges of sexual assault, human trafficking and prohibited acts, the Vermont State Police confirmed Thursday night.

Sen. Norman H. McAllister, R-Franklin, is in the midst of his second two-year term as a Republican senator...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 08, 2015, 08:43:19 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on May 08, 2015, 08:05:07 pm

JJ


I get all of it. I'm just not accepting of the rank ignorance of the right as you are.

Maybe you can go from advocating algae is an energy substitute to being a fracking ass, but I can't.

Maybe you can accept job creation in other countries as good economic policy, but I can't.

Maybe you can accept their bemoaning the fundraising of Senator/Secretary of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton while ignoring their candidates bending over for billionaire bucks, but I can't.

You're owed by them.

 OK Otto lets review :


 There be MONEY to be made in Energy


 There be MONEY to be made in Warfare


 Now here's the tit twister ...


 How do you convert them to PROFITABLE in endeavors that those that are in on the action ...


 want to make ENERGY that isn't killing us ...


 and WARFARE that isn't killing us.


 No quandary has ever been reached.


 Both of the technology's can be easily converted ...


 because the MONEY is there.


 It's all about where to apply it.


 It's your KIDS and everybody's KIDS ...


 OR IT'S **** DEATH FOR YOUR KIDS.


 Every motherfuckin one of you has the answer ... and it's not a joke anymore.  >:(   ???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 08, 2015, 09:24:24 pm

Margaret Sanger Quotes, History, and Biography









   

 
Margaret Sanger (1879 – 1966) was a birth control, population control, and eugenics activist. She changed the world, but for the worse.

By 1911, Sanger had moved to New York City, where she became heavily influenced by anarchist, socialist, and labor activists. She began joining and participating in radical groups and causes.

In March 1914, Sanger published the first issue of her own paper, The Woman Rebel. Along with providing information about birth control, Sanger wholeheartedly supported the use of violence to achieve political, economic, and social goals. Case in point, the Lexington Avenue bombing. On July 4th of that year, a bomb accidentally exploded in a Harlem apartment, killing three men and one woman. The three men were planning to bomb the home of industrialist John D. Rockefeller, but the bomb exploded prematurely. The plan was devised at the Ferrer Center, an educational institution, which also served as the meeting place for a movement of radicals. Sanger lectured at the institution, and was active in the movement.

After the failed terrorist attempt, Sanger wrote a commentary, calling the deaths a display of “courage, determination, conviction, a spirit of defiance.” She argued the “real tragedy” was “the cowardice and the poisonous respectability” of the movement’s leaders who offered apologies, rather than defiance, for the episode. Sanger urged those in the movement to “accept and exult in every act of revolt against oppression,” including terrorist acts. She also published a complementary article that defended the assassination of political or industrial leaders.

The following month, August 1914, Sanger was indicted for inciting murder and assassination, and for violating obscenity laws. But instead of facing the charges, she fled the country. On the trip to England, after the ship had entered international waters, Sanger instructed her supporters to distribute 100,000 copies of her pamphlet, Family Limitation. In February 1916, the charges were dropped.

In October 1916, Sanger opened America’s first birth control clinic. Located in Brownsville, New York, the clinic permanently closed a month later, after Sanger was charged with maintaining a public nuisance. In February 1917, she was convicted and given a thirty day prison sentence.

Also in February 1917, the first issue of Sanger’s journal, The Birth Control Review, was published. She was The Review’s editor until 1929, and used her editorials to promote birth control and eugenics. For Sanger, these issues were inseparable.

The word eugenics, which means well born, was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Positive eugenics was a movement that attempted to “improve” the human population by encouraging “fit” people to reproduce. Negative eugenics, conversely, attempted to “improve” the human population by discouraging “unfit” people from reproducing. The “unfit” people included the poor, the sick, the disabled, and the “feeble-minded,” the “idiots,” the “morons,” and the “insane.” And “discouragement” from reproducing included the use of force.

Sanger rejected positive eugenics, while embracing negative eugenics. She wrote, “Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.” She stressed the need to merge eugenics with birth control, adding, “Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”

And Sanger advocated birth control backed up by forced sterilization or segregation to achieve her aims, writing, “While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” The bottom of the matter was “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” So the government, Sanger concluded, needed “to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring” and “to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

In her 1920 book, Woman and the New Race, Sanger wrote that birth control “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”

She had a plan. And she was about to get an organization. In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which (following a 1939 merger with the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau and then a 1942 name change) became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. While the organization was growing, the close association between the birth control movement and the eugenics movement had made a name change necessary. Nazi Germany had implemented racial hygiene policies, including mass sterilizations, inspired by the eugenics movement in America. So “birth control” was removed from the name to create a new public image. The agenda, though, stayed the same. And in 1948, Sanger helped form the International Committee on Planned Parenthood, which (in 1952) became the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Through it all, the underlying theme, eliminating the unfit, never changed. In her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, she attacked charity as counterproductive, and dangerous, for helping the poor to produce even more “human waste.” (Sanger’s term for the children of the poor.) She wrote, “Organized charity is itself the symptom of a malignant social disease.” And, “Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

In a 1925 book, Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities, Sanger contributed an essay, writing, “Birth Control is not merely an individual problem; it is not merely a national question, it concerns the whole wide world, the ultimate destiny of the human race. In his last book, Mr. [H.G.] Wells speaks of the meaningless, aimless lives which cram this world of ours, hordes of people who are born, who live, yet who have done absolutely nothing to advance the race one iota. Their lives are hopeless repetitions. All that they have said has been said before; all that they have done has been done better before. Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world; we must cultivate our garden.”

Then in 1926, Sanger spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey. Writing about the event in her autobiography, she highlighted its success, noting that “a dozen invitations to speak to similar groups” were offered.

And in 1939, Sanger went to work “cultivating the garden.” She initiated the Negro Project to weed out the unfit from the black population. In bringing birth control to the then largely poor (i.e. unfit) population of the South, with a few influential black ministers promoting the project as the solution to poverty, Sanger hoped to significantly reduce the black population. Martin Luther King, Sr., as the eldest son of nine children born into poverty in a family of sharecroppers, would have made the perfect target for “elimination.” But his birth had already taken place.

In her later years, Sanger still believed that there were people “who never should have been born at all.” In a 1957 interview  with Mike Wallace, she said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin – that people can – can commit.”

Sanger’s impact during her lifetime was highly negative, and included the cruelty of forced sterilization, which became a common practice. In America, over 60,000 people were sterilized against their will. And most occurred during the 1930s and 1940s when Sanger and the birth control and population control movements were pushing states hard to enact and enforce compulsory sterilization laws. Among the victims were the blind, the deaf, epileptics, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, and people with low IQs diagnosed as “feeble-minded.”

Sanger’s legacy today, which is being carried on by Planned Parenthood, includes the devastating impact of “birth control” on the black community. Planned Parenthood has continued the practice of targeting the black population. Over 30% of all abortions are performed on black women and close to 40% of black pregnancies end in abortion.

Planned Parenthood successfully created a public image of an organization working to help the poor, while hiding the reality that it targets the vulnerable. That was Sanger’s plan from the start.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 08, 2015, 10:03:09 pm

Sanger’s legacy today, which is being carried on by Planned Parenthood, includes the devastating impact of “birth control” on the black community. Planned Parenthood has continued the practice of targeting the black population. Over 30% of all abortions are performed on black women and close to 40% of black pregnancies end in abortion.

Quite a legacy there. No wonder why Oddo is such a strong Democratic supporter and Planned Parenthood fan. Just think Concervatives wanted to defund it.  So let me get this straight, Oddo is against killing black youth yet supports the killing of black babies. Typical Dumbocrat.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2015, 10:25:12 pm

otto was at least correct in cuttiing and pasting the following as an accurate summary of Sanger's views:

Quote

Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.

Unfortunately for otto he seems incapable of grasping that Sanger considered all blacks to be unfit.

She was a racist of the first order, and her ideas were embraced by Hitler in his effort to implement the "final solution."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 08, 2015, 10:34:49 pm

An excerpt from an e-mail I received explaining about the Christian bakery which wouldn't cater a gay marriage:



"Aaron and Melissa Klein and their faith-based business face a $135,000 fine from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

 Their crime? As the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, they stood up for their faith and refused to support a lesbian couple's wedding.

 And for standing for their faith, the state of Oregon is making them pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple!

 Then things got even worse.

 A GoFundMe crowdfunding page was set up to help the Kleins in their battle. In hours, thousands of people supported their cause. But the politically correct mob complained, so GoFundMe shut down the page!

 The Kleins aren't alone. A rising tide of anti-Christian attacks threatens our society at its foundation. People of faith across our country are facing fines, legal attacks and even death threats for daring to stand up for their beliefs. And with the Supreme Court poised to rule in favor of homosexual marriage, every person of faith in America is about to be on the wrong side of the law!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2015, 11:02:18 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 08, 2015, 10:34:49 pm

An excerpt from an e-mail I received explaining about the Christian bakery which wouldn't cater a gay marriage:



"Aaron and Melissa Klein and their faith-based business face a $135,000 fine from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

 Their crime? As the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, they stood up for their faith and refused to support a lesbian couple's wedding.

 And for standing for their faith, the state of Oregon is making them pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple!

 Then things got even worse.

 A GoFundMe crowdfunding page was set up to help the Kleins in their battle. In hours, thousands of people supported their cause. But the politically correct mob complained, so GoFundMe shut down the page!

 The Kleins aren't alone. A rising tide of anti-Christian attacks threatens our society at its foundation. People of faith across our country are facing fines, legal attacks and even death threats for daring to stand up for their beliefs. And with the Supreme Court poised to rule in favor of homosexual marriage, every person of faith in America is about to be on the wrong side of the law!

And the "person of faith" who owns a motel and refuses to rent a room to a gay couple because they are gay and they would be engaging in "immorality"?

Or the grocery store which might refuse to sell them groceries because it would be allowig them to continue their "gay lifestyle"?

Should they also be free to refuse to provide those services to a gay couple?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 08, 2015, 11:51:50 pm

The circumstances are different This is about supporting gay marriage which people of faith are against. It should be illegal. But an atheist has no such moral convictions. Your examples are against individuals, like service in a restaurant. Jesus fed the people. How can anyone refuse to serve customers in a restaurant. Feeding those at a gay wedding is a different matter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 09, 2015, 01:19:20 am

Don't be so certain that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of allowing gay marriage. That is a institution that has stood for decades and they appear hesitant to change the meaning of the term. Many many folks are praying that the outcome is that the traditional meaning of marriage should remain so. And thankfully Samaritan's Purse, a Christian based org, stepped in to continue the funding for that couple and others who have been attacked by the gay mafia. There are other faith based services popping up as well, so gofundme has lost many who would support them through this. I'll never use them again....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2015, 04:00:51 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 08, 2015, 11:51:50 pm

The circumstances are different This is about supporting gay marriage which people of faith are against. It should be illegal. But an atheist has no such moral convictions. Your examples are against individuals, like service in a restaurant. Jesus fed the people. How can anyone refuse to serve customers in a restaurant. Feeding those at a gay wedding is a different matter.

Simply saying something is "different" does not exactly explain what that difference is, and I do not see it.  As to your contention that an atheist hs no moral convictions, you merely are illustrating another issue on which you appear to lack ay understanding whatsoever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 09, 2015, 08:24:48 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 09, 2015, 01:19:20 am

Don't be so certain that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of allowing gay marriage. That is a institution that has stood for decades and they appear hesitant to change the meaning of the term. Many many folks are praying that the outcome is that the traditional meaning of marriage should remain so. And thankfully Samaritan's Purse, a Christian based org, stepped in to continue the funding for that couple and others who have been attacked by the gay mafia. There are other faith based services popping up as well, so gofundme has lost many who would support them through this. I'll never use them again....

True. Grassfire has funded rescue operations in northern Iraq as well as the family in Oregon. I am familiar with Samaritan's Purse. That's Franklin Graham's workings.

As for the Supreme Court continuing to support traditional marriage. I don't see it. Ginsburg and the liberals have become increasingly vocal which is unusual. I see traditionalists being struck a further blow.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 09, 2015, 11:33:47 am

Ruth Marcus, the liberal lady, slams Slick Willy.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-left/050515-751128-clinton-says-he-gotta-pay-bills-justifying-huge-speaking-fees.htm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2015, 07:26:10 pm

Again, where is the there there again?


Ruth didn't write that...just more blah blah its the Clinton's.

Can somebody help her?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2015, 07:45:04 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 09, 2015, 07:26:10 pm

Again, where is the there there again?
Ruth didn't write that...just more blah blah its the Clinton's.
Can somebody help her?

Didn't write what?  What is the "that" you reference?  The only reasonable antecedent for the indefinite pronoun "that" is the content at the link packrat offered, and that content does appear to have been writte by Ruth Marcus.  otto, are you contending otherwise?

For future reference, you might want to be more careful when using indefinite pronouns.  Failing to have a clear antecedent for them makes it even more difficult than normal to try to decifer what point you thought you were making.

If you would like I could refer you to a couple of decent resources which might help you with the problem.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2015, 08:25:09 pm

Jose' you boring repetitive and tedious.

And now for something completely different.

https://youtu.be/wCpu18qeRoQ (https://youtu.be/wCpu18qeRoQ)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2015, 08:47:08 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 09, 2015, 08:25:09 pm

Jose' you boring repetitive and tedious.

otto, having read your posts for some time, I can understand how you might have become bored by having people ask you what it is you meant by something you have said or written.

My suggestion was that you take some steps which might reduce the frequency someone asks you what you meant.

Seriously, otto, with work, you might not be bored so often by hearing people ask the same old question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 09, 2015, 09:02:06 pm

My god, just stop being an insufferable bastard for once in your life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 09, 2015, 09:30:10 pm

 ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 09, 2015, 11:26:41 pm

Weren't Homos supposed to be the best and the brightest?  How did Oddo manage to get into that club?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 05:36:33 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mike-huckabees-awful-crusade/2015/05/08/d983dc9e-f51e-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Mike Huckabee’s appalling crusade
By George F. Will Opinion writer

In the 1950s, during one of his two campaigns as the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Adlai Stevenson was invited to address a gathering of Baptists in Houston, where in 1960 John Kennedy would address a group of Protestant ministers to refute charges that his Catholicism rendered him unfit to be president. This was an opinion vociferously promulgated by Norman Vincent Peale, a broadcast preacher and author of “The Power of Positive Thinking.” The man introducing Stevenson said the candidate had been invited only “as a courtesy” because Peale “has instructed us to vote for your opponent.” In response, Stevenson repeated a quip he had made when, in 1952, Peale said Stevenson was unfit to be president because he was divorced. Stevenson said: “I find the Apostle Paul appealing and the Apostle Peale appalling.”

Now comes the Apostle Mike, determined to save Christian America. Mike Huckabee’s second run for the Republican presidential nomination will reveal how much embarrassment can emanate from one small town.

Hope, Ark., gave us Bill Clinton and the cloud of the Clintonian family seediness that still hovers over public life. Huckabee, another former Arkansas governor, chose Hope, his home town, to launch a candidacy that begins with a book, “God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy,” and a post-announcement “factories, farms and freedom” tour. If the presidency goes to the most alliterative candidate, Huckabee wins.

Huckabee, who won Iowa’s 2008 caucuses, aims to become the second person to win two contested Iowa caucuses. Bob Dole, who won in 1988 and 1996, spent the intervening eight years at the center of politics. Huckabee has spent much of the past eight years at Fox News, which is dandy but hardly the Senate.

In 1998, Huckabee vowed to “take back this nation for Christ.” And to repel Satanic threats to Iowa’s subsidized ethanol industry, which he says is vital because “we need the broadest possible energy portfolio.” Never mind today’s bountiful energy.

Huckabee was unsurprised when a lunatic murdered 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in 2012: “We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?” So, the slaughter was a consequence of the 1962 Supreme Court decision against government schools administering prayers? Was the 2012 massacre of 12 people at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater caused by insufficient praying at America’s cineplexes?

Today, Huckabee says, “We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity,” and he asserts a biblical duty to pray for the Supreme Court justices pondering the matter of same-sex marriages. Politico recently reported that Huckabee told some conservative pastors that “he cringes whenever he hears people call a court decision ‘the law of the land.’ ” He added: “This is not that complicated. There are three branches of government, not one.” To radio host Hugh Hewitt, Huckabee further explained his rejection of the idea of “judicial supremacy, where if the courts make a decision” it is “the law of the land”:

“No, it isn’t the law of the land. Constitutionally, the courts cannot make a law. They can interpret one. And then the legislature has to create enabling legislation, and the executive has to sign it, and has to enforce it. . . . [State legislatures] would have to create legislation that the governor would sign. If they don’t, then there is not same-sex marriage in that state. Now, if the federal courts say, well, you’re going to have to do it, well, then, you have a confrontation. At that point, somebody has to decide, is the court right? If it is, then the legislation will be passed.”

And if “someone” — who? President Huckabee? — decides that the court is wrong? In 1957, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus decided the federal courts were wrong about integrating Little Rock Central High School, an idea President Dwight Eisenhower countered with the 101st Airborne. David A. Graham of the Atlantic notes that, if the Supreme Court rules against a clause of a state’s law defining marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman, this does not invalidate the rest of a state’s marriage laws, so the state’s legislature need not act. Unless, that is, it wishes to reassert the pre-Civil War doctrine of “nullification” — the right of states to disregard laws they deem unconstitutional.

For many voters, a party is largely defined by the behavior of its presidential aspirants. For Republicans worried about broadening their party’s appeal, there is one word for Huckabee’s stances: Appalling.
*******************************
*******************************

I believe Will's reference to 1998 in the 5th paragraph is wrong and that he actually was referencing Huckabee in 2008, and he is also mistaken in using "the doctrine of nullification" to reference the idea that states had authority equal to the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution.  That idea, though it seems more than mildly bizarre to most people today, was not at all uncommon in the early days of the nation; it was a position shared by not only Jefferson, but even at least a couple of the earliest Supreme Court Justices, but it was NOT called "nullification," that idea specifically references federal legislation and whether a state has the power to nullify a piece of federal legislation within that state's boarders.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 08:41:40 am

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.... http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/050515-751207-bill-clinton-makes-bogus-claim-of-no-capital-gains.htm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 10, 2015, 11:03:21 am

That is why Hillary's campaign would prefer Bill stay in the shadows. Hillary steps on her "dick" enough as it is..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 10, 2015, 11:19:14 am

That's why your in the 2016 clown car fool...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 10, 2015, 11:31:30 am

I see an excerpt on yahoo, Michelle Obama talking about her and Barack Dealing with "slights" their whole lives (race). Who doesn't deal with obstacles and hurdles throughout their lives. This is the leader of the free world. She needs to look in the mirror, her husband was deemed the great uniter, turns out they're both great dividers..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 10, 2015, 11:39:20 am

whiteinva

Tells us again about that first time as a small child you felt the burden of being white...


Tell us again how white racists in America who reject everything from our elected Black President can claim division? You checking into an all white nursing home?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 10, 2015, 12:21:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 10, 2015, 11:39:20 am

whiteinva

Tells us again about that first time as a small child you felt the burden of being white...


Tell us again how white racists in America who reject everything from our elected Black President can claim division? You checking into an all white nursing home?

Are you talking from experience? .. Otto, the righteous whitie...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 10, 2015, 01:57:45 pm

 ;D ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 02:42:07 pm

I'd vote for Huckabee in a quick minute, regardless whether atheists like Jes fume or not. If they're upset,he must be doing something good.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 02:57:11 pm

I don't care for Huckabee or Bush because they back Common Core. 

Oh Huckabee has changed his tune on it recently but he backed it for years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 10, 2015, 07:01:41 pm

I'm not much on Huckabee either..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:06:08 pm

Rubio, Walker, Cruz, Paul or even Carson are my top choices.

Carson may be the best choice I just don't think he is a seasoned enough politician to win.  He would probably be a better president because it also means he is not a liar but I think he will make a "mistake" somewhere along the way and be attacked by the media.  They simply can not have a black conservative running for president for long.  It destroys the lefts narrative. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 07:08:10 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 02:42:07 pm

I'd vote for Huckabee in a quick minute, regardless whether atheists like Jes fume or not. If they're upset,he must be doing something good.....

Boy, that one is surprising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 10, 2015, 07:08:47 pm

I agree. I heard him on the radio the other day, really has his act together..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 07:09:14 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 02:57:11 pm

I don't care for Huckabee or Bush because they back Common Core.

Just what is it that you dislike about Common Core?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 07:16:23 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:06:08 pm

Rubio, Walker, Cruz, Paul or even Carson are my top choices.

Paul, Cruz, Fiorino, Rubio, Perry, Kasich.

I expect both Perry and Kasich to announce in the next 45 days, think Kasich would likely actually be a very good president, believe Perry will do much better this time when he is not doped up on pain-killers after back surgery, and believe Fiorino will surprise a lot of voters with how well she does in the debates.

And while I would like to agree with you about Carson, he simply would have no idea what he was doing and would have to surround himself with pols who did know how to make things work, and who were not particularly known by him or loyal to him.  A Carson presidency would likely be a major disaster.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:21:53 pm

I disagree about Carson.  We need a leader.  I feel he would make a superb leader.

The founders of this country were not career politicians.  They were leaders.

Part of the reason this country is in so much trouble is because we are being led by career politicians.  Our last great president was an actor and leader first.  A politician second.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 10, 2015, 07:29:15 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 02:57:11 pm

I don't care for Huckabee or Bush because they back Common Core. 

Oh Huckabee has changed his tune on it recently but he backed it for years.

What do you have against common core?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 07:30:20 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 10, 2015, 11:31:30 am

I see an excerpt on yahoo, Michelle Obama talking about her and Barack Dealing with "slights" their whole lives (race). Who doesn't deal with obstacles and hurdles throughout their lives. This is the leader of the free world. She needs to look in the mirror, her husband was deemed the great uniter, turns out they're both great dividers..

The worst thing about being the vicitim of any sort of discrimination in America today is the it creates an excuse for failure.  Those without such an excuse simply have to admit that they have failed because they failed.  When you have failed because YOU failed, you are more likely to address the cause of your failure and ty to change it.  If you are conviced, however, that your failure is the result of sexism or racism or some other similar discrimination, there is no need at all to address your shortcomings.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 10, 2015, 07:32:13 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:21:53 pm

I disagree about Carson.  We need a leader.  I feel he would make a superb leader.

The founders of this country were not career politicians.  They were leaders.

Part of the reason this country is in so much trouble is because we are being led by career politicians.  Our last great president was an actor and leader first.  A politician second.

Reagan was the best politician that the Republicans have had in many decades.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:32:51 pm

There are many things wrong with common core but the biggest is that it takes control of education away from local governments and gives it to the federal government.  I don't see any good coming from that.

Another is that it was a product of politicians creating a way to line their pockets.  Both Democrats and Republicans backed it but for different reasons besides that major one.

Liberals get to use the federal government to indoctrinate youth even more through the educational system.  The RINO's who sold out may have done it to try and steal power from the teachers union but they were doing it mainly to get rich and because they believe in big government as much as the Democrats they just hope to be in control.

A true conservative would never want the federal government to have so much power over what is taught in public schools nor the ability to track students abilities like that.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 07:34:39 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 10, 2015, 11:39:20 am

whiteinva
Tells us again about that first time as a small child you felt the burden of being white...

Whatever burden Obama felt as a small child as a result of having one white parent and one black parent, it would appear not to have been so traumatic as to prevent him from authoring a best-selling book based in large part on that conflict, and it also would appear not to have been so burdensome as to have prevented him from having become president.  Must have been some damn nasty **** he labored under.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 07:45:20 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:32:51 pm

There are many things wrong with common core but the biggest is that it takes control of education away from local governments and gives it to the federal government.  I don't see any good coming from that.

I woud fully agree, if that were true, but each state adopts its own version of Common Core, and many of them have rather significant differences.

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:32:51 pm

Another is that it was a product of politicians creating a way to line their pockets.  Both Democrats and Republicans backed it but for different reasons besides that major one.

It is not the product of politicians.

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:32:51 pm

Liberals get to use the federal government to indoctrinate youth even more through the educational system.  The RINO's who sold out may have done it to try and steal power from the teachers union but they were doing it mainly to get rich and because they believe in big government as much as the Democrats they just hope to be in control.

The Common Core standards involve no indoctrination.  If you can site me to any provisions within any state's standards, please share them, because I would genuinely love to see them.

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:32:51 pm

A true conservative would never want the federal government to have so much power over what is taught in public schools nor the ability to track students abilities like that. 

I would be tempted to say that a true conservative would actually familiarize themselves enough with Common Core to have a better understanding of what it does or doesn't do.... but while every other conservative I have asked to point to the actual provisions supportig their concerns has been unable to do so, perhaps you can.  If you can point to any, I would love to see them.  I genuinely would like to oppose Common Core, but since my opposition would have to be based on what is in the plan instead of simply on what some rabid critics say about it, so far I can't.

I am also unaware of any of the provisions you allude to regarding an "ability to track students," though you would sort of think that any school which FAILED to track its students from start to finish, to try to determine what was effective and what was ineffective, was not really doing its job.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:45:26 pm

davep, It depends on your view of what being a great politician is.  Reagan could charm a room the same way Bill Clinton and Obama can.

Reagan and Bill Clinton could both work across the aisle to get things done.  Obama can't.  I doubt Carson can or anyone for that matter right now.

I am not sure there will ever be another politician who can until there is some MAJOR issue that is an immediate danger to the country that forces them to work together.  No cult of personality is going to make it happen.  The two sides are so far apart and directly opposed.  Why do you think the Republicans keep nominating RINO's like McCain and Romney?

They think those guys can bridge the gap and work across the aisle.  No one can and the republicans will not win another presidency until they nominate a true conservative.  A fiscal conservative.  Not just a social conservative.

In fact their best bet would be a fiscal conservative who is more liberal on social matters.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 07:49:31 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:45:26 pm

In fact their best bet would be a fiscal conservative who is more liberal on social matters.   

Sounds like Rand Paul.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 08:00:41 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:21:53 pm

I disagree about Carson.  We need a leader.  I feel he would make a superb leader.

The founders of this country were not career politicians.  They were leaders.

Part of the reason this country is in so much trouble is because we are being led by career politicians.  Our last great president was an actor and leader first.  A politician second.

And Carson's track record as a leader is.... what?  Exactly?

Do you disagree that he would need to surround himself with aides who DO know the system and the issues since he does not?

Do you disagree that when he staffs the appointed positions of the executive branch he would largely need to fill it with people with whome he had no long-standing relationships or confidence?

Would you disagree that such a situation would likely be rife with corruption and in-fighting?

When Carter went to the White House he took with him a large inner circle of political operatives from GA.  The same with Clinton.  The same with Reagan.  All of the other presidents in the last 80 years have been creatures of D.C. who knew the process and who had a large number of people they had worked with and who they could rely on.

Who would Carson rely on?  Would he apoint a few scrub nurses and an anaesthician from his surgical team?

I understand your reference back to the founders, but the executive branch at that time did nothing remotely close to what it does today, and the need for having someone who knows his (or her) way around, AND how to run things, is much greater now than 220 years ago.

And even if you share my view that much of what the executive branch now does it should not do, you need to have someone who knows how to find the restrooms if you expect them to be able to dismantle anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 10, 2015, 08:01:37 pm

My kids are in elementary school right now and dealing with common core. In many cases they don't have text books, the teachers have to find their own materials and instead of teaching kids the things like phonics, they are teaching them to memorize words. I was very strong in math and science and have trouble helping my 5th grade daughter sometimes, not because I can't find the answer but because they don't arrive at answers in a normal way. They teach three ways to find an answer (beacause some kids learn better a different way) instead of taking the needed time to teach standard methods well. You can't look back in their text book to help them because ther are no text books. Most teachers I talk to don't feel like they can actually teach the kids anymore because they are having to follow common core. My wife volunteers in school a lot, and I have volunteered as well and they waste so much time in school, we feel like we are actually teaching the kids more with homework than they are learning in school. My kids are bright and we are involved parents. I can't imagine what is happening to kids who are on the slow side with little parent involvement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 08:02:03 pm

May 31, 2013   
 
Top Ten Dangers of Common Core
 Leave a comment
 

Common-Core-logoThe public education system has been hijacked years ago. But now the federal government has been secretly implementing a new program that will single-handedly revoke any and all constitutional rights of American citizens.

Don’t think that’s possible?

Let’s take a closer look at the Common Core State Standards. Originally brought on by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), which together, formed the Common Core State Standards Initiative in 2009.

Here’s their mission statement taken directly from their website:


The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.

Certainly, no one is making the case not to fund or promote programs that has a proven track record to enhance a child’s creative ability to learn and apply common principles to life. But as nice as Common Core’s mission statement sounds, it’s nothing close to improving the betterment of children and their education.

Common Core is nothing more than an attempt to have the freedom of our children removed and replaced with a destructive ideology that seeks to manipulate young minds and profit only those in power.

I write this to alert all decent and brave Americans. Below I developed the “Top Ten Dangers of Common Core” to help you get informed and spread the truth!

Top Ten Dangers of Common Core
1.It’s unconstitutional. The basic tenets of Common Core overreaches into the “consent of the governed.” As reported by Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins of A Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project, they found Common Core to be an “illegal direction of curriculum and usurpation of state autonomy.” They further explain, “The point of standards and assessments is to drive curriculum. By imposing the Standards on the states, and by funding their aligned assessments and imposing those on the states as well, the U.S. Department of Education is violating three federal statutes prohibiting its direction, supervision, or control of curriculum. In addition, because states that adopt the Standards must accept them word for word and will have little opportunity to add content, the states must relinquish their autonomy over public education, all to the denigration of parents’ rights.” The point here is a simple. The voters never decided on Common Core! This is an abuse of the Executive Branch. (US Code Title 20 Education Chapter 48 Section 3403)

2.Eliminates classical education for control. Here’s the overarching truth:  Common Core intentionally removes parental rights, surrenders teachers helpless, reduces the quality of student achievement, and runs schools into the ground. Jamie Gass and Jim Stergios, writing for The Weekly Standard Blog had this to say about Common Core: “Common Core emphasizes experiential, skills-based learning while reducing the amount of classic literature, poetry, and drama taught in English classes. Its more vocational bent includes far greater emphasis on jargon-laden “informational text” extracts, and it supports analyzing texts short of historical context and background knowledge.” This is BIG GOV’T pulling out all their fancy graphs, published committee reports, and legislative jargon to validate “the problem” of our low grade school systems and poor test scores, when all the while, it’s because of them that this crisis gets even more out of control! But this is precisely what BIG GOV’T wants. The more out of control everything is, the more out of control their elite power becomes! (WARNING! This is about revoking God-given rights and replacing them with man-controlling permits.)

3.Advancement of ideological and political agendas.  The real truth behind limiting students reading and writing of the most basic levels of literary studies, is so that they become indoctrinated by the Common Core texts of history (i.e., progressivism), natural sciences (i.e., naturalism), social sciences (i.e., tolerance), and government (i.e., socialism). These subtleties are increasing and destructive. It’s an ideologically driven program designed by lawyers and disguised to bring solutions to all our educational problems. The only problem is, it’s not a program developed or endorsed by parents, teachers, or students.

4.Greatly weakens English, math and analytical learning. The way in which Common Core does this is by reducing the required reading and writing on classic literature. The many passionately-inspired teachers, who excel in developing the best and brightest in their classrooms, are now being disciplined because their teaching doesn’t conform to the system of bureaucracy.

5.Poor standardized tests that assume to know “the what” and “how” to make students efficient to succeed in their chosen path and/or career. Harvey Cushing puts it best, “Standardization of our educational systems is apt to stamp out individualism and defeat the very ends of education by leveling the product down rather than up.” On the ACT’s website (fully aligned to the Common Core Standards and Beyond) it states that their new assessment system, “provides meaningful information that helps individuals and organizations unlock their full potential.” Really? I guess the question that needs to be asked what does ACT mean by “meaningful information?” Not to mention what they mean by “unlocking” a student’s  “full potential?” This is nothing more than a gimmick to indoctrinate people to support a corrupt system. Thus, Common Core is a total overhaul of our education, and will completely wipe out any hope or innovation left in America if implemented.

6.The preparation of standardized testing isn’t improving students’ comprehension and retention, but causing many to suffer from mental distress, physical illness, and exhaustion.  Kris Nielsen, in his book Children of the Core, has this to say: “The Common Core Network guarantees more frustration, stress, burnout, illness, and dropout students. In fact, according to research from several experts, standards of any kind, which prescribe certain benchmarks by grade, age, or class, stifle learning…Remember, the Common Core State Standards come from two lawyers and a consortium of leaders representing Corporate America.” If these tests are designed to boost a student’s performance…then why are so many of them going insane?!

7.An unlawful tracking system that collects and shares personal and confidential information of students. Common Core breaches the federal student-privacy laws and takes the identity of American citizens (who happen to be underage) and shares this sensitive information with other departments of government as well as to the highest bidder. Kyle Olson (Education Action Group) appeared on TheBlaze TV. He provided some very scary litany of “data points” hidden in Common Core. He stated that these points include, “blood type, voting status of their parents, religious affiliation, their income…things that have nothing to do with their children’s education.” Tiffany Gabbay (TheBlaze) writes, “Even more off-putting is the revelation that a 44-page Department of Education Report released in February indicates that the Common Core data-mining system could one day implement monitoring techniques like “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging” (scanning one’s brain function), as well as “using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges [a child’s] posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kids’ wrists.” (This is even scarier than information being shared through social media without your knowledge or consent).

8.Tax hikes to pay for the over-grossly paid government employees who enforce outrageously expensive and unwarranted mandates not approved by Congress. Estimates are projecting Common Core to cost almost 16 billion dollars!

9.An outright bullying tactic to bribe Congress and provide massive payouts to companies banking on the flunking of our education system. Take Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” and Obama’s “Raise to the Top” and all you get is a bunch of standardized testing that has never recorded any educational and innovative progress of our children in the classroom! Instead, what these programs have done is lower our students’ standards of performance and testing; and then use these poor nationalized test scores to issue outside resources to develop programs funded by taxpayers.

10.Interferes with private schools and home education by restricting free choice by forcing standards and assessments never agreed upon. It’s pretty ironic that religious organizations and families, who want nothing to do with public education, are yet, forced to comply with regulations that have no interest in preserving or protecting their rights to raise and educate their families as they deem fit. It’s important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a landmark case Pierce v. Society of Sisters, “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state.” What this means is the federal government has no jurisdiction over sovereign states or the right to interfere with parents’ rights to educate their children in their homes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 08:04:26 pm

Quote from: navigator on May 10, 2015, 08:01:37 pm

My kids are in elementary school right now and dealing with common core. In many cases they don't have text books, the teachers have to find their own materials and instead of teaching kids the things like phonics, they are teaching them to memorize words. I was very strong in math and science and have trouble helping my 5th grade daughter sometimes, not because I can't find the answer but because they don't arrive at answers in a normal way. They teach three ways to find an answer (beacause some kids learn better a different way) instead of taking the needed time to teach standard methods well. You can't look back in their text book to help them because ther are no text books. Most teachers I talk to don't feel like they can actually teach the kids anymore because they are having to follow common core. My wife volunteers in school a lot, and I have volunteered as well and they waste so much time in school, we feel like we are actually teaching the kids more with homework than they are learning in school. My kids are bright and we are involved parents. I can't imagine what is happening to kids who are on the slow side with little parent involvement.

The complaints you mention appear to be with the operation the school district and not with Common Core.  As to teaching something in multiple ways, that is not part of Common Core, though it is a standard teaching approach, and teachers who fail to do so generally do poorly in reaching their students.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 08:06:33 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 08:02:03 pm

May 31, 2013   
 
Top Ten Dangers of Common Core
 Leave a comment
 

Correct me if I am wrong, but nothing in there was from you, and nothing in there actually referenced the content of Common Core.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 08:09:14 pm

So how about you tell me what is good about it.  All in your own words.  The content of common core I mean...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 08:19:08 pm

Pekin, I am ot saying there is ANYTHING good about it.  I also have yet to see any critic able to point to any provisions in it which should in any way concern anyone, and I am quite sincere in saying I would like to oppose it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 08:23:28 pm

When the federal government controls everything being taught they control the populace.

Kids not taught under common core won't be able to get jobs.   It is very similar to what the Soviets did.  You get taught and tested out in their system and will be put in a job.

No choice really.  The test and scores say you are fit to be A, B and C.  Forget D-Z. 

I am not sure why you of all people, a libertarian would not see the inherent evil of it all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 08:47:43 pm

So, Obama lied about killing bin Laden.  Damn.  I never would have imagined that one.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 08:52:33 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 08:23:28 pm

When the federal government controls everything being taught they control the populace.

Kids not taught under common core won't be able to get jobs.   It is very similar to what the Soviets did.  You get taught and tested out in their system and will be put in a job.

No choice really.  The test and scores say you are fit to be A, B and C.  Forget D-Z. 

I am not sure why you of all people, a libertarian would not see the inherent evil of it all.

I would.... IF the federal government were dictating the content of Common Core and IF the states were required to adopt Common Core and IF states adopting Common Core were not free to make meaningful changes in it or had not done so.

Again, I invite you to point to ANY provisions of Common Core which would to ay degree or in any way support your alarmism.

As I have said, I would REALLY like to hate Common Core, but unlike some people I do like to have my positions at least somewhat rooted in factual reality instead of simply the bandwagon du jure.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 10, 2015, 09:00:31 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 07:32:51 pm

There are many things wrong with common core but the biggest is that it takes control of education away from local governments and gives it to the federal government.  I don't see any good coming from that.

Another is that it was a product of politicians creating a way to line their pockets.  Both Democrats and Republicans backed it but for different reasons besides that major one.

Liberals get to use the federal government to indoctrinate youth even more through the educational system.  The RINO's who sold out may have done it to try and steal power from the teachers union but they were doing it mainly to get rich and because they believe in big government as much as the Democrats they just hope to be in control.

A true conservative would never want the federal government to have so much power over what is taught in public schools nor the ability to track students abilities like that.

 

A true conservative would not want the Federal Government giving money for educational purposes to the states.

But if they DO give the money, a true conservative would want the states to be accountable for the effective use of that money.

Everything that you say seems to be "possible" misuses.  But is there anything in the common core curriculum that you feel is "indoctrination"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 09:01:10 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 08:09:14 pm

So how about you tell me what is good about it.  All in your own words.  The content of common core I mean...

Actually, Pekin, one thing I do like about the provisions of the Common Core standards as adopted by the state of GA for middle grades social studies is the heavy emphasis it puts on getting students to understand the importance of original source material, how to find that material and how to compare what is there with what secondary source materials (like textbooks) say about the same thing.

I recently prepared and presented a lesson plan doing just that for a 7th grade class, for a lesson dealing with the Emancipation Proclamation, something anyone actually bothering to read the original document and to think about it would almost immediately see has long been mis-taught in most U.S. schools.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 09:02:35 pm

In fact looking at the origninal source material in social studies is likely to reduce indoctrination, not increase it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 09:03:14 pm

I like Carson as well. Would vote for him....

As far as Osama goes, we should have shown pics of his 'demise'. The way they chose to do it leaves too much for a conspiracy theory. I hope they do have pics of his death somewhere because I'm sure it'll be a issue somewhere down the road.....as it appears to be with Jes' post....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 09:07:17 pm

My post offered a conspiracy theory?

Really?

What was the conspiracy I mentioned?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 10, 2015, 09:14:57 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 08:23:28 pm

When the federal government controls everything being taught they control the populace.

Kids not taught under common core won't be able to get jobs.   It is very similar to what the Soviets did.  You get taught and tested out in their system and will be put in a job.

No choice really.  The test and scores say you are fit to be A, B and C.  Forget D-Z. 

I am not sure why you of all people, a libertarian would not see the inherent evil of it all.

I see even more inherent evil in giving money to states for "educational purposes" and all it does is give money to teachers that are not held accountable for how well they teach.

Again, can you give me any example of something that is required to be taught that would come under the heading of brainwashing?  I am not saying that there is nothing, but no one seems able to give any specific examples.

And almost universally, teachers and teachers unions are against it.  That, in and of itself, says a lot of good about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 09:24:12 pm

Quote from: davep on May 10, 2015, 09:14:57 pm

Again, can you give me any example of something that is required to be taught that would come under the heading of brainwashing?  I am not saying that there is nothing, but no one seems able to give any specific examples.

I have been asking that of Common Core critics now for more than a year and so far I have seen nothing resembling an actual example.  Some critics point to specific lesson plans some teacher presented under Common Core, but those examples have simply addressed the competence of the individual teachers, not Common Core.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 09:32:14 pm

http://texas.patriotstatesman.com/2013/12/actual-examples-from-common-core-indoctrination-through-social-justice-activism/

Watch the video.  All of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 09:34:56 pm

Hey Rainman, did I say your post is a conspiracy theory?? I said it leaves it open FOR a conspiracy theory. Now who has a reading comprehension problem....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 09:44:47 pm

Two of my kids are out of high school but I still have one in.  Two of them are straight A students the other got A, B and C's.  When it dropped to a D she got grounded and amazingly it went right back up.

Any way, my kids are not stupid.  However the two oldest are terrible spellers because they were taught ebonics in grade school.  They still have not recovered from being taught to just spell it how it sounds and you won't be graded bad for it.  They were taught that spelling stuff wrong was fine.  So of course they can't spell worth a ****.

A parent can only do so much when they are being taught in school to do stupid **** 8 hours a day.  The youngest was not taught that way and she can spell just fine.

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 10, 2015, 09:48:23 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 09:32:14 pm

http://texas.patriotstatesman.com/2013/12/actual-examples-from-common-core-indoctrination-through-social-justice-activism/

Watch the video.  All of it.

I watched all of the video, but it wasn't very helpful.  Were those books required by the common core program?  it looked to me like the same crap that my daughter was taught in Wisconsin, long before there was such a thing as common core.

As far as I can tell, these books are produced by a publishing company that tries to sell their products to various school systems.  Are schools required to teach from these books?  Or are they just one of several that school systems can choose from?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 10:08:05 pm

The testing drives the material used for teaching.  Show me all of the common core tests which is how the money is made by the corporations and politicians and I can answer your question.  Until then all I can do is show you examples folks have put online of the teaching material.

I am not sure what more I can do.  Teachers and administrators say it sucks.  Lots of parents agree. 

My kids are older so have already developed critical thinking.  So can't speak for those being indoctrinated know.

I will say I had to spend a lot of time countering the BS my kids were fed from their liberal teachers growing up.  However the testing was not being data based and used to decide what they could and could not do for the rest of their lives.

I suspect that is where this is headed. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 10:31:58 pm

Quote from: davep on May 10, 2015, 09:48:23 pm

I watched all of the video, but it wasn't very helpful.  Were those books required by the common core program?  it looked to me like the same crap that my daughter was taught in Wisconsin, long before there was such a thing as common core.

As far as I can tell, these books are produced by a publishing company that tries to sell their products to various school systems.  Are schools required to teach from these books?  Or are they just one of several that school systems can choose from?

davep's questions are on point and his observations are accurate.

Common Core requires no specific text book, though many publishers have seen it as a great opportunity to crank out new "Common Core compliant" textbooks as a means of selling more books.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 10:36:53 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 09:34:56 pm

Hey Rainman, did I say your post is a conspiracy theory?? I said it leaves it open FOR a conspiracy theory. Now who has a reading comprehension problem....

Don't try to excuse your crappy writing by complaining that someone else did not did not successfully crawl inside your head to divine what you meant.

But now, with the clarification you have offered, what conspiracy theory is it you believe was left open by NOT distributing photos of the dead body and which you believe would not have been left open if photos of the dead body HAD been produced?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 10:39:46 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 09:44:47 pm

However the two oldest are terrible spellers because they were taught ebonics in grade school.  They still have not recovered from being taught to just spell it how it sounds and you won't be graded bad for it.   

Really?

That is interesting, considering there has never been a textbook produced which taught ebonics.

Just what do you mean by "ebonics" and "being taught ebonics"?  Generally speaking ebonics is not focused on spelling, but more on grammar.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 10:41:05 pm

Every kid has to take the same test as decreed by the federal government.  The teachers will be graded on how their students perform on the test. So of course every one of them will teach to the test.

How could this possibly go wrong?

I feel like I am debating with Otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 10:42:22 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 10:08:05 pm

The testing drives the material used for teaching.  Show me all of the common core tests which is how the money is made by the corporations and politicians and I can answer your question.  Until then all I can do is show you examples folks have put online of the teaching material.

I am not sure what more I can do.  Teachers and administrators say it sucks.  Lots of parents agree. 

My kids are older so have already developed critical thinking.  So can't speak for those being indoctrinated know.

I will say I had to spend a lot of time countering the BS my kids were fed from their liberal teachers growing up.  However the testing was not being data based and used to decide what they could and could not do for the rest of their lives.

I suspect that is where this is headed.

Pekin, I believe there ARE no standardized "Common Core" tests.  Again, if you can point them out to me, I would love to look at them.

As to teachers and administrators saying it sucks, some do.  Many do not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 10:47:56 pm

I never said my kids had a text book that taught ebonics.

They were taught as young children to write things as they sounded and were not graded down for it.  They were encouraged to use whatever word they wanted even if they did not know how to spell it to get their point across.  Sounds good in theory but they both still suck at spelling.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 10:49:10 pm

You're the one with the reading problems and you want me to help you understand, ha....rich.

I can't believe I'd have to explain to someone with YOUR intellect....cough cough....why there could possibly be a conspiracy theory out there if Osama was not indeed shot dead....  try figuring it out....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 10:51:33 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 09:32:14 pm

http://texas.patriotstatesman.com/2013/12/actual-examples-from-common-core-indoctrination-through-social-justice-activism/

Watch the video.  All of it.

First, those are NOT "Common Core" books.  They may be books which are promoted as being compliant with Common Core, but so is chalk and a chalkboard.

If you are sincerely interested in the issue, you can look at the material offered at the website for the publishing company mentioned in the video, and you can see how the publisher aligns various parts of the book with the different Common Core standards.  https://www.zaner-bloser.com/media/zb/zaner-bloser/pdf/VLAW_CCSSforEnglishLanguageArts.pdf

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 10:53:00 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_death_conspiracy_theories

Because I know you will not stop being the extremely annoying individual you are.....here's a start...figured it out yet? ..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 10:54:30 pm

So if there is no standardized tests and no standardized teaching material for common core WTF is it and why are billions being spent to switch over to it?

I feel like you are arguing for it just to argue for it.  So sell me on it.

My understanding is the money is being made on the testing.  Politicians have invested in the companies that are doing the testing (or those companies are donating money to their campaigns) and that is how they are getting their money for pushing it.

Why is it a good thing.  Sell me.  GO!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 10:56:23 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 10:47:56 pm

I never said my kids had a text book that taught ebonics.

They were taught as young children to write things as they sounded and were not graded down for it.  They were encouraged to use whatever word they wanted even if they did not know how to spell it to get their point across.  Sounds good in theory but they both still suck at spelling.

The relevant point is that teaching kids in the early grades to write words as they sound, without much attentition initially to whether the spelling is correct, is not ebonics.  Nor is it ebonics to do the same thing at the higher grades.  It may or may not be effective or harmful teachig, but it is NOT ebonics and it is NOT Common Core.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 10:57:30 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 10:53:00 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_death_conspiracy_theories

Because I know you will not stop being the extremely annoying individual you are.....here's a start...figured it out yet? ..

And how would photos of his corpse have changed any of that?

THAT is the relevant question, Sportster.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 11:01:21 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 10:54:30 pm

So if there is no standardized tests and no standardized teaching material for common core WTF is it and why are billions being spent to switch over to it?

I feel like you are arguing for it just to argue for it.  So sell me on it.

My understanding is the money is being made on the testing.  Politicians have invested in the companies that are doing the testing (or those companies are donating money to their campaigns) and that is how they are getting their money for pushing it.

Why is it a good thing.  Sell me.  GO!

I have made absolutely clear that I am not trying to sell it.

I have also repeatedly said I would love to see fact-based reasons to oppose it.  So far I have not seen any.  As to arguing "for it," please direct me to ANYPLACE I have done so in order to allow me to clarify my position and to make sure I do not again word things in such a way as to be misinterpreted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 11:01:33 pm

I never said it was common core. 

I was told ebonics was just spelling stuff as it sounds.  If that is incorrect then I am wrong.  Pretty sure that was how it was sold to us by the school at the time.

I just feel it is lazy teachers.  And whatever it is called it is a terrible way to teach young children.  The young brain is a sponge that soaks up everything and teaching them wrong from the get go is just stupid imo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 10, 2015, 11:04:11 pm

 ABRAHAM LINCOLN went to "blab school" just starting out in life.


 (Look up "blab school" motherfuckers)


 Later on he went on to an obscure roll in American Politics.


 You could be that great ...


 what the **** are you waiting for since you have all the answers?


 JJ at least admits he doesn't have any answers.


 Except for one thing ... I'M ALWAYS RIGHT !


 It's hard to be humble.  :D   ;D   :o

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 10, 2015, 11:08:09 pm

There wasn't near the uproar over Sadaam's death as there was with Osamas, mainly due to the fact they showed everyone the pics of him afterwards vs hey, what the heck really happened with Osama?!? No pics opens doors to all sorts of theories. Even with pics some will theorize wrongly, much like they did 9/11. But with it's more defensible....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 11:08:41 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 11:01:33 pm

I was told ebonics was just spelling stuff as it sounds.  If that is incorrect then I am wrong.

It is not.  Ebonics, such as it exists, addresses grammar and linguistics, not spelling (or at least not to any meaningful degree).

Please note that I am not saying you were not TOLD the teachers were teachering ebonics or that it is a legitimate or acceptable approach to language or teaching language.  It is not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 11:14:44 pm

I did a search and it is all about black dialect.  My kids go to a school where maybe 1 out of 200 kids are black if that.  Those that are black are either being raised by white families or have educated black parents.  No ebonics needed.

Yet my kids were taught this in grade school.  I guess common core can't do any more harm then political correctness already has.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 11:17:49 pm

By the way I was not as political back then as I am now.  I was working, raising a family and playing drums in a rock band.  I had no time to **** about stuff like this on a message board.  I barely had time to sleep let alone watch the news.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2015, 11:45:10 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 10, 2015, 11:14:44 pm

I did a search and it is all about black dialect.  My kids go to a school where maybe 1 out of 200 kids are black if that.  Those that are black are either being raised by white families or have educated black parents.  No ebonics needed.

Yet my kids were taught this in grade school.  I guess common core can't do any more harm then political correctness already has.

What you are describing was not even political correctness, it was just stupidity or innefective teaching, and that has been around a long, long time.

As to ebonics itself, it is not really about "black dialect," but is instead simply an excuse for black students not to learn standard English.

If there were a true "black dialect" which constituted ebonics, someone in the last 40 years (which is about how long some folks have contended it exists) would have produced a nice textbook setting it all out in a manner allowing it to be studied and taught.  That hasn't happened.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 11, 2015, 12:25:42 am

 It has to be about FUN ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2xu1lyhcNU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2xu1lyhcNU)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 11, 2015, 09:35:54 am

Peak

The fact that you think your predominantly white Peoria public school teaches the black dialect ebonics means means your too stupid to follow politics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 11, 2015, 09:50:09 am

Nice article about the failure of conservative rule.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/opinion/sex-drugs-and-poverty-in-red-and-blue-america.html?_r=1&referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/opinion/sex-drugs-and-poverty-in-red-and-blue-america.html?_r=1&referrer=)
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 11, 2015, 10:48:38 am

Ebonics is merely the word used to describe the dialect that is common among may inner city blacks.

About 20 years ago, Congress added subsidies for local schools that taught Spanish language children in their native language.  Milwaukee has several of them, as well as other areas of the country.  It didn't take long for various school districts (the first one I heard of was San Francisco) to try to get "Ebonics) listed as a "native language" under that law.  If they had succeeded, it would have meant substantial Federal monies for the inner cities schools.

Unfortunately for them, Republicans had taken over congress, and the laws never really had a chance to pass.  But the concept is out there lurking in the weeds.

What Pekin is talking about is not "Ebonics", but merely a fairly recent movement among the educational community to eliminate the spelling rules for English, and allow children to spell them "phonetically", or more accurately, "any way they want to".  It is one more way to dumb down the population.  Good students differ from bad students in many ways, but one obvious way is the quality of their spelling.  Eliminate spelling rules, and you "level the playing field".

By the way, the most recent movement that I am aware of is the attempt to eliminate cursive writing from the curriculum.  The theory (and it isn't entirely foolish), is that the use of computers is eliminating the need for long letters and hand written documents, and teaching only "printing" eliminates another skill that is difficult to teach.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 11, 2015, 10:55:51 am

When some people (myself included) write in cursive you can hardly make out what they've written

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 11, 2015, 12:56:36 pm

They don't teach cursive writing in our county (unsure about the rest of the state) as part of normal curriculum any longer. My daughter learned it in 4th grade because she was in the AIG program but average kids don't learn it. I learned cursive in the 3rd grade. The homeschooling program we are using next year will teach our son cursive in the 2nd grade. Most kids in that program end up about 2 grades ahead of NC public schools.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on May 11, 2015, 02:12:30 pm

Quote from: navigator on May 11, 2015, 12:56:36 pm

The homeschooling program we are using next year will teach our son cursive in the 2nd grade. Most kids in that program end up about 2 grades ahead of NC public schools.

I'm sure this will do wonders for his science education.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 11, 2015, 03:31:20 pm

You were taught cursive.  Did it interfere with YOUR science education?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on May 11, 2015, 04:46:19 pm

That's not the part that will doom the kid to a life of mediocrity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 11, 2015, 05:32:01 pm

At least being home schooled will help him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2015, 05:46:26 pm

Quote from: davep on May 11, 2015, 10:48:38 am

the most recent movement that I am aware of is the attempt to eliminate cursive writing from the curriculum.  The theory (and it isn't entirely foolish), is that the use of computers is eliminating the need for long letters and hand written documents, and teaching only "printing" eliminates another skill that is difficult to teach.

This has already happened in many schools (probably most) and in at least some entire states.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 11, 2015, 05:54:19 pm

I wasn't aware that it was that wide spread, but I suspect that it will become pretty much universal in a few years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 11, 2015, 05:58:48 pm

Don't you need to at least know how to write your name in cursive to sign legal documents?

Other then that I understand. Between computers and printing (which is more legible)  it does seem to be a waste of time and resources.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2015, 06:04:09 pm

Quote from: davep on May 11, 2015, 05:32:01 pm

At least being home schooled will help him.

Not in Cletus's mind.  In his mind, someone who believes in the Bible and also homeschools his or her children is indoctrinating them to religious beliefs the child will never leave, and which "will doom the kid(s) to a life of mediocrity."  It would be amusing to see the list of those Navigator might consider successful and who believed in the Bible as opposed to the list of those Cletus might consider successful and who share his absolute hostility to Christianity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2015, 06:11:09 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 11, 2015, 05:58:48 pm

Don't you need to at least know how to write your name in cursive to sign legal documents?

Other then that I understand. Between computers and printing (which is more legible)  it does seem to be a waste of time and resources.

A person's "legal signature" need not necesarily be in cursive writing, nor need it even be legible.  Over the years many legal documents have been executed simply by a person putting his or her "mark" on a document, often with the "mark" being an "X" no different from anyone else's "X."

It poses a problem for courts which need to sort out whether someone actually did or didn't execute the document, but it doesn't alter anything regarding the nature of contract or what is required to reach an agreement between the parties.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2015, 06:14:33 pm

At last, otto, for only $5K and change, you can have a love life.  http://theweek.com/articles/553708/sex-love-age-robots

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 11, 2015, 06:35:43 pm

That brings up an interesting question.

Can they make homosexual robots?

And if so, can you marry one in Wisconsin?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 11, 2015, 07:16:16 pm

Cursive isn't being taught anymore in our school system. It is kind of strange. Our kids know it but those coming behind won't unless the parents teach them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 11, 2015, 08:51:21 pm

Mark's Market Blog
5-10-15: Politics turns right.
by Mark Lawrence
Markets went down this week then back up on news that, um, ok there wasn't any significant news they just went down then up. What's next? Who knows. More volatility, almost certainly. Perhaps a modest correction, perhaps not. I believe the market continues to want to go up, but we have to get clear of this period of uncertainty over Greece, liquidity, the fed and employment numbers. The fed is watching employee pay closely - when average hourly earnings start to go up, so will interest rates. So far average wages are not going up. Meanwhile US investors continue to take money out of the market and foreign investors pour money in even as it continues to be near record levels.
 
S&P 500 November 10 2014 to May 8 2015

Jobs are being created all over the world. Spain is recovering at a record rate, but their unemployment remains above 20%. They have elections coming up in a couple months, so I think it's too little too late for their current government. In the US unemployment dropped to 5.4%, however I must consider this number suspect on a couple grounds: 1) the labor participation rate continues to be under 2/3 at 62.7%, and wages still haven't budged; these two numbers certainly make it appear it's no problem hiring people. And we lost 50,000 jobs in mining and oil so far this year, which doesn't bode well for the economy going forwards. imho the unemployment numbers are lipstick on a pig. The fed is believed to watch average wages more than unemployment, lending credence to the view that they don't really trust the unemployment numbers either.

Fed Chairman Yellen said this week that equity market valuations are "generally quite high" and there are "potential dangers." Yah. A whole bunch of us have been thinking that for some time. Don't worry, no one listens to the Fed about stocks. Greenspan famously talked about "irrational exuberance" and it took four more years for the dot com bubble to burst. Meanwhile the NASDAQ had quadrupled.

The UK had elections and although the polls said it was too close to call and so close that no one would be able to form a government and parliament would be hung, in fact the liberal democrats were crushed and labor did poorly. In Scotland the Scottish National Party basically completely wiped out the labor party. David Cameron's conservatives perhaps won half the seats and may be able to govern without an alliance. The message seemed to be more freedom - more for Scotland, more distance between the UK and Europe, fewer immigrants, smaller and less intrusive government. UK elections have had a history of foretelling US elections, so I find this shift to more conservative and nationalistic policies gratifying.

Bill Gross, the reigning king of bonds, says our super cycle in stocks and bonds is ending. The unconventional money policies that have fueled markets are running out, says Gross. "The attempt by global central banks to cure a debt crisis with more debt doesn't have much further to run." Bill is 70 now and sensing his own mortality and comparing the markets future to his own. Warren Buffet agrees, saying he'd love to short government bonds as he sees their prices inevitably declining and taking stock market prices down with them. Carl Icahn gave a talk over the weekend saying, "I'm very concerned about the market. I think that you have a situation where this market keeps going up ... and yet a lot of the economic news isn't all that good, and also more importantly, earnings aren't good. What's even more dangerous than the actual stock market is the high-yield market. Junk bonds." When the Fed raises rates, junk bonds are going to collapse.


The interest rate on German bonds has fallen to the point where people are now paying the German government to hold their money. Who does this? In a world with a growing economy and with tech companies inventing new things seemingly daily, is the best use for your money to pay someone else to hold it? One might think this is an illusion, that somehow people aren't actually buying these negative interest bonds. One would be right. This is almost purely an artifact of Super Mario buying German bonds. In the graph below we see German bond outstanding volume in blue, and the outstanding volume minus the bonds bought by the ECB in red. Whatever you may thing about the markets, the truth is we're standing on the sidelines watching a high stakes game being played by the central banks and the various governments, with fallout affecting stock markets everywhere.


China's stock markets doubled last year, a very impressive performance by any measure. However it's hard to see how this can continue. Half the listed companies in Shanghai have a P/E over 40, and 10% have a P/E over 100. Here in the US where we fear our markets are overvalued the historic average P/E is about 16.5 and currently about 20. As China seemingly slips into recession, with raw material consumption down, hiring down, wages down, exports down and property companies defaulting on loans, the stock market continues to climb - this is clearly unsustainable in the long run. Meanwhile China's central bank cut interest rates further, which will goose their markets further. We're living in interesting times.

China says they're building up their military to avoid a repeat of WW II, when the Japanese occupied much of China and were rather harsh. I see this as ridiculous; China was fragmented in the 30s and 40s and unified today; Japan is a nation with a declining population and has no intent or hope of occupying major portions of China. Well, whatever the rational, China is following that Roman edict: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

NATO is holding major exercises in the baltic sea, apparently sending a message to Putin that invading NATO countries will not be tolerated. Ukraine is apparently gearing up for a major offensive.

North Korea tested a submarine launched ballistic missile capable of holding a nuclear warhead and reaching the US mainland. They have further to go before deployment, but their goal and determination are clear. In the US we have a long history of feeling protected by the oceans; that's about over.

In a recent poll it was found that 44% of German executives surveyed think that Greece should leave the eurozone of its own accord. A further 13% think Greece should be actively ejected from the monetary union.

Nokia, Microsoft's Finland phone company, is selling their high definition mapping software. Car companies need this for self-driving cars. Daimler (Mercedes), Volkswagen and BMW have joined together to bid about $800 million for the software. Uber, the silicon valley taxi company, has apparently offered $3 billion. We haven't heard from Apple yet, but Apple is worth more than Daimler, Volkswagen, Renault, Peugeot, Fiat Chrysler, Ford and General Motors put together. The car companies don't want silicon valley to own the next generation of their dash boards and the data that gets generated, but I don't see how they can realistically compete.

Coming soon to a water table near you: fracking. Fracking involved injecting millions of gallons of stuff into the ground to loosen up the trapped oil. Federal law says frackers don't have to tell you what they're injecting, but whatever it is last year a leak killed 70,000 fish in Ohio. Some people near frackers have wells, and the water they pull up to drink can be lit on fire. What's in your water? Here's some of the chemicals frackers use: Methanol, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, diesel fuel, kerosene, lead, hydrogen fluoride, naphthalene, sulfuric acid, formaldehyde. Yummy. If you catch your teenagers pouring a glass of water then walking around sniffing it, be afraid.


Global Warming Watch: We just passed 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, which for climate changers is one of the signs of the apocalypse. And the National Academy of Sciences says as the world gets richer and hotter, little Korean and Chinese window air conditioners are going to destroy the planet. It took a meteor a 10 miles across to kill off the dinosaurs, but we're going to kill off everything with a couple billion little air conditioners. I don't believe in any of this: 1) the world is not getting hotter in any hurry; 2) I don't believe the world has the resources to lift 5 billion people into the middle class; and 3) I think a huge war is a lot more likely than a few billion people getting air conditioning.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 11, 2015, 10:21:12 pm

 
 Cursive is colorful and artistic.


 Maybe little boy's dont want it ...


 little girls love it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 12, 2015, 01:22:49 pm

Parents Threatened with Jail Time for Opting Students Out of Common Core Testing

The state of South Carolina’s State Education Department seems to not understand something, and this is causing many parents in that state no small amount of irritation. What is the misunderstanding?

Oh, just who has the rights over children, parents or the state?


Tamra Hood, a member South Carolina Parents Involved in Education (SCPIE), attended a meeting of the South Carolina Association of School Administrators and said that, at that meeting, Elizabeth Carpentier, the Chief Operating Officer of the South Carolina State Education Department, told school administrators to deny all parents’ requests to withhold their children from Common Core testing. Hood also said that Carpentier threatened parents who resists Common Core testing with legal action, including jail time.

Sheri Few, an SCPIE leader said,


“This shameful attitude, and the blatant disregard for parental concerns, is what motivated the movement to refuse the test[…]. The simple fact is, the test that parents are refusing is aligned with Common Core, and most parents are motivated to refuse because the system continues to ignore their disapproval of the Common Core standards.”

This begs the question of who do the children belong to, anyway? It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that children belong to their parents. Unless you’re a liberal or a bureaucrat.

http://teapartybulletin.com/who-do-these-children-belong-to/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2015, 06:18:46 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 12, 2015, 01:22:49 pm

Parents Threatened with Jail Time for Opting Students Out of Common Core Testing

The state of South Carolina’s State Education Department seems to not understand something, and this is causing many parents in that state no small amount of irritation. What is the misunderstanding?

Oh, just who has the rights over children, parents or the state?


Tamra Hood, a member South Carolina Parents Involved in Education (SCPIE), attended a meeting of the South Carolina Association of School Administrators and said that, at that meeting, Elizabeth Carpentier, the Chief Operating Officer of the South Carolina State Education Department, told school administrators to deny all parents’ requests to withhold their children from Common Core testing. Hood also said that Carpentier threatened parents who resists Common Core testing with legal action, including jail time.

Sheri Few, an SCPIE leader said,


“This shameful attitude, and the blatant disregard for parental concerns, is what motivated the movement to refuse the test[…]. The simple fact is, the test that parents are refusing is aligned with Common Core, and most parents are motivated to refuse because the system continues to ignore their disapproval of the Common Core standards.”

This begs the question of who do the children belong to, anyway? It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that children belong to their parents. Unless you’re a liberal or a bureaucrat.

Children do not "belong" to anyone.  You can buy or sell, use or abuse, develop or neglect, preserve or dispose of things which "belong" to you.

Children do NOT belong to you.

That said, what is the source for the above?  Until I see a source, I am not willing to give it any credibility.  And, WshflThinking, considering your recent track record, if you offer yourself as the source and say you have personal knowledge of it... well, I am not willing to give it any credibility.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2015, 06:42:55 pm

Well said.

But I would point out children belong to themselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 12, 2015, 07:00:51 pm

davepbart

As a public service, can you find the mythical revenue that scott walker has not realized with his republic ideas driven by some guy named laughter?

Why is it that everyone who follows the policy has not had positive results?

Reality.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 12, 2015, 07:22:09 pm

Homo - I'm sure when he is elected president, they will stop taking these foolish pot shots at him.  You will be proud to have your state finally represented by someone that isn't an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2015, 07:33:45 pm

What America needs is a president we can trust, someone who is true to their convictions and who we can all have confidence in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-eIDLvfd6s

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2015, 07:45:30 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/11/hillary-clinton-hasnt-answered-a-question-from-the-media-in-20-days/

That was yesterday.

21 days now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 13, 2015, 12:07:24 pm

The responsibility to raise a child is given to the parents, from God. We are to train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it. The child does not belong to the State. Liberals would love for children to belong to the State so they could indoctrinate them with their nonsense. But they do not....they are a gift from God and He gives us the responsibility to raise them right and in the fear of the Lord....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 13, 2015, 12:57:59 pm

Parents do not "own" their children.  But Parents should have the last say in how to raise their children, except in cases of flagrant abuse.  In 99 percent of the cases, the courts should not interfere with the decisions of parents as to how to raise their children.

Whether that responsibility comes from God or just common sense, it still applies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 13, 2015, 01:04:43 pm

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/off-the-grid-parents-lose-custody-of-10-kids-118797263547.html

‘Off-the-Grid’ Parents Lose Custody of 10 Kids

Beth Greenfield

Senior Writer

‎May‎ ‎12‎, ‎2015


Beth Greenfield






 ‘Off-the-Grid’ Parents Lose Custody of 10 Kids

The Nauglers of Kentucky have temporarily lost custody of their 10 kids in a child-protective investigation. (Photo: Blessed Little Homestead/The Naugler Family)

Following a Monday court hearing, a Kentucky couple living what they call a “simple, back-to-basics life” in a rural, off-the-grid shack has lost custody, at least temporarily, of their 10 children. Joe and Nicole Naugler — who are expecting an 11th child in October — will remain under investigation by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS), while their kids, ranging in age from 3 months to 15 years old, will stay in the agency’s custody.

STORY: Parents Accused of Child Neglect Fighting Back After Kids Are Detained by Officials

“Although we are sad our children will not be returned to us today, we have nothing to hide,” Joe Naugler wrote on the family’s Facebook page, Blessed Little Homestead. “We have cooperated with all requests made to us by CHFS and will continue to do so. We are confident that throughout this process, Nicole and I will be shown to be the good parents that we are and that our family will be reunited.”

The court’s decision came several days after authorities removed the children from their home, following an anonymous police complaint about the family’s living conditions — which allegedly include residing under a crude tarp construction, having no heat or running water, and having no septic system (which the Nauglers dispute). But many of their supporters believe they’re being targeted for their lifestyle, which includes living off the power grid, birthing children at home, and relying on “unschooling,” which is a less structured approach to homeschooling.

STORY: 7 Children Removed From Home Over Mineral Supplement

The case is just the latest of its kind to raise national questions about Child Protective Services overreaching and flouting parental rights. Other cases grabbing the national spotlight recently have included that of the Meitiv family in Maryland, investigated by CPS for allowing their children to walk unattended to a nearby playground, as well as that of the Stanleys, in Arkansas, who had their seven children removed from the home in January over a dispute related to a mineral supplement.


image

Nicole Naugler is pregnant with her 11th child. (Photo: Blessed Little Homestead/The Naugler Family)


“My reaction to this case is that CPS and those with power in our society tend to make decisions based on what they view as normal or not normal,” says David DeLugas, executive director and general counsel for the National Association of Parents, which aims to guard parent-child relationships. “But,” he tells Yahoo Parenting, “the same protocol should be employed in all situations: Are the children hurt? Are they in imminent danger of being hurt? If the answer is no, then we should ask the question — we should all ask the question: Why do anything?”

A spokesperson for CHFS in Kentucky tells Yahoo Parenting, “The Cabinet for Health and Family Services cannot confirm or provide any information about Child Protective Services investigations, as that information is confidential by law.” A receptionist at the Breckinridge County Sheriff’s Office also would not provide any information, telling Yahoo Parenting that there is a “gag order” regarding the Nauglers, because this is “a juvenile case.”

The Nauglers did not respond to a request for comment made through their website. But their Save Our Family website answers questions about their living conditions, explaining that they have a wood stove for heat, an “open cabin” made of metal and tarps, a composting toilet, a pond with potable water, and a generator for power. They explain that they are naturopaths who would “seek professional medical care if it was needed,” and that they make an income from a pet grooming business. They describe their lifestyle as “intentional.”


image

An interior shot of the Naugler family home. (Photo: Facebook)

Attorney T.J. Schmidt of the Home School Legal Defense Association, which counseling local attorneys regarding the family’s educational philosophy, explains to Yahoo Parenting, “It is an ‘unschooling’ method, which can mean many things, but it usually a very child-directed form of education, with parents actively encouraging curiosity and related learning experiences.” But in the Nauglers’ case, he notes, “I don’t think schooling is the primary concern.”

To help with the Nauglers’ legal fees, as well as upgrades to their home, a family friend has launched a Go Fund Me page, which has raised more than $41,000 in just five days. On the website, campaign organizer Pace Ellsworth says she met the family through investing in their dog-grooming business in 2014. “They live a very simple life. They garden and raise animals,” she writes. “They are industrious people trying to teach their children how to live right. Their 10 children are homeschooled on the homestead. They contribute to the success of the family crops and livestock, all while learning about the amazing beauty of life.” Ellsworth goes on to explain that when Nicole Naugler attempted to leave her property with two of her children when sheriffs arrived, she was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Online supporters say the family should be left to raise their kids as they see fit, with one Facebook commenter noting, “Who should be setting the standard for what are acceptable living conditions? People who have only ever known first-world living? The fact is that the majority of children in the majority of the world have grown up or are growing up in conditions that are excessively sub-par to what we are accustomed to in the United States. And that doesn’t mean that they’re bad conditions; they’re just different.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2015, 04:30:02 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 13, 2015, 01:04:43 pm

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/off-the-grid-parents-lose-custody-of-10-kids-118797263547.html

For the moment taking everything at the link at face value, what is it that either bothers you about the article, or which you consider particularly newsworthy.  This sort of thing has been going on for decades.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2015, 04:30:58 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 12, 2015, 07:45:30 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/11/hillary-clinton-hasnt-answered-a-question-from-the-media-in-20-days/

That was yesterday.

21 days now.

22 days and counting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2015, 04:52:12 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 12, 2015, 01:22:49 pm

Parents Threatened with Jail Time for Opting Students Out of Common Core Testing

The state of South Carolina’s State Education Department seems to not understand something, and this is causing many parents in that state no small amount of irritation. What is the misunderstanding?

Oh, just who has the rights over children, parents or the state?

Tamra Hood, a member South Carolina Parents Involved in Education (SCPIE), attended a meeting of the South Carolina Association of School Administrators and said that, at that meeting, Elizabeth Carpentier, the Chief Operating Officer of the South Carolina State Education Department, told school administrators to deny all parents’ requests to withhold their children from Common Core testing. Hood also said that Carpentier threatened parents who resists Common Core testing with legal action, including jail time.

Sheri Few, an SCPIE leader said,
“This shameful attitude, and the blatant disregard for parental concerns, is what motivated the movement to refuse the test[…]. The simple fact is, the test that parents are refusing is aligned with Common Core, and most parents are motivated to refuse because the system continues to ignore their disapproval of the Common Core standards.”

This begs the question of who do the children belong to, anyway? It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that children belong to their parents. Unless you’re a liberal or a bureaucrat.

http://teapartybulletin.com/who-do-these-children-belong-to/

It appears that the writer of the content at the link was not at the public meeting being addressed, but that instead the writer relies on a single source regarding what happened, and that source appears to be a person with a political agenda.  There is no indication that any more neutral source was even sought, and no indication that the individuals the link discusses were contacted at all for their side of things.  There is a comment included from another member of the political group the source belonged to, but it appears that comment was not an observation of what happened, but instead nothing more than an opinion about what that person may not even have observed.  And to top it all off the link itself is at a website with a rather open political agenda, and NOT a news agenda.

Thanks for providing the link.  It makes it even easier to dismiss it that before.

And on looking at what is written... it becomes easier still.

The link says the "Chief Operating Officer of the South Carolina State Education Department, told school administrators to deny all parents’ requests to withhold their children from Common Core testing."  I'm not even certain what is meant by "requests to withhold their children from... testing."  "Withhold from... testing"?  The language does not even really make sense.  Compound that with the fact that there is not going to BE anything called "Common Core testing" and that the Chief Operating Officer of the South Carolina State Education Department would not have the authority to require school administrators to do as the link claims she was ordering, and that she also would not be in a position to bring any legal action (nor would the individual school districts), and that even if she were in such a position, directing school administrators to take such measures would not be "threaten(ing) parents... with" anything, since it would not have been directed at parents nor, from the content of the link, would it appear to have been something intended for broad dissemination as a warning.... and this becomes not just easy to dismiss, but easy to ridicule.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 13, 2015, 08:14:59 pm

Ya, society has been allowed to Liberal our possessions (children) to the point they think the state owns them. What we need here in America is more god-fearing parents and grandparents like Joyce Hardin Garrard from Alabama who knew how to take the "rod" of god to children to teach right and wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/11/the-fate-of-the-grandmother-who-ran-her-granddaughter-to-death/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/11/the-fate-of-the-grandmother-who-ran-her-granddaughter-to-death/)

That girl will never steal candy again.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 13, 2015, 08:27:23 pm

Leave it to Homo to miss the entire point.

He can't be that stupid.  It must be sarcasm.

Of course, it could be both stupidity and sarcasm.

God Bless Scott Walker, Homo's hero.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2015, 08:28:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 13, 2015, 08:14:59 pm

Ya, society has been allowed to Liberal our possessions (children) to the point they think the state owns them.

Can anyone who speaks both English and whatever language it is that otto uses translate that for me?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2015, 09:04:05 pm

The link otto offered was interesting, regardless how incoherent his post was.  And one of the interesting things about it is that it was a Washington Post report on a murder trial in Alabama, presumably covered by the Post because there are so few murders in Washington, DC, for the Post to cover.  And unless I missed it there was not one comment about the Grandmother trying to use the Bible to justify the pumishment she gave her granddaughter, not one mention about any fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and not one mention about her being a conservative.

All of that being the case, I would bet granny was liberal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 13, 2015, 09:29:05 pm

More than likely an atheist too.  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 14, 2015, 12:22:31 am

It sounds like the Nauger family is raising their kids much like the Country used to before the turn of the century; farming, homeschooling or teaching at home, living in a very modest homestead. Unless the kids are being abused, how can they have a case for taking them??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 14, 2015, 04:56:01 am

Define abuse... No internet? Oh my, how abusive <sarcasm>....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 14, 2015, 06:14:12 am

Apparently the family has internet access because if they didn't they wouldn't have a Facebook site.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2015, 06:14:14 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 14, 2015, 12:22:31 am

It sounds like the Nauger family is raising their kids much like the Country used to before the turn of the century; farming, homeschooling or teaching at home, living in a very modest homestead. Unless the kids are being abused, how can they have a case for taking them??

First, that is the way is sounds when you only hear one side of the case, because the article relies entirely on the Nauger family, had no other source, the reporter did not refer to any court records (even though the Naugers would themselves have had access to much of the court record and could have provided it), and the reporter was not present in the courtroom to either hear any of the evidence or to have any idea what the court did or did not believe.  Second, the report nowhere clearly states what the court's findings were, despite the fact that would have been stated to the Naugers and they would have been given a copy of the Court's order setting it out.  Third, the reporter not only never spoke with the Nauger's attorney, she never even spoke with the Naugers.  Fourth, the decision was temporary to allow CPS to complete its investigation.  Fifth, the story, which relies entirely on the Nauger's facebook postings for its source (and we all know how incredibly reliable facebook postings are) does NOT describe a family raising its children the "much like the Country used to before the turn of the century," but instead describes a family living under a damn tarp -- they do not even have a roof on the home and are virtually raising ten kids in the open air.  And finally, the idea that "unschooling" is the same as "homeschooling," indicates a complete lack of understanding of either.  (The idea that stuff like this now passes for "journalism" today is amaziing.)

I do not know whether the children should or should not have been removed.  And neither does anyone else who relied on that report for information.  The only thing we can be sure of is that those who would side with the parents and against the court's decision based on that report are eager to oppose government decisions before even begining to know the facts.... and this comes from someone who is not exactly naturally inclinded to defend expansive goverenment actions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 14, 2015, 07:06:18 am

when some folks home-school their kids, it concerns me. There are many what I would call lazy people homeschooling their kids and I question the education they really get.
My wife went to a homeschooling group meeting one time when evaluating curriculum. On of the mothers there was doing the un-schooling thing. She basically let the kid learn what it felt like learning. They did school every day but if something was hard for the kid, they didn't push them to learn the subject. The kid was weak in math but strong in other subjects. The child was about 1yr behind in math because the mom just felt like her child wasn't quite ready for those topics yet and she would learn pick them up when she was ready. I feel like that isn't right but really is it really my concern if they don't want to push their child?
I feel like one of the advantages of homeschooling is the parents can spend the extra time on the subjects that their kids may struggle with to make sure they grasp those concepts instead of just moving on quickly to the next topic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 14, 2015, 10:41:29 am

I have never heard of 'unschooling'. Thankfully, we live in a good area that isn't pushing liberal nonsense on their kids in school like California, so we have never had to homeschool our kids. They can even celebrate some Christmas, don't tell the friggin ACLU idiots.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 14, 2015, 10:48:52 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/14/newsman-george-stephanopoulos-admits-and-apologizes-for-big-donations-to-clinton-foundation/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on May 14, 2015, 11:00:14 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 14, 2015, 10:41:29 am

I have never heard of 'unschooling'. Thankfully, we live in a good area that isn't pushing liberal nonsense on their kids in school like California, so we have never had to homeschool our kids. They can even celebrate some Christmas, don't tell the friggin ACLU idiots.

I suspect that whatever meager education you got could be called unschooling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 14, 2015, 11:24:21 am

With all the dismal, worthless teachers we have out there today anybody could get a better education homeschooling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 14, 2015, 11:30:01 am

Ever met any home-schooled kids?
The human interaction with peers and leaders is an education of its own...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 14, 2015, 12:44:59 pm

I know several home schooled children, a couple of which are beyond college.  Most of them are quite impressive as far as their education is concerned.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 14, 2015, 12:47:09 pm

Tim Tebow was home-schooled - he is very impressive

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 14, 2015, 01:24:51 pm

John Luther was home schooled.  He is very impressive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 14, 2015, 04:13:54 pm

 daveP/Jes beard,


 Are you guys on my side when it comes to supporting CHICAGO BEARS ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 14, 2015, 04:21:13 pm

I have been a Bear's fan since before you were born.

Doug Atkins was the best defensive end I have ever seen.  And Willie Gallimore would have been one of the best running backs the Bears ever had if he hadn't died so young.

And I loved George Blanda long before he played in Oakland.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 14, 2015, 04:37:10 pm

 

Quote from: davep on May 14, 2015, 04:21:13 pm

I have been a Bear's fan since before you were born.

Doug Atkins was the best defensive end I have ever seen.  And Willie Gallimore would have been one of the best running backs the Bears ever had if he hadn't died so young.

And I loved George Blanda long before he played in Oakland.

 That's my daveP ! What do you think about this F.A. and the Draft?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2015, 04:48:28 pm

Quote from: BearHit on May 14, 2015, 11:30:01 am

Ever met any home-schooled kids?
The human interaction with peers and leaders is an education of its own...

Two points:
1) You are quite right that peer interaction is an important part of the education and maturization process, and the behavior of many of those peers is one of the reasons a great many home-schooling parents make the decision to home-school.  For some reason there are a few strange parents out there who think their kids are better off not learning that it is acceptable to lie to their parents, to steal, use drugs and engage in pre-marital sex before they are 15.

2) Home-schooling a child does not mean the child is without opportunity to interact with peers and to learn how to socialize with and interact with others.  Many parents make a conscious and deiberate effort to see that their kids have such opportunities and I believe that virtually every meaningful study of the academic and social development of home-schooled kids has found them on average performing not just comparably to students in public schools, but actually far better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 14, 2015, 04:49:36 pm

I don't have enough information to voice an opinion.  If our front office isn't more knowledgable than I am, there is no hope for us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2015, 05:08:16 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 14, 2015, 11:24:21 am

With all the dismal, worthless teachers we have out there today anybody could get a better education homeschooling.

Not quite anybody, but you are absolutely correct that public schools do not set the bar particularly high.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2015, 05:18:33 pm

Quote from: navigator on May 14, 2015, 07:06:18 am

when some folks home-school their kids, it concerns me. There are many what I would call lazy people homeschooling their kids and I question the education they

There are many what I would call lazy people doing almost anything, and that certainly includes public school teachers.

But when a lazy person is forced to suffer the negative consequences resulting from such sloth it is more likely to be minimized than when the the negative consequences of such sloth are considerably removed and distant from the sloth.

Parents are much, much more likely to personally suffer adverse consequences from a child getting a poor education than teachers are.

The concern about laziness is reasonable and well-founded on.  It just seems you are directing it at the wrong folks in the picture.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 14, 2015, 05:42:33 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 14, 2015, 05:08:16 pm

Not quite anybody, but you are absolutely correct that public schools do not set the bar particularly high.

Nor is it easy to get rid of crummy teachers due to the stupid union.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 14, 2015, 05:51:31 pm

 Who teaches ?


 YOU.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 14, 2015, 05:59:46 pm

Ya, I would not worry about kids learning social interaction skills. Most jobs don't require one to have conflict resolution skills or team building ones either.

They just require some me first bratty social introverts with helicopter born again parents to navigate their work careers.


Unschooled on....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 14, 2015, 06:10:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 14, 2015, 05:59:46 pm

Ya, I would not worry about kids learning social interaction skills. Most jobs don't require one to have conflict resolution skills or team building ones either.

They just require some me first bratty social introverts with helicopter born again parents to navigate their work careers.


Unschooled on....

I hope that Homo was home schooled.  I kid about his being the product of the Madison School System, but I would hate to believe that it was really true.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 14, 2015, 06:12:26 pm

Ya know, homeschooling was so good 150-175 years ago in America our society built the public school system in large solid brick buildings to reinforce the chaotic system of unschooled parent educated ones.

Unschooled on...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 14, 2015, 06:21:06 pm

Ya know Dave, maybe you have to come to your unschooled reality...

Limited ability and a growing feeling that society has passed  you by.

Unschooled on...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 14, 2015, 06:29:12 pm

Can somebody tell me where Tim Tebow received his homeschooled football skills.

Was it a small house on the prairie?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 14, 2015, 06:34:04 pm

Or was it, at Florida public university surrounded by highly paid coaches and talented Black kids from lower schooled southern conservative governments.


Unschooled on...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 14, 2015, 07:03:25 pm

Unschooled on.  You have to admit that the slogan fits Homo.  Madison must be the "City of the unschooled".

Fortunately, Scott Walker is putting the necessary changes to bring Wisconsin into the 21st century.

That is an upgrade of two centuries.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 14, 2015, 07:06:50 pm

Listening to Otts is like watching a monkey play with his crap....you know he's enjoying it but to everyone else it's still just crap... 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2015, 07:58:55 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 14, 2015, 05:42:33 pm

Nor is it easy to get rid of crummy teachers due to the stupid union.

There are still quite a few school districts which are not unionized, and many of them still have crappy teachers.

The problem is far more fundamental than the teaching unions.

If New York City had eliminated its teachers' union 15 years ago their schools would be no better today than they are now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 14, 2015, 11:10:58 pm

There are still quite a few school districts which are not unionized, and many of them still have crappy teachers.

Ya, there called private religions schools which teach things like evolution is a myth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2015, 05:40:04 am

That's almost cute, otto, though it ignores the fact that student performance averages in private religious schools are far higher than in unionized public schools.

That being the case, and since you contend the teachers in those private religious schools are crappy teachers, you would seem to be supporting the position of those contending that students simply learn better when they get religious instruction in the classroom and that prayer needs to be returned to the schools.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 15, 2015, 05:21:39 pm

 

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 14, 2015, 05:51:31 pm

 Who teaches ?


 YOU.

 I nailed all of your asses with THREE WORDS.


 This WORLD belongs to you.


 What are we going to do about our kids future?


 Any ongoing politics is irreverent in concerning our kids ...


 if it's not for the better advancement of them.


 The ongoing scenario will be worked out like this in history 2000 years from now ...


 HOLY MOTHERFUCKIN DOGSHIT DID THOSE FUCKERS BACK THEN GET IT RIGHT FOR US OR WHAT ??? ???


 They are going to look back at us and thank us for what we did.


 Just like WE look back and thank everybody before us for what they did.


 Except for the Chicago Cubs ... which have still yet to win a World Series.  ???   :-[

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 15, 2015, 11:25:56 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/billionaire-lifts-marco-rubio-politically-and-personally.html?_r=1

Billionaire Lifts Marco Rubio, Politically and Personally

By MICHAEL BARBARO and STEVE EDERMAY 9, 2015

MIAMI — One day in the State Capitol in Tallahassee, Marco Rubio, the young speaker of the House, strayed from the legislative proceedings to single out a lanky, silver-haired man seated in the balcony: a billionaire auto dealer named Norman Braman.

This man, Mr. Rubio said in effusive remarks in 2008, was no ordinary billionaire, hoarding his cash or using it to pursue selfish passions.

“He’s used it,” Mr. Rubio said, “to enrich the lives of so many people whose names you will never know.” As it turned out, one of the people enriched was Mr. Rubio himself.

As Mr. Rubio has ascended in the ranks of Republican politics, Mr. Braman has emerged as a remarkable and unique patron. He has bankrolled Mr. Rubio’s campaigns. He has financed Mr. Rubio’s legislative agenda. And, at the same time, he has subsidized Mr. Rubio’s personal finances, as the rising politician and his wife grappled with heavy debt and big swings in their income.

Now, with Mr. Rubio vaulting ahead of much of the Republican presidential field, Mr. Braman is poised to play an even larger part and become Mr. Rubio’s single biggest campaign donor, with an expected outlay of approximately $10 million for the senator’s pursuit of the White House.

A detailed review of their relationship shows that Mr. Braman, 82, has left few corners of Mr. Rubio’s world untouched. He hired Mr. Rubio, then a Senate candidate, as a lawyer; employed his wife to advise the Braman family’s philanthropic foundation; helped cover the cost of Mr. Rubio’s salary as an instructor at a Miami college; and gave Mr. Rubio access to his private plane.

The money has flowed both ways. Mr. Rubio has steered taxpayer funds to Mr. Braman’s favored causes, successfully pushing for an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and securing $5 million for cancer research at a Miami institute for which Mr. Braman is a major donor.

Even in an era dominated by super-wealthy donors, Mr. Braman stands out, given how integral he has been not only to Mr. Rubio’s political aspirations but also to his personal finances.

Mr. Rubio, 43, is unabashed in acknowledging the influence of Mr. Braman, a commanding and litigious figure with so much clout in Miami that he almost single-handedly recalled a sitting mayor.

In an interview, Mr. Rubio described Mr. Braman as a father figure who had given him advice on everything from what books to read to how to manage a staff. After Mr. Rubio’s father died in 2010, Mr. Braman called every other day to check in.

Pressed on his financial ties to Mr. Braman, Mr. Rubio said in an interview that he saw no ethical issue. “What is the conflict?” he asked. “I don’t ever recall Norman Braman ever asking for anything for himself.”

He acknowledged that Mr. Braman had approached him about state aid for projects, such as funding for cancer research, but said that he had supported the proposals on their merits.

The reliance on Mr. Braman is likely to put a spotlight on the finances of Mr. Rubio, who ranks among the least-wealthy candidates in the emerging Republican field. Mr. Rubio left the Florida House of Representatives in 2008 with a net worth of $8,351, multiple mortgages and $115,000 in student debt. In his latest financial disclosure form, for 2013, he reported at least $450,000 in liabilities, including two mortgages and a line of credit.

Mr. Braman and aides to Mr. Rubio have declined to say how much personal financial assistance he has provided to Mr. Rubio and his wife, directly or indirectly, but it appears to total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In a series of interviews at his office in downtown Miami, above showrooms of shiny BMWs and Rolls-Royces (he also sells Cadillacs, Audis and Bugattis), Mr. Braman praised the Rubios. He recounted what he described as “excellent service from them” over the years, and said he wanted nothing in return for his financial help.

“I’m not going to be an ambassador or anything like that,” he said.

Mr. Braman — a former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles; the chairman of Art Basel, which stages art shows; and a collector who owns works by Andy Warhol, Alexander Calder and Picasso — emphasized that there were limits to the friendship.

“I also have a yacht,” Mr. Braman said, “that Senator Rubio has never seen.”

Mr. Braman has the manner of a man accustomed to getting what he wants, a trait that has endeared him to many in Miami as he battles against public subsidies for sports stadiums and ugly skyscrapers.

He was vacationing in France one summer when the mayor of Miami — not the one he had recalled from office — informed him that he would seek to raise taxes. Mr. Braman hung up the phone, turned to his wife and declared: “Goodbye, I’m heading back to Miami to fight this.” He returned home and led a successful campaign to block the increase.

“If you’re going to do something, you do it all the way,” he said.

As early as 2008, Mr. Braman made a bold prediction, captured in a video tribute to his friend: Mr. Rubio would be the first Hispanic president of the United States. Seeing that through in 2016, Mr. Braman said in one of the interviews, is “part of my legacy.”

The partnership began in the early 2000s when a Miami lawmaker introduced them. Mr. Braman, himself the son of immigrants, was instantly drawn to the story of Mr. Rubio, a child of struggling Cuban immigrants. By 2004, Mr. Braman and his wife had donated $1,000 to Mr. Rubio’s State House campaign, the first of many contributions.

Mr. Rubio quickly emerged as a dogged champion of Mr. Braman’s most cherished cause: state funding for a Miami cancer institute that bears the Braman family name.

Florida’s governor, Jeb Bush, had vetoed the funding in 2004, incurring Mr. Braman’s public fury. “Frankly, as a very active Republican, I’m ashamed of him,” Mr. Braman said then of Mr. Bush.

Mr. Rubio did not let it happen again. The next year, he secured the cancer funding over Mr. Bush’s objections. “Marco,” Mr. Bush wrote in a somewhat grudging email to a lobbyist at the time, “strongly wanted the Braman Cancer money.”

Soon, Mr. Rubio became a regular visitor to Mr. Braman’s office on Biscayne Boulevard. By the time Mr. Rubio was elected speaker of the House, the youngest in Florida’s history, Mr. Braman felt close enough to show up at the 2005 celebration in Tallahassee and deliver a memorable — and valuable — token of affection: a framed Revolutionary War-era American flag. It hung, on loan, in Mr. Rubio’s office for the entirety of his tenure as speaker.

In Mr. Braman, a Republican with a strong distaste for wasteful government spending, an ardent commitment to Israel and a seemingly limitless bank account, Mr. Rubio found a devoted sponsor.

When Mr. Rubio geared up for re-election to the House, more than a dozen individuals and companies linked to Mr. Braman, including his Honda and Cadillac dealerships, gave Mr. Rubio $500 each, the maximum donation allowed under Florida law.

When Mr. Rubio decided to write a book laying out a conservative vision for Florida’s future, Mr. Braman said, he chipped in money to pay for its publication.

When Mr. Rubio announced his signature legislative goal, an initiative to slash property taxes and raise the sales tax, Mr. Braman contributed $255,000 to the advocacy group lobbying for the changes, becoming by far its largest donor.

Mr. Rubio said the flow of donations from Mr. Braman had no effect on his decision-making as House speaker, adding that he would never give preferential treatment to a donor. But in 2008, when Mr. Braman sought the $80 million for the genomics institute at the University of Miami, a large taxpayer grant to a private college, Mr. Rubio delivered the opposite message: Mr. Braman’s request, he said, had tilted the scales.

Usually, Mr. Rubio said at a news conference at the time, he would have laughed off such an eye-popping pitch. “But when Norman Braman brings it to you,” Mr. Rubio said, “you take it seriously.”

Later that year, when Mr. Rubio left state government, determined to shore up his finances before running for the United States Senate, he landed a teaching job at Florida International University, agreeing to raise much of his salary through private donations.

Mr. Braman gave $100,000, according to records he shared with The New York Times. Dario Moreno, who oversaw the university center where Mr. Rubio worked and who taught classes with him, confirmed that Mr. Rubio had raised the money from Mr. Braman.

In the spring of 2010, as Mr. Braman was donating heavily to Mr. Rubio’s Senate campaign, his company, Braman Management, hired Mr. Rubio as a lawyer for seven months. According to records provided by Mr. Braman, the company paid Mr. Rubio until a week before he was sworn in as a senator.

Four months after Mr. Rubio left the payroll, Mr. Braman hired Mr. Rubio’s wife, Jeanette, who had little professional experience in philanthropy, and her company, JDR Events, to advise the Braman foundation. Mr. Braman declined to discuss her compensation.

Mr. Rubio said the offers of work from Mr. Braman had a simple motivation: “We are close personal friends. They trust us.”

Mrs. Rubio’s job, fielding and vetting requests for donations to one of Miami’s biggest charitable foundations, has given her a major profile in the world of Florida philanthropy.

An internal Braman foundation document makes clear that Mrs. Rubio has become a crucial gatekeeper. “On hold,” read a notation next to a pending donation. “Wait to hear from Jeanette.”

At times, the foundation’s work has coincided with Mr. Rubio’s own globe-trotting political needs. In 2013, when Mr. Rubio traveled to the Middle East, Mrs. Rubio joined him, with the Braman foundation paying for her travel. According to Mr. Rubio’s aides, she was conducting work for the foundation abroad.

On four occasions, Mr. Rubio has traveled on Mr. Braman’s private plane, reimbursing him each time.

Mr. Braman acknowledged seeking the occasional “small favor” from Mr. Rubio’s Senate office. There was the daughter of the woman who does his nails, Mr. Braman recalled, who had an immigration problem, and the student from Tampa who wanted a shot at military school. In both cases, he said, Mr. Rubio’s staff was quick to respond. (Mr. Rubio’s staff said it had decided not to recommend the Tampa student.)

Mr. Braman seemed conflicted about his reputation as civic power broker, at once boasting of his ability to draw a high-ranking Miami official to his office with a single phone call and seeming anxious that he not be viewed as entitled.

“I don’t consider myself a fat cat,” he said. “Don’t make me out to be a fat cat.”

As he spoke in his office, an aide interrupted, presenting Mr. Braman with a yellow sticky note. The Florida Senate was about to vote on a bill he had sought, granting auto dealers like himself greater leverage over car manufacturers.

“That was fast,” Mr. Braman said.

Moments later, another adviser popped his head in, declaring victory. “Thirty to four,” he said of the vote, with a fist pump.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 16, 2015, 09:18:17 am

You could cross out Rubio's name and replace it with every other politician in history and still have an accurate piece.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2015, 09:36:15 am

Quote from: davep on May 16, 2015, 09:18:17 am

You could cross out Rubio's name and replace it with every other politician in history and still have an accurate piece.

Really?

Find anyone comparable for Rand Paul, someone who has not only been a major financial back of his politically, but someone who also gave him lucrative personal employment DURING THE TIME HE WAS HOLDING ELECTIVE OFFICE, and who likewise gave lucrative employment to his wife (for a position to which he experience and training would not seem to have been particularly well-suited), and who also made political requests of Paul on matters which involved taking taxpayer dollars to spend on pet projects of the benefactor?

Anyone like that for Ted Cruz?

Perry and Walker and Bush?  No question.  It also wouldn't suprise me at all with Christie or Kasich.  Fiorino and Carson have never held elective office to give political favors to a patron, so probably nothing comparable with either of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 16, 2015, 09:49:09 am

I really dont favor Rubio. If he were nominated I would support him over that Democratic piece of trash. Something has to change the way we run this country and voting Dumbocrat is definitely not the correct way.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 16, 2015, 11:00:54 am

They threw Bob McDonnell in jail here for less than that. For now, Rand Paul is my choice, but I'll support Rubio if it comes down to it..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: astrotwin on May 16, 2015, 11:11:30 am

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-poilievre-rejects-criticism-over-taxpayer-funded-vanity-videos-1.3076240

Pierre Poilievre rejects criticism over taxpayer-funded 'vanity videos'

CBC News Posted: May 15, 2015 7:25 PM ET Last Updated: May 15, 2015 7:51 PM ET

Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre is drawing fire for using taxpayer dollars to produce videos of himself promoting the government's proposed enhancements to the universal child-care benefit, but says he has no reason to apologize.

During Friday's question period in the House of Commons, NDP deputy leader Megan Leslie accused Poilievre of "shamelessly using public resources for vanity videos," demanding he say how much he spent to produce "these partisan self-promotional videos."

Taxpayer group urges Tories to stop pumping public money into partisan ads
Liberal MP David McGuinty also piled on, asking when the Conservatives would stop "bilking taxpayers for partisan self-promotion."

But Poilievre shot back, saying that the NDP and Liberals just want to keep parents in the dark about the government's proposals because those parties, he said, want to take those child-care benefits away.

"I make no apologies for informing parents of the expanded universal child-care benefit," he said.

One of the videos shows Poilievre on Parliament Hill discussing how parents will benefit from proposed enhancement to the child-care benefit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2015, 11:53:08 am

Quote from: Astrotwin on May 16, 2015, 11:11:30 am

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-poilievre-rejects-criticism-over-taxpayer-funded-vanity-videos-1.3076240

Pierre Poilievre rejects criticism over taxpayer-funded 'vanity videos'

CBC News Posted: May 15, 2015 7:25 PM ET Last Updated: May 15, 2015 7:51 PM ET

Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre is drawing fire for using taxpayer dollars to produce videos of himself promoting the government's proposed enhancements to the universal child-care benefit, but says he has no reason to apologize.

During Friday's question period in the House of Commons, NDP deputy leader Megan Leslie accused Poilievre of "shamelessly using public resources for vanity videos," demanding he say how much he spent to produce "these partisan self-promotional videos."

Taxpayer group urges Tories to stop pumping public money into partisan ads
Liberal MP David McGuinty also piled on, asking when the Conservatives would stop "bilking taxpayers for partisan self-promotion."

But Poilievre shot back, saying that the NDP and Liberals just want to keep parents in the dark about the government's proposals because those parties, he said, want to take those child-care benefits away.

"I make no apologies for informing parents of the expanded universal child-care benefit," he said.

One of the videos shows Poilievre on Parliament Hill discussing how parents will benefit from proposed enhancement to the child-care benefit.

Do we have any Canadian posters on here to make it sensible to post articles or commentary on that nation's political foolishness?

Or are we running out of it here in this country?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 16, 2015, 01:28:28 pm

Well with the New World Order fast approaching we will all be bunched together anyways. Might as well get used to it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 16, 2015, 06:31:05 pm

 

Quote from: astrotwin on May 16, 2015, 11:11:30 am

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-poilievre-rejects-criticism-over-taxpayer-funded-vanity-videos-1.3076240 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-poilievre-rejects-criticism-over-taxpayer-funded-vanity-videos-1.3076240)

[/size]Pierre Poilievre rejects criticism over taxpayer-funded 'vanity videos'[size=78%]

CBC News Posted: May 15, 2015 7:25 PM ET Last Updated: May 15, 2015 7:51 PM ET

Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre is drawing fire for using taxpayer dollars to produce videos of himself promoting the government's proposed enhancements to the universal child-care benefit, but says he has no reason to apologize.

During Friday's question period in the House of Commons, NDP deputy leader Megan Leslie accused Poilievre of "shamelessly using public resources for vanity videos," demanding he say how much he spent to produce "these partisan self-promotional videos."

Taxpayer group urges Tories to stop pumping public money into partisan ads
Liberal MP David McGuinty also piled on, asking when the Conservatives would stop "bilking taxpayers for partisan self-promotion."

But Poilievre shot back, saying that the NDP and Liberals just want to keep parents in the dark about the government's proposals because those parties, he said, want to take those child-care benefits away.

"I make no apologies for informing parents of the expanded universal child-care benefit," he said.

One of the videos shows Poilievre on Parliament Hill discussing how parents will benefit from proposed enhancement to the child-care benefit.

 WELCOME ABOARD ASTROWIN !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 16, 2015, 08:30:20 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 16, 2015, 11:00:54 am

They threw Bob McDonnell in jail here for less than that. For now, Rand Paul is my choice, but I'll support Rubio if it comes down to it..

No, they didn't.  McDonnell did things for donors while in office that enriched the donors.  That does not seem to be the case with Rubio, at least there is nothing in the article that says that.  He helped give government money to some charities favored by a donor (which I think is wrong, by the way, not the donor part, but the government money to charity part) but there is nothing that indicates that the donor was enriched in any way.

As far as his wife working for his mentor, and getting paid for it, again, the mentor was not enriched by anything that Rubio did, at least nothing mentioned in the article.  This is certainly not an unusual thing in Federal Government circles.  Not long ago the Senate Majority leader from South Dakota had his wife working as a lobbyist for United Air Lines even while the Majority Leader was voting on issues favorable to United Air Lines.  This was deemed to be acceptable.  And there is no indication that Rubio voted on any issues that enriched his wife's employer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 16, 2015, 08:52:25 pm

 

Quote from: davep on May 16, 2015, 08:30:20 pm

No, they didn't.  McDonnell did things for donors while in office that enriched the donors.  That does not seem to be the case with Rubio, at least there is nothing in the article that says that.  He helped give government money to some charities favored by a donor (which I think is wrong, by the way, not the donor part, but the government money to charity part) but there is nothing that indicates that the donor was enriched in any way.

As far as his wife working for his mentor, and getting paid for it, again, the mentor was not enriched by anything that Rubio did, at least nothing mentioned in the article.  This is certainly not an unusual thing in Federal Government circles.  Not long ago the Senate Majority leader from South Dakota had his wife working as a lobbyist for United Air Lines even while the Majority Leader was voting on issues favorable to United Air Lines.  This was deemed to be acceptable.  And there is no indication that Rubio voted on any issues that enriched his wife's employer.

 You have to be terrified when you're not running for office yourself.


 DaveP ... whats wrong with you not being ...


 THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?


 And that fuckin **** Jackiejokeman too ?


 After you did your eight years ?


 It could happen.  :-*

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2015, 09:07:55 pm

Quote from: davep on May 16, 2015, 08:30:20 pm

As far as his wife working for his mentor, and getting paid for it, again, the mentor was not enriched by anything that Rubio did, at least nothing mentioned in the article.  This is certainly not an unusual thing in Federal Government circles.  Not long ago the Senate Majority leader from South Dakota had his wife working as a lobbyist for United Air Lines even while the Majority Leader was voting on issues favorable to United Air Lines.  This was deemed to be acceptable.  And there is no indication that Rubio voted on any issues that enriched his wife's employer.

So no example of anything close to comparable for Paul or Cruz?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 16, 2015, 09:21:59 pm

I don't know a single thing about either Cruz or Paul.

Of course, I didn't know a single thing about Rubio previous to the pasted article.

But anyone that pays any attention to news and politics knows that the type of behavior mentioned in the article is neither illegal or considered by most in politics as immoral.  You are not so naive as to be oblivious to this.  Favors like this are the currency of politics, and no one would get very far in politics without partcipating in the game.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 16, 2015, 09:31:10 pm

What is it about the old world order that republics find....wait racism and sexism....never mind.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2015, 09:38:43 pm

davep, you really seem to enjoy posts like your last one -- despite the fact nothing I have ever posted would even imply that I thought the type of behavior mentioned in the article is either illegal or considered by most in politics as immoral, your post essentially suggest that I did.  Of course, what most in politics consider acceptable or appropriate and what voters consider acceptable or appropriate (since many voters will accept a great deal from politicians which they consider inappropriate) are often rather different things.  And while favors may be the currency of politics, that is not at all the same as favors like those set out in the article being the currency of politics.  And the idea that no one would ever get very far in politics without doing things such as delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to pet projects supported by big donors is more than being either jaded or a cynic -- it is an attitude which essentially accepts corruption.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2015, 09:42:33 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 16, 2015, 09:31:10 pm

What is it about the old world order that republics find....wait racism and sexism....never mind.

Which presidential candidate is it who pays female staffers only72% of what male staffers get?

Oh, that's right, Hilary, but let's ignore CONDUUCT which is racist or sexist and instead simply engage in attacks on what is presumed to be in another person's heart or mind so we can try to make Democrats look good on that front and Republicans look bad.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2015, 07:09:29 am

Speaking of political corruption -- http://news.yahoo.com/widening-corruption-scandals-swirl-around-york-governor-154450667.html

Capitol scandals raise tough questions for New York governor
Associated Press By DAVID KLEPPER  8 hours ago
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — They were Albany's most powerful men: the governor, the Senate leader and the Assembly speaker. Together, they negotiated billion-dollar budgets and decided which bills passed and which ones didn't.

Now two face federal corruption charges, and the third — Gov. Andrew Cuomo — appears eager to focus on other issues even as he faces questions about his ties to a major real estate firm at the center of the newest scandal to rock the state Capitol.

In recent days he talked about campus sexual assault with U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. He traveled to Buffalo with Cardinal Timothy Dolan to tout an education tax credit. He held briefings at the scene of a nuclear plant transformer fire.

The political crisis in Albany got less attention.

"If the charges are correct, it's deeply disturbing," is what Cuomo said following the arrest of Senate Leader Dean Skelos on charges that he extorted payments for his son from the developer and another business. The Long Island Republican resigned his leadership post Monday.

Skelos' arrest comes after Manhattan Democrat Sheldon Silver stepped down as Assembly speaker in January after he was charged with taking nearly $4 million in payoffs. Both men say they are innocent and are keeping their legislative seats.

In the political language of Albany, the governor, the speaker and the Senate leader are known collectively as the "three men in a room," a nod to the longstanding practice of negotiating the budget and other key pieces of legislation behind closed doors. Silver's arrest came the day after Cuomo referred to Skelos, Silver and himself as the "three amigos" during his budget presentation, which contained a depiction of the three men wearing sombreros.

Millions of dollars in contributions by New York City real estate interests, mainly funneled through LLCs, have been cited in the cases against Silver and Skelos, who received large contributions from Glenwood Management, a New York City real estate firm headed by Leonard Litwin, Cuomo's top donor.

Glenwood has been identified as the New York City company that gave large campaign donations to Skelos using LLCs, allegedly in return for helping continue tax breaks now worth about $1 billion annually to the city's residential developers. Those tax breaks, along with New York City's rent regulations, are up for renewal this year. The complaint against Skelos alleges that he used his influence to pressure a Glenwood executive to arrange payments for his son.

Cuomo received $1 million from limited liability companies tied to Glenwood. Cuomo said recently that he never discussed rent laws with the company. Administration records show he met with Glenwood executives three times to discuss rent regulations in 2011, the last year they were up for renewal.

Cuomo's spokesman said later that the governor simply forgot the meetings.

"I don't believe anyone said Glenwood has done anything wrong," Cuomo said about his connections to the company.

The developer's generous contributions were scrutinized by the anti-corruption commission appointed by Cuomo in 2013 and disbanded a year later. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of Manhattan, who is prosecuting Skelos and Silver, took them over.

Glenwood did not return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, new efforts to address corruption in state government are stalling.

The governor met with the new leaders of the Assembly and Senate on Wednesday, their first gathering since Sen. John Flanagan was picked to replace Skelos. Flanagan said the meeting focused on the priorities for the rest of the legislative session.

Ethics reform "wasn't one of the topics of discussion," said Speaker Carl Heastie, a Bronx Democrat who replaced Silver.

Polls suggest voters aren't pleased. A Marist College poll released Tuesday found that three-quarters of respondents think corruption has gotten worse in New York in recent years. Cuomo's job performance rating has dropped to 37 percent while ratings for the Assembly and Senate are in the low 20s. Marist pollster Lee Miringoff said voters are looking to Cuomo to address corruption.

"One of the pillars of his campaign was the notion that he would get Albany working again and clean up the mess," Miringoff said. "Now there's this drip, drip, drip reminding voters almost every day about the pervasive corruption in Albany. Of the three men in the room, two have been charged. If you're the third guy it's hard to buffer yourself."

Following Silver's arrest, new rules were passed requiring lawmakers to identify the source of any outside income and, if they are attorneys, disclose the identities of clients. Good-government groups say exceptions in the rules make them only a modest improvement.

Legislation that would close a campaign finance loophole at the center of many corruption scandals appears unlikely to pass. The measure would treat limited liability companies like other companies when it comes to campaign finance. Now they are treated like individuals, allowing LLCs to donate up to $150,000 without identifying actual donors.

The Assembly passed the measure Tuesday, and Cuomo supports it. But the legislation is presumed dead in the Senate, where a committee chairman last week refused to consider it because of an improperly made motion. The chairman, Republican Sen. Michael Ranzenhofer, told The Associated Press that he hadn't read the three-paragraph bill.

"We have very, very many important bills," Ranzenhofer said. "I'm just not an expert in all of them."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2015, 07:17:08 am

Instead of term limits I would like to see a Constitutional amendment prohibiting anyone from running for re-election if at any time in the prior legislative session they voted in favor of any bill which included any provision which amounted to wealth re-distribution.

They should not be allowed to even TRY to buy votes, and that is what a great many of them do.

The kind of corruption addressed in the prior post is a legitimate concern and should be criminal prosecuted, but as a nation we are harmef far more by the kind of routine corruption seen in politicians voting for wealth redistribution as a means of winning political support and getting re-elected, in other words buying votes with other people's money.  Bad as it was in ancient Rome when politicians would buy votes, at least Ceasar was doing it with his own money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 17, 2015, 08:03:58 am

Otts, where did you go wrong? Do too much drugs in school? Dropped on the head as a infant?? Meningitis affecting the cerebral cortex? What?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 17, 2015, 08:46:07 am

 

Quote from: davep on May 16, 2015, 08:30:20 pm

No, they didn't.  McDonnell did things for donors while in office that enriched the donors. 

Enriched? I never saw such proof. The prosecutors case was shaky at best. They said McDonnell attended some meetings, to help boost this diet pill company. We're talking $160,000 that $125,000 of it was paid back, chicken **** money. There were never any favors done through or by using state tax payer monies.

It's all for the best, his wife is a serious crack pot. McDonnell would've gone on to seek a higher office and then he would've been shred by the national media.

If you think "favors" like that don't happen all the time you're living a sheltered life. Politicians do little favors for companies, then get out of office and land a big job with that company... Back door pay backs..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2015, 09:49:05 am

Quote from: chifaninva on May 17, 2015, 08:46:07 am

If you think "favors" like that don't happen all the time you're living a sheltered life. Politicians do little favors for companies, then get out of office and land a big job with that company... Back door pay backs..

So, again, where is ANY of that with Rand Paul or with Cruz.  For that matter, where was it with RON Paul or with Fred Thompson or with Reagan?

It is too easy to simply claim that "it always happens" and then to dismiss it since it always happens.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 17, 2015, 10:03:16 am

I can't disagree with that. Status quo..

I like Rand, I contributed, of course now, they hound the heck out of me..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2015, 11:23:50 am

Quote from: chifaninva on May 17, 2015, 10:03:16 am

I can't disagree with that. Status quo..

I like Rand, I contributed, of course now, they hound the heck out of me..

I get email messages almost daily from not only the Rand Paul camp, but also the Ron Paul camp... and I believe the last campaign I contributed to was McGovern.

They buy mailing lists from a wide range of sources, and if you show up on one of the lists they buy because they believe members of a group or subscribers to a service or publication are likely to support them.... get ready for the onslaught of solicitation emails.... like otto getting on the Obama email list as a result of supporting NAMLBA.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 17, 2015, 11:51:00 am

I get them and I have never donated to any political group.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 17, 2015, 11:37:14 pm

HLA

Still on the racist Paul family newsletter. Good for you. White ain't just for christmas...its all year.

Bet you ate that turkey sandwich Rant Paul ran from when the dreamer showed up at lunch.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 18, 2015, 04:44:33 am

^ Prime example of why he has no credibility...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2015, 06:38:01 am

Quote from: chifaninva on May 18, 2015, 04:44:33 am

^ Prime example of why he has no credibility...

No... a prime example of how he is utterly incoherent, but that post really didn't begin to illustrate why he has no credibility.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 18, 2015, 07:15:39 am

probably drug infested.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 18, 2015, 12:41:07 pm

For the uneducated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html)

And as for the turkey sandwich...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI8rCleTbSo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI8rCleTbSo)


See Paul, See Paul run....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 18, 2015, 12:51:35 pm

I don't believe anything coming out of Washington. There isn't anything good in Washington.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 18, 2015, 12:56:13 pm

Simple beliefs are for the uneducated. You never have to ask why, or what or how.


I checked the willfully ignorant box for you isfullofit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 18, 2015, 01:14:44 pm

Just to keep things straight. Rand not Ron is running...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 18, 2015, 01:17:47 pm

Ya, we just saw a YouTube clip of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 18, 2015, 01:23:45 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 18, 2015, 12:56:13 pm

Simple beliefs are for the uneducated. You never have to ask why, or what or how.


I checked the willfully ignorant box for you isfullofit.

And just what makes an educated person?....one who cant even write or construct a sentence properly?....,cant even write coherently?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2015, 05:24:18 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 18, 2015, 01:14:44 pm

Just to keep things straight. Rand not Ron is running...

C'mon, simple beliefs are for the unedumacated.  otto has this figured out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2015, 05:52:33 pm

Stephanopoulos, ABC have not fully disclosed Clinton ties: Schweizer
Peter Schweizer 12:19 p.m. EDT May 18, 2015
ABC's anchor much closer to Hillary's foundation than he told his viewers.

Fact-driven, fair, aggressive journalism animates American politics. As an investigative journalist, I am accustomed to asking tough questions. When I publish, I expect tough questions in turn,

That's not what ABC News This Week host and chief anchor George Stephanopoulos delivered when he interviewed me about my new book on the Clinton Foundation last month. There's a reason. Though Stephanopoulos belatedly disclosed $75,000 in donations to the foundation, he has yet to disclose his much deeper relationship with the Clinton Foundation.

When Stephanopoulos invited me on his Sunday program, I knew that he had worked as a top adviser and campaign manager to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, but I didn't know about his donations or his other ties to the foundation founded and overseen by the former president and his wife, potential future president Hillary Clinton.

I agreed to be interviewed, expecting a robust examination of my new book, Clinton Cash, and my reporting on the Clintons' accumulation of massive personal wealth, cronyism and the lack of transparency surrounding the Clintons' foundation.

I expected probing questions, similar to the ones I've received from Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, Chris Wallace on Fox News and Frank Sesno on CNN.

What I did not expect — what no one expected — was the sort of "hidden hand journalism" that has contributed to America's news media's crisis of credibility in particular, and Americans' distrust of the news media more broadly.

If Stephanopoulos had disclosed his donations to the very foundation I was there to talk about, perhaps it would have put the aggressive posture of his interview with me in context.

But he didn't.

And even though he has apologized to his viewers for keeping this information from both his audience and his bosses, there is much that Stephanopoulos has yet to disclose to his viewers. Indeed, far from being a passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton Foundation advocate.

For example, in his on air apology for this ethical mess, Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2006 he was a featured attendee and panel moderator at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

He did not disclose that in 2007, he was a featured attendee at the CGI annual meeting, a gathering also attended by several individuals I report on in Clinton Cash, including mega Clinton Foundation donors Lucas Lundin, Frank Giustra, Frank Holmes, and Carlos Slim — individuals whose involvement with the Clintons I assumed he had invited me on his program to discuss.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he was a 2008 panelist at the CGI annual meeting which, once again, featured individuals I report on in the book, such as billionaire Clinton Foundation foreign donor Denis O'Brien.

ABC's most visible news employee did not disclose that in 2009, he served as a panel moderator at CGI's annual meeting, nor did he disclose that in 2010 and 2011, he was an official CGI member.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2013 and 2014, he and Chelsea Clinton served as CGI contest judges for awards, in part, underwritten by Laureate International Universities — a for-profit education company I report on in the book. Bill Clinton was on its payroll until his recent resignation.

Obviously, Stephanopoulos has favorable feelings toward Hillary and Bill Clinton; he gives their foundation his money and his time. Big-time news media personalities have one thing in very short supply — time. Regular participation in Clinton Foundation events shows a deeper commitment to the Clintons than just the donations.

Perhaps if Stephanopoulos weren't so close to the subject of my book, he might have asked me about my reporting on Hillary Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, serving on the board of a company that scored a coveted and rare gold mining permit in Haiti as the Clintons directed the flow of U.S. Agency for International Development dollars. (As The Washington Post reported, Rodham met those mining executives at a CGI meeting.)

Indeed, Stephanopoulos could have pounded away at all the book's news. He chose not to. Instead, he made sure to highlight the four months I wrote speeches for President George W. Bush and my long past financial supporters, all while keeping quiet about his deep and longstanding involvement in the Clintons' foundation, and the three annual checks for $25,000 that he wrote.

What ABC News' top anchor has done is far different than the "honest mistake" ABC called it in a statement earlier this week.

I asked ABC News about the fact that this information was yet to be disclosed to ABC viewers, and mostly they avoided my questions, releasing a statement that reads in full, "Yes, George made us aware that he was moderating these panels and that is absolutely within our guidelines. We know that he would be listed as a member — as all moderators are. He is in good company of scores of other journalists that have moderated these panels."

That, however, is not at all what the Clinton Foundation website says about CGI membership. Read for yourself. Whether ABC News will ultimately punish Stephanopoulos is unclear.

What is certain is that Stephanopoulos' ethical malpractice and hidden-hand journalism have done further injury to an essential, if beleaguered, institution, one already battling to preserve legitimacy.

That's news no one can celebrate.

Peter Schweizer is the author of Clinton Cash and president of the Government Accountability Institute.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2015, 06:00:19 pm

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418513/stephanopouloss-long-long-record-loyal-service-clintons-john-fund

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 18, 2015, 07:18:53 pm

Wow, HLA that's a lot of paux outrage with maximum words to make what point.

Pete's book has more holes it than isfullofit's BVDs. But let's start with...

1) The Clinton Foundation is a nonpartisan organization so a contribution to it proves what?

2) Can you explain in your own words what the Clinton Foundation provides and how it does it?

3) Can you you explain in the post citizen united ruling why your against money/free speech?

4) Why are you such a wussy?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 18, 2015, 07:27:19 pm

And HLA if your clown car politicians worried less about who is asking questions instead if answering them...but humorously most only go on phaxnews for the preplanned safe.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 18, 2015, 08:02:19 pm

Mark's Market Blog
5-17-15: Iran in the news.
by Mark Lawrence
Market volatility continued as money pours into US markets from overseas, spending the S&P to a new all-time high on Friday; meanwhile US investors are drawing money out of the markets as they eye a looming Greek default, recessions perhaps starting in Asia and the US dollar dropping. And bond markets are showing some serious unrest, with yields going up a bit dramatically in the last couple of weeks, with 30 year yields up by half a percent. There is significant worry about a major problem with the junk bond market as rates rise in anticipation of a Fed action.
 
S&P 500 November 17 2014 to May 15 2015
Iran is sending a ship carrying "humanitarian aid" to Yemen, escorted by Iranian military vessels. They have refused the Saudis permission to inspect the ship. Of course we all expect "humanitarian aid" includes AK-47s, missiles, anti-tank weapons, etc. Obama convened a conference on the middle east at Camp David, and the Saudi king refused to attend in a rather public snub. Things in the middle east are definitely heating up. And the Saudis find their best friend is the Israelis and their least dependable friend is us.

The Czech republic stopped a $61m deal a couple months ago that would have sent a large quantity of nuclear enrichment equipment to Iran. The 2013 interim deal says they won't do this sort of thing, and Obama has assured us repeatedly that Iran is sticking by the terms of that deal. We're to have a new deal by the end of June with these guys which limits their enrichment capabilities and mothballs two-thirds of their existing enrichment equipment. Will we get a deal? Will Obama turn off the sanctions? Will Iran honor their promises? Will Israel bomb the crap out of them this summer? I believe I already know all these answers, but against the remote possibility that I'm completely wrong, stay tuned. (spoiler alert, don't read the rest of this paragraph) IMHO, Iran wants a bomb so bad they can taste it and they're going to have one if at all possible, deal or no deal, sanctions or no sanctions.

Greece is due to pay the IMF a total of a bit more than $1.5 billion between June 5th and June 19th. This is not happening. We should expect a technical default within weeks, and a declared default a month later. Germany would have us believe this is no big deal. I'm less sanguine.

Cubans sense that a deal with the US is coming. If it does the Cuban Refugee Act of 1966 will be over, which means that Cubans who reach the US have automatic refugee status and the right to apply for residency. No other nationality has this. Illegal Cuban immigration has doubled so far this year.

As expected the US 1st quarter results were pretty poor, almost certainly due to the long cold winter over much of the country. Europe grew faster than the US for the 1st quarter, led by Spain and France. Germany also didn't do so well. I don't take these numbers very seriously; I'm more interest in yearly growth, not winterly growth.

As China moves towards recession their economy is starting to have affects on the rest of the world. There were 23.5m vehicles sold in China last year compared to 16.5m in the US. China sales account for 59% of net profits at Volkswagen, 45% at BMW, and 37% at GM. China accounted for 39% of GM’s global vehicles sales, the US for 28.5%. But it seems that's all over. Sedan sales are down 10%. Car sales are off. Dealerships are massively overstocked with cars as manufacturers continue building into the downturn. Expect poor results from car companies later this year as Chinese results filter back to headquarters.

China is carrying out naval exercises in the Mediterranean with Russia. The Chinese have made major investments in several Mediterranean ports which they say they want to protect; also it's clear they want to learn to project force to the middle east.

The leader of ISIL, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, said in a radio address last week, "We call upon every Muslim in every place to perform hijrah (emigration) to the Islamic State or fight in his land wherever that may be. Has the time not come for you to know that there is no might nor honor nor safety nor rights for you except in the shade of the Caliphate? O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war."

Standard and Poors lowered Chicago's bond rating to junk, which could force the city to immediately come up with $2.2 billion. Illinois, which has the lowest credit rating of any state in the nation, says it can't help. The downgrade follows a Friday decision by the Illinois Supreme Court which invalidated state limits on cost-of-living adjustments to state pensioners. In 2003 Illinois borrowed $10 billion – the biggest bond issue in its history – on the premise that investing the proceeds would earn more than the interest on the bonds. Unfortunately for Illinois taxpayers, the investments, hurt badly by the financial market meltdown of 2008–2009, earned less than expected. The net effect: The funds are worse off as a result of the pension bonds. Unfunded liabilities swelled from $43 billion when the bonds were sold to $86 billion by 2010. In 2010 Illinois borrowed another $7.2 billion for pensions. Now the state has unfunded liabilities of nearly $100 billion – about $7,500 per resident. How does this happen? The unions got the democrats to put a clause in the Illinois constitution that government pensions can't be touched, ever. Well, they're gonna be touched - eventually by a bankruptcy judge, who will weight this claim against the Supreme Court decision that states first priority is to supply basic services to residents. What's the rational for this? It's that police and firemen have such difficult and deadly jobs, so they deserve special treatment. Is it true? See the chart below. Unions, imho, are like a virus that multiplies until it kills its host.


There were two 7.0+ earthquakes in Nepal, a mountainous country in the Himalayas just north of India. The result of these earthquakes is the mountains near Nepal are now about 5 feet higher than they were previously.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 19, 2015, 06:11:32 am

http://news.yahoo.com/duke-professor-defends-comments-comparing-blacks-asians-171424956.html

Good thing we have free speech..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 19, 2015, 06:59:47 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/19/teen-startled-awake-by-noise-sees-two-faces-at-his-window-grabs-a-gun-and-shoots-the-tragedy-is-who-they-were/

What the hell is a 15 yo doing with a loaded gun in his bedroom..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 07:45:09 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 18, 2015, 07:18:53 pm

Wow, HLA that's a lot of paux outrage with maximum words to make what point.

Pete's book has more holes it than isfullofit's BVDs. But let's start with...

1) The Clinton Foundation is a nonpartisan organization so a contribution to it proves what?

2) Can you explain in your own words what the Clinton Foundation provides and how it does it?

3) Can you you explain in the post citizen united ruling why your against money/free speech?

4) Why are you such a wussy?

Quote from: otto105 on May 18, 2015, 07:27:19 pm

And HLA if your clown car politicians worried less about who is asking questions instead if answering them...but humorously most only go on phaxnews for the preplanned safe.
Enjoy

Can anyone who speaks English and reads whatever language otto uses translate either of his posts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 19, 2015, 08:08:12 am

HLA

Just pass on it quietly if you can't answer.

Like your favorite pol.

https://youtu.be/PI8rCleTbSo (https://youtu.be/PI8rCleTbSo)


See rant paul, see rant paul run...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 19, 2015, 11:08:24 am

Can you explain in your own words what the Clinton Foundation provides and how it does it?

A salary for Bill and Chelsea...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 19, 2015, 02:12:20 pm

Homo, like most liberals, doesn't realize that preventing someone from answering an accusation does not mean that the accusation is accurate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 19, 2015, 03:28:00 pm

 I'm having fun ... are you ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 19, 2015, 04:10:25 pm

Pretty much.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 19, 2015, 04:30:17 pm

 
 

Quote from: davep on May 19, 2015, 04:10:25 pm

Pretty much.

 That's the idea dave  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 04:53:37 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 19, 2015, 11:08:24 am

Can you explain in your own words what the Clinton Foundation provides and how it does it?

A salary for Bill and Chelsea...

Actually, I'm not sure that it does.  Doe you have any good source otherwise or some indication of what the foundation pays them?  I believe it is more along the lines of Bill requires that those giving to the foundation also hire him personally for a speaking engagement of $500K or so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 04:56:29 pm

Quote from: davep on May 19, 2015, 02:12:20 pm

Homo, like most liberals, doesn't realize that preventing someone from answering an accusation does not mean that the accusation is accurate.

Who is Homo?

And can you help translate otto's posts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 19, 2015, 05:06:40 pm

None of us are capable of understanding Oddo's posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 19, 2015, 06:14:14 pm

Quote

Actually, I'm not sure that it does.  Doe you have any good source otherwise or some indication of what the foundation pays them?  I believe it is more along the lines of Bill requires that those giving to the foundation also hire him personally for a speaking engagement of $500K or so.

Again, if you do not understand what you post about I would suggest that you either educate yourself on subject or stop posting about it.


Moron.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 19, 2015, 06:15:00 pm

And whose Doe?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 19, 2015, 06:29:23 pm

 Get some laffs. You're not going to change ****. You haven't done it yet.
 
 You are the OUTSIDE ... along with everyone else on this board.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 06:36:29 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 19, 2015, 06:15:00 pm

And whose Doe?

"Doe" was a typo for "Do," and your prior post made clear you understood that.  Now, do you have any good source indicating what Bill or Chelsa are paid? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 19, 2015, 06:44:31 pm

HLA

Again if you do not know the answer to a question before you ask it, you are just a legal aid.




So, again, what does the Clinton Foundation do and how does it do it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2015, 07:30:49 pm

From what I gather it is a means to make the Clintons richer.  The percentage that goes to actual charity is minimal. 

That may not be the case but when they list the majority of the money going to "other expenses" it is difficult to tell what they are doing with the money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2015, 07:34:25 pm

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042715-749839-clinton-foundation-spent-just-10-percent-on-direct-aid.htm

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 19, 2015, 07:40:59 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 04:56:29 pm

Who is Homo?

And can you help translate otto's posts?

If you don't know who Homo is, how do you know that his posts require translation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 07:45:49 pm

Quote from: Pekin on May 19, 2015, 07:30:49 pm

From what I gather it is a means to make the Clintons richer.  The percentage that goes to actual charity is minimal. 

That may not be the case but when they list the majority of the money going to "other expenses" it is difficult to tell what they are doing with the money.

Not at all the case.  Any money paid to them as salaries would have to be listed.  Anyone have any good information on whether they drew any salaries?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 07:48:14 pm

Quote from: davep on May 19, 2015, 07:40:59 pm

If you don't know who Homo is, how do you know that his posts require translation?

I know otto's posts require translation because I attempt to read them.  I don't know whether any posts by "Homo" require anything and did not ask about "Homo," other than who "Homo" is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 07:51:22 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 19, 2015, 06:44:31 pm

HLA

Again if you do not know the answer to a question before you ask it, you are just a legal aid.

Again, otto, who, or what, is "HLA"?  And how would you know whether a person asking a question did or did not know the answer to the question before they asked it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2015, 07:52:35 pm

22.6% went to travel/conferences, compensation was 28.8%, Other 35.6%, Grants (or actual charitable work) 13%.

I have not seen anywhere a breakdown of who was receiving compensation or who was using the money for travel.  Have you?

Otto, Can you provide us this information?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 19, 2015, 08:06:30 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 07:45:49 pm

Not at all the case.  Any money paid to them as salaries would have to be listed.  Anyone have any good information on whether they drew any salaries?

I don't take much interest in it one way or the other, but I saw a report on TV the other day that indicated that whoever "rates" charity organizations dropped the Clinton Foundation off their list because less than 35% of their money actually goes to charity, the rest going to administrative expenses.  (The Red Cross, by the way has less than 50% going to charity).  The blurb was about the Clinton Foundation talking about suing the rating organization to force their inclusion.  I don't remember any mention of salaries.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2015, 08:16:14 pm

davep this is what happened:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.VVvgJenbK70

Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 19, 2015, 08:31:29 pm

It doesn't really matter, since the folks giving to the Clinton foundation don't really care how the money is used, so long as it gives them access and influence with the Clintons and hopefully favorable treatment from them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 19, 2015, 08:39:00 pm

davep I think you have it backwards.  They were rated very badly and know they aren't rated at all.  Gee I wonder how that happened?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/clinton-foundation-vs-a-charity-watchdog.html

Unfortunately for Hillary’s campaign, the Navigator’s policy is that charities that land on the list stay there for a minimum of six months. Sandra Miniutti, the Navigator’s spokesperson, told me that, in order to get off the list, the Clintons need to publicly address each of the controversies raised by the media with a convincing response.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 20, 2015, 08:29:32 am

peke

You don't gather or retain very much do you.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/)

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 20, 2015, 09:00:13 am

HLA

What access and influence is phaxnews looking for?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/15/the-conservative-media-figures-who-donated-to-t/203664 (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/15/the-conservative-media-figures-who-donated-to-t/203664)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 20, 2015, 10:45:05 am

Isn't that cute.  Homo thinks that providing a work release program for out of work politicians is some sort of charitable excercise.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 20, 2015, 11:29:54 am

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clintons-earned-30-million-past-16-months-report-shows/

What did Bill say, "Gotta put food on the table"... WTF?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 20, 2015, 11:46:32 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/20/the-first-thing-officer-did-after-approaching-black-man-on-side-of-the-road-made-him-a-mothers-hero/

Funny how you don't hear about these stories from the national media..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 20, 2015, 02:07:29 pm

 Hey Guys,


 What are you paying for a gallon of gas?


 Had prices back in late December in So.CAL. at $2.20 a gallon.


 Then it went up.


 In one week it went from $3.05 to $3.89.


 Today it's $4.00. Meanwhile oil is trading at $58.00 a barrel.


 So does anybody have an answer and whats it going for in your neck of the woods?


 I don't know if this is a California thing or what.


 What are you paying for a gallon of gas ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 20, 2015, 02:52:36 pm

I filled up Sunday at 2.559.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 20, 2015, 05:03:33 pm

Otto, keep trying...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/04/30/punditfact-calls-accurate-assertion-about-clinton-foundation-federalist

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 20, 2015, 07:06:07 pm

Don't confuse him with the facts...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 20, 2015, 07:23:49 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 20, 2015, 08:29:32 am

peke

You don't gather or retain very much do you.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/)

The politifact site has long been little more than an Obama apologist and has no credibility on such issues.  Even on reading the apology presented at the link, it is more convincing for the position which is the opposite of the conclusion it reaches.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 20, 2015, 08:04:04 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 20, 2015, 02:07:29 pm

I don't know if this is a California thing or what.


 What are you paying for a gallon of gas ?

When I left Florida Saturday it was 2.49, and when I got to the Chicago area it was 2.99.  California is always higher because they have refused to allow new refineries for decades, and require idiotic formulations to reduce emissions.  But the main reason that prices are rising is that the winter has ended, the economy is getting a little better, and demand is picking up.

Longer term, it depends upon the success of the movement against fracking.  A few years ago we had a discussion about how soon the world would run out of oil.  Since then, the oil boom in the upper midwest has extended our oil outlook a couple of centuries out, even without the prospect of shale oil.  But there is a strong movement to ban or reduce fracking, which would render all the discovered oil useless.  Already, it has been almost eliminated on public land, and various states are implementing regulations that are beginning to render it difficult to operate.

There are a few other factors that have driven up the price in the short run.  Bombing in Iraq and especially Syria have driven ISIS away from some of the oil fields, where they have been selling oil to fund themselves.  Their ability to do this has been greatly curtailed, but they are still strong enough to prevent Iraq and Syria from selling it themselves, so the net has been a short term reduction of the amount coming out of those two states.  In addition, Saudi Arabia, who was producing a lot of oil in an attempt to bankrupt some of the Wyoming and North Dakota wildcatters (drilling costs there are about 55 dollars per barrel) has caused some cutback in new drilling while the situation settles.

But yes, 4 dollars per gallon is mostly a California thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 20, 2015, 08:48:31 pm

HLA

I'm guessing the Pulitzer prize winning news organization Politifact rated your last post as wet his pants.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 20, 2015, 09:04:32 pm

Peak


When does mythblusters actually source facts rather than other wingnuts hacks to make a point?

Try again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 20, 2015, 09:09:27 pm

JJ, it's been hovering around $2.59/$2.69 here. $4/gal is a complete ripoff.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 20, 2015, 09:21:19 pm

Otto, the Clintons are corrupt as hell.  You know it, I know it and so does everyone else. 

If you want to make the argument all politicians are corrupt I will listen.  If you are going to try and sell me the goods that the Clintons are totally above board, aren't selling access and political favors through their foundation and are all about the common man then you are just as full of **** as they are.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 20, 2015, 10:13:06 pm

Peak

What favors and access can you point to? What facts regarding your assertion can you provide?

Do you have one?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 20, 2015, 11:00:35 pm

So you really believe people will pay them hundreds of thousand of dollars to give a speech?   No strings attached?

The speech payments are how they are getting rich and whoring their current and future political power.  The Clinton Foundation was just them being greedy and setting up Chelsea for life.

The Obama administration and Hillary's state department were running guns to Syria through the ambassador in Benghazi.  That is why it was attacked and he and others were killed.

They then had the balls to blame it on a video when they knew exactly why it happened.  They even lied to the families of those killed blaming it on a video.

It disgusts me that people like this lead our country.   





 

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 20, 2015, 11:15:19 pm

Wow, what a pathetic mound of crap-filled dishonest drivel.

Obama and Clinton derangement syndrome in one post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 20, 2015, 11:24:23 pm

Peak

Why don't we stick to something you might possibly know, race based blather.

How come you and the rest of the white militia in here have not commented on the white on white crimes in Waco this week? Where is your sense of white shame? Where are the long posts about why this represents all that is wrong in America?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 20, 2015, 11:46:48 pm

Homo has to change the subject in order to survive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 21, 2015, 04:52:40 am

If you were defending the clintons and the dems, wouldn't you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 21, 2015, 05:09:39 am

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-biggest-problem-obamacare-didn-t-fix-200003003.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on May 21, 2015, 06:26:39 am

$2.39 / gallon here (Nashville) and slowly creeping up.  Most places have it at $2.49

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 21, 2015, 06:41:39 am

Grizz, we've got the largest refinery in the nation on our doorsteps here in N. Indiana and yet we've got high gas prices. Seems the further away you are from a refinery, the cheaper the gas, which makes zero sense....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 21, 2015, 06:43:50 am

We're somewhere around $2.40

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 21, 2015, 06:46:11 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/20/michigan-pastor-resigns-after-gay-news-site-publishes-images-of-his-grindr-profile/

If you secretly puff the white owl, you may not want to post your pic on a gay website... And if you're gay, you may not want to publicly ridicule gay people.. WTH..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 21, 2015, 10:03:48 am

It is never a good idea to be a hypocrite, regardless of the subject.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 21, 2015, 11:19:51 am

I'll go along with that..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on May 21, 2015, 11:35:26 am

Just on face value it looks pretty unethical to accept donations from foreign countries when you are secretary of state

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 21, 2015, 12:24:14 pm

Maybe she should be their secretary of state or president. Seems she has misplaced her priorities.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 21, 2015, 04:52:27 pm

Otto, those motorcycle gangs are a bunch of thugs and I could care less if they kill one another.  I hope a whole bunch of them end up in jail over the shooting.  What more needs to be said?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2015, 05:21:47 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 20, 2015, 09:09:27 pm

JJ, it's been hovering around $2.59/$2.69 here. $4/gal is a complete ripoff.....

It is supply and demand.  If you think someone is making an unreasonable, obscene and unfair profit, go into the business of selling it yourself and make a ton of money while selling for less and making a profit.

Of course if you even visit sanity on the issue again and come to grips with the reality davep explained, you might not want to try rolling over your retirement account by doing that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 21, 2015, 05:27:55 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on May 21, 2015, 12:24:14 pm

Maybe she should be their secretary of state or president. Seems she has misplaced her priorities.

You appear not to have followed the Clintons over the years.  They have not misplaced their priorities.  Their priorities have been unchanged since the time Bill first took office as governor of Arkansas in 1978.  Their priority is them.  Was then and is no.  Nothing misplaced about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 21, 2015, 09:59:35 pm

Its not that easy peak.


No comment about absentee dads for all those thugs?

No comment about broken social fabric?


Come on thug man...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 21, 2015, 10:39:43 pm

Otto,  Thugs are thugs no matter what color they are. 

Odds are however they were raised in a one parent home or at the very least a dysfunctional one.  Probably raised on welfare.  You are the first to point out how many whites are on welfare. 

My point has always been that color has nothing to do with it.  My point is that the government nanny state has everything to do with destroying the family which leads to thugs. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 21, 2015, 10:55:15 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 21, 2015, 05:27:55 pm

You appear not to have followed the Clintons over the years.  They have not misplaced their priorities.  Their priorities have been unchanged since the time Bill first took office as governor of Arkansas in 1978.  Their priority is them.  Was then and is no.  Nothing misplaced about it.

No, what I was implying was accepting foreign money. If you loyalties are to the foreign contributors who are supporting you instead of to Americans, then you should be running for their high offices.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on May 22, 2015, 06:25:47 am

all the donations should be anonymous.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 22, 2015, 06:47:03 am

Quote from: navigator on May 22, 2015, 06:25:47 am

all the donations should be anonymous.

That would only make it more difficult for those outside the organization to see what was going on.  If Khazakistan asks for a favor and Bill says Hilary will do it if the foundation gets $30M and he gets paid half a mill for a speech and the next day a $30M "anonymous" donation is made to the fundation, it is not as if the Clintons will have any questions about whether Khazakistan kept its side of the agreement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 22, 2015, 01:17:51 pm

There is a way that donations to political campaigns could be improved.  All donations should be designated to a particular individual but go to a bureau that collects the money.  Once a quarter, the money will be distributed to the particular campaign fund with no indication of the sources.  Since no single donation could be large enough to stand out, it should reduce the influence of individual donors.

Of course, this would have no impact on the PACs, where the real influence comes from.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 22, 2015, 03:32:02 pm

Supply and demand fundamentals long ago ceased to be a factor in gas prices.....Saudi Arabia is pumping flat out and the price still goes up....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 22, 2015, 04:12:00 pm

Josh Duggar....professional member if the wingnut morally police and now confessed christian child molster.


Another blow for the christian just say no crowd. Wonder if Bob duggar took the girls chastity rings away...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 22, 2015, 05:00:58 pm

Homo - do you feel that every homosexual that commits a crime proves that homosexuality is wrong?

If not, you might rethink your posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 22, 2015, 05:04:57 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 22, 2015, 03:32:02 pm

Supply and demand fundamentals long ago ceased to be a factor in gas prices.....Saudi Arabia is pumping flat out and the price still goes up....

Supply and demand still cause gas prices to go up or down.  It has been the Saudi's pumpingand the oil boom in America, coupled with normal drop in demand in the winter that caused oil to drop.  Now winter is over and demand is going up, and drilling has dropped off in the northern U. S. due to the low oil prices.  Prices are going up.

Read a book.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 22, 2015, 05:34:55 pm

Quote from: davep on May 22, 2015, 05:04:57 pm

Read a book.

You are asking WAY too much of him.  That's almost like asking him to think.

You really need to be reasonable.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 22, 2015, 05:37:04 pm

Quote from: davep on May 22, 2015, 01:17:51 pm

There is a way that donations to political campaigns could be improved.  All donations should be designated to a particular individual but go to a bureau that collects the money.  Once a quarter, the money will be distributed to the particular campaign fund with no indication of the sources.  Since no single donation could be large enough to stand out, it should reduce the influence of individual donors.

Perhaps... of course the discussion of donations to the Clinton family slush fund are not quite related to donations to political campaigns.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 22, 2015, 07:23:37 pm

That is why I didn't mention contributions to the Clinton family slush fund.  Did you imagine that you saw it somewhere in my post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2015, 08:19:43 pm

 Hey Guys,


 Thanks for the feedback on gas prices in your neck of the woods.


 Looks like we are being set up in So.Cal.


 Gas prices $1.30 higher then the nation average.


 Refinery's all happen to shut down for "maintenance" all at the same time in So. Cal.


 Now word comes that honchos at Oil companys are laffing about this.


 Shades of Enron !


 So.Cal. is getting **** by THE USUAL SUSPECTS.


 These motherfuckers don't care about this NATION ...


 they'll rotate the gasoline crisis to you next.


 There's AMERICAN's and there's GREED.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 22, 2015, 08:40:15 pm

In California there is stupidity.  They refuse to allow new refineries.  They require so many different blends that it reduces the capacity of the refineries that they do have by more than 30 percent.  And they tax their inhabitants to death.

There is no free lunch.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 22, 2015, 08:52:21 pm

$$

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2015, 09:19:26 pm

 

Quote from: davep on May 22, 2015, 08:40:15 pm

In California there is stupidity.  They refuse to allow new refineries.  They require so many different blends that it reduces the capacity of the refineries that they do have by more than 30 percent.  And they tax their inhabitants to death.

There is no free lunch.

 Dave I like you can understand being stupid for where we live.


 That's been a given since the beginning of both of us.


 Dave here's a question for you :


 What do you hate about California ?


 Why do you think California being **** over is not going to affect your ass?


 I can understand your hatred of California ...


 I can't understand your hatred of WHY you hate California.


 BTW ... Show me which state has a new refinery in the last ten years.


 Would you like to go back further in time about NEW refineries in states?


 Try Texas. What year was that built ? ;D


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 22, 2015, 09:24:43 pm

California is run by liberal fucktards who have stupid policies that effect real people.  Hence you having high gas prices and high taxes.  The drought is just bad luck. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 22, 2015, 09:43:13 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on May 22, 2015, 09:24:43 pm

California is run by liberal fucktards who have stupid policies that effect real people.  Hence you having high gas prices and high taxes.  The drought is just bad luck. 

 

 Well Duck that's an interesting quote.  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 22, 2015, 11:47:30 pm

I don't hate California any more than I hate Oddo.  Neither of them affect me.
some
I have lived in California, just as I have lived in quite a few states and some other countries.  I liked it.  Climate is good in the Southern part, and I like desert country.

None of that changes the fact that California is the cause of most of their own problems.  It is difficult to build a refinery anywhere, with all the idiotic regulations.  But it is most difficult in California, where it is also most needed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 23, 2015, 01:46:08 am

Why of course demand is so much greater in California than it is anywhere, silly me.....I should know this...that's why they're paying so much more. Try again, Ted.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 23, 2015, 02:15:31 am

JJ, here are the reasons you're getting bilked at the pump in Cali...Intense consolidation has limited competition in the industry, whittling down the number of gasoline-producing refineries in the state to 11 from 30 in 1982, said Gordon Schremp, a senior fuels analyst for the California Energy Commission. Two companies — Chevron Corp. and Tesoro — now control 55% of the refining capacity in the state. At last week's Senate hearing, one antitrust official called the industry an oligopoly — in which a few firms hold most of the power.

Profit for California gasoline sellers — which include "refineries to gas stations and everyone in between" — rose by $437 million, according to a report last week from Oregon consulting firm McCullough Research. Meanwhile, a simultaneous slide in crude oil prices slashed refinery costs by $89 million, according to the report.

"It is cost effective for companies in very concentrated industries to allow one to set the price and have everyone else follow along," said Robert McCullough Jr., managing partner at the firm. "It's not necessarily unethical. It's not even illegal. It's just inefficient and not good for the U.S. economy."
Actually, it IS quite unethical when it's a monopoly we're discussing...

Consumer advocates allege refiners are fixing prices, exploiting disruptions to pad their profits.
State senators held a joint committee hearing last week in Sacramento wanting to know why gas prices had risen so much so quickly.
In one month, gas prices in state have surged about $1 a gallon. "If we're only paying about 20 to 30 cents more for gasoline typically, why is it translating now to a whole dollar more?" asked Sen. Ben Hueso (D-San Diego), who chaired the hearing. "We want to know if we don't have a competitive-enough market in California to keep prices low."


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2015, 05:09:44 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 23, 2015, 02:15:31 am

Consumer advocates allege refiners are fixing prices, exploiting disruptions to pad their profits.

Ah yes, good old "consumer advocates," and unnamed ones at that.  A truly insightful source, with a predictive track record rivaling that of the Global Warming alarmists for accuracy.  One of my faority "consumer advocates" positions was the one in the late 1970's and early 1980's about how we needed to regulate the American auto industry because the Big Three U.S. automakers constituted a monopoly no other company could ever crack and that as a result they were able to completely dictate what the consumer would buy and it would never change.  Then there was also the one about the same time about how in the ext few years we were going to completely run out of oil so we had to start heaily investing in alternative fuels.

Relyng on "consumer advocates" for a position is generally nothing more than a veiled excuse at advancing a position which amounts to socialism, and generally just about as bright.

Now, to the specifics here, I again ask if greedy capitalists are now "fixing prices" to "pad their profits," why is it that they don't raise prices even higher, and why is it that they are only doing so now instead of having done so forever?  Up until now have they NOT been greedy?  Greed is new?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2015, 05:22:45 am

And, Sportster, why in the world don't you attribute your sources instead of offering a post like that as if it were nonsense emanating from your own brain?

The source was the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gas-prices-20150401-story.html

Might it perhaps be because you so heavily cherry-picked the portion of the article that you included here, deleting the parts which made clear the excerpt you offered was merely one of multiple, conflicting rival theories to explain things and that the conclusion of uncertainty expressed in the article was sumarized in the last line? "We know a lot more about artichokes than we do about oil and gas in the U.S."

Or might it be because the article also offered explanations pointing out how the fundamental economic rules of supply and demand, as effected by governmental interventions in the marketplace, explain the higher prices in California?

California refineries often produce gasoline at near capacity, leaving little margin for supply disruptions. Even when supply is disrupted, the facilities must still fulfill long-term contracts to their customers such as gas stations.

For a quick fix, they draw from their slim inventories and try to buy gasoline from traders and other local refineries. But because those other plants are also producing at near-capacity to fulfill their own obligations, they don't have much spare fuel to sell.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2015, 06:00:23 am

Damn Global Warming.... http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/lateseason-freeze-to-threaten/47460447

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 23, 2015, 09:49:04 am

Same ol bs from Jessy......here's more he conveniently left out....

'The remaining facilities are more efficient and can produce more gasoline than their predecessors, he said.'

Spin it any ol way you like, California IS getting ripped off, and them's the facts, Jack....

And as to 'if greedy capitalists are now "fixing prices" to "pad their profits," why is it that they don't raise prices even higher'
even you should understand this one.....they know how high they can raise prices before the public resists and starts pulling back how much they'll buy and start loudly complaining more. They know this from the fiasco from 08' when they raised it as high as possible to see the reaction. Since that time, the price of gas has bounced off that ceiling but never crossed it. And since that time, we no longer have to have hurricanes or 'major' supply disruptions or any other reason for gas prices to skyrocket. All we need is some stories spewed on various sites to get idiots to start pushing the prices higher. I saw a laughable one recently attempting to spout the 'peak oil' bs again. Complete laugher. But one designed to get the gullible to keep buying and pushing prices higher.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 12:18:50 pm

Once again, we have a post from an a Neanderthal climate denying hack about weather.

Just stop idiot.

Try to conserasplain this graph...

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/144683/large/pr_1_1_0_1.png?1432322050)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 12:22:03 pm

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/144690/large/crime_and_punishment-signed.jpg?1432323363)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 12:24:25 pm

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/144589/large/ofafapfpjadpo.png?1432269901)

Governor degreeless sure seems happy to be with a child molester.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 23, 2015, 03:05:23 pm

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/07/climate_witchcraft_and_post_normal_science.html

Climate models are useful heuristic tools that help in understanding climate.  Most of the work done in developing models is honest.  But the models are not remotely good enough to make predictions about the future climate under the influence of CO2.  The IPCC and its allies have created a bizarre scheme to force doomsday predictions out of the disagreeing models in order to pursue bureaucratic and political goals.  The resultant predictions are looking very foolish in the face of 14 years of no general climate warming, and of no ocean warming since a reliable monitoring system was deployed in 2003.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/climate_witchcraft_and_post_normal_science.html#ixzz3azh3yzz8
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 23, 2015, 03:11:23 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 23, 2015, 01:46:08 am

Why of course demand is so much greater in California than it is anywhere, silly me.....I should know this...that's why they're paying so much more. Try again, Ted.....

You might want to read over some of the earlier posts.  They mentioned several reasons why California gasoline is more expensive than many parts of the country.  They include no new refineries in almost 40 years, resulting in much of the gas having to be hauled in by truck from distant refineries.  A higher gas tax than much of the country.  Blends intended to reduce pollution, but which are quite expensive to make, and much more time consuming, resulting in much higher overhead costs.  Also, since then are made by continuous manufacturing, rather than batch production, substantial shortages can develop during production changeovers.  All these result in reduced supplies at particular prices.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 23, 2015, 03:17:26 pm

Quote from: Sportster on May 23, 2015, 09:49:04 am

Same ol bs from Jessy......here's more he conveniently left out....

"they know how high they can raise prices before the public resists and starts pulling back how much they'll buy and start loudly complaining more.

Amazing that you can quote something that disproves your point, while acting as if it supports your contention.  Everyone tries to sell their stuff for as high a price as they can.  You will do so when you try to sell your house. 

As is said above, they raise their price until the demand for it goes down.

Price is determined by supply and demand.  Just the opposite of your original contention.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 06:06:15 pm

Seriously Neanderthal climate denier


Your really going to source an article way past its shelf life as a response to actual science?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 23, 2015, 07:05:59 pm

Otto there has been no warming for 13 years or longer.  This is a FACT! 

Even the global warming cult fanatics know it.  They just try and explain it away.  Even though their models are wrong every single time.  Their models have never been correct once yet it is proven science?  Really?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 08:03:39 pm

FACTS...

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/)

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Seems your Neanderthal-ness has rendered you stupid again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 23, 2015, 08:12:32 pm

*sigh

I could spend the time to find articles proving you wrong but you would simply discount them.  So enjoy your new religion Otto.  You are basing it on nothing but faith.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 08:24:07 pm

That, dear peak, is all you have is articles from other climate denying Neanderthals.

Articles which have cherry picked timelines and and paid for content.

What science article from a actual scientific organization can you present?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 23, 2015, 08:29:39 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/

IPCC computer models dating from 1990 through the present have consistently predicted at least 2.4 degrees of global warming per century. Such warming would require at least 0.24 degrees Celsius per decade, for which we should see at least 0.80 degrees Celsius warming since 1979. However, real-world warming since 1979 is occurring at less than half that pace. And there has been absolutely no real-world warming during the past 17 years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 23, 2015, 08:34:54 pm

Here is one that is a liberal like you and knows that real data shows no warming but makes excuses for it.  If what I am telling you is false why does he attempt to explain it away?

http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/has-global-warming-stopped

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 09:05:24 pm

A writer for the Heartland Institute which spent the 1990s working with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.

And now its the fight to deny Global Climate change.

Boy they know how to pick winners...fat cat tobacco companies, then move on to fat cat oil companies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 23, 2015, 09:14:59 pm

As usual, Homo attacks the people, not the facts.  Not much else a liberal can do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 23, 2015, 09:23:25 pm

They can't use facts.  They can not point to one time in history that socialism or communism worked.  It is never the utopia they claim it will be.

They just can not wrap their head around the fact that while capitalism is not perfect it is the best system we can have.  Much like our form of government a constitutional Republic.

Life is never going to be fair.  There will always be winners and losers.  Better that there are a lot more winners and the losers lives are much better then every ones would be under socialism.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 23, 2015, 11:57:49 pm

Quote

  They include no new refineries in almost 40 years, resulting in much of the gas having to be hauled in by truck from distant refineries.  A higher gas tax than much of the country.  Blends intended to reduce pollution, but which are quite expensive to make, and much more time consuming, resulting in much higher overhead costs.

Funny you say that because that has been the case for years now, all of it. But now this year all of a sudden they decide to add a nice additional spike to raise their profits. What you posted has zero to do with what is going on presently as all that has been padding prices for years already, unless they're now 'double dipping' the people of Calif. They're gouging because they CAN, because they have a monopoly that is allowed to go on due to the money it generates for politicians campaigns and that is the truth. The whole thing stinks of monopolized greed. I just find it hilarious that you brought that up. Guess they're running out of excuses why the prices continue to spike so they try to sell that same excuses they've used already. Folks ain't buying it, though....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 24, 2015, 12:12:39 am

If you were as knowledgeable as you think you are, you would know that California has had the highest gas prices for decades.  If you were as knowledgeable as you should be, you would know that when refineries perpetually run at capacity, any disruption in production or any increase in demand results in a strong increase in price.

You might want to read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2015, 09:43:35 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 12:18:50 pm

Try to conserasplain this graph...

What is there to explain?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2015, 09:46:05 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 23, 2015, 09:49:04 am

Same ol bs from Jessy......here's more he conveniently left out....

It wasn't my post.  All I was doing was pointing out that ypu deliberately deleted major parts of of the article (which you did not source or link) which were at odds with your position.  You were cherry picking.  You don't even deny it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2015, 09:50:17 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 23, 2015, 12:24:25 pm

Governor degreeless sure seems happy to be with a child molester.

One photo, one time they were together, and allegations.  Do you REALLY want to go there when Bill Clinton was long term close buds with a convicted child molestor, was apparently around during some of the molestation, and there are credible claims he took part?

If Dems really want to go there, this could be fun.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 24, 2015, 11:32:23 am

Leave Homo alone.  Living in Wisconsin, he has never seen an honest politician who actually works for the people rather than the loony left.  He is secretly proud of Walker, but has to live with peer pressure in the People's Republic of Madison.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 24, 2015, 11:51:02 am

I've seen many honest politicians in Wisconsin. They would be Gaylord Nelson, Wiliam Proxmire and Russ Feingold just to name a few. It just there isn't any good republic ones and that davepbart is your issue.


Governor Flippy is your guy? Go ahead and back him at your peril. He tells each crowd what they want to hear and denies being Flippy.

Just ask him why he was forced to quit Marquette in his senior.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 24, 2015, 11:54:55 am

If you want to talk about flippy talk to your hero in the Whitehouse. He has more flips than Carter's has pills.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 24, 2015, 11:59:29 am

Isfullofit

Stop being old and pathetic.

Say oldandfullofit, did "Mission Accomplished" bush lie about WMD's in Iraq?

And does "and knowing what we know now" bush still want to lie about it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 24, 2015, 02:19:51 pm

And YES!

I do consider our President Barack Hussein Obama to be a hero.

Thanks for asking so that I can post it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 24, 2015, 02:30:20 pm

WMD's were found in Iraq.  They were also used in IEDs against our troops.

We had won in Iraq and Obama pissed that away and brought about the rise of ISIS.

Some hero... 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on May 24, 2015, 03:12:56 pm

Old white Oddo reaching for Bush's fault and Walker 30 years ago references.

Oh, but Obsama defeated ISIS.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 24, 2015, 03:13:04 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 24, 2015, 11:51:02 am

Governor Flippy is your guy? Go ahead and back him at your peril. He tells each crowd what they want to hear and denies being Flippy.

Just ask him why he was forced to quit Marquette in his senior.

Is there any issue less important to a politician than if he finished College.  The important thing is that he has been an outstanding governor, bringing a backwards liberal state closer to the 21st century.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 24, 2015, 03:14:02 pm

Also some of the WMD were moved to Syria. We have been trying to get those removed even today. Assad was using them against his own people

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on May 24, 2015, 03:22:06 pm

Bill Clinton certainly thought the Iraquis had WMD's

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 24, 2015, 03:24:19 pm

 Hey Guys,


 So heres the latest news out of So.Cal,


 all of the refinerys shut down to do maintenence at the same time.


 Which has got the California Attorney General in on this.


 Is there **** collusion? Why no ... that would NEVER happen.


 All of the OIL companys are totally HONEST ...


 they would never EVER steal one penny from you.


 Since late Febuary ... about TWO BILLION dollars have been RIPPED from


 Californians ... jacking up prices in Cal.


 National Average : $2.75.


 California average : $4.00.


 Now some **** CLOWN is going to come in here and justify this.


 I can't wait to see these ****'s justify this. I know who they are ... so do you.  >:(


 


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 25, 2015, 08:19:19 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 24, 2015, 11:59:29 am

did "Mission Accomplished" bush lie about WMD's in Iraq?.

Not at all.  Not only do you need to distinguish between a "lie" and a mistake, you need to accept the fact that Bush (according to Bob Woodward's latest book after he examined the issue for 18 months) was continually pressing the intelligence agencies to get the issue right and to make certain it was not exaggerating at all, you also need to come to grips with the fact that WMD were found, as John Kerry, a man who ran on a presidential campaign focused on the bogus claim "Bush lied -- people died," finally admitted shortly after his confirmation hearings as Secretary of State.  He acknowledged that one of the reasons the Obama administration was certain Syria had WMD was because they knew Saddam had moved large quantities of active, up-to-date, and perfectly usable WMD across the Iraq border into Syria immediately before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002.

You also need to come to grips with the fact that Obama quite clearly lied, and had his minions lie, in 2012 about Al Queda having been completely destroyed and on the run as the U.S. approached the general election.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 25, 2015, 11:46:28 am

HLA

Your credibility on the issue of WMD's in Iraq and "mission accomplished" bush has been lost and your opinion on subject will be meant with ridicule.

Maybe you can have a "conversation" with Hans Blix and the International Atomic Commission who found no WMDs in Iraq after searching for years.

"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons". - Hans Blix

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 25, 2015, 01:49:17 pm

The Russians thought he had WMD.  The British thought he had WMD.  The Israelis thought he had WMDs.  He had used WMDs in the past.  Kerry believes that he moved WMDs into Syria prior to the invasion.

But Homo likes the scenario that fits his template.

Amazing to think that the same state that produced a great man like Scott Walker also produced someone like Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 25, 2015, 04:07:32 pm

 
Some motherfuckers are going to have to answer about California rip off prices when it comes to gasoline.


 Where is the best way to SPEND MONEY ?


 I'd have to go with the Middle East.


 I really don't give a **** about THE INFRASTRUCURE falling DOWN in AMERICA.


 The MAIN THING is to INTERJECT OURSELVES in a MUSLIM CIVIL WAR ...


 that has been going on since about 700 A.D.


 Yep ... we are going to solve that problem alright.


 NOW YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF ... this Quekstion ...


 If those motherfuckers are kicking the **** out of the troops we trained ...


 shouldn't we hire them to train our puppys in this race ?


 You know if after 1973 ... when our Arabs brothers **** US bigtime,


 we went on OUR OWN WAY IN INVENTION ...


 which we have ALWAYS done before then ...


 this situation would have NEVER occurred.


 The MUSLIM ASS is for AMERICANS to LICK!


 The OIL companys buy into it and we'll send your daughters to protect it.


 Your DAUGHTERS to protect the interests.


 INFRASTRUCTURE  in  AMERICA?


 That takes a back seat to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE MIDDLE EAST.


 You're probably wondering why this is happening ... because you elect them.


 The reason people are killing each other is ENERGY ...


 it's not about religion or politics ...


 it's about a person being fed.


 This planet can make so much energy that its not about a person being fed ...


 it's about a person being fed that is happy.


 Otherwise they get pissed off.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 25, 2015, 05:02:56 pm

JJ, no collusion, read some book about it...that'll tell you all you need to know.... ::)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 25, 2015, 08:56:49 pm

Mark's Market Blog
5-24-15: The South China Sea
by Mark Lawrence
Stocks made new all time highs this week, then failed to have any follow through. The market continues to want to go up, but appears to be afraid of shocks - a China recession, a US recession, a Greek default. The Greek default now appears inevitable and should happen in about three weeks.
 
S&P 500 November 24 2014 to May 22 2015
What's going on with the US economy? No one is sure. We had a lousy 1st quarter, due, I think, to severe weather, just as last year. Personally, my business turned up nicely in April and has been good since. However, early reports on consumer numbers disagree with that for the economy as a whole; there's simply no available evidence to show the economy is picking up in the 2nd quarter. Are we headed for a recession? Personally I doubt this, but more and more people are on the other side of this discussion. A couple of noteworthy hedge fund managers are already on the record predicting that not only will the Fed not raise rates this year, but in fact they will institute a new QE program.

Spain just had elections for Barcelona and Madrid. It appears that the capitol of Spain will no longer be ruled by the Popular Party - Spain's leftist majority party which has been in charge for 23 years - but will now be ruled by a coalition of a new party Ahora Madrid and the existing socialists. Both are strongly against EU imposed austerity. Ahora Madrid is the Spanish equivalent of Greece's Syreza. Spain will have national elections in November, and it appears the PP has little chance of holding on to power. The Germans think they're incontrol of the situation in Greece; not only so I question that, but it appears Spain, Portugal and Italy may soon be following in Greece's footsteps. The EU bureaucrats say that the EU cannot be split apart. The popular vote seems to go the other way.

The People's Republic of China is running a scam. I've previously noted that much of the new money in their market run-up is from extremely uneducated people. Meanwhile, Chinese companies have seen their share prices double in the last 16 months. This means the companies' debt has effectively halved - they can sell shares into this market and pay down debt. What happens when the market goes down? The Chinese banks that held the debt have been made more whole, the companies have been helped to survive, and the working class man on the street lost his savings to make this happen. Of Course, This Could Never Happen in The US. Or Europe. Try to imagine the backlash if it were ever learned that the Fed in collusion with Wall Street made ultra cheap money available to engineer a stock market bubble.

China has been trying to engineer a "soft landing" for their economy, where spending shifts from capitol expenditures to consumers. No one has ever seen a "soft landing" in the history of economic statistics, but who knows, maybe they could have been the first. Actually, no. Growth came to a complete stop, hiring stopped, it was all looking pretty dire. So China is shifting back to printing massive amounts of money and building more empty cities. For a while. And when things are moving again, it's not hard to predict another attempt at starting up a consumer economy. Expect a bumpy ride while the Chinese government moves from reform to growth, growth to reform, in order to avoid a hard landing. Of course they will keep perfect control and no mistakes will be made. . .

China is build artificial islands in the south china sea, with the obvious intent of declaring them chinese territory and improving their claim to waters several hundred miles from their shores. This week we flew a P8 spy plane over their island, which was challenged eight times by the chinese navy. We side with Viet Nam, Japan and the Philippines that these are international waters. China believes there is massive oil and gas reserves in this sea and they've no intention of sharing. China called our flyover "irresponsible and dangerous and detrimental to regional peace and stability." I predict this disagreement will only heat up.


The war on cash: Peter Bofinger, an official economic advisor to the German government, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that cash should be done away with. In Denmark a new law was proposed that would allow shops to refuse cash payments. Both countries have negative interest rates which means you should want to take your cash out of the bank and keep it under your mattress. Of course officially this is all about drugs and terrorism. Expect this topic to come up at a G7 meeting. And if they get their way on cash, expect gold and diamonds to be next. 'Cause, you know, drugs and terrorists.

Greece has warned twice in the last ten days that they will not be able to make their June IMF payments without help. What happens if Greece defaults? Economists are now trying to predict. Unemployment jumps from 25% today to 35%. A further 10% cut in the Greek economy. Currency controls - you're not allowed to take large sums out of Greek banks or out of Greece itself. Businesses that import are watched closely. The government plausibly starts to issue IOUs to pay employees and pensioners - effectively printing a new currency. And inflation, especially in the IOUs that cut everyone's buying power and accomplish the cuts in pay and pensions that the government was unable to accomplish on their own. Basically, it will be ugly for Greeks.

Los Angeles is the latest to approve a rise in the minimum wage to $15, phased in over several years. Switzerland has a high minimum wage; the McDonalds in Switzerland take your order by cell phone app or touch screen, and your order is delivered by conveyor belt. A new study from Oxford says that 47% of all jobs are at risk to being replaced by automation in the next two decades. Warren Buffet spoke out this week, saying raising the minimum wage would cost jobs, and a far better approach would be to keep the minimum wage low and increase the earned income tax credit - an approach I've been in favor of for well over a decade. Unfortunately it's becoming clear to me that a large segment of our population is not employable at any reasonable wage. What's the answer to approaching a time when perhaps 50% of our working age population can't find a job? In Washington they seem to believe the answer is to let in yet more unskilled and uneducated.

Much, Much More Fun department: A couple years ago a couple biology professors at Berkeley were sitting around and one said, "Wouldn't it be cool if we could take the genes to make morphine from poppy plants and put them into a yeast?" So they did. There's now a yeast at UC Berkeley that makes beer and heroin at the same time. After they did it they called in a technology ethicist and asked what he thought. The biologists offered that their yeast could be put on the federal controlled substance list, 'cause, you know, we're so very good at stopping the flow of illegal drugs in the world. Isn't that special? Wild overpopulation. Nuclear bombs in the hands of genocidal madmen. Massive pollution of our environment. Over fishing and pollution of our oceans. Running out of arable land and fertilizers. And now home brew heroin. What's going to kill us off? I feel like I'm watching the last 50 laps of the Indy 500, with humanity suicidally zooming past the stands at 225 mph.

Back on February 1 I noted that Shake Shack with 63 locations was valued at six times McDonalds per location. Since then the stock has gone up. Each Shake Shack location is now worth 17 times as much as each McDonalds, 'cause, you know, their burgers are great and they plan to open "hundreds more" in the next few years. McDonalds will be opening 800 more stores this year. Market valuations of Silicon Valley startups have also reached another insane level, not unlike the dot com boom of '97-'99. I continue to think things are basically ok this year and the market will not crash immediately - perhaps a correction of 5% - 15%, but no crash. However, these insane valuations cannot continue in the long run. Stocks must adjust at some point, most likely violently, and people who own stocks where the valuation is based almost entirely on "plans" are going to get wiped out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 25, 2015, 10:37:52 pm

Otto,

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george-wbush-weapons-of-mass-destruction-iraq-war/2015/05/24/id/646530/

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

 The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors, but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though plenty of mistakes were made in the invasion of Iraq, Bush actually told CIA Director George Tenet, "Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD," Woodward said.

 The reason the United States went into Iraq was "momentum," he said.

 "That war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end people were saying, 'Hey, look, it'll only take a week or two.'"

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace, "there was no lie in this that I could find."

 As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

 "We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george-wbush-weapons-of-mass-destruction-iraq-war/2015/05/24/id/646530/#ixzz3bDDqQqlj
 Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 25, 2015, 10:40:57 pm

In hindsight it was a mistake.  Only because the victory was bumbled by Obama.

If we had kept a base and forces in Iraq, ISIS and Iran would be much more in check then they are now.  American blood and treasure was spent, we won and Obama pissed it away by pulling everyone out.  He is completely incompetent in foreign affairs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 25, 2015, 10:47:07 pm

Don't confuse Homo with the facts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 25, 2015, 11:19:05 pm

Brett Favre's Wife . . . a logic lesson!
 
In a news conference, Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting Quarterback for the Green Bay Packers football team next season.


 
Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be the starting QB because she had spent 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers - even though she has actually never played football at any level from grade school up, never ran the offense of any team, nor ever played the game.
 
During this period of time, she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, the nickel package, man-to-man coverage, so she is now completely comfortable with all the other terminology involving the Packers offense.
 A survey of Packers fans shows 50% of those polled supported the move.
 
Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable ... or familiar to you?
Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be the President of the United States and 50% of Democrats polled agree.
 
She has never run a city, county, or state during her "career" as being Bill Clinton's wife. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the White House, my immediate thought was, "So does the pastry chef, and the person who picks up dog poop from the White House Lawn."
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2015, 07:42:29 am

Quote from: Sportster on May 25, 2015, 05:02:56 pm

JJ, no collusion, read some book about it...that'll tell you all you need to know.... ::)

Actual thinking would be sufficient, but that appears to be something neither you nor JJ do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 26, 2015, 07:46:05 am

Quote from: otto105 on May 25, 2015, 11:46:28 am

"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons". - Hans Blix

Hans Blix appears to understand that things which are removed outside of the area being searched will not be found.  Smart boy to notice the obvious.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 26, 2015, 03:03:26 pm

Even Irans General Solomanyi whatever his name is is accusing Obama of incompetence, not attacking ISIS enough to actually degrade them. Pretty bad when our enemies can see how incompetent a boob our President is and is calling him out on it....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 26, 2015, 04:04:58 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on May 26, 2015, 07:42:29 am

Actual thinking would be sufficient, but that appears to be something neither you nor JJ do.

 Otto Beard,


 We need thousands upon thousands of American TROOPS in the Mideast ...


 YOUR CHILDREN fighting in what somebody decided for them.


 In what doesn't make A GODDAMN BIT OF MOTHER **** SENSE ...


 in a MUSLIM civil war.


 Here's a quekstion for you Otto Beard,


 How many TROOPS did we have in NORTHERN IRELAND ...


 in that goofball **** they went though between the CATHOLICS & the PROTESTANTS,


 when they were humbuging each others asses back in the day ?


 That's how many TROOPS we should have in the middle east.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 26, 2015, 04:18:06 pm

We don't get oil from Ireland

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 26, 2015, 04:30:16 pm

 

Quote from: chifaninva on May 26, 2015, 04:18:06 pm

We don't get oil from Ireland

 If you want to put your children overseas for oil ... that's your prerogative.


 When you know goddamn good and well none of this should never have happened after 1973 when the Arabs told us to GO **** OURSELVES.


 That ... THEY RUN US ... and have ever since ...


 WHY DO YOU THINK WE FIGHT THEIR WARS FOR THEM?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2015, 05:57:40 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 26, 2015, 04:30:16 pm

 

 If you want to put your children overseas for oil ... that's your prerogative.


 

This coming from the guy that was whining about the price of oil earlier in the week.

But much more importantly, neither the Irish Catholics nor the Irish Protestants were actively trying to encourage those that agree with them to shoot and bomb Americans in America, or to exterminate our allies.

No person and no country does anything for only one reason.  Oil is one reason, and an important reason.  So is the fact that a sizable portion of the Muslim faith has declared upon America and much of Europe.  By far the most important reason is that if any of these nations get nuclear weapons, it will spell disaster for much more than our country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 26, 2015, 06:34:43 pm

 

Quote from: davep on May 26, 2015, 05:57:40 pm

This coming from the guy that was whining about the price of oil earlier in the week.

But much more importantly, neither the Irish Catholics nor the Irish Protestants were actively trying to encourage those that agree with them to shoot and bomb Americans in America, or to exterminate our allies.

No person and no country does anything for only one reason.  Oil is one reason, and an important reason.  So is the fact that a sizable portion of the Muslim faith has declared upon America and much of Europe.  By far the most important reason is that if any of these nations get nuclear weapons, it will spell disaster for much more than our country.

 Let them get the nuclear weapons ... if they want to **** with us that's the last time they do.


 You either push this to a head and get it over with or you live the rest of your lives under another cold war.


 The message should be obvious ... if you **** with us ...


 everything you know is gone 30 minutes later.


 There's no discussion of right or wrong here ...


 if you want to attack us ...


 we'll waste your whole fuckin country for allowing those **** to infest you.


 You **** up ... you let them get over on you.


 if they attack us from your zone ...


 your whole fuckin country is dead.


 Ask Japan.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 26, 2015, 07:22:04 pm

New York Times Stumbles onto the Truth About Baltimore

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, April 29, 2015

An article from yesterday’s New York Times about the relative calm in Baltimore stumbled by accident onto something like the real reason why blacks were rioting. Near the famous burned-out CVS–the city had begged the company to “invest” in a dodgy neighborhood–the Times reporter found someone it identified as “Robert Wilson, a college student who went to high school in Baltimore.” The article concludes with Mr. Wilson’s explanation of why blacks rioted. He said nothing about Freddie Gray or police brutality. Instead, he said this:

We’re just angry at the surroundings–like this is all that is given to us?–and we’re tired of this, like nobody wants to wake up and see broken-down buildings. They take away the community centers, they take away our fathers, and now we have traffic lights that don’t work, we have houses that are crumbling, falling down.

This quote almost perfectly captures the black mentality that leads to rioting. Blacks live in neighborhoods that they, themselves, have wrecked, and then ask, “This is all that is given to us?”

Hard-working white people built the “broken-down” buildings Mr. Wilson is complaining about. Many had parquet floors, high ceilings, and fine moldings found today only in the most expensive new construction.

After the riots in Baltimore in 1968, whites panicked and sold their property at desperation prices. Now, these houses are “broken down” because blacks didn’t maintain them. This pattern of white flight and “broken down” houses was repeated in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Washington, St. Louis, Memphis, Atlanta, Birmingham, Jacksonville, and countless other American cities. Some of the best city housing in the world was handed over to blacks who wrecked it. Neighborhoods filled with irreplaceable architecture are now wastelands.

Mr. Wilson complains that “we have houses that are crumbling, falling down.” The remedy for crumbling houses is for the people who live in them to fix them, but instead, Mr. Wilson asks, “Is this all that is given to us?”

Like so many blacks, Mr. Wilson doesn’t realize how perverse it is even to think in terms of pleasant houses and neighborhoods being “given” to anyone. Does he imagine the white authorities “giving” nice neighborhoods to whites and cruelly handing out slums to blacks? They didn’t start out as slums. Whites saved and worked hard to build those neighborhoods. They maintained them, repaired them, and loved them.

But in today’s world of welfare, food stamps, government housing, and white guilt, Mr. Wilson doesn’t know any better than to ask for handouts. Jesse Jackson is just as self-absorbed. At the funeral for Freddie Gray he wanted to know, “Why can’t the  West Side get the same things downtown gets?” Jesse Jackson is asking the same question: “Is this all that is given to us?”

And who, exactly, is not giving enough? Baltimore elected its first black mayor in 1987. Today, the mayor, the police chief, the fire chief, and half the police force are black. Two thirds of the population and most of the city council are black. But when Mr. Wilson and Jesse Jackson complain about stinginess, they are not blaming Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; they are blaming white people.

Mr. Wilson says Baltimore’s blacks rioted because they are “angry at the surroundings.” Blacks make their surroundings ugly and miserable, and then make them even more ugly and miserable by burning them down. And then they ask, “Is this all that is given us?”

Mr. Wilson has more complaints: “They take away the community centers, they take away our fathers.” Mayor Rawlings-Blake cut funding for 20 of 55 city-run community centers in 2013, but private foundations and neighborhood organizations kept most of them going. Rioters burned one down on Monday.

And fathers? In 1983, Baltimore had the highest black illegitimacy rate in the country: 76 percent, at a time when the national rate for blacks was about 55 percent. Now that the national black rate is 72 percent, what is the figure likely to be for Baltimore? Ninety percent? Ninety-five percent? Whoever “they” are didn’t have to work very hard to “take away our fathers.” Black fathers were never there to begin with.

It’s no surprise that Mr. Wilson thinks blacks haven’t been “given” what they deserve, and that “they” took away his father. He’s a college student–probably on scholarship–and that’s what blacks are taught from grade school.

The New York Times invariably blames “racism” and white privilege for the plight of blacks. It assumes that if only whites could curb their bigotry, blacks would bloom and flourish. It is remarkable that it concluded this article with a quotation that so brutally undercuts its own assumptions. People who think “they” have taken away their fathers, who blame others for their “broken down buildings,” who look at misery of their own making and ask “Is this all that is given to us?”–such people will not bloom and flourish no matter what white people do. Nor do they deserve to.

What next?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 07:31:28 pm

olde tacit racist

When will be your first article on the missing family/community regarding the white violence in Waco?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 07:37:15 pm

Quote

Hans Blix appears to understand that things which are removed outside of the area being searched will not be found.  Smart boy to notice the obvious.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


Next bit of ignorance from poster will be on Global Climate change denial.

I can hardly wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 07:50:04 pm

Peak


Please stop being a moron in regard to your whole opinion on Iraq.

Since the ISIL terrorists are predominantly Sunni Baathist's in Iraq you should be intelligent enough to know who created them.

Are you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 08:09:18 pm

Hey texas, Global Climate change is talking to you.

And governor abbott, texas bootstraps require you to look down, not East to Washington DC.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 26, 2015, 08:36:28 pm

Otto, I am perfectly willing to blame the toppling of Saddam in part for the rise of ISIS (they were started by a Jordanian not an Iraqi).  However I am guessing you will never be able to accept Obama's policies part in it.  Which is a rather major part.

If we had stayed we could have crushed them before they got started with minimal loss of American forces.  Obama pulling our troops out left a vacuum of power and ISIS filled it. 

We could still crush them but Obama does not have the will.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2015, 08:42:41 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 26, 2015, 06:34:43 pm

 

 Let them get the nuclear weapons ... if they want to **** with us that's the last time they do.

That type of threat works well on a sane person.

But what happens if the country that gets the bomb also gets a leader who is like the thousands of guys that have no problem with being a suicide bomber?  The fear of death might not be quite as effective on someone like that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2015, 08:45:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 08:09:18 pm

Hey texas, Global Climate change is talking to you.

When there was record cold last winter, Wasn't Homo the one who complained that people couldn't tell the difference between climate and weather?

I thought homos were supposed to be the best and the brightest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2015, 08:47:04 pm

We have nothing to worry about.  Obama will merely draw another line in the sand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 09:14:08 pm

Idiot davepbart

We did not have record cold in the Northeast last winter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 09:41:36 pm

Jordan? You are a sadly misinformed phaxnews stooge that is way too willing to believe any crap spoon fed to you.

Jordan? Seriously.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2015, 09:43:09 pm

And your favorite north pole express sure hit the Midwest grain belt pretty good.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2015, 09:44:23 pm

And what about the amount of snow that hit the northeast?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 09:49:20 pm

This might help Neanderthal climate deniers.

"The rain comes at the end of a long period of drought in Texas. Just four years ago, nearly all of the state was in extreme drought. Then-Gov. Rick Perry told Texans to “pray for rain.” He renewed the state of emergency in 2013. But after record-breaking rainfall this spring, no portion of Texas or Oklahoma was in extreme drought as of Thursday, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

Going from one extreme to another is a hallmark of climate change. Scientists predict more droughts in the coming decades, as well as more intense rainstorms. In the midwest, the number of storms that drop more than three inches of rain have increased by 50 percent, according to an analysis from the Rocky Mountain Institute. Texas and Oklahoma both face intensifying drought and flooding, although politicians in both states have denied climate change."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 26, 2015, 10:16:01 pm

Otto,

http://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-form-When-and-where-did-ISIS-begin

The group began more than two decades ago as a fervid fantasy in the mind of a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A onetime street thug, he arrived in Afghanistan as a mujahideen wannabe in 1989, too late to fight the Soviet Union. He went back home to Jordan, and remained a fringe figure in the international violent “jihad” for much of the following decade. He returned to Afghanistan to set up a training camp for terrorists, and met Osama bin Laden in 1999, but chose not to join al-Qaeda.
The fall of the Taliban in 2001 forced Zarqawi to flee to Iraq. There his presence went largely unnoticed until the Bush administration used it as evidence that al-Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein. In reality, though, Zarqawi was a free agent, looking to create his own terror organization. Shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he set up the forerunner to today’s Islamic State: Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad), which was made up mostly of non-Iraqis.
Although Zarqawi’s rhetoric was similar to bin Laden’s, his targets were quite different. From the start, Zarqawi directed his malevolence at fellow Muslims, especially Iraq’s majority Shiite population. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda regarded the Shiites as heretics, but rarely targeted them for slaughter. [1]

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 26, 2015, 10:46:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 26, 2015, 09:14:08 pm

Idiot davepbart

We did not have record cold in the Northeast last winter.

Did I say we had record cold in the northeast last winter.

You need a lesson in reading comprehension.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 26, 2015, 11:00:19 pm

Oddo wants to bring back the Wooly Mamouth and the Midwest glaciers along with the inland sea to the states of Oklahoma and Texas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 27, 2015, 06:59:08 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on May 26, 2015, 04:30:16 pm

 If you want to put your children overseas for oil ... that's your prerogative.
 When you know goddamn good and well none of this should never have happened after 1973 when the Arabs told us to GO **** OURSELVES.
 That ... THEY RUN US ... and have ever since ...
 WHY DO YOU THINK WE FIGHT THEIR WARS FOR THEM?

Which war is if you believe the United States has fought for "the Arabs"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 27, 2015, 07:07:55 pm

Quote from: davep on May 26, 2015, 10:46:28 pm

Did I say we had record cold in the northeast last winter.

No, but he was pretty sure you once had thought about it, and even if you dismissed it, that's good enough for otto.

He often seems to talk with himself in his posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 27, 2015, 07:42:10 pm

 

Quote from: davep on May 26, 2015, 08:42:41 pm

That type of threat works well on a sane person.

But what happens if the country that gets the bomb also gets a leader who is like the thousands of guys that have no problem with being a suicide bomber?  The fear of death might not be quite as effective on someone like that.

 C'mon Dave ... you know that's the last thing that will ever happen ...


 as crazy as some motherfuckers are ... one thing they know ...


 if they **** with us on that level ...


 there's not going to be an EASTERN HEMISPHERE anymore.


 We'll burn that down to a MOTHERFUCKIN WASTELAND.


 Oops. Sorry. Damn shame we cooked our ancestors rite of passage from the OLD world.


 But you should have LISTENED to us YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!


 Here's the good news Dave ,


 Name all of us ONE IDEA THAT WE USE ...


 That came out of the EASTERN HEMISPHERE.


 OK ... I can argue Bluetooth with you ...  :D


 Dave baby my little honeybun,


 WE are a futuristic society in the WESTERN HEMISPHERE ...


 that is wasting all of its TIME in the EASTERN HEMISPHERE.


 There comes a time sweetheart to cut the umbilical cord.


 EVERY **** IDEA HAS COME FROM THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.


 If you disagree ... stop the electricity now.


 Now tell me right the **** now what the Eastern Hemisphere is up to ?


 Why the **** would you want to be involved with these clowns ?


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 27, 2015, 08:48:18 pm

What does if matter if all the ideas come from the western hemisphere, if they take one of our ideas (nuclear weapons) and use on us? 

I agree that no sane person would do it. 

Do you agree that no sane person would sit on a bomb and blow himself up?

A lot of guys are doing it.  All it takes is one of them to become the chief mullah.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on May 27, 2015, 09:43:36 pm

HMMM....

Been hearing some strange things and will see if journalists will take a look:

That the Clinton's had a hotel suite across from the UN when it was in session and the ambassadors were "expected" to visit and contribute to the Clintons

That Bill had a shell corporation he funnelled money through

That the 5 or so countries Hillary made arms deals with contributed heavily to the foundation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2015, 10:01:16 pm

OK Davebart,


Where was all that record cold you speak of....that should be fun.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 27, 2015, 10:02:01 pm

Someone will be knocking on your door soon - don't open it...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2015, 10:04:01 pm

So isstillfullofit,


You're saying I'm both advocating for Global Cooling and Warming? Or one? Neither?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2015, 10:09:02 pm

Bearhut

I just got your computers URL and you have several Niger millionaire's contacting you about special money offers soon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2015, 10:12:45 pm

HLA

Maybe you know were that record cold was...do tell.


Has that hillbilly caught with the shine paid you yet?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 27, 2015, 10:31:54 pm

I believe you are advocating a massive global cooling, beyond a doubt. Absolutely no question in my mind. And I don't believe you have a clue what the hell you are really advocating.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 27, 2015, 10:34:03 pm

Otto,

Have you proven me wrong about the Jordanian that started ISIS yet?

No?  Didn't think so.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 27, 2015, 10:53:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 27, 2015, 10:01:16 pm

Where was all that record cold you speak of....that should be fun.

Seems like a waste of time, since whenever you are proven wrong, you merely deny it and then disappear for a few days.

However, a few days without our resident idiot Homo is not something to be scorned.  Here you go.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/03/06/record-cold/24491127/

Record cold temperatures were once again the main weather story across much of the eastern half of the nation as arctic air poured in Friday behind a snowstorm.

All-time March record lows were set Friday morning in Pittsburgh at minus 3 degrees; in Paducah, Ky., at minus 6 degrees; in Lexington, Ky., at minus 2 degrees; and in Harrisburg, Pa., at 0 degrees, according to the Weather Channel.

Daily record lows were also set in Chicago, Detroit and Cincinnati (all 0 degrees), Montpelier, Vt. (minus 16), Toledo, (minus 5 degrees), Buffalo (minus 1 degree), Baltimore (10 degrees), Memphis (17 degrees), Little Rock (18 degrees), Austin (21 degrees), Baton Rouge (26 degrees) and Huntsville, Ala. (16 degrees).

As many as 200 record lows may have been broken this morning once all the temperature data is recorded.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2015, 10:54:39 pm

Peak

Have you proven me wrong that gwb started ISIS in Iraq, yet?

No? I didn't think so.


Don't you ever get tired of parrotting wingnut blog lies?


A Sunni extremist living in Iraq who was born in Jordan (who lived in many countries) proves Iraq wasn't the birth place of ISIS?

How?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 27, 2015, 10:57:36 pm

Davebart

Old fossil dude....one day of cold weather is record cold of what proportion?


Turn up your **** furnace and put on another sweater...for a day.


****.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 27, 2015, 11:58:24 pm

Homo disputes that there was record cold.  I prove that there was record cold.  He disregards the facts and resorts to name calling.

He makes liberals around the country proud.

Amazing that someone like Homo can have Scott Walker as a hero.  Life is funny.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 28, 2015, 02:39:07 am

They were already in Iraq which is part of the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq.

An argument could be made that if we did not invade Iraq (which the Democrats voted for in congress) that they would not have grown as powerful as they have become.  But then again we had won and they really only became powerful after Obama pulled our troops out.

Can you really not follow that logic Otto?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 28, 2015, 11:03:12 am

Obama hasn't helped a bit in stabilizing that part of the world..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 28, 2015, 01:51:55 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/baltimore-residents-fearful-amid-homicide-spike-083758282.html

Which is it, you protest too much police, now it's not enough police. "Scared to go outside"..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 28, 2015, 02:56:29 pm

Like every other community, the black community is not monolithic.  There are some residents that want less police presence, and there are some that want more.  Reporters can make it sound like either side represents the entire community, depending upon what message they want to convey.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 28, 2015, 03:11:13 pm

All residents would agree to having a solid ETHICAL police force - but that is a policy this is preached but not effectively enforced

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 28, 2015, 03:59:34 pm

 

Quote from: BearHit on May 28, 2015, 03:11:13 pm

All residents would agree to having a solid ETHICAL police force - but that is a policy this is preached but not effectively enforced

 BearHit,


 You got a BearHit !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2015, 06:27:49 pm

Peak

When is the logic going to be presented in your posts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2015, 07:03:22 pm

Peak

To clarify, ISIL was one of the reasons gwb cited to invade Iraq?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 28, 2015, 07:14:40 pm

See post 6334.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2015, 07:19:03 pm

Seriously?

Really?


ISIL wasn't even created until 2006.


But the scrub, in 2001 knew about them? The same president who did not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shitte when we did invade in 2003?


Really?


Are you really that ignorant?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 28, 2015, 07:42:07 pm

It is the same group that just changed names according to the link I provided.

I am not an expert on terrorist groups so I am taking their word for it.

The link also criticize Bush, so pretty sure they are not some Republican front as you seem to always claim.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 28, 2015, 09:05:57 pm

Quote from: davebear on May 27, 2015, 09:43:36 pm

HMMM....

Been hearing some strange things and will see if journalists will take a look:

That the Clinton's had a hotel suite across from the UN when it was in session and the ambassadors were "expected" to visit and contribute to the Clintons

That Bill had a shell corporation he funnelled money through

That the 5 or so countries Hillary made arms deals with contributed heavily to the foundation.

I have been hearing that Hillary's birth was actually the story behind the movie Rosemary's Baby.... will see if journalists take a look.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 28, 2015, 09:07:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 27, 2015, 10:01:16 pm

OK Davebart,  Where was all that record cold you speak of....that should be fun.

I don't believe this is a reading comprehension problem.  He is simply retarded.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 28, 2015, 09:12:17 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on May 28, 2015, 01:51:55 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/baltimore-residents-fearful-amid-homicide-spike-083758282.html

Which is it, you protest too much police, now it's not enough police. "Scared to go outside"..

Believe it or not the population of Baltimore is not like monolithic in its view of police.  Two reporters talk to different people and you rather understandbly get different perspectives

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2015, 12:21:30 am

HLA


Time to stop cutting the pill in half.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2015, 10:17:49 am

Down by 16 points in the latest polls to Russ Feingold senator ron johnson finds his villian to rail against...

(http://crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/node_primary/primary_image/15/05/ron_johnson_lego.jpg)

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8683269/lego-movie-republican-senator-ron-johnson (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8683269/lego-movie-republican-senator-ron-johnson)

republic pols missing the mark ever since dan quayle opened his pie hole in regard to Murphy Brown.



Also, a hat is being passed in the break-room for the denny hassert legal fund. Please consider.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 29, 2015, 11:40:19 am

I see Jesse Jackson's boy is about to be released from the halfway house. I bet that makes you happy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 29, 2015, 11:50:25 am

With that on his resume, he will be a real comer in the Domocratic party.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 29, 2015, 12:08:11 pm

He'll be Hillary's running mate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on May 29, 2015, 01:35:41 pm

Yep. Saw a recent poll where the majority of Democrats have no problems with illegals voting. Great party, they....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2015/most_democrats_think_illegal_immigrants_should_vote

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2015, 02:57:43 pm

Might have something to do with no taxation without representation ideals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 29, 2015, 03:17:23 pm

What a bunch of bandits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/an-award-for-bill-clinton-came-with-500000-for-his-foundation.html?_r=1

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 29, 2015, 05:24:15 pm

sporty

The charity organizer offered the contribution for the appearance at fundraiser. 

What law has been broken?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 29, 2015, 06:12:49 pm

No law was broken it is just shitty behavior.

Pay me 500,000 and I will show up to accept an award.  That is 500,000 that did not go to tsunami victims.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on May 29, 2015, 06:18:38 pm

ETHICS - just do the right thing - HAH - that was in the old days... kid

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 29, 2015, 07:14:13 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXodRLLkth4&feature=youtu.be

Our greatest national threat.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on May 29, 2015, 08:00:45 pm

 

Quote from: packrat on May 29, 2015, 07:14:13 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXodRLLkth4&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXodRLLkth4&feature=youtu.be)

Our greatest national threat.

 Our greatest national threat is looking in a mirror.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 29, 2015, 09:19:52 pm

No, is in the current White House.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 09:08:08 am

Our greatest threat is three yo-hos sitting around a desk embarrassing themselves?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on May 30, 2015, 09:50:34 am

And you aren't the greatest embarrassment here? You are such an embarrassment to life that even your mother couldn't love you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 01:35:45 pm

The greatest embarrassment here is the political views of the tea bagging party which are best described as anti-knowledge, anti-science fundamentalist christian ignorance.

As shown by this chart

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2015/05/rosenau-graphic.jpg&w=1484)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2015, 01:50:09 pm

Homo likes to make statements that have no basis in reality, and then defend them with sarcasm rather than facts.

isn't he cute?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 01:59:31 pm

The moment has arrived. The 2015 May republic presidential campaign Clown Car "Todd Legitimate **** Akin Award" for Sexual Sensitivity goes to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who...

Last week, Walker was on a radio talk show, praising a law he signed requiring women who want an abortion to undergo an ultrasound. Which they’re supposed to watch, while the physician points out the features of the fetus.

An ultrasound, he said, was “just a cool thing.”


Vaginal probes anyone...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 02:08:29 pm

davebagger

I defended it with a actual and factual chart.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2015, 03:10:06 pm

No.  You defended it with a chart that gave no indication of what research and what parameters were used to construct it.

That would be as silly as pointing to a climate model to support global warming when you have no idea what assumptions and facts went into the construction of the computer model.

Science must be peer critiqued.  Peers can not evaluate computer models or unsupported charts.

If you are going to critique people because of their education, it would be best if you first got one yourself.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 05:13:10 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/?hpid=z4 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/?hpid=z4)

There you go.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2015, 05:40:20 pm

Typical of the liberal view of science.  The study equates an acceptance of the unproven anthropological-caused global warming theory with science, and a denial of the theory with ignorance of science.  Similar to "are you still beating your wife", the questions assume the fact in question.

Go to night school, Homo, and take a science course.  it isn't too late for you.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 05:41:17 pm

Quote

pointing to a climate model to support global warming when you have no idea what assumptions and facts went into the construction of the computer model.

Science must be peer critiqued. 

Would this be why 97-98% of Scientists who study Global Climate change are in consensus as to why it is happening?

Why yes, because of the science.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2015, 05:49:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 05:41:17 pm

Would this be why 97-98% of Scientists who study Global Climate change are in consensus as to why it is happening?

Bullshit.

We have been down this road before, and I have asked you for the source for that percentage, the actual, original source, so we could take a meaningful look at the validity of the claims.  So far you have refused to respond.  Will it be anydifferent this time?  What is the original source for that percentage?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 05:49:51 pm

Do most scientists agree that human activity is causing global climate change?  Yes, they do, according to an extensive analysis of the abstracts or summaries of scientific papers published over the past 20 years, even though public perception tends to be that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of climate change.

To help put a stop to the squabbling, two dozen scientists and citizen-scientists from three continents--including Sarah Green, professor and chair of chemistry at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Mich.— analyzed the abstracts of nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change published between 1991 and 2011. They also surveyed the authors of those papers, to find out how well the analysis agreed with the authors’ own views on how their papers presented the cause of climate change.

They found that more than 97 percent of the scientists who expressed any opinion in their papers about the primary cause of global climate change believed that human activity was the cause. Approximately the same percentage of authors who responded to the survey said that their papers endorsed anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. Nine of the scientists who analyzed the abstracts--including Green--reported their findings today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, published by the Institute of Physics.   

Green says she got involved because she was curious about the apparent disconnect between the general public’s lack of concern about climate change and what she calls “the clear scientific evidence that humans are changing the planet's atmosphere.” That led her to SkepticalScience.com, a web site that tracks and addresses common myths about climate change. She has since contributed several articles.

John Cook, who maintains the web site, is a climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia.  He found that one dominant myth about climate change is the idea that scientists disagree about the cause.  To investigate how much disagreement there really is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Cook set up an on-line system that enabled a group of SkepticalScience.com authors to rate nearly 12,000 abstracts from the Web of Science database (1991-2011) on whether they report human activities as the main contributors to climate change.

“John cleverly set up the rating process so it felt like a game to me,” says Green. “After I rated five abstracts, another five would quickly appear, and counters showed how many each person had done, making it like a contest.”   

The abstract raters were a combination of professional and citizen-scientists from Australia, Canada, the UK, Finland, the US and Germany. The group was organized through the skeptical science web site.

“I read and rated 4,146 abstracts for this study, over about 4 months in winter/spring 2012,” Green explains. “This is the first time I’ve published a paper where all the research was accomplished sitting on my couch.” 

Green adds, “I found it fascinating to see the array of implications of climate change identified in the abstracts—beyond the usual ones we hear about.  They examined everything from production of tea in Sri Lanka, the stripes on salamanders, child undernutrition, frequency of lightning strikes, distribution of prickly pear cactus (and pine trees, kelp beds, wild boars, penguins, arctic fishes, canine leishmaniasis, and many, many others), mitochondrial electron transport activity in clams, copper uptake by minnows, lake effect snowfall, the rotational speed of the Earth and the prevalence of naked foxes in Iceland.”

Green also found a large number of papers addressing mitigation of climate change through alternative energy and other ways to limit carbon emissions.

“It is critical to raise public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change, so the public can make policy decisions based on factual evidence,” she says. “Typically, the general public thinks that only around 50 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This research has shown that the reality is 97 percent.”

Michigan Technological University (www.mtu.edu) is a leading public research university developing new technologies and preparing students to create the future for a prosperous and sustainable world. Michigan Tech offers more than 130 undergraduate and graduate degree programs in engineering; forest resources; computing; technology; business; economics; natural, physical and environmental sciences; arts; humanities; and social sciences.


Peer review that Neanderthal climate-denier.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2015, 05:50:43 pm

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2015, 05:40:20 pm

Go to night school, Homo, and take a science course.  it isn't too late for you.

Assuming you  are referring to otto as "Homo," I have to disagree.  I think it is too late for him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2015, 05:59:02 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/29/democrat-says-school-choice-advocates-are-raping-children-compares-reforms-to-jim-crow-laws/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 30, 2015, 06:05:05 pm

Now he will call you "Jesbart".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 06:08:41 pm

Quote

If throwing more money at a broken public education system worked, we’d see better graduation rates and testing scores every year as we spend more and more money per pupil.”

If throwing more money at a private voucher education system worked, we’d see the testing scores (which we don't currently) as we spend more and more money per pupil. The raping republics in Wisconsin are voting to move 800 millions dollars over the next 10 years out of public schools to private voucher schools while requiring NO accountability of the results as public schools are required to do.

**** indeed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2015, 06:15:18 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 06:08:41 pm

If throwing more money at a private voucher education system worked, we’d see the testing scores (which we don't currently) as we spend more and more money per pupil. The raping republics in Wisconsin are voting to move 800 millions dollars over the next 10 years out of public schools to private voucher schools while requiring NO accountability of the results as public schools are required to do.

**** indeed.

~sigh~ The accountability lies in allowing those consuming the education to decide where the money is spent.  If a school is not doing as those spending the money like, they will change schools without difficulty.  That is not the case with public schools, where the only accountability found in most public school systems in an accounatbility to the teacher's unions or associations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2015, 06:17:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 05:49:51 pm

Do most scientists agree that human activity is causing global climate change?  Yes, they do, according to an extensive analysis of the abstracts or summaries of scientific papers published over the past 20 years, even though public perception tends to be that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of climate change.

To help put a stop to the squabbling, two dozen scientists and citizen-scientists from three continents--including Sarah Green, professor and chair of chemistry at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Mich.— analyzed the abstracts of nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change published between 1991 and 2011. They also surveyed the authors of those papers, to find out how well the analysis agreed with the authors’ own views on how their papers presented the cause of climate change.

They found that more than 97 percent of the scientists who expressed any opinion in their papers about the primary cause of global climate change believed that human activity was the cause. Approximately the same percentage of authors who responded to the survey said that their papers endorsed anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. Nine of the scientists who analyzed the abstracts--including Green--reported their findings today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, published by the Institute of Physics.   

Green says she got involved because she was curious about the apparent disconnect between the general public’s lack of concern about climate change and what she calls “the clear scientific evidence that humans are changing the planet's atmosphere.” That led her to SkepticalScience.com, a web site that tracks and addresses common myths about climate change. She has since contributed several articles.

John Cook, who maintains the web site, is a climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia.  He found that one dominant myth about climate change is the idea that scientists disagree about the cause.  To investigate how much disagreement there really is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Cook set up an on-line system that enabled a group of SkepticalScience.com authors to rate nearly 12,000 abstracts from the Web of Science database (1991-2011) on whether they report human activities as the main contributors to climate change.

“John cleverly set up the rating process so it felt like a game to me,” says Green. “After I rated five abstracts, another five would quickly appear, and counters showed how many each person had done, making it like a contest.”   

The abstract raters were a combination of professional and citizen-scientists from Australia, Canada, the UK, Finland, the US and Germany. The group was organized through the skeptical science web site.

“I read and rated 4,146 abstracts for this study, over about 4 months in winter/spring 2012,” Green explains. “This is the first time I’ve published a paper where all the research was accomplished sitting on my couch.” 

Green adds, “I found it fascinating to see the array of implications of climate change identified in the abstracts—beyond the usual ones we hear about.  They examined everything from production of tea in Sri Lanka, the stripes on salamanders, child undernutrition, frequency of lightning strikes, distribution of prickly pear cactus (and pine trees, kelp beds, wild boars, penguins, arctic fishes, canine leishmaniasis, and many, many others), mitochondrial electron transport activity in clams, copper uptake by minnows, lake effect snowfall, the rotational speed of the Earth and the prevalence of naked foxes in Iceland.”

Green also found a large number of papers addressing mitigation of climate change through alternative energy and other ways to limit carbon emissions.

“It is critical to raise public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change, so the public can make policy decisions based on factual evidence,” she says. “Typically, the general public thinks that only around 50 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This research has shown that the reality is 97 percent.”

Michigan Technological University (www.mtu.edu) is a leading public research university developing new technologies and preparing students to create the future for a prosperous and sustainable world. Michigan Tech offers more than 130 undergraduate and graduate degree programs in engineering; forest resources; computing; technology; business; economics; natural, physical and environmental sciences; arts; humanities; and social sciences.

I asked for the source of the claim.  Your cut and paste passage still fails to include a source.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 06:19:13 pm

Not only that our vaginal probe college degree-less imbecile of a governor wants to give teaching licenses to high school dropouts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 06:23:37 pm

Quote

The accountability lies in allowing those consuming the education to decide where the money is spent.  If a school is not doing as those spending the money like, they will change schools without difficulty.  That is not the case with public schools, where the only accountability found in most public school systems in an accountability to the teacher's unions or associations.

Same old ****, different day. When did you become so repetitive with misinformation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 06:28:02 pm

That's funny hillbilly legal aid

It clearly states in the article its was from Sarah Green, professor and chair of chemistry at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Mich.

Looking to second guess the messenger instead of the information it contains. Sad even for a Neanderthal climate-denier.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2015, 07:07:11 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 05:41:17 pm

Would this be why 97-98% of Scientists who study Global Climate change are in consensus as to why it is happening?

Why yes, because of the science.

Nowhere near 97 % of climate scientists believe that global warming is caused by the activities of men.  And the numbers are dropping strongly.

You need to actually listen to scientists, rather than the liberal propaganda machine.

Enjoy, Homo,

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 30, 2015, 07:11:52 pm

Counting the number of published papers is meaningless, since publishers refuse to publish papers exposing the faulty science behind Anthromorphic global warming.  You continue to quote non-scientists to refute the actual climatologists that debunk Mankind caused global warming.

Enjoy, Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2015, 07:18:49 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 06:28:02 pm

That's funny hillbilly legal aid
It clearly states in the article its was from Sarah Green, professor and chair of chemistry at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Mich.
Looking to second guess the messenger instead of the information it contains. Sad even for a Neanderthal climate-denier.

So the article is not the source.....  Provide a link to the source.  It shouldn't be too tough for you.  Until you do, it is rather hard to critique it....which is likely why you have failed to provide a source.

I want to make sure we are both talking about the same thing before bothering to dismember it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on May 30, 2015, 07:20:09 pm

Quote from: davep on May 30, 2015, 07:11:52 pm

Counting the number of published papers is meaningless, since publishers refuse to publish papers exposing the faulty science behind Anthromorphic global warming.  You continue to quote non-scientists to refute the actual climatologists that debunk Mankind caused global warming.

Bingo, but let's have otto actually provide a link to the ORIGINAL source for this nonsense before wasting any more thought on it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on May 30, 2015, 07:35:25 pm

The "study" is flawed to begin with.  If you only invite "scientists" to the party that agree with your point of view you are going to get a slanted result.

We could do a poll right now asking who believes in man made global warming on this site and it would be overwhelmingly against.  It would not prove anything.  That is not how science is settled.

It is settled by evidence which the global warming hoaxers have none.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 10:37:40 pm

Go right ahead Neanderthals and read.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm)


Then pee yourselves.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 10:41:50 pm

Better yet Neanderthal climate-deniers, why don't you go find 10-20 peer-reviewed scientific papers which refute AGW.

By your previous posts, that should be easy to do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 10:56:24 pm

Enjoy

http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/ (http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/)

And they're peer reviewed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 11:20:40 pm

(http://spydersden.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/voting_republican.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 11:29:37 pm

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQhrweEfxUl5bru6YCyyOKxWEiqr_pYxJIsL2MNa0ux38mRjWe)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 11:50:17 pm

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvNgwQQdB-eBm2YYIkNa7HAaGyWaGlz1h4J6DTodK40YwvOdEZ)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 31, 2015, 10:03:55 am

Isn't Homo cute.  He can cut and paste from the left wingnut sites, but can not understand either facts or logic.  Hopefully, under Scott Walker, the new generation of students of that Hillbilly city in that backwards state will actually get a real education that allows them to earn a living outside of the People's Republic of Madison.

Enjoy, Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 31, 2015, 03:36:20 pm

I did no such thing Mr. My Posts are Usually Meaningless to Anyone but Me


I just Googled Stupid Republicans and they showed up by the thousands.

Give it a try and enjoy the fun.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 31, 2015, 04:28:08 pm

(https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.A4LqTPp4qQeR1tzzHgO95w&pid=15.1)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on May 31, 2015, 04:28:31 pm

Like this ^

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on May 31, 2015, 07:54:27 pm

So, your first post after being called out about being imbeciles is to confirm it?


Nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on May 31, 2015, 09:50:50 pm

If you want Homo to understand it, you have to underline the important words.

Enjoy, Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on May 31, 2015, 10:29:02 pm

Pelosi: ‘The Clintons Will Have To Answer For the Foundation’
Matt Vespa | May 30, 2015


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/05/30/pelosi-the-clintons-will-have-to-answer-for-the-foundation-n2006024


Pelosi?  Pelosi!

Get the gangplanks. The democRATS are beginning to leave - even those stupid ****  from California.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 01, 2015, 08:04:40 am

gag? Yet they are fighting to keep Clinton clean on Benghazi. No Pelosi's comment is only a political ploy. Its political talk. She wouldn't dirty another liberal. Just like Oddo wouldnt dirty the Clinton name. Dumbos are perfect just like all the Democrat politicians in Illinois.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 01, 2015, 10:43:34 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 01, 2015, 12:18:26 pm

I see consumer spending was flat last month, in this great economy..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2015, 08:22:48 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 30, 2015, 10:37:40 pm

Go right ahead Neanderthals and read.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm)
Then pee yourselves.
Enjoy

Before I either read it, pee myself, enjoy it or refute it, is THAT what you are offering as your source for your 97% consensus claim?

Let's firmly locate the position of the goalposts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2015, 08:28:12 pm

Quote from: otto105 on May 31, 2015, 03:36:20 pm

My Posts are Usually Meaningless to Anyone but Me

Quote from: otto105 on May 31, 2015, 07:54:27 pm

So, your first post after being called out about being imbeciles is to confirm it?

Things are clearer now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 01, 2015, 09:29:42 pm

Mark's Market Blog
5-31-15: First nuclear explosion in 70 years?
by Mark Lawrence
After making new highs last week, stocks dropped a bit and got stuck. I continue to believe we're rapidly nearing some sort of correction.
 
S&P 500 December 1 2014 to May 29 2015
There was a very large explosion in Yemen on March 20. To many, including a physicist Jeff Smith who was previously an IAEA inspector, it appears to have been a low-yield nuclear explosion, perhaps a neutron bomb. Was it? I find the evidence deeply concerning, but not yet compelling. The pixelation at about 0:15 seconds is typical of high energy protons hitting a digital sensor. We do not see this in even very large conventional explosions. Do the Saudis have a bomb they bought from Pakistan? Did they set one off in the face of Iran as a warning? It's unlikely that's what this is - a neutron bomb is a relatively high tech system, not something we would expect the Pakistanis could produce. Did Israel bomb Yemen for Saudi Arabia? Can you imagine that Israel wants to be the first to detonate a nuclear bomb since WW II? On a country, Yemen, that poses no threat to them? This makes no sense to me. It's said that Russia has lost 84 "suitcase" bombs. Was one of these in Yemen, and it got hit by a conventional attack? Generally these nukes are very delicate things and hitting them with other bombs does not set them off. This also makes no sense to me. Is this a false flag operation, something deliberately set off to justify using more nukes in the future? Honestly, I have very little certainty of what happened here, but I assure you it is deeply concerning. The obvious next step is to send in experts to measure radioactivity, to look at remaining isotopes which tell you exactly what reactor produced the bomb material, to see if there are signs in the population of radiation sickness and burns. It's extremely unlikely that any of that will happen on a large scale, and if a few Russian or American agents sneak in to get the info we'll never hear about it. This story has not been picked up by any reputable western news agency; the best I could find is Pravda.ru, which obviously has their own agenda.


First quarter numbers are in. Consumer purchases expanded slightly, but were more than offset by the drop in exports and government spending. Overall the economy contracted at a 0.9% rate in the 1st quarter. There are some signs the contraction is continuing into the 2nd quarter, which could make this a recession. Consumer confidence is also falling.

China's Shanghai stock market dropped a bit over 11% in under 24 hours. Then regained a small bit of that ground. Here's the amazing part: this is not a record. It does this every year or so. What does it mean? Apparently not a thing. Except that Chinese stock owners are being trained to ignore what we would consider frightening behavior from the markets.

Greece will default this month. They have IMF payments due of €300m+ on June 5th, 12th, 16th and 19th, and €3.9b of maturing t-bills on June 12th. Perhaps they will make the June 5th payment. I see no rational hope for making the June 12th payment. Meanwhile Greek banks continue to bleed cash, making the likelihood of currency controls all but certain. Currency controls - a limit on currency leaving Greece - would be followed closely by the government paying debts with IOUs, effectively a parallel currency. A fundamental axiom of economics is that bad money drives the good out of circulation - if you have a choice to pay a bill with a Greek IOU of unknown fundamental value or a rock-solid Euro, which one do you spend, which one do you keep? If we call the IOUs drachmas, then there will likely be a drachma economy in Greece by August. And then? I don't know, and especially I don't know how you put one foot over the abyss then step back. Meanwhile Greek banks have lost roughly half their total deposits. And what happens in the rest of Europe? Absolutely nothing if we're to believe the Germans. I'm less sanguine, I'm expecting some shake up in the bond market.


And how is that European bond market doing? Super Mario had been buying €60b every month, driving bond prices up and yields negative. Until April, when it all started to come apart. Hedge funds which had been front-running the ECB buying plans decided they had no stomach for negative yields and started dumping bonds, setting off a rout which lost €344b before Super Mario stepped in. German 10-year bonds went from 0.05% to 0.77% almost overnight. He announced that the ECB would front-load their QE purchases and single handedly brought the German bonds back down to 0.5%. Here's what's interesting: this all happened during a time of QE and relative stability. Now imaging Greece defaulting into this atmosphere and tell yourself that absolutely nothing will happen. I don't believe it. Something will happen. Mario will manage to handle it, this time. But the writing is on the wall: the ECB is no longer the buyer of last resort of European bonds; right now they're pretty much the only buyer.

Wanna live forever? Here's a life expectancy calculator, 'cause the Oracle is dead but computers are even better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 01, 2015, 10:51:00 pm

HLA

The goalposts would be the yellow metal suck in your ass.


A mirror or magnet would allow you to locate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 02, 2015, 09:41:19 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 01, 2015, 10:51:00 pm

HLA
The goalposts would be the yellow metal suck in your ass.
A mirror or magnet would allow you to locate.

Still don't know who or what "HLA" is, but I take if from your post here that you have no intention of clearly stating that the website http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm is your definitive source for your 97% consensus claim.  If you are not willing to clearly state that it is your definitive source, there is no reason for anyone to bother reading it and responding to whatever foolishness you think you have found there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 02, 2015, 10:15:41 pm

otto 105 - Crazy as a hooty owl.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 02, 2015, 10:22:07 pm

 
 This thread is my best source of comedy from economic experts.  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 02, 2015, 10:23:39 pm

HLA

There is usually no reason to ever engage you in a "conversation", so just stop asking.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 02, 2015, 10:26:56 pm

 

Quote from: otto105 on June 02, 2015, 10:23:39 pm

HLA

There is usually no reason to ever engage you in a "conversation", so just stop asking.

 Who you callin HLA **** ? BTW ... who or what is HLA ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 02, 2015, 10:30:20 pm

You would probably recognize the full name - HLAbart.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 02, 2015, 10:32:19 pm

https://youtu.be/ovlrV7SoPCo (https://youtu.be/ovlrV7SoPCo)


Science over god.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 02, 2015, 10:33:03 pm

jj


Hillbilly Legal Aid




















































Bart.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 02, 2015, 11:09:40 pm

Homo thinks that some people's religion causes them to believe the world is only 6 thousand years old in spite of science to the contrary.

But somehow he fails to realize that other people's religion causes them to believe in mankind caused global warming in spite of science to the contrary.

All religions are based upon faith.  It is just that those like Homo refuse to admit it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 03, 2015, 09:03:55 am

Science does not prove the contrary on man-made Global Climate Change.

Science confirms it.


Your religious beliefs confirm your faith in ignorance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 03, 2015, 10:03:26 am

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with global warming.  My religion says nothing at all about it one way or the other.

But I find it difficult to believe in a science that does not allow peer review, and goes contrary to known facts without explaining why those facts exist.

But when your religion tells you to believe in global warming, you accept it without question.  That isn't science.  That is magic.

But if you want to explain why there has been no warming in the last 17 years, in spite of the fact that we have pumped out record global warming gasses during that time, I would be interested in hearing.

Until then, enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 03, 2015, 07:13:46 pm

He'll respond with nothing but bullshit.. Why waste your time?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 03, 2015, 10:24:46 pm

 

Quote from: davep on June 03, 2015, 10:03:26 am

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with global warming.  My religion says nothing at all about it one way or the other.

But I find it difficult to believe in a science that does not allow peer review, and goes contrary to known facts without explaining why those facts exist.

But when your religion tells you to believe in global warming, you accept it without question.  That isn't science.  That is magic.

But if you want to explain why there has been no warming in the last 17 years, in spite of the fact that we have pumped out record global warming gasses during that time, I would be interested in hearing.

Until then, enjoy.

 Ok you lost me on this one. Please essplain where you got your facts from.  ???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 03, 2015, 11:24:32 pm

JJ, Man made global warming is a bullshit religion that leftist liberals follow hook, line and sinker.  There is proof that the climate changes.  The climate has always changed.  There is no proof man is making it change. 

It is a political and religious movement that is not based in reality.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 03, 2015, 11:30:03 pm

You are having a drought where you live but in Texas they are flooding.  Texas was in a drought before the flooding.

It is called weather.  You live in places that tend to have droughts.  Just because you are having a bad one does not mean man is causing it.

Places that have droughts are often followed by massive rain fall and flooding.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 11:00:46 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on June 03, 2015, 10:24:46 pm

 Ok you lost me on this one. Please essplain where you got your facts from.  ???

Sure.

1. Climate has been moving in 300 to 500 year cycles Dendrochronology shows that the climate was much warmer in the years 850 - 1250, and again 1450 to 1600 than it is today.

2. Both archaeology and history show us that during those years there were working farms in the mountains of Scotland, Turkey, India and Tibet at altitudes that can not grow or sustain crops today that were grown there during those times.

3.  Sea bed core samples of heat sensitive algae remains offshore Australia, Phillipines and the Caribbean shows that average summer temperatures during those periods were 3 to 4 degrees F. that it is today.

4.  The "Little Ice Age" of the late middle ages bottomed out in the year 1822 (the year of "no summer", when snow was recorded in every month of the year in New Jersey.  Since then, temperatures have risen about 1.2 degrees.  Of that rise, almost .7 degrees rise took place before the year 1860, before the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania and the beginning of the wide spread use of carbon fuels.

5.  Since 1998, the average temperature of the earth, according to the records of the East Anglican Climate Institute who gathers the temperature readings world wide BUT DO NOT RELEASE THEIR RAW DATA FOR SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW.  has been extremely stable for the past 16 years, in spite of record release of global warming gassed during that period.

6.  Data gathered by satellites (information not under the control of East Anglia)  shows insignificant temperature increase world wide since 1981.

7.  The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released more global warming gasses than every plane, train, automobile, wood fire and cow fart than has been released by mankind since the discovery of fire.  Eruptions such as this occur a couple of times each century, and no discernable global temperature increase has been noted.

8.  Ice core samples taken from Greenland show that CO2 levels actually continue increasing for up to 2,000 years after climate temperatures have started to decline, and begin to increase thousands of years after climate has again started to warm.

No accepted scientific global warming theory has ever attempted to account for any of these "problems" with their theory.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 01:12:45 pm

A response so riddled with errors, false statements and general ignorance.

1. Dendrochrology does not show that the MWP had warmer surface temperatures than the current warming. According to the source that YOU PROBABLY used as a source...

"However, the study actually does none of the above. "Our study doesn't go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson, a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change. The tree rings do help fill in a piece of Earth's complicated climate puzzle, he said. However, it is climate change deniers who seem to have misconstrued the bigger picture. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]

So, what exactly did the study find? Instead of using the width of trees' rings as a gauge of annual temperatures, as most past analyses of tree rings have done, Wilson and his fellow researchers tracked the density of northern Scandinavian trees' rings marking each year back to 138 B.C. They showed that density measurements give a slightly different reading of historic temperature fluctuations than ring width measurements, and according to their way of reckoning, the Roman and medieval warm periods reached higher temperatures than previously estimated.

That's significant because "if we can improve our estimates for the medieval period, then that will help us understanding the dynamics in this climate system, and help us understand the current warming," Wilson told Life's Little Mysteries.

But it's old news that Northern Europe experienced a natural warm period 2,000 years ago and during the 11th century. Not much is known about the Roman period, but the medieval warm spell primarily resulted from a decrease in volcanic activity, Wilson said.Volcanic ash in the atmosphere tends to block the sun, decreasing Earth's surface temperature.

The current warming, on the other hand, has nothing to do with volcanoes. "None of this changes the fact that the current warming can't be modeled based on natural forces alone," he said. "Anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] emissions are the predominant forces in the late 20th century and early 21st century period."



And this is just the first point davepbart made. More debunking to follow.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 01:20:53 pm

And Homo spouts babel again.

How did crops grow in 1200 in areas that can not grow them now.

Dendrochronology studies all over the world, including California, Arizona, Florida, Ireland, Australia and Mongolia all show a warmer, wetter climate in the early middle ages.

Certainly the current warming has nothing to do with volcanoes.  But the failure for the climate to change after massive production of "global warming gasses" show that these gasses are not the cause of the warming of the climate.  If they were, there would be warming after every eruption.

How is it that import records from 1250 show shipments of barley and rye coming to Norway from Greenland?  Barley and Greenland can not grow barley and rye.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 01:31:42 pm

davepbart

Volcanic activity does not spew greenhouse gases, but rather volcanic ash which blocks the sun and decreases temperature.

As to global temperatures over time.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)

(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.

(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.

(light turquoise 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.

(green 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

(yellow 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

(orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". nature 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265

(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 01:40:51 pm

Even you aren't ignorant to believe that.  Volcanoes spew massive amouts of sulphur Dioxide, carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor, the largest of the so called global warming gasses.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 01:49:18 pm

(http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/volcanicco2smaller.jpg)

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.


Still wrong, davepbart

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 01:53:43 pm

From the USGS website.

"Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Volcanoes can impact climate change. During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere -- most of it is removed within several days to weeks -- and has little impact on climate change. But volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming. (very long term)


Eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991.

The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles.

The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees at the height of the impact. Sulfur dioxide from the large 1783-1784 Laki fissure eruption in Iceland caused regional cooling of Europe and North America by similar amounts for similar periods of time.

Again volcanic eruptions do not cause warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 02:09:52 pm

They say nothing about CO2 and water vapor, which are the most abundant global warming gasses released by volcanoes.

Sorry Homo.  Nothing you quote from your liberal psudo-scientists refute the actual facts.

Which one of them explained why crops that grew a thousand years ago can not grow today because it is too cold?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 02:37:56 pm

Idiot davepbart

Just stay stupid. That is what your posts reveal about you. Just hide behind the phaxnews mantra of "liberal psudo-scientists" and continue to enjoy the bliss of ignorance.

I'm sure that nobody laughs with you as you spout your nonsense, but when you finish....

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 03:34:20 pm

Homo can't use facts,  nor answer them, so he reverts to his only available weapon.  Name calling.

Enjoy, Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 04:27:47 pm

davepbart

I have posted facts and I have refuted your opining on the subject.

What you fail to understand is that nobody challenges the Medieval Warming Period and that produced regional warming. The causes have been identified by SCIENTISTS were increased solar and lower volcanic activity. Both causes which are not in play in the WORLD's current warming.

The Norsk Sagas do not disprove our current situation, yet you cling to the false belief.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 05:19:16 pm

You posted no facts whatsoever.  You posted a chart with no indication of it's basic data and called a few names.

Enjoy.  Just like grammar school.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 05:54:40 pm

Davebart

Pointless defines you. Nothing that you have offered provides a factual bases for your point on AGW.

Maybe you can provide information on your assertion that the IPCC has not been peer reviewed.


This is an open challenge to you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 06:32:36 pm

The East Anglia Institute does not allow anyone to see their raw data.  That has been reported so often from both sides that even you must know that.

Of course, you never let your knowledge be swayed by the truth.

Enjoy, Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 04, 2015, 08:37:41 pm

 Why do we keep playing and sending our sons and daughters to play the Arabs game?


 The middle east and central Asia are a complete **** up zone.


 Only a Country hooked on OIL would be in on that game.


 While it watch's it's infrastructure fall down.


 There's something INSANE going on ...


 your tax dollars make you a legal participant.


 Shouldn't you be driving a Cadillac by now ?


 That was the AMERICAN dream ... as you worked harder you moved up on the ...


 GENERAL MOTORS flight to prosperity ...


 first a Chevy ...


 then a Pontiac ...


 then an Oldsmobile ...


 then a Buick ... and then you hit the top ...


 A CADILLAC !


 You probably noticed that there aren't any Pontiac's or Oldsmobile's around any more.


 They went away with the middle class.


 The ancient Chinese had a torture called "death by a thousand cuts" ...


 today it is called death by a thousand jobs moving to China every month.


 The people that you trusted ... you know the ones that you elected ...


 over and over ... they weren't looking out for you ...


 they were getting in on the action of MONEY ... no matter where it came from.


 You got sold down a river by your own people.


 That's what happen's when you leave them in office too long.


 They are not in it for you anymore ... they are in it for them.


 All anyone can say is GOD BLESS THEM!


 Because they got over on you with your eyes wide open ...


 that's how good they are.  ;D   >:(


 You never stood a chance ... you thought they were there to protect you.


 You wanna know what you get for all of your years of effort?


 A Chrysler Mini-Van.


 Meanwhile there's a yacht in the Cayman Islands ... people that you will never meet are getting onto a private jet that is bound for St. Tropez in France.


 Where they will gamble with your MONEY that you never got because they kept it for themselves.


 You will wake up tomorrow morning and go to work ... because this is all that you think that you are worth ...


 you will never get angry ... you will always be complacent ...


 because you think this is your lot in life.


 Instead of demanding what has been stolen from you.


 Of course you will deny it,[size=78%] because after all you are your own man.[/size]

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 04, 2015, 09:09:50 pm

We have plenty of oil in our territory but our government does not less us get it out.  We have tons of coal and our government says it is to dirty and is forcing coal fired power plants to shutdown while they are pushing to get us off oil and onto more electricity.  Rolling brown outs coming to all of us soon if policies are not changed.

The problem is government JJ.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 09:14:52 pm

Well, Joke, it isn't too late for us to learn.  How did YOU manage to avoid all the things you mention in your post.  How did you convince your bosses that you are worth the Fararri you drive?  How did you manage to earn that private jet to St. Tropez in France.  It is too late for me, but there are others who can learn from you.  Share with us the wisdom that caused you to make it into the one percent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 04, 2015, 09:36:55 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on June 04, 2015, 09:09:50 pm

We have plenty of oil in our territory but our government does not less us get it out.  We have tons of coal and our government says it is to dirty and is forcing coal fired power plants to shutdown while they are pushing to get us off oil and onto more electricity.  Rolling brown outs coming to all of us soon if policies are not changed.

The problem is government JJ.



 Duck,


 The problem is MONEY ... and where to play it at.


 Exxon-Mobil could be the largest producer of energy tomorrow morning.


 It's stuck in it's old ways.


 How do you kickstart a company that only knows one way to make MONEY when it can get filthy RICH in other way's of making MONEY ?


 This brings us back to the buggy whip way of thinking when model T's started showing up on the streets.


 What do you do ? Build a better buggy whip or learn how to tune a carburater?


 BTW ... your tuning that Stromberg a bit lean Duck.  :D


 Don't EVEN get me started on brass cast Harley-Davidson carburaters made in Indianapolis!  ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 04, 2015, 10:44:24 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 04:27:47 pm

davepbart

I have posted facts and I have refuted your opining on the subject.

No, you haven't, but just as you did with me when you refused to confirm the soure or your 97% consensus onsense, you refuse to continue the discussion because you know your positions can not withstand actual scrutiny.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 04, 2015, 10:45:15 pm

Quote from: davep on June 04, 2015, 01:40:51 pm

Even you aren't ignorant to believe that.

I don't know.  It's hard to underestimate some things.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 10:59:48 pm

All my positions on AGW withstand scrutiny, peer review and even your insatiable quest for stupidity hillbilly legal aid.

So you can try to disprove any one of them, without being a baby.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 11:03:30 pm

But lets start with this post...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)

(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.

(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.

(light turquoise 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.

(green 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

(yellow 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

(orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". nature 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265

(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

Lets see the disproving....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 11:08:26 pm

Then move on too disproving the following...

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)


What does actual SCIENTIST say about volcanic activity and climate change?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 04, 2015, 11:32:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 04, 2015, 10:59:48 pm

All my positions on AGW withstand scrutiny, peer review and even your insatiable quest for stupidity hillbilly legal aid.

So you can try to disprove any one of them, without being a baby.

Really... so confirm that the website http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm is your definitive source for your 97% consensus claim, or offer the actual source so it can be addressed.  If you are not willing to clearly state that it is your definitive source, there is no reason for anyone to bother reading it and responding to whatever foolishness you think you have found at that link.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 04, 2015, 11:37:26 pm

Homo - can you point to the spot on the chart that explains why  crops could grow in 1250 in places where it is too cold for them to grow today.

Just highlight that part in red.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 05, 2015, 01:54:38 am

Accurate temperature records with modern tools have only been kept since 1850. Temperature proxies used prior to that are far less accurate.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 09:33:01 am

First hillbilly legal aid

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png/800px-Climate_science_opinion2.png)

Second, you're still a little baby.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 09:47:09 am

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic_Global_Warming.svg/220px-97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic_Global_Warming.svg.png)

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers. They where selected based on being IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors, and from online lists of those who had signed statements supporting or opposing the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Anderegg et al. sorted the scientists into two groups. Removing duplicates resulting in: 903 convinced by the evidence (CE) of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), and 472 unconvinced by the evidence (UE). He then selected 908 of those scientists for further study by using Google Scholar searches for the word "climate", he selected those with 20 or more results. Anderegg et al. ranked the 908 scientist's "expertise" as determined by his or her number of results from the "climate" search, and the citation data of their top four cited papers. [17] [18]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers


But YOU'RE NOT A SCIENTIST, you're just a little baby...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 05, 2015, 09:59:25 am

Quote from: Sportster on June 05, 2015, 01:54:38 am

Accurate temperature records with modern tools have only been kept since 1850. Temperature proxies used prior to that are far less accurate.....

Absolutely. Its a joke to see figures for temperature when they didn't even have accurate measuring devices. And I am sure there has been "adjustments" to any actual data to "further embellish" their opinions. Just plain phoney baloney.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2015, 10:57:29 am

Leave Homo alone.  In 14 years of grammar school in Madison, this is the only thing he learned.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 12:33:21 pm

Quote

Absolutely. Its a joke to see figures for temperature when they didn't even have accurate measuring devices. And I am sure there has been "adjustments" to any actual data to "further embellish" their opinions. Just plain phoney baloney.

isfullofit

So, someone who offers dendrochronology to disprove AGW is just plain phoney baloney?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 12:50:28 pm

Idiot

Quote

Homo thinks that some people's religion causes them to believe the world is only 6 thousand years old in spite of science to the contrary.

Rank Ignorance then would be...

"Class of 2015, you should not leave Stone Ridge High School thinking that you face challenges that are at all, in any important sense, unprecedented," he said. "Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were." - anthony scalia at his granddaughters graduation last month

Why just 5,000? It just so happens to be right around what those who take a literal view of the creation story in Genesis believe the age of the earth to be.

Serious rank ignornace...ya know with science and all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 12:59:13 pm

BLS reports 280,000 jobs created in May.

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/146847/large/PayrollMay2015.png?1433508631)


Setting a new 63 consecutive month record! Congratulations President Barack Hussein Obama!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 01:23:17 pm

nra - silencer

(http://src1.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/cdn-thumb/src=/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bd150602.jpg&q=100&w=300&h=250&zc=1/thumbnail)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2015, 01:25:44 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 12:33:21 pm

isfullofit

So, someone who offers dendrochronology to disprove AGW is just plain phoney baloney?

Another anti-science comment from the liberal Homo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 01:33:54 pm

davepbart

According to you, I apparently have blind faith in anti-science?


The level of ignorance that you have achieved is truly astonishing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2015, 02:44:25 pm

If someone doesn't believe in evolution, you call them anti-science.

If you don't believe in dendrochronology, you don't call yourself anti-science.

Can you spell hypocrite?

You believe in the results of ice core samples.

You don't believe in the results of sea floor core samples.

Can you spell hypocrite?

You accept any wacko theory of any wacko left wingnut that calls himself a scientist.

You deny any theory of legitimate climatologists that don't fit your template.

Can you spell hypocrite?

Sorry.  I forgot you were a product of the Madison public schools.

Do you know anyone that can spell hypocrite for you?  You will probably have to go out of state.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 03:32:02 pm

If someone doesn't believe in evolution, you call them anti-science.

No, I have and will continue to call them christians who are anti-evolution, but cherry pick other science for their selfish needs.

If you don't believe in dendrochronology, you don't call yourself anti-science.

I posted that dendrochronolgy was a tool for the science of paleo-climate study. You thought that misrepresenting it proved that AGW was not currently happening. Also, because you like reading the Norsk Sagas.

Can you spell hypocrite?

Yes, d-a-v-e-p-b-a-r-t.

You believe in the results of ice core samples.

I believe they are a tool for science.

You don't believe in the results of sea floor core samples.

I believe they are a tool for science, but that you probably have (like dendrochronolgy) misrepresented what people (who are not actual scientists, but columnists) say they may or may not have proven.

Can you spell hypocrite?

Yes, d-a-v-e-p-b-a-r-t.

You accept any wacko theory of any wacko left wingnut that calls himself a scientist.

I accept peer reviewed science from actual scientists. Not writers from the rupert murdoch noise machine or gas and oil interests.

You deny any theory of legitimate climatologists that don't fit your template.

What theory have you provided from climatologists that doesn't fit my or any other actual science template?

Can you spell hypocrite?

Yes, d-a-v-e-p-b-a-r-t.

Sorry.  I forgot you were a product of the Madison public schools.

I have never attended a Madison school, but academically I wish that I had.

Do you know anyone that can spell hypocrite for you?  You will probably have to go out of state.

I'm wondering how you did.

Enjoy.

Already have.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2015, 03:56:10 pm

Homo once again defends his arguments by calling names.  Liberals can not ever respond to actual science.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 05:28:19 pm

Seriously, what are you calling real science?


Can you present it? Because the last you posted stated volcanoes cause global warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 06:02:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 09:33:01 am

First hillbilly legal aid

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png/800px-Climate_science_opinion2.png)

Second, you're still a little baby.

THAT is your original source for the 97% figure?

A graph which does not reflect who prepared it, or how the 97% figure was determined?

You might as well rely on something you would read on the wall of a restroom stall.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 06:04:53 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 09:47:09 am

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic_Global_Warming.svg/220px-97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic_Global_Warming.svg.png)

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers. They where selected based on being IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors, and from online lists of those who had signed statements supporting or opposing the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Anderegg et al. sorted the scientists into two groups. Removing duplicates resulting in: 903 convinced by the evidence (CE) of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), and 472 unconvinced by the evidence (UE). He then selected 908 of those scientists for further study by using Google Scholar searches for the word "climate", he selected those with 20 or more results. Anderegg et al. ranked the 908 scientist's "expertise" as determined by his or her number of results from the "climate" search, and the citation data of their top four cited papers. [17] [18]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers


But YOU'RE NOT A SCIENTIST, you're just a little baby...

No source there either.

What I am asking for, otto, really should not be that hard it you were at all honest.  Just provide the original source for your nonsense numbers so we can discuss them.  Actually allow something remotely resembling peer review.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 06:14:29 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 12:50:28 pm

Idiot
Rank Ignorance then would be...

"Class of 2015, you should not leave Stone Ridge High School thinking that you face challenges that are at all, in any important sense, unprecedented," he said. "Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were." - anthony scalia at his granddaughters graduation last month

Why just 5,000? It just so happens to be right around what those who take a literal view of the creation story in Genesis believe the age of the earth to be.

Serious rank ignornace...ya know with science and all.

Assuming the quote is accurate, and since once again you include no source I am not really willing to do so, you will notice that he is quoted as saying "AT LEAST," meaning his comments would not be at all in conflict with those who might consider Homo Habilis to have been included in any reference to "humanity," and since his reference to "humanity" may have been a reference not to the physical structure of our ancestors but instead a reference to the social organization of the groups in which they lived the 5,000 year reference would likely be an approxiamtion many anthropologists mght share.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 06:19:01 pm

Quote from: davep on June 05, 2015, 02:44:25 pm

If someone doesn't believe in evolution, you call them anti-science.

Before it is possible to have a meaningful conversation about evolution, or to reach an informed opinion about anyone who says they do not believe in it, folks first need to come to agreement on the meaning of the term.  Of course, if you don't care about having uninformed opinions, no agreement is needed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 06:31:40 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 05:28:19 pm

Seriously, what are you calling real science?  Can you present it? Because the last you posted stated volcanoes cause global warming.

Once again we see that a big part of otto's problem may be a massive difficulty with reading comprehension, considering that this is what davep wrote:

Quote from: davep on June 04, 2015, 01:20:53 pm

Certainly the current warming has nothing to do with volcanoes.  But the failure for the climate to change after massive production of "global warming gasses" show that these gasses are not the cause of the warming of the climate.  If they were, there would be warming after every eruption.

So davep writes that, "Certainly the current warming has nothing to do with volcanoes," and otto reads that to be davep "stat(ing) volcanoes cause global warming."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 06:35:19 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 03:32:02 pm

I accept peer reviewed science from actual scientists.

So let's see the actual "peer reviewed science from actual scientists" which you are accepting regarding your 97% nonsense.  Just provide a link, a single, actual link to an orginal source, and clearly state that the link you are posting is the source you are relying on.

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 03:32:02 pm

I have never attended a Madison school, but academically I wish that I had.

Was it just a schoo i Madison you never attendend, or did you never get any schooling at all?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 06:46:15 pm

hillbilly legal aid

I know the Post has way to too many facts and intelligent opinions for your Tennessee brain, but seriously. Apparently, actually being a lawyer was too hard for you because your lazy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/justice-scalia-takes-on-commencement-cliches-in-humor-filled-speech/2015/06/04/a8c32f7e-0a27-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html?postshare=7831433512536207 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/justice-scalia-takes-on-commencement-cliches-in-humor-filled-speech/2015/06/04/a8c32f7e-0a27-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html?postshare=7831433512536207)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 06:58:16 pm

Lazy hillbilly legal aid

Your hero posted this first.

Quote

7.  The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released more global warming gasses than every plane, train, automobile, wood fire and cow fart than has been released by mankind since the discovery of fire.  Eruptions such as this occur a couple of times each century, and no discernable global temperature increase has been noted.

Then it was presented by me scientific facts which do not support stupid assertions like the one above. So, daveybart backtracked, then your lazy ass wandering into the kiddie pool of bad ideas.

No response to you on this subject is necessary or warranted.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 07:08:34 pm

Quote

Was it just a schoo i Madison you never attendend, or did you never get any schooling at all?

Really, just quit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 07:11:48 pm

Lazy hillbilly legal aid


You can choke on your own vomit anytime.


http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)


Nobody will notice the boring is gone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 07:40:03 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 07:11:48 pm

Lazy hillbilly legal aid


You can choke on your own vomit anytime.


http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)


Nobody will notice the boring is gone.

So I ask you again, is THAT the source for your 97% claim?  If so, clearly state it and I will bother to read it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 07:44:01 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 06:58:16 pm

Lazy hillbilly legal aid

Your hero posted this first.

Then it was presented by me scientific facts which do not support stupid assertions like the one above. So, daveybart backtracked, then your lazy ass wandering into the kiddie pool of bad ideas.

No response to you on this subject is necessary or warranted.

~sigh~ So sad...

otto, remember that I was pointing out that you were wrong in your claim that davep had "last... posted stated volcanoes cause global warming."  CLEARLY what you quote was not from davep's last post, despite your continued failure to provide sources for your posts, and even more clearly in that post davep made no claim that volcanoes cause global warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 05, 2015, 07:47:54 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 06:46:15 pm

hillbilly legal aid

I know the Post has way to too many facts and intelligent opinions for your Tennessee brain, but seriously. Apparently, actually being a lawyer was too hard for you because your lazy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/justice-scalia-takes-on-commencement-cliches-in-humor-filled-speech/2015/06/04/a8c32f7e-0a27-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html?postshare=7831433512536207 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/justice-scalia-takes-on-commencement-cliches-in-humor-filled-speech/2015/06/04/a8c32f7e-0a27-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html?postshare=7831433512536207)

So what part of anything substative I posted is that in response to? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 07:51:43 pm

Have a point or move on tedious one.

You have no facts on your side. Just like all Neanderthal climate deniers you represent.

Either present facts which support your **** or choke on your minutia

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 07:57:19 pm

Lazy hillbilly legal aid

Quote

Assuming the quote is accurate, and since once again you include no source I am not really willing to do so

I'm done with your boring repetitive ass tonight.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 05, 2015, 08:03:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 05:28:19 pm

Seriously, what are you calling real science?


Can you present it? Because the last you posted stated volcanoes cause global warming.

Your reading comprehension is worse than your science comprehension. 

I did not say that volcanoes caused global warming.  What I said was the volcanoes produce more of what liberals call "global warming gasses" than fossil fuel consumption.  neither produce substantial global warming.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 05, 2015, 09:57:39 pm

Volcanic eruptions cool the planet due to the ash blocking out the sun.  However if man made global warming was true the gasses they release would have more then made up for the ash in the air.  After all the sun is not what determines the planets temperature it is greenhouse gases right Otto?

I mean this is what the man made global warming failed hypothesis is based on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 05, 2015, 10:11:06 pm

Peke, it's mans burning of fossil fuels! Has NOTHING to do with a humongous Sun that is a million times larger than earth....get with the program, man!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 06, 2015, 10:36:45 am

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-approval-dropping-cnn/2015/06/03/id/648362/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1623216_06032015&s=al&dkt_nbr=bfhbcqpx

Obama now the lowest ranked former living Presidents, including W

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 06, 2015, 11:06:58 am

I saw that. That has to have the libs peeing their little panties..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 06, 2015, 04:31:31 pm

 What sucks about climate change as a discussion is that it breaks down along political lines.


 Instead of seeing it for what it is ...


 a solution for energy sources that never ever run's out ...


 it has indeed regressed into a period of name calling while presenting facts from each side.


 Now here's the pisser ... no matter who's right or who's wrong ...


 what are you doing for your children ?


 Do you think the whole energy policy of today is going to be running 200 years from now ?


 If not why not ? Do you think it could be whoops !


 Gone away because it's not around anymore because you used it up?


 It's not around anymore ?


 How do you send a manned space probe to the Van Allen asteroid belt?


 On diesel or gasoline ? Pick your flavor.


 Once you get there ... you better find some Sunoco 260 to get your ass back again.


 Except there isn't any. Now what are you going to do ?


 You're playing at a zero sum zero game ...


 the energy source's of your grandparents are going to end.


 You're probably wondering why you are not riding a horse to work ...


 and you would have to ask yourself WHY aren't you riding a horse to work ?


 Because after 10'000 years something better came along.


 The beauty of it is that after less then 200 years ...


 something better came along.


 Now the beauty of it again is that something better is coming along.


 It's happening that fast. This is called Human evolution.


 What WAS great is primitive ... what is CURRENTLY great is primitive ...


 you have one of two legacy's to leave to your children :


 A. Digging holes in the ground of one planet for energy ...


 OR :


 B. Finding the energy sources to get you from one asteroid to another.


 What's on those asteroids? I don't know ... neither do you.


 One thing is for Godamn sure ... the fuel source for a Volkswagen Beetle ...


 isn't going to get your ass to those asteroids.


 Wanna what's fun ? I'm living on a planet of crazies ... I'm just along for the ride.


 FUSION could be solved in a matter of years ... not 50 years ...


 a matter of years.


 Where's the MONEY going to ?


 I WANT TO KILL YOU AND GET RICH AT THE SAME TIME !!


 That's my planet EARTH baby ! A fuckin nuthouse !


 
 Jesus God ... of all the planets ... why did you put me on a world of crazies ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 06, 2015, 05:25:39 pm

and you would have to ask yourself WHY aren't you riding a horse to work ?

Well around here the Amish do, pulling their buggies. Of course were it more prevalent, the horses  would have to wear doggie bags to collect the defecation. No way would the libs let them get away with allowing the horses to defecate in the streets. Good grief no way. And the odors would be a source of global warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 06, 2015, 06:12:57 pm

Jackie - you answered the question yourself.  We don't ride horses to work because something better came along.

We will continue to go to work in gas powered automobiles until something better comes along.

Up until now, nothing better HAS come along.

I am not in love with cars. 

I am not in love with gasoline.

I AM in love with the relatively low cost of driving to work in an automobile.

All the other alternatives until now are either less convenient, more expensive, or both.

By the way, we made it to the moon and back without eliminating gasoline.  There is no reason why we can not go to the Van Allen belt is a spaceship run on rocket fuel, but still drive gasoline run automobiles to work.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 06, 2015, 07:06:47 pm

 

Quote from: davep on June 06, 2015, 06:12:57 pm

Jackie - you answered the question yourself.  We don't ride horses to work because something better came along.

We will continue to go to work in gas powered automobiles until something better comes along.

Up until now, nothing better HAS come along.

I am not in love with cars. 

I am not in love with gasoline.

I AM in love with the relatively low cost of driving to work in an automobile.

All the other alternatives until now are either less convenient, more expensive, or both.

By the way, we made it to the moon and back without eliminating gasoline.  There is no reason why we can not go to the Van Allen belt is a spaceship run on rocket fuel, but still drive gasoline run automobiles to work.

 Which brings us as Humans back to square one ...


 where's the MONEY going to ?


 How much money does Paris Hilton need to sustain her lifestyle?


 What if we united the money spent on military to infuse it in FUSION?


 We'd have the answer in no time.


 WHY DO HUMANS HATE EACH OTHER TO THE POINT OF SPENDING TRILLIONS IN THE THREAT OF KILLING THEM?


 Dude,


 That's a PLANET that is OUT OF CONTROL among itself ...


 a planet that wants to kill itself over an energy policy that is going to run out !


 AND THEY **** KNOW IT !


 Wsh,


 It's going to run out ... they know it more then me or you.


 You don't let a JUNKIE off the hook if you're a dealer ...


 you just dilute the product until the next shipment comes in.


 If the next shipment doesn't come in on time ... you jack up the price.


 The idea is to keep those motherfucking junkies hooked.


 You don't want the junkies thinking straight ...


 otherwise they may just go cold turkey and give up on your product. Forever.  >:(


 Now any good pusher doesn't want that.


 You can call them Lefty on the corner with a dime bag up his sleeve ...


 or Exxon - Mobil with a dime bag up the planet.


 It doesn't matter , the idea is to keep your money separated from you in any way,shape,or form possible.


 These aren't people that think like you or me ... these are people whose only goal is to make money no matter what.


 if at the end of the day the only goal is to make money ...


 and collect it all in a pile and look at it ...


 then once you get prostate cancer ...


 yer gonna look at that pile of money ...


 and wonder how did your greed let you die ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 06, 2015, 08:49:43 pm

Jackie - we are not going to run out of oil in our lifetimes, or in the lifetimes of our great great grandchildren.  And personally, I don't much care how much money Paris Hilton makes or spends.  She earned it, and can do with it what she will, just as Al Gore can spend the billion dollars as a global warming **** anywhere he wants.

The planet can not be crazy, but some, if not all, of the people in it can be.  The percentage of crazy people isn't dependent upon the form of energy we use, and converting to solar energy will not stop half the world from trying to kill the other half.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2015, 10:27:24 am

Quote from: davep on June 06, 2015, 08:49:43 pm

Jackie - ....

Seriously, why bother?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 07, 2015, 12:41:29 pm

Probably for the same reason you bother with Homo.

But my odds of getting a rational answer are probably quite a bit better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2015, 04:10:06 pm

Quote from: davep on June 07, 2015, 12:41:29 pm

Probably for the same reason you bother with Homo.

But my odds of getting a rational answer are probably quite a bit better.

otto seems to be simply a rather typical, uniformed liberal.  Jackie, on the other hand, appears to have nothing remotely resembling a coherent or rational perspective, instead often comes across as deliberately sounding stupid, about the same way some folks sound when they are drunk, frequently even forgetting the next day what they have said.  With otto we at least do know what his persective it, even if it is incredibly ill-informed and he refuses to acknowledge when he is shown to be wrong.  I can't believe Jackie actually holds the nonsense positions he spouts, which is why I have long ago stopped reading them.

Oh, if he ever does appear to make sense, let me know.  I don't have his posts filtered, but it's hard to read any of it when I automatically scroll thru his bullshit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 07, 2015, 08:38:02 pm

 
Jes I cant ever hate you ... youv'e got the softest set of lips sucking on my balls that this board has ever produced.


 I don't know if it's the lipstick or what. But goddammit your'e really good at what you do.


 What you ****'s will never understand is that it's not about me or you.


 It's about our off spring.


 The capacity to evolve from one stage to another stage is what you are going to learn,


 you don't have any choice in the matter.


 FEAR is common when you don't know what is coming next.


 I understand your fear ... it's why you strike out and attack fellow poster's.


 You can't have a discussion with them ... they must be ridiculed in order to save your sanity in order to justify your very existence.


 You must have ... "quote ... unquote" the upper hand in any conversation ,


 it is the basic's of your core.


 That you are always right ... and everyone else is always wrong.


 There is no middle ground in your eyes.


 There's a term for this : Meglomania.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 07, 2015, 11:12:17 pm

Actually, it is we that try to have a discussion.  It is you that refuses to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 08, 2015, 01:14:54 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/mckinney-police-pool-party-girl-speaks-121117251.html

The media just doesn't care about the whole story. Anything to keep race an issue...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 08, 2015, 04:23:06 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on June 08, 2015, 01:14:54 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/mckinney-police-pool-party-girl-speaks-121117251.html

The media just doesn't care about the whole story. Anything to keep race an issue...

Perhaps I missed something when I read the content of the link, and perhaps I have missed something in what I have otherwise seen about the story, but I saw nothing at that link to suggest that race was not an issue in this story, nor have I seen anything in other coverage I have seen on this to indicate that race was the primary issue in any of this.

Could you perhaps point me to what I might have missed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 08, 2015, 04:24:48 pm

Quote from: davep on June 07, 2015, 12:41:29 pm

But my odds of getting a rational answer are probably quite a bit better.

HA!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 08, 2015, 05:11:32 pm

 

Quote from: davep on June 07, 2015, 11:12:17 pm

Actually, it is we that try to have a discussion.  It is you that refuses to do so.

 Who's we?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 09, 2015, 04:57:45 am

I know one thing, I'm about sick of "Ms Caitlyn".. WTF?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 10:02:03 am

Forcing Christians to condone sin is tyranny.

http://personalliberty.com/forcing-christians-to-condone-sin-is-tyranny/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 09, 2015, 11:25:21 am

The entire concept of "public accommodation law" is tyranny.  A privately owned business should be able to decide for himself who to serve and who not to serve.  It is not a religious issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 09, 2015, 05:33:34 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 10:02:03 am

Forcing Christians to condone sin is tyranny.

http://personalliberty.com/forcing-christians-to-condone-sin-is-tyranny/ 

Who determines what is "sin," particularly when there is considerable disagreement on it, how is anyone being forced to "condone" such "sin," and why do you only seem to be concened about Christians who are forced to "condone sin"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 06:42:44 pm

From a gay perspective I agree with that, but according to God's rules and  plans its contrary. From natures rules that's contrary to norms. Sorry but I agree with the writing. The law violates the state constitution and the administration of this law which allows violates the state constitution smacks of shoving the gay agenda down everybody's throats. And its just plain wrong.  And gay marriage only legitimizes an illegal and moral wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 09, 2015, 06:59:52 pm

I personally do not care what consenting grown adults do with one another in the privacy of their home.  However I am real sick of the whole thing being on TV and romanticized all the time. 

We have 2 to 3% of the population pushing their viewpoints on everyone else.  Just stop already.

Do what you want, I don't care.  I just don't want to have to see it, hear about it or have my rights stepped on to accommodate you.

I like to drink beer and watch football.  I don't feel like everyone else has to put me on a pedestal for it or kiss my ass because of it.  I should not get special rights and neither should they. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 09, 2015, 07:05:18 pm

I agree.. I really don't care what two people do in privacy. Most gay people would agree (once you get past the gay marriage part)..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 09, 2015, 07:30:23 pm

Your right most just want to live their life in peace.  It is a very small vocal minority that is running the politically correct show in this country.  They are fucktard liberals like Otto. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 09, 2015, 08:44:05 pm

Please understand that I am not asking the questions I do below in order to be difficult, but merely to understand what in the world you are saying.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 06:42:44 pm

From a gay perspective I agree with that,

You agree with what?

And would your opinion be different if you were not gay?

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 06:42:44 pm

but according to God's rules and  plans its contrary. From natures rules that's contrary to norms. Sorry but I agree with the writing. The law violates the state constitution and the administration of this law which allows violates the state constitution smacks of shoving the gay agenda down everybody's throats. And its just plain wrong.  And gay marriage only legitimizes an illegal and moral wrong.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 06:42:44 pm

but according to God's rules and  plans its contrary.

What is the "it" that is contrary, and contrary to what?

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 06:42:44 pm

From natures rules that's contrary to norms.

What is the "that" which is "contrary to norms," and why would being "contrary to norms" be wrong in any way.  Being 7' tall and athletic, being able to accurately throw a football 75 yards, or being able to hit a 95 mph fastball are all things which are very contrary to norms, but society rewards them quite handsomely.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 06:42:44 pm

Sorry but I agree with the writing.

WHAT writing?

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 06:42:44 pm

The law violates the state constitution and the administration of this law which allows violates the state constitution smacks of shoving the gay agenda down everybody's throats.

What law, and what state constitution is violated how?

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 06:42:44 pm

And gay marriage only legitimizes an illegal and moral wrong.

How?  How is "gay marriage" "illegal"?  And whether something is or is not a "moral wrong" is so incredibly subjective as to be utterly meaningless for the purpose of either explanation or pursuasion.  It is genuinely more meaningful for pursuasive purposes simply to say you oppose something or support it because you personally dislike it or like it.  As far as the persuasive value of arguing something is "not moral," it only persuades those who already agree with you, meaning it persuades no one at all, and for those who do NOT agree with you, the argument often offends or alienates the person who sees or hears it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 09, 2015, 08:44:54 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 09, 2015, 06:59:52 pm

I personally do not care what consenting grown adults do with one another in the privacy of their home.  However I am real sick of the whole thing being on TV and romanticized all the time.

So change channels.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 10:10:23 pm

I think you need to change channels. Anybody makes points and you disagree when it doesn't agree with your channel.  The state constitution has violated the rights of the Klines per the Oregon constitution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 09, 2015, 10:15:07 pm

I do but it is on all of them.

You can't watch many TV shows with out a gay on them.  The general population is 2% gay in Hollywood is probably 30 to 40% gay.

You can't watch any news channel or even listen to talk radio with out hearing about Bruce (Caiytlinn) Jenner.  It is unreal.

I just don't care!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 09, 2015, 10:17:21 pm

I am even annoyed we are talking about it here.

Who the **** cares! 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 09, 2015, 10:37:01 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 09, 2015, 10:15:07 pm

I do but it is on all of them.

You can't watch many TV shows with out a gay on them.

I have no problem.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 09, 2015, 10:41:14 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 10:10:23 pm

The state constitution has violated the rights of the Klines per the Oregon constitution.

The state constitution has violated someone's rights per the Oregon constitution?

Say what?

Would you be able to explain that?  And any chance you could clarify the writing in your prior post by answering the questions I posed?  I genuinely was not able to follow what you were talking about.  Most of the questions I asked were not in any way argumentative, but simply trying to understand what you meant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 10:59:37 pm

The fine that was levied against the Klines was a violation of the constitution of the state of Oregon. The religious rights of the Klines was violated. But I guess both the federal and state Bill of Rights is meaningless to gays and gay lovers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 11:04:56 pm

What really ticks me off when some legal beagle know it all doesn't read the article and then bashes somebody's position without reading the legal positions in the article. Then again some people don't value the Constitution or the Bill of Rights

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 11:12:28 pm

Furthermore if a debate is so damn important why  not debate the positions in the article and not the poster of the article. But I guess that's beyond reality with Jesica.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 10, 2015, 12:26:10 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 10:59:37 pm

The fine that was levied against the Klines was a violation of the constitution of the state of Oregon.

Perhaps, but that is not what you initially wrote, and it is why I asked you the questions I did: "The state constitution has violated someone's rights per the Oregon constitution?  Say what?  Would you be able to explain that?"

What you had written simply made no sense.  So I asked you what you meant.  Instead of even attempting to explain, you change your position and now say that the fine violated Oregon's state constitution.  I have not offered an opinion on whether it does or doesn't, but simply tried to understand an incoherent post by asking the poster, you, to explain what you meant.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 10:59:37 pm

The religious rights of the Klines was violated.

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I offered no opinion on it.  But could you explain HOW you believe their rights were violated?  They were not fined for what they believed, nor have they been ordered to stop believing it.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 11:04:56 pm

What really ticks me off when some legal beagle know it all doesn't read the article and then bashes somebody's position without reading the legal positions in the article. Then again some people don't value the Constitution or the Bill of Rights

Aside from your swipes at me, no one has bashed anyone here, nor has anyone bashed anyone's position.  I asked you to clarify what you had written.  I did not even say your position was wrong -- I simply asked you to explain what your position was and now I have asked you a couple of questions about it, but still no challenging of the position.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 11:12:28 pm

Furthermore if a debate is so damn important why  not debate the positions in the article and not the poster of the article.

Asking you to clarify an incoherent post is not debating anything, and since debate involves exchanging positions, advancing one's own position and challenging the other side's position, it would be impossible to debate "positions in the article," since the article would not be capable of responding.  A poster here at least has the opportunty to respond in a debate, even if that poster lacks any real capability to do so.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 09, 2015, 11:12:28 pm

But I guess that's beyond reality with Jesica.

Amusing.  Are you so mysogonistic that you consider it an insult to suggest that they might be femaie?  Is that why you use the "Jesica" reference, in the belief that usiing the feminine form of my first name would be insulting?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 10, 2015, 07:50:30 am

You argue like a female. And like arguing with a female you never win.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 10, 2015, 04:24:40 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 10, 2015, 07:50:30 am

You argue like a female.

Could you point to anything in our exchange here where I have "argued" with you, anything on which I have said you were wrong or anywhere where I disputed any position you stated?  And if I was arguing, could you tell me what my position was in the argument?

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 10, 2015, 07:50:30 am

And like arguing with a female you never win.

Having read your posts here I have trouble imagining any argument you would ever win with anyone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 10, 2015, 07:26:39 pm

Quote

otto seems to be simply a rather typical, uniformed liberal.

BBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


Oh man, oh tedious one. I will stand completely behind my recent posts on AGW and 63-CONSECUTIVE months of positive job growth under our President Barack Hussein Obama.

Can you prove one misinformed tediously boring rant paul moron?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 10, 2015, 07:49:31 pm

Town idiot in what ever town that he lives in posts.

Quote

I did not say that volcanoes caused global warming.  What I said was the volcanoes produce more of what liberals call "global warming gasses" than fossil fuel consumption.  neither produce substantial global warming.

You posted that after volcanoes release said gasses "no discernable global temperature increase has been noted". If your not linking the two what in the hell stupid point are you flailing at?

Then I posted that human created CO2 gas releases EACH YEAR are 100 times that of volcanic releases. Furthermore I posted this gem from the USGS which mentions your volcano by name.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php  (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)

And then the little ex-lawyerboy ponied one of his tediously repetitive posts in your defensive.

So little ex-lawyerboy or idiot davepbart, prove any of that wrong. Especially since your no scientist's or smart enough to know the difference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 10, 2015, 07:53:59 pm

Same town idiot in whatever town that he happens to be in posts...

Quote

They say nothing about CO2 and water vapor

First, town idiot, they say a lot about CO2 and volcanos don't release water vapor....... idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 10, 2015, 08:02:07 pm

Peoria warehouse guy
 

Quote

I personally do not care what consenting grown adults do with one another in the privacy of their home.  However I am real sick of the whole thing being on TV and romanticized all the time. 

We have 2 to 3% of the population pushing their viewpoints on everyone else.  Just stop already.

Do what you want, I don't care.  I just don't want to have to see it, hear about it or have my rights stepped on to accommodate you.

I like to drink beer and watch football.  I don't feel like everyone else has to put me on a pedestal for it or kiss my ass because of it.  I should not get special rights and neither should they.

 

Can you post those "special rights" that you claim some other Americans have?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 10, 2015, 08:23:46 pm

Attention Religious Idiot.........Run for your life!

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/147621/large/Attack_of_the_14_year_old_girl_Web.jpg?1433943871)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 10, 2015, 08:56:07 pm

Hate crime laws make a white person committing a crime against a minority a bigger offense then a crime being committed against a white person. 

Minorities also get extra points on the civil service exam and standards are lowered for admittance to college and jobs due to quotas. 

Minority owned businesses get preferential treatment by the government.

We should all be equal under the law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 10, 2015, 09:32:01 pm

Like all idiots, you fail to read, and worse, fail to understand.

You act as if CO2 is the only global warming gasses produced by volcanoes.  Even you can't be that ignorant.  Volcanoes produce much more water vapor than CO2.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 10, 2015, 09:57:31 pm

Dave the global warming hoaxers dismiss water vapor because it does not fit into their theory. 

Even though it is the main cause of global warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 10, 2015, 10:27:45 pm

Yep.  Global warming liars definitely are bull-shitters,



Melbourne 5°C - 15°C . Sunny.
 

That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama
   
By Andrew Bolt


 
May 22,  2013 
 
 
Filed under: Global warming - propaganda

John Cook’s claim got wide coverage:

 Today, the most comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed climate research to date was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Our analysis found that among papers expressing a position on human-caused global warming, over 97% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Overwhelming agreement among scientists had already formed in the early 1990s. And the consensus is getting stronger.

It was always odd that Cook, a Queensland University Climate Communication Research Fellow (what is that, exactly?), could find strong certainty about global warming science at the very time the failure of the world to warm as predicted was causing warmist scientists to rejig figures and think up new excuses.

Even the ABC this week conceded:

A recent slowdown in global warming means the harshest climate change predictions are less likely in the immediate decades, say an international team of scientists. Others argue the conclusions need to be taken with a ‘large grain of salt’.

But four key things are now emerging about Cook’s claim, which was swallowed whole by the usual media suspects, and was even tweeted by President Barack Obama.

First, the papers which explicity endorsed the standard global warming theory were outnumbered by those which explicitly denied it:

 The guidelines for rating these abstracts [of papers on global warming] show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:

 that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:

Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.  This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it…

 This study found ~4,000 abstracts that say humans cause some amount of global warming. Only 143 of those indicate how much warming humans are responsible for. Of those, 65 say its a lot, 78 say it isn’t much.

Second, a theory is not proved by the number of scientists who believe it. And however popular, it can be disproved by a single fact.

Third, Cook’s study missed key papers by sceptical scientists.

Fourth, some of the papers Cook claims endorse global warming theory do not.

Says who? Say the scientists who wrote them:


 I emailed a sample of scientists who’s papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists’ papers as “endorsing AGW"…


Craig D. Idso, Ph.D. Geography; Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Dr. Idso, your paper ‘Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it”.

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?



 Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”


Nicola Scafetta, Ph.D. Physics; Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team

Dr. Scafetta, your paper ‘Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%”

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?



Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun....

Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most...”


Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysics; Associate Professor, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Dr. Shaviv, your paper ‘On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise”

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C)…

Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren’t necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn’t even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/that_97_per_cent_claim_four_problems_with_cook_and_obama/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 10, 2015, 11:58:25 pm

 Packy,


 How are you and your offspring going to sustain for the next 1000 years using fossil fuels ?


 If you admit that you can't  ... then you are admitting that the current run of humanity using overwelmingly fossil fuels is going to end.


 Put's the offspring in a quandary doesn't it?


 You suck it all up but they don't get any ? Now that's not being nice.


 If you want to mine things from asteroids ...


 what fuel do you think is going to get them there?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2015, 07:23:16 am

Quote from: davep on June 10, 2015, 09:32:01 pm

Even you can't be that ignorant.

Once again, davep, you underestimate otto.  He is capable of reaching unimagined levels of ignorance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 11, 2015, 10:52:33 am

There is more than enough fossil fuel for the next 1000 years.  There is oil for hundreds of years at least, and coal for thousands more.  liquification of coal would allow it to perform most of the uses that now are reserved for oil.

But your question has an underlying assumption that is hardly justified.  You seem to be saying that if we don't replace fossil fuels today, we will never be able to replace them.  But there is no reason to think that the progeny that you are worried about will not be as smart or capable as we are.

Whenever oil finally runs out, it will not happen overnight.  There will be a long period of contraction as the supplies diminish, and during that time the price will rise to the point where it is cost effective to develop the alternative fuels and infrastructure necessary to use them.  Our "kids" will have plenty of time and incentive to make the necessary transitions.

If we are able to change over to solar/wind/geothermal/tidal energy right now, when all it will do is increase cost and investment, why can our descendants not do so when it actually becomes necessary and cost effective?

We had this same discussion 5 years ago when the common wisdom was that we would run out of oil in a few decades.  Since then, supplies have soared, and the time frame has been moved back to well over a century.  A lot will happen during that time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2015, 04:08:42 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 10, 2015, 07:49:31 pm

Town idiot in what ever town that he lives in posts.
You posted that after volcanoes release said gasses "no discernable global temperature increase has been noted". If your not linking the two what in the hell stupid point are you flailing at?

Then I posted that human created CO2 gas releases EACH YEAR are 100 times that of volcanic releases. Furthermore I posted this gem from the USGS which mentions your volcano by name.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php  (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)

And then the little ex-lawyerboy ponied one of his tediously repetitive posts in your defensive.

So little ex-lawyerboy or idiot davepbart, prove any of that wrong. Especially since your no scientist's or smart enough to know the difference.

Prove any of WHAT wrong?  And why?  And what would you consider proving something wrong?  Convincing you?  No reason to bother.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2015, 04:10:14 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 10, 2015, 08:56:07 pm

Hate crime laws make a white person committing a crime against a minority a bigger offense then a crime being committed against a white person.

Not only is that not really true, it also does not come close to giving minorities any special rights.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2015, 04:18:32 pm

Quote from: davep on June 11, 2015, 10:52:33 am

There is more than enough fossil fuel for the next 1000 years.  There is oil for hundreds of years at least, and coal for thousands more.  liquification of coal would allow it to perform most of the uses that now are reserved for oil.

But your question has an underlying assumption that is hardly justified.  You seem to be saying that if we don't replace fossil fuels today, we will never be able to replace them.  But there is no reason to think that the progeny that you are worried about will not be as smart or capable as we are.

Whenever oil finally runs out, it will not happen overnight.  There will be a long period of contraction as the supplies diminish, and during that time the price will rise to the point where it is cost effective to develop the alternative fuels and infrastructure necessary to use them.  Our "kids" will have plenty of time and incentive to make the necessary transitions.

If we are able to change over to solar/wind/geothermal/tidal energy right now, when all it will do is increase cost and investment, why can our descendants not do so when it actually becomes necessary and cost effective?

We had this same discussion 5 years ago when the common wisdom was that we would run out of oil in a few decades.  Since then, supplies have soared, and the time frame has been moved back to well over a century.  A lot will happen during that time.

His question also ignores the fact that the best way to assure resources are preserved for the future is to rely on the free market system he implicitly trashes.  But, far more important than that, his questions are nothing more than calculated inanity.  I would compare answering him seriously to trying to give a serious response to nonsense you might have seen from the Three Stooges, except that making such a comparison is unfair to stooges everywhere.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2015, 05:39:59 pm

Ex-lawyer and current hillbilly legal aid

When will be your first post with a point?

When will an original idea finally pass thru your head?


When will boring and stupid from you improve?


Again, prove anything that I have posted on AGW wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2015, 05:56:45 pm

Jesstooge


How does the "free market" protect against over fishing our oceans?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 11, 2015, 06:03:15 pm

Why would you be concerned? Do you eat a lot of fish?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2015, 06:13:39 pm

Why would you ask?

Are you worried that he can't answer?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2015, 07:55:02 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/11/paul-ryan-unchained-lashes-out-at-breitbart-drudge-dont-believe-everything-you-read-on-the-internet/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2015, 08:02:02 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 11, 2015, 05:39:59 pm

Again, prove anything that I have posted on AGW wrong.

Your contention that davep had claimed volcanoes caused global warming (which was part of the AGW debate) was wrong.  You simply did not grasp what he had written and repeatedly were wrong in your posts about it, even after being called on the issue.  There is no need to go any further than that.

Quote from: otto105 on June 05, 2015, 05:28:19 pm

the last you posted stated volcanoes cause global warming.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2015, 08:04:01 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 11, 2015, 05:56:45 pm

Jesstooge
How does the "free market" protect against over fishing our oceans?

You tell me how private property rights come into play in fishing, and I will then be happy to answer your exceedingly naive question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 12, 2015, 12:53:27 pm

jesstooge

Naive would be your belief that the "free market" will solve everyone's problems with everything.

Additionally, I will except your defeat that property rights can't solve the problem of over-fishing in our lakes and oceans.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 12, 2015, 01:22:26 pm

One I cannot believe that davepbart would retain the services of a legal aid to sort thru his stupidity on any topic.

But lets focus on the marketboy from Tennessee.

First marketboy, the discussion was not about AGW, but rather whether man-made global warming was a religion when your poorly served client posted...

Quote

7.  The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released more global warming gasses than every plane, train, automobile, wood fire and cow fart than has been released by mankind since the discovery of fire.  Eruptions such as this occur a couple of times each century, and no discernable global temperature increase has been noted.

Again, your poorly served client's opinion is plainly wrong. His awful assertion is that if massive volcanic releases of greenhouse gasses don't cause warming neither do fossil fuel burning releases of CO2 by man. I then posted the USGS report on the subject which proved the assertion false.

Can you offer information which proves the USGS wrong?

I also posted that volcanic eruptions tend to cause global cooling in the years following (again actual science) eruptions.

Can you prove that wrong?

Then some warehouse non-scientist from peoria weighted in with a sun size funny until we realized that he was serious.


So try to idiotsplain that legal aid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 12, 2015, 01:45:08 pm

So what you are saying is that volcanic eruptions cause global cooling.

How can they do that when they put more global warming gasses into the atmosphere than all the activities of mankind.  According to your silly theory, they should cause temperature to soar.

Unless, of course, your silly theory is based upon blind faith, rather than actual science.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 12, 2015, 03:51:45 pm

Again davepbart, YOU'RE just ignorant and hold ignorant viewpoints.

Quote

So what you are saying is that volcanic eruptions cause global cooling.

No, what I have repetitively posted is that volcanoes can cause temporary cooling.

The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles. The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees at the height of the impact. Sulfur dioxide from the large 1783-1784 Laki fissure eruption in Iceland caused regional cooling of Europe and North America by similar amounts for similar periods of time.


Source...  http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)

Quote

How can they do that when they put more global warming gasses into the atmosphere than all the activities of mankind.  According to your silly theory, they should cause temperature to soar.

While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming. For example, all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. While it has been proposed that intense volcanic release of carbon dioxide in the deep geologic past did cause global warming, and possibly some mass extinctions, this is a topic of scientific debate at present.

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

Source...  http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)

Quote

Unless, of course, your silly theory is based upon blind faith, rather than actual science.

Again, anytime you want to prove my source wrong ... YOU can post the material. Otherwise, it is very clear who is posting stupid blind faith, rather than actual science.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 12, 2015, 04:50:16 pm

You refuse to answer the question.  I said nothing about CO2.

My question was, why does the massive production of GLOBAL WARMING GASSES not cause massive global warming every time a volcano erupts.

First, you might want to look up what are the most common global warming gas.

If you can read.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 12, 2015, 05:38:01 pm

davepbart

Do you or do you not understand the concept of dilution?

Do you understand that "The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere." is not referring to CO2?

I understand that you're not able to comprehend volcanic activity at a level high enough to process the information presented to you by scientists who study volcanic gases and their impact on our atmosphere.

When will your level increase to have a discussion on it?

And moron, water vapor will not get you there either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 12, 2015, 06:38:16 pm

Nor is it referring to the massive amount of global warming gas that is produced by volcanoes.

But perhaps you are not really stupid, but merely ignorant.  Let's see if you are actually capable of learning.

What is the largest global warming gas produced by volcanoes?  Hint - it is not CO2, nor is it any sulphur compound.you will actually have to learn something to answer correctly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 12, 2015, 07:34:56 pm

Keep baiting him DaveP

The meltdown will be hillarious as usual.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 12, 2015, 09:16:09 pm

Liberals are only interested in CO2, since that allows them to attack the oil companies and big business.  But actually, CO2 is one of the smallest of the so called global warming gasses.  Whenever you ask about the others, they return to CO 2, because that is the only one produced in part by mankind.

Of course, Homo isn't a liberal.  He is just a fool that they use as a tool.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 12, 2015, 10:09:12 pm

Come on moron, show your massive gas.

Because so far, you just have a hand job from some other idiot.

Proof if you can....





























But won't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 12, 2015, 11:38:44 pm

Homo is cute when he shows his ignorance.

But if he actually does his research, he will actually learn something.

Even now, he is trying to think of an explanation why crops can not grow today at altitudes where they grew 800 years ago.  The doubts are starting to form.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 13, 2015, 12:19:02 am

 I suppose we should get back to a FUEL SOURCE for spaceships heading to asteroids to mine them for minerals.


 NOW LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT : Are you really suggesting that OIL and COAL are going to POWER these spaceships?


 Can you explain to moi how these spaceships are going to REFUEL to get back to EARTH with their cargo from mining asteroids?


 Beard ... Dave,


 I need your answers. I know you won't fail me. You never have.


 We are looking foreword to your insight. We know you have the answers.


 Please essplain.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 13, 2015, 02:43:53 am

 TPP ... I need you to sell my ass on this.


 BOD, (Beard,Otto,Dave)


 Convince me why I should like this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 13, 2015, 11:10:29 am

Davepbart

Facts show your ignorance. That's why you don't have them in your posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 13, 2015, 02:11:33 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on June 13, 2015, 12:19:02 am

  NOW LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT : Are you really suggesting that OIL and COAL are going to POWER these spaceships?

It is difficult to answer some of your posts, since they seem to wander over several subjects, with writing that at first may seem vague, but is in reality, is merely meaningless.

As far as fuel for spaceships is concerned, I don't much care in the slightest if we develop fuel to go to other planets to mine for whatever you think we will need.

But I see no reason to begin developing the fuel necessary to get there at this point.  We have no need for mining on other planets in the near future, and I see no reason to believe that when the need arises, that our children will not be able to develop the fuel at that time.  They will be just as smart as we are, and will have the advantages of all the advances in technology that will occur in the future.

When we decided to go to the moon, we developed the fuel necessary to do so.  We didn't try to get there with oil, but we did get there.  if we have the need to mine the moons of Jupiter, we will develop the means necessary to do so.  If we can do it now, our children will certainly be able to do so in the future.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 13, 2015, 07:43:21 pm

 

Quote from: davep on June 13, 2015, 02:11:33 pm

It is difficult to answer some of your posts, since they seem to wander over several subjects, with writing that at first may seem vague, but is in reality, is merely meaningless.

As far as fuel for spaceships is concerned, I don't much care in the slightest if we develop fuel to go to other planets to mine for whatever you think we will need.

But I see no reason to begin developing the fuel necessary to get there at this point.  We have no need for mining on other planets in the near future, and I see no reason to believe that when the need arises, that our children will not be able to develop the fuel at that time.  They will be just as smart as we are, and will have the advantages of all the advances in technology that will occur in the future.

When we decided to go to the moon, we developed the fuel necessary to do so.  We didn't try to get there with oil, but we did get there.  if we have the need to mine the moons of Jupiter, we will develop the means necessary to do so.  If we can do it now, our children will certainly be able to do so in the future.

 Dave,


 That's the best answer anybody ever gave to back up my position.


 Thank's buddy. The kids need a start to be able to achieve their goals.


 That's what we're here for ... as teachers of the future.


 Dave here's a scenario, we head into space and meet another civilization,


 they don't have such a thing as oil, they see the benefits of plastic and are willing to
 
 trade five pounds of gold for one gallon of oil,


 man did we **** up after burning all that oil!  ;)


 Of course if you saturate the market with gold it will only bring $5.00 an ounce.


 It's the give and take of trade ... what has value to who?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 13, 2015, 09:56:19 pm

I don't know about your kids, but mine are quite competent.  My generation made great technological advances over the previous one, and the current one has moved far beyond what mine was able to do.  I have no reason to believe that the next generation will not advance things even further. 

I see no reason why we should worry about their future.  If they work as hard as my generation did, they will do fine.  if they don't, it is their own fault.

And if the aliens you speak of won't sell us their oil, we will probably just move over to solar power.  No sense doing that before there is reason to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2015, 10:08:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 12, 2015, 12:53:27 pm

Naive would be your belief that the "free market" will solve everyone's problems with everything.

Additionally, I will except your defeat that property rights can't solve the problem of over-fishing in our lakes and oceans.

I have never even suggested that the free market, or propert rights, will sove everyone's problem with everything.  For instance your deliberate ignorance would not necessarily be solved by a free market.

But I have acknowledged nothing regarding property rights and over-fishing.  I instead asked you rather pointedly to:

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 11, 2015, 08:04:01 pm

tell me how private property rights come into play in fishing, and I will then be happy to answer your exceedingly naive question.

The problem is not that property rights result in over fishing, but that dealing with the great lakes and the oceans as communal property result in over fishing.  Try reading Garrett Harden's short monograph on the issue in a slightly different setting: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

Since Harden wrote that in the late 1960's, economists and sane environmentalists have embraced the idea in many areas, including fishing.  http://wfr.sagepub.com/content/5/3/256.abstract

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2015, 10:13:00 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 12, 2015, 01:22:26 pm

One I cannot believe that davepbart would retain the services of a legal aid to sort thru his stupidity on any topic.

But lets focus on the marketboy from Tennessee.

First marketboy, the discussion was not about AGW, but rather whether man-made global warming was a religion when your poorly served client posted...

The origins of the discussion were no more relevant to my point than the origin of the species.

You contended, repeatedly, that davep had written that volcanoes caused global warming, something he quite clearly did not post.  Your mental contortions on the issue are irrelevant to my simple point that you were claiming davep had written something he quite clearly had not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 13, 2015, 10:15:12 pm

 

Quote from: davep on June 13, 2015, 09:56:19 pm

I don't know about your kids, but mine are quite competent.  My generation made great technological advances over the previous one, and the current one has moved far beyond what mine was able to do.  I have no reason to believe that the next generation will not advance things even further. 

I see no reason why we should worry about their future.  If they work as hard as my generation did, they will do fine.  if they don't, it is their own fault.

And if the aliens you speak of won't sell us their oil, we will probably just move over to solar power.  No sense doing that before there is reason to do so.

 Dave, Please re - read post 6574.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2015, 10:17:00 pm

Quote from: davep on June 12, 2015, 11:38:44 pm

Homo is cute when he shows his ignorance.

So you think he is cute all of the time?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 13, 2015, 10:47:21 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 13, 2015, 10:17:00 pm

So you think he is cute all of the time?

 You're forcing me into an issue of who is the cutest when we are all in the same bed.


 Personally I think you are the cutest when you shave your thighs.


 Dave doesn't shave all that often and the stubble coming through his pantyhose is kind of a turnoff.


 Otto with that pushup bra that went out of style in the 1950's ... I don't get it.  ???


 I suggested a wonder bra ... but he wont listen. That ****.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 13, 2015, 10:51:12 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on June 13, 2015, 10:15:12 pm

 Dave, Please re - read post 6574.

OK Jackie.  I reread it.  Any particular reason why you wanted me to do that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 13, 2015, 11:15:13 pm

 

Quote from: davep on June 13, 2015, 10:51:12 pm

OK Jackie.  I reread it.  Any particular reason why you wanted me to do that?

 We're not going to be buying any oil from any aliens.


 We could be swapping gold for oil with them though.  ;D


 They could be seeing SARAN WRAP as the greatest thing ever ...


 a straight swap for their shoes made of gold.


 One box of reynolds wrap aluminum foil ... for one of their back packs made of 24k gold.


 We won't know until we get there.


 KOTEX ...cotton ! You wanna know what those go for in another galaxy where there is no cotton?


 Even the used versions ?


 You underestimate the trading values of our products my friend.  :D


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 13, 2015, 11:33:10 pm

As long as we are making up scenarios -

We encounter an advanced civilization that needs oil to make plastic.  Because we have conserved so much, they destroy our civilization in order to take our oil without paying for it.

In your scenario, you have already answered yourself.  If we traded our oil at a rate of five pounds of gold for each gallon of oil, gold would be so plentiful that it would be worthless.

I am all in favor of trade.  And the odds of their wanting oil, and only oil, is not very likely.  It is much more likely that they would want to trade gold for drugs in order to get high.  You kids will be pissed off at your using it all before they got a chance to get rich.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 14, 2015, 01:42:28 am

 

Quote from: davep on June 13, 2015, 11:33:10 pm

As long as we are making up scenarios -

We encounter an advanced civilization that needs oil to make plastic.  Because we have conserved so much, they destroy our civilization in order to take our oil without paying for it.

In your scenario, you have already answered yourself.  If we traded our oil at a rate of five pounds of gold for each gallon of oil, gold would be so plentiful that it would be worthless.

I am all in favor of trade.  And the odds of their wanting oil, and only oil, is not very likely.  It is much more likely that they would want to trade gold for drugs in order to get high.  You kids will be pissed off at your using it all before they got a chance to get rich.

 We can MANUFACTURE more drugs. We can't manufacture more oil & gold.


 Hey remember back in the day when cellulose film was the way they recorded history ?


 Thats been gone for quite a while now ... know where that came from ?


 Petrochemicals. Why was it good then but not so good now?


 Because it's finite ... like the teeth in your mouth and the brain in your head.


 One day it will all end ... you my friend like all of us will be on the receiving end of it.


 Death. The worm turns muh man.


 A mere standby on a planet that you will always wonder,why me?


 How the hell did I get stuck on this rock with this crew that is hell bent on killing each other?


 If you were civilizations from other planets ... would you want to contact this planet?


 For every Beethoven and Mark Twain over the years ...


 how many hundreds of millions of people were in uniform wanting to kill each other ?


 And I'm nuts ?


 Baby you better think about who is nuts on this planet that demands you give them money to play their game that you finance.


 WE ... are just along for the ride.


 No matter what culture you are ... HATRED is a motivation to hate another culture ...


 because you were told to


 This is what makes isil tick ... hatred that you're not like me.


 If you're not like me ... then I will kill you.


 Basic humanity stripped to it's essence.


 Which is why the Universe laughs at us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2015, 10:22:17 am

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/12/269674/obamas-legal-justification-for.html

On reading this story, I can't help but think of that great line from Treasure of the Sierra Madre -- "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 14, 2015, 10:58:30 am

Nothing is eternal, Jackie.  All sources of energy will eventually disappear.  That is called entropy, and it applies to everyone, including the solar power you mention so often.  and as we consume one form of energy, prices will go up until we find another to replace it.  But ultimately, we will all be gone.

You are right.  Humans tend to kill each other.  Of course, all forms of life kill each other.  That is how they, themselves, stay alive.  And when we finally meet the life forms that you believe are out there, we will try to kill them, or they will kill us.  As Mammy Yokum used to say, "that's one o' the fac's o' life.

People constantly argue.  They call names and belittle each other.  I do it.  Jes does it.  And God knows you do it.  If someone that considers himself to be enlightened, such as you do it, it probably isn't going to stop.

In the meantime, those of us that don't spend our lives trying to get high, will go on with what we have to do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2015, 11:16:15 am

Quote from: davep on June 14, 2015, 10:58:30 am

and as we consume one form of energy, prices will go up until we find another to replace it.

Sometimes, but not even close to always.  Gasoline and unrefined oil both cost less today in real dollars than they did in the mid-70's, and, since Jackie's lunacy on those commodities is what began this discussion, it is relevant to look specifically at their prices.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 14, 2015, 12:43:43 pm

Nonetheless, the amount of oil is finite, and eventually, as it becomes more scarce, prices will go up to the point where other alternatives are cheaper, and will ultimately replace oil.  That point seems to be more than a century away right now, and might be extended further as new drilling and recovery technologies come into play, but in the timeframe Jackie seems to be talking about, oil will eventually be used up.  Sometime before then, it will be economical to move to another source of fuel.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2015, 01:47:31 pm

Complete agreement on that, with the limited exception of the reference to "the timeframe Jackie seems to be talking about,"  Since his posts are such incoherent rambling messes that trying to divine what time frame (or much or anythig else) he is referencing appears to border between pointless and impossible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 15, 2015, 12:31:30 pm

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/148151/large/TMW-2015-06-17color.png?1434149882)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2015, 01:31:05 pm

That's about as much in the facts and reason department as all of Homo's posts.  Snide comments are much easier than actual truth.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 15, 2015, 07:26:40 pm

Davevee

Take it up with Tom Tomorrow.

Also, can deny that phaxnews blonde **** meg kelly did not call a 15 girl "no saint" on air?


Just try.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2015, 07:54:39 pm

Homo-

Why would I want to deny that?  I don't know, nor do I care.

Do you care that the head of the Seattle NAACP lied about her race?  Does that reflect badly on the NAACP? 

Do you care that Elizabeth Warren lied about being of American Indian heritage?  Would her lying prevent you from voting for her?  Is it proof that all the idiotic things that she believes are wrong?  Do you believe that her reprehensible behavior disqualifies her from representing the Democratic party.

Do you believe that because the Clintons are totally lacking in moral or ethical values, it reflects badly on everyone that voted for him in the past or are thinking about voting for her in the future?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2015, 07:56:27 pm

Just out of curiosity, who was the 15 year old girl, and what evidence do you have that she WAS a saint?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 15, 2015, 08:11:31 pm

Because she is black...and 15

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2015, 08:23:51 pm

Are all black 15 year old girls saints?

By the way, isn't Homo an atheist?  I though atheists didn't believe there were ANY saints?

Of course, no one ever accused Homo of being consistent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 15, 2015, 09:32:28 pm

Another Democrat controlled catastrophe.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417601/riot-plagued-baltimore-catastrophe-entirely-democratic-partys-own-making-kevin-d

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2015, 09:34:04 pm

Quote from: davep on June 15, 2015, 08:23:51 pm

I though atheists didn't believe there were ANY saints?

Much would depend on how you define "saint."  I am an atheist and am perfectly comfortable using the word.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2015, 09:55:13 pm

Are you comfortable with saying that someone isn't a saint?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 15, 2015, 10:00:36 pm

 STANLEY CUP !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 15, 2015, 10:04:03 pm

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2015, 10:57:57 pm

Quote from: davep on June 15, 2015, 09:55:13 pm

Are you comfortable with saying that someone isn't a saint?

Sure.  Why not?  I'm ever comfortable in saying it about a 15-year-old girl who has not been "saintly" in her behavior.

I am comfortable in saying I am not a saint.  Why wouldn't I be?  My behavior certainly falls short of "saintly."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 15, 2015, 11:45:20 pm

 Hey Packy and Jes YOU **** !!


 CONGRATULATE FOR CHICAGO WINNING THE STANLEY CUP !!


 I ain't going to let you get away with it until you do.


 OttoDave,


 I want some congrats from you too.


 Acknowledge the CHICAGO BLACK HAWKS WON THE STANLEY CUP !!]


 You rank on us for being CHICAGO fans ...


 but now it's time to step up and acknowledge us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 15, 2015, 11:55:15 pm

I am aware that they won.  As a matter of fact, I was watching the game.

But to be honest, hockey isn't my game.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 15, 2015, 11:59:20 pm

 

Quote from: davep on June 15, 2015, 11:55:15 pm

I am aware that they won.  As a matter of fact, I was watching the game.

But to be honest, hockey isn't my game.

 You win't even congratulate us for winning THE STANLEY CUP ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 16, 2015, 04:27:50 pm

(http://i1.wp.com/www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bd150612.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 16, 2015, 04:39:23 pm

Lets allow all the black women to get abortions so they eliminate all the black babies :o ::) :P :P :P

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 16, 2015, 04:40:02 pm

The Pope Says Climate Change Is Real. GOP Candidates Disagree.

Since ascending to the Catholic Church's top perch in March 2013, Pope Francis hasn't shied away from taking political stances that rankle conservatives. He has said evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive. Asked about gay priests, he responded, "Who am I to judge?" And he has embraced a populist approach to tackling income inequality.

Now the pope risks drawing conservative ire on climate change. In a document set to be released on Thursday—which leaked to an Italian publication and was published as an act of "sabotage against the pope," according to a Vatican official—Francis will apparently call for a strong, multi-country push to curb global warming and the "human causes that produce and accentuate it," according to the Guardian. The message will reportedly call out climate deniers, saying "the attitudes that stand in the way of a solution, even among believers, range from negation of the problem, to indifference, to convenient resignation or blind faith in technical solutions."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 16, 2015, 04:43:04 pm

Course, he left out general ignorance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 16, 2015, 04:49:30 pm

Well, if the Pope says so, then it must be true.  By the way, Homo, Popes also say that abortion is murder.  Do you agree on that subject also?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 16, 2015, 05:12:49 pm

Homo agrees with the Pope whenever the Pope agrees with him. I don't think the Pope agrees with Homo on abortion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 16, 2015, 06:04:06 pm

Interesting.

Research shows that allowing medical marijuana use does NOT increase marijuana use among teenagers.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366%2815%2900217-5/fulltext

It was a 24 year study: In conclusion, the results of this study showed no evidence for an increase in adolescent marijuana use after passage of state laws permitting use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 16, 2015, 06:17:40 pm

Anyone interested in a serious look at Rand Paul's views on foreign policy might want to read this: http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/16/rand-pauls-strategic-ambiguity/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 16, 2015, 08:24:01 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on June 15, 2015, 11:45:20 pm

 Hey Packy and Jes YOU **** !!


 CONGRATULATE FOR CHICAGO WINNING THE STANLEY CUP !!


 I ain't going to let you get away with it until you do.


 OttoDave,


 I want some congrats from you too.


 Acknowledge the CHICAGO BLACK HAWKS WON THE STANLEY CUP !!]


 You rank on us for being CHICAGO fans ...


 but now it's time to step up and acknowledge us.

Yeah, but who is this guy Stanley, with the cup?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 16, 2015, 08:39:21 pm

Jes, What I took from that is his foreign policy is "nuanced".  We have heard that BS before from the Obama team and it is a disaster.

I don't think for a minute Pauls foreign policy would be as bad as Obama's but like all of the people running for president we really do not know what their foreign policy is yet if we ever do.  It is real easy to say one thing on the campaign trail and a whole other thing once they have all of the information they would receive once president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 16, 2015, 10:05:21 pm

What exactly is the foreign policy disaster that President Barack Hussein Obama has created?

And why do you hate America so much?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 16, 2015, 10:26:48 pm

Failing to preserve and continue the awful choice by a scrub to invade Iraq?

Disarming Syria of chemical weapons?

Not arming every stupid radical Islam groups John McCain thinks is swell?

Rant Paul wants America to be the pre-WW2 one, and you agree.

Seriously warehouse guy in Peoria?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 16, 2015, 11:10:27 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 16, 2015, 10:05:21 pm

What exactly is the foreign policy disaster that President Barack Hussein Obama has created?

And why do you hate America so much?

Isis, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and Ukraine. Want more.

Obumma hates America, not me. Obumma has been trying to destroy America.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 16, 2015, 11:14:09 pm

He pulled out of Iraq after we had it won which allowed ISIS to fill the vacuum.  The group he called the JV team.

Syria and ISIS are both using chemical weapons.  No one was disarmed.  They have just changed hands.

The Obama administration armed rebels in Libya and possibly Syria.  The wrong ones.  This is the main reason Benghazi happened.

I never said I agree with Rand Paul.  I said his foreign policy is "nuanced" just like Obama's which has been an absolute disaster.

Seriously unemployed professional Democrat agitator.  Or do they pay you for your posts here? 

Do you get like 5 cents a post?  Is the price lowered if you don't make any sense?  I hope not for your sake or you won't make enough to pay for your internet.  Or do you post from the library...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 16, 2015, 11:55:08 pm

Really warehouse guy


Please post what "success" in Iraq was...Was it a stable government? The installation of democracy? No ethnic strife? Rather than your stupid blind bias...

Can you show the chemical weapon assertion prove that you have made up?

Your third and possibly the most moronic post assertion that anyone has ever seen...Benghazi happened because if what?

**** idiot.

Your god used to make sporty stupid...but now its you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2015, 12:12:17 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 16, 2015, 08:39:21 pm

Jes, What I took from that is his foreign policy is "nuanced".  We have heard that BS before from the Obama team and it is a disaster.

We saw UNnuanced foreign policy from the prior president, and it was also something of a disaster.  LBJ also had a rather un-nuanced foreign policy, and it was likewise something of a disaster.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 17, 2015, 10:35:15 am

The prior president HAD a nuanced foreign policy, which was quite successful.  He managed to keep Pakistan, with their nuclear weapons, at least outwardly neutral, and managed to form a coalition that rid the world of a dangerous and oppressive dictator.  Unfortunately, his nuances also led him to turn over Iraq to a divided population that was not ready for it, and for the second time abandoned the only group that likes us, the Kurds, to the oppression of the new government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2015, 04:31:42 pm

Quote from: davep on June 17, 2015, 10:35:15 am

The prior president HAD a nuanced foreign policy, which was quite successful.  He managed to keep Pakistan, with their nuclear weapons, at least outwardly neutral, and managed to form a coalition that rid the world of a dangerous and oppressive dictator.  Unfortunately, his nuances also led him to turn over Iraq to a divided population that was not ready for it, and for the second time abandoned the only group that likes us, the Kurds, to the oppression of the new government.

It would appear you and I differ quite substantially on what constitutes nuance.  And removal of a dangerous and oppressive dictator without any appreciation of how that might actually make the world more dangerous and which results in more oppression (which is the situation we have seen after Saddam's removal) for me woud pretty much define the lack of nuance.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From
this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

"You are with us or against us," does not impress me as particularly nuanced.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 17, 2015, 04:41:10 pm

That statement certainly is not nuanced.  However, I think over the 8 years in office, he probably made other statements.

Assuming that one phrase uttered out of 8 years in office captures the president's entire foreign policy is in itself rather un-nuanced.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2015, 05:17:09 pm

That one phrase was much more than a random utterance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 17, 2015, 05:18:37 pm

Certainly not random.  But just as certainly, it does not encompass everything he said and did concerning national security.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2015, 05:25:04 pm

But it better than anything else illustrates his attitude and degree of nuance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 17, 2015, 06:18:57 pm

Otto, There would have been no power vacuum if we had not pulled our troops out.  We won.  All we had to do was hold onto our victory.  Obama pissed that away.

If you have not read anything about chemical weapons being used by Syria and ISIS then you aren't reading much.  We also have soldiers who are suffering from being exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq.  How can this be if they do not exist?

It is no secret that we were arming rebels in Syria and Libya. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2015, 07:06:50 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 17, 2015, 06:18:57 pm

Otto, There would have been no power vacuum if we had not pulled our troops out.  We won.  All we had to do was hold onto our victory.   

But there would have been heavy budget costs for the U.S. for decades, and the entire time much of the Arab/Muslim world would have seen the U.S. as an occupying force, drawing even more terrorist targeting the U.S.

What we need to face is that once we decided to enter Iraq in 2002, there were no longer any good options available.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 17, 2015, 07:28:06 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 17, 2015, 05:25:04 pm

But it better than anything else illustrates his attitude and degree of nuance.

No.  it just illustrates your attitude towards him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 17, 2015, 08:58:54 pm

Going into Iraq may very well have been a mistake.  However once we went and won it was beyond stupid to leave.

We did not just leave Japan or Germany immediately after winning.  It would be idiotic to do so.  We also keep bases there to this day.

Our soldiers did not need to be fighting as there was no one left to fight.  They would have simply been there to project power.

I guarantee you ISIS would not be holding as much territory as they are and murdering innocent people if we had not pulled out of Iraq. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 17, 2015, 09:34:27 pm

I guarantee you ISIS would not be holding as much territory as they are and murdering innocent people if we had not pulled out of Iraq.

Absolutely agree. That's Obumma's fault.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 17, 2015, 09:53:44 pm

The bigger error was turning the government back over to the Iraqis when we knew that they would shut the Sunni and Kurds out of the government.

And bigger yet was convincing the Sunni tribes to fight with us during the surge, only to abandon them once again.  It is little wonder that they are not willing to fight ISIS.

We did the same thing to the Kurds after Gulf War 1, only to abandon them to the mercies of Hussain and his chemical weapons.  But we were nice enough to make sure that he wasn't allowed to bomb them.

It is a wonder that we have any allies at all in the region.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 17, 2015, 10:02:15 pm

100% agree Dave. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 18, 2015, 12:06:14 am

Peak

To compare the situation in Iraq to that of post war Japan and Germany shows you have no idea what the hell your posting about.

To declare any "win" win in Iraq again shows you just to be a tool of your narrow ideology.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 18, 2015, 04:54:14 am

shows you just to be a tool of your narrow ideology.

LOL!! Had to laugh at that one..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 18, 2015, 06:45:47 am

Quote from: davep on June 17, 2015, 07:28:06 pm

No.  it just illustrates your attitude towards him.

Once again you are wrong.  I actually liked Bush, and still do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2015, 06:47:33 am

Yeah, that's a good one. True moron speak

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 18, 2015, 06:49:07 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 17, 2015, 08:58:54 pm

Going into Iraq may very well have been a mistake.  However once we went and won it was beyond stupid to leave.

While that may be true, it is also a rather different discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 18, 2015, 11:27:16 am

WE would be dealing with Saddam AND isis if not for taking him out. I was never a big proponent of the Iraqi war, but it does seem as if there was a real plan it would've helped. Rumsfeld was a huge problem and didn't want to listen to anyone. The other thing, we worry too much about being humanitarians while fighting a war. The middle east has been chaotic for ever, do we really think we'll ever change that? Although, isis has become a huge problem and must be dealt with..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2015, 12:22:56 pm

ISIS cant be allowed to exist. It has the potential to bust out into Armagedon. But it cant be allowed to exist. The world powers have to destroy it. It is humanitarianly wrong. It cant be allowed to spread.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2015, 12:36:25 pm

Totalitarianism cant be allowed to spread. There is no peaceful co-existence with them. Its too Hitler like.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 18, 2015, 01:02:57 pm

Do you idiots even know who comprises ISIL?

Hint, do you know a Sunni from a Shiite?


And no posts about one of your white racist gun-nuts going average angry white guy in SC last night?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 18, 2015, 01:19:26 pm

Today the nra wants everyone to stop and consider that Praying in a church unarmed can get you killed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2015, 02:16:00 pm

I don't consider that statement outrageous. Even going to a movie theater or to Walmart can get you killed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 18, 2015, 02:18:24 pm

Must make your day. Another tragedy you can politicise.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2015, 02:18:34 pm

As much as Oddo hates church people, he would be a prime candidate to do in church people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2015, 02:21:00 pm

Oddo would be #1 to be locked up in a FEMA camp. He would be a danger to society

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 18, 2015, 04:35:41 pm

On this Father's Day, the father of dylann roof must be so proud of his son.

Wonder what dylann is planning on giving good old pop for a present after that great birthday gift of a revolver.


I know Wayne lapear can't wait....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 18, 2015, 04:53:07 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 18, 2015, 02:18:34 pm

As much as Oddo hates church people, he would be a prime candidate to do in church people.

Really?  When was the last time any doctrinaire liberal in this country shot up a black church in a mass murder?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 18, 2015, 04:55:32 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on June 18, 2015, 11:27:16 am

WE would be dealing with Saddam AND isis if not for taking him out.

Nonsense.  Saddam would have dealt with Isis -- Isis arose in a power vaccum, and there was none in Iraq with Saddam in power.  And there was no need for the U.S. to be "dealing with Saddam" at all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 18, 2015, 05:28:46 pm

Saddam was a Sunni which is what ISIS is

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 05:30:48 pm

Saddam would never have allowed them to become this powerful.  However Saddam harboring and supporting them is one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 18, 2015, 05:49:42 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 18, 2015, 01:02:57 pm

Do you idiots even know who comprises ISIL?

Hint, do you know a Sunni from a Shiite?


And no posts about one of your white racist gun-nuts going average angry white guy in SC last night?

This is one of Homo's strangest post.   Why does he think it is important that we know that ISIL is made up of Sunni rather than Shiites? 

And why does he think that it is more important to mention white killers rather than black killers?  Only a racist like Homo would ask that question.

But to humor him, last night an insane white guy killed a lot of black people.  This just as wrong as when an insane black person kills some white people.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 18, 2015, 05:55:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 05:30:48 pm

Saddam would never have allowed them to become this powerful.  However Saddam harboring and supporting them is one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq.

Where can you find any indication Bush ever even mentioned ISIS or ISIL when he was president, let alone contended Saddam was harboring them or that such harboring was a reason for invading Iraq?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 06:11:34 pm

http://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-form-When-and-where-did-ISIS-begin




The ideological origin of ISIS


The group began more than two decades ago as a fervid fantasy in the mind of a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A onetime street thug, he arrived in Afghanistan as a mujahideen wannabe in 1989, too late to fight the Soviet Union. He went back home to Jordan, and remained a fringe figure in the international violent “jihad” for much of the following decade. He returned to Afghanistan to set up a training camp for terrorists, and met Osama bin Laden in 1999, but chose not to join al-Qaeda.
The fall of the Taliban in 2001 forced Zarqawi to flee to Iraq. There his presence went largely unnoticed until the Bush administration used it as evidence that al-Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein. In reality, though, Zarqawi was a free agent, looking to create his own terror organization. Shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he set up the forerunner to today’s Islamic State: Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad), which was made up mostly of non-Iraqis.
Although Zarqawi’s rhetoric was similar to bin Laden’s, his targets were quite different. From the start, Zarqawi directed his malevolence at fellow Muslims, especially Iraq’s majority Shiite population. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda regarded the Shiites as heretics, but rarely targeted them for slaughter. [1]

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 06:33:23 pm

Just to head off any "what kind of source is that" type argument I give you this.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13195017/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/al-qaida-iraqs-al-zarqawi-terminated/#.VYNSXenbK70

And this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 18, 2015, 07:16:24 pm

Don't confuse with facts..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 08:15:40 pm

You now what is scary is that because I searched for the information to post those links I am now getting advertisements for mulsimmatters.org and Islamic home financing on facebook.

I am going to have the NSA monitoring me just because I searched for some information.  **** scary!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 18, 2015, 09:56:44 pm

From: "David LaBonte"

 

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:

 

                       Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

 

                      Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's 

                      American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there

                      was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and

                      stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get

down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

 

They had waved good-bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

 

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

 

When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

 

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

 

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

 
  Rosemary LaBonte

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 18, 2015, 11:27:02 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 06:11:34 pm

http://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-form-When-and-where-did-ISIS-begin
The ideological origin of ISIS
The group began more than two decades ago as a fervid fantasy in the mind of a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A onetime street thug, he arrived in Afghanistan as a mujahideen wannabe in 1989, too late to fight the Soviet Union. He went back home to Jordan, and remained a fringe figure in the international violent “jihad” for much of the following decade. He returned to Afghanistan to set up a training camp for terrorists, and met Osama bin Laden in 1999, but chose not to join al-Qaeda.
The fall of the Taliban in 2001 forced Zarqawi to flee to Iraq. There his presence went largely unnoticed until the Bush administration used it as evidence that al-Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein. In reality, though, Zarqawi was a free agent, looking to create his own terror organization. Shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he set up the forerunner to today’s Islamic State: Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad), which was made up mostly of non-Iraqis.
Although Zarqawi’s rhetoric was similar to bin Laden’s, his targets were quite different. From the start, Zarqawi directed his malevolence at fellow Muslims, especially Iraq’s majority Shiite population. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda regarded the Shiites as heretics, but rarely targeted them for slaughter. [1]

I somehow suspect you believe that posting is instructive to some degree about some issue which was being descussed here.

Any chance you could explain what it was?

And, while you are at it, is there any chance you intend to respond to the question I put to you in my last post?

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 18, 2015, 05:55:04 pm

Where can you find any indication Bush ever even mentioned ISIS or ISIL when he was president, let alone contended Saddam was harboring them or that such harboring was a reason for invading Iraq?

All of Bush's public statements as president, spoken or written, were transcribed and recorded.  Every one of them.  And if the question as I posed it is somehow too constraining, I would be happy to see any indication Bush ever contended before invading Iraq that Saddam was harboring ISIS or ISIL or that such harboring was a reason for invading Iraq.

And to make life easier for you, I would be more than satisfied by seeing any remarks from any administration representative BEFORE the invasion who made that contention: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condi Rice, Powell, or any press secretary, either for the White House or any department under Bush, since those were the folks actually charged with presenting the Bush position on things.

What I do not in any way find responsive, however, is some note explaining the origins of ISIS since it is not relevant in response to my question, or in supporting the claim you offered in your post which prompted my question.  For easy reference, your post which prompted my question was as follows:

Quote from: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 05:30:48 pm

Saddam would never have allowed them to become this powerful.  However Saddam harboring and supporting them is one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq.

I am genuinely not posing the question in an effort at a "gotcha" moment so I can point my finger at you and say that you are wrong, but instead to try to have a better understanding of what happened.  My own memory is that Bush and his administration were fastidiously careful in making sure that in making its case for authority to invade Iraq, the administration did NOT contend that Saddam harbored or supported al Queda and that they were NOT calling for the invasion of Iraq in order to target those responsible for 9/11 -- after all, if they HAD believed Iraq had harbored or supported bin Laden and company or wre in any way responsible for 9/11 the first Authrization for the Use of Miitary Force, the one Congress passed within days of the 9/11 attacks, and which allowed the president to "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 11:44:53 pm

Unless Bush was a psychic there was no way he could mention ISIS or ISIL.  They did not exist by that name.    However the man who started the group that became ISIS was in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq and had connections to Al Qaeda. 




 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 19, 2015, 12:28:40 am

Still wondering why none of our law and order crowd have NOT labeled the SC murders white terrorism.

Why have the parents of dylann roof NOT been called out for raising that animal.


This clearly is just another example of the failed white culture of the south.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 19, 2015, 12:29:53 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 18, 2015, 11:44:53 pm

Unless Bush was a psychic there was no way he could mention ISIS or ISIL.  They did not exist by that name.    However the man who started the group that became ISIS was in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq and had connections to Al Qaeda.

All of which is irrelevant to my question.

You contended that, "Saddam harboring and supporting (ISIS) is one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq."  All I have done is asked for ANYTHING supporting that claim.  As I have pointed out, if Bush genuinely believed Saddam had been haroring and supporting ISIS, and that ISIS was working handing in hand with those responsible for 9/11, he wuold have had no need to ask for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq since the prior AUMF would have more than adequately covered invading Iraq and removing Saddam.

So one more time I will ask if you can find any indication Bush ever even mentioned ISIS or ISIL when he was president, let alone contended Saddam was harboring them or that such harboring was a reason for invading Iraq?  Considering your contention that "Saddam harboring and supporting (ISIS) is one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq," it would not seem an unreasonable question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 19, 2015, 02:42:59 am

 **** !!

I don't know which side to put my allegiance to ...

the CATHOLICS in Northern Ireland or the PROTESTANTS in Northern Ireland ?

Whats a human to do in this fantastic day we live in in which insanity by elected governments is business as usual?

I've talked one on one with some of the 160'000 U.S. TROOPS that served in Northern Ireland over the years.

You've heard the story's of Irish Prostitutes with one sided razor blades inserted in their vaginas to slice apart ridged American ****'s.

The bombs planted in confessional booths in Catholic churches.

The sniper shootings of our troops during an Ulster forever parade.

Irish kids with bottles of Guinness Stout and explosives strapped to them

as somewhat drunkin suicide bombers.

And perhaps the dirtiest attack of all ...

Irish women dancing up and down with their arm's at their sides holding

grenades to throw from their unshaven armpits.

Yes Americans ... American troops have been there throughout the years ,

sticking their noses in business in which they have no business because a few

dickweeds in Congress have a hardon for American involvement that can sell

American arms.

Hey if we don't ...somebody else will.

But still ... go to the U.S. Military graveyard in Northern Ireland ...

ask those that will never get out of those graves ...

was it worth it ?

Look at the Delorean Motor Car that was made in Northern Ireland ...

yes ... it was worth it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 19, 2015, 06:56:10 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 19, 2015, 12:28:40 am

Still wondering why none of our law and order crowd have NOT labeled the SC murders white terrorism.

Why have the parents of dylann roof NOT been called out for raising that animal.


This clearly is just another example of the failed white culture of the south.

And what about the failed black culture of Baltimore? Is that anything to be proud of? Is lawlessness a proud badge to wear?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 19, 2015, 08:47:02 am

I honestly have nothing other than just sadness once again that we have to peer into the abyss of the depraved violence that we do to each other and the nexus of a just gaping racial wound that will not heal, yet we pretend doesn’t exist.

And I’m confident, though, that by acknowledging it, by staring into that and seeing it for what it is, we still won’t do jack s—. Yeah. That’s us.

And that’s the part that blows my mind. I don’t want to get into the political argument of the guns and things. But what blows my mind is the disparity of response between when we think people that are foreign are going to kill us and us killing ourselves.

If this had been what we thought was Islamic terrorism, it would fit into our — we invaded two countries and spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives and now fly unmanned death machines over five or six different countries, all to keep Americans safe. We got to do whatever we can. We’ll torture people. We gotta do whatever we can to keep Americans safe.

Nine people shot in a church. What about that? “Hey, what are you gonna do? Crazy is as crazy is, right?” That’s the part that I cannot, for the life of me, wrap my head around, and you know it. You know that it’s going to go down the same path. “This is a terrible tragedy.” They’re already using the nuanced language of lack of effort for this. This is a terrorist attack. This is a violent attack on the Emanuel Church in South Carolina, which is a symbol for the black community. It has stood in that part of Charleston for 100 and some years and has been attacked viciously many times, as many black churches have.

I heard someone on the news say “Tragedy has visited this church.” This wasn’t a tornado. This was a racist. This was a guy with a Rhodesia badge on his sweater. You know, so the idea that — you know, I hate to even use this pun, but this one is black and white. There’s no nuance here.

And we’re going to keep pretending like, “I don’t get it. What happened? This one guy lost his mind.” But we are steeped in that culture in this country and we refuse to recognize it, and I cannot believe how hard people are working to discount it.

In South Carolina, the roads that black people drive on are named for Confederate generals who fought to keep black people from being able to drive freely on that road. That’s insanity. That’s racial wallpaper. That’s — that’s — you can’t allow that, you know.

Nine people were shot in a black church by a white guy who hated them, who wanted to start some kind of civil war. The Confederate flag flies over South Carolina, and the roads are named for Confederate generals, and the white guy’s the one who feels like his country is being taken away from him.

We’re bringing it on ourselves. And that’s the thing. Al-Qaeda, all those guys, ISIS, they’re not s— compared to the damage that we can apparently do to ourselves on a regular basis.

So our guest tonight is an incredible person who suffered unspeakable violence by extremists, and her perseverance and determination through that to continue on is an incredible inspiration. And to be quite honest with you, I don’t think there’s anyone else in the world I would rather talk to tonight than Malala. So that’s what we’re going to do. And sorry about no jokes.

--Jon Stewart last night.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on June 19, 2015, 09:07:19 am

If one of those members had been a legal ccl, they might have put an end to the situation before so many lives were lost.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 19, 2015, 09:11:27 am

and isfullofit

Your left with the moral equivalency of comparing the police murder of an unarmed/illegal arrest of an African-American person to the heinous murder of 9 people at a church by a racist.

That's what you want?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 19, 2015, 09:12:03 am

What happened in S. Carolina is tragic, not because they were BLACK, because they were people that lost their lives. People that had family's, a story, people just like the rest of us, that's the tragedy.. The rest is all bullshit, yes, the kid was a racist, so are some people of color. We've had our share of black on white crime here in our area, so I really don't want to hear it.

I wish I could hear what these people would've thought about someone like otto, I have a good idea..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 19, 2015, 09:13:53 am

So scared are you little white people.

Yeah navNRA, those people praying at their church committed suicide.


Pathetic

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 19, 2015, 09:14:20 am

So otto, what's your solution to the big race issue?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 19, 2015, 09:15:05 am

So scared are you little white people.

Aren't you white?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 19, 2015, 09:50:56 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 19, 2015, 09:11:27 am

and isfullofit

Your left with the moral equivalency of comparing the police murder of an unarmed/illegal arrest of an African-American person to the heinous murder of 9 people at a church by a racist.

That's what you want?

What I want is you to answer the questions I asked. But you refuse to answer other questions to you by other posters.

Yes, it is a tragic situation that happened. Its horrible that there are racists in this country whether white racists or black racists like you. You are anti this and anti that. And the ironic thing about this whole tragedy is if that were a white church by a black man you would be cheering because you really hate Christians.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 19, 2015, 11:51:07 am

Homo is like the white girl in Seattle who decided to be black.  Of like Jackie, who blames the entire world, (except for himself, of course) for doing what he has been doing all his life.

By the way, NBC has found the perfect solution to their problems with Bryan Williams and the lies he tells.  Just move him over to MSNBC, where guys like Al Sharpton are honored for their lies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 19, 2015, 12:06:13 pm

The shooting of nine people for no other reason than because they were black is certainly an instance of "Radical White terrorism"  The difference between that and Radical Muslim terrorism, of course, is that 99 percent of whites decry the act and believe that the terrorist should be punished.  The opposite is true for Radical Muslim Terrorism, where the majority not only accept it, but try to either deny or justify it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 19, 2015, 12:30:02 pm

Just move him over to MSNBC, where guys like Al Sharpton are honored for their lies.

I saw that. The only reason is they're trying to get something out of him since they just gave him a big payday. They also made it official that Lester Holt is taking over as anchor, I like him about as much as I did Williams..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 19, 2015, 12:30:45 pm

The opposite is true for Radical Muslim Terrorism, where the majority not only accept it, but try to either deny or justify it.

So true!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 19, 2015, 05:24:21 pm

                                                                                                                                                           You may recall that a few weeks ago, President Obama spoke of three former Presidents making prisoner swaps at the end of wars that took place on their watch, "much like this swap" he said convincingly.   CNN carried this quote, "This is what happens at the end of wars." President Barack Obama boasted Tuesday when he was asked about swapping American Army Sgt. Deserter for five vicious Taliban terrorists. "That was true for George Washington...That was true for Abraham Lincoln and that was true for FDR.  That’s been true of every combat situation, that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back... And that’s the right thing to do.   

 

Really? That statement blatantly demonstrates that the most powerful man in the World and two term President of the United States lacks even a grade  school level of knowledge of American History; specifically, history as it relates to three of our most famous presidents and it demonstrates again that we have essentially elected a foreigner who has no understanding of  the very country that he reigns supreme over.   Then again, he was educated at an Ivy League school so you can't expect too much. What's wrong with his statements? Let's keep it simple-- EVERYTHING is wrong!

   

1.     George Washington did not become president until six years after the Revolutionary War ended in 1783. By 1789 there were no longer any prisoners for him to exchange.

   

 2.  Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in mid-April of 1865. The Civil War ended the following month. He was still dead at that time. No deals were made to exchange prisoners after the war. All prisoners were simply freed.

   

3.  FDR died of a stroke before the end of WWII. Like Lincoln, he stayed dead after the war so he couldn't do what this jerk says he did. You'll recall that Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, ending World War II.  He made no deals for prisoners.  We went in and released them when necessary.   

4.  None of the Presidents that Obama noted were in office at the ends of those wars, making it impossible for them to make any sort of prisoner swaps, let alone the 5 for 1, plus unspecified cash, for a deserter and traitor by our "57 States" president.

   

5.  It should be pointed out that countless deserters and traitors were shot or hung during all three of the aforementioned wars.   What amazes one even more than the ignorance of the President is that he has managed to surround himself with a staff that is just as clueless? ... or willing, as the media are, to cover for his dumb, lying rhetoric and behavior!   

 

P.S. Obama mentioned while being interviewed on Super Bowl Sunday while in the Whitehouse kitchen, that George Washington drank beer in the White House when he was president .   George Washington never lived in the White House; it wasn't built yet.         
 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 19, 2015, 06:23:05 pm

Percent
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on June 19, 2015

While Hillary still has a big lead over the rest of the Democratic field, she is trending rapidly towards that dangerous territory -- below the vital 50% threshold.  Given the weakness and lack of funding for her Democratic opposition, it is tremendously significant that about half of the party's primary voters in key early states do not vote for her.

In Iowa, the first contest, she has slipped from 60% on May 7 in the Quinnipiac poll to only 54% in the June 15th Morning Consult survey.  That means, of course, that 46% of the likely Iowa caucus goers choose not to back her at this stage.

In New Hampshire, the drop is even greater.  The Bloomberg/St. Anselm Poll of May 10th gave Hillary 62% of the vote among likely primary voters.  But the June 15th Morning Consult poll has her down to 44% of the vote.  In the Granite State, which powered her 2008 recovery from her Iowa defeat, 56% of the voters won't back her candidacy. Now that's very significant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 20, 2015, 02:05:29 am

 

Quote from: davep on June 19, 2015, 11:51:07 am

Homo is like the white girl in Seattle who decided to be black.  Of like Jackie, who blames the entire world, (except for himself, of course) for doing what he has been doing all his life.

By the way, NBC has found the perfect solution to their problems with Bryan Williams and the lies he tells.  Just move him over to MSNBC, where guys like Al Sharpton are honored for their lies.

Got under your skin didn't I?


 Dave, Who was the guy that got on the train in Long Island that started blasting away at the passengers ?


 I only remember this because when he came to So. CAL. to buy his gun, he hung out


 in a motel a few blocks from my parents house.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 20, 2015, 07:30:03 am

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/06/20/al-qaeda-points-finger-at-isis-after-us-drone-strikes-take-out-key-operatives/

“ISIS was even once affiliated with Al Qaeda, having been previously known as Al Qaeda in Iraq," Boot wrote. "But now they are deadly rivals. Like Apple and Samsung or Adidas and Nike, Al Qaeda and ISIS are locked in a battle for market share. Those companies compete by bringing to market better products. So do terrorist organizations, only their ‘products’ are high-profile atrocities.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 20, 2015, 10:43:03 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on June 20, 2015, 02:05:29 am

  Got under your skin didn't I?

To the same extent that I get under yours when I call you on your drug induced fantasies.  I don't expect anything from Homo because he is a fool.  I don't think you are a fool, so it bothers me when you go out of your way to act like one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 09:56:50 pm

Quote from: davep on June 20, 2015, 10:43:03 am

To the same extent that I get under yours when I call you on your drug induced fantasies.

So you call him out after all of his posts?  I don'teven know if his posts are drug induced.  Assuming there has been no change in them since I stopped reading them, they seemed more like deliberate incoherence than drugged-out rambling.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 20, 2015, 09:59:36 pm

The fact that they seem to get more incoherent on the weekends causes me to think they are drug induced.  Plus, I like to give the benefit of the doubt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 10:03:25 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on June 19, 2015, 12:30:45 pm

The opposite is true for Radical Muslim Terrorism, where the majority not only accept it, but try to either deny or justify it.

So true!

And you base that on what?  Meaningful and valid public opinion polling?  Your ability to simply divine things thru the air?  Your personal familiarity wit all of the world's Muslim population?  Knowledge of a small handful of Muslims from whom you want to extrapolate how all Muslimms react?  Or is it simply because that is the way you WANT it to be. since that would help to excuse or justify your attitude toward Islam in general?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 10:05:17 pm

Quote from: packrat on June 19, 2015, 05:24:21 pm

  2.  Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in mid-April of 1865. The Civil War ended the following month. He was still dead at that time. No deals were made to exchange prisoners after the war. All prisoners were simply freed.

While I agree entirely with the central point of the post, most historians consider the war to have ended when Lee surrendered at Appomatox.  Lincoln's assassination was six days later.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 10:14:14 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 19, 2015, 09:50:56 am

What I want is you to answer the questions I asked. But you refuse to answer other questions to you by other posters.

Holy ****, WshflThinking, were your questions serious?

Here are the last questions you posed to otto:

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 19, 2015, 06:56:10 am

And what about the failed black culture of Baltimore? Is that anything to be proud of? Is lawlessness a proud badge to wear?

Were those actually intened to be serious questions intended to advance a discussion?

The first question, "what about...." sounds more like an excerpt from a standup comic's routine.  Just what is it that you expect a person to address when your question amounts to, "What about (whatever it is you want to discuss)"?

The second question, whether "that (is) anything to be proud of," would appear to be nothing other than rhetorical and also is entirely out of context if anything otto had been discussing.

The third question, about whether something was a "proud badge to wear," simply makes no sense in the context of the discussion.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 19, 2015, 09:50:56 am

And the ironic thing about this whole tragedy is if that were a white church by a black man you would be cheering because you really hate Christians.

It's truly sad that you genuinely appear serious.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 10:16:24 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on June 19, 2015, 09:12:03 am

What happened in S. Carolina is tragic, not because they were BLACK, because they were people that lost their lives. People that had family's, a story, people just like the rest of us, that's the tragedy.. The rest is all bullshit, yes, the kid was a racist, so are some people of color. We've had our share of black on white crime here in our area, so I really don't want to hear it.

Did any of that racist black on white crime kill nine people at one time, with one of then a true community leader?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 10:18:56 pm

Quote from: davep on June 20, 2015, 09:59:36 pm

The fact that they seem to get more incoherent on the weekends causes me to think they are drug induced.  Plus, I like to give the benefit of the doubt.

If there are actual degrees of incoherence in his posts (and I am not arguing that observation), you may be right.  I simply never looked at them closely enough to attempt ranking them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 10:25:15 pm

(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1533864_497988087027221_5698834871604250370_n.jpg?oh=6bfffecde77f6f0d635700f6a9dd5c7e&oe=56270027)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 20, 2015, 10:27:26 pm

JJ's posts do seem more off the deep end on weekends. Oh and alcohol IS a drug.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 21, 2015, 04:49:31 am

 

Quote from: davep on June 20, 2015, 10:43:03 am

To the same extent that I get under yours when I call you on your drug induced fantasies.  I don't expect anything from Homo because he is a fool.  I don't think you are a fool, so it bothers me when you go out of your way to act like one.

 [/size]

Quote from: packrat on June 19, 2015, 06:23:05 pm

 [/size]

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 09:56:50 pm

So you call him out after all of his posts?  I don'teven know if his posts are drug induced.  Assuming there has been no change in them since I stopped reading them, they seemed more like deliberate incoherence than drugged-out rambling.

 [/size]

Quote from: davep on June 20, 2015, 09:59:36 pm

The fact that they seem to get more incoherent on the weekends causes me to think they are drug induced.  Plus, I like to give the benefit of the doubt.

 [/size]

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 20, 2015, 10:18:56 pm

If there are actual degrees of incoherence in his posts (and I am not arguing that observation), you may be right.  I simply never looked at them closely enough to attempt ranking them.

 JJ's posts do seem more off the deep end on weekends. Oh and alcohol IS a drug.

 What is love like between Beard and Dave ,when the mutual discussion is the love of Jackiejokeman ?


 I understand those feelings you have for me ... and I cant blame you.


 MMMMMMMMMMM...Dave god the inside of your thighs feel like warm toast.


 Jes ... you know when you wear those nylons I'm a sucker to mount you doggie style.


 I think you have the tightest ass there is. Many others have said the same thing.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 21, 2015, 05:31:53 am

Federal judge orders IRS to court

http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-judge-orders-irs-to-court

So there is no White House scandal. The IRS is as white as snow. This is getting more interesting. I have hoped to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully we get to play pin the tail on the donkey yet.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 21, 2015, 05:45:55 am

Hillary/State Dept. under gun of federal court scrutiny 

http://www.examiner.com/article/hillary-state-dept-under-gun-of-federal-court-scrutiny

And scandalous Hilary too? Wow! Who would have imagined.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2015, 06:48:17 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 21, 2015, 05:31:53 am

Federal judge orders IRS to court   http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-judge-orders-irs-to-court
So there is no White House scandal. The IRS is as white as snow. This is getting more interesting. I have hoped to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully we get to play pin the tail on the donkey yet.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 21, 2015, 05:45:55 am

Hillary/State Dept. under gun of federal court scrutiny 
http://www.examiner.com/article/hillary-state-dept-under-gun-of-federal-court-scrutiny
And scandalous Hilary too? Wow! Who would have imagined.

examiner.com has absolutely no credibility as a news source.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 21, 2015, 11:41:57 am

The examiner is reporting news from Judicial Watch.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 21, 2015, 12:09:28 pm

I see the death penalty is being talked about in Charleston. Here, we had a police captain (white) abducted by 5 gang members (black). Held captive for several days then beat to death. Holder swooped in and took the death penalty off the table... It will be interesting to see how this all plays out (in Charleston)..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2015, 12:46:33 pm

Quote from: davebear on June 21, 2015, 11:41:57 am

The examiner is reporting news from Judicial Watch.

The examiner.com is the website at issue.  The have no credibility.  Who they attribute things to is irrelevat on the issue of whether they have any credibility.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 21, 2015, 12:51:30 pm

Wshful ws posting about the story not the websie.

If you have some information the content is not factual let us know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2015, 12:52:57 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on June 21, 2015, 12:09:28 pm

I see the death penalty is being talked about in Charleston. Here, we had a police captain (white) abducted by 5 gang members (black). Held captive for several days then beat to death. Holder swooped in and took the death penalty off the table... It will be interesting to see how this all plays out (in Charleston)..

Sorry, chifaninva, but you are either mistaken, or mis-stating what happened, unless that murder happened to have taken place on federal land.  IF it took place on federal land, then it would be a federal crime and it would have been the federal government's (Holder's) call as to whether to pursue the dealth penalty, and not the state's decision.

If it did NOT happen on federal land, then it would be a state crime, and even if the Department of Justice also pursued the matter as a federal crime, that would not prevent prosecution under state law, nor would it prevent the state from pursuing the dealth penalty or carrying it out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 21, 2015, 04:46:25 pm

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/death-penalty-off-the-table-in-quick-case/article_8514c2ba-6c5f-11e4-9a65-77fdc32e2a8a.html

I could easily be missing something. I was surprised when I heard Holder had anything to do with this. They do mention federal court. I didn't think he was killed on federal land...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 21, 2015, 04:48:27 pm

And, I said 5 gang members, the article mentions 4. Pretty sure there is a black female involved as well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 21, 2015, 05:21:21 pm

There is no doubt that they are being tried in Federal Court, but like most news reporting, not one of the articles I have read explain why they are not being tried in state court.

One possibility is that he was kidnapped before he was killed.  Do the Feds have jurisdiction in kidnapping cases?  There is no indication that he was brought across state lines.

Another possibility is that they are also going to be tried in state court, but if so, there is no mention of it in the four articles I read.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2015, 06:29:44 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on June 21, 2015, 04:46:25 pm

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/death-penalty-off-the-table-in-quick-case/article_8514c2ba-6c5f-11e4-9a65-77fdc32e2a8a.html

I could easily be missing something. I was surprised when I heard Holder had anything to do with this. They do mention federal court. I didn't think he was killed on federal land...

I was in the process of responding, much as davep just did, when my computer insisted I reboot.

The link you provided makes clear that the charges were in federal court, and that they were in connection with a police officer's death, but it fails to mention even what the most serious charges were, or which ones had faced the death penalty, or for what, or why the case was in federal court, or if there were any state charges.

From a variety of other sites I habe been able to gather the following: there were six defendants, at least two of them women, it appears four faced the death penalty (the ones actually involved in the murder), the others were charged at the same time because the primary federal charge was not the murder, but instead federal racketeering, with a total of 36 counts involved, the judge declared a mistrial for all defendants just more than a month ago.  New trials do not yet appear to be rescheduled.

None of the sites addressed the questions of why the case was being brought in federal court instead of state court.  In all probability one of the reasons for that is that the reporters didn't understand it themselves.

The bottom line is that the state could still prosecute them for the murders, AND pursue the death penalty, without any double jeopardy problem, the concept being that it would not be being tried twice for the same charge since the trials would be conducted by different soverns and different statutes.  I never liked that idea when I was practicing criminal law, and still don't, but that is the way the law is, and if VA still wants to try them and pursue the death penalty, it could.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 21, 2015, 06:32:55 pm

Isn't kidnapping a federal crime, regardless of whether state lines are crossed or not?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 21, 2015, 06:40:12 pm

I don't know.  It shouldn't be.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2015, 07:37:57 pm

No.  They have to cross state lines.  The presumption is that they have crossed state lines before they are caught in order to allow the FBI to get immediately involved without any need for proof that they have.  But kidnapping does not carry the death penalty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2015, 07:40:52 pm

Quote from: davep on June 21, 2015, 06:40:12 pm

I don't know.  It shouldn't be.

Why SHOULD it be?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 22, 2015, 02:05:18 am

 A couple of posts from JJ and Dave & Beard are back to normal. ;)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 22, 2015, 04:14:11 am

 Concerning education ...


 how do you take a planet of smart/cell phones ...


 and educate your kids through them ?


 They want Tayler Swift and Jayzee ...


 Justin Beiber who is like yesterdays news ...


 in between of those ... how can we put an education into the media they depend on ?


 Because this is where the kids are at. How do we educate them ?


 Here's the pisser ... texting is a truncated form of spelling ...


 is it also at the same time ... the future of spelling ?


 REMEMBER THIS : This isn't happening in the UNITED STATES ...


 this is a world wide phenomenon.


 PEOPLE are talking to one another in a STREAMLINED ENGLISH.


 Called Texting.


 Just thank your lucky stars it wasn't CHINESE with 4000 Characters !  ;D


 WHAT TIME IS IT ? The World agrees on a time schedule.


 WHAT"S THE NUMBER ON THAT JAPANESE BATTLE CRUISER ?


 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


 The WORLD agrees on NUMBERS.


 Holy ****! INCH ? The rest of the PLANET is on METRICS !


 I never said we were perfect.


 A PILOT takes off from CHINA heading to RUSSIA with passengers aboard ...


 you think at some point in time he switch's from speaking CHINESE to RUSSIAN ?


 NOPE. He's speaking ENGLISH the whole way.


 Just as every ships captain on the high seas does.


 Wanna know why we have WORLD trade ?


 Because we've come to a common cause of COMMUNICATION with one another.


 Works every mother **** time.


 You know your great great grandparents figured this out ... WHY?


 Because they LIKE TO MAKE MONEY MOTHERFUCKERS !!


 It's a funny thing about money when you have it ...


 lottsa money ... lottsa lottsa money ... being Paris Hilton ...


 **** your way to oblivion while being stoned the whole time ...


 you never had to lift a finger to wash a dish.


 This is your goal ... this is your dream ... HOWEVER ...


 before you were able to achieve it ...


 Somebody stepped in and took your net worth away !


 Phhht ! Gone ! Everything you had worked for for your entire life ...


 somebody removed what you worked for and transferred it to their balance account.


 So now you are kind of like stunned that everything you worked for just got stripped


 from you.


 You have to ask yourself ... THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?


 You **** turn on your own that spent their whole life building you ?


 Because you want to make a buck in CHINA ?


 Where's your moral's and patriotism at ?  >:(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 22, 2015, 09:31:51 pm

 A NUT killed nine people ...


 obviously it was due to two things ...


 a handgun ... a confederate flag ...


 but where was that confederate flag mounted at ?


 On the front of a BLACK HYUNDAI ELANTRA.


 My argument is simple ... The Hyundai caused the crime.


 Your argument will be that a gun or a confederate flag caused the crime.


 Where we will meet at is an individual NUT caused the crime.


 After the emotion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 22, 2015, 09:53:52 pm

June 19, 2015 by Craig Rucker, 8 Comments

The Vatican released Pope Francis’s long-awaited encyclical yesterday.

Its take on global warming represents Rome’s greatest scientific blunder since Galileo was tried in 1633 “for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world.”

CFACT’s Marc Morano has been covering the details of this story as they break. He has already been quoted by a number of leading news outlets, including The New York Times, UK Guardian, Washington Times, UK Daily Mail, and Los Angeles Times, among others. You can watch his interview from earlier this week on FOX Business Network’s “Varney & Co.” here.

Morano at vaticanIn April, Marc joined a delegation of climate skeptics at a global warming conference in Rome. As we reported at the time, the questions and hard facts they raised truly stole the warming campaign’s thunder.

Marc had this to say about the Pope’s encyclical after its release: “The papal encyclical, no matter how nuanced it may read, will simply be used as a tool to support UN global warming ‘solutions’ that are at odds with most Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion, contraception, overpopulation, and helping the poor nations develop. The Vatican appears to be taking an unprecedented step by seemingly endorsing a specific UN climate treaty.”

Amazingly, the Vatican’s refusal to consider the mountains of scientific data that challenge the UN’s dogma on climate makes the comparison with Galileo’s trial remarkably apt. Books were burned and consideration of the heliocentric theory of the solar system banned. Today, for global warming pressure groups, censorship is a first resort.

Frustrated by the Church’s deliberate blindness to the facts revealed by telescopes about astronomy, Galileo wrote to Johannes Kepler, “what do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.”

Is it modern-day heresy to point out that the UN’s climate computer models galileoproject a warmer world than satellite observations record? That these satellites can find no meaningful global warming since the 1990’s? That the weather is historically normal and the incredibly painful and expensive “solutions” the UN prescribes would have very little impact on the climate, even if the UN’s models were correct?

In advocating for a UN global warming treaty, the Vatican has aligned the Church with radical secular leftists who despise traditional Catholic values and teachings. Indeed, yesterday’s Los Angeles Times quoted Morano as saying, “The irony is that the people who are lauding the pope’s position on climate disagree with just about everything else he stands for.”

A Pew research study reports that only 47 percent of U.S. Catholics believe that human activity is the main cause of the slight warming that occurred last century. If the Vatican veers off the path of sound science and continues down the global warming campaign’s slippery propaganda slope it risks alienating educated Catholics everywhere.

This is a sad development. Those in the Vatican need to reassess the facts.

We’ll keep on presenting the facts in the hope that they do.

- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/06/19/the-vaticans-global-warming-mistake/#sthash.
Pope Francis’s Climate Encyclical: Help Poor People by Dismantling Industrial Civilization
by Myron Ebell on June 19, 2015

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 22, 2015, 10:16:26 pm

Mark's Market Blog
6-21-15: It's still all Greece.
by Mark Lawrence
The S&P and Dow continue to flirt with support lines and the 200 day moving average. They won't cross over into bearish territory, but they won't go on a sustained bullish drive either. Money is fleeing bonds at a near record rate, and that will be reflected in stocks in a short time. It appears to be far from time to be seriously bullish. Uncertainty over Greece and Europe bonds continue to be the main driving force in this market, but if Korea and China start looking like they're heading into recession that's going to have a big affect.
 
S&P 500 December 22 2014 to June 19 2015
IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard wrote about Greece in his blog, "We believe that even the lower new target cannot be credibly achieved without a comprehensive reform of the VAT — involving a widening of its base — and a further adjustment of pensions. Why insist on pensions? Pensions and wages account for about 75% of primary spending; the other 25% have already been cut to the bone. Pension expenditures account for over 16% of GDP, and transfers from the budget to the pension system are close to 10% of GDP." German lawmakers are now for the first time ever openly talking about a grexit. It's clear that EU bureaucrats want to build a political union including cross border payments, and before that can happen Germany wants to make clear that no one is going to get paid by German workers to retire 13 years earlier than the Germans do. Mostly my sympathies lie with Greece, which, as I see it, has been seduced by the EU and the ECB to live beyond their means; however I must admit that allowing most citizens to retire on government guaranteed pensions in their 50s is what Warren Buffet is talking about when he says "You can't vote yourself rich." And it's what Margaret Thatcher was talking about when she said, "They always run out of other people's money."

The Greek central bank warned this week that "Failure to reach an agreement would, on the contrary, mark the beginning of a painful course that would lead initially to a Greek default and ultimately to the country's exit from the euro area and – most likely – from the European Union. A manageable debt crisis, as the one that we are currently addressing with the help of our partners, would snowball into an uncontrollable crisis, with great risks for the banking system and financial stability. An exit from the euro would only compound the already adverse environment, as the ensuing acute exchange rate crisis would send inflation soaring. All this would imply deep recession, a dramatic decline in income levels, an exponential rise in unemployment and a collapse of all that the Greek economy has achieved over the years of its EU, and especially its euro area, membership. From its position as a core member of Europe, Greece would see itself relegated to the rank of a poor country in the European South."

Is this the month Greece becomes a failed state? I don't know. There's still time for some emergency deal to punt the major issues out a month or two. But all that's being talked about right now is enough money to keep Greece going for couple more months of negotiation. It's just believable that somehow a settlement to the current impasse will be found in the next ten days. I don't find it believable that a long term accommodation can be reached. Sometime this year, maybe this week, maybe in five months, Greece's banks are going to implode and then things are going to get really messy.

The world is floating in oil. Saudi Arabia and Russia are pumping at record levels; the US has not really cut back since prices fell. Surpluses are building up all over. If Obama and Iran sign a treaty (understanding? letter? napkin?) and Iran regains access to world oil markets, it's hard to see how oil prices can hold up. Saudi Arabia means to drive the US and Canada out of the oil business. This will be very hard on Canada - they're experiencing a bubble in real estate and worker pay from their oil, and this looks to end badly. That said, I'm for it: let's burn up Saudi oil at cheap prices and leave ours in the ground, so that our grandchildren inherit something besides just $15 trillion in debt.

Container shipping, the canary in the coal mine for trade, is in serious trouble. Carriers are currently losing about $50 per container and are expecting heavy losses for the rest of the year. Is China heading for a recession? It's very hard to tell from official statistics, which almost no one believes, but container prices and volume tell a clear story that's easy to read: China is in trouble. It's been estimated that China has had $6.9 trillion in wasted debt / investment in the last five years; no one overcomes that easily.


Canada, living with what really looks like a serious real estate bubble and growing unemployment due to the drop in oil prices, now seems to also be entering a recession. Manufacturing has been dropping for about a year and inventories are building up to unsustainable levels, meaning orders will drop and manufacturing has further to fall. I think Canada is in for some rough times in the immediate future.


Auto insurance is a $33 billion per year business, but the Bank of England says that may all be over soon. Driverless cars don't make the stupid mistakes people do

Since Fukushima Japan has cut back severely on their use of nuclear energy. This is becoming a problem for the world. Japan had based their nuclear power on burning left over plutonium from other countries, thereby helping clean up the waste from other countries nuclear reactors and getting cheap nuclear fuel for themselves. Now that they're no longer doing so much of that plutonium is building up in the world. There is 16 tons of plutonium sitting in France waiting to be purchased by Japanese who no longer want it. There was an additional 20 tons sitting in the UK but the UK offered to take the plutonium back and use it themselves. This stuff would be great for making all sorts of nasty bombs and really is not the sort of thing you want laying around.

Texas is creating their own Fort Knox. The Texan government owns about a billion dollars worth of gold, and they've decided they no longer trust the New York fed and various Wall Street banks to look after it for them. The new depository will not just be a well- guarded warehouse for their bullion. The law Gov. Abbott signed calls for the creation of an electronic payments system that will allow gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and rhodium depositors to write checks against their accounts, making the depository into a bank – one that will create a metal-backed money supply intended to challenge the paper currency issued by the Federal Reserve. And in case the Fed or Obama wants to confiscate Texas's gold, the new law also explicitly declares that no "governmental or quasi- governmental authority other than an authority of [Texas]" will be allowed to confiscate or freeze an account inside the depository. Gold that's entrusted to Texas will stay in Texas.

Boeing has had a great week, taking orders at the Paris air show for 172 737s worth about $18 billion, and 20 747s worth about $7 billion. There are only about 55 747 orders on book right now and the future of the 747 is uncertain.

Nearly a million union workers have had their pensions cut this week by the Obama administration. The Teamsters plan was running out of money, and the government preferred a negotiated cut in benefits to having the plan go bankrupt and dumped on the Federal Pension Guarantee program. Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey and Kentucky should take note. And if the tech bubble collapses, California should too.

Fifty years ago we were told that poverty was simply caused by lack of money, especially for young children, so if we just gave money to mothers everything would be better. Now 73% of black children are born out of wedlock and there are basically no black fathers. Forty years ago we were told that the problem for blacks was substandard schooling, so we got busing and forced school integration. Didn't work. Sorry, liberals, bad guess. Twenty five years ago we were told the problem was home ownership and racist policies by banks, so we got zero-down mortgages based on unchecked income. Didn't work, almost brought down the entire economy. Another bad guess. Now we have a new guess: it's a lack of access to good jobs. Baltimore is considering a $2.9 billion light rail project to help inner city residents gain access to other parts of the city so that they can get good jobs outside their burned and devastated neighborhoods. 'Cause the rioters only need access to Woodlawn's Medicare and Social Security offices and Bayview's Johns Hopkins medical center, then they'll all be making $80,000, join the middle class, and quit rioting 'cause they're too busy mowing their lawns and inviting neighbor kids over for pool parties. Meanwhile, it was the Maryland NAACP that found three years ago that every welfare dollar that entered Maryland resulted in $2.34 of crime, and a 50% increase in AFDC led to a 43% increase in out of wedlock births, but that report is being profoundly ignored. Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize winning economist who invented monetarism said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." In my experience liberals are profoundly disinterested in results, and blacks are oblivious to the damage done to their families, children and communities by well-intentioned liberals.

Retail is dying - Sears, JC Penney, Gap, Macy's and others are all shrinking. What's replacing them? Technology stores like Verizon, Apple, Microsoft, Tesla. Small medical clinics. Gyms. That's what occupies the mall of the future. And I believe as long as there's women there will be shoe stores.

We live in a world that's growing more and more statistically unlikely. There are 67 billionaires in the world who jointly control just over half the world's wealth. If money was votes, each one of these guys, on average, counts as 100 million people. Obviously these guys have unprecedented power in political circles and with the media - they own most of the politicians and media companies. This is not surprising to good economists - it's well known that capitalism is unstable and a few wind up with almost all the wealth. Another failing of modern capitalism is the destruction of the planet, as there's rarely a price put on ecological destruction. Half of all the wild animals on Earth have disappeared since 1970, according to a major WWF study. On our current trajectory, within the next three or four decades most of what remains of the natural world will quite literally have been wiped off the face of the planet. This generation of humans is both living through and the driving force behind the greatest global mass extinction event in at least the last 50 million years. This week Pope Francis spoke out against capitalism, saying that the trickle down theory is a failed theory. The Pope wrote, "The attitudes hindering the path towards a solution. . . go from negating the problem to indifference, to an easy resignation, or to blind faith in technical solutions." He also dismissed 'market fixes' such as carbon credits, pointing out that these most likely "give rise to new forms of speculation." I'm a conservative and I'm not a big fan of government handouts, but imho the rise of unchecked influence of a handful of billionaires is the biggest social, political and economic threat in the world today.

Bonus picture, offered without comment:


There's a new talking Barbie. Your child (grandchild?) can talk to the Barbie and she answers back. Sample conversation: child: "Welcome to New York, Barbie." Hello Barbie responded: "I love New York! Don't you? Tell me, what's your favorite part about the city? The food, fashion, or the sights?" How does it work? Like the microphone button on your smart phone. The child's speech is recorded and sent out over the internet for analysis. A response is generated and sent back to the doll, who speaks it. Your child's speech is kept in memory on a server somewhere - the excuse is so that the servers can get better at recognizing your child's speech. ToyTalk, the company that makes this all happen, says keeping these recordings will also make future toys better. These policies violate the surveillance holy trinity: 1) They're pervasive, starting to appear in all aspects of our lives. 2) They're persistent, capable of keeping records of what we've said indefinitely. 3) They process the data they collect, seeking to understand what people are saying and acting on what they're able to understand. What if you buy a Hello Barbie. If it overhears spousal or child abuse, should it call the police? If it catches one of your kids smoking dope, should you get a phone call? Who owns the Barbie, you or your kid? Are the records available to police? Will they need a warrant? Will they have to notify you if they get a warrant? What if your employer gets some talking barbies circuit boards and hides them inside everyone's computer? What if these recordings work their way into your credit score? I'm not happy about speech recognition going into toys. But then perhaps I'm just a fossil. Perhaps our phones have already been doing this for a couple of years without us noticing. It's the new normal.


Scientists in Britain looked at data from nearly 21,000 people who had their health monitored for more than 11 years. The top fifth of chocolate-eaters were 12 percent less likely to develop heart disease and 23 percent less likely to suffer a stroke compared to the bottom fifth of chocolate consumers.

Nota Bene

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 23, 2015, 07:06:08 pm

Can anyone explain to me why the giving Obama "fast track" authority on trade deals is a good thing?

The man has shown absolutely no ability to negotiate anything that helps this country.  Also why is the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty so damn secretive?  Why can't "we the people" know what is in it?

The RINO's are screwing us again.  Do they not realize that Obama will use this to "fundamentally transform" America by fast tracking deals that include gun control and other things that further his agenda?   

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 23, 2015, 07:21:15 pm

So many levels of general ignorance in the last post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 23, 2015, 07:29:16 pm

Quote

Can anyone explain to me why the giving Obama "fast track" authority on trade deals is a good thing?

Can you explain to anyone which trade deal that our President Barack Hussein Obama negotiated which has been bad?

BTW peoria warehouse guy almost all presidents are given fast track authority to negotiate trade deals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 23, 2015, 07:37:20 pm

Otto, Please tell me why we have to pass bills to see what is in them?  It is mind numbingly stupid to run the government this way unless of course they are wanting to pass stuff that is not good for the American people.   I am sure it is good for the rich donors of both partys as well for the politicians themselves but how does it help the average American?  It gives us no chance to voice our opinions to the politicians because we don't know what they are voting on.

Voters of both parties are being played.  The Democrats can claim they tried to help the unions out by stopping the bill but the Republicans had the votes.  The Republicans will say they are doing it to help business and the American worker.  In reality we are going to get the free trade agreement but it will have things in it that are terrible for the American worker.  As well as things that help Obama further his agenda.

The winners are the big donors of both parties, corporations the politicians and the losers are the rest of us. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 23, 2015, 07:39:10 pm

Well he couldn't keep our troops in Iraq.  Just couldn't get the deal done.

The Iranian nuclear deal is a cluster ****.  He released what five terrorists for a deserter.  Need I go on?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 23, 2015, 07:39:44 pm

Really? You mean authority to bypass Congress's approval? I really have never heard that license given the President of the US. The usual method is by a negotiating group I thought. I wouldn't trust this President to negotiate anything that benefitted America. I would trust him to screw America every time. I would expect any agreement to cost American jobs first of all. That seems to be his biggest desire in life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 23, 2015, 08:07:37 pm

Fast track does not give him the authority to bypass congress.  It just makes it much easier for him to get the deals he negotiates passed by congress.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 23, 2015, 08:52:18 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 23, 2015, 07:06:08 pm

Can anyone explain to me why the giving Obama "fast track" authority on trade deals is a good thing?

The man has shown absolutely no ability to negotiate anything that helps this country.  Also why is the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty so damn secretive?  Why can't "we the people" know what is in it?

The RINO's are screwing us again.  Do they not realize that Obama will use this to "fundamentally transform" America by fast tracking deals that include gun control and other things that further his agenda?   

The only way to get a trade agreement past the democrats in Congress is to prevent them from amending the bill to death.  This forces an up or down vote.

Anything that increases free trade between us and Asia is a good thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 23, 2015, 08:57:21 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 23, 2015, 07:39:44 pm

Really? You mean authority to bypass Congress's approval? I really have never heard that license given the President of the US. The usual method is by a negotiating group I thought. I wouldn't trust this President to negotiate anything that benefitted America. I would trust him to screw America every time. I would expect any agreement to cost American jobs first of all. That seems to be his biggest desire in life.

I don't understand your post.  Whatever agreement is reached has to be passed by Congress.  If it has a bad one, Congress can refuse to pass it.  In reality, the deal is already pretty much a done deal.  This is merely a way to prevent filibuster and death by amendment to help the unions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 23, 2015, 09:18:00 pm

Obama has an ulterior motive.  He is not going to screw the unions if he is not getting something he wants.  What he wants is not going to be good for conservatives or the United States.  He is an anti-colonialist.  He wants to redistribute wealth from the US to poorer nations.  He also wants gun control.

There is going to be a rather large poison pill in that trade agreement when it comes to congress.  I absolutely guarantee it.

He is setting the Republicans up again and they stupidly went along with it.   

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 23, 2015, 09:22:35 pm

I doubt it, but we will see.  The House can always vote against it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 23, 2015, 09:25:36 pm

Anything that increases free trade between us and Asia is a good thing.

I disagree. If it costs American jobs then its a bad thing

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 23, 2015, 10:36:02 pm

If it lowers prices to Americans, it is a good thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 24, 2015, 06:39:47 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 23, 2015, 07:29:16 pm

Can you explain to anyone which trade deal that our President Barack Hussein Obama negotiated which has been bad?.

otto, could YOU explain to anyone where Pekin even suggested that Obama had EVER negotiated ANY trade deal?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 24, 2015, 06:48:19 am

Quote from: davep on June 23, 2015, 08:52:18 pm

Anything that increases free trade between us and Asia is a good thing.

Without seeing what is in the bill first, no one has any idea whether the bill would or would not increase free trade.  And if free trade is increased, while other harmful provisions are also included, the increase in free trade may well not be worth it.  Merely because the name of the bill includes some reference to "free trade" or to anything else, does not mean that is what the bill will deliver -- look at the name of the ObamaCare legislation.  No bill should be passed like this, without any opportunity for the public, or even Congressional staffers, to read the damn thing in advance.  It is a recipe for mischief.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 24, 2015, 06:51:42 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 23, 2015, 09:25:36 pm

Anything that increases free trade between us and Asia is a good thing.

I disagree. If it costs American jobs then its a bad thing

Over the years farm equipment and factory automation have eliminated tens of millions of jobs.  And we are all better off for it.  The idea that if it "costs American jobs then it is a bad thing," is more than a bit over-simplified.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 24, 2015, 07:54:31 am

Increased unemployment and welfare offset by lower prices.

To each his own.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 24, 2015, 09:05:23 am

We need to put Americans to work not increase unemployment. And with all the illegals in this country it only makes the country worse

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 24, 2015, 10:42:10 am

Trade works both ways.  We not only buy things cheaply, but we also increase our exports, creating jobs in that sector.  If we eliminated both imports and exports, this country would be in a depression deeper than we have ever seen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 24, 2015, 10:50:25 am

We don't manufacture enough now except for airplanes and weapons. And that's depressing enough to have to say.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 24, 2015, 10:57:12 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 24, 2015, 10:50:25 am

We don't manufacture enough now except for airplanes and weapons. And that's depressing enough to have to say.

We produce more now than we ever have in the history of this country. We are the second largest manufacturing country in the world with about a 20% share of global production.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 24, 2015, 11:04:44 am

Tell that to the stores selling washers and dryers, stoves and refrigerators, shoes, clothing, radios, TV's.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 24, 2015, 12:53:52 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 24, 2015, 11:04:44 am

Tell that to the stores selling washers and dryers, stoves and refrigerators, shoes, clothing, radios, TV's.

The things being made might be different than in the past but it's a fact that we are producing more than ever.  Manufacturing employment is way down as automation and efficiency have improved.  In 2014, 189 people were able to produce as much as 1000 people could in 1960.  That trend is never going to reverse.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 24, 2015, 03:36:06 pm

We don't manufacture enough because it costs too much for us to manufacture a great many things.  A very small percentage of our population works in manufacturing, and most of those jobs entail much more than mere labor.  There is no reason why everyone else should pay more just to keep those few jobs in the country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 24, 2015, 04:33:28 pm

davepbart

Buy American or apply for Chinese Social Security & Medicare.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 24, 2015, 04:37:51 pm

Homo - it is conservatives that are supposed to be "protectionists".  But I am sure they will welcome you if you have finally seen the light.

By the way, people your age have as much chance of getting Chinese Social Security and Medicare as they have ever getting U. S. Social Security and Medicare, the way your idiots are pissing away the contributions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 24, 2015, 05:03:18 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 24, 2015, 09:05:23 am

We need to put Americans to work not increase unemployment. And with all the illegals in this country it only makes the country worse

This is a very common mistake, and it illustrates a big part of the misunderstanding on the issue.

The United States actually manufactures more things to day than 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 40 years ago or any time before that.  The aggregate value of what we manufacture is also greater today than in the past, both in real dollars and in inflation adjusted dollars.  And the value of what we manufacture per capita (total population, not just per capita of employees with manufacturing jobs).

But the number of manufacturing jobs is down.  We have automated the manufacturing process considerably over the years, and will continue to do so even more.

It is much the same as we see in agriculture.  We grow/produce more food products in this country than in the past, even as the number of farm workers required for that production has fallen.

And we as a society are much the better for this.

Quote from: davebear on June 24, 2015, 07:54:31 am

Increased unemployment and welfare offset by lower prices.

To each his own.

If you just want "full employment," ban things like all earth moving equipment, or using any tools larger than a teaspoon for the job.  And require ALL agricultural work to be by hand.

You will have full employment... and we will all be the worse for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 24, 2015, 05:17:32 pm

That's a great answer I'M impressed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 24, 2015, 05:55:04 pm

You would be impressed by a person turning on a light in a dark room.

Hooray for you.

Stop clapping.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 24, 2015, 05:57:06 pm

Homo doesn't like it when he thinks people don't listen to him.  But actually, almost everyone DOES listen to him.  He is the greatest source of humor on the board.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 24, 2015, 06:06:33 pm

A legislative proposal (a real one) which some here might support: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008%20%28Sodomy%29_0.pdf

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 24, 2015, 06:36:47 pm

Our Homo wouldnt

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 24, 2015, 06:38:40 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 24, 2015, 06:36:47 pm

Our Homo wouldnt

You might.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 24, 2015, 08:21:01 pm

 I read a science fiction story a few years back ...


 computerized machinery was running everything.


 Humans were living a life of leisure ... floating around outside of the Earth's orbit.


 Telling the machines what to do from a button control panel.


 Sending machines to do the heavy lifting.


 That Mankind had moved into the evolution of their machines ...


 that mankind could sit on their ass and push buttons ...


 and get paid for that while orbiting the Earth.


 Hey ... you have to get paid. Otherwise it's not going to happen.


 You still gotta get paid ... you still gotta buy diapers.


 If it's 100% automated ... you gotta make some money somewhere ...


 what is doing you're job you will be paid for.


 if not ... then you have just effective eliminated the AUDIENCE that you sell your product to.


 If that's the case ... then whats the point ?


 100% automation means ... whose gonna clean your kids diaper?


 In a 100% automated world ...


 whose going to stop your kid from being munched by a crocodile on your vacation trip to Africa ?


 You know how many crocodiles are wired into the Internet ?


 Well ... two that I know of.  ;)


 
 You can make a machine carve a wooden spoon ...


 but only a human can carve one with LOVE.


 Which is why my chicken noodle soup tastes better then your chicken noodle soup.


 It's not that hard to figure out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 24, 2015, 09:15:45 pm

You can change your own baby's diaper.  You do that anyway without being paid for it.

But as long as we are in a Science Fiction dream, we might as well dream that we invented robots to change the diapers.  That way, all we have to add is the love you talk about.

But on a more serious note, it is true that we are manufacturing more product today than in the past, but it is also true that we have fewer manufacturing jobs than in the past, as a percentage of the work force.  The few manufacturing jobs that we have eliminated have been replaced many times over with service jobs.  In the past, workers lost jobs in buggy whip factories, but many more took new jobs in automobile plants.  Currently, we have fewer workers making fewer widgets, but many more are working as programmers, bankers, actors and engineers than ever before.  And all these people are making livings in the service industries because our manufacturing plants are producing more per person that ever before.

There are always disruptions in work forces world wide.

At the time of the American Revolution, 98 percent of America (and the rest of the world) lived on farms.  It took 98 percent of the workers to feed themselves and the remaining 2 percent that were "manufacturing".  But in the 19th century, we started to mechanize farm work, more and more farmers moved into the cities, first, because they were no longer needed or wanted on farms, and second because those left on the farms could feed the displaced farmers that were moving into cities to manufacture goods that could be sold to the farmers (and themselves).  When we built the railroads across the "Great American Desert"  farm production became so large that prices declined world wide, causing grain prices to plummet in Europe, driving my ancestors in Holland as well as millions of others off their farms and across the sea to find work in America.

We lost millions of farm jobs, and they were replaced with manufacturing jobs.  We then lost millions of manufacturing jobs, and they were replaced with service jobs.  We are not replacing all sorts of jobs with new, technical jobs.  And each disruption ended up with a work force that was much wealthier, with much more free time than their predecessors.  I see no reason to think that will change.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 25, 2015, 08:00:27 am

Therein lies the problem we have.

There will always be a large segment of the population not suitable to higher education.  In the past they have worked those manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas.

The kid coming out of high school who had no aptitude or inclination for college could prosper in construction or manufacturing in the past.

Now those jobs are occupied by illegals/new immigrants or have moved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 25, 2015, 11:45:56 am

Quote from: davebear on June 25, 2015, 08:00:27 am

Therein lies the problem we have.

There will always be a large segment of the population not suitable to higher education.  In the past they have worked those manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas.

The kid coming out of high school who had no aptitude or inclination for college could prosper in construction or manufacturing in the past.

Now those jobs are occupied by illegals/new immigrants or have moved.

Spot on!! I'm a builder/General Contractor, I can tell you first hand that the work force in construction is terrible. People that don't know any better think it will be fine with the latinos taking over in the industry. I have several latino crews that do work for me, if there is anything out of the ordinary you better stay right there, cause they just don't have the skill nor the know how to deal with these situations. Most all are decent guys and hard workers but they have a different mindset. They'll come here, usually labor on a crew, and within 6 months to a year there starting their own business. I know I'm painting with a broad brush, but I've seen it over and over.

Basically a sector of our population is **** cause there are less and less decent jobs out there that aren't "white collar". Now, a 4 year college degree is little more than what a high school degree was 30 years ago. Now you have to go on and get a masters or a doctorate. Kids aren't done with school until they're almost 30 years old and easily have over $100k in debt. At 30, I had already been in business for 7 years, owned my own home and was starting a family. The media wants you to believe that young people don't want to own a house, that's bullshit, they simply cannot afford one with the student debt they're saddled with. Meanwhile at these universities you have professors making $250k a year, school administrators making 3-400,000 a year.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 25, 2015, 01:44:06 pm

Basically a sector of our population is -------- because they would rather sit at home and draw welfare than work at a job that is too difficult or beneath them.

If we made people "work" for their welfare, the construction field would be flooded with workers. 

I have a nephew that lived north of Minneapolis who drew unemployment for three years.  There were agriculture jobs available in the area paying 22 dollars an hour that he never considered because they weren't a "career".  When his unemployment finally expired, he got a job on a loading dock night shift within two weeks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 25, 2015, 03:33:39 pm

I've said for years that everyone should have to contribute, no free rides...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 25, 2015, 05:28:00 pm

Notice the source -- USA Today, not exactly part of "the vast right wing conspiracy."  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/24/presidential-policy-directives-form-secret-law/29235675/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 25, 2015, 05:39:42 pm

Jes, What are your thoughts on the Supreme Courts decision on the affordable care act today?

davep, davebaer your thoughts on the matter?

Or anyone else for that matter? 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 25, 2015, 06:09:10 pm

I believe they made the wrong decision

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 25, 2015, 06:55:04 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 25, 2015, 05:39:42 pm

Jes, What are your thoughts on the Supreme Courts decision on the affordable care act today?
davep, davebaer your thoughts on the matter?
Or anyone else for that matter?   

So far I haven't read it, and since I have no desire to throw up, I may not.  From what I have seen reported on it, I would srongly disagree with the reasoning the majority offered, but since Kennedy joined the liberal wing of the Court on this case, it is possible that Roberts cast his vote with that side solely for the purpose of being able to write the decision and minimize the damage by restricting the decision and writing as narrowly as possible.

Whatever the cause, since most voters even now oppose ObamaCare, the one possible good outcome from this is that the next year will bring its problems even more clearly to light and force the matter to be a major 2016 campaign issue, resulting in the defeat of even more of those members of Congress who supported it, and the helping elect a president wanting to repeal it outright.

The bill was always an economic disaster.  This decision may also make it a tremendous judicial disaster, too, if the new standard for reviewing legislation is whether there is any way a majority on the Court supporting the goals of any challenged legislation can alter the language which will make work a law which as drafted clearly would not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 25, 2015, 07:12:12 pm

I was hoping someone could explain to me why SCOTUS did not just make a joke of themselves.  Jes, you were my best hope.

This part of the law was not ambiguous.  It very clearly says the "state".  The Federal government is not in there.

It says the state can only run the exchanges in order for subsidies nine different times.  This was done on purpose for political reasons.  The Democrats wanted to force Republican governors to set up exchanges.  When they refused that is when the Federal government created them.

If SCOTUS can simply say words don't mean what they mean then the law and our constitution mean nothing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 25, 2015, 08:14:38 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 25, 2015, 07:12:12 pm

I was hoping someone could explain to me why SCOTUS did not just make a joke of themselves.  Jes, you were my best hope.

This part of the law was not ambiguous.  It very clearly says the "state".  The Federal government is not in there.

It says the state can only run the exchanges in order for subsidies nine different times.  This was done on purpose for political reasons.  The Democrats wanted to force Republican governors to set up exchanges.  When they refused that is when the Federal government created them.

If SCOTUS can simply say words don't mean what they mean then the law and our constitution mean nothing.

Actually, Pekin, I believe it was even WORSE than that.

1) The language at issue did not say "state," but "states."

2) The bill included a definition section which defined "state," as used in the statute, to mean one of the 50 states, and NOT to mean goverment in general.

3) At the time the bill was being passed, supporters were talking about that provision as a way to effectively coerce states to take part and set up state-run exchanges since if they failed to do so people in those states would not get that subsidy and might be upset.

4) Most members of Congress quite clearly did not read the damn thing, in which case it would seem even more appropriate to take the language of the statute at its common meaning and understanding and not to imagine that they "intended" or "understood" it to mean something else -- none of them had even read the damn thing.

But as to this meaning "our constitution mean(s) nothing," that is a bit of a stretch, since this case did not turn on the meaning or intent of the Constitution, but instead was simply a matter of statutory construction, a matter on which the Constitution is absolutely silent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 25, 2015, 08:25:32 pm

If words mean nothing, the words in the constitution mean nothing.  This sets a precedence of the courts being able to say the law doesn't mean what it says it means.  Where do you draw the line after that?

They can simply rule our constitution does not mean what it is written to mean if they get the right case in front of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 25, 2015, 10:56:31 pm

Quote

So far I haven't read it, and since I have no desire to throw up, I may not.

I don't for one second think you actually throw up, you dry heave. Then cry like a baby.

Quote

From what I have seen reported on it

You mean brietbart and world net daily on the toilet?

Quote

I would srongly disagree with the reasoning the majority offered

So legislative intent is a foreign idea for you? No wonder you lost that law license.

Quote

since most voters even now oppose ObamaCare

The Supreme Court should rule by polling what? Again, that law license.

Quote

the one possible good outcome from this is that the next year will bring its problems even more clearly to light and force the matter to be a major 2016 campaign issue, resulting in the defeat of even more of those members of Congress who supported it, and the helping elect a president wanting to repeal it outright.

Then run on it wingnuts! Hold more votes on it! Cry about it more!

Quote

The bill was always an economic disaster

The law has NOT stopped job growth or GDP growth. Has not caused healthcare stocks to fail. The law has limited insurance rate increases to historical lows and saves money in furture budgets (see again recent CBO reporting).

What is your sorry ass point again?

Quote

This decision may also make it a tremendous judicial disaster, too, if the new standard for reviewing legislation is whether there is any way a majority on the Court supporting the goals of any challenged legislation can alter the language which will make work a law which as drafted clearly would not.

LMAO law license less piece of ****. Can YOU point to ONE horses ass republic governor of any state which planned for the denial of Federal Subsidies if they made the political decision to deny their citizens coverage?

Idiots and morons.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 25, 2015, 10:58:38 pm

And

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Suck it wingnuts!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 25, 2015, 11:03:26 pm

Otto, after the court decision stocks in insurance companies and the healthcare industry soared.  So corporations win and the little guys lose again.

You can thank Obama and the Democrats for making the rich, richer and the middle class and the poor, poorer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 25, 2015, 11:07:29 pm

peke

Do you even think before you post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 25, 2015, 11:13:05 pm

Also this was a huge win for the Republicans politically.  They get to run against Obamacare the next election which over 50% of the population is against.  The percentage that likes Obamacare are diehard Democrats who were never going to vote Republican.  They are the 47% Romney was talking about.  That number still holds true.  They would vote for Hitler reincarnated if he had a D by his name.

If the court had ruled against then there would have been a lot of turmoil and it would have been blamed on the Republicans.  Even though it was a mess made by the Democrats. 

Personally I would have preferred our judicial branch had not whored themselves out and upset the balance of power our government needs to work properly.  I would have preferred the Republicans be forced to fight instead of waiting for the Democrat created disaster to hit fully.  I love my country and fellow Americans that way. 

Sadly most people would rather gain political points then do what is right for the country.     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 25, 2015, 11:15:30 pm

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
JUNE 25, 2015


On Thursday morning, for the second time in three years, a majority of the Supreme Court rightly rejected a blatantly political effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act. The case challenging the law, King v. Burwell, was always an ideological farce dressed in a specious legal argument, and the court should never have taken review of it to begin with.

Its core claim — that an ambiguous four-word phrase buried deep in the 900-page law eliminates health insurance for millions of lower-income Americans — was preposterous. The entire point of the law, as embodied in the title of its first chapter, is “Quality, affordable health care for all Americans.”

Writing for a six-member majority, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. agreed that this clear, overriding purpose was the guiding principle. “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”

In all the years leading up to the law’s passage, no one questioned that purpose. Not a single person involved in passing or interpreting the law — including members of Congress, health-care journalists, and Supreme Court justices themselves — ever expressed a belief that subsidies would not be available on federally-operated exchanges. But the current challenge, brought to you by some of the same tireless conservative and libertarian activists who tried and failed to kill the health reform law in 2012, fabricated an alternate history out of thin air.

Their argument, based on an intentional misreading of four words, was that the tax-credit subsidies that make the law work are available only in the 13 states that fully run their own health care exchanges. Because a sub-sub-subsection of the law dealing with the calculation of those tax credits refers to an exchange “established by the state,” the challengers argued, no subsidies are available to the millions of Americans who live in the 34 states where the federal government runs the exchange.

It was a grandly orchestrated charade sold to people who were already furious about the law and just needed a legal rationale, however far-fetched, to try to gut it.

And it worked on the three justices whose disdain for the law has always been clear: Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas. In a dissent laced with outrage and mockery, Justice Scalia called the court’s decision “quite absurd,” and quipped, “We should start calling this law Scotus-care.” But of course it was the justices’ choice to hear challenges to the law in 2012 and this term, even though both were legally frivolous.

But as Chief Justice Roberts explained in detail, the health reform law depends on tax-credit subsidies to make health care affordable for more than six million Americans. Eliminating subsidies “could well push a state’s individual insurance market into a death spiral,” he wrote, since fewer people would enroll and premiums for everyone would shoot up — the very result Congress designed the reform law to avoid. To drive the point home, he quoted the dissenting justices’ own words in the 2012 case, in which they openly admitted that without federal subsidies, “the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”

Thursday’s decision was a powerful defense of the law, stronger than observers might have expected from this court. The justices could have upheld the provision on subsidies to federal as well as state-run exchanges as a reasonable exercise of discretion by a government agency — in this case, the Internal Revenue Service, which issued the challenged regulation. But in that case, a future president could simply have ordered the I.R.S. to change the regulation. Instead, the court focused on the broader structure of the law itself, preserving the proper reading of it regardless of the politics of the next administration.

Roberts clearly has been compromised. Since 2012. How else to describe his incoherent an illegal decision? He care-wrote the statute to save...

“In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined —‘to say what the law is,’” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, quoting the Supreme Court’s foundational 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison. “In every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done.”

Putting aside for the moment the rank politics swirling around the Affordable Care Act — the partisan grandstanding and the questions about President Obama’s legacy — consider what the law has already managed to accomplish.

It has been a remarkable success. Today, a larger proportion of working-age Americans have health insurance than at any time since record-keeping began in 1997. The number of people under 65 who were uninsured dropped to 16.3 percent in 2014, down four points from 2013. The drop was significantly greater in states that expanded Medicaid through the health reform law than in those that did not.

This is one of the things government was built to do: provide all Americans with access to quality, affordable and often-lifesaving health care. And this is what those who are determined to gut the law have been trying to dismantle. It is to the Supreme Court’s credit that in this case, the majority of justices managed to stay above the politics of this issue and do their job — which is to interpret the law Congress wrote in its entirety, not to rewrite it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 25, 2015, 11:20:32 pm

Gruber wrote the damn thing and went on a speaking tour telling anyone who would listen that they purposely wrote it so Republican Governors would be forced to set up exchanges or their voters would not get subsidies.  They did it on purpose!

You can't refute this. There is video evidence!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 25, 2015, 11:58:03 pm

Quote

Gruber wrote the damn thing and went on a speaking tour telling anyone who would listen that they purposely wrote it so Republican Governors would be forced to set up exchanges or their voters would not get subsidies.  They did it on purpose!

Post it and name the republic a-holes who knew this.

Go right ahead....

Quote

Also this was a huge win for the Republicans politically

Bwwwahhhhhh, define "win" again.

Quote

Sadly most people would rather gain political points then do what is right for the country. 

Hooray for Obamacare
JUNE 25, 2015


Was I on the edge of my seat, waiting for the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare subsidies? No — I was pacing the room, too nervous to sit, worried that the court would use one sloppily worded sentence to deprive millions of health insurance, condemn tens of thousands to financial ruin, and send thousands to premature death.

It didn’t. And that means that the big distractions — the teething problems of the website, the objectively ludicrous but nonetheless menacing attempts at legal sabotage — are behind us, and we can focus on the reality of health reform. The Affordable Care Act is now in its second year of full operation; how’s it doing?

The answer is, better than even many supporters realize.

Start with the act’s most basic purpose, to cover the previously uninsured. Opponents of the law insisted that it would actually reduce coverage; in reality, around 15 million Americans have gained insurance.


But isn’t that a very partial success, with millions still uncovered? Well, many of those still uninsured are in that position because their state governments have refused to let the federal government enroll them in Medicaid.

Beyond that, you need to realize that the law was never intended or expected to cover everyone. Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible, and any system that doesn’t enroll people automatically will see some of the population fall through the cracks. Massachusetts has had guaranteed health coverage for almost a decade, but 5 percent of its nonelderly adult population remains uninsured.

Suppose we use 5 percent uninsured as a benchmark. How much progress have we made toward getting there? In states that have implemented the act in full and expanded Medicaid, data from the Urban Institute show the uninsured falling from more than 16 percent to just 7.5 percent — that is, in year two we’re already around 80 percent of the way there. Most of the way with the A.C.A.!

But how good is that coverage? Cheaper plans under the law do have relatively large deductibles and impose significant out-of-pocket costs. Still, the plans are vastly better than no coverage at all, or the bare-bones plans that the act made illegal. The newly insured have seen a sharp drop in health-related financial distress, and report a high degree of satisfaction with their coverage.

What about costs? In 2013 there were dire warnings about a looming “rate shock”; instead, premiums came in well below expectations. In 2014 the usual suspects declared that huge premium increases were looming for 2015; the actual rise was just 2 percent. There was another flurry of scare stories about rate hikes earlier this year, but as more information comes in it looks as if premium increases for 2016 will be bigger than for this year but still modest by historical standards — which means that premiums remain much lower than expected.

And there has also been a sharp slowdown in the growth of overall health spending, which is probably due in part to the cost-control measures, largely aimed at Medicare, that were also an important part of health reform.

What about economic side effects? One of the many, many Republican votes against Obamacare involved passing something called the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, and opponents have consistently warned that helping Americans afford health care would lead to economic doom. But there’s no job-killing in the data: The U.S. economy has added more than 240,000 jobs a month on average since Obamacare went into effect, its biggest gains since the 1990s.

The Republicans and Obamacare remind me dogs that chase cars. If they ever caught one, they would have no idea of what to do with it. ...

Finally, what about claims that health reform would cause the budget deficit to explode? In reality, the deficit has continued to decline, and the Congressional Budget Office recently reaffirmed its conclusion that repealing Obamacare would increase, not reduce, the deficit.

Put all these things together, and what you have is a portrait of policy triumph — a law that, despite everything its opponents have done to undermine it, is achieving its goals, costing less than expected, and making the lives of millions of Americans better and more secure.

Now, you might wonder why a law that works so well and does so much good is the object of so much political venom — venom that is, by the way, on full display in Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion, with its rants against “interpretive jiggery-pokery.” But what conservatives have always feared about health reform is the possibility that it might succeed, and in so doing remind voters that sometimes government action can improve ordinary Americans’ lives.

That’s why the right went all out to destroy the Clinton health plan in 1993, and tried to do the same to the Affordable Care Act. But Obamacare has survived, it’s here, and it’s working. The great conservative nightmare has come true. And it’s a beautiful thing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 08:17:54 am

And peak

Gruber did not write the PPACA. The law is modeled after a similar one in Massachusetts.


The more you know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 26, 2015, 11:54:41 am

Tough day for sporty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 12:09:37 pm

Too freaking bad day when self described wingnuts and christian intolerant aholes can't discriminate.

Move on

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 12:31:38 pm

Attention religious fanatic


Failed abstinence advocate and glaring hypocrite bristol palin is an unwed baby momma again.

The shower has yet to be announced.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 26, 2015, 01:23:14 pm

Why do you even care? Don't you even have a life to live that's more important to you than to spread dirt about others? I used to know small town people who were like that. It was an effort on their part to make themselves to look better than others. Whats your problem? And I bet you have a lot more worse ghosts hiding in your closet if truth came to light. When you point one finger at someone else there are 4 fingers pointing at yourself. Grow up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 pm

(http://src1.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/cdn-thumb/src=/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bd150625.jpg&q=100&w=300&h=250&zc=1/thumbnail)

Rep. Orangeman as of day.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 02:41:38 pm

isfullofit


Having a child is spreading dirt?

The FACT that she took $262,500 from the Candies Foundation to be its abstinence ambassador is spreading dirt?

The FACT that bristol herself took a pledge of NO SEX until marriage (after her first child) is spreading dirt?

The FACT that she has been an outspoken critic of all things Hollywood and Left leaning....yes she is a glaring hypocrite.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 03:53:02 pm

Wingnuts, just forget about being dinosaurs on the issue of the PPACA and Gay Marriage.

You better check the jobs agenda.

170:    June 24th was the 170th day of the 114th Congress

87:     Days the GOP House has been in session, including 18 pro-forma days in which the House gaveled in & out in a matter of minutes & no legislative business was completed

1.5 million:    Number of private-sector jobs created or sustained by Export-Import Bank since 2007

4:     Times House Republicans voted against renewing the job-creating Export-Import Bank charter before it expires on June 30 (2015 Vote #116, 2015 Vote #126, 2015 Vote #371, 2015 Vote #379)

ZERO:    GOP jobs bills passed in the 114th Congress

Just 25:    Bills signed into law by President, including 2 that were unfinished business from the 113th Congress and 15 noncontroversial modest suspension bills

 $610.7 billion:    Amount the deficit is increased by the 11 GOP permanent tax cut bills the GOP has already passed in the 114th Congress so far

100:    Percent of House Republicans who voted against bringing up the student loan refinancing bill

7:     Additional times the House GOP has voted in the past 170 days to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act (2015 Vote #14, 2015 Vote #45, 2015 Vote #58, 2015 Vote #142, 2015 Vote #183, 2015 Vote #375, 2015 Vote #376)

60:    Times House Republicans have voted to repeal or undermine the ACA since 2011

241:    Republicans voted against bringing the Help Hire Our Heroes Act – a bill to provide training resources for veterans seeking good-paying jobs – to the floor for a vote.

99:   Percent of House Republicans who voted to allow predatory lenders on military bases

$251 million:   Cut to Amtrak funding passed by House Republican members of the Appropriations Committee one day after a deadly train accident in Philadelphia.

 100:   Percent of Republicans twice voted against authorizing & funding the Positive Train Control Program which would have prevented the Amtrak derailment, one week after the accident.

 6:    Times GOP voted against bringing a clean bill to fund DHS to a vote even as a shutdown loomed (2015 Vote #34, 2015 Vote #71, 2015 Vote #77, 2015 Vote #86, 2015 Vote #92, 2015 Vote #100)

 2:     Times GOP has blocked bigger paychecks and better infrastructure so far in the 114th Congress (2015 Vote #4, 2015 Vote #5)
2.9 million:    Number of jobs that would be destroyed under the House GOP FY 2016 Budget

$2,000:   More in taxes for middle-class American families with children green lighted by the final FY 2016 Republican Budget

 $200,000:    Average tax break for the wealthiest Americans making $1,000,000 or more green lighted by the final FY 2016 Republican Budget

 $269 billion:    Tax breaks House Republicans have passed for the wealthiest 5,400 estates - 0.2 percent of Americans - in the country.

99:   Percent of House Republicans who voted against allowing a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act – a bill to ensure equal pay for equal work


Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2015, 04:46:09 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/obamacare-voters-stupid-explainer/index.html

So why is he being called that? And what did he actually do?

Gruber's work did shape the Affordable Care Act in three key ways:

1. Gruber played a crucial role in crafting the health care law passed in Massachusetts during then-Gov. Mitt Romney's tenure. Gruber modeled the impact and effectiveness of that state's plans to implement an individual mandate -- the controversial policy that essentially forces people to get covered, or get fined.  And this matters because the 2004 Massachusetts law was the model for Obamacare. The "individual mandate" became a key component -- and political lightning rod -- of the health care law most people now call Obamacare.


2. Gruber was hired in 2009 as a consultant by the Obama administration -- and paid nearly $400,000 -- for a year of his work. What'd he do? Gruber has called it "technical support" and "analysis." What he really did was take a bunch of numbers and model the effects of proposals that would later become the Affordable Care Act.

"If they hadn't had this kind of analysis, well, the law would not be designed as well," Gruber said on the O'Reilly Factor last year, discussing his work.

3.  At least eight states called him in to counsel them on how to implement the health care law and set up state-run health insurance exchanges. So he's pretty important to Obamacare.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 05:27:28 pm

Clearly you cherry picked bits of the article that you apparently barely read.

And since you do NOT believe in modelling....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2015, 05:35:04 pm

Otto, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 26, 2015, 05:47:48 pm

Posts: 1754
View Profile
 Personal Message (Online)
 




 

Re: Politics, Religion, etc.

« Reply #6776 on: Today at 03:53:02 pm »


Quote

 

Wingnuts, just forget about being dinosaurs on the issue of the PPACA and Gay Marriage.

So we all should be wild about being screwed in the butt or having someone's **** in our mouths like you are? Count me out, thank you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 06:21:29 pm

Peak

You article states that he did not write the legislation. He modelled it.  The original idea for that type of law was first proposed in the 1970s by the heritage foundation.

Did good Olde johnny work on it then too?


Also, he calls Americans stupid not about the PPACA, but our ability to want government programs and not pay for them.

Or in your case, tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations and not paying for them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 06:29:02 pm

Isfulofit


Just how does a law which allows all Americans equal excess to the benefits of marriage cause you to get poked in the ass and suck a ****?

You got some grubby tramp in mind? Maybe a butch dike with a strap on?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 26, 2015, 06:35:06 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 06:29:02 pm

Isfulofit


Just how does a law which allows all Americans equal excess to the benefits of marriage cause you to get poked in the ass and suck a ****?

You got some grubby tramp in mind? Maybe a butch dike will a strap on?

NO, but it probably thrills you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2015, 06:36:13 pm

You said Obamacare was modeled after the one in Massachusetts as does this article.  He played a crucial role in crafting the law in Massachusetts.

He then was hired to help with Obamacare. 

He was a major player in Obamacare even though Obama and his administration try and downplay it due to the bad publicity he brought by bragging about how stupid the Amercian voter is.  He of course was talking about low information voters like you.  Not those of us who opposed it then and still do.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/gruber-obamacare-third-video/index.html

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 26, 2015, 06:47:05 pm

I don't know what the fuss is all about.  If homosexuals want to pretend that they are normal, why not humor them?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2015, 06:55:41 pm

I really don't care if they get married.  My concern is that the court ruled it is a civil rights matter.  Which means that religious people's rights are going to be stepped on due to roughly 2% of the population. 

All of the judges made a point about religious freedom.  However if it is a civil rights issue we will see more and more religious business owners getting fined and ran out of business.  Maybe even thrown in jail.  We will also see tons of lawsuits against churches, ministers, and religious people in general.   Gay rights activists will not be happy with being equal in the eyes of the law.  They will push the envelope.

Of course I knew this was inevitable.  I just felt it would go state by state which it should have.  This just reaffirms my belief that the Supreme Court is purely a political entity now.  If that is the case they need to be elected and serve terms.  They should not be appointed for life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 07:00:13 pm

Again peak, he did not write any part of the law. He modelled the impacts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 26, 2015, 07:01:08 pm

I agree. They should be elected and serve terms. They should be voted out of office if they don't uphold the law. They shouldn't be able to make the law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 26, 2015, 07:09:59 pm

Otto, semantics.  They were his ideas.  He did not actually write the law he just told those who did write it what to put in it.

By the way I have been purposefully using CNN which is an Obama cheerleader.  That way you can't say oh it is just Faux News...

One more thing, in case you want to continue to compete to be the new Sheldon Cooper of this site, I don't really mean CNN is a girl in a cheerleading outfit.  They just play one on TV.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 26, 2015, 11:09:10 pm

 Quite a few days in the last few days of American History.


 This week is going down in the books that historians will look back on.


 You were there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 08:18:55 am

The end is near

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:36:26 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 26, 2015, 05:47:48 pm

So we all should be wild about being screwed in the butt or having someone's **** in our mouths like you are? Count me out, thank you

Have you explained to your wife how you believe blowjobs are terrible and disgusting?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:44:00 am

Quote from: davep on June 26, 2015, 06:47:05 pm

I don't know what the fuss is all about.  If homosexuals want to pretend that they are normal, why not humor them?

Gays are as "normal" as the rest of us.  Focusing exclusively, or even primarily, on one's sexual preference (or any other aspect of their sexuality) in determining whether to call them "normal" or not amounts to elevating sexual preference to the pentultimate consideration in defining our existence, an existence in which all of us are in one way or another not "normal."  In fact one of the least "normal" aspects of anyone's existece might be that the person would in each and every individual identifiable way perfectly "normal."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:45:07 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 26, 2015, 05:35:04 pm

Otto, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

You have to ask?

Quote from: otto105 on June 26, 2015, 06:21:29 pm

Peak

You article states that he did not write the legislation. He modelled it.  The original idea for that type of law was first proposed in the 1970s by the heritage foundation.

Did good Olde johnny work on it then too?

Probably more than any other particular individual, Gruber was responsible for the wording and writing and overall direction of ObamaCare.  Calling him its primary author would seem quite accurate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 27, 2015, 11:19:58 am

The true hypocrites in this country is the left. Take down the confederate flag, cause it's "offensive" to some people. So what does Obama do? He lights up the white house with gay pride colors. Now that  surely wouldn't be offensive to anyone in this country.. WTF?


I'd be willing to bet that the 9 souls that were taken in S. Carolina wouldn't be too happy about our White House being lit in such colors..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 11:44:29 am

I thought the SC funeral was particularly humorous too. Seeing our President singing Amazing Grace made me laugh.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 12:21:52 pm

I got a real laugh out of this:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-americans-need-to-shift-religious-views-to-accept-gay-marriage

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 12:27:25 pm

The blog also saw something of a threat in Obama's comments. "This is our chance to choose to jump up and party with all the same-sex marriage celebrators before you come down and force us to do it?" the blog asked. "What are you going to do if we're still not on board with it? If we still cling to God and religion? 'Cause I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that God will have something to say about that in a future day."

Is this a message for the Klines and Christian Churches?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 27, 2015, 01:52:50 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:44:00 am

Gays are as "normal" as the rest of us. 

adjective

conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 27, 2015, 03:57:20 pm

Obama pretending to be a Christian on the same day he praises legalizing gay marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 27, 2015, 04:05:28 pm

There are a lot of Christian Churches that accept homosexual marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 04:18:01 pm

Not if they believe in the Holy Bible

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 05:00:44 pm

Quote from: davep on June 27, 2015, 01:52:50 pm

adjective

conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Yes, and the rest of my comments made clear that is exactly as I used the word.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 05:04:23 pm

This could very well move Cruz to the front of the pack of Republican candidates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/cruz-blasts-supreme-court-on-rulings-calls-for-judicial-retention-elections/?intcmp=latestnews

Presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz blasted the Supreme Court’s rulings on ObamaCare subsidies and same-sex marriage Friday, branding them "lawless" and calling for a constitutional amendment that would introduce “periodic judicial-retention elections.”

In a column for The National Review, Cruz said that the justices who ruled in favor of the two decisions that came down Thursday and Friday were “violating their judicial oaths” and engaging in judicial activism.

“Yesterday, the Justices re-wrote ObamaCare, yet again, in order to force this failed law on the American people. Today the Court doubled down with a 5-4 opinion that undermines not just the definition of marriage but the very foundations of our representative form of government,” the Republican senator said.

Arguing that the Constitution specifies that Supreme Court Justices "Shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” Cruz called for judicial retention elections as a legitimate method for “throwing off judicial tyrants.”

“Every Justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years,” Cruz proposed.

“Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court,” he added.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 05:06:43 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 04:18:01 pm

Not if they believe in the Holy Bible

Tell me again what it is that Jesus ever said to indicate that if the Old Testament sins which included things such as wearing garments made of two different materials were no longer to be considered sins under the "new covenant" which his presence represented that homosexuality was not also no longer a sin under the "new covenant."

If you can't find anything, then perhaps you need to start conforming your behavior to those "old covenant" commands, or accept that your disapproval of homosexuality has much more to do with your personal bigotry than it has anything to do with that "Holy Bible."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 06:51:58 pm

In 1Corr7-2 it says "But there is so much immorality each man should have his own wife (not more than one either) , and each woman her own husband." In a homosexual relationship who is the husband and who is the wife? They are both the same sex. Thus marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 27, 2015, 07:07:56 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 05:00:44 pm

Yes, and the rest of my comments made clear that is exactly as I used the word.

Of course, you took it out of context.  The subject was the new law allowing for gay marriage.  Neither being a homosexual nor being a married homosexual fits that meaning of the normal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 07:35:52 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 05:04:23 pm

This could very well move Cruz to the front of the pack of Republican candidates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/cruz-blasts-supreme-court-on-rulings-calls-for-judicial-retention-elections/?intcmp=latestnews

Presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz blasted the Supreme Court’s rulings on ObamaCare subsidies and same-sex marriage Friday, branding them "lawless" and calling for a constitutional amendment that would introduce “periodic judicial-retention elections.”

In a column for The National Review, Cruz said that the justices who ruled in favor of the two decisions that came down Thursday and Friday were “violating their judicial oaths” and engaging in judicial activism.

“Yesterday, the Justices re-wrote ObamaCare, yet again, in order to force this failed law on the American people. Today the Court doubled down with a 5-4 opinion that undermines not just the definition of marriage but the very foundations of our representative form of government,” the Republican senator said.

Arguing that the Constitution specifies that Supreme Court Justices "Shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” Cruz called for judicial retention elections as a legitimate method for “throwing off judicial tyrants.”

“Every Justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years,” Cruz proposed.

“Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court,” he added.

Agreed Peke. And that ought to stir the pot now too.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 07:43:15 pm

While I could care less if someone is homosexual or not when only about 2% of population is homosexual I would have to agree that it is not normal.

However it seems clear that homosexuals marrying is going to be normal in the very near future.  They to can lose half their assets now when a serious relationship breaks up...

They may come to regret this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 07:51:41 pm

Supreme court judges can be impeached.  However I see no way in hell that the current Republicans have the balls to do it.  They are a bunch of RINO's and cowards.

I believe the Republican leadership are RINO's who are more afraid of conservatives then Democrats.  The Democrats are more afraid of Republicans then the real enemies of our country radical Islam.

What do they have in common?  They care more about their own power then anything else.       

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:08:24 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 06:51:58 pm

In 1Corr7-2 it says "But there is so much immorality each man should have his own wife (not more than one either) , and each woman her own husband." In a homosexual relationship who is the husband and who is the wife? They are both the same sex. Thus marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Actually, that does NOT defeine marriage, and it in no way comes close to indicate Jesus in any way even suggested that the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality remained after the "new covenant."

This is one of the central problems for Christians who contend that they base their views of homosexuality entirely on the Bible -- nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say anything to indicate such behavior should be considered sinful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:11:06 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 07:43:15 pm

While I could care less if someone is homosexual or not when only about 2% of population is homosexual I would have to agree that it is not normal.

However it seems clear that homosexuals marrying is going to be normal in the very near future.

Are you suggesting that being "normal" is good or should be considered good, or that being somehow other than "normal" is bad or should be considered bad?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:11:52 pm

Quote from: davep on June 27, 2015, 07:07:56 pm

Of course, you took it out of context.  The subject was the new law allowing for gay marriage.  Neither being a homosexual nor being a married homosexual fits that meaning of the normal.

Both of them come far closer to being "normal" than posting here constitues "normal."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 09:14:06 pm

Nope.

My wife and I hate Cilantro because it tastes like soap to us.  We could not understand why people like it.  Turns out we are not normal.  To most people it has a pepper like taste.  To a small percentage of the population it tastes like soap.  We both happen to be in that small percentage that do not taste it normally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:16:21 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 07:51:41 pm

Supreme court judges can be impeached.  However I see no way in hell that the current Republicans have the balls to do it.  They are a bunch of RINO's and cowards.

It would be the height of hypocrisy to impeach anyone on the Supreme Court for their decisions in the ObamaCare or gay marriage cases because of a belief that their decisions in those cases ignored the Constitution when the Constitution sets out the grounds for impeachment as "high crimes and misdemeanors."  I would love to hear an explanation of how their votes on those cases, or any other, constituted either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 09:28:17 pm

Their job is to abide by the constitution and rule accordingly.  When they ignore that and rule for whatever reason they did then they have committed "high crimes and misdemeanor". 

They have broken down our constitutional system.  We have the executive branch and the judicial branch over stepping their bounds while the legislative branch has become irrelevant.  Which happens to be the one most dependent on the people to stay in power.  So in other words the people are not being listened to.

What keeps Obama from declaring himself legible for a third term if the constitution means nothing? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 09:42:48 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 09:08:24 pm

Actually, that does NOT defeine marriage, and it in no way comes close to indicate Jesus in any way even suggested that the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality remained after the "new covenant."

This is one of the central problems for Christians who contend that they base their views of homosexuality entirely on the Bible -- nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say anything to indicate such behavior should be considered sinful.

Paul defined moral, the way I read it, anything else is immoral which would be a sin. Paul said marriage was between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 10:55:34 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 09:42:48 pm

Paul defined moral, the way I read it, anything else is immoral which would be a sin. Paul said marriage was between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 27, 2015, 09:42:48 pm

Paul defined moral, the way I read it, anything else is immoral which would be a sin. Paul said marriage was between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

I asked if anything in the Bible even suggested that the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality remained after the "new covenant."  I asked if there was any suggestion in it that Jesus ever said anything indicating it did.

Please clarify for me whether Paul was Jesus.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 27, 2015, 10:58:04 pm

Quote

Their job is to abide by the constitution and rule accordingly.

No, YOU seem to think its to rule just YOUR clown car party way. Then whine and cry like a little **** when they don't.

Quote

When they ignore that and rule for whatever reason they did then they have committed "high crimes and misdemeanor".

LMAO  You don't need a tissue, you need a **** towel.

Quote

They have broken down our constitutional system.

Our constitutional system is just fine. Liberals opposed the courts Citizen United ruling, but we didn't load our pants over it with whiny "they broke the constitution" ****.

Quote

We have the executive branch and the judicial branch over stepping their bounds while the legislative branch has become irrelevant.

Warehouse guy, does that pant load ship LTL or full-truck? The President was elected by a large margin in 2012 and the court rules on issues....your problems is....the dip **** conservative lawmakers in the senate house just being pieces of furniture in phaxnew's lobby waiting to spew dumb-ass **** on teevee. They want to NOT be irrelevant PASS SOME BILLS that will change it.

Quote

Which happens to be the one most dependent on the people to stay in power.

The executive branch DOESN'T face the voters? Really.

Quote

So in other words the people are not being listened to

(https://haybre.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/us-election-results.jpg)

Can you point to the voters will?

Quote

What keeps Obama from declaring himself legible for a third term if the constitution means nothing?

You just stole the olde tacit racists line warehouse guy. Answer me this, why do conservative a-holes always bring this up about Democratic Presidents?

Just to prove your insecurity with America or the fact your all just whiny douche bags?

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 11:07:59 pm

Otto, you **** moron when the constitution is not followed it means that the next president does not have to follow it either.   If the Supreme Court follows their own political view points instead of following the constitution then they are free to do whatever they want.

The chances of the Democrats winning the next presidential election is at best 50/50.  Hillary is a terrible candidate and a terrible politician.  She is not a good speaker, has no personality and no track record.  She is untrustworthy and unlikeable.

She will get votes from people like you that vote for anyone with a D by their name.  Other then that not so much. 

Do you really want Ted Cruz to be able to do whatever he wants and the SCOTUS will just go along with it?  Because there is no way in hell Democrats are going to win back all those seats they lost last election.     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 27, 2015, 11:13:07 pm

Quote

I believe the Republican leadership are RINO's who are more afraid of conservatives then Democrats.  The Democrats are more afraid of Republicans then the real enemies of our country radical Islam.

Democrats are NOT scared of anything. We don't watch or listen to wingnut radio which are scaring the livin **** out of all you white pussies like dylann roof.

Or this guy...
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/150460/large/Pat-Boone-Facebook-800x430.png?1435279080)

Who spewed...

“As the president who came to office, a black man promising to bring people together, a man ideally suited for that job since you were born both black and white, you had a God-given chance to actually proclaim and demonstrate that racial divides and prejudice had greatly diminished and that our society was truly becoming colorblind,” the former pop singer complained.

“At no time do I recall your mentioning the far greater instances of ‘black on black’ crimes, the high percentage of crimes of all types committed annually by blacks, or the senseless looting and violence that follows the inflamed ‘protests’ after one of the above-mentioned incidents,” Boone said. “Strange that you, our half-white president, have little to say about these things.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 27, 2015, 11:21:59 pm

Quote

when the constitution is not followed it means that the next president does not have to follow it either.

The legal aid has asked you how the constitution was not followed and I now ask for your proof that the Supreme Court has not followed it. Because it just seems that you have a whiny little **** answer of they didn't rule our way bullshit.

You want the next president NOT to follow it, elect any of the clown car **** like that Canadian ted cruz who seems to think the court is there to do phaxnews bidding.

Quote

Because there is no way in hell Democrats are going to win back all those seats they lost last election.

Well, warehouse **** guy, can you tell me how many Senate seats republic pols have to defend? And remember one is going down hard here in Wisconsin by the name of ron johnson.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 11:22:19 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 09:28:17 pm

What keeps Obama from declaring himself legible for a third term if the constitution means nothing? 

The Constitution and the plain meaning of the language in it (and, of course, the public outcry and condemnation which would certainly result from such a move).  In other words, what prevents it is exactly what you appear eager to ignore when you urge impeachment "for high crimes and misdemeanors" in the following paragraph

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 09:28:17 pm

Their job is to abide by the constitution and rule accordingly.  When they ignore that and rule for whatever reason they did then they have committed "high crimes and misdemeanor". 

In our system of law we do not have common law crimes, crimes which are supposedly simply understood by the community and need not be codified in explicit written form.  If you could point to the statute making what they did criminal and subjecting them to criminal penalty for it, we might have a starting point for an intelligent conversation.

Until then it appears you want to ignore the clear language of the Constitution to impeach and remove from office some members of the Supreme Court for the offense of ignoring the clear language of the Constitution.
 

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 09:28:17 pm

They have broken down our constitutional system.  We have the executive branch and the judicial branch over stepping their bounds while the legislative branch has become irrelevant.  Which happens to be the one most dependent on the people to stay in power.  So in other words the people are not being listened to.

There is an amusing irony here.

You have expressed recent outrage at two different decisions, the first one being the ObamaCare decision, and the second being the gay marriage decision.

In the gay marriage decision the Supreme Court struck measures by certain state legislatures, but nothing by Congress, and one of the purposes of the Constitution was to assure that minorites (whether geographic, political, religious, or any other variety) were not mistreated by majorities imposing the majority will on the minority, and in certain cases when that happens the clear purpose of the Supreme Court is to strike down that legislative action, which is what the Court did here (whether it should have in this case is a different question).  In other words, the Court acted to strike down action taken by a more representative branch of government, which is exactly how it was intended to work (when the right conditions are met -- and note that your complaint about the decision is NOT that the right conditions were not met, but is instead that a non-elected, non-representative body struck down the actions taken by an institutionally more representative body).

And in the ObamaCare decision, constitutionality was not even at issue.  Nothing was stricken down, and the question instead was merely how they were going to interpret the statute.  Institutionally Congress, as you point out, is "the (branch of government) most dependent on the people to stay in power," and in that case many judical theorists argue that courts should be not only deferential to legislative action, and should look hard to try to find ways to uphold statutes if possible instead of striking them down, or to try to interpret the language in a way as to allow it to fulfill clear legislative goals.  It certainly appears that is what the court was trying in the ObamaCare case.

Look, I don't like the decisions either, but some of your criticism of those decisions so far seems rather inconsistent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 11:27:25 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 27, 2015, 10:58:04 pm

Our constitutional system is just fine. Liberals opposed the courts Citizen United ruling, but we didn't load our pants over it with whiny "they broke the constitution" ****.

Amusing.  Many liberals have called for a Constitutional Amendment in order to get rid of the effect of that decision.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 27, 2015, 11:27:54 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 10:55:34 pm

I asked if anything in the Bible even suggested that the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality remained after the "new covenant."  I asked if there was any suggestion in it that Jesus ever said anything indicating it did.

Please clarify for me whether Paul was Jesus.

You asked two different questions.  He answered question number one.  I assume that he realized that your second question was meaningless.  The things that Paul said are a part of the Bible after the "New Covenant", and carry a weight equal to that said by Jesus.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 27, 2015, 11:32:31 pm

davep, What Paul offered as his personal opinion in no way indicates the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality remained after the "new covenant."  He answered neither question.  Paul did not determine what was or wasn't part of any "new covenant," and in none of the writings attributed to him did he ever contend that anything Jesus ever said or did would have led to such a conclusion about what was or wasn't in any "new covenant."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 11:39:01 pm

I understand the gay marriage decision.  I am really not upset about it.  I expected it and they actually used some form of constitutional law for their argument.  In fact from what I have read it is going to open up concealed carry for everyone in all states.  The liberals minds will be blown.

That is of course is if the law is followed.  I simply believe the law has been thrown out the window.  So maybe not.

It is the Obamacare ruling that pisses me off.  Not because I don't like obamacare even though I do.  I am very lucky that my wife works for a company that is self insured.  I am not effected by it although I am still bothered others are.

 I fully expected them to find someway uphold it.  I was just so shocked at the reason.  They had no good legal reason for upholding it.  NONE! 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 27, 2015, 11:40:46 pm

Paul did not offer that as an "personal opinion", but as moral guidance stemming from the inspiration of God.  Of course, Paul did not determine what was or was not part of the New Covenant.  It was God that created the New Covenant, and spoke through Paul and others in the Bible.  The Bible contains God's guidance to mankind, which he gave through the sayings of Jesus, Paul, John and others.  No portion of the New Testament takes precedence over any other portion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 27, 2015, 11:44:49 pm

Quote

I fully expected them to find someway uphold it.  I was just so shocked at the reason.  They had no good legal reason for upholding it.  NONE!

Legislative intent is the term that the courts have given to their analysis of the historical documents originally generated when the statute in question was under consideration in the Legislature—state or Federal.

In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue, or when there appears to have been a legislative drafting error.

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.

Never heard of that, have you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 27, 2015, 11:55:17 pm

Legal Aid

Sure some Liberals have called for a constitutional amendment and legislation to correct, but we have not whined like little **** like that warehouse guy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 12:00:13 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 27, 2015, 11:39:01 pm

I fully expected them to find someway uphold it.  I was just so shocked at the reason.  They had no good legal reason for upholding it.  NONE!

Actually, they had a very good reason, as I have articulated.  The Court should be extremely deferential to the actions of Congress, unless those actions are clearly unconstitutional.  Since this case was not one addressing constitutionality, but instead a question of construction, the deference should have been as great as possible.

I do NOT like the decision, but the more I think about it, the more I understand the outcome and the less bothered I am by the jurisrudence involved.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2015, 12:00:25 am

They said "states" 9 times in error Otto?  Really?  They made the same typo 9 times?  They really meant the Federal government?  Then why didn't they say the Federal Government?

There is no other way to interpret the law.  It was meant to force states to set up exchanges or not get federal subsidies.

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2015, 12:01:34 am

Jes this is exactly why I hate lawyers.  You guys take common sense and turn it on it's head.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2015, 12:03:39 am

It is always revolting to watch the reaction of so-called “real Americans” in Republican, conservative, and evangelical ranks when a Supreme Court decision is founded on a very basic principle of the U.S. Constitution; equal rights. One might think that all Americans would celebrate a decision founded on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal rights for all Americans, but that has not been the case long before Friday’s ruling that same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states. In fact, leading up to the decision’s announcement, the religious right and Republicans warned the High Court to rule according to the bible or else all Hell would break loose. Ever true to their evangelical fanaticism, while most  Americans were celebrating a victory for the LGBT community, the Constitution and equal rights, so-called social conservatives were outraged and went ballistic.

There is no doubt whatsoever that in legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, the Supreme Court’s majority “held to the founding principle for which this country was founded” that every American is entitled, yes entitled, to equal rights. It is a sad pathetic commentary about a sad pathetic segment of American society that not only do they oppose the Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all Americans, evangelicals relish the authority they have had for far too long to deny equal and civil rights to the LGBT community based on an ancient Jewish text even though they are not adherents to the ancient Jewish faith; they are Christofascists.

In his voluminous opinion for the majority, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s very simple message at the beginning of over 100 pages is thus: the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples. In his remarks about the Supreme Court ruling, President Obama certainly seized on Kennedy’s simple message of the majority decision and in his remarks said, “This morning, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law; that all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love.” This simple message of equality for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment was unfortunately lost on Republicans, evangelical bigots, and the four dissenting Justices; all who made the majority’s decision everything from a vicious attack on religious liberty to “judicial tyranny” to “the destruction of democracy.”

Now, this idea of the nation’s highest court adhering to the founding document, the only “supreme law of the land” is something utterly unconscionable to the majority of Republicans, the theocracy-minded religious right, and four conservatives on the High Court. What is curious indeed, is how the Court’s conservative dissenters made a very rudimentary civil and equal rights case into a “government war on religion,” a Nazi “Putsch,” and a number of other  truly bizarre and childish statements that were not becoming of a semi-intelligent 8th grader, much less four sitting jurists of the nation’s highest court.

It should be embarrassing to every American that the four dissenters made statements one expects from the likes of Mike Huckabee, Louis Gohmert, Bryan Fischer, and Sarah Palin instead of  Supreme Court Justices, but moronic bible-think is a pathological disorder plaguing the entire evangelical conservative movement. What all the outrage and threats of nullification from Republicans after the ruling informs is that no matter how often conservatives claim to embrace and revere the Constitution, its founding principle of equality for all Americans is something they oppose with religious fervor.

The 14th Amendment that Justice Kennedy cited as the basis for legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states could not be clearer. It says  “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The states that passed laws banning same-sex marriage did, in fact, violate both the “equal protection” and “due process” parts of the 14th Amendment, and in foolishly saying they would nullify a High Court ruling founded solely on the 14th Amendment, Republicans revealed their true intent is nullifying the Constitution. However, Republicans have disavowed the  Constitution, and attempted to violate it, over the past six years according to their sick twisted belief that the ancient Mosaic Law they worship is the nation’s highest authority. The bible has no place in the Constitution by design of the Framers because it is unethical in a democratic nation.

The case was never about religious freedom because two people of the same gender marrying does not infringe on any evangelical fanatic’s freedom to pray, worship, sing hymns, or frequent the local mega-church. It also in no way possible is the government’s attempt to force any evangelical to divorce their opposite-sex spouse and marry a member of the same sex. And yet according to Justice Clarence Thomas, because same-sex couples now have the exact same Constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples, which is the entire point of equal civil rights, “religious liberty suffered ruinous consequences.” What Thomas, like every Christofascist in America, believes is that the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom means that evangelicals get to deny equal rights of Americans who fail to adhere to religious right dictates taken from their archaic Jewish religious text; a text that is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.

Every Republican politician, particularly those aspiring to the White House, and religious right fanatics who claim they will not adhere to the Court’s ruling, or will ‘nullify’ the decision by deign of biblical hubris, are really saying that they do not recognize the legitimacy of, and will nullify, the United States’ Constitution. They do not even conceal their hatred of the Constitution is borne of opposition to the Founding Fathers basing it on the principle that all Americans are equal regardless what the religious right, Republicans, or High Court conservatives say or believe.

In his remarks directly after the announcement that the Constitution does indeed apply to every American, President Obama said that, “Our nation was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal… and that it has been a “never-ending quest to ensure those words ring true for every single American.“  The majority decision to afford ever single American the equal and civil right to marry the person they love is no different than previous High Court rulings that struck down the bans on interracial marriage and homosexuality, and despite what terrors Republicans, evangelicals, and High Court conservatives warned about this latest reaffirmation of equal rights, America and evangelical Christians still exist.

As the President said, the ruling yesterday was a victory for the LGBT community, and a victory for America. He also said that “this decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free.” Sadly, there are millions of Americans, mostly Republicans, evangelicals, and four conservative Supreme Court Justices, who do not believe that all Americans are equal and their beliefs are founded in the real loser in yesterday’s ruling; the burgeoning theocracy that will certainly redouble its efforts to abolish equal rights and the U.S. Constitution that was the biggest winner of all because it still exists and works as the Framers intended.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 12:05:01 am

Quote from: davep on June 27, 2015, 11:40:46 pm

Paul did not offer that as an "personal opinion", but as moral guidance stemming from the inspiration of God.  Of course, Paul did not determine what was or was not part of the New Covenant.  It was God that created the New Covenant, and spoke through Paul and others in the Bible.  The Bible contains God's guidance to mankind, which he gave through the sayings of Jesus, Paul, John and others.  No portion of the New Testament takes precedence over any other portion.

The New Testament was simply the work of a committee.  The idea that it is all divinely inspired and therefore inerrant is nonsense.

I can understand Christians believing that the words or teachings of Jesus should be treated as special, given special significance and should be considered inerrent.  (I don't share that belief, but I certainly understand it.)  And I have little difficulty with accepting the Biblical accounts directly reflecting what Jesus is claimed to have said or taught.

Giving special significance to Paul's writings, however, is nonsense, particularly when he was such a vile, mean-spirited character.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 12:07:36 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2015, 12:00:25 am

They said "states" 9 times in error Otto?  Really?  They made the same typo 9 times?  They really meant the Federal government?  Then why didn't they say the Federal Government?

There is no other way to interpret the law.  It was meant to force states to set up exchanges or not get federal subsidies.   

It's primary purpose was not to force states to set up exchanges, but instead to expand health care coverage by massively subsidizing it.  And the only way for the Court to allow that to be accomplished was to interpret the language as it did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 12:08:19 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2015, 12:01:34 am

Jes this is exactly why I hate lawyers.  You guys take common sense and turn it on it's head.

Please direct me to where in this exchange I have done so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2015, 12:17:12 am

Jes, you are twisting yourself into the same pretzel they did.  It is total **** bullshit!

I know it.  You know it.  And every single person with a shred of common sense knows it!

You know that the constitution has just been shredded into nothing.  You can't handle that so you are making excuses. 

You can't fathom what this means so you are just saying it didn't happen.  You are telling yourself, "All is good".  It isn't!

I am still trying to wrap my head around it myself. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2015, 12:25:18 am

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-scalia-obamacare-roberts/index.html


Justice Antonin Scalia wasn't going to go down without a fight -- a colorful one at that.

Scalia, joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, lambasted the majority decision with a series of literary quips and flourishes in a scathing dissent that may have buoyed the spirits of conservatives crushed by the Court's ruling.

RELATED: Supreme Court saves Obamacare

And in a rare move signaling his intense opposition to the majority ruling -- written by fellow conservative and Chief Justice John Roberts -- Scalia voiced his dissent aloud from the bench for the Court to hear.

Here are the most quotable lines from his written dissent:

1. "This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it re-writes the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

2. "The Court's next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges."



3. "Pure applesauce. Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the "interests of graduate students" into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has "graduate students," so that "graduate students" must really mean "graduate or undergraduate students"? Surely not."

4. "The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed ... will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence."

5. "It is bad enough for a court to cross out "by the State" once. But seven times?"

6. "The Court's decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people's decision to give Congress "[a]ll legislative Powers" enumerated in the Constitution."

And from Scalia's oral dissent from the bench:

7. "The Court solves that problem (believe it or not) by simply saying that federal exchanges count as state exchanges only (and this is a quotation from the opinion) "for purposes of the tax credits." How wonderfully convenient and how utterly contrary to normal principles of interpretation."

RELATED: 2016 GOP hopefuls say ballot box now only way to get rid of Obamacare

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2015, 12:30:47 am

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/150913/large/confed2.png?1435456132)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 28, 2015, 12:43:19 am

Otto, no one here cares because we are from the North.  To me the confederate battle flag stands for states rights.  It only became about slavery and racism when the Democrats formed the KKK and used it to fight segregation. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 06:38:09 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 27, 2015, 11:44:49 pm

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.

Never heard of that, have you.

otto, I have heard of it.  I am in fact quite familiar with it.  And I don't see how it comes into play in this case.  The legislaton language was not at all ambiguous, and the legislative history and the public comments of lawmakers at the time also make clear that the intent of the legislaton was to essentially coerce states to buy into the program ad set up the exchanges.

Can you explain where the ambiguity was, the ambiguity would require a court to interpret anything and draw inferences as the passage you cut and pasted (once again without offering a link for it) tried to justify?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 06:44:48 am

Quote from: Pekin on June 28, 2015, 12:17:12 am

Jes, you are twisting yourself into the same pretzel they did.  It is total **** bullshit!

I know it.  You know it.  And every single person with a shred of common sense knows it!

You know that the constitution has just been shredded into nothing.  You can't handle that so you are making excuses. 

You can't fathom what this means so you are just saying it didn't happen.  You are telling yourself, "All is good".  It isn't!

I am still trying to wrap my head around it myself.   

Now that you have vented a bit more and engaged in a bit more personal attack, could you this time perhaps point to where I took common sense and turned it on it's head?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on June 28, 2015, 09:09:44 am

Jesus did not list all possible sins and condemn them in the Bible.

WE cannot, therefore, assume Jesus did not have a position on same sex marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 28, 2015, 09:23:36 am

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bill-owens-caps-gay-marriage/2015/06/27/id/652541/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 09:25:20 am

Quote from: davebear on June 28, 2015, 09:09:44 am

Jesus did not list all possible sins and condemn them in the Bible.

Actually, he could have.  But beyond that, he DID do just that (or, at least the Bible quotes him as to his listing and condemning).  He very simply distilled the essence of good behavior and of bad behavior in his teachings, and nothing in that distillation even begins to suggest any criticism of homosexuality or of gay marriage.  And, again, if you can find any language from him in the Bible otherwise, please point it out to me and enlighten me.

Quote from: davebear on June 28, 2015, 09:09:44 am

WE cannot, therefore, assume Jesus did not have a position on same sex marriage.

True enough.  We can assume he would have thought it was a wonderful idea, an expression of the love he extolled, and hurting no one whatsoever.  He would have happily attended a gay wedding of one of his friends.  What the heck, he might have even invited friends to his own gay wedding.

Christians very pointedly talk about how Jesus lived a human life in human flesh for a number of reasons, but a full experience of human existence (generally one of those reasons) requires an expience of love, lust and loss.

I do not believe Jesus was or is a savior, or that he was ever anything more than a man, but I certainly believe that he was a man, perhaps even a gay man.  Certainly there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that he condemned homosexuality.

Again, if I am wrong, point out the passage and enlighten me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 09:34:29 am

Just one week after President Obama loudly proclaimed that the murders of nine people in a Charleston church is the kind of thing which simply does not happen anywhere else in the world and which happens far too often in the U.S., and calling for more gun control, 39 people in Tunisia are shot to death by a lone gunman on a public beach, shootings which happened only about three months after 22 other people in Tunisia were shot to death by two gunmen (apparently the President simply never heard abut the March incident in Tunisia, or about the more than 90 people shot to death in Denmark a few years ago by another lone gunman in the worst single attack in history). Each of these shooting incidents, as well as every other mass fatality shooting incident in the United States in roughly 65 years has one single thing in common -- gun free zones. So what does the President want to do? Reduce the number of gun free zones? Nope, reduce the number of people who can legally have guns with them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2015, 10:35:27 am

Quote

The legislaton language was not at all ambiguous, and the legislative history and the public comments of lawmakers at the time also make clear that the intent of the legislaton was to essentially coerce states to buy into the program ad set up the exchanges.

It should have been very easy for YOU legal aid. Just post the briefs filed from the lawsuit of any republic governor, attorney general or any other elected official which refers to the legislative history or public comments that states they knew failure to set up a state exchange would deny substitutes to it's citizens. 

BTW legislation is spelled l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 28, 2015, 10:51:28 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 12:05:01 am

The New Testament was simply the work of a committee.  The idea that it is all divinely inspired and therefore inerrant is nonsense.

I wouldn't dispute that you are the resident expert on nonsense, but in this case, you are wrong.  Your statements are based upon the fact that you believe God does not exist, and therefore could not have inspired the Bible.  Of course, you have no proof of your underlying assumption, just as those that believe he DOES exist have no proof of it.  Your views of God's existence have no more validity than theirs does.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 28, 2015, 10:58:04 am

WASHINGTON — A report released by the F.B.I. on Wednesday confirmed what many Americans had feared but law enforcement officials had never documented: Mass shootings have risen drastically in the past half-dozen years.

There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000.

Thirteen Years of Shootings
From December 2000 to 2013, 1,043 people in the United States were wounded or killed by “active shooters” attempting to kill people “in a confined and populated area.”
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/09/24/thirteen-years-of-shootings/9ded0b69202e8e31d5aa768faddb62d7a3ebb740/shootings-Artboard_1.png)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0)

The only thing concern legal aid is that since gun lunatic like you have pushed for more guns in society the more acts of gun violence are created. Of course, the next step will be that your side calls for less reporting of gun violence by the FBI.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 11:28:40 am

Quote from: davep on June 28, 2015, 10:51:28 am

I wouldn't dispute that you are the resident expert on nonsense, but in this case, you are wrong.  Your statements are based upon the fact that you believe God does not exist, and therefore could not have inspired the Bible.

Not at all.  The statement that, "The New Testament was simply the work of a committee," is simply historical fact.  Do you dispute it?

The statement that, "The idea that it is all divinely inspired and therefore inerrant is nonsense," is not based upon my atheism.  The are plenty of deists who share that belief.  Virtually all deists who are not Christians would share that belief.  For that matter, most Christians probably share that belief.

Quote from: davep on June 28, 2015, 10:51:28 am

Of course, you have no proof of your underlying assumption, just as those that believe he DOES exist have no proof of it.

Quite true... and also quite irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote from: davep on June 28, 2015, 10:51:28 am

Your views of God's existence have no more validity than theirs does.

Again, quite true... and also quite irrelevant to the discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 11:30:44 am

Quote from: otto105 on June 28, 2015, 10:58:04 am

The only thing concern legal aid is that since gun lunatic like you have pushed for more guns in society the more acts of gun violence are created. Of course, the next step will be that your side calls for less reporting of gun violence by the FBI.

If that paragraph made anything resembling sense, I might respond to the substance of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 28, 2015, 12:49:49 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 11:28:40 am

Not at all.  The statement that, "The New Testament was simply the work of a committee," is simply historical fact.  Do you dispute it?

The statement that, "The idea that it is all divinely inspired and therefore inerrant is nonsense," is not based upon my atheism.  The are plenty of deists who share that belief.  Virtually all deists who are not Christians would share that belief.  For that matter, most Christians probably share that belief.


Quite true... and also quite irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, quite true... and also quite irrelevant to the discussion.

Dispute what?  That God inspired and guided the writers of the Bible?  Of course not.

There are plenty of people, diests and otherwise, that do not believe that God inspired and guided the writing of the Bible.  Like you, they can not prove it any more than you can, and no more than the opposite side can prove their viewpoint.  Everyone had to make their own decision, and will be responsible for their own decisions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 05:59:05 pm

Quote from: davep on June 28, 2015, 12:49:49 pm

Dispute what?  That God inspired and guided the writers of the Bible?  Of course not.

Move thru this slowly so you don't get lost this time.

I wrote the following, which for sake of reference I will refer to as #1:

Quote

The statement that, "The New Testament was simply the work of a committee," is simply historical fact.

#1 included the quote of an earlier simple sentence (the part of #1 within the quotation marks) with one subject, with one predicate, and without any need for confusing punctuation, pronouns, or any reference to anything outside of the ten words in the earlier sentence.   I then followed the quotation with the words, "is simply historical fact," to conclude #1.

I then immediately followed #1 with the following: "Do you dispute it?"  For ease of reference I will refer to the second sentence, the one reading, "Do you dispute it?" as #2.

The intended (and quite obvious) question set out in #2 was whether you dispute whether the New Testament is simply the work of a committee.

You ask: "Dispute what?"  You then follow that immediately with the following:

Quote from: davep on June 28, 2015, 12:49:49 pm

That God inspired and guided the writers of the Bible?

Nowhere is there anything remotely suggesting that I either believe there is a god who inspired or guided the writers of the Bible, nor is there any suggestion that I was asking you anthing about whether you believe a god inspired or guided the writers of the Bible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 28, 2015, 07:12:25 pm

And I will write slowly also, so even you can understand.

First of all, it wasn't a committee.  It was a disparate group of writers each writing independently.

Second of all, God can impart his wisdom through individuals regardless of their own wisdom or even their will.

Your use of the word committee implies that what they wrote was their own ideas or opinions, as you said earlier.  That is not necessarily true if God caused them to write it.  It would be equivalent to saying that if Jefferson dictated the Declaration of Independence, (he didn't) that it was the secretary that wrote it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 10:00:59 pm

Quote from: davep on June 28, 2015, 07:12:25 pm

And I will write slowly also, so even you can understand.

First of all, it wasn't a committee.  It was a disparate group of writers each writing independently.

Second of all, God can impart his wisdom through individuals regardless of their own wisdom or even their will.

Your use of the word committee implies that what they wrote was their own ideas or opinions, as you said earlier.  That is not necessarily true if God caused them to write it.  It would be equivalent to saying that if Jefferson dictated the Declaration of Independence, (he didn't) that it was the secretary that wrote it.

No, my use of the word committee references fairly accurately what happened.

In the first 300 years after the death of Jesus there were many "gospels," with many of the writings more than slightly at odds with each other, or at the very least rather inconsistent.  Those inconsistencies were resolved by the Council of Nicaea, which was nothing other than a committee of religious leaders chosen, or at the least approved, by Roman emporer Constantine who wanted a unified Christian religion so he might encourage Romans to adopt it.

You might as well ascribe divine inspiration to legislation coming out of a Congressional committee.

I did not address who wrote any of it.  The author, or authors, of most of it are not known, and are unlikely to ever be known.  The portion attributed to Paul may well have come from him, but at least some of the books of the Bible attributed to other apostles almost certainly were NOT written by them and were authored well after their deaths.  During that time it was quite common for someone to write something and to palm it off as having been written by someone else, particularly in the case of the writings of the time called gospels.

The Council of Nicaea was tasked with sorting all of that out, and approving some texts for inclusion in a Bible while excluding others and having those who embraced those texts regarded as heretics.

It was the work of a committee.

As to your writing slowly, I have assumed you have always suffered from that limitation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on June 28, 2015, 10:07:06 pm

 WHY THE CROSS MUST COME DOWN FROM ALL PLACES :


 The KU KLUX KLAN used the cross,burning or otherwise as a symbol of HATE and racism.


 Therefore the cross must be removed from all public places.
 
 You see ... when YOUR ox is getting gored ... you sure in the **** back off. ;D


 Now you have to make excuses to back your team and attack the others team.


 Except you are just as guilty as they are.


 You know who's guilty ? Nobody on your side or their side.


 One person will be found guilty ... not a flag ... not a cross ... not you.


 Who will be found guilty is the criminal. That's how the system works beyond hysterics.

Symbolism isn't the crime ... the individual is the crime.

Especially a flake with down's syndrome eyes.

Oh well ... it's going to happen ... it's going to happen over and over again in a

population of 315 000 000 people ... ONE will flake out.

You literally can set your calendar to it. Now which one's due in July ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 28, 2015, 10:38:55 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 28, 2015, 10:00:59 pm

No, my use of the word committee references fairly accurately what happened.

In the first 300 years after the death of Jesus there were many "gospels," with many of the writings more than slightly at odds with each other, or at the very least rather inconsistent.  Those inconsistencies were resolved by the Council of Nicaea, which was nothing other than a committee of religious leaders chosen, or at the least approved, by Roman emporer Constantine who wanted a unified Christian religion so he might encourage Romans to adopt it.

No.  Your use of the word "committee" implies and assumes that God did not intervene in the process.  Again, the situation of the secretary and the one giving dictation.  God is able to work through men when he chooses to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2015, 06:29:49 am

Quote from: davep on June 28, 2015, 10:38:55 pm

No.  Your use of the word "committee" implies and assumes that God did not intervene in the process.  Again, the situation of the secretary and the one giving dictation.  God is able to work through men when he chooses to do so.

No, davep, it is not my use of the word "committee" which implies or assumed that no god intervened in the process, but instead my statement that there is no god.  The word "committee" in and of itself includes no such implication.

Now, since you apparently believe that the work of that committee was divinely inspired, with a god working thru men and directing their interaction to produce the Bible as you know it, could you articulate what it is that causes you to reach that conclusion, and to also conclude that other texts offered as the word of a god are not?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 29, 2015, 09:56:20 am

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/151186/large/TMW2015-07-01color.png?1435580714)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 29, 2015, 10:53:29 am

Since you love to split hairs, it could not have been a committee since they had no meetings, and each one worked independently of each other.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on June 29, 2015, 10:57:12 am

Wow, now that's a pathetic excuse of a political cartoon. His brother gave us two wars? Really? I'm not too sure you can solely blame him for one war considering even Hillary voted to go into Iraq.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 29, 2015, 12:10:17 pm

And Hilary and the left would jump for joy if Jeb would somehow be nominated. I joyfully believe that doesn't happen, not if my vote has any say.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 29, 2015, 12:56:56 pm

I found this in my in box this morning. I thought it appropriate to share.




                  Brilliance in THREE Parts
 
    PART I




 A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

 B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

 C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.




D. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.

 I love it when a plan comes together!



PART II - 10 Poorest Cities in America (How did it happen?)
 
 City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

 1. Detroit , MI 32.5%

 2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%

 3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%

 4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%





5. Miami , FL 26.9%

 6. St. Louis , MO 26.8%

 7. El Paso , TX 26.4%

 8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%

 9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%

 10. Newark , NJ 24.2%


What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

 
 Detroit, MI    - (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961

 Buffalo, NY  - (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954

 Cincinnati, OH - (3rd) not since1984

 Cleveland, OH - (4th) not since 1989

 Miami, FL  - (5th) has never had a Republican mayor

 St. Louis, MO - (6th) not since 1949

 El Paso, TX - (7th) has never had a Republican mayor

 Milwaukee, WI - (8th) not since 1908

 Philadelphia, PA - (9th) not since 1952

 Newark, NJ - (10th) not since 1907







PART III:




Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

 It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats....... Yet they are still POOR.


Abraham Lincoln said:

 
 "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

 You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

 You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

 You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

 You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

 You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

 You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

   
 "Any man who thinks he can be happy
 and prosperous by letting the government
 take care of him had better take a
 closer look at the American Indian."
Henry Ford


 "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
S. L. Clemens
   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2015, 10:01:42 pm

Quote from: davep on June 29, 2015, 10:53:29 am

Since you love to split hairs, it could not have been a committee since they had no meetings, and each one worked independently of each other.

com·mit·tee
kəˈmidē/
noun
noun: committee; plural noun: committees
    1.
    a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.
    "the housing committee"
    synonyms:   board, council, brain trust
    "she appointed a committee to look into the busing issue"

Nothing in the definition requires either meetings or something other than independent work.

Now, without conceeding for anything other than the purpose of this discussion that the Council of Nicaea never and that they all wroked independently, what about any of what they did or how they did it leads you to the conclusion that it was all divinely inspired?

Instead of deliberately trying to lose the discussion in semantics, could you address the question I posed?  For ease of reference, I will repeat it here:

Since you apparently believe that the work of that committee was divinely inspired, with a god working thru men and directing their interaction to produce the Bible as you know it, could you articulate what it is that causes you to reach that conclusion, and to also conclude that other texts offered as the word of a god are not?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 29, 2015, 10:16:14 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on June 29, 2015, 10:01:42 pm

Since you apparently believe that the work of that committee was divinely inspired, with a god working thru men and directing their interaction to produce the Bible as you know it, could you articulate what it is that causes you to reach that conclusion, and to also conclude that other texts offered as the word of a god are not?

Faith

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on June 30, 2015, 03:01:13 am

Mark's Market Blog
6-28-15: Chief Justice John Roberts: 'Just who do we think we are?'
by Mark Lawrence
Another week, no noteworthy moves in the S&P, either up or down. Greece will continue to be in the news all week with no bailout imminent and a Greek default and exit from the Euro now seeming inevitable. Is this the next Lehman moment? It was the failure of the government to bail out Lehman bros. that put the 2008 markets into a tailspin. I expect markets to drop quickly and fairly deeply - this could easily be the beginnings of our first 10% correction in the last three years. Right now S&P futures indicate the index will open down 1.5%. Is this it, the beginning of the next crash? Nah. The four major recession indicators - employment, industrial production, real sales, real income - are all continuing to climb. The US economy is in perfectly reasonable shape, there's no recession on the horizon, and I continue to believe markets will be further up by the end of the year.
 
S&P 500 December 29 2014 to June 26 2015
Greek prime minister Alexander Tsipras has announced that Greece will hold a referendum on July 5th to see if the Greek people support the EU bailout terms. The EU responded that they rejected a vote and no further credit will be extended to Greece, all but guaranteeing a default on Wednesday, July 1. The IMF will almost certainly call Greece "in arrears," as if they call it a default then creditors can force a credit event which will make several hundred billion euros change hands due to default swaps and force Greece into bankruptcy. At this point Tsipras has about 48 hours to cave in to Europe's demands; I really don't see that happening. It has already been announced that the banks will be closed all week, as will the stock market, and there will be capital controls when they reopen - limits on how much cash you can withdraw and how much you can send out of the country. Greeks have been pulling their cash out of their banks all year and the banks have been getting emergency cash from the ECB, but that's all over now. It's obvious that the EU treasures drama above all else, and the Greeks are supplying drama in unprecedented quantities. How long will Greece last in the Euro? Perhaps a year or two, but almost immediately the Greek government is going to be forced to print up IOUs, and those IOUs will effectively be their new currency. They will almost certainly come out at 1:1 with the Euro, but in a year or so they will almost certainly sink to 2:1 against the Euro, perhaps even 3:1. And the Greek banks are most likely going to be mortally wounded by the end of July. I've thought for some time that default and devaluation is Greece's only way out of their problems, so I view this as a positive for Greece in the long run, but for the next couple of years things in Greece are going to get worse. And Europe? We're seeing the limits of tolerance the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels have for democratic processes. Clearly they're more interested in sending a message to Spain, Portugal, Italy: play ball by our rules or get sent to bed without dinner.

The UK is demanding changes from the EU. In the UK they're unhappy about not having control over their immigration, being forced by EU law to accept large numbers of immigrants and put them onto welfare immediately. They're unhappy about unelected EU officials passing laws that are binding on their own elected officials. They don't like the huge corporate handouts to particular businesses in particular countries, e.g. France's farmers, given at the expense of businessmen in other countries, e.g. UK farmers. And they're unhappy about EU financial regulations. I don't have details - David Cameron is being purposely coy so as not to limit his negotiators - but all of these points resonate with various EU countries and I think things are going to have to change. I don't know what will happen - personally I think the EU bureaucrats are living in a whole new level of denial - but without question tension in the EU is rising.

Stocks continue to go nowhere, neither convincingly dropping nor pushing to new highs. That's likely to change this week. In the last two weeks institutional investors (think state retirement funds) are pulling serious money out of the markets. The rats are fleeing the ship. When the markets open on Monday, unless there's a last-second Greece bailout, I expect blood in the streets in the bond markets and I expect that will be reflected in the stock markets. This should continue for several days, perhaps a couple of weeks, as people see what happens to Greek banks, to Europe banks, to various hedge funds. Several hedge funds have bet heavily on a new Greek bailout; they're in trouble. The tide is going out and now we're going to get to see who's been swimming naked.


China is now cutting interest rates. They already have so many non-performing loans on the books of their banks that they've started trying to convert bad loans to bonds; they have so many over indebted companies that they're inflating a stock market bubble to try to change bad loans to equity; and they're lowing interest rates to spur more loans. We're in the beginnings of what appears to be a major correction in the Chinese stock market; some on Wall Street are forecasting a 30%+ drop. Apparently the Chinese central bank wants to stop this correction. I'm starting to see an end game in China and I think it's going to be really bad. I won't be surprised to see China revert to a communist police state in the next couple of years. And wars are always good for patriotism and taking people's minds off the situation at home. . .


Iran, correctly sensing that Obama wants a deal more than they do, have changed their stance. Iran passed a law stating: 1) Nothing gets signed until the sanctions are first lifted. 2) No freeze on nuclear research. 3) No international access to military sites or scientists. As low as my opinion is of Obama, if he signs up for this my opinion will sink further.

Russia announced they have plans to overhaul their nuclear forces, including upgrading many ICBMs. Last week Putin said Russia would put 40 new nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles into service this year. This looks a lot like a return to the cold war - something Obama is particularly ill-equipped to handle imho. China has tested a hypersonic missile obviously intended to sink a US aircraft carrier. Now Russia has tested something similar - a 7,000 mile per hour missile. Except it appears the Russian hypersonic missile could also be used against targets in the US mainland. We're also working on one. Apparently we're about to enter a new period of expensive arms races.I find this confusing: the last time we had a cold war it bankrupt the USSR and led to their breakup. Russia's economy is already on its knees. George Friedman of Stratfor is predicting a complete collapse of Russia within ten years, and that the US will be required to enter Russia militarily to secure their nukes. Obviously Putin disagrees with this assessment.

Sweden Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist said Sweden, which is not part of NATO and has a tradition of not joining military alliances, will take part in NATO exercises in Spain in September due to concerns about Russia. Although Sweden's defense budget has been cut continuously since the end of the Cold War, Hultqvist proposed increasing the county's defense budget "to prepare Sweden for war." Russian Ambassador Viktor Tatarintsev warned a Swedish newspaper that such a decision would bring Russian counter measures against Stockholm. Tatarintsev also said Russia would reorientate troops and missiles, adding that "the country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to."

The air pollution that kills you is small particles in the air, frequently put their by badly running diesel engines. Who's the worst in world? As bad as Beijing is, China doesn't even make the top 25 list. Here's the places in the world where you most don't want to hang out and breath. Living in New Delhi is a bit worse than a half pack a day cigarette habit - New Delhi air will cut about 8 years off your life expectancy.


It appears that the republicans are going to let the import-export bank die. This is a WW II relic that gives low interest loans to countries buying Boeing aircraft and GE turbine engines. It's supporters claim it also helps lots of small businesses that export. I'm a small business that exports and no one in Washington ever helped me in the slightest. So far as I'm concerned, good riddance to this cute little piece of corporate welfare. Curiously, we find the nominally anti-business democrats now rallying to the bank's support.

Are we in a another tech bubble? There are 114 privately held tech companies with valuations over $1 billion - so-called unicorns. Facebook, a small advertising agency that turns your pictures into rainbows and helps you post funny photos of dogs and cats, is now worth more than Walmart, the world's largest private employer with nearly as many employees as the Chinese army. Apple, who makes phones and accessories for phones, will be the first trillion dollar company before this current bull market is over. And Tesla, who makes about 40,000 really kewl cars each year for rich people, is worth more than Fiat-Chrysler and just slightly less than GM, Ford, Mercedes or BMW, each of whom makes about 10 million cars per year.


In the 1940s servicemen returned home from the war. In the 1950s with massive bank loans we built houses and cars for everyone, employing tens of millions who joined unions and saw their families move into the middle class. Now the unions are all but gone and the middle class looks to follow them into history books. It used to be said, "What's good for GM is good for America." Well, if that's still true then what's good for America is industrial robots, the new auto industry favorite worker. Here's an enlightening video from Tesla.

Fiat - Chrysler is in trouble. Their U.S. model lineup that ranks last in fuel economy among major automakers, performs poorly in measures of quality, and has a higher than average dependence on consumers who rely on subprime loans. Their profit margin on sales is half that of Ford or GM. And they just announced a one or two year delay in the introduction of their new Jeep Grand Cherokee, easily their most profitable vehicle. Fiat has reached out to GM to propose a merger, but GM thinks Fiat has nothing to offer. I agree. I think GM would rather see them fold up and take a third of their sales than merge with them and take 100% of both their sales and problems. I've always been skeptical of Chrysler and I never though Fiat was a real company with real products. Their combination is proving to be unimpressive at best and dying at worst.

The internet threat evaluation company Recorded Future just released a report saying that login ids and passwords for 47 government agencies have been available on hackers servers like Pastebin for several years. Further investigations into the 18 million employee records lost by the government strongly suggest that Chinese and other hackers have been quietly living in several government computer systems for over a year.

A busy week for the Supreme Court. They found Obamacare subsidies legal. One theory about this, proposed by justice Kennedy, is that if the subsidies were found illegal then Obamacare would amount to an unconstitutional coercion of the states to build their own web pages. Attorneys General all over the US are today considering how the government might be unconstitutionally coercing their state with medicare or educational mandates. The Supreme Court found that the 14th amendment requires all states to perform gay marriages. I'm considering marrying my dog for the tax exemption - as long as I keep bacon bits around he'll never divorce me. Obama was apparently extremely happy about this ruling. And the Supreme Court found that the FHA could declare housing practices racist even if there was no racist intent. The instant case was about the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs who had contributed to "segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods." The 5-4 ruling endorses the notion of citing disparate impact in housing cases, meaning that statistics and other evidence can be used to show decisions and practices have discriminatory effects, without proving that they're the result of discriminatory intentions.


Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell will not immediately enforce the Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage, stating Friday that his office "has found nothing in today's decision that makes the Court's order effective immediately." Caldwell cited a 2004 vote to ban same-sex marriage in Louisiana's state constitution that passed "overwhelmingly" with 78% in favor as being in direct conflict with the court's ruling on Obergefell vs. Hodges: "This Supreme Court decision overturns the will of the people of Louisiana, and it takes away a right that should have been left to the states. Louisiana voters decided overwhelmingly to place in our constitution an amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. I fought to uphold Louisiana's definition of traditional marriage, and I was the first attorney general in the nation to be successful at the federal court level." Texas governor Greg Abbott issued a statement stressing that the "religious liberty" of Texans would be upheld no matter what. Mississippi will not yet honor the court's decision either. Has the Bible belt had enough? Stay tuned. . .

Is Obama popular? Not with me or pretty much anyone I know. Apparently what this means is I'm quite isolated, because world wide Obama is extremely popular, the few exceptions being Russia, Pakistan, Palestine, Jordan, Venezuela. World wide 65% of respondents to a Pew poll said they trust Obama to "do the right thing regarding world affairs." 58% of Americans agreed; 76% of Canadians. Who are these 58% of Americans who are so free with their trust? I know almost none of them.


Obama is certainly popular with Obama. On Marc Maron's podcast he said, "I can answer unequivocally, 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?' And the answer is on just about every economic measure, you are." Apparently everyone he knows works on Wall Street and vacations on Martha's Vineyard, 'cause a lot of the people I know don't think they're better off. Obama then listed his accomplishments:

"So when I take a unemployment rate from 10% down to 5.5% ..."
"When I drive the uninsured rate to the lowest it's ever been ..."
"When I restore people's 401ks ..."
"When I make sure that we're doubling clean energy ..."
"High-school graduations are the highest they've ever been, college attendance are the highest they've ever been ..."
"LGBT rights have been recognized and solidified in ways we couldn't even imagine 10 years ago ..."
"When I look at those things, I can say, in terms of, not just managing the government, but moving the country forward, we've had a lot more hits than misses ... and that is ultimately what you're looking for."
Having trouble sleeping? A new survey by creditcard.com identifies the top 5 sources of worry:

Worry 2007 2009 2015
Retirement savings 34% 40% 40%
Health care/insurance bills 28% 35% 29%
Mortgage/rent 20% 28% 27%
Education expenses 31% 27% 31%
Credit card debt 17% 23% 21%

Matt Schulz, senior industry analyst for CreditCards.com said, "They say money can't buy you love or happiness, but according to our survey money can buy you a pretty good night's sleep."
The UK has released a study saying the sun is cooling to the point where the UK faces another "little ice age." During previous lows in sunspot activity from 1645 and 1715 and again from 1790 to 1830 the Thames river froze over with ice getting as thick as 10" and crop yields were low. The UK Met office warns that the amount of light and warmth emitted by the Sun would drop to levels "not seen for centuries." They hasten to add there will still be global warming, except the planet will be cooling during this time. They expect continued cooling from now until 2100. But there's still global warming. George Orwell couldn't have said it better.

Photo / slogan of the week: (left to right that's Sultan, Charlie and Trigger on our morning walk.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2015, 07:37:26 am

Quote from: davep on June 29, 2015, 10:16:14 pm

Faith

As you know, that articulates nothing.  I have asked you to articulate why you believe something, and your response amounts to saying that you believe it because you believe it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 30, 2015, 10:09:03 am

Ya know for normal people the answer of faith is sufficient, but not for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 30, 2015, 10:42:06 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 30, 2015, 10:09:03 am

Ya know for normal people the answer of faith is sufficient, but not for you.

Faith is never a sufficient answer for anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 30, 2015, 11:04:59 am

Tell that to the Global Warming crowd or the atheists.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on June 30, 2015, 03:25:54 pm

Quote from: Cletus on June 30, 2015, 10:42:06 am

Faith is never a sufficient answer for anything.

Faith is to people who know and have faith, but to people who have no faith and don't know what it means its a concept they don't understand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on June 30, 2015, 03:57:04 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 30, 2015, 03:25:54 pm

Faith is to people who know and have faith, but to people who have no faith and don't know what it means its a concept they don't understand.

You'd never rely on faith for something that actually matters. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2015, 05:21:29 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 30, 2015, 03:25:54 pm

Faith is to people who know and have faith, but to people who have no faith and don't know what it means its a concept they don't understand.

I did not ask him to explain faith, or why he holds it.  Nor did I ask why he believes it god.

I asked a perfectly reasonble question as to why he believes that the specific writings chosen by a committee set up by the emporer of Rome to come up with the agreed cannons of Christianity were divinely inspired and inerrent while many other writings at the time relied on by several Christian churches were rejected, and why he does not believe other more recent religious tracts are similarly divinely inspired, such as the Book of Mormon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2015, 05:22:44 pm

Quote from: davep on June 30, 2015, 11:04:59 am

Tell that to the Global Warming crowd or the atheists.

Atheists quite frequently explain the reasons for their faith.  I never have refused to do so.  Can you identify an atheist who has?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 30, 2015, 06:37:32 pm

Anyone can explain the reasons for their beliefs.  But neither you nor I can prove with scientific certainty our position on God.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 08:45:25 pm

I normally expect the olde tacit racists posts to contain made up **** from the internet, but isfullofit, now its you and it's your dump.

Quote

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein never said it.

Quote

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats....... Yet they are still POOR.

Ya, sure. And we plan to elect another Democrat and Senate again in 2016 while your party champions the white .01%

Quote

Abraham Lincoln said:

 
 "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

 You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

 You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

 You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

 You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

 You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

 You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Lincoln never said this.


"Any man who thinks he can be happy
 and prosperous by letting the government
 take care of him had better take a
 closer look at the American Indian."

Henry Ford

If Ford actually said this, I wonder what he felt about northern European white people and government. Maybe someone should check the The Dearborn Independent for reference.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
S. L. Clemens

Largest budget item in the gop, diapers and baby wipes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 30, 2015, 09:14:20 pm

Apparently Otto could not debunk  that the worst run cities are all ran by Democrats for years on end.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 09:27:35 pm

peak

My little girl, just check all the poorest states and who runs them. Check where the poorest counties are and who runs them.

How about this already broke state...

Kansas Issues $840 Million Debt Certificate To Cover Brownback’s Trickle Down Catastrophe

It is more than likely that there are very few Americans who still believe that the Republicans’ only economic policy, trickle down, is anything but a raging failure. Obviously, Kansas residents suffering a continued financial catastrophe still believe their governor, Sam “trickle down” Brownback, when he promises that the god-sent trickle down scheme to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the state’s budget, the poor and middle class, education, and social services will make the state the envy of the entire nation. Now, after a record-setting tax hike on the poor and middle class and truly Draconian social service cuts, the state is so broke that Brownback and Republicans had to resort to issuing a certificate of indebtedness to prevent the state from complete financial demise. It is the second year in a row that Brownback’s disastrous trickle down experiment resulted in going in debt to keep the state solvent while the rest of the nation not under Republican control is experiencing economic growth.

A certificate of indebtedness is a form of monetary obligation that is sometimes issued by a public entity or private corporations that are, for all intents and purposes, like a bond; except they are not secured. A certificate of indebtedness is, then, effectively what a normal American would consider an I.O.U., and depending on the person or entity issuing it, likely worthless as far as having any legitimacy for making purchases or paying debts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 30, 2015, 09:53:00 pm

Otto, I doubt your little article with no link is telling the whole truth but I do know you eventually run out of other peoples money and it destroys the economy.  It matters little if it is a city, county, state or country.

Greece is going down in flames.  Spain and several other European nations are going to be following soon.  The EU will more then likely fall apart.  All due to fiscal irresponsibility and socialism.  Do you really want this for the us?

Do you know what happens when nations fail? 

The people revolt.  They first target those they perceive as rich.  See Ferguson and the burning of businesses except on a much larger deadlier scale. 

No one is safe including the politicians.  In fact the politicians who created the mess are often the first targeted.  They know this.  So their best hope is to blame it on someone else.  Usually a political opponent but if that does not work then another country.  This is often how wars are started especially when you have many nations failing.  We are not talking about the small wars we have been dabbling in for decades but world wars.

Socialism is a disease.  Capitalism is the answer. 

 

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 10:41:42 pm

Never in doubt is your inability for critical thought and your last post proves it.

In regard to your broke ass republic economic theory.

http://m.cjonline.com/news/2015-06-26/kansas-state-finance-council-issues-record-840-million-debt-certificate#gsc.tab=0 (http://m.cjonline.com/news/2015-06-26/kansas-state-finance-council-issues-record-840-million-debt-certificate#gsc.tab=0)

And just wow, putting the situation in Greece (which you know nothing about) with a racist jab.

Kuddos to you warehouse guy. You going to the kkk pro-flag rally in SC?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 30, 2015, 10:50:21 pm

LOL!  What did I say that was racist? 

I apparently won the argument if you are calling me a racist for something that has zero to do with race and everything to do with failed socialism and economic policies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on June 30, 2015, 10:53:20 pm

The situation in Greece is quite clear.  The government has been run by people very similar to the Democratic Party here in the U. S. and they bankrupted the country.  Just like here, they got in power by promising things they can not deliver, and it has caught up with them.  Too bad Greece didn't have a Scott Walker to save them as he did Wisconsin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on June 30, 2015, 10:58:35 pm

Quote

You'd never rely on faith for something that actually matters.   

In all actuality, that is exactly when you rely on faith, when it matters most. God has answered so many times on so many important issues for me and my family. My wife doesn't even have to look for jobs, they come to HER! She prays and God has provided in remarkable ways. Right now she's applying for a job at our local High School to teach Math. She is getting her teaching license renewed, has it sent out right now, and today they called her asking her for a interview. This is the second time now they've pursued her. Her last job came out of nowhere. We were discussing finding a job and prayed about it and bam, the same week someone she knows called out of the blue and asked her about a job opening they had. They didn't have a CLUE she was looking for a job! This happens all the time. Prayer works!! God answers prayer

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 10:58:50 pm

Ha, I don't think you should be patting yourself over support for plutocracy.

Hint: Your not going to be part of its success. Better yet, try to understand what the hell your posting about. Socialism? Christ, are you still part of the 1950's red scare?

Try this baby step first warehouse guy.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/a-momentous-week-and-a-gop-that-needs-to-change-20150629?utm_content=bufferad03c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/a-momentous-week-and-a-gop-that-needs-to-change-20150629?utm_content=bufferad03c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Excerpt.

Quote

Simply put, Republicans are loaded up in a car, racing toward a generational cliff with their eyes focused on the rearview mirror, with many (but notably not all) oblivious to the societal changes taking place all around them and the growing wedge building between their comfort zone and presidential swing voters.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 11:05:37 pm

Quote

The situation in Greece is quite clear.  The government has been run by people very similar to the Democratic Party here in the U. S. and they bankrupted the country.  Just like here, they got in power by promising things they can not deliver, and it has caught up with them.  Too bad Greece didn't have a Scott Walker to save them as he did Wisconsin.

Great another idiot posting about **** that he neither cares about or understands. We already have a Weasel Walker in kansas governor sam shitback.

How is that kansas economy and budget doing?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 11:12:06 pm

Democractic economic policies are in execution in the State of Minnesota.

How is that state doing in comparison to kansas?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on June 30, 2015, 11:14:39 pm

I am 44.  My oldest is 21.  When she was a senior in speech class they had to give a speech either pro or anti affordable care act.  The liberal speech teacher was tearing down every conservative speech giver in front of the class.  Yet kid after kid went up and gave their speech. 

My daughter was especially effective because I told her exactly what his arguments would be and how to counter them.  He was interrupting the kids and asking them questions like, "why don't you want poor people to have healthcare?".   At the end of the day he told them he was shocked how conservative they all were.

Otto, I have news for you kids want to be rebels.  When the world is liberal all the kids will want to be conservative. 

Especially when they see how badly flawed liberalism is in reality.  Everyone works the same and everyone shares the wealth sounds awesome in theory.  However it sucks ass when the dude sleeping in the corner is making the same amount as you who worked hard all day long.  Fairly soon everyone is giving a half assed effort and the whole thing falls apart.

We are getting dangerously close to that point.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 11:31:12 pm

Stay in the bubble peak.

You keep telling yourself that Millennials are conservative.

Keep believing that polices which hope to create trickle down work.

Keep believing that your speech dollar equals that of billionaires because you have the same concerns about policies,

Keep believing the 2016 field is any but a clown car show the Shiners put on in parades.

Democratic victories look like equal access to the benefits of marriage and healthcare for all.

republic victories look like painful executions and more mercury in the air.




Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 01, 2015, 09:55:12 am

Once again, Homo makes brave predictions.  And once again, when they fail to come true, he will hide from the board for a few weeks.

He points to Kansas as a state that is in debt.  For some reason he never brings up Illinois, who is in much worse shape.  And all the Democratic cities like Chicago, Detroit and his own local Milwaukee.

Isn't he cute?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 01, 2015, 12:25:57 pm

davepbart

Those aren't predictions.

And you missed the link to the article with all those poor red states? Ya, of course you did.


I picked kansas because governor sam shitback has propped it up as a model state for republic economic ideals.

I just pointed to the results.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 01, 2015, 02:47:47 pm

Quote from: Sportster on June 30, 2015, 10:58:35 pm

In all actuality, that is exactly when you rely on faith, when it matters most. God has answered so many times on so many important issues for me and my family. My wife doesn't even have to look for jobs, they come to HER! She prays and God has provided in remarkable ways. Right now she's applying for a job at our local High School to teach Math. She is getting her teaching license renewed, has it sent out right now, and today they called her asking her for a interview. This is the second time now they've pursued her. Her last job came out of nowhere. We were discussing finding a job and prayed about it and bam, the same week someone she knows called out of the blue and asked her about a job opening they had. They didn't have a CLUE she was looking for a job! This happens all the time. Prayer works!! God answers prayer

This is completely absurd, even for you.   In any event, real studies have shown that prayer has zero effect which is an obvious conclusion for anyone with a brain.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 04:10:00 pm

Moronic atheist talk. Poof!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 04:25:11 pm

Just one day after the Supreme Court ruling mandating same-sex marriage in all 50 states, the ultra-liberal New York Times highlighted the next battle in America's culture war. The newspaper posted a story on their website Saturday entitled, "Next Fight for Gay Rights: Bias in Jobs and Housing." Here's the first paragraph:
 

Exhilarated by the Supreme Court's endorsement of same-sex marriage, gay rights leaders have turned their sights to what they see as the next big battle: obtaining federal, state and local legal protections in employment, housing, commerce and other arenas, just like those barring discrimination based on race, religion, sex and national origin.


The article went on to insist that the fight to advance the homosexual agenda is far from over:
 

As they push for more state and local safeguards, rights advocates are also starting a long-term campaign for a broad federal shield that would give sexual orientation and gender identity protected status under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


So if you think legitimizing same-sex marriage is the only goal of the homosexual Left, think again. The Supreme Court's marriage decision marks a fundamental transformation in American society and has put people of faith on the wrong side of the law. But that's just the first "nail in the coffin" for anyone who, based on their religious beliefs, objects to homosexuality.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 05:01:07 pm

Just when I thought that the best challenge to Obamacare was over, I see another although I think I heard of this one before and thought it was dead.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/supreme-court-made-obamacare-unconstitutional-case-alleges/?utm_source=Liberty_Headlines_Is_Giving_Your_Site_Free_Traffic_for_Now&AID=7236

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 05:13:26 pm

Quote from: Pekin on June 30, 2015, 09:53:00 pm

Greece is going down in flames.  Spain and several other European nations are going to be following soon.  The EU will more then likely fall apart.  All due to fiscal irresponsibility and socialism.  Do you really want this for the us?

Of course he does.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 05:28:24 pm

Quote from: davep on June 30, 2015, 06:37:32 pm

Anyone can explain the reasons for their beliefs.  But neither you nor I can prove with scientific certainty our position on God.

Your responses in our exchange would indicate that you are quite uncomfortable in explaining the reason for your beliefs.  I have never in my life asked anyone to "prove with scientific certainty (his or her) position on God."  I doubt that I have at any time in the last 40 years asked anyone to even try to convince me or to explain why THEY believed.  I fully accept that atheism is every bit as much a position based on faith as is deism, and I have even repeatedly expressed that belief here.

Of course I have not asked you to explain why you are a deist or why it is that you hold the faith you do.  I have asked a rather narrow question.

You have made clear you are rather broadly refusing to address anything remotely close to the issue of faith, even as you are pointing out as here that, "anyone can explain the reasons for their beliefs."

Now, one last time, just to give you every opportunity possible in order to allow the discussion to advance:

What causes you to believe that the specific writings chosen by a committee set up by the emporer of Rome to come up with the agreed cannons of Christianity were divinely inspired and inerrent while many other writings at the time relied on by several Christian churches were rejected, and why do you not believe other more recent religious tracts are similarly divinely inspired, such as the Book of Mormon?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 05:36:22 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 08:45:25 pm

And we plan to elect another Democrat and Senate again in 2016....

You can plan, but that is a long way from having it happen.

Quote

Abraham Lincoln said:
 "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

 You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

 You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

 You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

 You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

 You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

 You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Lincoln never said this.

Setting aside the question of who first wrote or said it, or whether Lincoln himself ever expressed the thought, do you dispute the points made in the quote?


"Any man who thinks he can be happy
 and prosperous by letting the government
 take care of him had better take a
 closer look at the American Indian."

Henry Ford

If Ford actually said this, I wonder what he felt about northern European white people and government. Maybe someone should check the The Dearborn Independent for reference.

In your absolute obsession with race and ethnic groups you appear to have missed the entire point, which had absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity.  The example of the American Indian was used simply to illustrate the point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 05:42:45 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on June 30, 2015, 10:09:03 am

Ya know for normal people the answer of faith is sufficient, but not for you.

For many questions it is.  For some it is not, particulary when the question is posed to someone who states, "Anyone can explain the reasons for their beliefs," and has a reasonable command of both the English language and reason.  Now, you, WshflThinking, I would never press you on the issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 05:45:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 10:41:42 pm

And just wow, putting the situation in Greece (which you know nothing about) with a racist jab.

Where in the world was any "racist jab" in his post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 05:49:38 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 11:05:37 pm

Great another idiot posting about **** that he neither cares about or understands.

Still hoping for company?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 05:58:00 pm

Quote from: Sportster on June 30, 2015, 10:58:35 pm

In all actuality, that is exactly when you rely on faith, when it matters most. God has answered so many times on so many important issues for me and my family. My wife doesn't even have to look for jobs, they come to HER! She prays and God has provided in remarkable ways. Right now she's applying for a job at our local High School to teach Math. She is getting her teaching license renewed, has it sent out right now, and today they called her asking her for a interview. This is the second time now they've pursued her. Her last job came out of nowhere. We were discussing finding a job and prayed about it and bam, the same week someone she knows called out of the blue and asked her about a job opening they had. They didn't have a CLUE she was looking for a job! This happens all the time. Prayer works!! God answers prayer

If your wife is certified as a math teacher, prayer is not at all needed for her to get job offers, and you certainly should know that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 06:04:46 pm

Quote from: otto105 on June 30, 2015, 09:27:35 pm

peak

My little girl, just check all the poorest states and who runs them. Check where the poorest counties are and who runs them.

I always love seeing good liberals like otto show what is actually in their hearts when they do things like this, referring to someone as a "girl" in order to insult them, as if there were something wrong with being a girl, or as if females are somehow inferior to males.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 06:05:46 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 01, 2015, 12:25:57 pm

And you missed the link to the article with all those poor red states? Ya, of course you did.

Which link was it?  You may have posted such a link, but you never said that was what we would find at it.... and some of us don't bother to read every link you post.  Unless there is a specific reason to read them we simply ignore them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 06:09:55 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 05:01:07 pm

Just when I thought that the best challenge to Obamacare was over, I see another although I think I heard of this one before and thought it was dead.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/supreme-court-made-obamacare-unconstitutional-case-alleges/?utm_source=Liberty_Headlines_Is_Giving_Your_Site_Free_Traffic_for_Now&AID=7236

I heard of a case pressing this issue a few years ago, and never heard anything further from it once it went to the court of appeals.  I have long thought it was the best challenge to ObamaCare.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 06:13:21 pm

And to press me wouldn't get you anywhere. Its like trying to badger davep into arguing the validity of God. Its an old trick.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 06:19:41 pm

This will upset Oddo.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-new-jersey-judge-dismisses-bridgegate-lawsuit-2015-6

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 06:21:26 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 06:13:21 pm

And to press me wouldn't get you anywhere. Its like trying to badger davep into arguing the validity of God. Its an old trick.

Who is arguing the "validity of God"?

Can you find any post EVER where I have asked anyone to establish the "validity of God"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 06:34:44 pm

You tried to argue divinity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 01, 2015, 06:58:01 pm

The problem with that lawsuit is it has become evident that the liberal judges will always back Obamacare no matter what.  It also has become evident that Edwards will also back it no matter what.

So don't expect the Supreme Court to save us from this bill.

I have three theories and none of them are good for the country.  Theory 1: Edwards keeps doing this to keep the law alive because he feels it helps Republicans get elected.  Theory 2: Edwards negotiates with other judges to decide which way different cases will go.  He will let them have that case go the way they want if he can get his way on another one.  Theory 3: He either cares to much about what the liberal press writes about him or he was a liberal all along.

None of these are how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate.  It is supposed to look to the constitution and rule accordingly.  That obviously is not happening.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 01, 2015, 07:11:11 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 05:01:07 pm

Just when I thought that the best challenge to Obamacare was over, I see another although I think I heard of this one before and thought it was dead.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/supreme-court-made-obamacare-unconstitutional-case-alleges/?utm_source=Liberty_Headlines_Is_Giving_Your_Site_Free_Traffic_for_Now&AID=7236

You are missing the point.  This court has decided that it will NOT overturn Obamacare.  Whatever logic and reason is used to contest it, they will not overturn it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 01, 2015, 07:15:46 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 01, 2015, 06:58:01 pm

The problem with that lawsuit is it has become evident that the liberal judges will always back Obamacare no matter what.  It also has become evident that Edwards will also back it no matter what.

So don't expect the Supreme Court to save us from this bill.

I have three theories and none of them are good for the country.  Theory 1: Edwards keeps doing this to keep the law alive because he feels it helps Republicans get elected.  Theory 2: Edwards negotiates with other judges to decide which way different cases will go.  He will let them have that case go the way they want if he can get his way on another one.  Theory 3: He either cares to much about what the liberal press writes about him or he was a liberal all along.

None of these are how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate.  It is supposed to look to the constitution and rule accordingly.  That obviously is not happening.   

I believe you mean Roberts rather than Edwards.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 07:31:48 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 06:34:44 pm

You tried to argue divinity.

Nope.  Never did.  You might need to work on your reading comprehension.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2015, 07:33:41 pm

Remember how it was supposed to be conservatives who were responsible for increased rates of disease which can be avoided by vaccination?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jim-carrey-slams-school-vaccine-806187

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 01, 2015, 07:44:47 pm

LOL I do mean Roberts.  For some reason whenever I think of him the name John Edwards comes to mind.  It happens all the time.

Perhaps he has a mistress and is being bribed.  Theory number 4...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 01, 2015, 08:43:09 pm

 THE CROSS MUST COME DOWN FROM ALL PLACES because the KU KLUX KLAN ...


 endorced it. Just as the DUKES OF HAZARD TV show must be eliminated.


 Famous Steven Spielberg movies must be ELIMINATED also because of the use of SWASTIKAS portrayed :


 RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK


 SCHINDLER's LIST


 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN


 WE MUST PROTECT THE FUTURE BY ERASING THE PAST AND THAT TIME IS NOW


 OR JJ WILL BE POSTING IN ALL CAPS FOREVER !


 Surely you all can see the sense in censoring,and rewriting the past.


 REMEMBER : 1 NUT + NINE MURDERED = One flag down,


 a fuckin rerun of a TV show from the 1970's ELIMINATED .


 Well ... that fuckin solved everything.


 MEANWHILE : Who killed those nine people?


 AND THE CROSS MUST BE REMOVED EVERYWHERE !!


 Fuckin ku klux klan ... because of them ... our symbolism must be removed ...


 it's only right. Surely you must agree, in this politically correct era.


 THE UNITED STATES FLAG OF AMERICA flew over slave holding states before 1861.


 Yep ... that motherfuckers gotta go too.


 AND ... the British Union Jack flag ... shitcan that one also.


 BEFORE the United States flag ever flew over the ADVENT of a UNITED STATES.


 It's all gotta go dude ... all of it. It's all gotta be CLEANSED ... THE PAST.

So that we can rewrite the future of the past that supports the current point of view.

Steven Spielberg is a CRIMINAL for making the movie :

THE COLOR PURPLE. He used the N word. Punishment must be forthcoming.

I'm sure we all agree on that. Racist PIG Spielberg! :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 10:05:54 pm

Its not the same anymore. I never even had that many shots when I was in the military. Its incredible. We survived school when we were young. I was never a sickly child either. Even doctors tell me all medicine has side effects. The more shots and medicine you take the more side effects you interact with. When I go for my physical they ask me if I've had my flu shot. I say no. Well we will give you one. I say no to a flu shot. They say why. I say the last time I had a flu shot I got the flu so I don't take flu shots. They back off. I haven't had a cold in years. The last shot I had was a tetnus booster a few years ago because I tripped over some rebar and tore my leg up. No I am not a fan of shots or medicine. I am unaware of what local schools require for kids today. I think I will inquire. When I went to school shots weren't required. If measles were going around school our family doctor would give a measles shot. Its not that way today. Parents and their physicians should determine medical needs, not schools or government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 11:12:30 pm

Texas Governor Takes Immediate Action Against Same-Sex Ruling
June 29th, 2015
Constitution

Texas Governor Greg Abbott wasted no time in responding to the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage. The Governor issued a directive to all state agencies that ordered all state agency heads to respect and preserve the religious liberties and First Amendment rights of all Texans. In other words, he just shut down same-sex marriage in Texas.

The Governor released a public statement regarding this memorandum and the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:


“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an un-elected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.

“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.

“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans – including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.”

This is refreshing to see Governor Abbott take swift and decisive action in response to this travesty of justice by the Supreme Court. Our hope is that more conservatively-governed states follow suit and stand up to this ruling.

Do you think Governor Abbott’s directive will be an inspiration to other Republican governors across the country?

Not my opinion or question but by the author, just forwarding it for others to view and comment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 01, 2015, 11:25:22 pm

The Supreme Court decision does not force anyone to abandon their religious freedom.  Of course, Religious Freedom does not entail the right to refuse to do your job. 

It is the exact situation as that of the Pharmacist who, even though an employee and not an owner of the business, refused to sell birth control pills to the public.  That wasn't his decision to make.

The same applies to government workers.  If their job is to give marriage licenses to the public legitimately seeking a marriage license, he has no right to refuse to do so merely because of religious beliefs.  If he doesn't want to perform his office, he must resign and find a job that does not interfere with his religious beliefs.

If the Governor ORDERED his office not to issue the licenses, then he could follow those orders until the inevitable injunction was issued by a court, but the Governor issued no such order.  He is putting the onus for refusing upon the clerks - a cowardly thing to do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 01, 2015, 11:28:38 pm

On second thought, if the Clerks are elected officials, I doubt that the Governor has the right to issue such an order.  If so, what he is quoted as saying is totally meaningless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on July 02, 2015, 08:20:42 am

Another gun tragedy Otto so gleefully posts about.....or not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/former-cnn-anchor-husband-involved-in-deadly-shootout/ar-AAcrB0E

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 02, 2015, 10:18:54 am

I knew this was coming.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/?AID=7236

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 02, 2015, 10:34:04 am

I expect this too:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Bill-OReilly-gay-marriage-endangers-people/2015/07/01/id/653164/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1626382_07022015&s=al&dkt_nbr=xr4pbpdk

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 02, 2015, 12:05:10 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 10:05:54 pm

Its not the same anymore. I never even had that many shots when I was in the military. Its incredible. We survived school when we were young. I was never a sickly child either. Even doctors tell me all medicine has side effects. The more shots and medicine you take the more side effects you interact with. When I go for my physical they ask me if I've had my flu shot. I say no. Well we will give you one. I say no to a flu shot. They say why. I say the last time I had a flu shot I got the flu so I don't take flu shots. They back off. I haven't had a cold in years. The last shot I had was a tetnus booster a few years ago because I tripped over some rebar and tore my leg up. No I am not a fan of shots or medicine. I am unaware of what local schools require for kids today. I think I will inquire. When I went to school shots weren't required. If measles were going around school our family doctor would give a measles shot. Its not that way today. Parents and their physicians should determine medical needs, not schools or government.

You can not get the flu from the flu shot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 02, 2015, 12:10:22 pm

That's what you believe. It happened to me. Flu shots despite what they tell you don't PREVENT the flu and what they inject in you is actual flu virus to build up antibodies against getting the flu. Trouble is you can actually get the flu from the vaccine.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 02, 2015, 01:21:46 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 02, 2015, 12:10:22 pm

That's what you believe. It happened to me. Flu shots despite what they tell you don't PREVENT the flu and what they inject in you is actual flu virus to build up antibodies against getting the flu. Trouble is you can actually get the flu from the vaccine.

No, the flu shot is made from dead viruses.  You can't get infected from the shot.  However, the shot doesn't provide total immunity since there are strains that appear every season that are not covered by the shot. The CDC does their best to guess which strains are most likely to be most active in a season but they aren't perfect.  But, the shot itself absolutely can not infect you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2015, 02:16:41 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 11:12:30 pm

Texas Governor Takes Immediate Action Against Same-Sex Ruling
June 29th, 2015
Constitution

Texas Governor Greg Abbott wasted no time in responding to the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage. The Governor issued a directive to all state agencies that ordered all state agency heads to respect and preserve the religious liberties and First Amendment rights of all Texans. In other words, he just shut down same-sex marriage in Texas.

Except.... he didn't, and as the state's former Attorney General and presumably actually having some understanding of the law and of what powers he does and doesn't have as governor, it would appear he is doing nothing more than grandstanding.

Neither the governor nor his office nor anyone he appoints or controls issues marriage licenses, meaning any county clerk's office which wants to comply with the law of the land will be perfectly free to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in Texas.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2015, 02:21:20 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 01, 2015, 10:05:54 pm

Its not the same anymore. I never even had that many shots when I was in the military. Its incredible. We survived school when we were young. I was never a sickly child either. Even doctors tell me all medicine has side effects. The more shots and medicine you take the more side effects you interact with. When I go for my physical they ask me if I've had my flu shot. I say no. Well we will give you one. I say no to a flu shot. They say why. I say the last time I had a flu shot I got the flu so I don't take flu shots. They back off. I haven't had a cold in years. The last shot I had was a tetnus booster a few years ago because I tripped over some rebar and tore my leg up. No I am not a fan of shots or medicine. I am unaware of what local schools require for kids today. I think I will inquire. When I went to school shots weren't required. If measles were going around school our family doctor would give a measles shot. Its not that way today. Parents and their physicians should determine medical needs, not schools or government.

I think you're onto something, Wshfl.  You probably ought to make sure you never see a doctor the rest of your life.  And make sure your kids also don't get caught up in any of that new-fangled medical stuff.

It's definitely bad juju.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2015, 02:30:10 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 02, 2015, 10:34:04 am

I expect this too:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Bill-OReilly-gay-marriage-endangers-people/2015/07/01/id/653164/?ns_mail_uid=25462434&ns_mail_job=1626382_07022015&s=al&dkt_nbr=xr4pbpdk

How is it that gay marriage is going to endanger people?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 02, 2015, 10:07:13 pm

 Holy Dog **** !!!


 I was just goofing around about taking the Dukes Of Hazard tv show off the air ...


 TVLND is taking it off the air !!!


 God help Col.Klink in Hogans Heros ...


 and the Japanese battle flag in McHales Navy ...


 the PAST must be made antiseptic for TODAY ...


 if anything offends anybody ... it must be eliminated.


 Dave, I didn't like the color of the socks you were wearing today.


 Please eliminate them and report back to me .


1 killer + 9 people killed = a tv show taken off the air.


 You didn't see your American History being eliminated this fast did you?


 It's underway ...  >:(




 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 02, 2015, 10:33:22 pm

JJ, that is liberalism. Anything that is deemed offensive must be removed.  Especially if the removal of it can also further the liberal agenda.

Comedians no longer want to perform at colleges.  Liberals do not find anything funny because it is offensive to them unless you are making fun of the Christian religion or a conservative.

Free speech is not to be tolerated if you are a liberal.  No one can disagree with the liberal agenda.  All must walk in lock step.

It is funny to me because I also rebelled against conservatism and religion when I was younger.  However as I got older and wiser I began to see the truth.  The only thing worse then the far right is the far left.  Perhaps it is the amount of power the extremists hold that really matters.  Because today the far left is very powerful.  The far right has zero power. 

Today any politician holding JFK's views would be called a far right wing hawk by the Democrat leadership.  That is how far the Democrats have gone to the left and towards socialism.  The media of course leading the charge.  Apparently everyone must conform and be a liberal.

The Republican leadership is only marginally more conservative then the Democrats.  They want government to be big and powerful as well.  They just want the power for themselves instead of the Democrats.

Either the younger true conservatives will take over the Republican party or it will die when the conservatives form a new party.  Because really we have the Democrat party and the Democrat light party right now.  No wonder the country is failing.



 





     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 03, 2015, 12:19:33 am

 Duck,


 You've always known this about me ... I HATE CENSORSHIP !!!


 I like what Bernie Sanders has to say ... that makes me a socialist.


 I like what Elisabeth Warren has to say ... that makes me a liberal.


 I like what Rand Paul has to say ... that makes me a libertarian.


 I like what Marco Rubio has to say ... that makes me a conservative.


 I guess what it comes down to is ... JACKIEJOKEMAN is an AMERICAN!


 Everybody has a good idea somewhere ... how do you get them all together ...


 for the GOOD of this NATION ?


 After all ... isn't that what it's all about ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on July 03, 2015, 04:53:40 am

Quote from: Cletus on July 02, 2015, 01:21:46 pm

No, the flu shot is made from dead viruses.  You can't get infected from the shot.  However, the shot doesn't provide total immunity since there are strains that appear every season that are not covered by the shot. The CDC does their best to guess which strains are most likely to be most active in a season but they aren't perfect.  But, the shot itself absolutely can not infect you.

Wshfl - You are both correct and incorrect.  You can not get the flu from a flu "shot" as it is dead virus that you are injected with.  However, it is possible to catch the flu from the inhaled version of the vaccination as this is a weakened form of the live virus.  Cletus is correct in that this year's bad season was due to missing the strain.  They say that any flu shot is better than none.  I work in healthcare and I am required to get the shot each year as a condition of my employment.  My family tends to roll the dice and not get the shot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 07:31:50 am

GB what you say is correct. Like your family I choose to not be injected. All medicine whether injected, inhaled or taken orally has sideeffects. There is a medicine that my doctor just loves. He calls it medicine for the brain. He just loves the stuff. Well guess what? If you take it you don't sleep at night. How wonderful can something be if you cant sleep at night? So to counteract the sideeffect you have to take sleeping tablets. At one time in my life I had some intense pain and so did my son. The doctor prescribed tramadol. Well tramadol has sideeffects too. I didn't like the sideeffect and quit taking it. My son is finally free from the drug and says he feels so much better. To have the state of California require such massive innoculations is ludicrous. Big pharma companies control the Democratic Party. If you have a physical or mental problem there is a medicine to solve that problem. The more problems you have the more medicine you take and the more sideeffects you get. Look at some of the big stars. Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson died of drug related issues.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 07:42:53 am

Quote from: Grizzlybear34 on July 03, 2015, 04:53:40 am

Wshfl - You are... incorrect.

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 07:31:50 am

GB what you say is correct.

Quote from: Grizzlybear34 on July 03, 2015, 04:53:40 am

Wshfl - You are... incorrect.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 07:52:24 am

Taken out of context as usual

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 08:17:01 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 07:52:24 am

Taken out of context as usual

Not at all.

It is the perfect distillation of the context.

Are you now disputing Grizzly's point and contending that you were not wrong?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 08:36:41 am

We have discussed here multiple times what the Bible does or doesn't say about gay marriage, and I have asked more than once about what, if anything, the Bible says Jesus taught or said about marriage, gay or straight, and other than generalities, I don't recall seeing ay response from anyone here.

Someone outside of this forum pointed me to the following as the only place where Jesus is quoted as remotely close to being on point:

Matthew 19:1-12New Life Version (NLV)
What Jesus Taught about Marriage and Divorce

19 When Jesus had finished talking, He went from the country of Galilee. He came to the part of the country of Judea which is on the other side of the Jordan River. 2 Many people followed Him and He healed them there.

3 The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”

10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”

Not terribly informative.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 03, 2015, 09:42:12 am

I think it is pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman in what you just posted.  It is also clear it is for the purpose of reproduction.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 10:10:45 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 03, 2015, 09:42:12 am

I think it is pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman in what you just posted.  It is also clear it is for the purpose of reproduction.

Nowhere is Jesus quoted as saying that, and nothing he is quoted saying there even implies it.

Those who are infertile have always been allowed to marry.  And referencing a marriange between a man and a woman is not to suggest that is the only possible kind of marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 10:26:41 am

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/02/schools-implant-iuds-in-girls-as-young-as-6th-grade-without-their-parents-knowing/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 10:43:35 am

The left frays over which presidential candidate is "left" enough -- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/afl-cio-endorsement-2016-democratic-primary-119701.html?hp=t2_r

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 03, 2015, 11:08:25 am

Jes I am only commenting on what you posted.  It is a man and a women and for reproduction.  He seems to say men who can not conceive should not marry.

I personally do not care if two gay people get married.  As you say many people get married and don't have children or can't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 11:31:14 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 03, 2015, 11:08:25 am

Jes I am only commenting on what you posted.  It is a man and a women and for reproduction.  He seems to say men who can not conceive should not marry.

That is what you draw from what he said, but it is not what he said.  Additionally whether someone "should," or whether they "should not," or whether doing so would constitute a sin, or whether the conduct should be illegal are all independently different questions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 12:15:05 pm

Jesus didn't amplify the situations YOU wanted Him to because maybe that wasn't the crux of the question posed to him. We all don't talk about every possible situational outcome when we answer a question. Maybe gay men wasn't an important issue in Jesus's day and age. The question posed to him was about divorcing your wife.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 12:54:07 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 12:15:05 pm

Jesus didn't amplify the situations YOU wanted Him to because maybe that wasn't the crux of the question posed to him.

You are quite wrong.  I neither had nor have any desire to have had Jesus "amplify" on much of anything.  I merely recognize that he appears to have existed and that a large number of people (including you) seem to put a great deal of stock in what he said or thought about certain things, including homosexuality and gay marriage, and like to pretend that his views on such issues either shape, or even dictate their own views.  That being the case, I am interested in whether he actually did offer any opinion.  My readiing of the Bible leads to the conclusion he was entirely silent on the matter, but that Paul was a raging homophobe.  And while that is my reading and memory, I still leave the question open for anyone else to point me to any passage where Jesus is quoted as offering some opinion on the issue.  But it is ot a matter of me WANTING him to have addressed it.

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 12:15:05 pm

We all don't talk about every possible situational outcome when we answer a question.

True.  Irrelevant, but true.

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 12:15:05 pm

Maybe gay men wasn't an important issue in Jesus's day and age.

Right... so maybe Jesus never addressed it at all, just as he did not address all of the other Old Testament sins which Christians believes were eliminated as sins under the "new covenant."  Jesus IS quoted in the New Testament as setting out what the new commandments are for his followers to observe, and presumably those new commandments, as well as other things he was critical of from time to time, would be the oly things which would remain as sins.  I don't believe homosexuality, or gay marriage, are included.  As I have said, I would be happy to have anyone point me to any passage indicating I am wrong -- the one I offered from Matthew would certainly ot appear to fit... as it would appear from your comments you agree.

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 12:15:05 pm

The question posed to him was about divorcing your wife.

Entirerly accurate, which is why you can't extrapolate much from the exchange.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 03, 2015, 01:22:38 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 12:54:07 pm

You are quite wrong.  I neither had nor have any desire to have had Jesus "amplify" on much of anything.  I merely recognize that he appears to have existed and that a large number of people (including you) seem to put a great deal of stock in what he said or thought about certain things, including homosexuality and gay marriage, and like to pretend that his views on such issues either shape, or even dictate their own views.  That being the case, I am interested in whether he actually did offer any opinion.  My readiing of the Bible leads to the conclusion he was entirely silent on the matter, but that Paul was a raging homophobe.  And while that is my reading and memory, I still leave the question open for anyone else to point me to any passage where Jesus is quoted as offering some opinion on the issue.  But it is ot a matter of me WANTING him to have addressed it.

True.  Irrelevant, but true.

Right... so maybe Jesus never addressed it at all, just as he did not address all of the other Old Testament sins which Christians believes were eliminated as sins under the "new covenant."  Jesus IS quoted in the New Testament as setting out what the new commandments are for his followers to observe, and presumably those new commandments, as well as other things he was critical of from time to time, would be the oly things which would remain as sins.  I don't believe homosexuality, or gay marriage, are included.  As I have said, I would be happy to have anyone point me to any passage indicating I am wrong -- the one I offered from Matthew would certainly ot appear to fit... as it would appear from your comments you agree.

Entirerly accurate, which is why you can't extrapolate much from the exchange.

You ignored earlier post, so perhaps you just missed it. 

You seem to think that if Jesus didn't say it, it doesn't count.  In fact, the writings of Paul and other authors of the Bible have as much weight to most Christians as the much fewer things that are recorded as sayings of Jesus.  Just because Jesus didn't say something about it does not mean that the Bible is silent on it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 03:11:27 pm

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2015, 01:22:38 pm

You ignored earlier post, so perhaps you just missed it. 

You seem to think that if Jesus didn't say it, it doesn't count.  In fact, the writings of Paul and other authors of the Bible have as much weight to most Christians as the much fewer things that are recorded as sayings of Jesus.  Just because Jesus didn't say something about it does not mean that the Bible is silent on it.

I don't believe I have ever said the Bible is silent on it, and if I have then I obviously was wrong in what I said and mis-spoke (since I have long been aware of Paul's homophobic rant being included in the Bible).  I have asked rather pointedly not about what JESUS said or did, and I have asked you what causes you to believe that the work of the committee deciding to include Paul's rant was divinely inspired in its decision to include it in the Bible, while it appears you believe other Christian writings since then, such as the Book of Mormon, are not divinely inspired.

I neither ignored or missed your last post on the issue.  I simply saw no exchange being advanced by responding to in once you have simultaneously stated that anyone can explain their faith on a matter while makig clear you do not intend to do so on the narrow issue I addressed.  I am not asking why you believe there is a god, or why you believe Jesus was himself a deity or is a savior of anyone or why you believe his words and teachings are divinely inspired.

I asked a very narrow question.  You have chosen not to respond, as you are entitled to do, and if you chose not to respond, then I see no discussion on the issue really advancing.

And if you do not respond to this, I will not assume you have either missed it or ignored it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 05:15:38 pm

I don't believe I have ever said the Bible is silent on it, and if I have then I obviously was wrong in what I said and mis-spoke (since I have long been aware of Paul's homophobic rant being included in the Bible).

I  doubt the validity of that last statement. It has been speculated Paul(Saul) was gay himself. There are rumors out there that he was. So why would a gay diss gays?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 05:19:55 pm

Just what we need to legalize:
http://www.infowars.com/gays-rights-may-open-door-for-****-rights/?utm_source=Liberty_Headlines_Is_Giving_Your_Site_Free_Traffic_for_Now&AID=7236

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 03, 2015, 05:22:29 pm

So you ask for reasons, and when given them, you ignore them.

I will do it again.  Many people believe that homosexual acts are sins because it says so in several parts of the Bible.  The fact that it does not say it in EVERY part of the Bible, by EVERYONE that is quoted in the Bible is irrelevant.  As I explained, many Christians believe that ALL of the Bible was inspired by God, and the fact that Paul said something that was not REPEATED by Jesus (or vice versa) does not reduce or negate it's validity.

Those same Christians also tend to believe that what you call a committee who made decisions based upon their own beliefs were in actuality acting by the direct inspiration and intervention of God.  The decisions they made were HIS decisions, not their own.

You indeed asked a very narrow question, but like most narrow questions, it can be misleading to those that do not understand the entire context of the question, since those hearing the answer may not understand the foolishness of the narrow question

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 06:12:44 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 03, 2015, 05:15:38 pm

I don't believe I have ever said the Bible is silent on it, and if I have then I obviously was wrong in what I said and mis-spoke (since I have long been aware of Paul's homophobic rant being included in the Bible).

I  doubt the validity of that last statement. It has been speculated Paul(Saul) was gay himself. There are rumors out there that he was. So why would a gay diss gays?

You doubt the validity of what?  You doubt that Paul had anything negative to say about gays?

Really?  Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 (even though Paul likely did not actually write Timothy).

But you think he may have BEEN gay?  And you base that on... what?  Any remotely credible source for that?  And if so, how would you reconcile his being gay (and, according to his own writing thereby having his ticket punched to hell) and him also being the divinely inspired vehicle for a fair chunk of the New Testament and, at least accordig to some Christians such as davep, speaking with a voice comparable to Jesus himself on theological issues?

As to why he might have "diss(ed) gays" if he himself was gay (a rather amusing assumption), it is not at all uncommon.  In fact many argue that those who are most harshly critical (such as you and Sportster) of gays are likely latantly homosexual themselves and are loudly open in their hostility to homosexuality because of their own intense self-loathing.

For a sample of the literature on it: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2012/12/10/why-do-gay-guys-hate-other-gay-guys
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gay-self-loathing/
The 1970 movie Boys in the Band http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065488/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv
http://www.queerty.com/do-you-have-velvet-rage-the-gay-brand-of-self-hatred-thats-holding-you-down-20110220
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/10/17/graham-norton-theres-a-weird-self-loathing-in-the-gay-community/
http://maistre.uni.cx:70/ple/plae120.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 06:31:11 pm

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2015, 05:22:29 pm

So you ask for reasons, and when given them, you ignore them.

Not at all.  So far you simply have failed to explain why YOU believe as you do, and the rest of your last post does nothing to change that.

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2015, 05:22:29 pm

I will do it again. 

Amusing.  You have not done it YET, and in fact do not do it HERE, but you will "do it again."

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2015, 05:22:29 pm

Many people believe that homosexual acts are sins because it says so in several parts of the Bible.  The fact that it does not say it in EVERY part of the Bible, by EVERYONE that is quoted in the Bible is irrelevant.

Let me tell you what is irrelevant when I ask YOU a narrow question about why YOU believe one writing is divinely inspired and another is not and why the choice of a committee should be seen as imbued with divine inspiration and so subsequent writing should be considered similarly divinely inspired.  Your explanation as to what "many people" believe on homosexuality and your comment on the absence of reference to homosexuality ANYWHERE in the New Testament other than in the writings of Paul are irrelevant to my question to you.

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2015, 05:22:29 pm

As I explained, many Christians believe that ALL of the Bible was inspired by God, and the fact that Paul said something that was not REPEATED by Jesus (or vice versa) does not reduce or negate it's validity.

Again, irrelevant as a response to my narrow question to YOU.

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2015, 05:22:29 pm

Those same Christians also tend to believe that what you call a committee who made decisions based upon their own beliefs were in actuality acting by the direct inspiration and intervention of God.  The decisions they made were HIS decisions, not their own.

Again, irrelevant as to my question as to why YOU believe as YOU do.

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2015, 05:22:29 pm

You indeed asked a very narrow question, but like most narrow questions, it can be misleading to those that do not understand the entire context of the question, since those hearing the answer may not understand the foolishness of the narrow question

So, if I understand you correctly, you are deciding not to actually answer a narrow question because someone might "not understand the entire context of the question," and therefor your response might be misunderstood?

If that is your reason, why bother trying to engage in any discussion here?

That is a remarkably weasely response.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 03, 2015, 07:00:35 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 06:31:11 pm

Not at all.  So far you simply have failed to explain why YOU believe as you do, and the rest of your last post does nothing to change that.

You have been reading without your glasses again.  I have answered you question, but since you seem to have missed it (or pretended to), I will answer it again.

Faith.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2015, 10:52:24 pm

You need to re-read the question.  The reason for faith in one over the other, or the reason for faith in the selections of those doing the chosing would not be faith, and when that is the only answer provided by someone who has clearly stated that anyone can explain the reason for their faith, the only logical conclusion is that evasion is at issue, not faith.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 03, 2015, 11:10:07 pm

No.  Faith is a lot like Supreme Court decisions.  First you decide what the conclusion should be and then you construct reasons to fit that conclusion.  The reasons are merely a false construct.

Something must be eternal - must have always existed, since nothing can be created out of nothing, or create itself out of nothing.  Some choose to believe that that something that has always existed is the universe, or the egg it came from.  I choose to believe that that eternal something is a God that created that universe, or the egg it came from, because it seems more reasonable to me.

You choose the opposite, and have faith in your choice, just as I have faith in my choice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 03, 2015, 11:30:26 pm

2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...

End of discussion....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 03, 2015, 11:32:09 pm

Well said davep.

Everyone has faith in something.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2015, 07:46:27 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 03, 2015, 11:30:26 pm

2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...

End of discussion....

No, Sportster, that really is the START of this discussion, which was how is it determined what constitutes "scripture"?  It appears you have decided something was scripture simply because your parents told you it was.  (This doesn't even address the issue of a god who would have people live for thousands of years under one set of "laws" which were never to be challenged and then on a whim changes them to another set of laws.... THAT is an entirely seperate question.  This also doesn't even begin to address questions of what the scripture means, whether its translation into English is accurate, whether interests which might have existed when kings deriving popular support for their rule relied on a belief in the Divine Right of Kings could have influenced the traslations of that scripture into what you read, or whether there a god.

Of course your comment does show one thing -- and that is how little thought or inquiry some people are capable of regarding the principles by which they pretend to live their lives.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2015, 07:57:41 am

Quote from: davep on July 03, 2015, 11:10:07 pm

No.  Faith is a lot like Supreme Court decisions.  First you decide what the conclusion should be and then you construct reasons to fit that conclusion.  The reasons are merely a false construct.

Something must be eternal - must have always existed, since nothing can be created out of nothing, or create itself out of nothing.  Some choose to believe that that something that has always existed is the universe, or the egg it came from.  I choose to believe that that eternal something is a God that created that universe, or the egg it came from, because it seems more reasonable to me.

You choose the opposite, and have faith in your choice, just as I have faith in my choice.

Three swings.  Three misses.

1) With Supreme Court decisions first you look at the facts and the law.  The LAST thing to look at should be the outcome you want.  The reasons should not be  false construct.

2) You assume that something must have been eternal, without any real basis for the assumption, and further appear to assume the dichotomy you offer exhausts the range of possibilities.

3) While you appear to define faith as forclosing thought and inquiry, and you seem determined to show that is what you have done, it is not at all what I have chosen, which is why I generally enter these discussions with questions and seldom pretend that I have answers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2015, 08:03:19 am

On this, the day when we celebrate our nation's independence from the government of England, it is sad that we do so with more people than ever before themselves dependent on government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 04, 2015, 09:25:41 am

Yah, all those retired WWI and Korean War Veteran bums and their homemaker wives on Social Security and Medicare.

Bunch of **** takers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 04, 2015, 10:30:54 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 04, 2015, 07:57:41 am

Three swings.  Three misses.

1) With Supreme Court decisions first you look at the facts and the law.  The LAST thing to look at should be the outcome you want.  The reasons should not be  false construct.

2) You assume that something must have been eternal, without any real basis for the assumption, and further appear to assume the dichotomy you offer exhausts the range of possibilities.

3) While you appear to define faith as forclosing thought and inquiry, and you seem determined to show that is what you have done, it is not at all what I have chosen, which is why I generally enter these discussions with questions and seldom pretend that I have answers.

Wrong.  That statement is merely an indication that you believe things through faith just as much as the others.  Read Marshall's biography where he said essentially what I mentioned.  Believing that Justices actually decide political issues on facts rather than preconceived viewpoints which are then supported by constructed arguments does not explain how two justices can arrive at opposite decisions using the same set of facts.

Everyone mostly believes things on faith and justifies that belief by constructing an argument that supports that.

As far as the eternal is concerned, where did the universal egg come from?

Faith does not close out inquiry.  But faith in a subject that can not be proven makes inquiry rather fruitless.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 04, 2015, 05:08:46 pm

https://www.youtube.com/embed/1XWo4ufMkG4?rel=0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2015, 09:15:30 pm

Quote from: davep on July 04, 2015, 10:30:54 am

Wrong.  That statement is merely an indication that you believe things through faith just as much as the others.

Have I EVER said otherwise?  I have repeatedly said that atheism is a belief based on faith.  You seem obsessed with making a point which has never been disputed.

Quote from: davep on July 04, 2015, 10:30:54 am

Read Marshall's biography where he said essentially what I mentioned.

WHICH Marshall?  One of them was a ****-poor justice, and even if one, or more, justices expressed that opinion, it would neither mean it has been the way most justices approach cases, nor that it is the way any of them should address cases.  You are essentially embracing an approach sometimes referred to as "legal realism."  To better understand the conflict, you might want to take a look at the Dean Weschler Harvard Law review article called "Toward Neutral Principles," or (since that is not very easy to find online) read this: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=luclj  If you are truly interested in the matter, you might want to look at the Olicer Wendell Holmes book "The Path of the Law," which any decent library should have (and which you might even find online, since the copyright has long since expired.... and if I ever get around to finishing the research paper which was unfinished when I graduate from law school which looks at what factors should be and should not be considered in judicial decisions, I'll send you a copy.

Quote from: davep on July 04, 2015, 10:30:54 am

Believing that Justices actually decide political issues on facts rather than preconceived viewpoints which are then supported by constructed arguments does not explain how two justices can arrive at opposite decisions using the same set of facts.

Recognizing that different people can responsibly, objectively and honestly address the same question and reach opposite conclusions does not require a belief that either approach the question with the desired outcome at the front of the process, with each side then looking for excuses to justify their position.  And just because some justices responsibly apply neutral principles leading to one conclusion when applying the law to the facts does not mean that all of those on the other side (or even all of those on the same side) have doe the same thing in reaching their position.  In other words, I have no question that there are now, and have been in the past, a number of ****-poor, results-oriented justices who made decisions primarily based on politics and not based on either the law or the facts.

Quote from: davep on July 04, 2015, 10:30:54 am

Everyone mostly believes things on faith and justifies that belief by constructing an argument that supports that.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote from: davep on July 04, 2015, 10:30:54 am

As far as the eternal is concerned, where did the universal egg come from?

I've offered no opinion on it, not here or elsewhere.  To me, while it is an interesting question, the answer to the question also makes no difference.  It is not just that I have not offered an opinion, aside from believing it did not come from an eternal creator god, I really have no opinion about it.

Quote from: davep on July 04, 2015, 10:30:54 am

Faith does not close out inquiry.

True enough that it does not... or course refusing to actually discuss things can.

Quote from: davep on July 04, 2015, 10:30:54 am

But faith in a subject that can not be proven makes inquiry rather fruitless.

It depends on what the inquiry is.  I have not asked you to prove anything.  I have not even asked you to explain your faith.

I have asked a rather narrow question, which you still studiously ignore.

For ease of reference, one more time, the question is as follows: what causes you to believe that the work of the committee deciding to include Paul's rant was divinely inspired in its decision to include the rant in the Bible, while it appears you believe other Christian writings since then, such as the Book of Mormon, are not divinely inspired.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 04, 2015, 09:25:08 pm

Happy Birthday America! Especially from the people who have believed in you for the  whole 230+ years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 05, 2015, 09:45:34 pm

Absolutely frightening financial prediction From Stansberry.

https://orders.cloudsna.com/chain?cid=MKT071348&eid=MKT074270&plcid=&snaid=&step=start&hpmv=2&affId=&s1=##AST10960

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 05, 2015, 11:40:49 pm

Seems all bad news - world-wide.

Mark's Market Blog
7-5-15: Greeks Vote OXI
by Mark Lawrence
The markets response to Greece has been subdued - no one seems to really believe that a default will be allowed. Super Mario Draghi, one way or another, will print up a few billion Euros and make the entire incident go away, right? Will he? Maybe, but printing up unlimited money to sweep problems under the rug has a long and storied multinational history, and it always ends badly. Anyway, Greeks voted "no," so the ECB claims no more money for them and the EU says no more euro. Is it over? Nah - this is Europe, the drama doesn't end until the fat lady sings, and I haven't even seen her on the stage yet.
 
S&P 500 January 6 2014 to July 3 2015
Unnoticed in all the economic drama and turmoil, Obama's June 30 deadline for a deal with Iran passed. You'll be shocked, shocked to hear talks continue. The real deadline is July 9th; after that day his deal with congress for a 30 day evaluation expires and it goes back to the standard open-ended 60 day examination and debate. Israel's prime minister Netanyahu says each day that passes brings greater Western concessions toward Iran in talks over its nuclear program — and that the emerging deal could be worse than one that led to North Korea gaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Personally, I've agreed for six years with McCain, who was caught during his presidential campaign singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb. . . bomb bomb Iran." (for those of you under 50 or so, that's sung to the music of "Ba, Ba, Ba... Ba Barbara Ann," a beach boys hit not particularly noteworthy for its deep meaning or gripping lyrics.)

Greece voted today. Polls closed at 7 pm Athens time, noon eastern time, 9 am pacific time. "NO" won 61% to 39%. Rhetoric was flying fast and furious before the vote as the unelected bank puppets in Brussels issued their best threats against the Greeks if they had the temerity to actually exercise their franchise.

Martin Schulz, the unelected president of the European Parliament said, "If they [Greeks] say 'No', they will have to introduce another currency after the referendum because the euro is not available as a means of payment."
Unelected European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, noted in this blog for his criminal history and criminal associates, warned in Brussels that Greece's negotiating position would be "dramatically weakened" in the event of a "No" - and still difficult even in the event of a "Yes" vote.
Unelected Eurogroup president Jeroen Dijsselbloem issued a terse statement saying, "I take note of the outcome of the Greek referendum. This result is very regrettable for the future of Greece. For recovery of the Greek economy, difficult measures and reforms are inevitable."
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes, "we have just witnessed Greece stand up to a truly vile campaign of bullying and intimidation, an attempt to scare the Greek public, not just into accepting creditor demands, but into getting rid of their government. It was a shameful moment in modern European history, and would have set a truly ugly precedent if it had succeeded."
If I were Greek I would vote no just to spit in the eye of these power hungry bankocrats. It's bad enough when all we have to choose from is which bank-owned politician we are going to vote for; when we don't even get the fig leaf of a vote, I think it's time for a revolution. By the way, it was the similarly unelected Pope Clement XIII in the 1750s who put fig leaves on all the statues - no Greek sculptor would ever have dreamed of such nonsense.

What's in Greece's immediate future? Pain. Their major export is refined petroleum, priced in dollars, and their major import is raw petroleum, also priced in dollars, so a new devalued currency has no affect on that. Next is tourism, but it's almost inevitable there will be demonstrations constantly for some time, some of these with a certain amount of violence, so that's going to curb vacationers. They'll be wanting to import medicines, foods, oil, but as their currency depreciates those will only become more and more expensive. As their economy chokes off, unemployment is likely to rise. Their government will likely try to institute price controls to save those on a fixed pension, but we all know that price controls simply mean long lines leading to empty shelves. All things considered, I don't think Greece will be a great place to live for the rest of this decade, perhaps longer. Why don't the Greeks negotiate with the Germans? Greece has 25% unemployment, 50% unemployment for those under 30, and their economy is 25% lower than the peak in 2007. Two-thirds of those under 35 live with their parents. Greece is in an intolerable situation - worse than the great depression in the US - and no further concessions can be made. They simply must find a way to revive their economy. Meanwhile, German finance minister Schaeuble says, "Greece will stay in the Euro no matter what." Not real big on democracy these europeans. Today Greeks voted on whether to accept a deal with Europe. OXI signs are all over Greece and OXI is dominating at the ballot box. OXI is Greek for "No," as in "Oxymoron" meaning "No, stupid." Where I went to school, students at the nearby Occidental College were called Oxymorons.

 
Oxymorons at work and play
What's next for Europe? Continued immigration problems, as millions of arabs and africans wash up on their shores looking for a better life; continued issues with Putin who sees europe's indecisiveness as a weakness to be exploited; continued problems with the UK who says their economy is "shackled to a corpse;" and a new problem, which is that the next time europe confronts a member economy in trouble like Spain or Portugal or Italy no one will believe their resolve. What happens when Greek banks fail left and right, which they're pretty much guaranteed to do this month? When Greece leases US naval ports to the Russian navy? When Greece takes hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Iraqi refugees and loads them on trains to Germany and Sweden? When politicians in the balkans and eastern europe see the EUs weakness as an opportunity to gather up territory and power? Europe is in serious trouble, all because over the course of five years they couldn't find a solution for a small country that likes to retire early and sip wine by the Mediterranean.


Puerto Rico is $72 billion in debt and its governor, Alejandro Garcia Padilla, said last Sunday night that they could not pay. There are no legal provisions for a commonwealth territory to declare bankruptcy, so this mess will drag out for a couple of years. Add this to the Greek default and we're looking at good reason for a period of market turmoil.

The Chinese stock market continued to go down through Friday losing 10% on the week, 30% on the month, even though the central bank lowered interest rates. This was intolerable to the government, so they changed the rules at the end of Monday: the country's pension fund will now be allowed to invest in the stock market. IPOs have been frozen. Interest rates have been cut. Brokerages have been ordered to buy and hold shares - $20 billion worth - to stabilize the markets. They also set their Securities Regulatory Commission looking for market manipulators. That one is easy, the market is being manipulated by the central bank and the government. Investors all over China are saying they're just waiting for a rebound so that they can get out even. I know what that means - any rebound will be stopped in its tracks by uncontrolled selling. The average joe is going to be stripped of his savings and pension when this is over. People in china are used to the government owning everything, so it's popularly thought the government owns the stock market and it's their responsibility to keep it growing. The market is up 150% in the last 18 months, so as I see it a 30% drop only gets us about half way there - a 60% correction gets us back to normal levels. I will be unsurprised to see this market continue to go down, strongly and severely. China is going to learn what happens when an irresistible market meets an immovable government - the market always wins in the end.


What's next for the US? I expect a stunning drop in the stock market this week as institutions and hedge funds revert to cash, waiting to see who gets burned. Greece, Puerto Rico, China, it's all just too much. Again, I expect this will be a correction, perhaps 10% to 15%, then I expect China will again find a way to sweep their problems under the rug and the US economy will continue to grow, but first we're going to have a rough ride for a few weeks.

Many of my readers are unhappy about the patriot act. Well, China was apparently envious; they now have sometime far more powerful. The legislation defines national security in far-reaching terms, ranging from finance, politics, the military and cyber security to ideology and religion. The draft defines "national security" as ensuring that the political regime, sovereignty, national unification, territorial integrity, people's welfare and the "sustainable and healthy development" of the economy and society, and other unspecified "major national interests" are "relatively free from danger and not under internal and external threats". The draft law also deals with the protection of the socialist market economy, industries vital to the economy as well as other economic interests. It underscores the importance of grain security and cyber security, as well as preventing and effectively resolving incidents that affect social stability, such as food safety scandals. In addition, the law stresses the need to prevent cyber attacks and dissemination of illegal and "harmful" content online. When the Chinese market crashes and their economy tanks, these laws will already be in place to justify building a new communist police state; more importantly before the crash this law allows mechanisms, personnel and supplies to be put in place. When the Chinese government needs to move, they're going to be ready to move very quickly. I think I can promise you there will be no pictures of a lone unarmed guy stopping a column of tanks this time.

ISIL has beheaded several women; in at least two cases it was a husband and wife pair who were beheaded for the crime of "sorcery." They've also started their invasion in Egypt. ISIL means to create a single caliphate that extends from China to Casablanca, placing all the muslim nations under one government.

Japanese are tired of making more Japanese.

27% of men and 23% of women aren't interested in a romantic relationship.
From ages 18 to 34, 61% of men and 49% of women aren't involved in a relationship.
From ages 18 to 34, 36% of men and 39% of women have never had sex.
49.3% of aged 16 to 49 respondents in the 1,134 person survey said they hadn't had sex in the past month.
Women in their early 20s have a 25% chance of never marrying and a 40% chance of never having kids.
In 2014 Japan had 1.0 million births and 1.3 million deaths.
UK prime minister David Cameron says he intends to outlaw strong encryption in the UK, meaning the government will be able to listen to everyone's phone calls and read everyone's emails. Perhaps they'll be able to force you to give up your laptop password, meaning they'll even be able to read all your files. Of course this is all about criminals and terrorists and ****. Some of my friends will no doubt say, "I have nothing to hide, what do I care?" I have far less faith in the government - at best they'll store everything in their computers and it will wind up in China. At worst I'll get an email, "Please come in and explain this." Several years ago Britain put in cameras all over the highway system, for catching terrorists and criminals and locating abducted children. It's always for the children, no one loves your children as much as the government, not even you. Now it's primarily used to time you from one camera to the next and mail you a speeding ticket, and to track down deadbeat dads. Turns out there aren't so many terrorists and bank robbers hanging out on the freeways with license plates "Blow U Up" or "I Rob Bks." One has to wonder, how did they catch criminals and terrorists and **** before they could read your iPhone? And how come there are suddenly so many walking around that they can't possibly catch unless they can read your iPhone? And if law enforcement can read everything you own, what about crooked cops? Chinese and Russian hackers? Criminals? And if strong encryption is banned that's the end of ecommerce - how do you send your credit card details to Amazon without strong encryption? Perhaps you're thinking that you don't care if Apple and Google and Facebook put in a backdoor for the Brits. What happens when chinese and russian hackers get into UK servers and get the backdoor keys? Perhaps Cameron will pass such a law. If he does, I expect many phones and internet services will simply cease being available in the UK.

At the peak in 1996, there were 8,025 publicly listed US companies; as of 2012 that number was down to 4,102. According to historical trends the economic development in the US, in 2012, 9,538 should have been listed meaning there was a "gap" of 5,436 listings. According to Census data there are almost a million more public and private firms in the US than in 1996. Three economists examined this and concluded it wasn't industry reallocation, as all industries except industrial mining experienced drop-offs, with some industries losing about 80% of listed firms. Changes in standards to be listed on the markets, an increase in larger companies dominating the listings, and unfavorable market conditions were also rejected as causes. In the end, the economists decided that mergers and acquisitions of public firms contributed most to the listing gap. "We show that the delist rate rose because of an increase in merger activity involving publicly listed targets," the study said. The number of firms delisting voluntarily was dwarfed by the forced delistings because of takeovers. Wall Street is financing and directing the conversion of our liberal economic system into a closely held oligarchy. My personal fave: UPS is now about 70% owned by some Wall Street banks and hedge funds; FedEx is about 80% owned by the same people. And if you ship a package air mail and it crosses the Rockies it flies on a FedEx plane. We have a Wall Street arranged shipping monopoly in our country now. And on January 1, UPS and FedEx came out with completely new rate tables that doubled my shipping costs. "The moral crisis of our age has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion," Nobel economist Robert Reich recently wrote. "It's insider trading, obscene CEO pay, wage theft from ordinary workers, Wall Street's continued gambling addiction, corporate payoffs to friendly politicians, and the billionaire takeover of our democracy."


Bonus free picture of the week, with special reference to Texas' new law establishing a Texas gold reserve:

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 06, 2015, 11:07:36 am

Quote from: packrat on July 05, 2015, 09:45:34 pm

Absolutely frightening financial prediction From Stansberry.

https://orders.cloudsna.com/chain?cid=MKT071348&eid=MKT074270&plcid=&snaid=&step=start&hpmv=2&affId=&s1=##AST10960

FROM SCOPES

Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, April 2014]

Write Down This Date:
July 1st, 2014

On this date, U.S. House of Representatives Bill "H.R. 2847" goes into effect. It will usher in the true collapse of the U.S. dollar, and will make millions of Americans poorer, overnight. You now have just several months to prepare ...
 

Origins:   This item about the passage of H.R. 2847 causing the U.S. dollar to collapse as of 1 July 2014 is another example financial scarelore put out in conjunction with an investment come-on, in this case an ominous sales pitch put out by the folks at Stansberry & Associates Investment Research LLC.

This latest panic piece
is offered in a Stansberry & Associates presentation featuring a number of scary-sounding statements about how we in the U.S. are soon to experience a "near-complete shutdown of the American economy," will see "the savings of millions wiped out," will be living under the imposition of martial law by the federal government, and will be struggling in the aftermath of a number of other apocalyptic financial scenarios.

And according to Stansberry & Associates, this remarkable, radical collapse of the United States monetary system and "our normal way of life" is going into effect in a mere matter of months (just like a similar recent conspiracy scare about the federal government's plan to eliminate 16 states from the U.S. in the very near future).

But wait ... all one needs in order to avoid suffering from this devastating national calamity, one that will collapse our entire monetary system and spell doom for the American way of life, is a little information. Information that can be yours if you'll just shell out $149 for a one-year subscription to Stansberry's Investment Advisory newsletter. Or, as one wry commentator put it:
Every stansberryreearch link I've ever know has eventually led me to one of those endless, non-navigable videos that tells me the world is about to collapse and to keep watching because after maybe an hour or three the video is going to eventually reveal a tidbit of information that is going to keep me from collapsing along with the rest of the world. After about a half hour I will inevitably determine myself to not have the time or interest to watch long enough to reach the carrot at the end of their schtick.
In other words, if a financial company spews a bunch of stuff that sounds sufficiently alarming, and then promotes its product as something that will help protect people against this horribly scary thing, it might be able to lure gullible folks into believing that a "fairly easy and inexpensive to protect themselves" against losing their money is for them to send their money to that company instead. And, unfortunately, such schemes work often enough to keep these types of schemers in business.

So what is this all really about?

H.R. 2847, also known as the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (or HIRE), was a Congressional bill passed into law in March 2010 that sought to provide payroll tax breaks and incentives for businesses to hire unemployed workers. A section of that bill, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (known as FATCA), sought to eliminate the non-compliance of U.S. taxpayers who hold foreign accounts by requiring those taxpayers (including those living outside the U.S.) to report certain foreign accounts and offshore assets to the government, and by requiring foreign financial institutions to report information about the ownership of overseas assets held by U.S. taxpayers to the government:
[H]ubbub is being created worldwide by a new U.S. law that is virtually unnoticed within our borders. It is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2010, or Fatca.

The problem originates in U.S. government efforts to prevent future offshore-banking tax scams like the UBS one in 2009. To keep better track of the flow of assets owned by U.S. citizens, Fatca requires bankers in other countries to send the IRS information about transactions by any of their customers who are Americans. Similarly, U.S. banks have to report to the IRS info on their non-U.S.-citizen customers, so the IRS can send it on to their home countries.

You can understand the motivation behind the rule. It's a big connected world economy, huge sums can be transferred anywhere in an instant, and much as INTERPOL or the World Health Organization have a legitimate interest in sharing data, so too might taxing authorities. In principle, everyone should pay his or her fair share, somewhere.
As noted on the American Citizens Abroad web site:
FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFI) of broad scope — banks, stock brokers, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, trusts — to report directly to the IRS all clients' accounts owned by U.S. Citizens and U.S. persons (Green Card holders).

Starting July 1, 2014, FATCA will require FFIs to provide annual reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the name and address of each U.S. client, as well as the largest account balance in the year and total debits and credits of any account owned by a U.S. person.

If an institution does not comply, the U.S. will impose a 30% withholding tax on all its transactions concerning U.S. securities, including the proceeds of sale of securities.

In addition, FATCA requires any foreign company not listed on a stock exchange or any foreign partnership which has 10% U.S. ownership to report to the IRS the names and tax I.D. number (TIN) of any U.S. owner.

FATCA also requires U.S. citizens and green card holders who have foreign financial assets in excess of $50,000 (higher for those who are bona-fide residents abroad) to complete a new Form 8938 to be filed with the 1040 tax return, starting with fiscal year 2011.
FATCA has been the subject of criticisms on a number of fronts (which the Treasury Department has attempted to counter in its own "Myth vs. FACTA" write-up), among them that the costs of implementing it may outstrip the additional revenues it will bring in, that it may prompt "capital flight" in the form of foreign financial institutions divesting themselves of U.S. assets, that foreign relations may be strained by the U.S. requiring foreign governments to gather and report (at their own expense) information on U.S. citizens, and that the law may make it difficult or impossible for U.S. citizens living and/or working abroad to open accounts in foreign banks:
Passed by Congress in 2010, FATCA is designed — using a controversial dragnet-like method — to catch those Americans thought to be evading taxes by hiding their wealth in foreign bank accounts. The way FATCA does this is by requiring that all non-U.S. financial institutions pass along detailed information about American account holders, or potentially face steep penalties.

But casting such a wide net is producing unintended consequences for some Americans who faithfully pay their taxes from afar.

Banks around the world are suddenly rejecting Americans as clients or customers, because they don't want the reporting and bureaucratic hassles, plus the potential exposure to draconian penalties. Non-Americans are pulling their assets out of U.S. banks. I get emails every day from American expats who say they are facing all kinds of problems bringing their long-standing foreign-based banking life into compliance with this new law. Some of them say they're getting ready to renounce their citizenship. Over the years I've had accounts with banks in England, Japan, Malaysia, China, and now Australia when living or working in those places, and I'm wondering what I have to worry about to make sure the remaining ones "comply."

"I have always filed my U.S. taxes just as I am supposed to," says Brian Dublin, 47, an American businessman now based in Zug, Switzerland, who has lived overseas for many years, including stints in Russia.

"However, as a result of FATCA, in the past year I have been kicked out of a Swiss bank that said, 'Hey, we love you, but we won't work with Americans.' I have also been kicked out of a Swiss pension fund. They told me they don't want any Americans in the fund. They don't want to work on behalf of the IRS," he says.

"And on top of that, I spend many hours and many dollars each year filing U.S. taxes when I sometimes turn out to have zero liability for that year because I have paid a lot of tax somewhere else," Dublin adds.

Dublin, a New York City native, says he will be eligible for Swiss nationality in the next few years and that if the situation has not dramatically changed he will give serious consideration to renouncing his U.S. citizenship.
Writing in the New American, Alex Newman argued the more dire side of FATCA, speculating that it could potentially result in a large-scale movement by foreign investors to pull out of U.S. assets and markets:
One of the underreported but major risks to the U.S. economy stemming from FATCA is the potential for wide-scale disinvestment from the United States by foreign institutions seeking to avoid the IRS, penalties, and huge compliance costs. In fact, countless analysts and financial giants have said the 30-percent FATCA "withholding tax' represents a powerful incentive to get out of U.S. markets entirely. The implications for the stock market, bonds, the dollar, and more could be monumental.

Estimates suggest there is currently more than $21 trillion of foreign capital invested in American assets and markets, with about $10 trillion of that in the stock market. However, that could change as FATCA enforcement begins later this year — possibly quickly. The Japanese Bankers Association, the European Banking Federation, the Institute of International Bankers, and others, for example, have all openly warned in recent years that some of their members could decide to ditch U.S. assets and markets in response to FATCA.

Luxembourg Bankers' Association CEO Jean-Jacques Rommes, speaking to Democrats Abroad, warned that the best way for banks to lower compliance risks was simply to reduce the amount of American assets they hold. "In other words, divest from the US market, in general," he explained, as summarized by the Luxembourg Bankers' Association.

Multiple reports have suggested that small and medium-sized firms, unable to bear the compliance costs or the crippling withholding taxes, would be especially likely to ditch American markets. "On the institutional side, the cost of becoming FATCA compliant may be prohibitive for some foreign institutions, and therefore they will divest from their American holdings," explained Douglas Goldstein, author of The Expatriate's Guide to Handling Money and Taxes and director of Profile Investment Services Ltd. Indeed, compliance costs borne by the private sector are expected to dwarf the amount of additional U.S. tax revenue — perhaps by hundreds of times.

Goldstein explained: "Faced with the choice between paying to implement the new rules or divesting from U.S.-based assets, smaller foreign banks that can't afford to shoulder these costs may choose the latter," Goldstein added. "After all, there are plenty of promising new markets in which to invest."

Needless to say, if foreign institutions started fleeing U.S. markets, the economic damage would be massive — potentially apocalyptic, especially considering U.S. trade deficits and America’s outsized reliance on foreign investment and outside credit just to function.
The full implementation of FATCA may, as some critics have maintained, ultimately prove more harmful to U.S. business interests and U.S. citizens living and working abroad than its benefits will merit. But no credible source that isn't an investment firm trying to scare potential customers into forking over money for a newsletter subscription is seriously maintaining that a law passed five years ago will collapse the entire U.S. economic system, destroy the American way of life, and lead to the imposition of martial law.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/hr2847.asp#mR1dHlRF8BIFvUWl.99

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 06, 2015, 04:51:43 pm

I've heard a lot about Americans living and working abroad renouncing US citizenship.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 06, 2015, 05:21:33 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 06, 2015, 04:51:43 pm

I've heard a lot about Americans living and working abroad renouncing US citizenship.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.  I would, however, like to see a law that bans anyone that renounces his citizenship from getting a visa to visit the United States.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 06, 2015, 05:28:43 pm

I would prefer seeing a law passed to eliminate the IRS. That FATCA crap was done under the Democrats, trying to sock it to fat cats.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 06, 2015, 06:24:51 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/06/as-greece-collapses-big-loser-is-socialism.html?intcmp=sbox9_world

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 06, 2015, 07:49:12 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 06, 2015, 05:28:43 pm

I would prefer seeing a law passed to eliminate the IRS. That FATCA crap was done under the Democrats, trying to sock it to fat cats.

I would like to eliminate the IRS also.  That doesn't change the fact that I would like people that give up their citizenship to not be allowed visitor visas.

I also never had a problem with those who moved to Canada to avoid the draft.  A perfectly valid decision.  I had a BIG problem with allowing them back into the country after the war ended.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2015, 09:06:22 pm

The previous posts were brought to you by the Dying Flailing White Conservative wing if the stupid party.


Keep it up olde guys.


We Democratic voters appreciate your commitment to ignorance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2015, 09:15:31 pm

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMEENT


Listed below is the official test which determines whether your party is stupid.

Is donald trump in it?

If so, does he poll in top 5?

If yes, you are a redneck stupid party.


Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2015, 09:44:55 pm

Quote from: davep on July 06, 2015, 05:21:33 pm

I have no problem with that whatsoever.  I would, however, like to see a law that bans anyone that renounces his citizenship from getting a visa to visit the United States.

Why should someone who renounces their citizenship have any restrictions to getting a visa beyond those existing for anyone else?

We already are imposing what amounts to an exit tax on them for when they renounce their citizenship, and until that is paid they are still treated as citizens for income tax purposes -- we are starting to resemble the old Soviet Union in this regard.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2015, 09:46:55 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2015, 09:06:22 pm

The previous posts were brought to you by the Dying Flailing White Conservative wing if the stupid party.


Keep it up olde guys.


We Democratic voters appreciate your commitment to ignorance.

As bad as Trump would be as president, and he would be horrible, he would be better than either of the candidates polling at the top of the Democratic race... or the current Democrat holding the office.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2015, 09:55:07 pm

Quote from: davep on July 06, 2015, 07:49:12 pm

I also never had a problem with those who moved to Canada to avoid the draft.  A perfectly valid decision.  I had a BIG problem with allowing them back into the country after the war ended.

I had a much bigger problem with drafting young men, and only men, who were not even allowed to vote before they were drafted, to send them to fight in a war we were not trying to win, killing people who had shown no aggression toward us, to impose a government on people who did not support it.

That is why I refused to register, and was fully expecting to do prison time for the decision.

After being taught in school that the unifying theme of the Revolutionary War was "No taxation without representation," it seemed more than mildly hypocritical that the nation was sending people off to war people it was not allowing to vote in the decision.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2015, 10:23:16 pm

Legal aid


Shitting your pants in public is never pretty.

Any vote for the clown car is the same.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2015, 10:36:53 pm

daveypbart

How's that transparent government gop governor doing in Wisconsin?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 06, 2015, 10:43:12 pm

Hey, Otto how you feel about your candidate now that the picture of her in her striped pants talking in front of a confederate battle flag is going viral?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 06, 2015, 10:45:24 pm

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/06/23/clinton-gore-confederate-campaign-button-surfaces-online/21199944/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 06, 2015, 11:01:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 06, 2015, 10:36:53 pm

daveypbart

How's that transparent government gop governor doing in Wisconsin?

So far, he has been saving the state from going broke because of the unions.  Too bad he isn't also the Mayor of Chicago.  Maybe they wouldn't be going bankrupt if he were.

But don't worry.  Soon you will be able to vote for Walker in the presidential election.  Homos can vote now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2015, 11:39:04 pm

Our state is 2.2BILLION in debt for the next bi-annual budget. What surplus are to trying pass?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 06, 2015, 11:40:12 pm

Now about that transparency that you're ignoring.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 07, 2015, 06:47:17 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 06, 2015, 10:45:24 pm

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/06/23/clinton-gore-confederate-campaign-button-surfaces-online/21199944/

Pretty lame.  The reporter does not even begin to suggest that the button was actually used by the Clinton/Gore campaign or that it was anything other than some bozo produced on his lonesome, without any approval, involvement or knowledge of the campaign.

Quote from: Pekin on July 06, 2015, 10:43:12 pm

Hey, Otto how you feel about your candidate now that the picture of her in her striped pants talking in front of a confederate battle flag is going viral?

Viral?  Really?

A google image search for "Hillary confederate flag" does not produce a single image meeting that description, nor does it produce a single image of Hillary in the same image as a confederate flag.

Any chance you could share that "viral" image, or even a source contending such a "viral" image exists?

Going viral?  It is going SO viral a google image search for "Hillary confederate flag" does not

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 07, 2015, 04:20:33 pm

News from the balding weasel...


Madison— GOP leaders in the state Legislature disclosed Tuesday that Gov. Scott Walker's office helped develop plans to dramatically roll back the state's open records law.

Walker and his aides have refused for days to explain their role in the plan, which was abandoned Saturday after intense public outcry. Walker's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

The GOP governor's help with the plan came to light as the Senate prepared to approve the state budget Tuesday and less than a week before he is to formally announce he is running for president.

Leaders said they put together the plan with Walker's office.

"Sure, we all were," Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said when asked if Senate leaders and Walker's office were involved.

Similarly, in an interview with the Capital Times and WISC-TV in Madison, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said, "Sure," when asked if Walker's aides were involved in developing the plan.

"We tried to put something together we thought that made sense," Fitzgerald told them.


Enjoy his failing candidacy. I will

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 07, 2015, 05:25:28 pm

otto, I am somewhat less than likely to attribute any significance to reports from not only unnamed sources, but sources which fail to address exactly what it is the report is discussing and simply uses loaded terms to characterize things.  I am specifically talking about the reference to "plans to dramatically roll back the state's open records law," without including an actual reference to what the writer is describing as a "dramatic roll back."

Any chance you might enlighten us with an original source and also some reference to what supposedly constitutes a "dramatic roll back"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 07, 2015, 05:37:04 pm

This isn't new.  And unfortunately nothing has changed.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/07/spilled-milk
Spilled Milk
A brief history of the dairy lobby's unwholesome influence on the U.S. Supreme Court

Damon Root from the August/September 2015 issue

Hein Hettinga and his cows Pete Souza/KRT/NewscomIn December 2006 The Washington Post profiled an upstart Arizona dairy farmer named Hein Hettinga. His claim to fame was developing a clever business plan that allowed his farms to lawfully bottle and sell their own milk for as much as 20 cents less per gallon than the minimum price set by a federal law that has been in place since the New Deal. Not surprisingly, Hettinga's low-priced milk was a big hit with consumers. It practically flew off the shelves at Costco.

That's when things turned sour. As the Post put it, "a coalition of giant milk companies and dairies, along with their congressional allies, decided to crush Hettinga's initiative. For three years, the milk lobby spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions and made deals with lawmakers, including incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D–Nev.)."

Those lobbying efforts bore fruit in the form of the Milk Regulation Equity Act. Among other things, this federal statute imposed new minimum milk pricing rules on all producer-handlers operating out of Arizona that distribute at least 3 million pounds of fluid milk per month. In practical terms, Hettinga's operation, Sarah Farms, was the only outfit in the entire state fitting that description. Uncle Sam effectively singled out Sarah Farms for abuse.

In response, Hettinga filed suit in federal court, charging the federal government with violating his constitutional right to earn a living. In April 2012 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law, requiring the upstart dairy farmer to impose a federal price hike on his unlucky customers.

But there was a twist. Though the judges ruled unanimously that "longstanding Supreme Court precedent readily dispenses with [Hettinga's] argument," two of the three judges who voted against Hettinga filed a separate concurring opinion in which they denounced the very legal precedents that forced their hands. This case "reveals an ugly truth," wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown, joined by Chief Judge David Sentelle: "America's cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers. And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s." Still, because she was only a lower court judge, Brown concluded, she was duty-bound to follow the Supreme Court's noxious precedents.

Hettinga v. United States was a revealing case in more ways than one. Not only did the key legal precedents cited by Brown involve judicial surrender to special-interest legislation, but those cases—just like Hettinga's—also involved an established industry triumphing over an upstart competitor who sought to entice consumers with an attractive and affordable alternative.

In other words, if you want to understand the unsavory state of economic liberty in America today, look no further than the dairy lobby's unwholesome winning streak in federal court.

I Can't Believe It's Not Butter

Our distasteful story begins back in 1869, when a French chemist named Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès invented an affordable butter substitute called oleomargarine. By using vegetable oil instead of milkfat, he created a cheap, butter-like substance that proved surprisingly popular with French eaters. Better known to us today as margarine, the new product became something of a sensation in late 19th century Europe and America. But while consumers liked it, U.S. dairy farmers were less than pleased at the prospects of a new competitor. In fact, it wasn't long before the industry began demanding that the "unhealthy" new product be outlawed altogether.

The Pennsylvania state legislature dutifully followed suit, passing several laws banning the manufacture and sale of margarine, including one 1883 statute specifically enacted "for the protection of dairymen." Five years later, in a taste of trouble to come, the Supreme Court affirmed the Keystone State's regulatory crackdown.

"Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute," declared Justice John Marshall Harlan, invoking the principles of judicial deference in his majority opinion in Powell v. Pennsylvania. In Harlan's view, the Court had no business second-guessing the regulatory judgments of democratically accountable officials. If the merchants and manufacturers of Pennsylvania (or any other state) hoped to sell "wholesome oleomargarine as an article of food," Harlan wrote, "their appeal must be to the legislature, or to the ballot-box, not to the judiciary."

Four decades later, Harlan's deferential judgment would come bubbling back to the surface in a landmark New Deal victory for protectionist regulation.

'Every Possible Presumption'

On March 5, 1934, the Supreme Court declared New York shopkeeper Leo Nebbia to be an enemy of his state. Nebbia's crime? He sold two quarts of milk and a 5 cent loaf of bread for the combined low price of 18 cents, thereby violating the commands of New York's Milk Control Board, which had set the minimum milk price at 9 cents a quart in order to combat such "evils" as price cutting and "destructive competition."

This bears repeating. During the lean years of the Great Depression, the Supreme Court gave its blessing to a government-mandated price hike on milk. Why? "A state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose," declared Justice Owen Roberts' majority opinion in Nebbia v. New York. Never mind the fact that low-priced milk posed zero threat to the cash-strapped public. "The legislature is primarily the judge of the necessity of such an enactment," Roberts held, and "every possible presumption is in favor of its validity." Among the precedents cited by Roberts was the Court's anti-margarine ruling in Powell v. Pennsylvania.

Nebbia arrived at a turning point in American legal history. Before the mid-1930s, the Supreme Court sometimes—though not always—overruled economic regulations for exceeding the government's lawful reach and violating the constitutional rights of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and employees. In 1935, for example, the Court nullified the New Deal's National Industrial Recovery Act on the grounds that congressional power under the Commerce Clause did not allow federal officials to control the local sale and slaughter of kosher chickens in Brooklyn. "The country was in the horse-and-buggy age when that clause was written," fumed President Franklin Roosevelt in response.

But FDR got the last laugh three years later when the dairy lobby stepped up and delivered another sweeping win for the regulatory state. At issue in United States v. Carolene Products Co. was a federal statute known as the Filled Milk Act. Its purpose was to ban the interstate shipment of so-called filled milk, which is basically a dairy product made by adding vegetable oil to skim milk. True to form, the dairy industry took an immediate dislike to its latest low-cost competitor and lobbied intently for the federal restriction.

Writing for the Supreme Court in 1938, Justice Harlan Stone followed in the deferential footsteps of Powell and Nebbia. When it comes to "regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions," Stone declared, "the existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed." Henceforth, Stone instructed, the federal courts must give lawmakers the benefit of the doubt in all cases dealing with the constitutionality of economic regulations. As for the purveyors of filled milk—a perfectly safe and healthy food product, by the way—their interstate enterprise was out of luck.

Which brings us back to Hein Hettinga and his ill-fated attempt to bottle and sell low-priced milk in the early 21st century. In her concurrence in Hettinga v. United States, Judge Brown characterized the federal government's actions as a forced collectivization scheme that injured consumers and enriched special interests. Nonetheless, Brown reluctantly conceded that under the pro-government judicial deference mandated by Nebbia and Carolene Products, both of which she dutifully cited, she had no choice but to uphold the offensive regulation.

Those rotten precedents continue to wreak havoc in all manner of cases. In Chicago, food truck vendors are currently waging a legal fight to overturn their city's arbitrary street parking restrictions. In Florida, a beer store is seeking to void that state's nonsensical ban on selling freshly brewed suds in the popular 64-ounce containers known as "growlers." Thanks to the dairy lobby's legal triumphs, these small businesses (and countless others like them) enter the courtroom with the scales of justice already tipped heavily against them.

As Judge Brown aptly observed in Hettinga, "the government has thwarted the free market, and ultimately hurt consumers, to protect the economic interests of a powerful faction. Neither the legislators nor the lobbyists broke any positive laws to accomplish this result. It just seems like a crime." It sure does.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 07, 2015, 05:55:55 pm

I would say, "I told you so," but... why bother?  Pretty much any sane person was saying the same thing.  And the folks who were pushing ObamaCare in defiance of basic economic priciples aren't going to have their opinions changed by reality.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?_r=1&referrer=

WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected....

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives....

In their submissions to federal and state regulators, insurers cite several reasons for big rate increases. These include the needs of consumers, some of whom were previously uninsured; the high cost of specialty drugs; and a policy adopted by the Obama administration in late 2013 that allowed some people to keep insurance that did not meet new federal standards.

“Healthier people chose to keep their plans,” said Amy L. Bowen, a spokeswoman for the Geisinger Health Plan in Pennsylvania, and people buying insurance on the exchange were therefore sicker than expected. Geisinger, often praised as a national model of coordinated care, has requested an increase of 40 percent in rates for its health maintenance organization.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 07, 2015, 07:32:45 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 07, 2015, 05:25:28 pm

........................uses loaded terms to characterize things..................

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 07, 2015, 05:37:04 pm

This isn't new.  And unfortunately nothing has changed.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/07/spilled-milk
Spilled Milk

On March 5, 1934, the Supreme Court declared New York shopkeeper Leo Nebbia to be an enemy of his state. Nebbia's crime? He sold two quarts of milk and a 5 cent loaf of bread for the combined low price of 18 cents,

I wonder if the Supreme Court really used the term "enemy of his state"?  Without knowing any better, I would on the face of things consider this to be using a "loaded term" to characterize something.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 07, 2015, 07:36:51 pm

Homo - it almost looks as if Walker is taking lessons from Obama and Hillary in the matter of transparency.  How many Emails has Walker deleted?  Can he break Hillary's record?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 07, 2015, 08:30:32 pm

Quote from: davep on July 07, 2015, 07:32:45 pm

I wonder if the Supreme Court really used the term "enemy of his state"?  Without knowing any better, I would on the face of things consider this to be using a "loaded term" to characterize something.

And if you had bothered to honestly quote what I had written instead of trimming it to alter its context, you would have noticed a bit of difference between what I posted and what otto had:
1) I included the link to the source;
2) What I cut and pasted included an actual reference to what was done that the writer was charecterizing with the loaded terms used instead of just using the loaded terms.

And, just in case you needed any confirmation of your belief that the phrase "enemy of the state" was not used, the Nebbia decision is here... without any use of the phrase (which I doubt anyone thought had actually been used).  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/502#writing-USSC_CR_0291_0502_ZX

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 07, 2015, 08:35:58 pm

So the writer DID use a loaded term? 

It sounds like I took a small part of your post and quibbled with a couple of words without addressing the entire post.  I wonder where I learned that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 07, 2015, 08:54:20 pm

LMAO!!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 07, 2015, 10:21:38 pm

Quote from: davep on July 07, 2015, 08:35:58 pm

So the writer DID use a loaded term? 

It sounds like I took a small part of your post and quibbled with a couple of words without addressing the entire post.  I wonder where I learned that?

No, davep, you took a couple of words out of context and offered them as if they meant something else.

There is nothing wrong with addressing only one small part of a post and leaving the rest of it untouched.

There is something wrong with taking a couple of words and deleting everything else so the context is not just absent, but deliberately changed.

You did the latter.  If you can find any comparable example by anyone you think you might have "learned that" from here, I would love to see it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 08, 2015, 06:14:07 am

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/inspiring-responses-to-gay-kids-heartbreaking-123390008737.html

This **** kills me. This kid looks like he's 12, does he really KNOW he is gay. Truth be known, there's probably someone in the background that's convinced him he's gay and no one will like him. Instead of bleeding heart libs telling him it's alright to be gay, how about explaining to him that he's young and that he really doesn't know for sure what his sexual desires are. We've let the liberals take this country over and this is the kinda **** you get. Liberals will do anything to further their agenda..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 08, 2015, 11:00:24 am

Nailed it, Chif....
A friend of our daughter a couple years back thought she was gay and told my daughter, who promptly told us and we told her parents about it. They talked to her, she is now fine. She is boy crazy. It is simply because of all the nonsense in our society now that kids even discuss this garbage and Hollywood can be directly blamed for pushing it on society. Now had they been liberal parents, they would have allowed in her a problem that would destroy her life and cause her much grief. Instead it was dealt with quickly and she is normal today because she wasn't allowed to go forward in a destructive lifestyle.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 11:39:44 am

chifbart and ATTENTION RELIGIOUS FANATIC


At what age did you choose your sexually and for what reason?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 08, 2015, 01:56:05 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 11:39:44 am

At what age did you choose your sexually and for what reason?

Interesting question, Homo.  At which age did YOU choose you sexually, and for what reason?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 02:37:24 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on July 08, 2015, 06:14:07 am

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/inspiring-responses-to-gay-kids-heartbreaking-123390008737.html

This **** kills me. This kid looks like he's 12, does he really KNOW he is gay. Truth be known, there's probably someone in the background that's convinced him he's gay and no one will like him. Instead of bleeding heart libs telling him it's alright to be gay, how about explaining to him that he's young and that he really doesn't know for sure what his sexual desires are. We've let the liberals take this country over and this is the kinda **** you get. Liberals will do anything to further their agenda..

Are you telling me that when you were 12, in Jr. High, you didn't know whether it was boys or girls that excited you?

And if you were excited by girls, are you trying to say that excitement was because someone in the background convinced you that you were straight?

And are you saying that just telling a 12year-old that "it's alright to be gay" is somehow convincing him or her that they are... or that all 12 year olds should be told that it is NOT alright to be gay?  That they should be taught it's sinful and that they are going to burn in hell if they are attracted to someone of the same sex?

And, no, Sportster, these questions are not directed at you, because I already know how nutty you are on this and how you would answer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 05:04:36 pm

Donald Trump may or may not be a bigot... but he has rather conclusively answered the question of whether he is delusional: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-i-will-win-latino-vote-n38869

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 06:03:38 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/08/rand-paul-calls-for-an-end-to-sanctuary-cities-says-there-should-be-populist-revolution-against-unsecured-border/

Rand Paul Calls for An End to Sanctuary Cities, Says There Should be Populist ‘Revolution’ Against Unsecured Border

by Katie McHugh8 Jul 2015605
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called for an end of “sanctuary city” policies after a Mexican illegal immigrant, shielded by city authorities from deportation, allegedly shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on Pier 14 in San Francisco.

As CNN notes, there is no strict legal definition of a “sanctuary city,” a term that advocates for mass immigration dislike for its revealing nature. The movement began thanks to American churches in the 1980s who welcomed illegal aliens from Central America purportedly fleeing violence from the Third World, much as they do today. Now, more than 200 state and local jurisdictions defy federal immigration law by refusing to detain illegal aliens who are usually caught in the commission of another crime for deportation.

“Conservatives say we believe in the rule of law, and the beginning of the rule of law is enforcing the law. Since 1986, there was a promise we would enforce the law on border security. We’ve done squat. We’ve done nothing… Eleven million people have crossed over illegally,” Paul said on the Laura Ingraham show on Tuesday. “So, the first thing we have to do is enforce the law.” He added:

    But we have not had a president, Republican or Democrat, who is willing to enforce immigration law. Now we have whole cities and states who stand up and say, ‘We just don’t care. We want these people here at all costs, and we’re not going to do anything about it.’ And I think the time’s come for that to end. But it’s not going to end until you have an executive in the White House who says, ‘I will enforce immigration laws.’

Ingraham noted that Americans are not safe from criminal aliens anywhere in the country, thanks to the sheer number who are here illegally. Paul agreed, calling for a grassroots uprising against President Obama and his administration’s dismantling of immigration law:

    Well, it goes to the heart of the matter, because like I say, we’ve been promised this over and over again, and no one’s enforcing the laws. The laws on the books say we should have a secure border, and we don’t. Now, could we update the security? Yes. But even the existing laws need to be enforced, and they’re not being enforced. And they’re being flouted and basically laughed at by cities like San Francisco… They’re ought to be a revolution of folks saying, ‘We want you to obey the law,’ and making sure the president hears them loud and clear.

Paul now joins candidates Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in calling for strict border controls to protect Americans from convicted felons such as Francisco Sanchez, who was deported five times yet sought out San Francisco deliberately because he knew he would not be deported from there — no matter what previous offenses he had committed on U.S. soil.

His stance also puts him significantly at odds with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Rubio played a pivotal role in pushing the Gang of Eight bill in 2013. An amended version of Rubio’s bill would have made it impossible to punish sanctuary cities that harbor dangerous illegal aliens like Sanchez by stripping federal funds from them. Had Gang of Eight become law, San Francisco would continue to receive blood money in the form of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) payments, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would have struggled to even detain criminals like Sanchez.

---------------
Now, to save davep time, yes that includes unquestionably loaded wording... and also clearly sets out what the writer believes made the loaded wording appropriate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 06:14:27 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/11725236/The-really-worrying-financial-crisis-is-happening-in-China-not-Greece.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 07:02:02 pm

These people already closed their bakery.  Isn't it ridiculous to force them to pay $135,000 to the gay couple on top of it?  How in the hell is it legal to tell them they can't talk about it or they will face more fines and possible jail time?  This is a **** witch hunt. 

How can any sane person not come to the conclusion that the people who are actually having their rights stepped on are this couple?  All that happened to the lesbians is that they had to get their wedding cake from some one else.  Oh and get paid $135,000. 

This right here is why I was against gay marriage.   

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/08/bakers-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-wedding-cake-told-to-pay-135k-by-monday-or-else.html

The Kleins, who are devout evangelical Christians, argued that baking the cake would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

The BOLI ruling ordered the mom-and-pop bakers to pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibits them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex unions.

And now - they have until July 13 to pay the damages or else face additional fines and a possible lien on their home.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 07:09:28 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 06:14:27 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/11725236/The-really-worrying-financial-crisis-is-happening-in-China-not-Greece.html

I have seen this coming for a very long time.  You can't build entire cities that are empty to keep economic growth going nor can the government prop up businesses that are losing money indefinitely.  Eventually the piper must be paid.  Looks like it is getting very close to that time for China.

The danger here is that as they have their economic meltdown and the people become rebellious the leadership there may decide they need to start a war to keep the heat off of themselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 08, 2015, 07:14:21 pm

Never said anything about "sinful" (show me where I said "sinful"). Kids going through puberty get confusing thoughts. Hormones do crazy things to kids.. If he's gay, fine, I don't care. I don't like the way it gets pushed..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 07:30:25 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 07:02:02 pm

The Kleins, who are devout evangelical Christians, argued that baking the cake would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

Interesting.  I have known a number of evangelical Christians, and I have never heard that their religion prohibits baking cakes.

The bottom line is that courts and administrative agencies make bad, or illegal, decisions every damn day.  And the appeals process allows folks to challenge those decisions to get them reversed.  In this case, the First Amendment would also allow them to ignore the gag order.

The article indicates they are appealing the decision, and the quotes indicate they are ignoring the gag order.

I see much less to be concerned about here than what I saw in court on a regular basis for years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 07:32:33 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 07:09:28 pm

I have seen this coming for a very long time.  You can't build entire cities that are empty to keep economic growth going nor can the government prop up businesses that are losing money indefinitely.  Eventually the piper must be paid.  Looks like it is getting very close to that time for China.

The danger here is that as they have their economic meltdown and the people become rebellious the leadership there may decide they need to start a war to keep the heat off of themselves.

The danger is far less war than contagion and loss of markets.

Neither 1929, nor 2007-2008 were local problems.  This one is also likely to spread globally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 07:33:26 pm

Davepvart

That is my point. By your non-answer YOU know that it is not a choice.

I never chose nor suffered from myself.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 07:37:34 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 07:33:26 pm

I never chose nor suffered from myself.

.... much of the rest of the world has.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 07:38:56 pm

ATTENTION RELIGIOUS FANATIC


So, you made a 14 girl with questions about her sexualky a "boy crazy" **** or someone who will never trust you again...


And your answer is...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 08, 2015, 07:39:07 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 07:33:26 pm

Davepvart

That is my point. By your non-answer YOU know that it is not a choice.

And why should davep aswer questions which you directly posed to another poster.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 08, 2015, 08:43:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 07:33:26 pm

Davepvart

That is my point. By your non-answer YOU know that it is not a choice.
I never chose nor suffered from myself.

Of course, being a homosexual is not a choice.  Nor is it a sin, in the eyes of most christians.  Performing homosexual acts IS a sin in the eyes of certain christians.  And that, of course, IS a choice.

Adultery and blasphemy are also sins.  And personally, I don't much care who commits sins, as long as they affect only themselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 08, 2015, 09:28:56 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 07:02:02 pm

These people already closed their bakery.  Isn't it ridiculous to force them to pay $135,000 to the gay couple on top of it?  How in the hell is it legal to tell them they can't talk about it or they will face more fines and possible jail time?  This is a **** witch hunt. 

How can any sane person not come to the conclusion that the people who are actually having their rights stepped on are this couple?  All that happened to the lesbians is that they had to get their wedding cake from some one else.  Oh and get paid $135,000. 

This right here is why I was against gay marriage.   

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/08/bakers-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-wedding-cake-told-to-pay-135k-by-monday-or-else.html

The Kleins, who are devout evangelical Christians, argued that baking the cake would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

The BOLI ruling ordered the mom-and-pop bakers to pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibits them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex unions.

And now - they have until July 13 to pay the damages or else face additional fines and a possible lien on their home.

They didn't close their bakery. They closed their storefront and now operate entirely online.  And, they aren't prohibited from talking about the case. They are prohibited from promoting their discriminatory business policy.  They can talk all they want about the case but they can't use their bigotry as an advertisement for their business.  That's consistent with Oregon law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 09:45:54 pm

It isn't bigotry it is called religious freedom. 

Just like you can not be forced to be religious they should not be forced to not practice their religion as long as it isn't harming others.  Not baking someone a cake is not harming them.

Somewhere along the way common sense has been thrown out the window here.  Why would anyone want someone to bake them a wedding cake who does not want to make it?  That is **** stupid!

So I can only surmise they are trying to force their view point on the other.  So who is out of bounds here?

If someone was forcing you or Jes to do whatever you do for a living for a religious ceremony I would back you guys.  No one should be forced to do anything that they hold a strong belief against as long as they are not harming anyone.  No one was harmed by not having a cake baked by them.

Especially since there would have been a ton of people who would have been happy to bake the cake.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 08, 2015, 09:56:15 pm

The bakery served them once (or more than once for all I know but it was at least once) and then the bakery found out one of the women is gay and refused to serve her. That's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and that's illegal in Oregon. This is about as clear cut and straightforward as it gets. Religion has nothing to do with this except that it made these people bigoted **** and it gives them a lame excuse for their behavior. An excuse that, thankfully, the law's not interested in hearing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 10:23:37 pm

I thought they were in the business of making cakes for people NOT baked moral judgments.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 10:32:30 pm

My understanding is that the gay couple were customers and that this couple had served them knowing they were gay.  They only refused to make a wedding cake for their gay marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 08, 2015, 10:49:07 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 10:32:30 pm

My understanding is that the gay couple were customers and that this couple had served them knowing they were gay.  They only refused to make a wedding cake for their gay marriage.

I looked again and the bakery sold one of the women a cake once for her mother's wedding. She and her mother went back for a cake for her wedding and he agreed to make the cake until he learned it was for a same sex wedding.  It seems highly unlikely that he knew her sexual orientation until that moment.  He discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation which is illegal. This has nothing to do with religious freedoms.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 11:02:10 pm

If they refused to serve them because they were gay.  OK, bigot.  Against the law.  However whatever happened the right to refuse service to anyone?  Those signs used to be up in every single store when I was a kid.  No one should be forced to do business with anyone they choose not to do business with.  I mean **** the boycott is a favorite liberal tactic these days.

To refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is a religious freedom issue.  I personally do not give a **** who **** who and who marries who.  I am pissed that people are pushing their beliefs on others and stepping on other peoples rights.

Should you be required to be baptized?  **** no!

Should a pastor be required to marry a gay couple?  **** no!

Should a religious baker be required to bake a cake for a gay marriage?  I say no but it is a bit more grey.  I say no harm is done to anyone so why force them.

Should an atheist baker be required to make wedding cakes for a Catholic wedding?  I say no.  I feel both bakers are being silly but if they have strong beliefs then why force them?  There are plenty of people who will bake the cake.  Why force someone to provide a service they do not want to provide when no one is hurt and the services are easily attained from others?

I think this is a common sense issue. Sadly it seems common sense has left the station a long time ago!

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 11:10:51 pm

Quote

And why should davep aswer questions which you directly posed to another poster.

YOU do it all the time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 11:15:16 pm

Should a jewish baker be forced to make a Nazi cake?

Should a black baker be forced to make a KKK cake?

How about an atheist baker being forced to make an "Atheists will burn in hell" cake?

Serving the people you disagree with is one thing but being forced to make something that is 100% percent against everything you stand for is another.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 11:30:40 pm

Score one for Otto.

Quote from: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 11:10:51 pm

YOU do it all the time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 11:32:19 pm

Just for the record I don't believe Otto should ever be forced to make an "I love Ronald Reagan" cake.  Or even an American flag cake for that matter...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 08, 2015, 11:38:53 pm

Get it straight...Christians are not against baking gays cakes. They ARE against baking a cake for a gay wedding, which in their eyes is sinful and isn't a marriage at all. If a gay comes in to buy a cake for a birthday, they'll get it made. For a moms day, made. Just to eat, made. For a wedding, nope. This is participating in something they do not believe in and their cake is part of the ceremony. It would be known 'So and So and sons cake place made the cake for this'. That is participation. Same with taking photos. Participation in something that doesn't exist and is sinful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 08, 2015, 11:41:33 pm

Doesn't surprise me one bit that you, Jes, are confused about what I posted. You think it's nutty, the rest of normal society would do the same as us. it's liberals and those who hate God like yourself that are the ones who are perpetuating this nonsense on society.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 09, 2015, 07:55:30 am

When interviewed the bakery couple said they have no objection to selling takes to gays.

They refused to sell a cake for the celebration of their marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:03:15 am

Quote from: davep on July 08, 2015, 08:43:13 pm

Performing homosexual acts IS a sin in the eyes of certain christians.  And that, of course, IS a choice.

I could not agree more.

It is a choice Christians make when they consider homosexual acts to be sinful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:05:58 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 08, 2015, 11:10:51 pm

YOU do it all the time.

And I will continue to do it... when the mood strikes me, just as anyone else here may.

You, however, were attacking someone for failing to respond to a question which you had expressly directed to another person.  And that, otto, is more than mildly foolish.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 09, 2015, 11:14:02 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:03:15 am

I could not agree more.

It is a choice Christians make when they consider homosexual acts to be sinful.

Absolutely true, if there is not God that has prescribed that it is a sin.

Absolutely false if there IS such a God that has prescribed it a sin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:17:56 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 08, 2015, 11:41:33 pm

Doesn't surprise me one bit that you, Jes, are confused about what I posted. You think it's nutty, the rest of normal society would do the same as us. it's liberals and those who hate God like yourself that are the ones who are perpetuating this nonsense on society.

I'm sorry if I was not more clear for you, Sportster.  I did not mean to suggest for a moment that I was at all confused about, or by, what you posted.  I had no difficulty understanding it.  Your bigotry comes thru loud and clear.  And I apologize if what I wrote suggested that what you had last posted was nutty -- I was instead saying that YOU are nutty.

Quote from: Sportster on July 08, 2015, 11:41:33 pm

You think it's nutty, the rest of normal society would do the same as us.

Public opinion polls now show that the majority of people in this country now believe gay marriage should be allowed, and I doubt that most of society would share your belief that 14-year-old girls become gay because "kids even discuss this garbage and Hollywood can be directly blamed for pushing it on society."

Quote from: Sportster on July 08, 2015, 11:41:33 pm

it's liberals and those who hate God like yourself that are the ones who are perpetuating this nonsense on society.

Well, I am not liberal, do not hate something which I do not believe exists, and wouldn't quite come close to being one of those "perpetuating this nonsense on society," since I have made clear that I believe the bakery case decision was wrongly decided and that if the decision was consistent with state law the law should be struck down judicially or repealed legislatively.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:25:12 am

Quote from: chifaninva on July 08, 2015, 07:14:21 pm

Never said anything about "sinful" (show me where I said "sinful").

So are you saying you do NOT believe homosexuality or homosexual acts are sinful?  Are you saying you believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality or homosexual acts?

And, while you are at it, can you point to anyplace where I wrote (or said) that you DID ever say "anything about 'sinful'"?

In fact if you would bother to look at what I wrote, pay attention to the start of the paragraph:

Quote

And are you saying that just telling a 12year-old that "it's alright to be gay" is somehow convincing him or her that they are... or that all 12 year olds should be told that it is NOT alright to be gay?  That they should be taught it's sinful and that they are going to burn in hell if they are attracted to someone of the same sex?

I never even suggested that you wrote anything about "sinful."  I ASKED if you were "saying.... that they should be taught it's (homosexuality) sinful."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:26:53 am

Quote from: Cletus on July 08, 2015, 09:28:56 pm

They can talk all they want about the case but they can't use their bigotry as an advertisement for their business.  That's consistent with Oregon law.

While it may or may not be consistent with Oregon law.  It is INconsistent with the First Amendment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:32:16 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 09:45:54 pm

It isn't bigotry it is called religious freedom. 

Just like you can not be forced to be religious they should not be forced to not practice their religion as long as it isn't harming others.  Not baking someone a cake is not harming them.

So now their religion is "not baking someone a cake"?  THAT is their religion?

Quote from: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 09:45:54 pm

Somewhere along the way common sense has been thrown out the window here.

True enough.... by both sides.  By the couple wanting their cake baked by someone who did not want to bake them a cake, and by those operating the bakery who somehow think baking a cake, or not baking one, is a religious act?

If the couple married and happened to be building a home, would a concrete company be right in refusing to sell them concrete since it would be used as the foundation for the house where they would engage in their "immoral" conduct?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:35:25 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 08, 2015, 11:02:10 pm

However whatever happened the right to refuse service to anyone?  Those signs used to be up in every single store when I was a kid.
 

Those signs were quite often put up by folks who opposed 1960's civil rights laws and were essentially saying they would not comply with the law.

What happened to the right"  It's gone.

Shouldn't be, but it is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 09, 2015, 12:16:28 pm

Homosexuality really should be a non issue. From one standpoint it's an issue due to the media coverage, another is a small percentage of gays want to parade around waving a flag "look at me, look at me". Most aren't like that, they just want to be treated fairly and equally. Homosexuality has gone through a serious societal repression, especially through the 40's, 50's and 60's. I guess the pendulum is now swinging back the other way. This is nothing new, homosexuality has been going on forever, look back to ancient Greece where it was very much accepted.

I really don't feel it's my place to judge someone based solely on a sexually preference. To speak in terms of the act being sinful, I guess God will judge that, along with many other sins that we have all committed.

Back to my opening sentence, it should be a non issue. Not something that is glorified, but not something that is shameful either. A young person going through puberty has many thoughts, hormones raging. In the boys case, just because he's had homosexual thoughts, doesn't mean he will grow up to be gay. Does anyone here really think that Hillary Clinton gives 2 **** as to whether or not that boy is gay? Hopefully someone with some sense will talk to that boy and explain to him that it's not abnormal for a boy his age to have thoughts about another boy, and that certainly does not determine if he will grow up to be a gay man..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 09, 2015, 12:34:55 pm

I think to have any acceptance of homosexuality you first have to have some kind of a basic understanding. For me, that understanding is to accept the fact that a man can be attracted to another man. And, I look no further than Rock Hudson. That guy could've had sex with any and every woman on earth, but he secretly was attracted to men. Wow! It's hard to imagine, but there are guys that are every bit attracted to men as we are to women. Everyone's different... I just wish the media would give it a rest already...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on July 09, 2015, 01:09:08 pm

Some guys like butt-sex - even with their woman - Can't imagine anything being better than vaj-sex - but maybe they had the wrong partner?

Once you've experienced the greatest gift ever created - why even look down the back alley?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 05:06:38 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 08, 2015, 11:38:53 pm

Get it straight...Christians are not against baking gays cakes. They ARE against baking a cake for a gay wedding, which in their eyes is sinful and isn't a marriage at all. If a gay comes in to buy a cake for a birthday, they'll get it made. For a moms day, made. Just to eat, made. For a wedding, nope. This is participating in something they do not believe in and their cake is part of the ceremony. It would be known 'So and So and sons cake place made the cake for this'. That is participation. Same with taking photos. Participation in something that doesn't exist and is sinful.

If gay marriage "doesn't exist" and "isn't a marriage at all," why should it bother anyone to make a gay wedding cake?  After all, gay marriage "doesn't exist," so they can't really be taking part in anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 05:12:25 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on July 09, 2015, 12:16:28 pm

Homosexuality really should be a non issue. From one standpoint it's an issue due to the media coverage, another is a small percentage of gays want to parade around waving a flag "look at me, look at me". Most aren't like that, they just want to be treated fairly and equally. Homosexuality has gone through a serious societal repression, especially through the 40's, 50's and 60's. I guess the pendulum is now swinging back the other way. This is nothing new, homosexuality has been going on forever, look back to ancient Greece where it was very much accepted.

I really don't feel it's my place to judge someone based solely on a sexually preference. To speak in terms of the act being sinful, I guess God will judge that, along with many other sins that we have all committed.

Back to my opening sentence, it should be a non issue. Not something that is glorified, but not something that is shameful either. A young person going through puberty has many thoughts, hormones raging. In the boys case, just because he's had homosexual thoughts, doesn't mean he will grow up to be gay. Does anyone here really think that Hillary Clinton gives 2 **** as to whether or not that boy is gay? Hopefully someone with some sense will talk to that boy and explain to him that it's not abnormal for a boy his age to have thoughts about another boy, and that certainly does not determine if he will grow up to be a gay man..

So, in short, you did not answer even one of the questions I posed to you, AND you could not find anywhere that I so much as suggested that you had ever said homosexuality or homosexual behavior was "sinful."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 07:53:26 pm

Pekin, this is just to add a couple more examples of terrible judicial decisions into the discussion (the original sources are available at the link):

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/09/this-teen-had-sex-with-another-teen-so-a#.rtulbc:9nhI


This Teen Had Sex with Another Teen, So a Judge Tore His Family Apart
Same judge, same story.

Lenore Skenazy|Jul. 9, 2015 10:00 am
At last America is realizing how Taliban-esque our sex offender laws can be. First came the story of Elkhart, Indiana’s Zach Anderson, which hit the front page of the The New York Times on Sunday (you read it here first). Zach, 19, had sex with a girl who told him she was 17 but turned out to be 14, and a judge decided that makes Zach a sex offender for life. Learning about his case, another family in Elkhart couldn’t believe it.

Their son was living out the exact same story.

As Fox28 reports, Darian Yoder, also a 19-year-old, met a girl on the same app Zach used, "Hot or Not." The girl said she was 17 but turned out to be 13—a fact Darian learned months after the encounter, when he was arrested for sexual misconduct.

Judge Dennis Wiley, the same judge who sneeringly told Zach, "That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior,” presided over Darian’s trial and sentenced him to the same draconian fate. Darian, like Zach, is now officially a sex offender, for life. As such, he cannot be around anyone under the age 18, as if he were some insatiable child molester. That includes his younger brother and sister, whom he has not seen since he was sentenced. His devastated family has been torn apart.

According to Fox28:

    "I know I'm not a sex offender," said Yoder. "Had I known her age, I never would have even talked to her."

    The young man can't go to church, a park, or even a mall.

    "It's just far too much," said Yoder.  "I have no life. I can't do anything."

    "It's not a family anymore," said Yoder's mother Vanissa Messick. "And it just doesn't feel like it ever will be."

    Darian says he can't be near anyone under age 18, including his younger brother and sister, whom he hasn't seen since his arrest.

    "I mean we can't have Christmas," said Messick. "He cant see them on his birthday, he can't... anything"

Darian was a teen who had sex with another teen—one he thought was his own age. If there’s a predator in this story, it’s the judge who keeps ruining the lives of these young men.

That is the power we give judges and prosecutors with our all-encompassing definition of what constitutes a sex offender. There are hundreds of thousands of people on the sex offender registry who bear no resemblance to the monsters we fear. Of the 800,000 registered sex offenders, roughly a quarter of them were added as minors, because young people have sex with other young people.

The sex offender list is a dungeon we can throw people in on the slightest pretext. Politicians and grandstanders exhort us to fear those on it. But it’s a lot scarier to think about how easy it is for our sons to end up on that list themselves.

Watch FOx28's video here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 07:55:08 pm

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/09/judge-orders-kids-to-spend-years-in-juve#.rtulbc:a05J


Judge Orders Kids to Spend Years in Juvenile Hall for Skipping Lunch with Dad
Court punishes kids for parents' messy divorce.

Robby Soave|Jul. 9, 2015 11:17 am

KidDreamstimeA Michigan judge ordered three children—ages 14, 10, and 9—to be held in a juvenile detention center because they refused to have lunch with their father.

The outcome is part of a custody dispute between the kids’ parents, Maya and Omer Tsimhoni, who are divorced. Omer claims Maya poisoned the children against him for spite, while the kids say they don’t want to spend time with their father because they saw him hit their mother, according to myfoxdetroit.com.

During a hearing on June 24, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Lisa Gorcya ordered the kids to spend quality time with Omer. When 14-year-old Liam refused, Gorcya launched into a tirade about how there are consequences for defying a court order:

    I ordered you – I will say this again, and apparently you’re – you’re supposed to have a high IQ, which I am doubting right now because of the way you act, you’re very defiant, you have no manners, I ordered you to have a relationship with your dadder – your dad. I ordered you to talk to your father …

Gorcya also tried to intimidate the kids into changing their minds, asking them if they liked going to the bathroom in front of other people and sleep on uncomfortable mattresses—the fate awaiting them at Children’s Village, the juvenile hall.

All three have now been there since the hearing. No one is allowed to visit them except their father, but he left for Israel the day after the hearing and has not been back since. The kids are not allowed to see their mother, or each other.

The Observer published a more sympathetic portrayal of Omer, who claims he never hurt Maya—and the police agreed with him when they responded to the incident in question. Maya has brainwashed the kids into thinking he is a bad father, even though he wants nothing more than to spend time with them. Omer remarried after the divorce—which stemmed from Maya’s decision to leave—and has a 2-year-old with his new wife.

But regardless of which parent is at fault for the deterioration of this family, it’s wrong to blame the kids. To that end, Gorcya’s actions seem incredibly harsh and unfair to the confused minors caught in the middle of this dispute.

If the kids remain steadfast in their refusal to see their father, they could stay in juvenile hall until they each turn 18.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 08:13:14 pm

Quote from: Cletus on July 08, 2015, 09:28:56 pm

They didn't close their bakery. They closed their storefront and now operate entirely online.  And, they aren't prohibited from talking about the case. They are prohibited from promoting their discriminatory business policy.  They can talk all they want about the case but they can't use their bigotry as an advertisement for their business.  That's consistent with Oregon law.

A more thorough discussion of the "gag order" issue.  http://popehat.com/2015/07/08/lawsplainer-so-are-those-christian-cake-bakers-in-oregon-unconstitutionally-gagged-or-not/

Taken from the link, here is the relevant portion of the order:
the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing, or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued, or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement, or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.

That rather clearly does NOT prohibit the bakery owners from discussing the case or the issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 09, 2015, 08:30:27 pm

Family courts have some of the worst judges enforcing some of the worst laws in the country.

And many of the sex offender laws are just as terrible.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 09, 2015, 08:34:09 pm

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on July 8, 2015

A defiant Hillary Clinton granted CNN her first national interview since the release of her book, Hard Choices, more than a year ago.  Throughout the interview, Hillary was defensive, and seemed annoyed that she would be questioned about her emails and her trustworthiness.

So what did she do? Lie continuously.
 
Here's a list of her top 5 lies in the CNN interview:
 
1.  "I Never Had A Subpoena" (for her emails)
 
Benghazi Committee Chairman Gowdy issued the following statement immediately after the interview, contradicting Mrs. Clinton:
 
"Secretary Clinton...was personally subpoenaed the moment the Benghazi Committee became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server..."
 
The subpoena was issued on March 4, 2015.  In fact, Hillary's lawyer, David Kendall, acknowledged the subpoena in a letter to Chairman Gowdy asking for an extension of time until March 27, 2015.  Gowdy granted the extension of time in a letter dated March 19, 2015.

Click Here to read more.

On March 27, 2015, Kendall responded to the subpoena and told the Committee that Clinton had turned over all relevant meal's to the State Department and "wiped her server clean."
 
Her statement was a big lie.
 
2.  "I Had One Device" (for convenience)
 
The emails released by the State Dept. clearly show that Clinton used two devices -- both a Blackberry and an iPad for her emails.  Several of the emails indicate "Sent from my iPad."

Click Here to read more.

So the "convenience" story just doesn't fly.  Another lie.
 
3.  "Colin Powell Admitted He Did The Same Thing"
 
Colin Powell did not have a personal email server in his house.  And he certainly never admitted that he did.  No way.
 
Another Hillary whopper!

4.  "I Didn't Have To Turn Over Anything"
 
She certainly did.
 
The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2009, "the National Archives and Records Administration issued regulations that said agencies allowing employees to do official business on unofficial email accounts had to ensure that any records sent on private email systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system."
 
This covered Hillary Clinton.  She claims that because she sent emails to people in the government email system, all is preserved.  But we don't know who she sent mail to.  And, as we have seen from the released emails, she sent plenty to people outside the government, like the ubiquitous Sidney Blumenthal.
 
The records showed that she didn't turn over at least 15 emails to Blumenthal that showed that she asked him to continue sending information to her.
 
5.  "People Should And Do Trust Me"
 
They don't and they shouldn't.
 
A recent CNN poll showed that 57% of the A recent CNN poll showed that 57% of the voters believe that Hillary is not honest and trustworthy.
 
And her obvious and continuous lies keep feeding that perception.

She says it's all the fault of the Republicans. Just like the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
 
Hillary, we have your number -- and we definitely don't trust you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 08:53:48 pm

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/why-chinas-stock-markets-matter?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_term=article&utm_campaign=20150709&mc_cid=968ddc714a&mc_eid=06e6f72c93

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 09:02:43 pm

Jes, Any time someone has a lot of power odds are they will abuse it.  Some rare individuals resist the urge better then others but most do abuse the power.  It is simply human nature.  Judges have way to much power.  They seem to have the least amount of checks on them to balance the power. 

When the highest court in the land could have used that power for good they abused it. 

I have sadly come to the conclusion that more then likely this great wonderful experiment is going to end in failure due to human nature.  I still hold out hope we can turn it around but it doesn't look good.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 09, 2015, 11:07:18 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 09:02:43 pm

Jes, Any time someone has a lot of power odds are they will abuse it.  Some rare individuals resist the urge better then others but most do abuse the power.  It is simply human nature.  Judges have way to much power.  They seem to have the least amount of checks on them to balance the power. 

When the highest court in the land could have used that power for good they abused it.

You probably don't even see the conflict in those two paragaphs, but it is quite serious.

The last thing someone wanting limited government in general, and wanting limits on judicial power in particular, should be judges making decisions based on their own concept of what might be good for society.

Legislatures certainly should act on that basis, and to a lesser extent so should the executive branch, but not the judiciary.  They are unelected, many of them (all of them in the federal judiciary) are there for lifetime appointments, they are insulated from public opinion and public life, and you owant them making decisions based on what they believe is good for society?

Trust me, that is EXACTLY what at least three members of the Supreme Court did in both the ObamaCare and gay marriage decisions did.

It is the last thing you actually want done.

As to your moaning that the "experiment is going to end in failure," the "experiment" survived slavery.  Somehow I suspect it can certainly survive gay marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 11:46:59 pm

If they had gone by the word of law I would 100% agree with you. 

They simply did not do that.  They said **** the law this is our ruling. 

I am talking about the healthcare ruling.  THAT is what has me bummed.

Gay marriage ruling is fine to me(except that Roberts bitched about the other judges doing what he did on the healthcare ruing).  I am happy that minorities are not being denigrated or discriminated against.  However I find it appalling that 2% of the population is able to force 70% of the population to go against their beliefs. 

The law suits are coming and they will be fast and furious.  Pastors, ministers, priests and churches are going to get sued.  It will be relentless.

You seem to have faith in the legal system even though it appears to have failed you.  I have zero faith in it.

I have seen only one time it worked personally.  Guessing it had more to do with getting lucky and having a good judge then anything else.     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 11:48:44 pm

Oh and gay marriage should have been left to the states.  They would have all eventually passed it but then very few would have been pissed about it.  Also it would have gone slower so rules could have been better prepared for religious freedom.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 06:53:54 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 11:46:59 pm

If they had gone by the word of law I would 100% agree with you. 

They simply did not do that.  They said **** the law this is our ruling. 

I am not going to fault the Court too much for failing to undo the action of an elected legislative body by narrowly interpreting the wording of a statute.  Interpreting statutes in order to allow the statute to have the clearly intended effect of the legislation is a well-established rule of statutory interpretation.  The overall intended effect of the legislation was to get more people into ObamaCare and with insurance.  The intended effect of the provision at issue was to coerce states to create their own exchanges, and the idiots in Congress never even contemplated the possibility that in order to sink the system most states would refuse to set up exchanges.  Now I believe the Court should have allowed Congress to hang by its own petard and interpreted the relevat language narrowly, and it appears you feel the same way... but part of the reason we feel this way is because of our extreme distaste for ObamaCare.

The Court instead interpreted the statute in such a way as to allow the entire legislative plan to do as Congress clearly intended -- get more people into ObamaCare and with insurance.

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 11:46:59 pm

Gay marriage ruling is fine to me(except that Roberts bitched about the other judges doing what he did on the healthcare ruing).  I am happy that minorities are not being denigrated or discriminated against.  However I find it appalling that 2% of the population is able to force 70% of the population to go against their beliefs.

The law suits are coming and they will be fast and furious.  Pastors, ministers, priests and churches are going to get sued.  It will be relentless. 

How is it that you or Sportster, or davep or anyone else deeply upset by the gay marriage decision (I did not like it, but am a long way from deeply upset by it) are being "forced to go against their beliefs?"

Does the decision force any of you to divorce your wife and enter into a same sex marriage?

As to the 70% figure you offer, I think you need to look at the public opinion polling to see how wildly out of line with majority opinion you, and the rest of the rightwing echo chamber is on the issue.  Most people today actually either support allowing gay marriage, or have no particularly strong feeling about it one way or another.  Public opinion on the issue has changed quite rapidly over the last 3-4 years.  I believe it is now about 60% of the population which supports allowing it.

As to lawsuits over refusals to perform marriages, there were also lawsuits over open housing law violations and refusals to racially integrate public accommodations after the civil rights laws of the 1960's (and, as a libertarian, even though I personally find racism personally repugnant, I oppose much of the federal civil rights legislation -- individuals [not government] should be perfectly free to descriminate against others on any basis, including in the denial of business or professional services) and it scarcely meant the end of the nation.  Additionally any such lawsuits for refusal to performa marriages would have to be based on state law, since federal law creates no such cause of action, and few states are going to be as foolish as Oregon appears to be.

Don't get me wrong.  The Supreme Court serves a vital "last line of defense" function for the protection of many civil rights and it is perfectly appropriate for the Court to strike down legislation which violates individual civil liberties protected under the Constitution, but that is really exactly what the Court was doing in the gay marriage case.

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 11:46:59 pm

You seem to have faith in the legal system even though it appears to have failed you.  I have zero faith in it.

Oh, I suspect my disbarment and the license suspension had far more to do with ME failing me than with the system failing me.

I represented myself, and I shouldn't have.  I procrastinated in trying to find representation, did not pursue it aggressively enough, failed to realize there were attorneys out there who would have been willing to help for far less than I thought it would cost, was too embarrassed to even present the matter to some of the attorneys who would have helped, and foolishly relied on the promises of a client to provide funds to hire the best repsentation available (he was offering to pay up to $250K in legal fees) and then by the time it became clear he was never going to provide the funds it was a bit too late to do anything.  I also minimized the significance of the complaints and persuaded myself nothing would come of them because I knew what had actually happened and was convinced I had done nothing wrong -- in one case the person filing the complaint was upset because I successfully settled a case at his direction and then the judge's decision was announced showing that the judge had bought all of the arguments I had made at trial and he would have ended up $16K better off if he had not settled.  In another the complaint was filed by another attorney who was upset that I spoke with his former client when the client told me and insisted that the attorney no longer represented her.  In a third opposing counsel were upset that during a deposition I was taking of a witness favorable to their client in a child custody dispute, I caught the witness in a lie, had him on tape making clear that he was lying during the deposition, and reminded him that since he was on probation if he continued lying in the deposition he faced the prospect of having his probation revoked for perjury.

At the same time I was emotionally paralyzed in dealing with the cases and ended up failing to respond to certain things quickly enough and had defaults entered against me for my delays.

There were major, major procedural problems with the Board of Professional Responsibility case against me, and I simply failed to address them well enough or clearly enough or loudly enough to force the haring panel to make a different decision.

*I* failed me.

Then I could not get the money together to pursue an appeal to at least get the procedural problems addressed on appeal.

*I* failed me.

When I was practicing law I routinely told clients that the function of a trial attorney is often presenting the case in such a manner that even judges inclined to rule the other way, WANTING to rule the other way, will follow the facts and the law and rule as they should.  And I generally did pretty well at it.  I remember one Juvenile Court case in which I pointed out quite clearly what the law was, gave the court a copy of the relevant statute and the relevant caselaw and discussed them at some length before allowing any evidence to be presented (since in that case the evidence would seriously have hurt my client) and emphasized that the law required a particular outcome.  It was very unusual to spend that much time on such an issue as a preliminary matter instead of reserving it to the end.  The attorney representing the state then stood and reminded the Court that they ALWAYS proceeded in such cases exactly the way I argued they should not proceed in the case, and the way I argued the law said they shouldn't in other cases.  The judge responded by saying that the attorney for the state was true as to how his court normally addressed such matters, but that, "Perhaps Mr. Beard is right and we should follow the law this time."  My client got the outcome he wanted, and which the law required, in that case because I effectively advocated his cause.

I got screwed in my own cases because I did NOT effectively advocate my cause.

Quote from: Pekin on July 09, 2015, 11:46:59 pm

I have seen only one time it worked personally.  Guessing it had more to do with getting lucky and having a good judge then anything else.   

If you have PERSONALLY one seen the legal system work once, my guess is that you PERSONALLY have not seen it fail often.  Perhaps never.

Please don't get me wrong.  It DOES fail.  But largely it fails when judges do what you seem to be urging the Supreme Court should have done in ObamaCare and the gay marriage cases -- rule based on what the judges (or justices) believe would be best for society.

A great number of the cases you hear about being "wrongly decided," are actually wrongly REPORTED.  Take one of the most famous court cases held up as an example of a bad decision -- the McDonald's hot coffee case of about 25-30 years ago.  If you look at what actually happened in the case, you would see that the outcome, when everthing is fully and accurately reported, was actually quite reasonable and appropriate.

My attitude toward our judicial system is much as Winston Churchill's attitude toward democracy was -- that it was the worst of all possible systems... except for any of the alternatives.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

So what is it you do now, Jes? Just wondering...

And the serious problem with this ruling for gay marriage is it legitimizes or legalizes gay activity in a marriage setting which opens doors for further rulings that could include rulings against pastors and preachers and lay people opposed to such and told to 'shut up or be sued'. I know, we will 'never' see that. Just like we would 'never' see gay marriage twenty years ago, huh. DOMA was in force, until the Supremes shut it down. Right now, the Supreme Court is overruling the will of the people and overruling the other "co equal" branches of Government. They are the be all, end all of rules in this land and I do not believe at all the Founders had this in mind when they set the system in motion. I can guarantee much of what has been ruled in favor of in this case would go the opposite direction in many jurisdictions and States if voted upon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 10, 2015, 10:58:41 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

So what is it you do now, Jes? Just wondering...
 

A troll on message boards... You really had to ask? Where have you been?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 11:16:47 am

lol

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 10, 2015, 11:47:54 am

You really don't expect him to answer that do you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 01:31:55 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

So what is it you do now, Jes? Just wondering...

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 10, 2015, 11:47:54 am

You really don't expect him to answer that do you?

If you, or Sportster, could explain how it is in any way relevant to anything, I would be happy to answer... which is much more than can be said about how you respond to questions which are directly relevant to matters you yourself are discussing here.

Quote from: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

And the serious problem with this ruling for gay marriage is it legitimizes or legalizes gay activity in a marriage setting which opens doors for further rulings that could include rulings against pastors and preachers and lay people opposed to such and told to 'shut up or be sued'.

Ummm... no.  The "legality" of "gay activity" (which I can only assume you intend to mean homosexual sex, which has been legal for quite some time now and which this decision did not even begin to address) has nothing to do with whether anyone can or can't be sued.  The ruling in this case will only create a cause of action against states or state officials still refusing to allow gay marriage or refusing to legally recognize it, and that cause of action would be for a civil rights violation under color of law, a cause of action roughly 145 years old now.

Your suggestion that this case will somehow lead to people being sued (successfully) for speaking out against gay marriage is out of la-la land.  That would not only require legislatures to create such a cause of action, it would also require repeal of the First Amendment.

In the 1960's the Court struck down as unconstitutional state laws making marriage between a black person and a white person illegal, and the Court also struck down other racist laws.  At no time have there been any successful lawsuits against someone since then based on the defendant continuing to spout racism or even calling for a change in the law and a return to the good ol' days of Jim Crow laws.

So, Sportster, you need not worry about being sued as a result of your homophobic views or of expressing them.  You will increasingly be viewed as foolish and bigoted and hateful and narrow-minded for holding them, but the First Amendment protects your expression of those ideas.  It merely can not force the rest of society to think well of you for them.

Quote from: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

I know, we will 'never' see that. Just like we would 'never' see gay marriage twenty years ago, huh.

That may have been YOUR prediction 20 years ago.  It certainly was never mine.  In fact the degree to which YOU were wrong in that prediction might be instructive as to the value of your current prediction.

Quote from: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

DOMA was in force, until the Supremes shut it down.

Not really.  At the direction of the President, the Justice Department stopped making any defense of DOMA, and the federal government was really no longer giving it any force or effect before the Supreme Court acted in the case... without anyone on behalf of the U.S. even suggesting to the Court that it not be struck down.  The executive branch concluded DOMA was unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court did.

Quote from: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

Right now, the Supreme Court is overruling the will of the people and overruling the other "co equal" branches of Government.

Well... not really.
 
As I have pointed out to Pekin, most people today actually SUPPORT allowing gay marriage.  See the following:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/poll-gay-marriage-support-at-record-high/2015/04/22/f6548332-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html 60% support gay marriage and oppose allowing states authority to prevent it
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/  57% support gay marriage
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx  60% support
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/poll-obama-approval-rating-economy/index.html 63% support
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/06/25/5-things-same-sex-marriage-case-divides-public-opinion  nearly half support and just more than a third oppose

otto is quite right on this issue when he refers to you, and those who share your opinion on the issue, as political dinosaurs, out of touch with rapidly changing public opinion and appearing unable to adapt... just like dinosaurs.

Quote from: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

Right now, the Supreme Court is overruling.... the other "co equal" branches of Government. They are the be all, end all of rules in this land and I do not believe at all the Founders had this in mind when they set the system in motion.

Most would contend that the Supreme Court WAS intended to be the final and supreme arbiter on whether a law was or was not constitutional.  Who do you believe should make that decision?  Or do you believe no one (or no branch) should be able to vacate or strike down the actions of any other branch as being unconstitutional?  Should all branches, and all individuals in government, merely be constrained by what they chose to believe the Constitution means?

How else would you propose doing it?

Quote from: Sportster on July 10, 2015, 10:02:53 am

I can guarantee much of what has been ruled in favor of in this case would go the opposite direction in many jurisdictions and States if voted upon.

And suppose for the sake of argument that is what the Court said should happen.  One clause of the Constitution requires every state to give full faith and credit (it is called the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to any decision or ruling by any other state -- in other words, if California decided to allow gay marriage, any gay couple wanting to be married could go to California, get married, and come back home to their very conservative home state and the home state would be required to recognize the marriage and give that marriage decree full faith and credit.

Quote

Article IV, Section 1:
    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

But more important it would appear that you seem to believe that majority opinion, or majority will, shoudl always determine what government does or is allowed to do.  The Constitution was written expressly to avoid that.  Majority will or majority opinion has often in the past approved slavery.  If you have five beautiful young nuns travelling on board a ship which also happens to be transporting 100 convicted male rapists and murderers, and there is a shipwreck killing all of the crew but leaving the 100 convicted rapists and the five young nuns shipwrecked on a deserted island, there is little question but that the majority will in that new society will call for the young nuns to sexually service the 100 convicted rapists.  They will legalize ****.  That is the kind of thing which relying on un-restricted majority will always allows, and which the founders went to considerable lengths to prevent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2015, 02:58:58 pm

Uninsured under the PPACA

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/153212/large/rtu6cnurdkyssge7nehvaw.png?1436537379)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 05:09:29 pm

Links to the actual decision are in the full text at the link below.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/08/is-this-the-most-libertarian-legal-opini

Is This the Most Libertarian Legal Opinion Ever Written?
The Texas Supreme Court strikes down a senseless regulation.

Damon Root|Jul. 8, 2015 12:26 pm

In a resounding victory last month for economic liberty, the Texas Supreme Court struck down a state licensing law that required eyebrow threaders to complete 750 hours of costly and unnecessary cosmetology training in order to receive the state's permission to charge customers for the harmless act of removing unwanted eyebrow hairs with a loop of cotton thread.

Ashish Patel, Photo by Institute for JusticeAshish Patel, Photo by Institute for Justice"The requirement of 750 hours of training to become licensed is not just unreasonable or harsh," the Texas Supreme Court held in Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, it is "so burdensome as to be oppressive."

No kidding. As the Texas high court pointed out, "persons licensed to apply eyelash extensions—a specialty involving the use of chemicals and a high rate of adverse reactions—are required to undergo only 320 hours of training." Eyebrow threading, by contrast, is an entirely safe occupation that involves no chemicals and requires only that practitioners follow the most rudimentary of sanitary practices, such as the regular washing of hands. To force would-be eyebrow threaders to spend as much as $9,000 on 750 hours of pointless training in order to obtain a pointless license is practically the definition of arbitrary government. We're not talking unlicensed brain surgery here.

In addition to that welcome judgment by the court's majority, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett filed a lengthy concurring opinion of his own, in which he launched a full-throated defense of economic liberty under both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. It is easily one of the most libertarian legal decision's I've ever read. (I'm also happy to report that Justice Willett cites my book in it.) Here's an excerpt from Justice Willett's superb concurrence:

    This case concerns the timeless struggle between personal freedom and government power. Do Texans live under a presumption of liberty or a presumption of restraint? The Texas Constitution confers power—but even more critically, it constrains power. What are the outer-boundary limits on government actions that trample Texans' constitutional right to earn an honest living for themselves and their families? Some observers liken judges to baseball umpires, calling legal balls and strikes, but when it comes to restrictive licensing laws, just how generous is the constitutional strike zone? Must courts rubber-stamp even the most nonsensical encroachments on occupational freedom? Are the most patently farcical and protectionist restrictions nigh unchallengeable, or are there, in fact, judicially enforceable limits?

    This case raises constitutional eyebrows because it asks building-block questions about constitutional architecture—about how we as Texans govern ourselves and about the relationship of the citizen to the State. This case concerns far more than whether Ashish Patel can pluck unwanted hair with a strand of thread. This case is fundamentally about the American Dream and the unalienable human right to pursue happiness without curtsying to government on bended knee. It is about whether government can connive with rent-seeking factions to ration liberty unrestrained, and whether judges must submissively uphold even the most risible encroachments.

The Texas Supreme Court's opinion in Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation is available here. Justice Willett's concurring opinion in Patel is available here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 05:37:14 pm

Jes,  If the majority believe there should be gay marriage why was it voted down in liberal California? 

This is abortion all over again.  The Supreme Court took it out of the voters hands.

Roughly 70% of the US population considers themselves to be Christian.  While not all of them oppose gay marriage many of them do.  Plus Christians are not the only religion that believes homosexuality is wrong.  Muslims do as well.  I am guessing there won't be any gays trying to force them to marry them or bake them a cake.

Less then 2% of the population is gay.  Of that 2% I am guessing not all want gay marriage or even care about the issue.  Why be in a hurry to give half of your stuff away when a relationship ends?





 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 05:45:19 pm

Jes,  On the Obamacare ruling they rewrote the law.  It very clearly says what it says.  There is no guessing.  It was written that way on purpose to force Republican governors to set up exchanges.

I am not alone on this belief.  The conservative judges feel it was a terrible ruling as well.  Simply because the liberals out number the conservatives we lose.  That is not how the court is supposed to work. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 10, 2015, 06:46:12 pm

You mention me among those that are upset about legalizing homosexual marriage.  Quite the opposite.  I have felt from the beginning that it was a battle of childishness on both sides.

It was not a battle for legal rights, since there was a sizable number of "opponents" that were quite willing to establish civil unions that would confer upon them all legal rights given to "married" people, and could and would have been accomplished by legislative action.  But homosexuals wanted to pretend that their sexuality was "normal", while heterosexuals wanted to keep the current, rather arbitrary, titles.

The tragedy of it is that in order to settle the situation, the Supreme Court once again made their decision based upon their view of what was "right" rather than the legislature's view of what was "right".

Now that it is over, we can go back to much more important issues, such as whether Los Angeles can have a cross on their city seal, or whether a state can decide for itself which flag to fly on public property.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2015, 07:58:48 pm

Last gasp of the dinosaurs....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2015, 08:01:11 pm

Peak

Considering legislative intent....what was rewritten?


6-3

Enough with the pouting already.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 08:07:58 pm

I am not deeply or even upset by the gay marriage ruling either.  My only fear is about religious freedoms being stomped on.  It won't be mine that are stomped on because I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other.

I just feel the need to speak up when peoples rights are being stepped on even if they aren't mine.  Gay people should have been given civil unions that gave every right to them married people have.  If a church chose to marry them then so be it.  Now we have the whole churches being forced to marry them "can of worms" opened.

I can pretty much guarantee in my lifetime churches will lose non-profit status if they refuse to marry gay couples.  It won't happen over night but it will eventually. 

The other option would have been the government to allow any two people to enter into a civil union.  The churches marry who they want to marry.

           

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2015, 08:19:55 pm

Peak

"religious freedom" dies not mean people can discriminate.


How hard is that for you to understand?


Jes has quite clearly showed your position on this issue to be wrong on all levels.

You clearly do not understand the ruling or are being intentionally ignorant of it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 10, 2015, 08:31:12 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/08/bakers-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-wedding-cake-told-to-pay-135k-by-monday-or-else.html?utm_source=Liberty_Headlines_Is_Giving_Your_Site_Free_Traffic_for_Now&AID=7236


Todd's American Dispatch

Bakers who refused to make lesbian wedding cake told to pay $135K by Monday -- or else



Todd Starnes

By  Todd Starnes 
 ·Published July 08, 2015


kleininternal

Two Christian bakers who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages by July 13 or else the state of Oregon could place a lien on their home.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, were punished by the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) for unlawfully discriminating against a same-sex couple.

Click here to follow Todd on Facebook for conservative news!

The Kleins, who are devout evangelical Christians, argued that baking the cake would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

The BOLI ruling ordered the mom-and-pop bakers to pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibits them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex unions.

And now - they have until July 13 to pay the damages or else face additional fines and a possible lien on their home.

“This is intimidation and bullying - that’s exactly what it is,” Klein told me in a telephone interview.“ They are trying to strong-arm me into handing over $135,000 to the two girls and if I win on appeal - they will never pay me back.”

A BOLI spokesman confirmed they sent a standard payment letter to the Kleins' attorney.

“The letter informs them that if we do not hear from them, we may turn the matter over to the Department of Revenue, which can place a lien on real property,” the spokesman told me.

BOLI said they would also be willing to accept either a full payment or payment arrangements.

“Of course, they can also ask for a stay of enforcement while they pursue their appeal,” the spokesman said.

But there’s a catch. The person who will determine whether or not to stay the order — is BOLI Commissioner Brad Avakian — a vocal supporter of the LGBTQIA movement.

“The judge, jury and executioner are all in one place,” said Anna Harmon, the Kleins' attorney. “He is intent on using his office to root out thought and speech with which he personally disagrees.”

Harmon, who is affiliated with Alliance Defending Freedom, said they were expecting the payment letter that came from BOLI.

“This letter, while it’s the normal procedure, continues to show the state is not backing down,” she told me. “They don’t think they did anything wrong here.”

Avakian’s strong arm tactics against the Christian bakers have outraged Christians across the nation.

“This guy would make Mussolini proud,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research council. “This is a wannabe dictator.”

It certainly appears that Avakian and the state of Oregon have declared war on the Klein family.

“Not only do they want to drive them out of business, but they want to make them homeless,” Perkins told me.

The Kleins say they are filing a stay and do plan on appealing the state’s decision.

“Brad and his cohorts at BOLI have overstepped their constitutional rights in requiring me to cease and desist from my constitutional freedom,” Mr. Klein said. “I will fight them with every last breath I have.”

Mrs. Klein said she would not be intimidated by Avakian’s hard line tactics.


“He definitely messed with the wrong Christians”

- Melissa Klein

“We are so going to fight this, oh my gosh,” she said. “It’s making us stronger and emboldening us to stand up to this. Aaron and I are fighting for every American out there - for their freedom. We are not backing down at all.”

And while the viciousness of the attacks against the Kleins might be unsettling — Harmon said it really should serve as a source of inspiration.

“What a time to be an American,” she said. “It’s a hard time - our freedoms are challenged - but what a time to be able to stand and have courage and say, ‘I have a moment in time where I can be a voice for that.’”

And the Kleins are not ready to throw in the towel just yet.

“He definitely messed with the wrong Christians,” Mrs. Klein told me.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 09:17:34 pm

Otto, do you feel Churches should have to marry gays in order to keep their non-profit status?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 10, 2015, 09:32:55 pm

Peak

"religious freedom" dies not mean people can discriminate.

So if some couple (gay) want to get married and they choose church X to marry them it obligates that particular church to marry them?

And what if church X states its their policy that they don't marry couples unless they are members of their church. Is that discrimination in your opinion? Or do all churches have to marry couples regardless of their church rules?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 09:49:07 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 05:37:14 pm

Jes,  If the majority believe there should be gay marriage why was it voted down in liberal California?

Because public opinion has shifted, and shifted quite rapidly.  Look at the polling data.  It not only shows 60% now support it, but that until very recently a majority opposed it.  If California were to vote on it again today, it would clearly pass.

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 05:37:14 pm

This is abortion all over again.  The Supreme Court took it out of the voters hands.

Just as the Court took out of the voters hands the question of whether interracial marriage would be allowed, and whether states would be allowed to segregate schools, and whether states would be allowed to make contraceptives illegal, and whether the Congress could make certain speech illegal.

The CONSTITUTION denies voters the opportunity to make a great number of decisions.  That is the way the system was set up, and I seriously doubt that you would want a system where the popular vote truly determined every outcome.  My shipwreck example should have illustrated the point.

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 05:37:14 pm

Roughly 70% of the US population considers themselves to be Christian.  While not all of them oppose gay marriage many of them do.  Plus Christians are not the only religion that believes homosexuality is wrong.  Muslims do as well.

You seem to desperately be trying to rationalize away current public opinion and to ignore the polling data, which clearly shows the change.  What the leaders of different religions say on an issue does not always determine what the members of those religions believe.

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 05:37:14 pm

Less then 2% of the population is gay.  Of that 2% I am guessing not all want gay marriage or even care about the issue.  Why be in a hurry to give half of your stuff away when a relationship ends?

Couples living together without marriage STILL have disputes over who gets what, and the resolution of those disputes is often messier tham most divorces.  But you are now arguing that the public should not have changed its position on the issue of gay marriage, not that public opinion has not changed -- and that ship has sailed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 09:56:24 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 05:45:19 pm

Jes,  On the Obamacare ruling they rewrote the law.  It very clearly says what it says.  There is no guessing.  It was written that way on purpose to force Republican governors to set up exchanges.

I am not alone on this belief.  The conservative judges feel it was a terrible ruling as well.  Simply because the liberals out number the conservatives we lose.  That is not how the court is supposed to work.

Actually liberals do NOT outnumber conservatives, but someone always has to lose.  That IS how the Court is supposed to work.

You lost.

Stop the pathetic whining already.

As to the rewrite, I have already gone thru it.  I didn't like the outcome either, but it is best that purely political issues be resolved thru the political process and not by an unelected judiciary.  I would likely have voted that the words meant what they clearly stated and that if the language needed revision for the plan to survive, then that is the function of the legislature, but the last I checked I was not on the Court.  The approach taken by the court majority in the case was perfectly consistent with the approach the Court has taken for 200 years in dealing with issues of statutory construction.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 10:06:18 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 09:17:34 pm

Otto, do you feel Churches should have to marry gays in order to keep their non-profit status?

I don't believe Churches should have any special tax treatment to begin with.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 10:08:32 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 10, 2015, 09:32:55 pm

So if some couple (gay) want to get married and they choose church X to marry them it obligates that particular church to marry them?

No church, or church figure, has to marry anyone, but if a state wanted to prohibt those performing weddings from discriminating based on sexual orientation, the state could.  I doubt that many would, but they could.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:09:11 pm

I have no doubt the law will be overturned eventually.  Either through the next court battle or through legislation.  It simply is a terrible law and the majority does not like it.  The public will like it even less when the premiums rise.     

My problem is the dangerous precedent that has been set.  If you have supreme court judges who are there for life rewriting laws from the bench then our system has failed.  But then we have the executive branch taking more and more power as well (started before Obama but has gotten worse).  If the legislative branch which is the closest to the people is giving up their power the people have lost their biggest advocate.

This is not the only problem with our constitution not being followed it is just the  most recent and egregious. 

I always wanted to work that word into a sentence with out having to be kicked out of Applebee's to do it.  :)  Two points to whoever gets the reference and can name the movie. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:13:47 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 10:06:18 pm

I don't believe Churches should have any special tax treatment to begin with.

Of course you don't.  Should no one get non-profit status or only churches?  How about Easter Seals or United Way, Shriners Hospital, so on and so forth?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:40:23 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 10, 2015, 09:49:07 pm

Because public opinion has shifted, and shifted quite rapidly.  Look at the polling data.  It not only shows 60% now support it, but that until very recently a majority opposed it.  If California were to vote on it again today, it would clearly pass.


Just as the Court took out of the voters hands the question of whether interracial marriage would be allowed, and whether states would be allowed to segregate schools, and whether states would be allowed to make contraceptives illegal, and whether the Congress could make certain speech illegal.

The CONSTITUTION denies voters the opportunity to make a great number of decisions.  That is the way the system was set up, and I seriously doubt that you would want a system where the popular vote truly determined every outcome.  My shipwreck example should have illustrated the point.


You seem to desperately be trying to rationalize away current public opinion and to ignore the polling data, which clearly shows the change.  What the leaders of different religions say on an issue does not always determine what the members of those religions believe.

Couples living together without marriage STILL have disputes over who gets what, and the resolution of those disputes is often messier tham most divorces.  But you are now arguing that the public should not have changed its position on the issue of gay marriage, not that public opinion has not changed -- and that ship has sailed.

Hello pretzel your name is Jes...

You are saying public opinion is in favor and makes it so but public opinion doesn't matter.  Public opinion is not in favor of it in most states. 

It was turning that way and would have eventually gotten there.  I have no doubt that with in ten years it would have been legal in all 50 states.  My argument is that was a better way to do it.  It would have been cleaner, there would have been less anger and most importantly more peoples rights would have been upheld.  Now we have a big ugly mess.

This is not segregation.  That needed to be done.  Gay people were not having to sit on the back of the bus, they were not being discriminated against or segregated.  The two are NOT egual!

We could have easily fixed this by giving them the same rights as heterosexual couples.  Either make the government civil union the same for any two people or keep the government out of it all together.  Let marriage be only in the eyes of the couple, church and God.  Simple enough right?

If in 10 years no church or pastor has been sued or lost non-profit status I will say you were right, I was wrong.  I am guessing I will be able to say "I told you so" in less then 5.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2015, 10:56:34 pm

Quote

I have no doubt the law will be overturned eventually.

Ya sure, aren't you the same guy who believed that democracy would breakout in the Middle East with the invasion of Iraq?

Yup, same.

Do you have any idea what Millennials think about your beliefs on this issue?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2015, 10:58:16 pm

For you, the joyless ignorants...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMJ_-5lVw1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMJ_-5lVw1s)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 11:03:09 pm

Otto, It would have if we had not ran away after we won.  We did not run away from Japan or Germany after we defeated them.  We stayed until the job was done.  In fact we still have bases in both countries...

The blame lies with Obama.  He is also to blame for ISIS/ISIL being so powerful. 

When Jimmy Carter says you have a failed foreign policy you know you suck!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 11:08:29 pm

Otto, you never answered my question. 

Do you feel churches should lose their non-profit status if they refuse to marry gay couples.  Do you feel that they should be fined if they do not perform them?

I am not asking about the current law.  I am asking what your personal belief is on the matter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 10, 2015, 11:44:18 pm

(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/24a4082cfa63456899bbfb2fe3d0bcd2822de998/c=3-0-2397-1800&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/2015/07/08/USATODAY/USATODAY/635719950050001670-070915lville-gay-marriage-clerks.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 11, 2015, 12:12:14 am

Otto, Can you answer the question please? 

For the record I believe if a county clerk does not wish to marry gay people now that it is the law of the land they need to find a new job.  That is a government job.  Their union should not be able to protect them from doing it.  They can't be forced to do it but they can't keep the job and they can't force them to pay them the same but move them to a new area.

Same for the judges.  If you can't or won't do the job change jobs.  You signed up for government work and reaped the benefits.  Now do the job or find another one.  Sucks but that is government work. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 06:11:59 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 11, 2015, 12:12:14 am

Otto, Can you answer the question please? 

For the record I believe if a county clerk does not wish to marry gay people now that it is the law of the land they need to find a new job.  That is a government job.  Their union should not be able to protect them from doing it.  They can't be forced to do it but they can't keep the job and they can't force them to pay them the same but move them to a new area.

Same for the judges.  If you can't or won't do the job change jobs.  You signed up for government work and reaped the benefits.  Now do the job or find another one.  Sucks but that is government work.

County clerks and judges are elected positions.  I am unaware of any unions for any of the elected officials.  But while the law in most (if not all) ALLOWS judges to marry folks, if does not REQUIRE them to marry anyone, and if one wanted to be sure he never married a gay couple, he could quite simply stop performing marriages for anyone.  Not need to resign his position entirely.  (I'm not aware of states allowing CLERKS to perform marriages, though some clerks in some county offices will ISSUE marriage licenses, and if they refused to issue a license to someone simply because they were the same sex, they should be fired, and if not fired those refused a license would be able to file a 1983 Civil Rights action based on the violation of civil rights under color of law... just as someone could if the clerk refused to issue them a marriage license because of their race, nationality, national origin, height, weight, or because they were "too ugly" and the clerk thought they should not reproduce.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 06:23:53 am

For a true Christian, what is happening now is really no surprise at all. Jesus said there would be persecution in the last days and it's coming and in fact is here already. To the degree He lets it happen and continue is unsure. The Rapture is coming and this world will seriously decay into a unliveable nightmare. God's going to give everyone who hates Him exactly what they wanted...their own way. And it'll end up destroying this world. As for the gay marriage deal, it's merely what was talked about in the Bible-people casting off restraint. They want nothing to do with the Bible or God or morality or any of it. It's going to get much darker before the daylight springs forth. But God is in control and still on the throne.
That is a fact....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 06:36:43 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:09:11 pm

I have no doubt the law will be overturned eventually.  Either through the next court battle or through legislation.  It simply is a terrible law and the majority does not like it.  The public will like it even less when the premiums rise.

The time to have gotten rid of the law thru the legislative process was 2012... and voters rather soundly re-elected the person most responsible for it.

I would LIKE to have it disposed of legislatively, but historically, social programs once they are up and operating tend not to be killed.  When something happens such as a rise in premiums, history shows that tends to result simply in government giving more money to subsidize premiums, or taking over the program more fully so fewer people have to pay ANY premiums, or taking over programs entirely so there ARE no premiums and the nation slides fully into a single payor approach.

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:09:11 pm

My problem is the dangerous precedent that has been set.  If you have supreme court judges who are there for life rewriting laws from the bench then our system has failed.  But then we have the executive branch taking more and more power as well (started before Obama but has gotten worse).  If the legislative branch which is the closest to the people is giving up their power the people have lost their biggest advocate.

As I have pointed out repeatedly now, Pekin, there is NO precedent which was set here on statutory construction.  This decision instead was in line with prior decisions and with the long-standing approach of ALL courts in interpreting what legislation means.

Lawmakers will often make minor errors in wording when drafting, amending, and passing legislation.  A comma is forgotten.  A word is mis-spelled, or a typo included, or the wrong definition is used... or, in lengthy, complex legislation, something in the legislation which was intended to do one thing would end up working in such a manner as to completely undercut the obvious primary purpose of the entire legislative plan.

And courts have to interpret the law to determine what the lawmakers and the legislation intended.  If there is no question about the wording, then courts simply have to apply the wording by looking at the plain meaning of the words.

But there rather clearly WAS a question about the meaning of the wording in this case.

While I would have like to have seen ObamaCare buried by the court, the dangerous precedent might well have been if the Court had done just that, IGNORING the very obvious purpose of the entire legislation by focusing primarily on the wording and intent of one very minor subsection of the bill.  Have THAT become the judicial precedent, and then you really have a powerful judiciary, which would be effectively striking down lots of legislation passed by elected bodies.

Is that REALLY what you want?

Or is it that you only want that when the outcome produces an outcome you like, and the process and precedent and rhetoric about unelected judges and overcoming majority will is just window dressing to excuse your results-oriented approach?

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:09:11 pm

This is not the only problem with our constitution not being followed it is just the  most recent and egregious.

The Constitution is not being followed on what?  On the recent ObamaCare decision?  The CONSTITUTION was not even really involved in the case.  It was a case of statutory construction, where the issue was what the legislative body intended to do when it pass the law, NOT what the Constitution did or intended.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 06:39:40 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:13:47 pm

Of course you don't.  Should no one get non-profit status or only churches?  How about Easter Seals or United Way, Shriners Hospital, so on and so forth?

Works for me.

If they are being taxed on INCOME, as is the case with for profits corporations, then the tax is not really on income, but on profit, and a true "non-profit" would not actually have to worry.

If you are talking about exemptions to sales tax or property taxes, then, no, I don't really believe non-profits should be exempt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 06:59:35 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 11:08:29 pm

Otto, you never answered my question. 

Do you feel churches should lose their non-profit status if they refuse to marry gay couples.  Do you feel that they should be fined if they do not perform them?

I am not asking about the current law.  I am asking what your personal belief is on the matter.

Again, I am disappointed in you, here for getting sucked into the rightwing echo chamber on this issue and continuing to raise this nonsense.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that the the long recognized right to marry also applies to gay couples.

More than 40 years ago the Supreme Court rules that there is a constitutionally protected right to aboirtion.

Have you ever heard of any lawsuit against a doctor who refused to perform an abortion?  Ever heard of a doctor being criminally prosecuted for refusing to perform an abortion?  Ever hear of one being fined for refusing to perform an abortion?

You are listening to or reading nonsense from nutjobs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 07:33:47 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:40:23 pm

Hello pretzel your name is Jes...

You are saying public opinion is in favor and makes it so but public opinion doesn't matter.  Public opinion is not in favor of it in most states. 

~sigh~  I really expected better from you, but perhaps I was expectting too much.

There has been NO inconsistency in my position on the issue of public opinion.  There might be if I at one time argued the Court should have done as it did BECAUSE of public opinion and I also argued that public opinion did not or should not have mattered... but I never even suggested that the Court should have done as it did because of public opinion and have always consistently argued that public opinion should not matter.  I instead simply addressed public opinion to address YOUR contention that the Court action was at odds with what the public wanted -- you are wrong on that point regarding gay marriage.  I  pointed out that public opinion was NOT against gay marriage and in fact supported it, and I pointed that out NOT to suggest the Court action was right, but to illustrate that YOUR contention on majority opinion was wrong.

I am seriously surprised you can not follow this.

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:40:23 pm

It was turning that way and would have eventually gotten there.  I have no doubt that with in ten years it would have been legal in all 50 states.  My argument is that was a better way to do it.  It would have been cleaner, there would have been less anger and most importantly more peoples rights would have been upheld.  Now we have a big ugly mess.

This is not segregation.  That needed to be done.  Gay people were not having to sit on the back of the bus, they were not being discriminated against or segregated.  The two are NOT egual!

The primary issue before a court is which litigant wins and which litigant loses.  There are flesh and blood people and real and tangible issues before a court, not just abstract issues.

When the Supreme Court first recognized the legitimacy of gay marriage in 2013 in the case of United States v. Windsor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor  It involved an 84-year-old woman who had legally married another woman in Canada in 2007 after the two had been together as a couple for 43 years.  After their erfectly legal marriage in Canada, the then moved to the state of New York in 2008 which recognized gay marriages.  In fact 16 years earlier the couple had entered into a formal domestic partnership in the state of NY the first day NY recognized them.  They were clearly a committed and loving couple. 

One of them died in 2009 and Windsor then claimed a surviving spouse tax exemption to the death tax on her spouse's estate.

The narrow question before the court was whether Windsor was entitle to that exemption.

THAT is the way legal issues get framed and have to be addressed by courts.

You seemingly would want to tell litigants that they simply shouldn't worry about the outcome of their particular case since the issue will sort itself out in the court of public opinion... ad the fact that the litigants are DEAD by then really shouldn't concern them.

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:40:23 pm

Gay people were not having to sit on the back of the bus, they were not being discriminated against or segregated.  The two are NOT egual!

If you believe that there is a constitutional right to marry, they were being denied that right by government action, and whether anyone was being told to sit on the back of the bus, or being denied the opportunity to even get ON the bus (which would be more comparable to the Rosa Parks situation) does not really matter.

If someone is being denied the opportunity to enjoy an important, basic, constitutionally protected right, and that denial comes directly at the hands of government, it is perfectly appropriate for the Supreme Court to strike down the government action which denied the right.

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:40:23 pm

We could have easily fixed this by giving them the same rights as heterosexual couples.  Either make the government civil union the same for any two people or keep the government out of it all together.  Let marriage be only in the eyes of the couple, church and God.  Simple enough right?

NOT if marriage is a constitutionally protected right, and that is an issue the Supreme Court decided close to 100 years ago.

Setting up something sort of like a constitutionally protected right is not quite the same thing.

Quote from: Pekin on July 10, 2015, 10:40:23 pm

If in 10 years no church or pastor has been sued or lost non-profit status I will say you were right, I was wrong.  I am guessing I will be able to say "I told you so" in less then 5.

I have addressed this in my response to another post of yours.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 07:41:35 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 06:23:53 am

For a true Christian, what is happening now is really no surprise at all. Jesus said there would be persecution in the last days and it's coming and in fact is here already. To the degree He lets it happen and continue is unsure. The Rapture is coming and this world will seriously decay into a unliveable nightmare. God's going to give everyone who hates Him exactly what they wanted...their own way. And it'll end up destroying this world. As for the gay marriage deal, it's merely what was talked about in the Bible-people casting off restraint. They want nothing to do with the Bible or God or morality or any of it. It's going to get much darker before the daylight springs forth. But God is in control and still on the throne.
That is a fact....

Christians have been predicting this nonsense for years, not the nonsense that there would be a second coming (that is a different issue), but the nonsense that it is just around the corner, that "it's coming and in fact is here already," for close to 2,000 years.  Paul made it a central tenant of his teaching -- that the second coming was imminent.  And after close to 2,000 yars it still isn't here.  And for those who are convinced that Paul's teachings were on a par with the teachings of Jesus, since Paul was one of the apostles, this might seem something of an inconsistency... but since true faith in everything a person believes often requires suspension of thought and reason such minor things get overlooked and ignored. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 07:44:12 am

Who EVER said two of the same sex has any such right to marriage?? That was unheard of for the most part of human history, apart from wicked Rome. It's a completely absurd argument. To argue this is acceptable, you must throw out hundreds, even thousands of years of human history and morality and what has been acceptable in society. It's ridiculous to say it's a 'right' when it never has been!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 10:33:13 am

2 Peter 3

The Day of the Lord

1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

3Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 11, 2015, 11:31:42 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 06:59:35 am

Again, I am disappointed in you, here for getting sucked into the rightwing echo chamber on this issue and continuing to raise this nonsense.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that the the long recognized right to marry also applies to gay couples.

More than 40 years ago the Supreme Court rules that there is a constitutionally protected right to aboirtion.

Have you ever heard of any lawsuit against a doctor who refused to perform an abortion?  Ever heard of a doctor being criminally prosecuted for refusing to perform an abortion?  Ever hear of one being fined for refusing to perform an abortion?

You are listening to or reading nonsense from nutjobs.

That is a great answer.  Now all you have to do is find a question to which it applies.

Pekin asked Homo what his opinion was on the subject - not what is likely to happen now or in the future.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 11, 2015, 01:31:56 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 06:23:53 am

For a true Christian, what is happening now is really no surprise at all. Jesus said there would be persecution in the last days and it's coming and in fact is here already. To the degree He lets it happen and continue is unsure. The Rapture is coming and this world will seriously decay into a unliveable nightmare. God's going to give everyone who hates Him exactly what they wanted...their own way. And it'll end up destroying this world. As for the gay marriage deal, it's merely what was talked about in the Bible-people casting off restraint. They want nothing to do with the Bible or God or morality or any of it. It's going to get much darker before the daylight springs forth. But God is in control and still on the throne.
That is a fact....

These are the ramblings of an insane person.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 05:24:07 pm

You're gonna have all of eternity to regret your unbelief.....and eternity is a long long time.....hope you change your mind before it's too late...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 11, 2015, 06:34:45 pm

Quote from: Cletus on July 11, 2015, 01:31:56 pm

These are the ramblings of an insane person.

He is realistic. The insane one is who replied

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 09:00:53 pm

Quote from: davep on July 11, 2015, 11:31:42 am

That is a great answer.  Now all you have to do is find a question to which it applies.

Pekin asked Homo what his opinion was on the subject - not what is likely to happen now or in the future.

The specific question from Pekin was as follows:

Quote

Do you feel churches should.... be fined if they do not perform them?

Premised in that queston is the belief there is a realistic probability that will happen, meaning my response was directly on point.  Additionally, as I made clear with my next post, the comments from me which you were responding to were also in part in response to a point Pekin made in another post at roughly the same time.

So, now that I have pointed out the question to which my answer applied, I'm glad you agree that it "is a great answer."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 09:03:40 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 05:24:07 pm

You're gonna have all of eternity to regret your unbelief.....and eternity is a long long time.....hope you change your mind before it's too late...

Sportster, could you direct me to anywhere in the Bible that it says those who reject the notion of the Christian god or to bow down and kiss his feet are going to suffer "ETERNAL" punishment for that choice?  It is the "eternal" part I am asking about here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 09:06:45 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 10:33:13 am

2 Peter 3

The Day of the Lord

1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

3Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Okay.... so your prior assurance to us that the second coming is just around the corner was a crock of **** that even YOU do not believe.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 11, 2015, 09:11:04 pm

Williams: Second Amendment Exists to Protect Us From Government

Not like Obama, who says it's for duck hunting

7.6.2015

http://www.truthrevolt.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_full_width/public/field/image/articles/williams_3_0_0.jpg?itok=kgEworNG
In his column A Minority View, economist Walter E. Williams reminds why the Founding Fathers considered it necessary to draft the Second Amendment -- not as something that allows free Americans to hunt, but to ensure a well-armed citizenry that is free to defend itself from a government that seeks to destroy their liberties.

Williams begins by quoting President Obama who has said in the last couple of years, "I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations." The NRA and Gun Owners of America, Williams said, is to blame for perpetuating this misunderstanding of the Second Amendment as it was meant to be according to the Framers. And to prove his point, Williams quotes the Founding Fathers and asks, "[T]ell me which one of them suggest that they gave us the Second Amendment for deer and duck hunting and protection against criminals."

Alexander Hamilton said, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” What institution was Hamilton referring to when he said “the representatives of the people”?
 
Thomas Jefferson: “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Who are the rulers Jefferson had in mind?
 
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said, “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
 
George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, said, “To disarm the people -- that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” later saying, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
 
Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
 

Even liberal voices of old, though not as old as Thomas Jefferson, could see the original intent of the language. This quote is from Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who under Lyndon B. Johnson said : “Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. ... The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

Of course, as Williams notes, today's liberals don't see it this way, much like others throughout history. One example being Fidel Castro who questioned his citizens' right to bear arms: "Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") Or Adolf Hitler who once said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

Williams concludes:

At the heart of the original American ideal is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for Congress, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today’s Americans. Some of the founders’ distrust is seen in our Constitution’s language, such as Congress shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate or deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections.

Maybe there are Americans who would argue that we are moving toward greater liberty and less government control over our lives and no longer need to remain an armed citizenry. I’d like to see their evidence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 09:11:47 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 11, 2015, 07:44:12 am

Who EVER said two of the same sex has any such right to marriage??

Well. let's start with a majority of the Supreme Court.

As to the rest of the nonsense in your post, gays have paired off and lived as couples for thousands of years, almost certainly for hundreds of thousands of years.  It is only in the last few hundred that governments began entering the picture and creating a "state recognized marriage" which granted special rights to some and denied similar rights to others.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 11, 2015, 09:52:28 pm

Like anyone gives a **** what they think.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 11, 2015, 09:57:41 pm

Just like abortion the argument is going to go on endlessly.  Should have let people decide it at the voters booth. 

It would have been the same result but would have taken longer.  Everyone would have been better off for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 10:05:52 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 11, 2015, 09:57:41 pm

Just like abortion the argument is going to go on endlessly.  Should have let people decide it at the voters booth. 

It would have been the same result but would have taken longer.  Everyone would have been better off for it.

I suppose you feel the same way about access to contraceptives, desegregation of schools, the 2013 case addressing gay marriage which I discussed a few posts back, the 2000 presidential election, the Miranda decision, the Pentagon Papers case, interracial marriage, campaign funding, the issue of whether states should draw legislative districts in such a way as to reflect the idea of one man one vote, various legislative efforts to restrict free speech or the right to bear arms, and, of course, ObamaCare.

Oh, wait, you have already made clear that in the case of ObamaCare, since you really don't like it, you would have liked the Supreme Court to have done away with that one instead if interpreting it in such a manner as to give life to the overall legislative intent.

Pure consistency.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 10:07:15 pm

Damn.

Its a good thing we can count on Global Warming to prevent this from getting too bad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 11, 2015, 10:32:18 pm

goody, goody gumdrops. Al Gore's precious glaciers will return to the Midwest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 11, 2015, 11:15:24 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 11, 2015, 09:00:53 pm

The specific question from Pekin was as follows:
Do you feel churches should.... be fined if they do not perform them?

So, now that I have pointed out the question to which my answer applied, I'm glad you agree that it "is a great answer."

Not even close.  The actual post was:

"Otto, you never answered my question. 

Do you feel churches should lose their non-profit status if they refuse to marry gay couples.  Do you feel that they should be fined if they do not perform them?"

He was asking what Homo felt.  I suspect that he didn't much care what you thought.  From the context of the discussion, it was obvious that he wanted to understand the beliefs and desires of our resident Liberal.  Unless I am mistaken, whatever you are, you aren't one of those.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 11, 2015, 11:30:56 pm

davep is correct.

Still waiting on that answer Otto.  This is not some Jes type trick I simply want to know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 04:47:33 am

Quote from: davep on July 11, 2015, 11:15:24 pm

Not even close.  The actual post was:

"Otto, you never answered my question. 

Do you feel churches should lose their non-profit status if they refuse to marry gay couples.  Do you feel that they should be fined if they do not perform them?"

He was asking what Homo felt.  I suspect that he didn't much care what you thought.  From the context of the discussion, it was obvious that he wanted to understand the beliefs and desires of our resident Liberal.  Unless I am mistaken, whatever you are, you aren't one of those.

Sorry you are not able to follow things, but I will try explaining again for you.

My response did not attempt to address how anyone else felt, but instead addressed the belief implicit in his question -- the belief there is a realistic probability that what  was being asked about will happen, meaning my response was directly on point.

I did not pretend to be answering his question, but human communication does not limit us to responding only to questions which are directly posed to us in particular, something you would appear to understand since your first contribution to this excahnge in the absence of anyone indicating they had any interest in what you thought about it.  And, for the second time now, I additionally made clear with my next post that the comments from me which you were responding were also in part in response to a point Pekin made in another post at roughly the same time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 12, 2015, 06:31:38 am

This is the one I want answered

"religious freedom" dies not mean people can discriminate. ( fixing the spelling error of does)

So if some couple (gay) want to get married and they choose church X to marry them it obligates that particular church to marry them?

And what if church X states its their policy that they don't marry couples unless they are members of their church. Is that discrimination in your opinion? Or do all churches have to marry couples regardless of their church rules?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 07:29:19 am

WshflThinking, could the church refuse to marry a black couple or an interracial couple or a Jewish couple or a Mexican couple or an atheist couple based on the religious beliefs of the church?

If so, then why are you so paranoid as to believe things would be any different with gay couples?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 08:17:04 am

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/county-clerk-east-texas-resigns-gay-marriage-ruling-32373118

Good.  She has decided she would not do her job.  Resignation is the right course of action.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 08:50:11 am

People discriminate all the time. Between good and bad, between right and wrong. Nothing ANYWHERE says immorality has a right to anything, period! There IS no right to be sexually immoral! If you have a problem with that, take it up with God who commanded us to be holy like He is holy. You can discuss it with Him at the judgement when you get there, and no you can't call in sick or absent when He calls you to account. And it don't mean a hill o' beans whether you believe it or not, you'll be there....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 08:58:56 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 08:50:11 am

People discriminate all the time. Between good and bad, between right and wrong. Nothing ANYWHERE says immorality has a right to anything, period! There IS no right to be sexually immoral! If you have a problem with that, take it up with God who commanded us to be holy like He is holy. You can discuss it with Him at the judgement when you get there, and no you can't call in sick or absent when He calls you to account. And it don't mean a hill o' beans whether you believe it or not, you'll be there....

But there is a right to be free of YOUR morality.

And since you want immoral behavior to be addressed by your imaginary god, leave it at that and drop the nonsense of trying to impose your moral stucture on someone else thru laws which make things at odds with your sense of morality illegal.

Instead only criminalize conduct which directy injures others.  For that there is unquestionably an appropriate role for government.  For imposing YOUR sense of morality on the rest of us there is not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 09:07:08 am

The state of Wisconsin has now eliminated tenure for university professors.  (Well, to be accurate, it has eliminated the statutory protection of tenure, individual universities may still keep it if their university administration wants to keep it.)

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/11/walker-wins-new-budget-will-repeal-university-tenure/

My prediction is that within three years the quality instruction at the state's major public universities will seriously decline, as will the quality of its student body.

Many of the best professors will simply leave.    Efforts to attract top new faculty members will become more difficult.  And the many of the best students will pursue their educations elsewhere.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 09:11:06 am

Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian ethics. That is the basis for it. It is not 'do as you please'. It's turning into that, but it is not that yet and there are many many Christians and people of morals in this Country yet that have a say in what is allowed and what isn't. That has not changed and God willing will not

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 09:20:28 am

Matthew 25


The Sheep and the Goats

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee  hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eternal.


Revelation 20:10, 14-15

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 14:9-11

If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.



It's foolish to think that Jesus came and died for us to save us from hell if it was not a eternal hell, a place of eternal separation from God and all that is good and righteous and lovely. He suffered and died to save all who come to Him from eternal punishment and separation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 09:54:07 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 09:11:06 am

Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian ethics.  That is the basis for it.

Nonsense.  I have challenged you before on this and you have failed to provide a meaningful response, so I will do so again.

What legislation in the U.S. is based on "Judeo-Christian ethics" as opposed to the ethical values in other cultures or religions?

The first five commandments of the Ten Commandments are not reflected at all in our law, and the next five deal with conduct which largely codified, but which is also codified in every other nation, and which has been codified in nearly every civilized society thru history.

Your contention that our laws are based on "Judeo-Christian ethics" strongly implies that they are based on values not found elsewhere.  That is nonsense.

Quote from: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 09:11:06 am

It is not 'do as you please'.

Do you have to argue against a straw man to find an argument you can defeat?

Who here has EVER argued that our legal system should allow anyoe to "do as you please"?

I have made abundantly clear that I am not an anarchist, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone here ever suggesting anarchy, which is a "do as you please" existence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 10:19:03 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 09:20:28 am

Matthew 25


The Sheep and the Goats

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee  hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eternal.


Revelation 20:10, 14-15

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 14:9-11

If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.



It's foolish to think that Jesus came and died for us to save us from hell if it was not a eternal hell, a place of eternal separation from God and all that is good and righteous and lovely. He suffered and died to save all who come to Him from eternal punishment and separation.

Thanks.

Amusing to see someone supporting strict drug prohibition rely on the drug-induced writing of Revelations to make a point....

At a time when Rome was shift from the old Roman religion to adopt Christianity as already discussed the Roman emporer directed leading Christian figures to get together and come up with an approved collection of Christian writings to make up the offical text of the faith (the Bible) in order to establish official church doctrine and to allow him (the emporer) to them push the empire to adopt Christianity.  Just as is the case with adults trying to brainwash young children to adopt Christianity, those deciding what to include in and reject from the Bible wanted to have a very strong sales pitch for it... and the book of Revelations is that hard sell sales pitch -- "Believe as we do or burn in Hell!"  Oh, and forever.

Any quotes attributed to Jesus to that effect?

One other question -- since you have already pointed out that "years" referenced in the Bible may not actually mean years, and "days" may not actually mean days, what reason is there to think that "forever" means forever?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 10:32:57 am

You've been spewing so much garbage here it's hard to keep track of it all and respond. It's well known our system is and has been based on Judeo Christian ethics, to everyone excluding yourself, apparently. Ridiculous. Going on, gay marriage is very much 'do as you please'. It's never been proposed before, never even been heard of in a free moral society, but a tiny segment wants its 'never before heard of' "rights" and bam, do as you please, make that 'right' out of thin air! And spare me the nonsense I know is coming. Sodomy was a crime in all 50 States for most of this Country's history. And where do you think laws like allowing drugs came from? 'Do as you please'. Very much so. Wanna smoke pot? Go ahead, do as you please. So spare me the rhetorical nonsense about it not applying ok?
And how is it you spew nonsense on Revelation but not on Matthew, one of the four gospels?? You're really drawing at straws here. It was stated and restated AND restated that ALL of scripture is God-breathed and useful for reproof, instruction, teaching in righteousness. ALL of it. Not just the red letter stuff you seem to think....

Again, in case you missed it....which you did but you didn't....Jesus didn't suffer a horrendous death on a cross so you can miss out on a overnight stay in a campfire, ok? He did is so you can miss a eternity in a roaring hellfire! Otherwise it was a death in vain if there were no consequences to sin....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 12, 2015, 10:58:28 am

Sporty, Jesus didn't exist. All this dying on a cross stuff never happened.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 12, 2015, 10:59:24 am

Do you have any proof of that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 12, 2015, 11:16:04 am

Well there no proof that he did exist so it's reasonable to conclude that he didn't. And common sense shows that the whole story is a myth. But, if you want a detailed analysis of what is known and why the historical Jesus is very likely fictional, read Proving History by Richard Carrier.  But you won't do that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 11:26:46 am

Quote from: Cletus on July 12, 2015, 11:16:04 am

Well there no proof that he did exist so it's reasonable to conclude that he didn't. And common sense shows that the whole story is a myth. But, if you want a detailed analysis of what is known and why the historical Jesus is very likely fictional, read Proving History by Richard Carrier.  But you won't do that.

Proof is merely that which is required to convince.  Keeping that in mind, there is abundant proof Jesus existed, even if the proof is not adequate to convince you.

As to the book by Carrier, please correct me if I am wrong, but I am betting you were already an atheist before reading Carrier, and that if you were not already hostile toward Christianity, you were at least looking for an excuse to be hostile toward it.... meaning that it really didn't prove anything, even to you.

But real quickly, summarize the 5 or 6 most compelling arguments Carrier makes for the position that Jesus never existed.  I am not asking for arguments that he was not divine, or that he did not arise from the dead, or that he never performed miracles, or anything of that kind, but instead the 5 or 6 most compelling arguments that he did not EXIST.

I would genuinely like to see them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 11:30:22 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 10:32:57 am

You've been spewing so much garbage here it's hard to keep track of it all and respond. It's well known our system is and has been based on Judeo Christian ethics, to everyone excluding yourself, apparently. Ridiculous. Going on, gay marriage is very much 'do as you please'.

So you have nothing.  No examples to illustrate your contention at all.  The only thing you can say is that it is well known.

That is weak even for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 11:34:01 am

*Yawn*....

This new mini iceage deal that's being talked about goes counter to the global warming fiasco...whatsoever will they do with themselves?? OH NO we're going to FREEZE and WARM all at the same time!! No wonder people put no trust in this.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 11:38:39 am

So, Sportster, those examples?

C'mon, even one example of legislation in the U.S. is based on "Judeo-Christian ethics" as opposed to the ethical values in other cultures or religions?  In other words, things that would be criminal in the wonderful "Judeo-Christian" U.S. of A. which is NOT also criminal in the heathen world?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 12, 2015, 11:47:08 am

Read the books if you are interested. Or read his blog. Lots of stuff on the topic there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 11:56:57 am

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 12, 2015, 05:03:16 pm

Quote from: Cletus on July 12, 2015, 11:16:04 am

Well there no proof that he did exist so it's reasonable to conclude that he didn't. And common sense shows that the whole story is a myth. But, if you want a detailed analysis of what is known and why the historical Jesus is very likely fictional, read Proving History by Richard Carrier.  But you won't do that.

I will do that if you read the entire Bible.

The fact that there is no proof that he existed is not proof that he did not exist.  I would think that you would be able to understand that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 12, 2015, 05:39:52 pm

I guess we'll have to replace that sculpture of Moses carrying the ten commandments on the entrance to the supreme court.

Maybe it can be replaced with the 3 monkeys----hear no evil see no evil speak no evil.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 12, 2015, 05:44:49 pm

In the world of religion, there are all sorts of things that are claimed to exist without any evidence at all. This is one of the many reasons religion is stupid. However, in the real world, things that exist leave behind some evidence.  It's completely reasons to conclude that something for which there is no evidence did not exist. I suppose it's possible that there is actual evidence for the existence of Jesus that hasn't been unearthed yet. If that ever comes to light, I'll reconsider. Until then, it's my position that Jesus is just another religious much. Hopefully one that dies out like all the rest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 12, 2015, 06:22:24 pm

You're banking on some awfully complicated coincidences to have taken place.

First, all those people adoring and writing about stuff 2000 years ago, that even Rome acknowledged, never existed at all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 12, 2015, 06:32:19 pm

Quote from: Cletus on July 12, 2015, 05:44:49 pm

In the world of religion, there are all sorts of things that are claimed to exist without any evidence at all. This is one of the many reasons religion is stupid. However, in the real world, things that exist leave behind some evidence. 

A very foolish statement from someone that pretends to be intelligent.  There are billions of things that have existed, and yet leave no evidence.  How can someone that pretends to be intelligent actually believe that all the things that he doesn't know must not have existed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 12, 2015, 06:40:30 pm

Well, I have never been to Arkansas, just maybe.................

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 12, 2015, 07:07:44 pm

You wish!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 12, 2015, 11:00:43 pm

Mark's Market Blog
7-12-15: China, Greece, Puerto Rico
by Mark Lawrence
It's been an interesting week. Banks in Greece have been closed for two weeks. Greek merchants are refusing credit card sales because they don't want their money going into banks. The Greeks proposed a three year bailout with terms nearly identical to the last EU proposal, but the EU doesn't like it. China got their stock market to stop its free fall, at least for now. The US markets flirted with the 200 day moving average but never took up residence below: fed, plunge protection team, collusion, whatever you may prefer, we're not allowed to have a real stock market correction. My guess is that 'way too many banks and billionaires are swimming naked so the tide is being held in.
 
S&P 500 January 12 2014 to July 10 2015
The Iran talks missed their most important deadline: July 9th. Had Obama submitted an agreement to congress by the 9th, congress had agreed to take only 30 days to review it and vote only yes or no. That's all over now, congress has no limits at picking on any such agreement. Kerry said that he would not be rushed into a deal but at the same time that he would not negotiate "forever". "If the tough decisions don't get made, we are absolutely prepared to call an end to this process." At the time of this writing, rumor is that an agreement has been reached and will be announced on Monday. I feel confident it will be an awful agreement with porous inspection protocalls, it will never be approved by congress, but the sanctions coalition will fall apart quickly - Iran is going to come out of this a huge winner. Obama is well aware that the agreement has huge holes in it. His position is that signing such an agreement will bolster Iranian moderates who will, in time, pull their nation back towards the center and away from genocidal religious madness. Right. That process should take well under 400 years. Russia and China agree with Iran, that sanctions should be lifted as soon as possible. Both have large muslim populations and large problems with unrest in those populations. A muslim war with a well armed and funded Iran at the center does not, imho, suit their interests. They obviously disagree.

What brought down Puerto Rico? A significant factor was Congress raising Puerto Rico's minimum wage to match the US standard in 1983. Since they did that there has been mass migration of unskilled Puerto Ricans to the mainland, and the labor participation rate is under 40% - according to the IMF over 60% of working age adults are not employed. Even at the minimum wage, full-time work in Puerto Rico pays less than the combined package of welfare, Medicaid and food stamp benefits for which a family of three might qualify. Can you imagine? You pay people to stop working, and they stop working.

The ECB announced that Greece's banks will not be getting any more cash unless there's a bailout. Greece's banks have been closed for two weeks now, with a €60 limit on ATM withdrawals per day. Something has to give - either the ECB gives the banks cash, or the banks close their doors for a long, long time. Greece says they want a deal - €60 billion in more loans over the next three years to a country that obviously can't pay off their current debt. And Greek banks appear to need €25 billion right now - almost half of the total bailout in the first week. Others estimate Greece needs more like €90 billion, half again what the deal calls for. Even if there's a deal Greek officials have announced that currency controls will continue for at least two months. France desperately wants to use Germany's money to save Greece and the Euro; Germany is less sanguine. Chancellor Merkel of Germany is under great domestic pressure to stop the loans; Germany is openly pushing the idea that Greece needs a five year time out from the Euro, then rejoin at a lower exchange rate, effectively giving everyone in the country a pay cut. Paul De Grauwe, a Belgian economist at the London School of Economics, said, "Temporary Grexit is like temporary divorce. Most if not all end up being permanent." Jeff Gundlach, a Wall Street hedge fund guy, says, "When one leaves, others will leave. There is never one cockroach." Finland and Slovakia are also opposed to further loans, sensing, correctly I think, that they'll never be paid back. The EU met on Sunday to discuss Greece's latest proposal; they said Greece must pass laws to change its value added tax and pension systems, reform bankruptcy rules and strengthen the independence of its statistics office before bailout talks can even begin. The IMF says clearly the debt is unsustainable and Greece needs debt forgiveness (illegal under EU rules) and their loans increased from 30 years to 60 years - dumping the debt not just on children and grandchildren, but now great- grandchildren. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be a part of this greedy, narcissistic generation. Banks made the loans, banks are supposedly big experts in risk, banks can take the losses. Make no mistake, 90% of the €240 billion already given to Greece went straight to pay down European creditor banks, effectively moving the risky debt from the commercial banks to the EUropean citizens. And most of the proposed €60 billion will also go to banks, not to the Greek people. Personally, I'm disgusted by this entire situation, where unelected officials shill for the banks at the cost of generations of Greeks. And don't for an instant think it can't happen here: how do you think the Fed took on $5 trillion in new debt in the last seven years? They moved risky and defaulted debt from Wall Street into their vaults, to be paid off by our children and grandchildren. Meanwhile Wall Street is making better than a billionaire a month as they get the profits and we get the risk. What's going to happen? A deal, I presume, sometime in the next week or two, which will screw European taxpayers everywhere and Greeks in particular for the next four generations. And the crisis will not be resolved, but merely postponed for three years.

China is trying desperately to save their stock market. New rule: no major shareholder with more then 5% of a company's stock may sell for the next six months. Whoever made that rule doesn't know what an option is. Another new rule: when a stock drops 10%, trading is done for the day. Wednesday 1300 stocks hit the limit. And another: a moratorium on new stock issues. And another: all stock transactions must now clearly identify the people involved, their home country and tax id number - no more corporations anonymously moving stocks. New graduates of Tsinghau university will, according to their graduation ceremony program, spend a minute "chanting loudly, 'revive the A shares, benefit the people; revive the A shares, benefit the people'." What does this mean? A shares are stocks unavailable to foreigners, and this week the Chinese government ordered brokerages and funds to purchase $19 billion worth of shares up to support prices. There are rumors that the government has quietly purchased $10 billion worth directly. President Xi is obviously worried about social backlash against the $3 trillion lost by investors in the last month - turn up the heat a bit and he runs home to mama communism. Oil, copper and iron are also crashing as Chinese demand dries up. They're blaming the crash on short sellers, insiders, foreigners and little green men. The 150% run up in one year, that apparently was normal. Xi's program is working, at least right now: markets have taken back about 20% of their recent losses to close out the week. Is this recovery or a dead cat bounce? I don't really care which, 'cause in the long run they're in for a surprise: markets, like the tide, do what they do. And this market wants to go down.



China has passed a new national security law which defined any threat to the state's power, sovereignty, or the sustainable growth of the economy as a threat to national security. Many companies and several countries are asking for clarification on these points, but it seems none is coming: China just loves vague laws that can be interpreted on the fly. Beijing is also deliberating at least three other related, but more detailed, laws on foreign investment, cyber security and foreign NGOs. Foreign companies fear the laws might be used to keep competitors out of the chinese market because the definition of national security was so broad and vague that any business activity could be subject to it. I see this as the Chinese version of the Smoot-Hawley act.

Oil is dropping. Expect that to turn into lower gas prices in a week or three. I've seen predictions that oil will hit $10 / barrel later this year, and predictions that oil will hit $70 / barrel this year. I'm not the only person out there who's bad at forecasting the future. . .


IBM has announced a new computer chip made with 7 nanometer gates, a new record for tiny transistors. An individual atom is about .1 nanometer across, so the new transistors have gates that are about 70 atoms across. You have to believe we're getting close to the smallest possible transistor - a transistor gate is certainly going to have to be at least a couple dozen atoms across.

Ford has announced that their small cars - the focus and c-max - will no longer be built in the US in 2018. They have to make and sell small cars for their fleet gas mileage ratings and to keep young customers, but when they're built in UAW plants Ford loses money on each car. The UAW thinks that Ford pickups will continue to be built in the US forever and that's where they'll get their jobs. I dunno - forever is a pretty big word. Expect production to start moving over to non- union shops in Mexico. GM probably can't match this because Obama gave two-thirds of their stock to the UAW, so as soon as gas prices rise and people stop buying Escalades and Suburbans GM is going to get into trouble quickly.

Oregon has a new law: a 15 year old can have a sex change operation, paid for by medicaid, without parental notification. So can a 25 year old, of course - but I find it absolutely fascinating that a teenager in the middle of puberty, before their neocortex and emotional control has developed, can make this decision and be supported by the state in keeping surgery decisions from their parents. Fascinating the same way a car crash is fascinating.

Colorado did an experiment. Teenagers and poor women were offered free long-term contraceptives - IUDs and implants. In six years of running this program, teen births and births to women under 25 with no high school diploma dropped 40% and abortions dropped 42%. Before the program started half of all first births to poor women happened before they turned 21. Now that number is up to 24. It turns out the best way to have fewer abortions, bring women out of poverty, and have infants raised by women who are more mature and financially more sound is to make it easy and free for the women to avoid unplanned pregnancy.

The Donald says our prisons are full of illegals; that Mexico is dumping their worst people on us. Statistics seem to back him up: about 30% of the prisoners in our federal prisons are illegal immigrants, and illegals are certainly nothing like 30% of our population. We need these guys 'cause they pick fruit, change diapers, mow lawns, clean bathrooms, right? Maybe not.

 Watch this video:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk1Yn0aAURA&feature=youtu.be

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 11:14:25 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 11:56:57 am

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

Sportster, I asked for ANY example illustrating your contention, not some irrelevant quote (which does not even reference Christianity).

One more time: even one example of legislation in the U.S. is based on "Judeo-Christian ethics" as opposed to the ethical values in other cultures or religions?  In other words, things that would be criminal in the wonderful "Judeo-Christian" U.S. of A. which is NOT also criminal in the heathen world?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2015, 11:20:31 pm

Quote from: packrat on July 12, 2015, 11:00:43 pm

Mark's Market Blog
7-12-15: China, Greece, Puerto Rico
by Mark Lawrence
The Donald says our prisons are full of illegals; that Mexico is dumping their worst people on us. Statistics seem to back him up: about 30% of the prisoners in our federal prisons are illegal immigrants, and illegals are certainly nothing like 30% of our population.

I'm calling bullshit on this one.  I believe you can not even valid FIND statistics on the national origin or immigration status of federal prison inmates.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 13, 2015, 07:07:05 am

You know, Jes, you have a agenda. That agenda is to discredit Christianity and all traces of it from our Government and our lives. I don't have to tell you that our system is and has been based on Judeo Christian ethics. It is a well known wide spread fact. We were a nation based on these precepts, whether you EVER care to acknowledge that fact or not. I find it completely and absolutely absurd that you'd even attempt to discredit this, but that's what atheists do. They like to rewrite history to fit their twisted viewpoint. I gave you a strong point from one of the very fathers of this nation, and you discredit it. I'm not going to play your stupid game, Jes. You believe whatever twisted crap you want. It's the game you love playing. Where do you think much of law in general comes from? Did GOD institute it or did man? WHO said first 'thou shalt not kill'?? Or 'thou shalt not steal'?? If you think it was man, you are quite wrong....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 13, 2015, 04:51:12 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 13, 2015, 07:07:05 am

You know, Jes, you have a agenda. That agenda is to discredit Christianity and all traces of it from our Government and our lives.

Wrong.  My only "agenda" here is to try to get you to present even one example of legislation in the U.S. is based on "Judeo-Christian ethics" as opposed to the ethical values in other cultures or religions?  In other words, things that would be criminal in the wonderful "Judeo-Christian" U.S. of A. which is NOT also criminal in the heathen world?  You made a simple, and very simple-minded claim as follows:

Quote from: Sportster on July 12, 2015, 09:11:06 am

Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian ethics. That is the basis for it.

If that were true, you should have no difficulty at all in finding a law on the books which is "based on Judeo-Christian ethics" and which would not also have similar laws in other contries all over the world where relatively few people are either Jews or Christians.

So far, the best you can do is to say, "It is a well known wide spread fact."

Addressing your claim has nothing to do with discrediting Christianity and it is not something I am attempting to do.  In fact I don't believe I have ever attempted to do so here, though without question I have many times (as now) discredited YOU or your often nutty interpretations of Christianity.

Quote from: Sportster on July 13, 2015, 07:07:05 am

We were a nation based on these precepts, whether you EVER care to acknowledge that fact or not. I find it completely and absolutely absurd that you'd even attempt to discredit this, but that's what atheists do. They like to rewrite history to fit their twisted viewpoint. I gave you a strong point from one of the very fathers of this nation, and you discredit it.

Your quote from Adams mentioned morality, but it did not mention Christianity.  And the fact that you offer it to illustrate the views of the Founding Fathers on religion indicate you are unaware of two important points:
1) At the time the Constitution was written, and when it was being ratified, and for about 8 years before that, Adams was very seldom on North American soil -- he was an ambassador to various European nations, first France, then Holland, then Prussia, and finally England.  During the entire time of the Constitutional Convention, Adams was overseas.  He contributed nothing to the convention.
2) Adams presented the Treaty of Tripoli to the Senate for ratification in June of 1797, and the Senate ratified it, that treaty having been only one page long, with the next to the last paragraph reading as follows:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.  (Emphasis added.)  It is difficult to imagine Adams could have missed it.

Quote from: Sportster on July 13, 2015, 07:07:05 am

Where do you think much of law in general comes from? Did GOD institute it or did man? WHO said first 'thou shalt not kill'?? Or 'thou shalt not steal'?? If you think it was man, you are quite wrong....

Every civilized nation in history has had laws criminalizing murder.  Every one of them.  Even those where not a single person had ever read the Bible, heard of Christianity, or heard of Judaism.  And I am unaware of any atheists who have proposed that murder should be legal... so the idea that the laws were based on "Judeo-Christian ethics," as if somehow those ethics were in any way different from those of any other culture or religions, is utter nonsense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 13, 2015, 04:52:51 pm

Sportster, your level of ignorance, and your absolute certainty in that ignorance combined with your refusal to re-examine your own beliefs, is downright dangerous.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 14, 2015, 04:12:12 am

 **** CALIFORNIA BY GUESS WHO ...


 Every refinery has decided to shut down at the same time in California.


 To convert over to the California "summer blend".


 Usually this takes a few weeks ... not a few MONTHS.


 The EXXON-Mobil refinery has not made one drop of gasoline since February.


 ARCO is down conveniently at the same time.


 So is Chevron.


 NO ... we are not being **** over in California ... if they can get away with it here,


 you're next.


 JJ is paying over $4.00 dollars a gallon for gasoline ... last week is was $3.33.


 Which is totally outrageous to the national average of $2.58 per gallon.


 You think it cant happen to you ? Keep dreaming sweetheart. >:(


 I can see MAKING A BUCK ... BUT I CANT SEE **** A COUNTRY!


 Maybe it's just me.  ::) ??? :-\ :-X >:(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 14, 2015, 06:05:09 am

Jes, you are a revisionist, one who seeks to remove God and His influence on our founding. That IS a fact. I've seen it numerous times, and your bringing up the Tripoli treaty shows it in all its ugliness. I don't need to post everything the Founders said on God, which is replete in their writings. You know it, I know it. You won't admit to it. That is the difference. The true danger to this society, and it's already showing its ugly head, is your beliefs and those like you, revisionists wanting to deny the proof of God's influence in this land. That is the true danger to this society....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2015, 06:51:03 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 14, 2015, 06:05:09 am

Jes, you are a revisionist, one who seeks to remove God and His influence on our founding. That IS a fact. I've seen it numerous times, and your bringing up the Tripoli treaty shows it in all its ugliness. I don't need to post everything the Founders said on God, which is replete in their writings. You know it, I know it. You won't admit to it. That is the difference. The true danger to this society, and it's already showing its ugly head, is your beliefs and those like you, revisionists wanting to deny the proof of God's influence in this land. That is the true danger to this society....

Sportster, I have never asked you to post anything the founders "said on god."

I have instead asked you to present even one example of legislation in the U.S. is based on "Judeo-Christian ethics" as opposed to the ethical values in other cultures or religions.  In other words, can you point to even one thing that is criminal in the wonderful "Judeo-Christian" U.S. of A. which is NOT also criminal in the heathen world?

I am not trying to revise history, but trying to get you t address the BS claim you made in you post.

I take it that you are incapable of doing so.  Unless you can, let's simply move on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 14, 2015, 07:24:33 am

Congress, 1854
The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Dwight Eisenhower -
"All men are endowed by their Creator." In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men created equal.'


The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. -Alexis De Tocqueville

What you seem to be missing is the moral 'climate' based on Christian virtue which indeed imprinted on our society and its laws. Of course other nations have similar laws but those have been imprinted on the HEART of man, his conscience, given by God Himself. With us, we know the basis is Christian virtue. With other nations, some understand it based on this and others are merely following that God given conscience by which man is governed by God, in a sense, indirect from faith.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 14, 2015, 08:14:14 am

 ...sigh...


 talking about the past when you are being **** in the future.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 14, 2015, 11:33:29 am

When our country was founded, Christianity was prominent, so god was mentioned quite a bit. Some country's in the middle east, such as the Saudi's base their laws on Sharia. I don't think they're allowed to drink alcohol. I'm sure there are differences based on cultures and religious beliefs..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 14, 2015, 12:42:28 pm

It was prominent in Europe when free thinking people decided to leave it and found a country which estiblished a wall between government and religion. Sharia laws in Middle East countries are doing just what christianty did for European peoples for centuries, keep em' stupid and obedient.

Great societal progress comes from people who chose to release themselves from the shackles of religion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 14, 2015, 01:17:30 pm

You are sadly wrong. Was the USSR, a atheistic 'bastion', a great place to be, to live? No, it was a hellish nightmare! Whereas the US has been a beacon, a 'city on the hill' as President Reagan once said, due mainly to our being a Christian based nation. God has blessed us and kept us, but it is up to us to keep going with Him, or we will be going down like these other nations who have left Him behind....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 14, 2015, 01:25:54 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 14, 2015, 04:12:12 am

 **** CALIFORNIA BY GUESS WHO ...


 Every refinery has decided to shut down at the same time in California.


 To convert over to the California "summer blend".


 Usually this takes a few weeks ... not a few MONTHS.


 The EXXON-Mobil refinery has not made one drop of gasoline since February.


 ARCO is down conveniently at the same time.


 So is Chevron.


 NO ... we are not being **** over in California ... if they can get away with it here,


 you're next.


 JJ is paying over $4.00 dollars a gallon for gasoline ... last week is was $3.33.


 Which is totally outrageous to the national average of $2.58 per gallon.


 You think it cant happen to you ? Keep dreaming sweetheart. >:(


 I can see MAKING A BUCK ... BUT I CANT SEE **** A COUNTRY!


 Maybe it's just me.  ::) ??? :-\ :-X >:(

It is not you.  Or at least it is only you to the extent that you help to elect the idiots in the legislature that pass laws that require special blends that do nothing but restrict that capacity of refineries while refusing to allow new refineries.  You shoud't pass laws if you don't like what they do.

If I were you, I would move to another state that has more reasonable laws and regulations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 14, 2015, 01:46:48 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 14, 2015, 04:12:12 am

 The EXXON-Mobil refinery has not made one drop of gasoline since February.

 Maybe it's just me.  ::) ??? :-\ :-X >:(

Maybe it is just you.

Explosion at Exxon Mobil refinery in Torrance, California, injures four
Reuters
February 18, 2015 5:30 PM

TORRANCE, Calif. (Reuters) - An explosion and fire ripped through a gasoline processing unit at an Exxon Mobil refinery in Torrance, California, near Los Angeles on Wednesday, slightly injuring four workers and shattering windows of surrounding buildings, authorities said.

Investigators were trying to determine the cause of the blast, which occurred shortly before 9 a.m. PST (12 p.m. ET), but there was no evidence of foul play, according to Torrance Fire Captain Steve Deuel.

Deuel said a small ground fire following the explosion was quickly extinguished. Firefighters and refinery crews also contained a gasoline leak caused by the blast, he said.

"All personnel have been accounted for," Exxon Mobil said in a statement. "Four contractors have been taken to Long Beach Medical Center for evaluation for minor injuries."


A structure at the refinery was visibly damaged, with smoke smoldering from twisted metal, and the air near the blast site smelled of sulfur and chemicals.

The California Department of Industrial Relations opened a probe into the blast, agency spokeswoman Julia Bernstein said. The workplace safety agency issued an order forbidding Exxon Mobil from operating the 100,000-barrel-per-day fluid catalytic cracker - a central gasoline-producing unit - until the investigation is complete, Bernstein said.

The department said the shutdown of the unit could last up to six months.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2015, 06:37:43 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on July 14, 2015, 11:33:29 am

When our country was founded, Christianity was prominent, so god was mentioned quite a bit. Some country's in the middle east, such as the Saudi's base their laws on Sharia. I don't think they're allowed to drink alcohol. I'm sure there are differences based on cultures and religious beliefs..

So Prohibition was based on Sharia law?

Damn, who would have realized how long they have had a stranglehold on our country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2015, 06:40:16 pm

Quote from: davep on July 14, 2015, 01:25:54 pm

If I were you, I would move to another state that has more reasonable laws and regulations.

If YOU were him, you would likely have the sense to take the psychotropic drugs which have been prescribed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2015, 06:40:58 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 14, 2015, 07:24:33 am

Congress, 1854
The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Dwight Eisenhower -
"All men are endowed by their Creator." In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men created equal.'


The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. -Alexis De Tocqueville

What you seem to be missing is the moral 'climate' based on Christian virtue which indeed imprinted on our society and its laws. Of course other nations have similar laws but those have been imprinted on the HEART of man, his conscience, given by God Himself. With us, we know the basis is Christian virtue. With other nations, some understand it based on this and others are merely following that God given conscience by which man is governed by God, in a sense, indirect from faith.

So, in a nutshell, you have absolutely NO examples to illustrate your nonsense point.

Thankyou.

Now, unless you find an EXAMPLE, let's move on.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 14, 2015, 06:46:48 pm

I could use some rest from this nut house you run here Jes. You belong in an insane asylum. Oh and take your Oddo with you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2015, 07:22:21 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 14, 2015, 06:46:48 pm

I could use some rest from this nut house you run here Jes. You belong in an insane asylum. Oh and take your Oddo with you.

Well, since I'm going nowhere, if you want a break from the forum, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 15, 2015, 07:02:28 pm

Minor Garrett....your table is ready.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 15, 2015, 07:10:03 pm

Homo dislikes all the real reporters. 

But think of how proud ye will be when Union-Buster Walker becomes President.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 15, 2015, 07:13:49 pm

Attention conservative idiot zealots


texas governor abbott and constello has installed 5 Jade Helm monitors to prevent the United States from taking over your self-centered state.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 15, 2015, 07:20:52 pm

Just image how blustering I'll be to you when our weasel governor is exiting the race in early March next year due to insignificant poll numbers.

Anticipate the grief.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 15, 2015, 07:25:13 pm

Aren't you the one that said that he would never get enough votes to overcome the recall.

And the one who said that he would never be reelected.

But stand proud.  Once elected, Walker will be able to deal with the union thugs on a national basis just as he did in Wisconsin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 15, 2015, 07:25:57 pm

Governor weasel would NOT even carry his state.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 15, 2015, 07:38:03 pm

And davepybart

That ever increasing bald spot on the weasel's head is caused by a lack of oxygen resulting in general ignorance.


One can just see the duh. What cameras do not catch is the droall.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 15, 2015, 08:24:37 pm

Obama looked like the small petty person he is when he berated that reporter. 

He made a terrible deal with the leading terrorist supporting country in the world.  He will release terrorists for a deserter but won't help free innocent Americans being held by Iran.  He will write letters and speak to felons but not to felons victims families.

He just started a nuclear arms race in the middle east.  I am sure that will end well.  Obama is the modern day version of Neville Chamberlain.

Plus he wants to give felons the right to vote?  WTF?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 15, 2015, 08:33:47 pm

Tom from Seattle, WA

Can you arrange for us out-of-state shareholders to see “One of a Kind” on the Packers website?

Why should it be limited to shareholders? “One of a Kind” will be shown on packers.com, beginning with Part I today.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 15, 2015, 08:37:04 pm

Jonathan from St. Joseph, MO

Mitch’s question yesterday got me thinking about pat-themselves-on-the-back Packers fans. Mitch wrote that Reggie White said players feed off the emotional charge given by fans (specifically Packers fans). If Packers fans would put their money where their mouth is, there would be no need for “Get Loud Lambeau” campaigns during the biggest games of the year. For one of the best teams in the league, there should be no reason Packers fans should need a reminder to get loud.

Once upon a time, a coach or a team would be fined for promoting crowd noise; I’m not kidding. At some point, it became futile. Crowd noise in domed stadiums, such as the Metrodome, made it impossible for the league to control crowd noise, so it just gave up. Coaches dealt with the situation by making silent-count practice part of the daily practice regimen. Still, noise is a big part of homefield advantage, and coaches want the same advantages in their stadiums as opposing coaches have in theirs. “Get Loud Lambeau” was, in my opinion, an innocent campaign to ramp up the excitement for a playoff game. I think it built fervor for the Dallas game; I liked the feeling. I’m not big on the “12th Man” thing because I think it implies a little more than making noise. I worry that it makes fans feel as though they’re a player, and that’s where it can get dangerous.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 15, 2015, 08:40:01 pm

Joe from Clio, MI

With the death of Ken Stabler, it got me thinking that I believe the 1976 Raiders are the most underrated team of all time. What is your most underrated team?

The 1978 Cowboys. How many more of the players on that team would be in the Hall of Fame today if they hadn’t lost Super Bowl XIII to the Steelers? The ’78 Cowboys are one of the best teams in NFL history, but you never hear them mentioned in best-ever discussions. Just win, baby.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 15, 2015, 08:42:43 pm

Spencer from Denver, CO

The cheapest ticket for the Packers vs. Broncos game on Nov. 1 is $387.50. No wonder the NFL is more concerned about their product on TV. The real money is being made by the fans who are selling their $50 tickets on the secondary market at an almost 800 percent markup. Vic, how do you turn a casual fan into a serious fan when the casual fan can’t even afford to experience a game in person?

The market will bear what the market will bear, but I was greatly disappointed at the ruling that permitted ticket-scalping. It works both ways. It can also devalue tickets, and that’s a bitter pill to swallow for fans buying tickets at face value.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 15, 2015, 08:44:52 pm

Jane from New Brighton, MN

I’m enjoying watching the “Countdown to Favre” videos. I can’t help but notice Larry McCarren’s left pinky finger. I’ve never seen anything quite like it in all my life. Do you know the story behind it? Is it a football injury? Couldn’t an orthopedic surgeon help him with it? Or does he keep it like that as the football equivalent of a red badge of courage?

Larry snapped the ball and Lynn Dickey grabbed Larry’s pinky finger by mistake and handed it off to John Brockington. Brockington brought the finger back to the huddle and gave it to Larry and Larry put the finger back onto his hand, but he didn’t get it back in there straight. It makes finding gloves tough, but it’s good for sipping tea, and Larry can signal for a left turn without putting his whole hand out the window.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 15, 2015, 08:48:36 pm

isn't it cute when Homo spouts idiocy when he can't actually react with logic and reason.  I think he secretly has a hard on for Walker.  He needs a male influence in his life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 15, 2015, 09:34:30 pm

All BS aside what do you guys think Trump is doing?

Does he just want to take down Bush and Clinton?  Is he a Trojan horse that is going to split the vote to make sure Clinton wins? 

Does he actually want the job? 

It will be interesting to watch.  I am guessing the Republican debates will become must watch TV even for those who generally don't watch them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 15, 2015, 11:40:51 pm

Trump is an rich idiot who is in love with the limelight.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 16, 2015, 12:20:34 am

 Dave


 ARCO and CHEVRON have shut down at the same time.


 There were no explosions there.


 GASOLINE in SO CAL $4.29 a gallon. Up almost a dollar in one week.


 I know you love oil and you'll die loving it.


 If in any SANE society if something goes down others step up.


 That's not the case today ... today it's lets CLEAN UP !


 **** EM AND **** EM HARD WHILE WE GET THE CHANCE !!


 If it works here ... it's going to work on you.


 Any excuse will do to **** you. You have to ask yourself when it's your turn ...


 why am I getting angry ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 16, 2015, 12:45:56 am

 BTW Dave,


 NEVADA gets all of it's gasoline from California.


 The lowest price in Nevada is $2.89 a gallon.


 Compare that to what I'm paying in California ...


 WHICH MAKES THE STUFF at $4.29 a gallon.


 It ain't taxes ... look up the tax rate on gasoline for those two states.


 Your turn is coming if they can get away with it here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 16, 2015, 06:30:24 am

I see Trump fizzling out. He's not done putting his foot in his mouth. Although, he has and will say things that really should be discussed..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 06:59:45 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 15, 2015, 08:24:37 pm

Obama looked like the small petty person he is when he berated that reporter.

To many of us, he pretty much looks that way all of the time.

Quote from: Pekin on July 15, 2015, 08:24:37 pm

He made a terrible deal with the leading terrorist supporting country in the world.  He will release terrorists for a deserter but won't help free innocent Americans being held by Iran.  He will write letters and speak to felons but not to felons victims families....

I may be wrong, but aren't you talking about him writing the felons he just pardoned, felons he pardoned or commuted the sentences of because they were all sentenced on drug offenses and were serving sentences which woud already have been over if they had been sentenced today under current sentencing guidelines?  And if that is what you are talking about, what victims families would be involved?

Quote from: Pekin on July 15, 2015, 08:24:37 pm

.

Plus he wants to give felons the right to vote?  WTF?

Why SHOULDN'T they have the right to vote after serving their setence?  Is there anywhere in the Constitution to suggest that is appropriate?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 16, 2015, 07:42:00 am

I must have missed the riots and looting after the Kathryn Steinle shooting in San Francisco.

Wasn't Otto last year guaranteeing Scott Wlaker would be in jail so wouldn't be running.

another failed witch hunt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 16, 2015, 07:56:21 am

That reporter was absolutely right in confronting the President on why those detained illegally in Iran weren't part of the negotiations and why he hasn't put a lot more pressure on Iran to release them. His nonsense reply of 'you know better' and 'the consequences of that would not be good' in negotiations. Does he not understand the pressure that can be brought to bear on Iran? If he does not WHY is he even bothering negotiating with them?? He puts the power in their hands! The guy is a idiot, I'm sorry, but flat out he's a fool. A naïve, very naïve fool. We should have bombed the crap out of their program years ago and we wouldn't be here today. But not Obama. He is creating a very dangerous nuclear race in the Middle East, were we definitely do not need some **** nutjobs with nukes!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 16, 2015, 08:48:01 am

.......Wait!........I'm checking the bible for who jesus would bomb the crap out of references......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 16, 2015, 10:09:28 am

Well you have never opened a bible in your entire life so why start?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 16, 2015, 11:16:12 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 16, 2015, 12:20:34 am

 Dave


 ARCO and CHEVRON have shut down at the same time.


 There were no explosions there.


 GASOLINE in SO CAL $4.29 a gallon. Up almost a dollar in one week.


 I know you love oil and you'll die loving it.


 If in any SANE society if something goes down others step up.


 That's not the case today ... today it's lets CLEAN UP !


 **** EM AND **** EM HARD WHILE WE GET THE CHANCE !!


 If it works here ... it's going to work on you.


 Any excuse will do to **** you. You have to ask yourself when it's your turn ...


 why am I getting angry ?

Jackie - have Chevron and Arco been shut down for 6 months also.  I can find no indication that they did so.  Can you tell us how long they have been shut down, and has it been longer than necessary to switch over to the silly summer blends that they are required to produce.

I am not in love with oil.  I AM in love with whatever energy source that is the least expensive to run my automobile in the way I wish.  If there were an electric car (which you seem to love) that allowed me the same convenience at a lower cost, I would switch to it immediately.  But the fact that you seem to be in love with electricity, but still have not purchased an electric car, would indicate to me that no such vehicle exists.

By the way, California has the second highest gasoline tax in the country, along with other laws that drive up costs in that state.  How much is the gasoline tax in Nevada?

A link to some information.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/09/10/california-carbon-gas-tax-could-cost-drivers-big

California wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In order to do that, the state passed a law, known as AB 32, that is the first of its kind in the U.S. Beginning in 2015, the law's penalty on carbon emissions will also apply to transportation fuels, including oil and gas. That means if your car runs on gas or diesel, you’ll pay more.

Exactly how much more? Nobody knows. Apparently state legislators felt compelled to approve the law first and do the math later. They don’t believe they need to share the pesky details with the folks who elected them. Based on input from various industry organizations and consumer groups, it’s estimated that the cap and trade "tax" on carbon emissions has the potential to increase California’s retail gasoline prices from 16 cents to 76 cents per gallon. Most expect at least a 15-cent increase beginning in 2015.

California drivers already pay the highest prices for fuel and the second highest fuel taxes in the country – 68.1 cents, second only to New York’s 68.9 cents per gallon.

Nothing Golden About This Hidden Gas Tax
California's carbon emissions tax could slam drivers.

The Associated Press
Who pays?

By Gregg Laskoski Sept. 10, 2014 | 2:00 p.m.

California wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In order to do that, the state passed a law, known as AB 32, that is the first of its kind in the U.S. Beginning in 2015, the law's penalty on carbon emissions will also apply to transportation fuels, including oil and gas. That means if your car runs on gas or diesel, you’ll pay more.

Exactly how much more? Nobody knows. Apparently state legislators felt compelled to approve the law first and do the math later. They don’t believe they need to share the pesky details with the folks who elected them. Based on input from various industry organizations and consumer groups, it’s estimated that the cap and trade "tax" on carbon emissions has the potential to increase California’s retail gasoline prices from 16 cents to 76 cents per gallon. Most expect at least a 15-cent increase beginning in 2015.

California drivers already pay the highest prices for fuel and the second highest fuel taxes in the country – 68.1 cents, second only to New York’s 68.9 cents per gallon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 16, 2015, 11:26:07 am

By the way, Jackie.  Built in to your gasoline price are two separate sales taxes on gasoline, one of 2.25 percent, and another of 9.67 percent.  At 4 dollars per gallon, 40 cents per gallon comes from these additional taxes.  And the change overs necessary to produce the various boutique blends adds another 45 cents per gallon year round by reducing refining capacity by almost 30 per cent.

Just out of curiosity, with all the costs involved in gas powered automobiles, why haven't you switched over to electric cars by now?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 16, 2015, 11:32:37 am

Don't believe right now it's the taxes increasing the price of gas there, so that's kind of a moot argument....they are getting ripped off badly, some of it the oil co's fault and some their own for not allowing more refineries to be built.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 16, 2015, 01:40:18 pm

Jackie was comparing the cost of gas in California to the cost of gas in Nevada.  California taxes and policies seem to account for much of the difference.  Not sure how you can decide that they don't, given the facts mentioned above.

Pure and simple - the oil industry is large because they provide a product that is much cheaper and/or more convenient than alternative products such as electricity and solar power.  And much of the costs of the oil is due to state and federal law that restrict production and capacity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 02:32:15 pm

Quote from: davep on July 16, 2015, 01:40:18 pm

Jackie was comparing the cost of gas in California to the cost of gas in Nevada.  California taxes and policies seem to account for much of the difference.  Not sure how you can decide that they don't, given the facts mentioned above.

Pure and simple - the oil industry is large because they provide a product that is much cheaper and/or more convenient than alternative products such as electricity and solar power.  And much of the costs of the oil is due to state and federal law that restrict production and capacity.

Why bother.  Sportster's views on this are held with a religious conviction which defies logic, reason, facts, or thought.

And Jackie is Jackie.

You are trying to have rational discussions with one person who has not demonstrated a capacity to discuss anything rationally, and another who has demonstrated he is utterly incapable of rational discussion on this topic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 02:34:55 pm

(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10985474_1011213965605399_7933709824234907221_n.jpg?oh=14b65d98337fc430a4a8783f918fc956&oe=565232D5)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 02:47:57 pm

(http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/435368687807-CLINTON_POLL_20150716.jpeg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 16, 2015, 05:03:32 pm

What us the source on the 30K email myth?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 05:23:17 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 16, 2015, 05:03:32 pm

What us the source on the 30K email myth?

At this point, otto, what difference does it make?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 16, 2015, 06:01:33 pm

So, you can not source the claim?


What value does the post provide then?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 06:07:30 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 16, 2015, 06:01:33 pm

So, you can not source the claim?

What value does the post provide then?

Wrongo.  I can.

But, again, at this point, what difference does it make?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 16, 2015, 06:13:03 pm

If it doesn't make a difference , then stop wasting everyone's time.

It's exactly like the campaign of one run paul.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 06:28:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 16, 2015, 06:13:03 pm

If it doesn't make a difference , then stop wasting everyone's time.

It's exactly like the campaign of one run paul.

Oh, what Hilary did makes a great deal of difference.  I never suggested otherwise.  I asked what difference the SOURCE for the figure makes.  You need to pick up your game, otto.  You are simply not very fun to play with when you have so much difficulty following your own questions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 07:12:59 pm

Not political.  Please share.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnU9uvRe4GA

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2015, 07:19:13 pm

Hey, otto, the NYT MUST have this story wrong.  It says the ruling is now in.... and the investigation is over.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/us/wisconsin-court-to-rule-on-inquiry-involving-scott-walkers-2012-campaign.html?_r=0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 17, 2015, 07:06:33 am

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/transgender-former-navy-seal-is-proud-of-caitlyn-124250100423.html

This **** is on the verge of being comical. I can't keep straight the he/she, or is it she/he. Is he/she a lesbian, or straight? WTF? I don't disagree with a lot of what Jenner said (accept people for who they are), but damn, I just don't know, listening to him (yes, him) speak, just doesn't sound anything like a chic. I'm fine with gay and lesbian, but the tansgender stuff just still seems a bit out there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 17, 2015, 07:15:58 am

I agree with Obama ( I know, what the ****) in regards to the prison clemency. People serving long sentencing for drug violations is ridiculous. We're paying for this ****. So what if someone used drugs, or sold a dime bag to an undercover agent. To then get sentenced to 15 years in prison? There needs to be serious review of some of these laws. We need laws and sentencing that make more sense. Look where we are, has any of this done any good? Nope! Put some 18 year old kid in prison for 5 years and you've most likely **** him for the rest of his life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2015, 08:50:11 am

State legal protection from the "highly polarized" court for a weasel.

https://youtu.be/WBnSv3a6Nh4 (https://youtu.be/WBnSv3a6Nh4)

Also, legal aid the court took the almost unheard of step requiring all evidence in the case be destroyed. If our weasel governor is exonerated by the ruling why hide the body....er evidence?

Even callers to the wingnut stations were asking that. Because they know the issue will not go away and their guy is dirty.

He won't even make it to the WI clown car primary.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2015, 09:14:58 am

Wingnuts

Are the bodies of the dead military recruiters even cold yet before you call for more guns as a political issue?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2015, 10:22:06 am

It is hard for Homo to disagree politically with Walker and yet to have a hard on for him.  But when Walker is President, he will be able to make everything good again.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2015, 10:24:20 am

The Gun that the murderer used is illegal.  Yet he got it anyway.  If that law didn't work, why will others proposed by Homo do any better.

Drugs have been illegal for a hundred years.   Is there anyone out there that can't get all the illegal drugs he wishes inside of an hour.

Homo - can you tell us why one more law will work?

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2015, 01:22:22 pm

Quote

The Gun that the murderer used is illegal.  Yet he got it anyway.  If that law didn't work, why will others proposed by Homo do any better.

Drugs have been illegal for a hundred years.   Is there anyone out there that can't get all the illegal drugs he wishes inside of an hour.

Homo - can you tell us why one more law will work?

Just what kind of stupid ass response is this?

Moronic or idiotic?

BTW How do you know the AK-47 was illegal? Is a hunting rifle.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 17, 2015, 01:27:41 pm

That SC racist got a permit to buy that gun that killed all those people at that church because the FBI screwed up on his background check. How does that make the AK47 he had legal?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 17, 2015, 01:51:38 pm

Now's your chance...your chance to stand with the normal folks. To make your voice heard. To show you accept normality as THE societal norm, not the exception. This is where the separation will occur, where folks who believe in right and wrong, good and evil, God and the devils ways take a stand on this side or the other. Will you go along with the throng, on their way to hell and madness or stand with God and His people for what's right and good? God is watching and will give to each man according to what he has done.....if for evil, hell and punishment, but if for God and good, life eternal and happiness forever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2015, 02:46:12 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 17, 2015, 01:27:41 pm

That SC racist got a permit to buy that gun that killed all those people at that church because the FBI screwed up on his background check. How does that make the AK47 he had legal?

You really are a fool.  The rifle MAY have been legal, but the magazine certainly was not.  You need to read something beyond the looney left blogs if you ever want to learn anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 17, 2015, 02:54:30 pm

This is getting all trump comical.

davepbart calling Isfullofit a looney left leaner.

BTW How do you know the magazine was illegal since the shooter never left his car and reloaded in it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2015, 03:59:55 pm

What an idiot. 

At the first shooting site, he shot from his car and did not leave it.

At the second shooting site, he DID leave his car and enter the facility.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2015, 05:10:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 17, 2015, 08:50:11 am

the court took the almost unheard of step requiring all evidence in the case be destroyed.

Enjoy

Oh, I am.  I definitely am.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2015, 05:19:40 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 17, 2015, 01:51:38 pm

Now's your chance...your chance to stand with the normal folks. To make your voice heard. To show you accept normality as THE societal norm, not the exception. This is where the separation will occur, where folks who believe in right and wrong, good and evil, God and the devils ways take a stand on this side or the other. Will you go along with the throng, on their way to hell and madness or stand with God and His people for what's right and good? God is watching and will give to each man according to what he has done.....if for evil, hell and punishment, but if for God and good, life eternal and happiness forever.

Who are you addressing?

WHAT are you addressing?

If you are just addressing life in general today, could you tell me why your wonderful god would be more upset with a few thousand gay marriages today than he was in the good old highly moral days 160 years ago when the nation was still accepting millions of people in slavery and was pursuing genocide for the native Americans?  Is it because a few thousand gay marriages are somehow more immoral than genocide of the native American and the presence of millions of slaves, with female slaves quite frequently **** by the slave-owners?  Ah, just makes you long for the good old days of high morality, doesn't it Sportster?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 17, 2015, 06:24:44 pm

Quote from: davep on July 17, 2015, 02:46:12 pm

You really are a fool.  The rifle MAY have been legal, but the magazine certainly was not.  You need to read something beyond the looney left blogs if you ever want to learn anything.

NO, you are missing the point. He bought the gun legally but on his application to purchace the gun he said he used a certain kind of drug which is against FBI rules for allowing the permit. So he purchaced the gun  but the FBI failed to deny the permit when they checked the app. They have admitted the mistake. See, there are proper rules and laws in place to stop most of this stuff but even the FBI makes mistakes. We don't need more gun laws we need to properly enforce the laws we already have. Also supposedly the government has banned the importation of foreign made AK47's. How the Muslim extremist got his hands on that gun is unknown at this time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2015, 06:30:09 pm

I love how gun cotrol supporters think you can count on someone wanting a gun to commit mass murder is going to be so concerned about prosecution for lying on the application that he will respond honestly when he intends to commit a criminal offense that will bring a death sentence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 06:41:25 pm

 Dave,


 Have you ever seen in your lifetime gasoline prices go up by $0.90 in one week ?


 Yes or no ? It's a one word answer. Do be honest in your reply.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 06:56:04 pm

JJ, I understand you being pissed.  However why can't you comprehend that your government is causing the price increase.  The price of gas always goes up here when they have to shut down refineries to switch blends that are required by the government.

It is worse where you live because your state government has the strictest regulations of any state.  That blend of gas will only be sold in your state more then likely.  Since the government forces the oil companies to jump through ridiculous hoops that cost them money they pass that cost to the consumer.  Then throw on top of it the fact that when refineries switch blends they have to shut down you get a dip in supply which drives up cost.

This is all common sense and easily looked up to be verified.  There is no evil conspiracy to screw you JJ.  Well not by the oil companies anyway.  It is your own elected representatives who are doing this to you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 07:09:11 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 06:56:04 pm

JJ, I understand you being pissed.  However why can't you comprehend that your government is causing the price increase.  The price of gas always goes up here when they have to shut down refineries to switch blends that are required by the government.

It is worse where you live because your state government has the strictest regulations of any state.  That blend of gas will only be sold in your state more then likely.  Since the government forces the oil companies to jump through ridiculous hoops that cost them money they pass that cost to the consumer.  Then throw on top of it the fact that when refineries switch blends they have to shut down you get a dip in supply which drives up cost.

This is all common sense and easily looked up to be verified.  There is no evil conspiracy to screw you JJ.  Well not by the oil companies anyway.  It is your own elected representatives who are doing this to you.

 Sorry Duck,


BULL MOTHERFUCKING **** !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2015, 07:40:53 pm

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 06:41:25 pm

 Dave,


 Have you ever seen in your lifetime gasoline prices go up by $0.90 in one week ?


 Yes or no ? It's a one word answer. Do be honest in your reply.

No.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2015, 07:42:58 pm

And Jackie says that it is we that fall for the bullshit fed by politicians and the press.  And it is we that are somehow electing the wrong guys.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 08:02:58 pm

 

Quote from: davep on July 17, 2015, 07:42:58 pm

And Jackie says that it is we that fall for the bullshit fed by politicians and the press.  And it is we that are somehow electing the wrong guys.

 You don't get to elect anything. Nor have you ever had that power.


 Things are going to run the way they want it to run.


 You're just along for the ride to what they feed you.


 And so am I. I recognize it .


 Barack Obama ?


 He's a moderate democrat ... or if you want to flip a coin ...


 he's a moderate republican.


 What happens when you take the seat in the Oval Office is you get briefed as to the state of affairs....


 suddenly you cant be a democrat or republican anymore ...


 now you have to be the leader of those that elected you ...


 and those that didn't elect you.


 You're on the hot seat.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 08:05:43 pm

JJ, the politicians have you right where they want you.  Mad at the oil companies instead of mad at them for creating the problem.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2015, 08:10:24 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 06:56:04 pm

JJ, I understand you being pissed.  However why can't you comprehend that your government is causing the price increase.

Just in case you had any doubt, you have now had your question clearly answered -- it is because he is an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 08:10:52 pm

Obama is not a moderate anything.  He is a radical leftwing socialist.  I find it amazing that there are still some people who have not figured that out yet.

At least Bernie Sanders is honest about it.  I give him a ton of credit for that even though I disagree with him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2015, 08:26:08 pm

Unfortunately neither Sportster nor Jackie will read this, or, if they do, they will not grasp it.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/17/california-legislators-want-to-pass-a-la

California Legislators Want to Pass a Law That Requires Less Oil, More Clean Energy Use
Could drive up costs of driving, manufacturing
Steven Greenhut | July 17, 2015

During his keynote address at a climate summit in Toronto last Wednesday, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) described as "troglodytes" — i.e., willfully ignorant people — those Americans who deny the effects of global warming. "We have to redesign our cities, our homes, our cars, our electrical generation, our grids — all those things," he said, as he issued a "call to arms" for states to combat climate change.

We've all become accustomed to bold rhetoric from politicians. But while Brown talked about climate change, his allies in the Legislature were advancing a bill that tries to put many of his far-reaching goals into action.

SB 350, introduced by Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) imposes three significant clean-energy goals by 2030: Reducing the use of petroleum products in automobiles by 50 percent; increasing to 50 percent (from a current 33-percent goal) the amount of energy that uses renewable sources such as solar and wind power; and doubling energy-efficiency in current buildings.

These are aggressive mandates to reach in a relatively short time frame. "We need to break the stranglehold the profit-driven oil companies have on our economy and give consumers better options to power their homes and cars in cleaner, healthier and more sustainable ways," said De Leon after a key Assembly committee on Monday approved his bill.

Critics warn the bill would will crush business development and increase the costs of already-rising electricity, gasoline and other products. A new study by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. detailed potential problems such a reduction would mean not just in the oil industry — but in related manufacturing and transportation sectors. These regulations threaten 11 percent of the state's jobs and more than 14 percent of its GDP, the study argues.

De Leon's office sent me a fact sheet debunking fears of economic harm: "California's GDP is nearly 30 percent higher than it was in 2006... Our GDP is growing while our emissions fall." The sheet also touts the prospects of a growing green economy. Business leaders say the economy isn't growing as rapidly as it should, there's insufficient growth in the high-paying manufacturing sector, and green jobs are only a fraction of the economy.

It's hard to argue the economics of these regulations because the bill only sets standards — and then gives the California Air Resources Board broad authority to achieve the goals. "Without legislative guidance or protections against increased costs or job loss, what tools could CARB employ to meet the reduction mandate?" asks the California Chamber of Commerce. The chamber raises the possibility of gasoline rationing, which may be a scare tactic.

Jay McKeeman, vice president of the California Independent Oil Marketers Association, expects the state to come up with a credit system similar to cap-and-trade. Oil producers would have to bid for a limited number of credits after petroleum use is capped. Those credits will become pricey — and the end result will be a new tax on gasoline. California's per-gallon gas prices already are around 70 cents higher than the national average. "Suddenly, every aspect of the economy is regulated by CARB (if SB 350 passes)," said California Business Roundtable President Rob Lapsley.

McKeeman expects more land-use controls of the sort we're already seeing, where the state limits the ability of local governments to allow developments that are not high density. The idea is to force Californians into smaller homes and to rely more on public transit systems, such as light-rail lines and eventually high-speed rail.

One largely unaddressed concern is the impact on the poor. Poor and middle-class workers drive older cars and can't afford to buy pricey new electric ones. That's why, as this column previously reported, CARB plans to provide highly subsidized hybrids to lower-income people. But it's hard to believe that subsidies will do more than minimize the pain.

Robert Michaels, economics professor and energy expert at Cal State Fullerton, expects future legislatures and governors to pass stopgap measures and fudge the numbers to help the state meet these potentially unrealistic goals. "It's one of those things you have in the (news)paper and you say, 'Yes, people will pass it and let's hope it will be meaningless.'"

That leaves my fellow "troglodytes" hoping SB 350 is as meaningful as that resolution calling on the state to divest from investments in Donald-Trump-owned businesses.

Greenhut is the California columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune. Write to him at steven.greenhut@sduniontribune.com.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 08:41:36 pm

 The oil company's in California found a principle that works.


 It hasnt happened to you yet ...


 that's why you can ignore it and write it off as nonsense.


 All i was trying to do was let you know whats going on.


 If you want to attack me for spreading knowledge ... it's not the first time.


 Keep em ignorant ... pregnant and shoe less.


 Works every time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 08:47:12 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 17, 2015, 08:10:24 pm

Just in case you had any doubt, you have now had your question clearly answered -- it is because he is an idiot.

 Beardo,


 Did you call me an idiot ? ANSWER ME !!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 08:49:11 pm

JJ, Sorry you are the one being ignorant on this.

The politicians you elected are doing this to you.  Perhaps you could get your elected officials to force a price freeze on gas and see how well that will work out for you and your fellow citizens.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 08:57:55 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 08:49:11 pm

JJ, Sorry you are the one being ignorant on this.

The politicians you elected are doing this to you.  Perhaps you could get your elected officials to force a price freeze on gas and see how well that will work out for you and your fellow citizens.

 Duck,


 You're my fellow citizens. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 09:22:53 pm

JJ, Yes we are fellow citizens of the United States.  Which is being drug down by terrible liberal policies.  Illinois where I live is being drug down by terrible liberal policies even further then the rest of the US.

However California has draconian type liberal policies in comparison to Illinois.

JJ, are you aware that most products with engines have to be specifically made differently just for California?  My mower says right in the owners manual that it can not be sold in CA. 

Do you not realize that makes them way more expensive in California then they are everywhere else?  Can you not comprehend that gas is the same way?

I feel bad that you are being screwed by politicians.  I am not happy I am being screwed by politicians to a lessor degree then you are.  However I am fully aware of who is creating the problem.

If you take some time and do some research you will see I am correct. 

Or just **** about the rich evil oil companies while the politicians who are really screwing you get rich while directing your hate to anyone but them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2015, 09:34:27 pm

Jackie says that he doesn't elect anyone, but in the past he has held everyone else responsible for the elected officials.

But it is Friday.  We should hold all discussions until the weekend is over.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 10:18:15 pm

 GASOLINE went up $0.90 a gallon in ONE WEEK.


 Whatever your political affiliations to back up whatever cause you adhere to ...


 THESE ARE THE FACTS  : GASOLINE WENT UP $0.90 in ONE WEEK.


 At this point in time ...


 I don't give a good goddamn **** about any of your **** political affiliations.


 You motherfuckers ain't on my side that's for GODDAMN good and sure.


 The fact that you motherfuckers are trying to justify this as long as ...


 it AIN'T HAPPENING TO YOU ...


 JESUS ... how the **** do you look in a mirror ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 10:47:02 pm

It happens to me every year.  Maybe not 90 cents in a week but drastic changes are not unusual around holidays and when they are forced to switch blends.  If a Camel farts in the mid east near a refinery the price goes up due to speculation. 

The reason it is as high as 90 cents for you is because of the regulations, the switch over combined with the fire and probably some **** we do not even know about.  A whole lot of bad things have to come together at once for that kind of swing.

Good news for you though, if Iran is able to get sanctions lifted like Obama wants they will flood the market with oil and the price of gas will go down.  Well for a while until they start destabilizing the entire region with all the money they would then have to fund their terrorists activities.  Then the price of gas is going to go as high as you have ever seen.

If they shut down the strait look out.

Sorry politics is involved in absolutely everything if you want it to be or not.  It affects your life even if you do not want it to.  Elections matter. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 10:56:07 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 10:47:02 pm

It happens to me every year.  Maybe not 90 cents in a week but drastic changes are not unusual around holidays and when they are forced to switch blends.  If a Camel farts in the mid east near a refinery the price goes up due to speculation. 

The reason it is as high as 90 cents for you is because of the regulations, the switch over combined with the fire and probably some **** we do not even know about.  A whole lot of bad things have to come together at once for that kind of swing.

Good news for you though, if Iran is able to get sanctions lifted like Obama wants they will flood the market with oil and the price of gas will go down.  Well for a while until they start destabilizing the entire region with all the money they would then have to fund their terrorists activities.  Then the price of gas is going to go as high as you have ever seen.

If they shut down the strait look out.

Sorry politics is involved in absolutely everything if you want it to be or not.  It affects your life even if you do not want it to.  Elections matter. 

 

 Here's the pisser Duck,


 OIL at $120.00 a barrel you could justify it for jacking the price up.


 HOWEVER ... OIL is at $51.00 a barrel.


 You do see the descrepency(sp) here don't you ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 17, 2015, 11:02:46 pm

JJ just imagine if the Cali oil companies shut down entirely saying they cant produce the gasoline the government requires them to. Then you have no gasoline. Then what?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 11:08:05 pm

Yes I do.  However you are discounting supply and demand.  In your region specifically supply is very low for gasoline that is legal to sell in your state. 

The oil companies can not just bring in gas from somewhere else.  They do not refine any more gas then they need to for CA standards because they will not be able to sell it anywhere else.  No one would pay the high cost for it anywhere else.

So when there is any kind of disruption in supply you feel the pain at the pump.  It sucks but there is no conspiracy. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 17, 2015, 11:28:55 pm

 

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 17, 2015, 11:02:46 pm

JJ just imagine if the Cali oil companies shut down entirely saying they cant produce the gasoline the government requires them to. Then you have no gasoline. Then what?

 Then I guess we lose the war in the Pacific in World War 2.


 And I'm getting TIRED of saluting this Japanese rising sun battle flag every day !


 Can anybody e-mail me some ammo ?


 

Quote from: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 11:08:05 pm

Yes I do.  However you are discounting supply and demand.  In your region specifically supply is very low for gasoline that is legal to sell in your state. 

The oil companies can not just bring in gas from somewhere else.  They do not refine any more gas then they need to for CA standards because they will not be able to sell it anywhere else.  No one would pay the high cost for it anywhere else.

So when there is any kind of disruption in supply you feel the pain at the pump.  It sucks but there is no conspiracy. 

 Every refinery shut down at the same time when this was done in steps in the past.


 Nope. It's not a conspiracy and it's not collusion. Not here ... not in this country.


 That's never ever ever ever happened in this country before.


 Why ... that would be implying that STANDARD OIL was a monopoly !


 (And we know that wasn't true !)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 11:40:00 pm

JJ, If the oil companies are colluding to charge high prices then why aren't your liberal politicians saving you from the big bad oil companies?

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 17, 2015, 11:40:53 pm

Sounds tough Jackie.  If you buy an electric car, you can avoid this type of problem.  Is there some reason why you haven't done this already?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 17, 2015, 11:54:51 pm

The prices are steep, and the distances you can drive them are short. Lets just say that everybody had electric cars, wouldn't the price of electricity then increase with the higher demand for electricity?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 12:08:45 am

JJ, I am going to guess that the refineries that make CA gas held off shutting down because they were ramping up production to make up for the loss of the other refinery production.  There was money to be made.  Now they are forced to shut down due to the regulations and switch over, they will make a ton of money in the mean time.  They did not make the rules they are just playing by them.

Your politicians could have eased the regulations on gas sold in CA.  They could still do so.

If they allowed it there would be so much gas flowing into CA that the price would fall drastically.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 18, 2015, 12:10:23 am

 

Quote from: davep on July 17, 2015, 11:40:53 pm

Sounds tough Jackie.  If you buy an electric car, you can avoid this type of problem.  Is there some reason why you haven't done this already?

 You said you were going to send me the money to buy one.


 I'm not going to say you aren't a man of your word but I'm still waiting for the check.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 12:12:37 am

Wshful, the libs tell us coal fired electric plants are polluting the planet.  Yet they want electric cars. 

How do we get cheap electricity if we shut down coal plants when our electrical grid is already stretched to the limit?  Nuclear?  Nope those are bad also.  So how are we going to get our electricity?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 08:11:46 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 12:12:37 am

Wshful, the libs tell us coal fired electric plants are polluting the planet.  Yet they want electric cars. 

Not all powerplants are coal powered.  I would bet that California has had few to no new coal powered plants in at least 20 years.

Quote from: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 12:12:37 am

How do we get cheap electricity if we shut down coal plants when our electrical grid is already stretched to the limit?  Nuclear?  Nope those are bad also.  So how are we going to get our electricity?

Hydro, geo-thermal, and solar, are all options.  Expanding the electrical grid is an option.  Conservation is an option.

But the bottom line is that it makes no more sense for you or I or a bunch of politicians in Sacramento or Springfield or Washington DC, to make such decisions than it has made to have allowed them to make such decisions for the last 60 years.  There is simply no reason to believe that one group of politicians is any more likely to make good economic decisions than another.

And the idea "cheap electricity" should be a policy goal is as misguided as is a policy goal of making it high priced.  Government simply should not be in the position of making such decisions.  Let the market sort it out, without the market distortions (often hard to identify, but always present) caused by government efforts to produce any particular economic outcome.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 18, 2015, 08:41:41 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 12:12:37 am

Wshful, the libs tell us coal fired electric plants are polluting the planet.  Yet they want electric cars. 

How do we get cheap electricity if we shut down coal plants when our electrical grid is already stretched to the limit?  Nuclear?  Nope those are bad also.  So how are we going to get our electricity?

That's the question I was thinking. The problem with nuclear is the disposition of the spent fuel rods. What do you do with them? Cant ship them by train across country. Bury them by sea? There was a deep place in Nevada they were building for that but nobody will allow them across their territory due to pollution worries. But they are still building more plants.

And they don't want to build any more dams out west either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 08:50:39 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 11:08:05 pm

Yes I do.  However you are discounting supply and demand.

Which is simply to say that he is discounting reality.

Quote from: Pekin on July 17, 2015, 11:40:00 pm

JJ, If the oil companies are colluding to charge high prices then why aren't your liberal politicians saving you from the big bad oil companies?

And if the oil companies are colluding to charge high prices in California now, why weren't they doing the same thing six months ago, and why aren't they doing it over the entire country?  Why is it that "greed" only drives up prices part of the time?  Are the oil company execs NOT greedy then?

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 17, 2015, 11:54:51 pm

The prices are steep, and the distances you can drive them are short. Lets just say that everybody had electric cars, wouldn't the price of electricity then increase with the higher demand for electricity?

Nah.... electricity is free.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 18, 2015, 08:55:52 am

Nah.... electricity is free.

Never happen in your lifetime

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 18, 2015, 09:05:50 am

Not all powerplants are coal powered.  I would bet that California has had few to no new coal powered plants in at least 20 years.

True. The problem in Cali is that some of the plants might be oil fired. And they don't want that either. Southern California gets most of its electricity from Hoover Dam which by the way is in Nevada. Hoover Dam was rebuilt and I don't know how they generate their electricity there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 18, 2015, 11:09:47 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 18, 2015, 12:10:23 am

 You said you were going to send me the money to buy one.

 I'm not going to say you aren't a man of your word but I'm still waiting for the check.

You can buy it out of the money you save by not buying 4 dollar per gallon gas.  Since gas is so expensive, electricity must be cheaper.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 12:17:21 pm

Quote from: davep on July 18, 2015, 11:09:47 am

You can buy it out of the money you save by not buying 4 dollar per gallon gas.  Since gas is so expensive, electricity must be cheaper.

Or he could buy it out of the money he could save if he stopped drinking a quart of gin a day.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 12:19:11 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 18, 2015, 09:05:50 am

Not all powerplants are coal powered.  I would bet that California has had few to no new coal powered plants in at least 20 years.

True. The problem in Cali is that some of the plants might be oil fired. And they don't want that either. Southern California gets most of its electricity from Hoover Dam which by the way is in Nevada. Hoover Dam was rebuilt and I don't know how they generate their electricity there.

You don't?

Do you think it is a nuclear plant?  How is any power generated at a dam?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 18, 2015, 12:32:22 pm

Actually, once built, dams are the most cost effective way to generate electricity, in areas where the geology allows them.

Water backs up behind the dam and when it is full, falls through the outlets on the top, the water drops hundreds of feet channeled through turbos that convert the energy of the falling water into electricity.

One reason why electricity is becoming short in the west is that dams are being shut down in order to save the "ecology" of the region.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 12:46:50 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 18, 2015, 09:05:50 am

Southern California gets most of its electricity from Hoover Dam

That would seem more than a bit wrong.

Hoover dam has a generating capacity of 2080 megawatts; federal law allocates about 58% of that to Southern California.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Power_plant_and_water_demands

And several power plants are located in southern California, generating far more than the entire power output of the Hoover Dam.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_California

(http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/powerplants/Power_Plants_Statewide.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 18, 2015, 06:06:57 pm

Obamarat has been pushing regs to get rid of coal. They're pushing it here in Indiana and thankfully our Gov is pushing back and saying not here, pal. They will not allow these unreasonable regulations to knock out coal use for our providers. NIPSCO is putting crazy money into scrubbing coal even further than they do now. It's stupid. We've got a plant near us and they are not polluters unless you call steam pollution, which these crazy fricking liberals probably do. Every day I become more and more disgusted with the stupidity, ineptitude and rottenness of liberals and their policies.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 06:38:45 pm

A friend of mine (a union Democrat and Obama supporter) who works for the power company says we will have rolling brown outs in Illinois if the EPA regulations on coal fired power plants that are coming down are not pushed back or changed. 

The technology to meet them is either simply not here yet or it is cost prohibitive.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 09:00:57 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 06:38:45 pm

A friend of mine (a union Democrat and Obama supporter) who works for the power company says we will have rolling brown outs in Illinois if the EPA regulations on coal fired power plants that are coming down are not pushed back or changed. 

The technology to meet them is either simply not here yet or it is cost prohibitive.

We had a rolling brownout here in eastern TX just Thursday.  Fun,

The regulatory approach is foolish.  If the emissions from coal powered plants (or any other plant) are a harm to society, quantify the harm and impose a tax on the release of the emissions.  The polluter then has the appropriate incentive to alter behavior, or to continue as is, just paying the tax, or some mix between the two.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 18, 2015, 09:19:21 pm

Sounds simple.  However, there are two problems with the concept.

First, there is no scientific method to quantify the harm to society, and if we leave it up to the current EPA, they will merely assess the harm so high that all coal plants would have no choice but to shut down.

Second, how do you quantify the cost of lost human lives?  The people that die because of the pollution (if there are any) are not compensated by the tax money, and even if their heirs could be compensated, that wouldn't restore the life of the one that died.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 09:37:25 pm

Want to see something stupid, which to some passes for brilliant?

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/24/1396071/-A-black-man-and-a-white-woman-switch-mics-and-the-result-is-amazing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpPASWlnZIA#t=150

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 09:47:31 pm

Quote from: davep on July 18, 2015, 09:19:21 pm

Sounds simple.  However, there are two problems with the concept.

There are problems with ANY approach.  This approach, however, which is referred to as an effluent discharge tax, has far fewer problems than either the regulatory approach, or doing nothing at all.

Quote from: davep on July 18, 2015, 09:19:21 pm

First, there is no scientific method to quantify the harm to society, and if we leave it up to the current EPA, they will merely assess the harm so high that all coal plants would have no choice but to shut down.

You are mistaken to contend there is no scientific method to quantify harm.  And if you allow the charge (the tax) to be challenged and reviewed in court, your concern about arbitrary outrageously high charges would be seriously mitigated.  Presently the EPA is able to impose regulations far more onerous, and with far less opportunity for challenge or review, than what I (and a large number or economists) have suggested.

Quote from: davep on July 18, 2015, 09:19:21 pm

Second, how do you quantify the cost of lost human lives?

It is done all the time.  Worker's comp programs will sometimes have statutory schemes to do so.  Other court cases also quantify it quite routinely.

Quote from: davep on July 18, 2015, 09:19:21 pm

The people that die because of the pollution (if there are any) are not compensated by the tax money, and even if their heirs could be compensated, that wouldn't restore the life of the one that died.

And that is also true with workers comp, and will be true of any of the 30K+ fatalities resulting from traffic accidents every year... but we do not ban automobiles, even though their use will quite predictably kill tens of thousands of people a year.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 18, 2015, 11:15:23 pm

Workers comp compensates for accidents at the workplace.  It does not and should not compensate for deliberate acts that injure or kill.  Polluting is a deliberate act, and compensation is not a satisfactory solution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 18, 2015, 11:35:41 pm

No, davep, pulluters no more INTEND to kill people than car manufacturers do.  And workers comp is not exactly a "satisfactory solution" for a workplace death either.  The point is that certain activity causes injury to others. 

If the activity is allowed to continue without paying the costs it imposes on the rest of society, society will end up with more of that activity than it actually desires, and there will be far more injury (all without any compensation) than society would ever tolerate if it had a choice. 

If, on the other hand, society uses some regulatory body to either absolutely prohibit the activity causing injury, or to limit the activity to such a degree that it causes only the number or type of injury the regulatory body decides is appropriate, in economic terms society will almost certainly either end up with "too much" of the activity (and too many injuries) or "too little" of the activity if the regulatory body decides to entirely choke off any economic activity which injures anyone to any degree.  The proper mix is exactly the kind of thing free markets will do well, and which regulatory bodies will do miserably.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 18, 2015, 11:54:19 pm

I didn't say that they intended to kill people.  But they deliberately pollute even though they know, or should know, that people will die.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 11:54:31 pm

Common sense regulation on pollution is fine.  However uber leftwing radical bat **** crazy regulation that the EPA under Obama's command is doing is going to end up harming way more people then it helps.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 12:12:35 am

Quote from: davep on July 18, 2015, 11:54:19 pm

I didn't say that they intended to kill people.  But they deliberately pollute even though they know, or should know, that people will die.

They deliberately engage in an activity which has external costs.... just as when a company manufactures car even though they know, or should know, that people will die.  (And a great deal of the harm from pollution is far short of death for those injured.)

The fact that deaths happen, or even that death is a foreseeable result of the activity, really does nothing to change the equation.  Early trains quite routinely killed people, and if they would have been banned because of it, the societal harm would have been far greater than the harm caused by the deaths.

Quote from: Pekin on July 18, 2015, 11:54:31 pm

Common sense regulation on pollution is fine.  However uber leftwing radical bat **** crazy regulation that the EPA under Obama's command is doing is going to end up harming way more people then it helps.

What is "common sense" to one person is not to another.  davep seems to be urging an approach which would entirely ban any activity which results in a foreseeable number of accidental deaths, regardless how great the economic benefit, or how few the number of deaths, or the context of the deaths -- deaths caused to octogenarians by shortening their average live expectany by six months might not be as troubling as deaths caused to healthy ten-year-olds.  If it makes economic sense to have reguatory bodies determine the appropriate level of pollution, then it should also make economic sense to have similar regulatory bodies determine wages, work hours and what you are going to eat for dinner.  These are precisely the kind of decisions best left to the marketplace.  The current problem is that the marketplace does not work when someone (or some company) is able to push some of the costs of an economic activity (whether production or consumption or disposal) off onto others without bearing the full cost itself.  When that happens you get too much of the economic activity and too much of the uncompensated injury.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2015, 11:07:48 am

Once again, you totally mischaracterize my comments.  Typical of a sophist, I suppose.

We have not been having a discussion about accidental deaths.  There is nothing accidental about knowingly polluting with a substance that causes death (assuming that it does cause death).  One of the primary functions of a government is to protect it's citizens from the deliberate harmful acts of others.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2015, 11:19:05 am

Political reporting in this country sucks, but I have never seen it suck as much as it has over the Iran deal.

The president has presented the deal to Congress, and say that they have 60 days to approve or reject the deal, and that if they reject it and the President vetoes the rejection, both houses must over ride it with a two thirds vote.

Obviously, this is not being treated as a treaty, since a treaty must be approved by both houses, and the president can not veto it.

If it is not a treaty, what requires congress to vote on it one way or the other?  There must be something in previous laws that gives the President to make such an agreement and enforce it unless the congress passes a law rejecting it.  But no mention of such a law has been made in any of the articles or newscasts I have seen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 12:44:31 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 11:07:48 am

Once again, you totally mischaracterize my comments.  Typical of a sophist, I suppose.

We have not been having a discussion about accidental deaths.  There is nothing accidental about knowingly polluting with a substance that causes death (assuming that it does cause death).  One of the primary functions of a government is to protect it's citizens from the deliberate harmful acts of others.

davep, there is no mischaracterization of your arguments.  I did not say you wrote one thing when you actually wrote another.  Nor did I fail to understand your argument or offer an inapplicable comparison.  I addressed your aguments, and pointed out that you were using, and continue to use, words wrong, in a manner which is neither consistent with common usage nor with the way the words are used in the law as terms of art.

When you contend that a company emitting a pollutant which will aggravate asthma in SOME people and by doing so cause one death a year in a population of 100,000 people exposed to it for a full year was INTENDING to kill that person... you are arguing nonsense (and fatalites are that level are actually pretty high even for heavy polluters).

The problem is not one of sophistry on my part but your routine refusal to admit when you write something which is foolish, perhaps because it is inartfully worded, or perhaps because you wrote something you did not even intend to write or you wrote something which expressed a position you did not really hold.... but you routinely, as here, seem unable to admit your error, and then lash out with a personal attack in response.  (I am still waiting for you to either acknowledge you overstated your position or provide a meaningful example in reponse to earlier questions of mine to you such as http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg223562/#msg223562  and this one http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc-128/msg215799/#msg215799 which reflected more requests to point out how I had allegedly misread your post than I want to count)

I may be wrong here, but I believe I have seen you take the position that government ought not ban tobacco, despite the fact that tobacco companies know use of their product will kill large numbers of those who light up and smoke it directly and also much, much smaller numbers of people (usually young children with repiratory or breathing problem) who inhale only second hand smoke.

The idea that ALL pollution which results in any number of forseeable deaths should be prohibitted is nonsense.  I have used real life examples to show that, and you keep going back to "nothing accidental about knowingly polluting with a substance that causes death," but "accidental" is exactly what it is unless it was intended.  It is no more intended than a company with punch-presses on a workshop floor INTENDED to have an idiot worker shop off a digit or two -- that loss of digits in operating punch-presses is a certainty, but it is also an accident.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 12:50:45 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 11:19:05 am

Political reporting in this country sucks, but I have never seen it suck as much as it has over the Iran deal.

The president has presented the deal to Congress, and say that they have 60 days to approve or reject the deal, and that if they reject it and the President vetoes the rejection, both houses must over ride it with a two thirds vote.

Obviously, this is not being treated as a treaty, since a treaty must be approved by both houses, and the president can not veto it.

If it is not a treaty, what requires congress to vote on it one way or the other?  There must be something in previous laws that gives the President to make such an agreement and enforce it unless the congress passes a law rejecting it.  But no mention of such a law has been made in any of the articles or newscasts I have seen.

It is the result of legislation passed more tha two months ago, sponsored by Senator Corker.   http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/241355-senate-votes-to-approve-Iran-review-bill  It was heavily covered at the time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2015, 01:07:07 pm

It is up to the legislature to decide if a potential hazard should be proscribed by law or by regulation through law.  If legislatures decide that the harm from pollution is sufficient, they are within their authority to act in such a way as to prevent, rather than to compensate, for specific actions known to be harmful.  Compensation through the courts for death of other disabilities is not sufficient protection for the public.

I did not say that ALL pollution should be prohibited.  It is a responsibility of legislatures do decide what is or isn't bad enough to be prohibited or regulated.

And you have several times mentioned "accidental" pollution.  And I have several times clarified that "accidental" pollution is hot what I have been talking about.  If a specific regulation prohibits a specific level of pollution, and you knowingly exceed that level, it is should be a matter for criminal, not civil action.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 02:27:09 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 01:07:07 pm

It is up to the legislature to decide if a potential hazard should be proscribed by law or by regulation through law.  If legislatures decide that the harm from pollution is sufficient, they are within their authority to act in such a way as to prevent, rather than to compensate, for specific actions known to be harmful.  Compensation through the courts for death of other disabilities is not sufficient protection for the public.

Your first two sentences address whether legislatures have the authority to do something, and in general and abstract terms I am unaware of ever disputing that.  In addressing a specific and concrete case, however, since I assume you would agree that the Constitution creates a government of limited scope and power, could you tell me where the federal government got the power to regulate "pollution"?

Your third sentence is a matter of opinion expressed as meaningless rhetoric, almost sounding like a politician, and about as enlightening, meaningful and informed.  Other than to repeat that I disagree with it, there is really no point in responding.

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 01:07:07 pm

I did not say that ALL pollution should be prohibited.  It is a responsibility of legislatures do decide what is or isn't bad enough to be prohibited or regulated.

When you say things like, "Compensation through the courts for death of other disabilities is not sufficient protection for the public," the logical conclusion is that you believe regulation is appropriate, meaning legislatures would either be in the position of outright bans on all such pollution, to any degree or at any level at any time and without regard to the societal economic benefit associated with the pollution, or that legislatures should be deciding how many people it is appropriate to allow to be killed or disabled (and keep in mind that to many people "disability" would include an annoyance).

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 01:07:07 pm

And you have several times mentioned "accidental" pollution.  And I have several times clarified that "accidental" pollution is hot what I have been talking about.  If a specific regulation prohibits a specific level of pollution, and you knowingly exceed that level, it is should be a matter for criminal, not civil action.

I may be mistaken, davep, and if so it isn't the first nor will it be the last, but I don't believe I have ever referenced "accidental pollution," but instead have simply pointed out that the injury caused by pollution is accidental.  My point from the start of this has been that in addressing the economics of the issue, the regulatory approach is misguided on a number of levels.  You seem not to want to discuss the how or the why, but instead are focused exclusively on the idea that government should protect its people from harm from pollution, and, when you talk about how compensation is "not sufficient protection for the public," the logical conclusion is that you are either supporting either a regulatory approach allowing "some" harm, but at a level lawmakers (or their designated regulatory officials) find acceptable, or that such pollution should be criminalized (which may punish a polluter but will not necessarily protect the public), which does absolutely nothing to balance costs against benefits.

Your position sounds remarkably similar to the position taken by many environmental extremists, that NO level of pollution or environmental harm or degradation is ever acceptable, that the air and water should always be pristine.  Whether as you express it or as they express it, it is a short-sighted position which causes considerable harm to the economy, and, if the regulation is lax, it will result in far more injury to the public than they ever should tolerate or which vastly exceedes the economic benefit coming from the activity generating the pollution.

From an economic perspective, the free market produces results most beneficial to society at large, but ONLY if those engaging in the economic activity (whether producers, consumers distributors or anyone else) bear the full cost of their activity.  So long as they are able to push some of the costs off onto others in the form of pollution or injury, they are not bearing the full cost of the activity and economic decisions will be distorted, sometimes grievously so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2015, 03:10:49 pm

The first responsibility of every government is to protect the public.

If you need a specific constitutional power for it, the clause they used to establish the EPA should be sufficient.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 03:13:10 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 03:10:49 pm

The first responsibility of every government is to protect the public.

If you need a specific constitutional power for it, the clause they used to establish the EPA should be sufficient.

And is there any possibility you could point that out which clause that was?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2015, 03:15:10 pm

you can ask the Supreme Court, since they seem satisfied with it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 05:03:22 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 03:15:10 pm

you can ask the Supreme Court, since they seem satisfied with it.

In other words you are entirely unaware of any provisions in the Constitution which would grant that authority.... or from this point on when we are addressing what the law should be are you simply willing to defer to a majority of the Supreme Court on the question, meaning you should believe agitition to reverse Roe v. Wade should have ended long ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2015, 05:06:24 pm

In other words, the government has the power to regulate pollutants given to it by Congress, and the Supreme Court has had no problem with it.

I am no more a Constitutional scholar than Obama or you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 06:34:47 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 05:06:24 pm

In other words, the government has the power to regulate pollutants given to it by Congress, and the Supreme Court has had no problem with it.

I am no more a Constitutional scholar than Obama or you.

I certainly agree you are no more, it appears you are also establishing that you are much less.

As to your first sentence, you seem to miss the fact that Congress is part of the government, and it can not give itself, or any other branch of government, power which Congress itself lacks.... and you are assuming that the Supreme Court has no problem with the Conressional grant of power to the EPA without offering anything to support the conclusion.  But I never asked you to cite me to a Supreme Court case addressing the issue, but only what Constitutional language granted the Federal government authority to regulate pollution.

Just to make it easy for you, here is the full text of the Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html  All of the power granted to the Executive Branch is in Article II, sections 2 and 3, the entire text there is as follows:
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The grant of powers to Congress is in Article I and, other the the power of impeachment, ratifications, proposing amendments and other internal housekeeping types of powers, the governing powers granted to Congress are found entirely in Section 8 and read as follow:
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the **** of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [/left]

Let me know if you think you find anything there, and point it out to me if you do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 19, 2015, 06:37:49 pm

And yet the Supreme Court has never found that the Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution.  Maybe they haven't read the Constitution as much as you have.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 06:44:13 pm

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/18/former-obama-law-prof-epa-is-burning-the-constitution-with-its-co2-regulations/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 07:18:13 pm

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 06:37:49 pm

And yet the Supreme Court has never found that the Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution.

Are you sure about that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 08:03:07 pm

This is how the EPA itself addresses the question of the Constitutional source of its authority:
Congress has the authority to impose conditions upon the receipt of Federal assistance funds. The cornerstone of Congress' authority in the grants area is Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, referred to as the Spending Power Clause, which provides that "...Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and to provide for the…general welfare of the United States…."

Thus, Congress can enact statutes authorizing Federal agencies to award grants and impose reasonable conditions on the receipt of Federal assistance funds.  http://www.epa.gov/ogd/recipient/history_info.htm

Wow.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 08:09:31 pm

One of the more significant Supreme Court decisions this year which got lost in the hysteria over gay marriage (which is genuinely insignificant) and the ObamaCare decision addressed the issue of EPA authority, and the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration and limited the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html  But the limits are not nearly as broad as I would like.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2015, 10:42:58 pm

 Are any of you living under a roof ?


 If so what could you put on your roof to make ... ELECTRICITY ?


 Damned if I know.


 JJ has heard rumors that you could put things on your roof ...


 that in effect would make you your own self sustained electrical grid.


 Not only that ... but you could sell the excess electricity back to the grid ...


 AND MAKE MONEY !


 Now I know that you would never attempt to make money from the people that are making money from you , that would just be wrong.


 It's not the AMERICAN way.


 You must pay to them that set up the system that you cannot EVER change.


 Nor will it ever change ... you must obey and not think.


 There ... isn't everything just fine again ? Go back to sleep.


 We know what's best for you.  ;)


 If you ever thought for yourselves ... you'd scare the **** out of JJ !  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2015, 10:49:38 pm

JJ, solar panels are not real cost effective.  They are very expensive and take many years to return the money put into them.  The average person does not have that type of money lying around.

As technology gets better I foresee them one day being the roofing material on every home and building.  We just aren't there yet.

The technology is getting close though.  Then the price just needs to come down.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2015, 11:06:39 pm

 Duck,


 How much do they cost today? Have you ran any numbers ?


 Where do you think it's going to go to in the future ?


 Coal or rooftop panels ? The first Motorola cellphone cost $4000.00.


 It's whats known as cause and effect ... the demand is there ... the price drops.


 As demand for the product increases ... quantity increases. The price drops.


 What did you pay for your first computer ? Why would you buy one now ?


 Buy a smartphone. What were those **** going for when they first came out ?


 Times change.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2015, 11:09:50 pm

It will happen.  It is just a matter of time.  How long we will have to wait and see.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2015, 11:31:39 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2015, 11:09:50 pm

It will happen.  It is just a matter of time.  How long we will have to wait and see.

 It's up to us.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 19, 2015, 11:39:39 pm

It isn't up to me.  Not my field and I don't have a **** ton of money to invest in it.  If it is viable the people with the skills and assets will make it happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2015, 11:50:59 pm

 

Quote from: Pekin on July 19, 2015, 11:39:39 pm

It isn't up to me.  Not my field and I don't have a **** ton of money to invest in it.  ]If it is viable the people with the skills and assets will make it happen.

 That's you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 20, 2015, 12:04:32 am

I have skills but not in making solar panels.  I have assets but not enough to invest in solar panels. 

I thought you were the engineer.  Engineer the **** out of that stuff.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 10:33:58 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 07:18:13 pm

Are you sure about that?

Does the EPA still exist?

And if so, does it still regulate pollution?

Quite a challenge, even for a sophist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 10:43:34 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2015, 10:42:58 pm

 Are any of you living under a roof ?


 If so what could you put on your roof to make ... ELECTRICITY ?


/quote]

I do!  I live under a roof.

And I could install solar panels on my roof to produce electricity.  And I could sell the excess and get money.

But not for enough to cover the cost of production, even with the electric company paying me more than the cost of producing it themselves.

And, of course, I could use the electricity to charge my electric car.  But the cost of the car is far beyond the savings even from my high cost solar panels.

And, of course, I couldn't drive to Florida and back twice a year.

And I couldn't drive down to Cincinnati to visit by relatives (so there are non-cost advantages to it.

One thing I could, do, however, is to criticize everyone else for not doing the above, even though I don't do it myself.

Of course, that kind of self righteousness only sounds good, even to me, when I am whacked out of my mind.

But that is all right, as long as I stay whacked all of the time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 10:48:04 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 19, 2015, 11:06:39 pm

 What did you pay for your first computer ? Why would you buy one now ?

 Buy a smartphone. What were those **** going for when they first came out ?


 Times change.  :D

At last, you have it.  Times change.  And costs go down.  And things that were once too expensive will become the cost effective solution.

And THAT is when it will be a good idea to install solar roofs and purchase electric cars.

And THAT is when I will do it, along with Jackie and other sensible people.  In the meantime, we will let only the idiots with nothing to do with there money play around with solar roofs and electric cars.  Guys like Jackie and myself are too smart to do something stupid with our money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 20, 2015, 11:18:02 am

If and when I have to replace my roof it wont be solar it will be metal

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 11:21:59 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 08:09:31 pm

One of the more significant Supreme Court decisions this year which got lost in the hysteria over gay marriage (which is genuinely insignificant) and the ObamaCare decision addressed the issue of EPA authority, and the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration and limited the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html  But the limits are not nearly as broad as I would like.

So the Supreme Court had no Constitutional problem with Congress passing laws to regulate air pollution.  They merely said that the Administration could not go beyond the powers granted to them by Congress.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 05:07:06 pm

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2015, 10:33:58 am

Does the EPA still exist?

And if so, does it still regulate pollution?

Quite a challenge, even for a sophist.

Both of those would be answered with a "Yes," now would you answer the last question I asked you?  Are you sure the Supreme Court has never found that the Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 05:11:26 pm

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2015, 11:21:59 am

So the Supreme Court had no Constitutional problem with Congress passing laws to regulate air pollution.

The case did not address that issue.  The fact that the Court did not address it, does not mean the Court concluded there is no Constitutional problem with any particular legislation regulating air pollution, and it certainly does not mean there are no Constitutional problems with Congress passing laws to regulate air pollution.

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2015, 11:21:59 am

They merely said that the Administration could not go beyond the powers granted to them by Congress.

That was the issue presented to the Court.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 05:41:22 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 05:07:06 pm

Both of those would be answered with a "Yes," now would you answer the last question I asked you?  Are you sure the Supreme Court has never found that the Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution?

I did answer the question.  The Supreme Court has had every opportunity, (including in the very case you quoted in another post) to decide that Congress did not have that Constitutional authority, but did not do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 05:43:25 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 05:11:26 pm

The case did not address that issue.  The fact that the Court did not address it, does not mean the Court concluded there is no Constitutional problem with any particular legislation regulating air pollution, and it certainly does not mean there are no Constitutional problems with Congress passing laws to regulate air pollution.

That was the issue presented to the Court.

The Court is not restricted to the specific issue at hand when it comes to constitutional authority.  They could have addressed the issue in any number of cases, but chose not to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 06:09:51 pm

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2015, 05:41:22 pm

I did answer the question.  The Supreme Court has had every opportunity, (including in the very case you quoted in another post) to decide that Congress did not have that Constitutional authority, but did not do so.

Really?  It was a "yes" or "no" question.  Where did you answer?  And what was the answer?

Having the opportunity to decide and issue and not doing so.... is not doing so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 06:12:39 pm

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2015, 05:43:25 pm

The Court is not restricted to the specific issue at hand when it comes to constitutional authority.  They could have addressed the issue in any number of cases, but chose not to.

So you are taking the position that the Court has never found that the Congress lacks the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 20, 2015, 07:08:59 pm

(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/qNGeYwRkkpvUZdcLRmen1Q--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NTQyO3E9OTU7dz00NzU-/http://katie73.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 07:20:47 pm

davep, this is for you -- http://elr.info/sites/default/files/articles/25.10421.htm

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of whether the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate pollution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 07:35:20 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 06:09:51 pm

Really?  It was a "yes" or "no" question.  Where did you answer?  And what was the answer?

Having the opportunity to decide and issue and not doing so.... is not doing so.

If you wanted to cross examine, you should have remained a lawyer.  This is a discussion board, and if neither "yes" nor "no" is a proper answer, I will give the more complete answer, regardless of your ridiculous insistence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 07:41:54 pm

So WHERE did you answer, and what was the answer?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 20, 2015, 07:42:22 pm

And if we post something for discussion it doesn't necessarily mean we are going to personally discusses it or weigh in on the issues

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 07:49:03 pm

If I can find it, I am surprised that you weren't able to.

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 06:37:49 pm

And yet the Supreme Court has never found that the Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 20, 2015, 08:44:50 pm

Right on, Chif.....this guy belongs in a asylum somewhere where he can bug the crap out of them and not us....he's getting worse, if that were possible...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 20, 2015, 08:54:30 pm

LOL

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 20, 2015, 09:43:36 pm

Mark's Market Blog
7-19-15: Agreements!
by Mark Lawrence

There seems to be agreement between Greece and Europe that Greece is to destroy their economy and sell of their islands to Russian billionaires to pay off debts. There seems to be an agreement between Iran and the US that Iran can continue to play with nukes, but only on the down-low, and sanctions will be dropped. And there is agreement between the US and Cuba to exchange embassies for the first time in 54 years. Kumbaya! Stocks shot upwards to near record levels on the wonderful news.

 
S&P 500 January 19 2014 to July 17 2015
President Barack Obama lauded the Iran deal from the White House. "In our time, the risk is that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries, particularly in the Middle East, the most volatile region in the world. We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Putin loves the deal and is telling the Russian press that he created the approach and brokered it. Iran will be buying lots of weapons from Russia. Syria's genocidal madman Assad loves the deal because his only supporter in the world is Iran and suddenly they're rich again. Hillary loves the deal 'cause, um, 'cause, oh, I dunno why she does anything except she wants to be rich and powerful. What's next for us? Congress has 60 days to debate the deal, then they vote. The deal will fail; congress will send a law to the oval office negating the deal. Obama will veto it. That's when the real fun begins: can the republicans and democrats band together to override his veto? As it stand right now, this deal has few supporters in congress. But overriding a veto, that's another matter entirely. . . What's next? If the veto and the deal stand, Iran will be, relatively speaking, awash in money. Expect oil prices to drop, perhaps dramatically. Expect conflicts and border wars in the middle east to increase as Iran challenges Saudi Arabia for regional dominance, with Iran getting the upper hand. And expect, in the long term, the US will move their regional ties from Saudi Arabia to Iran. Unless we see holocaust part II. That word Hitler made famous, "Aryan," and the name of the country, "Iran:" same word.

The IMF says in their estimation Greece's debt is unsustainable. This is huge: the IMF charter says they are not allowed to loan money to a country with an unsustainable debt load. They're basically telling Europe unless there's a haircut on Greek debt, the IMF will not participate in the new bailout. Meanwhile Greece's major unions are all demonstrating against the new deal, letting parliament know that they pass the required laws at their own peril. Greece's banks have been closed for two weeks, but they opened on Monday. Prior to the crisis becoming acute it was estimated that 40% of their loans were non-performing; now pretty much no one in Greece is paying their mortgages. Why pay money to a bankrupt bank? It's hard to see a path to survival for the major Greek banks. And the Greek economy? An unnamed senior EU official said there was now a "20, maybe 30 percent chance of success. When I look at the next two to three years, the next three months, I see only black clouds. All we succeeded in doing was to avoid a chaotic Grexit." And how's the Euro zone doing? Germans, Finns, Dutch, Balts and Slovaks no longer want taxpayers' money to go to bail outs, while the French, Italians and Greeks feel the euro zone is all about austerity and punishment and lacks solidarity and economic stimulus, meaning free money from heaven. "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Leo Tolstoy. The EU is an unhappy family right now.

Goldman Sachs says the Chinese crash is over, we need a bit of time to work out some bad positions people have in the markets, but they rate the Chinese market as a buy right now. You can't trust these guys: they've been known to shill for the Chinese and other countries before to keep on their good side. These guys make a lot of money running various scams for governments - they're a big part of the reason Greece got into such trouble - and they're a lot more interested in those relationships than whether or not retail customers make money. Meanwhile the Chinese index rose for three days under the Herculean efforts of the chinese government, but that seems over now: on tuesday the market dropped 4.6%, giving back a third of the gains from the previous three days.

Gold dropped below an important support level of $1136 last week, and in early trading in Japan crashed down to $1087. Someone dumped 5 tons of gold, probably to raise money due to margin calls on the Chinese stock market. Many think gold is on its way to $1000, perhaps as low as $800. When gold was hovering around $1250 this seemed apocalyptic, but now it seems quite believable. Sometime soon is the time to consider buying gold, particularly if you have a very dim view of the future of world wide banking, markets and currencies.


Attacks on Jews in France have doubled in the last year. On Monday an umbrella of Jewish organizations in France issued a statement saying that the reports represent just a sliver of the full extent of incidents. "Nothing seems to stop the dramatic increase of anti-Semitism in France which today reached appalling levels." Netanyahu called on Jews in Europe to emigrate en masse to Israel, "This wave of terror attacks can be expected to continue, including antisemitic and murderous attacks. We say to the Jews, to our brothers and sisters, Israel is your home and that of every Jew. Israel is waiting for you with open arms." The Swedes, Germans, Danish, British and French have all failed at achieving multiculturalism, their efforts destroyed by unassimilating, non-working and violent muslims.

ISIL continues to expand their fighting fronts across north Africa, looking a lot like Rommel at the beginning of WW II. Obama is in deep denial of this force, thinking that dropping a few bombs will stop a major social movement. We're losing this war - ISIL is looking more and more powerful each day. Now they're releasing videos of how to train your toddler sons by having them behead dolls. More and more fighters join them from countries around the world each day as muslims world wide respond to the young but growing caliphate.


Millennium Health wanted to raise some cash, so they asked JP Morgan to help them float a corporate bond issue. JP Morgan helped them sell $1.8 billion in bonds. Millennium is owned by its executives and the private equity firm TA associates. They used $200 million of the money to pay off debt held by TA Associates, and $1.3b of the money to pay a special dividend to the owners. When JP Morgan sold the bonds to the public they neglected to mention that Millennium had been investigation by Medicare for fraudulent activities for several years. Now the bonds trade for 41¢s; on the dollar and investors have lost 60% of their money. Millennium just settled for a $250 million fine; the trouble is they don't have the money. Their earnings are down 30% as Medicare and Medicaid move tests to other firms, firms that haven't been caught billing them for tests on dead people and test that had never been performed. So, JP Morgan is in trouble for non- disclosure, right? Nah. The SEC considers these bonds loans and they don't regulate loans. No agency regulates banks in this area. Buyers like pension funds desperately need yield; sellers and banks are making use of this fact to scam them more and more.

The Institute for the Study of War did some war game simulations of ISIL. The results weren't pretty. ISIL is winning, and they're likely to continue to win. The quran says that if a muslim leader can gain control of territory and proclaim a caliphate, then all muslims owe him allegiance. This happened a couple years ago, and muslims all over the world are flocking to the middle east to fight for this guy. ISIL is winning the PR war, they're winning the media war, they're attacking on multiple fronts, the US does not have the manpower to fight them on the ground, and the middle east countries don't show the cooperation or will to fight them either. As it stands right now, we should expect more and more of the middle east to come under ISIL's control. Eventually they'll get control of serious amounts of oil, then this will avalanche.

A new study by researchers at the University of Colorado, New York University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill concludes that there are three things you can to do prolong your life, each with roughly equal affect: 1) quit smoking; 2) get a high school diploma; and 3) get a bachelor's degree. Apparently the Wizard of Oz added about 6 years to the Tin Man's life when he gave him a diploma. Those with more education get less heart disease. I think they're confusing cause with correlation. Perhaps I'll die young: I'm a high school drop out. Or maybe that just cancels out my bachelor's degree.

What is going on in the oceans from Fukushima? I know of several expeditions now that have gone out into the pacific sampling water and making tests. I have been completely unable to find any results. All data on the radiation levels in the pacific is completely suppressed. I've heard numerous anecdotal stories - sailors used to seeing huge schools of fish in the middle of the pacific report now there's nothing. Here's a video made by some Canadians who spent nine days sampling up the Canadian pacific coast at low tide over 200 kilometers of coast (120 miles), and found more or less nothing alive. Last year there were papers about starfish near Vancouver suddenly and mysteriously melting - this was attributed to global warming, or a "pathogen" that infected numerous different species. That latter is enormously implausible: you can't get a virus from a dog or a cow, these things are highly species selective. Japan has recently admitted they've found plutonium in the ocean at 10,000,000 times "normal" levels - plutonium is a synthetic element, none is left from the Earth's formation. Any plutonium you find today comes from nuclear tests or nuclear accidents. What's the truth? Honestly I don't know, but I'm very alarmed.

Living in clutter? There's a book about a clean up technique that's all the rage in Japan and becoming popular in the US quickly, The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up. You attack your clutter problem in five stages: 1) clothes; 2) books; 3) documents; 4) miscellaneous items; 5) mementos. Starting with clothes, you take everything you own and sort it into two piles: the things you truly love and every thing else. Everything else goes into a trash bag to be donated or burned. Basically you want to own a lot less. I have a criticism about this: I intend to leave a ginormous mess for my kids to sort through when I die, it's one last way I can get back at them. Perhaps I'll sort through my stuff and ship the trash to my kids. . . I could tell them my will specifies that they must bring one or two of the items in particular to the lawyers office in order to inherit, and the list of magic items is sealed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 09:45:07 pm

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2015, 07:49:03 pm

If I can find it, I am surprised that you weren't able to.

Sorry, davep, I DID read that, and it did not respond to the question.

Just to keep things clear here, my question followed your comment as follows at July 19, 2015, 06:37:49 pm:

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 06:37:49 pm

And yet the Supreme Court has never found that the Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution.  Maybe they haven't read the Constitution as much as you have.

My question quoted the first sentence of that and asked the following at July 19, 2015, 07:18:13 pm:

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 19, 2015, 07:18:13 pm

Are you sure about that?

Now that is an exceedingly simple question, and while you are true that it is not cross examination (and even if it were, a witness is ALWAYS allowed to explain an answer), it is genuinely hard to understand how that can be answered WITHOUT a clear "yes" or "no," this is what you now claim was your answer to it, not an evasion, but an answer:

Quote from: davep on July 19, 2015, 06:37:49 pm

And yet the Supreme Court has never found that the Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution.  Maybe they haven't read the Constitution as much as you have.

Look carefully at the times.  My question was asked at 07:18:13 pm.  The post which you contend answered that question was posted at 06:37:49 pm, roughly 45 minutes before I asked the question.

And before you claim you understood me to be addressing some earlier question when I asked if you were going to respond, I made my question even more clear with my post at 05:07:06 pm today as follows:

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 05:07:06 pm

now would you answer the last question I asked you?  Are you sure the Supreme Court has never found that the Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate pollution?

Your response just about half an hour later was to claim you already had answered the question:

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2015, 05:41:22 pm

I did answer the question.

Since I saw no such answer (which was because there had been none, I asked you where or when you had answered:

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 20, 2015, 06:09:51 pm

Really?  It was a "yes" or "no" question.  Where did you answer?  And what was the answer?

.... and ultimately you tell me that your answer to my question posted at 07:18:13 pm yesterday was your post at 06:37:49 pm, roughly 45 minutes before I asked the question.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 10:00:19 pm

Let's play your silly game.

No.  The Supreme Court has never found that the Congress does not have Constitutional authority to regulate pollution.  I would have thought that even you would realize that, since the EPA is still regulating pollution after about 50 years in existence.  In fact, they recently expanded the scope of that authority when they added CO2 to the list of things they not only can, but MUST regulate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 20, 2015, 10:22:20 pm

Guys

Just cite the 10th Admendnent on be done with it.

A government which outsources its environmental control to Dave Koch industries deserves to be a bathtub banana republic.


His ideas are why run Paul will never even equal his ineffective crack pot father.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 20, 2015, 10:32:56 pm

Otto, Why is it wrong for rich conservatives to donate money to Republicans but it is perfectly fine for rich liberals to donate to Democrats?

Hillary has more money in her campaign chest then anyone and we both know those aren't small donations.  The second behind her is Jeb Bush.  I will be sick if either is elected.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 20, 2015, 11:16:02 pm

Peak

Did some guy at the warehouse break room you tell you that?

The fact that donald trump polls first in YOUR party just shows that supporters of it just continue to embrace politics of bigotry and resentment, an estrangement from objective reality and a belief that the simplist, most simple mindedness solution shouted in the loudest voice equals wisdom.


It doesn't.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 20, 2015, 11:24:50 pm

Trump polls first in the republican polls for the same reason that Clinton polls first in the democratic polls.  People recognize their names, but have little idea what they actually believe or espouse.

Once the responsible republican voters find out the actual record of Walker and other serious candidates, the polls will change.  The same thing would happen with the responsible democratic voters, if there WERE any responsible democratic voters.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 21, 2015, 04:27:45 am

Good Grief!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 21, 2015, 04:55:22 am

Quote from: davep on July 20, 2015, 11:24:50 pm

Trump polls first in the republican polls for the same reason that Clinton polls first in the democratic polls.  People recognize their names, but have little idea what they actually believe or espouse.

Exactly right..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 21, 2015, 08:38:33 am

Got yer Shock and Heehaw right here...


https://youtu.be/BmUPYOueKt4 (https://youtu.be/BmUPYOueKt4)

Ya got to git yerself right Merica....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 21, 2015, 08:51:00 am

He's going to vote for trump no matter what question the weasel from Wisconsin can't answer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 21, 2015, 10:54:23 am

Not surprising.  The looney left will vote for the Vermont socialist in spite if the lunacy necessary to do so.  There are idiots on both sides, as Homo attests for the left.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 21, 2015, 10:54:42 am

Why should you care about Trump? The Dumbos would love it if Trump got the nomination. He'd be the easiest to beat because he sticks his foot in his mouth. And Bush would be the 2nd easiest. Nobody in his right mind would vote another Bush into office. This nomination fight will go to the back room of the convention hall before its decided. Its too early to get your undies in a knot especially about Trump.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 21, 2015, 02:15:48 pm

Trump has just as much chance to win the republican nomination as the Vermont socialist has to win the democratic nomination.

Fringe candidates like Trump, Sharpton, Ron Paul and Saunders are pumped up by fringe groups, and are amplified by the media as a way to increase readership, but have no chance to be a legitimate candidate right from the beginning.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2015, 04:18:46 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 21, 2015, 08:38:33 am

Got yer Shock and Heehaw right here...


https://youtu.be/BmUPYOueKt4 (https://youtu.be/BmUPYOueKt4)

Ya got to git yerself right Merica....

Sad, otto, when you can't even tell when a fellow member of the looney left is offering satire and you think it is a sincere conservative.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 21, 2015, 04:41:30 pm

I'd pay to see a Trump vs Hitlery debate. She'd get her butt handed to her. He'd be firing at her both barrels and she would have little in response but lies.....he's dealt with power and wouldn't be fazed by her one bit......it would be fun TV for sure....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 21, 2015, 05:16:32 pm

Under the category of freakin stupid BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW HeeHaw one finds...


https://youtu.be/LtglptO4v34 (https://youtu.be/LtglptO4v34)


run paul paul putting more clowns in clown cars

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 21, 2015, 05:17:23 pm

Trump may very well be running to help her.  He has donated to her and the Clinton foundation in the past.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2015, 05:49:12 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 21, 2015, 05:17:23 pm

Trump may very well be running to help her.  He has donated to her and the Clinton foundation in the past.

I had wondered the same thing.  Bill Clinton, after all, is the only president in history to be elected twice without a majority either time, both times with his election a result of Perot splitting the vote.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2015, 05:51:22 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 21, 2015, 05:16:32 pm

Under the category of freakin stupid BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW HeeHaw one finds...


https://youtu.be/LtglptO4v34 (https://youtu.be/LtglptO4v34)


run paul paul putting more clowns in clown cars

Oh, yes, because it would be so foolish to have the government stop encouraging some economic decisions and encouraging others, since, you know the government has such an excellent track record in handling investment issues.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 21, 2015, 06:41:50 pm

Hey, Homo.  This one's for you.

Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
21 July 2015

The volume of Arctic sea ice increased by around a third after an unusually cool summer in 2013.
Researchers say the growth continued in 2014 and more than compensated for losses recorded in the three previous years.
The scientists involved believe changes in summer temperatures have greater impacts on ice than thought.
But they say 2013 was a one-off and that climate change will continue to shrink the ice in the decades ahead.
Turn up the volume
The Arctic region has warmed more than most other parts of the planet over the past 30 years.
Satellite observations have documented a decrease of around 40% in the extent of sea ice cover in the Arctic since 1980.
But while the extent of the retreating ice has been well recorded, the key indicator that scientists want to understand is the loss of sea ice volume.
Researchers have been able to use data gathered by Europe's Cryosat satellite over the past five years to answer this question.
Arctic sea ice
Researchers setting up camp on sea ice in the Lincoln Sea, north of Greenland
This polar monitoring spacecraft has a sophisticated radar system that allows scientists to accurately estimate the volume.
The researchers used 88 million measurements of sea ice thickness from Cryosat and found that between 2010 and 2012, the volume of sea ice went down by 14%.
They published their initial findings at the end of 2013 - but have now refined and updated them to include data from 2014 as well.
Relative to the average of the period between 2010 and 2012, the scientists found that there was a 33% increase in sea ice volume in 2013, while in 2014 there was still a quarter more sea ice than there was between 2010 and 2012.
"We looked at various climate forcing factors, we looked at the snow loading, we looked at wind convergence and the melt season length of the previous summer," lead author Rachel Tilling, from University College London, told BBC News.
"We found that the the highest correlation by far was with the melt season length - and over the summer of 2013, it was the coolest of the five years we have seen, and we believe that's why there was more multi-year ice left at the end of summer."
Sea ice thickness
The researchers found the colder temperatures allowed more multi-year ice to persist north-west of Greenland because there were simply fewer days when it could melt. Temperature records indicate that the summer was about 5% cooler than 2012.
The scientists believe that the more accurate measurements that they have now published show that sea ice is more sensitive to changes than previously thought. They argue that while some could see this as a positive, when temperatures are cooler it leads to an increase in sea ice, it could also be a negative when the mercury goes up.
"It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps - if you get one year of cooler temperatures, we've almost wound the clock back a few years on this gradual decline that's been happening over decades," said Rachel Tilling.
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 21, 2015, 10:29:39 pm

Davepbart

Apparently does not know the meaning if the word anomalous.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 21, 2015, 10:33:41 pm

Homo doesn't recognize proof that he is wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 21, 2015, 10:48:19 pm

If Trump runs as a Independent, I could see that hurting the Republicans. But if not, he probably won't get the nod as the Republican choice...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 21, 2015, 11:10:01 pm

There isn't a chance in a billion that Trump gets the Republican nomination.

There is a reasonable chance that he is fool enough to run as an independent.  He is every bit as stupid as Perot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2015, 11:13:08 pm

Quote from: davep on July 21, 2015, 11:10:01 pm

There isn't a chance in a billion that Trump gets the Republican nomination.

There is a reasonable chance that he is fool enough to run as an independent.  He is every bit as stupid as Perot.

It would only be stupid for Trump to run if he wanted the Republican to win the nomination.  If he actually wants the Republican to lose, it might be pretty intelligent.  It appeared Perot's goal was not actually winning, but beating Bush, and he did that pretty well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 21, 2015, 11:46:52 pm

Trump is a liberal.  He used to be a Democrat and donates to Democrats.  He also is pro single payer government healthcare system.  He thought obamacare did not go far enough.   

If he can peal off enough conservatives and independents as a third party then Hillary is the next POTUS.  I am guessing he would then get a huge payback from the Clintons for it.

Sad thing is most people only know what the media tells them.  They don't search out the info.

By the way the media has been beating Trump up for saying McCain is not a war hero.  The public really doesn't care.  At the same rally he said, "I have never asked God for forgiveness for anything".  That did not sit well with the crowd.  No reporting on that.

 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 22, 2015, 07:56:24 am

Were Trump or say some other moderate Republican wind up with the nomination I could visualize Conservatives sitting out the election. That would also insure a Hitlery election too.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 10:35:18 am

Quote from: WshflThinking on July 22, 2015, 07:56:24 am

Were Trump or say some other moderate Republican wind up with the nomination I could visualize Conservatives sitting out the election. That would also insure a Hitlery election too.

They already sat out the last election, which caused Obama's reelection.

If they did it in order to spite the rest of the conservatives, it was an incredibly stupid move.  The people that allowed Obama to be reelected are the same ones that **** and moan about everything that Obama does and complain that the Government is going to pot.

I don't think that Trump wishes to destroy the republicans.  I think he is a typical moderate who would rather have the democrats win than allow the religious wing of the Republican party to win.  But if he runs as an independent, it will be because of his massive ego rather than because of political differences.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 22, 2015, 11:43:32 am

I don't know what will happen. Only time will tell. All I am saying is I could envision that happening. The religious right is not going to be content with the Supreme Court as politically constructed as it is.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 12:10:46 pm

Too bad the religious right helped elect Obama so he could add a couple liberals to the court.

I doubt that even McCain or Romney would have appointed anyone as bad as the two that Obama appointed.

By the way, I don't think that Trump would run as an independent.  He knows he wouldn't have a prayer to win, and his ego wouldn't like losing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2015, 12:44:07 pm

Jose' Guys


The fundamental right didn't elect then reelect our President Barack Hussein Obama. They do NOT have the votes to overcome the votes of Liberals, Democrats, Women, Minorities and intelligent American Citizens.

Enough already with that power of the aged, white, backward ass fundies as a voting block to win national elects.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2015, 12:48:32 pm

This police officer should be charged with murder. This piece of **** officer turns around upon seeing a black women driving, pulls her over for not signaling a lane change...Just another white piece of **** that has authority issues who is allowed to have a badge.

https://youtu.be/86SR84lRMAc (https://youtu.be/86SR84lRMAc)


I hope the family files a huge lawsuit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 01:46:47 pm

Homo the racist raises his ugly head again.  If it weren't for liberals, racism would have ended years ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 01:53:15 pm

Isn't it cute that Homo never mentions that the policeman followed her because she ran a stop sign in the first place.  You have to be blind to be blind to be a racist liberal.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 22, 2015, 02:23:04 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 22, 2015, 12:48:32 pm

This police officer should be charged with murder. This piece of **** officer turns around upon seeing a black women driving, pulls her over for not signaling a lane change...Just another white piece of **** that has authority issues who is allowed to have a badge.

https://youtu.be/86SR84lRMAc (https://youtu.be/86SR84lRMAc)


I hope the family files a huge lawsuit.

Good grief! One racist calling another a racist

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 22, 2015, 03:26:51 pm

 What's for dinner ? I'm having left over Poppa Johns pizza.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 22, 2015, 03:59:01 pm

Sloppy Me's, JJ...

I know a couple who didn't vote this last time. Frustrates me no end when someone says 'they aren't conservative/religious enough so I'm not going to vote'. How foolish is that?? So, what you're saying is the guy YOU wanted ain't perfect so you're gonna go ahead and let the country go to hell in a handbasket, which it is doing faster than I've ever seen, because the Reps didn't have a strong enough conservative. Romney was a Mormon or whatever the heck he was. He sure is a HELLUVA lot better by far than the clown presently in there!!!!!! I'm holding a party on Jan.2017 for when this jag leaves office. Cannot wait....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2015, 05:00:58 pm

I'm holding a party on same day to rejoice in the election of Senator/Secretary of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton and **** on your vote.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2015, 05:02:34 pm

 What stop sign you refering too white old fart?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 05:40:41 pm

Homo - do you ever look at the things you post.  It really makes you look like even more of an idiot than you are.

At the very beginning of the video you posted, you can see her run the stop sign when she turned right onto the street that the policeman was travelling on.  When he turned to follow her, you can plainly see the stop sign that she ran.

If you can't learn to think, at least learn to look at what you post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 22, 2015, 05:47:28 pm

This does not bode well for the Democrats.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2261

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is behind or on the wrong side of a too-close-to-call result in matchups with three leading Republican contenders, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2015, 05:54:50 pm

I'm guessing a Democratic minority give you that information at the water cooler.


Nonstarter.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 06:21:49 pm

That is probably as good a guess as those silly ones Homo usually makes.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 22, 2015, 06:30:15 pm

Plenty of time for the Demorats to spin their lies and ramp up the Black Panthers to threaten people to vote....and to dig up some dead folks....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 22, 2015, 06:36:08 pm

The thing is the more Hillary talks and is shown on TV the more her numbers go down.  When she is out of the spot light the numbers go up because people do not hear her shrill voice and see how fake she is, while the liberal media builds her up.

How do you run for president with out being in the spot light?  If she can figure that one out she will be the next president.  If she can't whoever wins the Republican nomination will beat her.

I think it is 50/50 that she even wins the Democrat nomination.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 22, 2015, 07:17:18 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 22, 2015, 12:48:32 pm

This police officer should be charged with murder. This piece of **** officer turns around upon seeing a black women driving, pulls her over for not signaling a lane change...Just another white piece of **** that has authority issues who is allowed to have a badge.

https://youtu.be/86SR84lRMAc (https://youtu.be/86SR84lRMAc)


I hope the family files a huge lawsuit.

This is funny... "another white piece of ****"....wow, change white to black and we'd have riots.. I will say, I agree that the cop got out of hand, but otto is something else....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 22, 2015, 07:35:55 pm

On what basis, by what logic, would the cop be charged with murder?

And settig that question aside, has anyone heard why this woman who reported to the police that she had attempted or thought about suicide recently was left by her family in jail for three days without anyone bonding her out?  The look so caring now when they protest that her death was murder and dismiss any possibility she killed herself.... where were they for the three days she was left i jail on an exceedingly minor charge?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 22, 2015, 07:51:53 pm

BTW legal aid


What was bail?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 22, 2015, 07:58:03 pm

http://www.profitconfidential.com/newsletters/militarys-6th-branch-create-22000-millionaires/

Truth or  bullshit?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 22, 2015, 09:16:57 pm

Sounded like she was a upstanding, model citizen....or maybe she had multiple run-ins with the law in Illinois....yea, I think that's it.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 22, 2015, 09:29:22 pm

Quote from: packrat on July 22, 2015, 07:58:03 pm

http://www.profitconfidential.com/newsletters/militarys-6th-branch-create-22000-millionaires/

Truth or  bullshit?

It is Bullshit.  Packrat you are old enough to know if it seems to good to be true it probably isn't true.

It probably holds a grain of truth in it to be believable.  Besides at your age isn't being of sound mind and body more important then any amount of money?     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 22, 2015, 09:32:53 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 22, 2015, 09:16:57 pm

Sounded like she was a upstanding, model citizen....or maybe she had multiple run-ins with the law in Illinois....yea, I think that's it.....

What difference does her record make regarding either the stop or her suicide?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 09:44:41 pm

Quote from: packrat on July 22, 2015, 07:58:03 pm

http://www.profitconfidential.com/newsletters/militarys-6th-branch-create-22000-millionaires/

Truth or  bullshit?

It certainly isn't bullshit.  I would go for it myself, but I really don't need the money.  A relative I never heard of just died in Nigeria, and as soon as I send them my checking account numbers, they are going to deposit 2 billion dollars in it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 22, 2015, 10:13:04 pm

You joke but a friend of mine's mom actually was sending cash in taped up magazines to Nigeria.  They took her for $12,000 before the bank called the kids and let them know she was pulling out large amounts of money.  She even got pissed at them for telling her to stop.  Even argued with the police when they told her it was a scam.

She said it was her money and she could do what she wanted with it.  They had to change her phone number because she was getting several calls a day.  They would just sit and talk to her and of course ask for money.  Apparently Nigerian scam artists really want to hear all about an old persons day, bless their heart...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 11:02:42 pm

An article last year estimated that that particular scam nets about 30 million per year, and has not diminished in the past several years even though it has become the most talked about scam in the world.

Just as successful, though on a much smaller scale is the one where you list something on Craig's list and you get an email offering to purchase it for about 25% more than your asking price.  They then send you a cashier's check for more than a thousand dollars over that price and ask you to deposit the check in your bank while sending them a check for the difference.  It takes the bank about a week to find out and tell you that the cashier's check is a forgery, and by that time, they have cashed your check and are nowhere to be found.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 11:05:19 pm

Another one that targets older people has a girl phoning an older woman claiming that she is her grand daughter, and she has been arrested in Canada (or wherever) and needs her grand mother to send a check for bail.  You wouldn't think it would work, but south Florida newspapers report an incident just about every week.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 22, 2015, 11:27:13 pm

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/trump-is-right-about-songbird-mccain-and-heres-why/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 22, 2015, 11:30:02 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 22, 2015, 09:29:22 pm

It is Bullshit.  Packrat you are old enough to know if it seems to good to be true it probably isn't true.

It probably holds a grain of truth in it to be believable.  Besides at your age isn't being of sound mind and body more important then any amount of money?     

I agree.  His concept is correct but I'm sure he doesn't have a valid list.  Pick the correct companies and win big.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 22, 2015, 11:46:42 pm

Pick the correct companies and win big.  Certainly great advice.  And 100 % accurate.

Of course, for every correct company that would make you millions, there are thousands, each looking as good on paper, that will go broke, taking you with it.

Will the military spend billions of dollars, with some companies becoming rich in the process.  Absolutely.

Is there a secret military branch that has a secret fund and a secret list of companies that it will enrich.  Of course not.  If there WERE one with such a list, would this person know about it.  Of course not.  And even if he did, why would he not use the list to enrich himself, rather than make it public.

Every few years, someone runs an add purporting to know the secret of becoming rich, and is willing to let you in on it for a "small" fee.  He says that he is willing to do this because he is so rich, he has no need for more money, and wants to share his secret with deserving others.

His only secret is that he can become rich through conning the public into sending him money.

The old saying is absolutely accurate.  if it sounds too good to be true, it isn't true.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 22, 2015, 11:55:11 pm

Quote from: davep on July 22, 2015, 11:46:42 pm

Is there a secret military branch that has a secret fund and a secret list of companies that it will enrich.  Of course not.  If there WERE one with such a list, would this person know about it.  Of course not.  And even if he did, why would he not use the list to enrich himself, rather than make it public.

Because he's a nice guy and cares about people.

Isn't it obvious?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 23, 2015, 12:45:15 am

What difference does it make? Seriously?!? If you're a repeat offender, chances are you'll continue offending.....duh.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 23, 2015, 06:31:22 am

 STOP TALKING ABOUT MY SCAMS IN PUBLIC **** !!


 Or the checks to you will stop coming . sssshhh ...  ::)


 Otto/Beard,


 You're $50'000.00 short on the last deposit to the Cayman Islands account.


 Don't make me send people to come after you again ...


 you know what happened last time ...  >:(


 I felt guilty afterwards and bought both of you the prosthesis ...


 that ain't going to happen twice. You have been warned not to steal from me.  :o

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2015, 07:08:23 am

Quote from: Sportster on July 23, 2015, 12:45:15 am

What difference does it make? Seriously?!? If you're a repeat offender, chances are you'll continue offending.....duh.....

Is anyone able to explain who and what Sportster is responding to?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 23, 2015, 03:47:35 pm

You, knucklehead....but you already knew that, just playing your stupid games as usual...this is why YOU answered me....wow..

Quote

What difference does her record make regarding either the stop or her suicide? 

Normal folks would comply with what the officer said to do. Not her.     I know, Chif....feeding the troll.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 23, 2015, 04:36:13 pm

LOL!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2015, 05:03:42 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 23, 2015, 03:47:35 pm

You, knucklehead....but you already knew that, just playing your stupid games as usual...this is why YOU answered me....wow..

Not only did I not know what you meant, I STILL do not know what you meant, and would appreciate it if anyone could explain.  I also did not answer you, or at least did not do so in the post where I asked what you meant.

You wrote, 

Quote

What difference does it make? Seriously?!? If you're a repeat offender, chances are you'll continue offending.....duh.....

I respoded with:

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 23, 2015, 07:08:23 am

Is anyone able to explain who and what Sportster is responding to?

That is not an "answer."

Quote from: Sportster on July 23, 2015, 03:47:35 pm

Normal folks would comply with what the officer said to do. Not her.

What difference does it make whether "normal folks" would or wouldn;t do something?  I can see the relevance of whether the officer did or did not have the legal authority to do what he did, or the relevance of whether there was or wasn't any legitimate law enforcement need for him to do as he did.  But I can's understand the relevance over whether "normal folks" (or "most foks") would or wouldn't have.  If you could explain how or why it is relevant whether "normal folks" would or wouldn't have complied with what the officer said to do, I would love to see it.

I'm curious as to whether you have actually watched the video and if so if you could explain what legitimate law enforcement reason the officer might have had for any of the following:
1) Ordering her to put out her cigarette inside her car
2) Threaten to "light" her up with his stun gun
3) Order her out of her car
4) Take her down to the ground
5) Slam her head in the ground
6) Arrest her.

Quote from: Sportster on July 23, 2015, 03:47:35 pm

I know, Chif....feeding the troll.....

Any possibility you could offer a working definition of "troll" as you are using it there?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 23, 2015, 05:04:24 pm

The officer was making an unconstitutional stop with the added fact of making a complete racist horses ass of himself.

1) One the officer did not order her to put out the cigarette. He asked her if she would mind putting it out. She was under no order to actually put the cig out. By that fact the officer walked into an unconstitutional act of prolonging a minor traffic stop. See recent Supreme Court ruling.

A stop which was completely bogus to begin with.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 23, 2015, 05:11:22 pm

Thursday July 23rd clown car report

This man wants to be our president.

Logically, Iraqi refugees shouldn’t exist, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), because the United States already “won” the Iraq War.
“We accepted 60,000 people from Iraq as refugees,” the Kentucky GOPer said. “What I don’t get about it is, I thought asylum would be when you lost the war. We won the Iraq War! We put in place a democratic government. Why would there be any people seeking asylum from Iraq after the war?”

Seriously??? Walker school of foreign policy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 23, 2015, 05:23:59 pm

Now THAT is a 'off the deep end' answer! And yes, I'll spell it out for you....J E S

You must have shuddered with mad glee when Clinton pulled his 'depends on what the definition of IS is'.
It's no wonder few like dealing with lawyers. This splitting the atom speak is beyond crazy....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2015, 05:26:00 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 23, 2015, 05:04:24 pm

The officer was making an unconstitutional stop

What was unconstitutional about the stop?

Quote from: otto105 on July 23, 2015, 05:04:24 pm

1) One the officer did not order her to put out the cigarette. He asked her if she would mind putting it out. She was under no order to actually put the cig out. By that fact the officer walked into an unconstitutional act of prolonging a minor traffic stop. See recent Supreme Court ruling.

Normally when a person numbers points, there is more than one being made.  Did I miss one?  Was there a 2nd or 3rd point you intended but which did not get included for some reason?

Given tone and context, it is rather clear the officer did order (or tell) her to put out her cigarette, but my question to Sportster was what authority he had to do so when she was in her car, alone, and not yet under arrest.

What Supreme Court Ruling is it you contend would have established what the officer did as "an unconstitutional act of prolonging a minor traffic stop," and what provisions of the Constitution would have been violated by the length of that stop?  (The assault by the cop, yes, but not the "prolonging" of a stop.)  And what do you mean by saying that the officer "walked into an unconstitutional act"?  "Walked into"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 23, 2015, 09:46:32 pm

The racist Homo believes that walking is unconstitutional when performing an unconstitutional act of prolonging traffic stops.  Article 11 of the Constitution says that no officer of the law may stop an offender if that offender might be offended by being accused of an offense.

By the way - article 12 says that no policeman may arrest any black person that is going to commit suicide three days later.  it is known as the 72 hour minority safe zone.  Also applies to homosexuals that are not married.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 23, 2015, 10:55:57 pm

Lol, and only a black person can call another person a racist. Its the only right they have so they use it often.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 24, 2015, 04:55:51 am

it is known as the 72 hour minority safe zone.  Also applies to homosexuals that are not married.

That's funny..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 10:11:15 am

When will the nra call for guns to be sold with popcorn at movie theaters?????


Maybe that good conservative donald hair trump can drive up from the border to stand in the theater lobby and condemn old white guys.... 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 24, 2015, 03:51:15 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 10:11:15 am

When will the nra call for guns to be sold with popcorn at movie theaters?????


Maybe that good conservative donald hair trump can drive up from the border to stand in the theater lobby and condemn old white guys.... 

If they could have purchased guns in the lobby, perhaps someone would have gotten him early in the fight.  They should, however have a three day waiting period for homosexuals wishing to purchase guns because of the danger they might shoot the wrong person.  The medical name for this is the "limp wrist syndrome".

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2015, 04:55:09 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 10:11:15 am

When will the nra call for guns to be sold with popcorn at movie theaters?????

Maybe that good conservative donald hair trump can drive up from the border to stand in the theater lobby and condemn old white guys.... 

I don't know about the shootings in the Louisianna theater, but the theater shooting in Colorado was a "gun-free zone."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 05:05:19 pm

The theater in Louisiana should have been an old white crazy tea party nut job free zone.


Good news today for one of the clown car candidates rick good hair perry.....only one felony charge.

Statue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 24, 2015, 05:23:55 pm

Homo certainly is a credit to the democratic party.  He is a great example of liberal thinking.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 24, 2015, 05:46:25 pm

 My last post was the funniest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2015, 06:04:35 pm

Quote from: Sportster on July 23, 2015, 05:23:59 pm

Now THAT is a 'off the deep end' answer! And yes, I'll spell it out for you....J E S

You must have shuddered with mad glee when Clinton pulled his 'depends on what the definition of IS is'.
It's no wonder few like dealing with lawyers. This splitting the atom speak is beyond crazy....

So even you could not make sense of your posts.

OK.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2015, 06:23:53 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 05:05:19 pm

The theater in Louisiana should have been an old white crazy tea party nut job free zone.

Yes, there is already a ban on murder which carries a death sentence, and THAT doesn't deter the behavior or real concern, so gun free zones, or goof free zones will certainly do it.

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 05:05:19 pm

Good news today for one of the clown car candidates rick good hair perry.....only one felony charge.

Considering that Hilary may get one for each email she sent which included classified information, at only one felony charge Perry is a real piker.

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 05:05:19 pm

Statue.

I see you have dropped you old "Enjoy" tagline.... what does this one, "Statue" mean.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 24, 2015, 07:19:42 pm

Whatever made you think that any part of Homo's post would have any meaning?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 11:22:49 pm

BTW Where are you sourcing the bogus email claim about Senator Hillary Clinton.


And second, I have done no such thing.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2015, 03:57:20 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 24, 2015, 11:22:49 pm

BTW Where are you sourcing the bogus email claim about Senator Hillary Clinton.

Bogus email claim?  "Bogus" is generally used to mean "untrue" or "false," but I'm unaware of having made any untrue or false claim about Clinton.  Could you perhaps point out what you believe I have said or posted about Hilary that you think is untrue?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2015, 04:33:04 am

Speaking of Hilary.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174033/Clintons-charities-got-50million-British-aid-cash-UK-government-accused-trying-buy-influence-power-family.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 06:25:54 am

So you can't source your claim on Senator Hillary Clinton.


Why is that not surprising.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 06:28:11 am

And legal aid,

Trolling articles from the phaxlying Murdoch media...


Thought you were better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2015, 07:02:59 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 06:25:54 am

So you can't source your claim on Senator Hillary Clinton.  Why is that not surprising.

You still haven't mentioned what "claim" you want sourced.

You referenced a bogus claim.  I have made none.  If you want a particular claim sourced, mention it.

As to the link from the dailymail, what is it in that link that you want to dispute?  Or is there nothing there you really want to dispute, but instead just want to try to minimize the report by name-calling?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 07:48:22 am

Legal aid

Just who is the source of your Hillary passing "classified information"?  Its a simple question that requires no minutia on your part.

The daily mail part of what media company.....er noise machine? Again, a simple question. If you cannot separate opinion entertainment from actual news sources, you are a fool.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2015, 08:42:43 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 07:48:22 am

Legal aid

Just who is the source of your Hillary passing "classified information"?  Its a simple question that requires no minutia on your part.

The daily mail part of what media company.....er noise machine? Again, a simple question. If you cannot separate opinion entertainment from actual news sources, you are a fool.

~sigh~  There is no need for me to provide a source for something I never said or wrote.  I never said or wrote that Hilary was "passing classified information."

I wrote that she may get a felony charge for "each email she sent which included classified information."  She contends she never sent any.  The federal government's inspector general for the intelligence community thinks otherwise and has made a referral for a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.  You want a source?  Start with the New York Times, or is that too much of an opinion entertainment outlet for your discerning mind?

the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.
“This classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,” Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community....  Exactly how much classified information Mrs. Clinton had on the server is unclear. Investigators said they searched a small sample of 40 emails and found four that contained government secrets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html?_r=0

Let's see... Hilary has said she has turned over something like 30,000 email.  The random sample of 40 found 4 contained government secrets (i.e. classified information).  Being very generous toward Hilary and assuming that the rate in the random sample is ten times as great as the rate in the full universe of 30,000 emails and that would still leave her facing the prospect of 300 felony counts if the Justice Department decides not to give her favorable treatment (and if Obama decides he would prefer Elizabeth Warren to get the Democratic nomination, Hilary has real problems).

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 25, 2015, 09:56:24 am

So if 4 of 40 contain government secrets (classified information) and she turned over 30,000 documents that's 3,000 secrets she has passed. Now that would be grounds to deny her the presidency and most assuredly be grounds for federal prosecution. Of course since she is a darling liberal that means she is excused from obeying the law.

http://news.yahoo.com/sources-justice-asked-consider-probing-clinton-emails-125056472--election.html#

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 25, 2015, 10:38:44 am

She won't be prosecuted unless it helps Obama politically.   I don't see how any investigation would not prove Obama's administration knew all along she was breaking the law.  So she will never be prosecuted imo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 25, 2015, 10:57:20 am

Pekin, whether the administration knew she was breaking the law is irrelevant to the issue of prosecution, and, as I pointed out, if Obama favors Elizabeth Warren, Hilary needs to be very concerned.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 25, 2015, 11:09:25 am

Obama certainly does favor Warren.  But he isn't going to destroy the democratic party over it.

Hillary will never be prosecuted.  The IG has already changed their suggestion to the Justice Department.  It is no longer requesting an investigation into possible criminal charges.  It is now requesting an investigation into "possible mishandling" of classified emails.

By the way, there are almost no "grounds" to deny anyone the presidency.  Hillary is a natural born citizen and over 35.  She could murder people publicly in Times Square, and still could not be denied the presidency if enough idiots like Homo were willing to vote for her.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 04:50:00 pm

Quote

The two investigators did not say whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails. If she received them, it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified. The inspectors general did not address whether they believed Mrs. Clinton should have known such information was not appropriate for her personal email.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html?ref=politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html?ref=politics)


Seems weak legal aid.

Also, it seems rep howdy gowdy is still searching for relevance by leaking...

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 25, 2015, 05:15:50 pm

Try CBS News, NBC news, it's been reported all week.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 05:54:04 pm

Just how does President Barack Hussein Obama prefer Senator Elizabeth Warren over Senator Hillary Clinton?

Can you show any convincing evidence or are you just pulling **** out of your ass?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 25, 2015, 06:37:44 pm

The Obama's and Clintons hate each other.  It is common knowledge.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 25, 2015, 06:53:12 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 05:54:04 pm

Just how does President Barack Hussein Obama prefer Senator Elizabeth Warren over Senator Hillary Clinton?

Can you show any convincing evidence or are you just pulling **** out of your ass?

Hono, do you ever try to keep up on current events, or do you only read liberal blogs?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 26, 2015, 12:04:24 am

 Hillary running means the other side wins.


 You WANT Hillary running !


 Nobody is going to elect Florence Henderson.


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHTtIY1MlvQ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2015, 12:21:42 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 04:50:00 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html?ref=politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html?ref=politics)

Seems weak

So you now at least acknowledge there is a perfectly credible source.... but you want to describe it as "weak."

Any possibility you could explain what makes the New York Times a "weak" source, or which makes the conclusion reached by the IG weak?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2015, 12:26:52 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 25, 2015, 05:54:04 pm

Just how does President Barack Hussein Obama prefer Senator Elizabeth Warren over Senator Hillary Clinton?

Can you show any convincing evidence or are you just pulling **** out of your ass?

You have a bad habit of asking questions without any clear indication who you are directing the questions to.

Without wasting too much time on that bad habit, could you at least point to what anyone here had written indicating that Obama does prefer Warren over Hilary>

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 26, 2015, 11:32:23 am

I posted that.  Obama has puffed up Warren consistently over the last two years, and there is no doubt that Warren is much closer to Obama on liberal idiocracy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2015, 08:18:46 pm

http://therightscoop.com/socialist-bernie-sanders-demands-15-minimum-wage-pays-interns-12-an-hour-lol/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 26, 2015, 11:40:09 pm

If it is on AOL news, it must be true.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/23/body-found-of-man-connected-to-missing-woman-believed-to-be-hum/21213096/?cps=gravity_1593_4857099628786447240

Body found of man connected to missing woman, believed to be 'human/alien hybrid'
Jul 23rd 2015 10:21AM

LOS ANGELES, Ca. (KTLA) -- A man with a home filled with guns and whose decomposed body was found in an SUV in Pacific Palisades was believed to be a human/alien hybrid secretly working with the U.S. government by his fiancée, according to the woman's mother.
Dawn VadBunker was last seen by her family on the same day Jeffery Lash allegedly died. Lash has not been officially identified, but his former attorney confirmed his name to KTLA.
VadBunker's mother believes her daughter has been caught in the middle of a mysterious death investigation and may be suffering from a mental breakdown. According to Laura VadBunker, her daughter believes Lash was an alien "sent to earth to protect us."
"I can't believe this," Laura VadBunker told KTLA in a telephone interview. "It's worse than a Twilight Zone movie and we've lived through hell."
Lash's body was discovered by police on July 17 in an SUV in the 1700 block of Palisades Drive. Police were alerted to the body by an attorney representing the victim's fiancée Catherine Nebron, who also happens to be VadBunker's employer.
Lash collapsed on July 4 in the parking lot of a Bristol Farms in Santa Monica, according to Nebron. She and VadBunker tried to help him, but Lash died, defense attorney Harlan Braun told KTLA.
Nebron and VadBunker believed Lash was a secret government agent, but not entirely human.
"He was part alien and part human and was out to save the world," Laura VadBunker said.
Nebron didn't notify authorities when Lash died because she thought the secret agencies he worked for would come and collect his body, she told Braun.
She left him in her SUV near their home and went to Oregon with VadBunker, whose family reported her missing two days later.
"It was craziness, it was nuts," Braun said.
After two weeks, no one had come to get Lash's body.
"When she came back, she was shocked that the agencies hadn't picked him up," Braun said. "So then she decided she'd better call police."
Inside the home, detectives found more than 1,200 firearms — including handguns, rifles and shotguns — as well as more than 6 tons of ammunition, according Braun.
There were also a number of SUV's modified for use on different types of terrains, including an amphibious vehicle, he said.
Braun also claimed police found $230,000 in cash, which his client knew nothing about.
As for VadBunker, she has still not returned from Oregon or called her parents or her children, her mother said.
She did send a letter in which she confirmed she was there when "Bob" died and that he "fought to stay alive," according to her mother.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 27, 2015, 06:09:34 am

I have no problem believing what AOL reported is true.  It did not report anyone WAS a human/alien hybrid, but only that someone was making those claims.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 27, 2015, 06:59:48 am

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/photo-no-one-interested-in-young-americans-for-hillary-party/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 27, 2015, 12:43:01 pm

bbbbbbbwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


troll.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 27, 2015, 01:45:03 pm

 

Quote from: davep on July 26, 2015, 11:40:09 pm

If it is on AOL news, it must be true.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/23/body-found-of-man-connected-to-missing-woman-believed-to-be-hum/21213096/?cps=gravity_1593_4857099628786447240 (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/23/body-found-of-man-connected-to-missing-woman-believed-to-be-hum/21213096/?cps=gravity_1593_4857099628786447240)

[/size]Body found of man connected to missing woman, believed to be 'human/alien hybrid'
Jul 23rd 2015 10:21AM[size=78%]

LOS ANGELES, Ca. (KTLA) -- A man with a home filled with guns and whose decomposed body was found in an SUV in Pacific Palisades was believed to be a human/alien hybrid secretly working with the U.S. government by his fiancée, according to the woman's mother.
Dawn VadBunker was last seen by her family on the same day Jeffery Lash allegedly died. Lash has not been officially identified, but his former attorney confirmed his name to KTLA.
VadBunker's mother believes her daughter has been caught in the middle of a mysterious death investigation and may be suffering from a mental breakdown. According to Laura VadBunker, her daughter believes Lash was an alien "sent to earth to protect us."
"I can't believe this," Laura VadBunker told KTLA in a telephone interview. "It's worse than a Twilight Zone movie and we've lived through hell."
Lash's body was discovered by police on July 17 in an SUV in the 1700 block of Palisades Drive. Police were alerted to the body by an attorney representing the victim's fiancée Catherine Nebron, who also happens to be VadBunker's employer.
Lash collapsed on July 4 in the parking lot of a Bristol Farms in Santa Monica, according to Nebron. She and VadBunker tried to help him, but Lash died, defense attorney Harlan Braun told KTLA.
Nebron and VadBunker believed Lash was a secret government agent, but not entirely human.
[/size]"He was part alien and part human and was out to save the world," Laura VadBunker said.[size=78%]
Nebron didn't notify authorities when Lash died because she thought the secret agencies he worked for would come and collect his body, she told Braun.
She left him in her SUV near their home and went to Oregon with VadBunker, whose family reported her missing two days later.
"It was craziness, it was nuts," Braun said.
After two weeks, no one had come to get Lash's body.
"When she came back, she was shocked that the agencies hadn't picked him up," Braun said. "So then she decided she'd better call police."
Inside the home, detectives found more than 1,200 firearms — including handguns, rifles and shotguns — as well as more than 6 tons of ammunition, according Braun.
There were also a number of SUV's modified for use on different types of terrains, including an amphibious vehicle, he said.
Braun also claimed police found $230,000 in cash, which his client knew nothing about.
As for VadBunker, she has still not returned from Oregon or called her parents or her children, her mother said.
She did send a letter in which she confirmed she was there when "Bob" died and that he "fought to stay alive," according to her mother.

 Dave I closed some drug deals with that dude for Jes Beard,


 this time the money's gone and no drugs were delivered.


 Now I'm a marked man for the Beards players that are looking for me,


 until I come up with the money or the drugs.


 I thought that you were going to come through with your Colombian connections,


 to get my ass out of this bind with the Beards people.


 You gave your word you would underwrite me on this deal if things fell apart.


 I'm expecting you to step up and be a man of your word.


 It's only $1'500'000.00 to set the record straight with Beard ...


 that's chump change to you.


 Let's get this resolved.  ;D


 And get business back to normal. :D


 


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 27, 2015, 04:12:44 pm

Many in Nation Tired of Explaining Things to Idiots



JUNE 23, 2015
BOROWITZ REPORT
BY ANDY BOROWITZ


MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report)—Many Americans are tired of explaining things to idiots, particularly when the things in question are so painfully obvious, a new poll indicates.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, while millions have been vexed for some time by their failure to explain incredibly basic information to dolts, that frustration has now reached a breaking point.

Of the many obvious things that people are sick and tired of trying to get through the skulls of stupid people, the fact that climate change will cause catastrophic habitat destruction and devastating extinctions tops the list, with a majority saying that they will no longer bother trying to explain this to cretins.

Coming in a close second, statistical proof that gun control has reduced gun deaths in countries around the world is something that a significant number of those polled have given up attempting to break down for morons.

Finally, a majority said that trying to make idiots understand why a flag that symbolizes bigotry and hatred has no business flying over a state capitol only makes the person attempting to explain this want to put his or her fist through a wall.

In a result that suggests a dismal future for the practice of explaining things to idiots, an overwhelming number of those polled said that they were considering abandoning such attempts altogether, with a broad majority agreeing with the statement, “This country is exhausting.”


 Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 27, 2015, 04:41:15 pm

 Otto,


 Your lack of payoff is some of why I'm $475'000.00 short from your weekly deposit,


 and you Packer fans were supposed to have integrity.


 Wheres the kickback from the nachos franchises at Lambeau ?


 Don't give me that **** that you ate up all the profits again.


 They are not buying that in Chicago anymore ... they want money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 27, 2015, 04:59:39 pm

Leave Homo alone.  He is thinking of quitting his job and work full time for Scott Walker's campaign.  He loves how he has shaped up his state, and wants to help him do it for the rest of the country.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 27, 2015, 05:00:09 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 27, 2015, 12:43:01 pm

bbbbbbbwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


Moron speak

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 27, 2015, 05:05:00 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 27, 2015, 04:12:44 pm

Many in Nation Tired of Explaining Things to Idiots



JUNE 23, 2015
BOROWITZ REPORT
BY ANDY BOROWITZ


MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report)—Many Americans are tired of explaining things to idiots, particularly when the things in question are so painfully obvious, a new poll indicates.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, while millions have been vexed for some time by their failure to explain incredibly basic information to dolts, that frustration has now reached a breaking point.

Of the many obvious things that people are sick and tired of trying to get through the skulls of stupid people, the fact that climate change will cause catastrophic habitat destruction and devastating extinctions tops the list, with a majority saying that they will no longer bother trying to explain this to cretins.

Coming in a close second, statistical proof that gun control has reduced gun deaths in countries around the world is something that a significant number of those polled have given up attempting to break down for morons.

Finally, a majority said that trying to make idiots understand why a flag that symbolizes bigotry and hatred has no business flying over a state capitol only makes the person attempting to explain this want to put his or her fist through a wall.

In a result that suggests a dismal future for the practice of explaining things to idiots, an overwhelming number of those polled said that they were considering abandoning such attempts altogether, with a broad majority agreeing with the statement, “This country is exhausting.”


 Enjoy

What idiot publication did you dig up that garbage at? Tell that to Chicago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 27, 2015, 05:28:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 27, 2015, 04:12:44 pm

Coming in a close second, statistical proof that gun control has reduced gun deaths in countries around the world is something that a significant number of those polled have given up attempting to break down for morons.

Gun control in Turkey led to the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians

Gun control under Stalin in Russia led to the murder of about 10 million Russians who did not seem to be good communists.

Gun control in Germany led to the genocide of about 6 million Jews.

Gun control in the American west contributed to the genocide of the native Americans.

Gun control in Cambodia led to the Killing Fields and re-education camp deaths of about a million and a half Cambodians.

Gun control in China led first to the **** of Nanking and then, under Mao, to the deaths of more than 10 million Chinese who did not seem to be good communists.

Gun control in Rwanda led to the genocide of roughly 800,000 Tutsi people.

Any contending gun control has led to fewer deaths never learned how to count.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2015, 08:35:11 am

The above post was brought to you by the libertarian conservative folks working to keep stupid in the stupid party.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 28, 2015, 10:37:00 am

The above post was brought you by the liberal Homo, who's only rebuttal is to call names.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2015, 11:09:14 am

davepbart


Do you really think the Holocaust happened because of gun control or our history of massacring Native Americans because they lacked a machine gun?

Really.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 28, 2015, 11:52:23 am

Maybe you and that legal aid think that arming African-American people in the deep south in the era of Jim Crow would have led to bliss, but I don't think so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 28, 2015, 03:37:47 pm

It would be hard to have a holocaust if the population is well armed.  That is why we have the second amendment.  And the prohibition against trading arms to the Indians certainly put them in a much different situation.  When they managed to get repeating rifles, they took care of Custer pretty well.  At the very least, they could have gone down fighting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2015, 04:17:14 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 28, 2015, 11:09:14 am

davepbart
Do you really think the Holocaust happened because of gun control or our history of massacring Native Americans because they lacked a machine gun?
Really.

otto, do you really think that in the 1800's there were any machine guns which the Native Americans could have obtained?

Really?

If you genuinely believe Native Americans could have been slaughtered and forced off their lands as easily as they were if they had the opportunity to be armed as well as those attacking them, of that 6 million Jews could have been murdered as easily as they were, your knowledge of history, and of mankind, is even more limited than I would have assumed. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2015, 04:23:15 pm

Quote from: davep on July 28, 2015, 03:37:47 pm

It would be hard to have a holocaust if the population is well armed.  That is why we have the second amendment.  And the prohibition against trading arms to the Indians certainly put them in a much different situation.  When they managed to get repeating rifles, they took care of Custer pretty well.  At the very least, they could have gone down fighting.

They wouldn't have gone down at all.  Had Native Americans been allowed to arm themselves, the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which resulted in the Trail of Tears and the removal of "the five civilized tribes" from the SE would almost certainly not have happened.  The Cherokee and the others in that group were already assimilating.  They were blending in with the newer culture coming from the east, and they would have co-existed perfectly well.  Instead, since they were largely unarmed, they were removed, their land stolen, and the nation proceeded down that same path thru the rest of its settlement of the west.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 28, 2015, 06:25:32 pm

Quote

  their land stolen, 

Wasn't their land to begin with. God's land. He gives it to whom He wishes. Just like if we continue down the path we're headed, He can remove US and give our land to someone else....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 28, 2015, 06:32:02 pm

I agree with your major premise, but not with your example.  In 1830, the Cherokee were indeed assimilating.  Among other things, they had invented their own alphabet, passed a mandatory education requirement for EVERY Cherokee (both men and women) that resulted in a literacy rate of over 90 percent at a time that the literacy rate of whites in america was about 10 percent. 

They had 5 presses that produced newspapers in the Cherokee language.  And the chief of their tribe lived in a two story brick house that, when confiscated by the State of Georgia, served as the Governor's mansion of the state until about 1950.

However, there were no laws restricting their ownership of guns that I have ever heard of.  If you know of any, I would like to have a reference to it.

The removal was able to take place because they were overwhelmingly outnumbered by their opponents.  And, by the way, quite a few Cherokee remained on their land, and were not generally molested once the hysteria subsided and Jackson was out of office.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2015, 06:52:16 pm

Quote from: davep on July 28, 2015, 06:32:02 pm

I agree with your major premise, but not with your example.  In 1830, the Cherokee were indeed assimilating.  Among other things, they had invented their own alphabet, passed a mandatory education requirement for EVERY Cherokee (both men and women) that resulted in a literacy rate of over 90 percent at a time that the literacy rate of whites in america was about 10 percent. 

They had 5 presses that produced newspapers in the Cherokee language.  And the chief of their tribe lived in a two story brick house that, when confiscated by the State of Georgia, served as the Governor's mansion of the state until about 1950.

However, there were no laws restricting their ownership of guns that I have ever heard of.  If you know of any, I would like to have a reference to it.

The removal was able to take place because they were overwhelmingly outnumbered by their opponents.  And, by the way, quite a few Cherokee remained on their land, and were not generally molested once the hysteria subsided and Jackson was out of office.

Very few remained on their land.  Those who avoided the Trail of Tears largely withdrew into the Appalachians and lived in isolation so no one knew they were there.

As to your question about gun ownership, are you simply saying you are unaware of the actual wording or code sections, or are you instead saying that that you genuinely believe that in the 1800's it was legal under federal or state laws to sell firearms to Native Americans?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 28, 2015, 07:10:07 pm

I am saying that I have not heard of any law, federal or state, that prevented the selling of firearms to the Cherokee in the time leading up to the removal in 1830.  As I said, if you can reference any such law, I would like to know of it.

As I said, SOME of the Cherokee stayed on their land.  And some of that land was in the mountains of the area where you previously lived in Georgia.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2015, 07:15:44 pm

Quote from: davep on July 28, 2015, 07:10:07 pm

As I said, SOME of the Cherokee stayed on their land.

Quote from: davep on July 28, 2015, 06:32:02 pm

And, by the way, quite a few Cherokee remained on their land, and were not generally molested once the hysteria subsided and Jackson was out of office.

Details, details....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2015, 07:16:20 pm

At a time when the nation needs politicians who are honest, direct and completely open about their positions, it is a good thing we have Hillary.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xS_YIY2i2U

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 28, 2015, 07:24:44 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 28, 2015, 07:15:44 pm

Details, details....

Just out of curiosity, exactly how many is "quite a few"? in your mind.  I have seen estimates that close to half of the Cherokee and larger portions of Creek and Seminole did not go to Oklahoma.

http://www.georgiatribeofeasterncherokee.com/

The story that ALL Cherokees were removed in 1838 is a myth... even though it was a horrible event and many thousands of Cherokee died. Many whites came into the Cherokee country of north Georgia for over 35 years prior to the federally mandated removal of 1838. A large number came as gold miners and fortune seekers as a direct result of the State of Georgia sponsored Cherokee land and gold lotteries, which were held a full decade prior to the 1838 removal and designed to facilitate conflicts. Most of the early settlers were single white men who married Cherokee wives and many produced large families of mixed blood children; consequently, those families of mixed heritage having a white as the head of household were exempt from the forced relocation and were in fact NOT removed as history has led most to believe.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2015, 07:32:01 pm

Quote from: davep on July 28, 2015, 06:32:02 pm

And the chief of their tribe lived in a two story brick house that, when confiscated by the State of Georgia, served as the Governor's mansion of the state until about 1950.

Sorry, but I missed this when I read your post initially.

Your comment is not only at odds with my knowledge of the Chief Vann House (less than 10 miles from where my wife and I still life), but it would seem to be at odds with anything I can find about the house.  http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/Chief_Vann_House_Historic_Site  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Vann_House_Historic_Site  And sites dealing with the history of the governor's mansion are also in conflict with your statement.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Governor%27s_Mansion_(Milledgeville,_Georgia)  http://www.gcsu.edu/mansion/   

Completed in 1839, the Old Governor's Mansion is one of the finest examples of High Greek Revival architecture in the nation.  Designed by noted architect Charles Clusky, an Irish immigrant and built by Timothy Porter of Farmington, Connecticut, the Mansion looms over Milledgeville with its stately columns and imposing facade. Serving as the residence for Georgia's chief executives for over thirty years, the Mansion's history encompasses the antebellum, Civil War, and early Reconstruction phases of the state's history.   Such noted state leaders as George Crawford, Howell Cobb and Joseph E. Brown resided in the building and used it as a stage for speeches and also to introduce guests of national standing.

The Old Governor’s Mansion also served as a stage on which many elements of the complex social issues of the antebellum period were played out. Slavery and the complexity of society and gender roles are among the issues that shape the history of the building and are explored in tandem with the issues of politics.

During the Civil War, the Mansion was claimed as a "prize" in the "March to the Sea," when General William T. Sherman headquartered in the building on November 23, 1864. Following the war, Georgia's seat of government was relocated to Atlanta, and the Mansion was abandoned. Given over to Georgia Normal & Industrial College (currently known as Georgia College) in 1889, the Mansion served as the founding building of the institution and is the campus's most treasured structure.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2015, 07:42:05 pm

Quote from: davep on July 28, 2015, 07:24:44 pm

Just out of curiosity, exactly how many is "quite a few"? in your mind.  I have seen estimates that close to half of the Cherokee and larger portions of Creek and Seminole did not go to Oklahoma.

http://www.georgiatribeofeasterncherokee.com/

The story that ALL Cherokees were removed in 1838 is a myth... even though it was a horrible event and many thousands of Cherokee died. Many whites came into the Cherokee country of north Georgia for over 35 years prior to the federally mandated removal of 1838. A large number came as gold miners and fortune seekers as a direct result of the State of Georgia sponsored Cherokee land and gold lotteries, which were held a full decade prior to the 1838 removal and designed to facilitate conflicts. Most of the early settlers were single white men who married Cherokee wives and many produced large families of mixed blood children; consequently, those families of mixed heritage having a white as the head of household were exempt from the forced relocation and were in fact NOT removed as history has led most to believe.

Two different issues.  The first the difference between "some" and "quite a few."  Those different terms were yours.  To most people they do not mean the same.

The second being how many were removed -- your source is not particularly persuasive, and the clear factual errors do not help its credibility.  The GA gold rush did NOT begin 35 years prior to the Trail of Tears removal.  The gold rush, which began in Dahlonaga, not far from where I live, began in 1828, 10 years before the Trail of Tears, and 2 years before passage of the Indian Removal Act.  The gold discovery in Dahlonaga created the real impetus for the removal.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlonega,_Georgia

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 29, 2015, 06:05:41 am

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/raising-the-minimum-wage-to--15-hour-will-kill-6-6-million-jobs--aaf-152547994.html#

Notice where these min wage hikes are taking place. Dem run and in financial difficulties.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 29, 2015, 08:59:38 am

Not a good picture of the Rand Paul campaign, or of the candidate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-paul-2016-downward-spiral-gop-campaign-120716.html?ml=po

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 29, 2015, 07:22:23 pm

I was pulling for Rand, but he for sure has fallen off the face of the earth..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 29, 2015, 07:58:32 pm

Trump is stealing the numbers from everyone but Bush.  The establishment liberal Republicans will vote Bush.  Most that would have gone for Carson, Paul or Cruz are being sucked in by Trump.

I still am not sure what he is doing.  Does he even want to be president or does he want concessions from political parties to drop out?

Right now my best guess is he is in it to help Hillary.  I have not seen him attack her but he has trashed a lot of Republicans so far.

Funny thing is even if this was the plan I don't think they dreamed how successful it would be and how fed up people are with the career politicians. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 29, 2015, 08:10:14 pm

The only way he would help Hillary is if he dropped out of the race and ran as a third party candidate, in which case the Republicans will lose.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 29, 2015, 08:19:24 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 29, 2015, 07:58:32 pm

Trump is stealing the numbers from everyone but Bush....  Right now my best guess is he is in it to help Hillary.  I have not seen him attack her but he has trashed a lot of Republicans so far.

I have seen him say this at least three different times, and there are multiple videos of him saying it at different times on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj0e0t-tYis

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 08:42:56 pm

Peak

First, moderate republicans are NOT Liberals. Stop with the stupid **** already.

Second, name one position donald trump has which is at odds with conservative doctrine. He is the **** Frankenstein the conservative movement has created from its run to being a bat **** crazy party.

Third, in it to help Senator Hillary Clinton? Are you really such a nob? If any proof was needed that the conservative movement was just a collection of white **** morons that was it.


trump 2016 vote for me i'm hugely rich.....


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 29, 2015, 09:11:50 pm

Otto, JFK would be considered a right wing tea party loon by the media if he was alive today.  The political elite from both sides of the aisle only care about padding their pockets and keeping power.  This is why Trump is doing so well in the polls.  It really isn't about him other then he is saying what we know to be true.  People are sick of being told up is down, the sky isn't blue and illegal aliens are a great thing for this nation.

McCain, Romney and Lindsey Graham are all liberals or use the term progressives if you prefer.  Makes no difference it is the same thing.

Hillary and Jeb are both more interested in power, getting richer and their big money donors then they are in what is good for this country.

Trump has made a ton of money by having the government take other peoples property.  Eminent Domain is how he has gotten rich.  That is not a conservative.  That is a big government type of guy. Just like Bush and Clinton.

My first choice is Cruz.  Second is Walker.

That said I would vote for a piece of dog **** before I would Hillary Clinton. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 29, 2015, 09:18:56 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 29, 2015, 09:11:50 pm

That said I would vote for a piece of dog **** before I would Hillary Clinton. 

Big talk.  How are you going to tell the difference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 09:23:00 pm

Quote

JFK would be considered a right wing tea party loon by the media if he was alive today.

What the **** is that?

Name one position JFK had which would make a t-bagging piece of **** today? Just one freaking position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 29, 2015, 09:28:24 pm

Substantial income rate cuts.

Threaten war with Russia over missals in Cuba.

Substantial war against organized crime.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 10:03:33 pm

Quote

Substantial income rate cuts.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter)

You now can stop with the idiot myth.

Quote

Threaten war with Russia over missals in Cuba.

(http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/movment-teabaggers-tea-party.jpg)

Quote

Substantial war against organized crime.

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Q/v/4/secede-misspelled.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 29, 2015, 10:13:35 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 10:03:33 pm

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter)

You now can stop with the idiot myth.

So are you denying that JFK supported substantial income tax rate cuts?

Even your link states, "JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy."  Are you disputing what your own link stated as fact?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 10:17:19 pm

Great another white piece of **** cop.

https://youtu.be/UbxE-qmcChA (https://youtu.be/UbxE-qmcChA)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 10:20:57 pm

legal aid

Stop with the completely idiotic minutia and just except your stupidity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 29, 2015, 10:30:08 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 10:03:33 pm

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter)

You now can stop with the idiot myth.

I said Kennedy supported substantial tax cuts.  Are you saying that he did not?



(http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/movment-teabaggers-tea-party.jpg)


(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Q/v/4/secede-misspelled.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 29, 2015, 10:31:56 pm

Homo, you forgot to answer the question.  Are you saying that Kennedy did not support substantial tax cuts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 29, 2015, 10:33:27 pm

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

 ______________________________

 "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

 ______________________________

 "It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President

 ______________________________

 "A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

 _____________________________

 "The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 29, 2015, 10:36:40 pm

Quote

and just except your stupidity.

Can't make this stuff up....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 29, 2015, 10:39:29 pm

Pekin - try not to confuse Homo with the facts.  He learns what little he knows from liberal bloggers and apologists.  He channels his blind faith into lunacy rather than religion, but the principle is the same.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 10:40:45 pm

OK, I'll note that t-baggery supports a 65% top marginal rate.


Excerpt from article.

Quote

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

What part of context are you missing ****?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 01:31:56 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 10:40:45 pm

OK, I'll note that t-baggery supports a 65% top marginal rate.


Excerpt from article.
What part of context are you missing ****?

What part of "projection" do you not understand?

You and the writer you site are focusing on the motivation you have projected on JFK.  We mere mortals simply focus on what Kennedy did and the reasons he gave for doing it instead of trying to divine his sole.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 30, 2015, 05:00:04 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 08:42:56 pm

Peak

First, moderate republicans are NOT Liberals. Stop with the stupid **** already.

Second, name one position donald trump has which is at odds with conservative doctrine. He is the **** Frankenstein the conservative movement has created from its run to being a bat **** crazy party.

Third, in it to help Senator Hillary Clinton? Are you really such a nob? If any proof was needed that the conservative movement was just a collection of white **** morons that was it.


trump 2016 vote for me i'm hugely rich.....


Enjoy

This from someone that has Hillary and Bernie running on his side, talk about "white morons"... What a laugher!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 30, 2015, 06:59:26 am

I see new home sales are down, consumer confidence is down. The economy is nowhere close to where it should be. We have liberal monkeys running the show, the media pushing their agenda, and this is what we get. People with money are not spending it, they're hanging on tight..

The dems suck ass, they've gone so far left they're a joke. The Repub's are continually running scared with no leadership. Then there's Obama, nuff said there..

How about Christie saying if elected he would enforce the federal laws in regards to pot. That'll get ya elected..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 30, 2015, 11:21:55 am

http://stop-hate-crimes.com/2015/07/29/home-with-confederate-flag-invaded-family-members-shot-and-stabbed/

Not much talk about this

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 30, 2015, 11:29:04 am

Quote from: otto105 on July 29, 2015, 10:40:45 pm

OK, I'll note that t-baggery supports a 65% top marginal rate.


Excerpt from article.
What part of context are you missing ****?

Homo - the part we are missing is the part where they supply a reasonable context.  What Kennedy did is exactly the same thing that conservatives advocate, and for the same reasons.  It might help if you actually tried to learn something, rather than restrict yourself to the looney left blogs.

Of course, that assumes you have the ability to learn.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2015, 01:28:30 pm

Davebart

Before you drown in your own vomit can YOU point to one conservative t-bag who supports Keynesian economics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 30, 2015, 01:40:53 pm

Does Keynsian economics support lowering taxes in order to stimulate the economy?  If so, almost all conservatives support that portion of it.

Of course, that is an extremely tiny portion of Keynsian economics, and not one if fashion among idiot liberals right now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on July 30, 2015, 02:24:18 pm

Mark's Market Blog
7-26-15: Gold!
by Mark Lawrence
Stocks are dropping. Gold is crashing. Oil is crashing. Why? Why not? This market is starting to look long in the tooth - only about 40% of all stocks are participating in the bull market, the rest are below their 200 day moving averages. The DOW transportation index is down more than 10% from its peak, which is considered a warning of a correction in DOW theory. I've given up looking for a correction; a Merrill Lynch trader said recently, "We all know dozens of people who have predicted 17 of the last zero corrections."
 
S&P 500 January 26 2014 to July 24 2015
Gold continues to drop towards $1000, hitting $1078. There's no sign of a bottom right now. If you're a believer in gold and the idea that fiat currencies are doomed, it will be time to stock up soon. Oil also continues to drop, but I certainly am not seeing that in lower gasoline prices. This week oil dropped below $50 for the first time in four months. Saudi Arabia continues to pump record amounts; apparently they're very satisfied with lower prices.


Amazon had spectacular results - they announced a quarterly profit! $92 million on $23 billion of sales, 0.4%. But for the first time their quarterly results didn't have a minus sign in front. Their stock rocketed up 15% overnight on Friday. The result? Jeff Bezos is now worth $7 billion more than he was on Thursday, and Amazon is worth more than Walmart. Walmart, by the way, made a bit over $3 billion in the same time frame, 30 times as much as Amazon. Amazon has about 5% as much sales overall as Walmart, but about seven times as much sales on-line. Walmart is spending well north of a billion dollars on their web site, intending to upgrade it to Amazon levels.


Ebay and Paypal are splitting up. Paypal wants to be independent to gain the mobility to compete with ApplePay and Google Wallet and the other coming on-line payment systems. Ebay bought Paypal in 2002 for $1.5 billion; now it's thought to be "worth" about $45 billion. A tidy profit for Ebay shareholders. Does it make sense? We're told that the price of a share reflects the total of discounted future earnings. Paypal does about $235 billion worth of transactions per year; if the money comes from paypal balances or your bank account then Paypal's cut is about 3%. It's about half that if the money comes from a Visa, but I'm going to assume that's not an important part of Paypal's transactions. So Paypal has a gross operating income apparently of about $7 billion. I have no idea what their profits are, but if they're a typical silicon valley company they don't have any. They're in a field which is presumed to be looking at major shakeups in the near future - some wonder if Visa and Mastercard can survive, and it's commonly believed that major banks will not be able to compete in the field of on- line payments. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how a company that makes perhaps $1 billion to $2 billion per year (optimistically) and is in a field looking forward to a major shakeup is worth $45 billion. Buy and hold the shares at your own peril, imho. But then Amazon will make perhaps $100 million this year and is apparently worth $260 billion.

China's PMI (purchasing managers index) is tanking, lending further credibility to a slowdown, perhaps even a recession in China. However, China's PMI collapses routinely so it's not time to panic or throw a party or anything like that. Electricity consumption is growing at 1.3% year on year, making China's claim of 7% growth hard to believe. The signs and portents are starting to line up for China: massive bad loans hidden in the banks; massive real estate bubble; massive stock market bubble; labor prices rising to uncompetitive levels; new laws causing problems for foreign firms; new laws giving the government massively intrusive powers into people's day to day lives; trouble coexisting with neighbors.


China has a plan to increase the size of Beijing from the current 11.5 million people, making it half again bigger than New York, to 130 million people, making it slightly larger than Japan. They're studying details for how and where to build infrastructure. China currently has no property tax and such a project probably cannot work with their current tax system.

World trade is dropping off quickly. This is especially bad news for the major exporting countries: China, Germany, Japan, and the SE Asia tigers. It's not so great for the US, but we still have a strong internal consumer economy, we don't depend nearly as much on others buying our products.


Obama warned the UK that if they leave the EU they will lose influence in the world. Were I a Brit this would shake me up: Obama is perhaps the leading world expert in a country losing influence in the world.

The USGS says a major earthquake on the Hayward-Fremont fault could happen "any day now." There was a 4.0 a few days ago, perhaps a precursor to something larger. In the past the Fremont fault has produced 6.5 - 6.8 earthquakes every 140 years or so; it's been 147 years since it last went off. The fault runs through Berkeley and Oakland. What would we do without the People's Republic of Berkeley and the Oakland Raiders?


Special Bonus Picture of the Week: Our young men spend all their time playing video games instead of going to college or learning a skill. What are they learning while gaming? Here's a bunch of video heroines, then re-drawn as they would look if they had the same figure as the average 20-something US woman.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 04:31:57 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 30, 2015, 01:28:30 pm

Davebart

Before you drown in your own vomit can YOU point to one conservative t-bag who supports Keynesian economics.

otto, whether ANYone supports or opposes Keynesian economics is irrelevant to the original point.

And, while we are at it, otto, do you even understand Keynesian economics?  Have you ever studied it?  Ever read any of Keynes' books?  Ever take any courses focusing on it?

In other words, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

If you claim you do, can you, in your own words, explain how Keynes' views differed from Milton Friedman's?  Can you explain how, if at all, Keynesian economics is in any way in conflict with supply-side theory or how it might be at odds with the Laffer Curve?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 04:41:25 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on July 30, 2015, 11:21:55 am

http://stop-hate-crimes.com/2015/07/29/home-with-confederate-flag-invaded-family-members-shot-and-stabbed/

Not much talk about this

Should there be?  If so, why?

Do you genuinely believe that the non-fatal injuries of five people because of something they did is a comparable news story to the fatal shootings of nine people and the injury to another for what they were?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 04:57:32 pm

Jes, Are you saying because they flew the confederate battle flag they got what they deserved?

Also they would probably be dead if they had not had a gun and shot back and killed one of the assailants.  At least some of the 9 people shot and killed in the church would probably be alive today if one of them had a gun and had shot back at their assailant.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 30, 2015, 06:25:41 pm

 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is fascinated about re running the wrongs of it's past
 
, wearing it on it's sleeve in guilt , and turning it into a profit.  :D


 No other country is that smart.


 It would be like if Russia could cut a profit on it's pogroms and Stalin's executions.


 There's a script there and a plot line. But could they turn it into a happy ending ...


 without their version of Alex Haley ?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 30, 2015, 07:16:11 pm

And the 4 confederate flags left at the Atlanta church is big news. Did I leave out black church.... Oh, now that is news..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 30, 2015, 07:16:53 pm

http://yahoo.thepostgame.com/blog/heroes-villains/201507/john-boehner-said-congressmen-wont-allow-him-play-golf-obama

We can't even play golf together anymore? Really? Maybe that's part of the problem..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2015, 07:19:07 pm

Legal aid to nobody

How about YOU explain in tedious detail the the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.

And while your at it please justify what if anything economic joke Art Laughter has added to ANY discussion on economic policy. Please include Sam shitback's state with the explanation.

That should prove entertaining. Just like the results of voodoo economics called supply side.

I'll wait.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 30, 2015, 07:38:00 pm

In other words, Homo had no idea what the difference is between the two Economic theories.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2015, 07:45:26 pm

Do you even think before you post?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 30, 2015, 07:53:45 pm

And davepbart

Story in Wisconsin has the weasel lying again about the open records law.

Maybe you can comment....before it sinks in that he can't even win his state.

Get those lips...,rosy..,

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 30, 2015, 07:57:22 pm

 I need a 90 year history of a Russian plot line ... any takers ? I pay good.  :D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: forrest city joe on July 30, 2015, 08:03:44 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/top-advocate-for-americans-trapped-in-iran-supports-nuclear-deal_55ba308be4b095423d0df454?utm_hp_ref=politics

God bless you, Obama.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 08:06:47 pm

chifan,  The reason he can't golf with Obama is because he caves into him at every turn and conservatives hate his guts for it.  When he does that then goes golfing with him it is a bad look.

If he would be a true conservative and worry more about the good of the country then keeping his power no one would have a problem with him golfing with the president.

The same dbag has spent more time going after conservatives then he ever has stopping the liberal agenda. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 08:12:47 pm

A Democrat and the Huffington post agree with Obama to the detriment of country?  Amazing!

It is a terrible deal and will lead to war.   Israel has no option now but to bomb them.  It is only a matter of when not if.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 30, 2015, 08:18:17 pm

I agree Peke

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 30, 2015, 08:23:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 30, 2015, 07:53:45 pm

And davepbart

Story in Wisconsin has the weasel lying again about the open records law.

Maybe you can comment....before it sinks in that he can't even win his state.

Get those lips...,rosy..,

Another lefty wingnut blog comes out against Walker.

No matter.  He won three elections in a row in Wisconsin.  You need not fear that the left wingnuts will be able to lie enough to defeat him.  Be proud.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 30, 2015, 08:40:56 pm

 

Quote from: forrest city joe on July 30, 2015, 08:03:44 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/top-advocate-for-americans-trapped-in-iran-supports-nuclear-deal_55ba308be4b095423d0df454?utm_hp_ref=politics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/top-advocate-for-americans-trapped-in-iran-supports-nuclear-deal_55ba308be4b095423d0df454?utm_hp_ref=politics)

God bless you, Obama.

 Those Americans will unfortunately have to die when we declare war on Iran.


 What the hell were they doing there in the first place ?


 They will have to die when we release our debacle.


 DEATH TO IRAN !!


 

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 08:12:47 pm

A Democrat and the Huffington post agree with Obama to the detriment of country?  Amazing!

It is a terrible deal and will lead to war.   Israel has no option now but to bomb them.  It is only a matter of when not if.

 How about tomorrow morning after I get my breakfast at Dennys?


 DEATH TO ... uhhh I fergot ... who the **** is anybody bombing now ?


 Hey Duck remember Boomer ? "Boomer" was his name because he ran the tail boom on an Air Force tanker.


 Boomer is also the name of a Navy submarine ...


 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile ... SLBM ... submarine.


 Do you know how many are off the coast of Iran at any given moment ?


 That's funny I don't either. And neither do the Iranians.


 That's why Iran can talk the talk ... but they know better then to walk the walk.


 At any point in time they can be vaporized in 15 minutes.


 You think they don't know that ? They know that.  >:(   ;D


 WHEN YOU HAVE SO MUCH POWER ...


 anybody can push you around at a grass roots level ...


 because they know you won't go all the way.


 That's what they are counting on.


 You can tickle the dragons tail ... but the dragon will never strike back like a dragon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 08:50:59 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 04:57:32 pm

Jes, Are you saying because they flew the confederate battle flag they got what they deserved?

Let's make this easy.

What I wrote is right there.  It hasn't been edited.  You tell me, was I saying because they flew the confederate battle flag they got what they deserved"?  Were such words anywhere in what I wrote?

If so, please point it out to me

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 08:55:59 pm

JJ, the Iranian people especially the younger generation just want to live their lives.  However the religious fanatics run the country.

When someone leads chants of "Death to Israel" and Death to America" for years on end perhaps they really mean it?

Mutual destruction is a real deterrent with rational people.  That is why the USSR and the US never launched nuclear bombs at one another.  Israel can be destroyed with one nuclear bomb.  They will not stand for Iran having a nuclear bomb.  This deal pretty much assures they will get one.

Obama is this generations Chamberlain.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 09:02:01 pm

Jes, he never said the two were the same yet you accused him of doing so...

I just felt I would hold you to the same standard while also giving you the opportunity to make yourself more clear.

Either way racist people tried to kill innocent people.  The media ignores it when it is black on white hate crimes.  They won't shut up about it when it is white on black hate crimes.

Democrat presidential candidate O'Malley got shouted down and had to apologize for saying, "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter".

Is it ok for blacks to be racist just because they are a minority?   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 30, 2015, 09:08:03 pm

 You still have those boomers of the coast Duck. It's over in 15 minutes.


 It's going to happen that fast and whatever is an Iranian government knows that.


 Are the Iranian people sane ? You know damn good and well they can't wait to get out from under the "government" that controls them.


 Think Cuba with diplomatic relations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 09:09:13 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on July 30, 2015, 07:16:11 pm

And the 4 confederate flags left at the Atlanta church is big news.

Really?  Your mention of it here is the first time I have seen it.

I am not disputing your comment that there were four confederate flags left there (nor am I conceding it -- I simply am entirely unaware either way because I do not recall either seeing it or having heard of it), but simply pointing out that your contention that such a fact was treated as if it were "big news" seems completely at odds with reality.

Quote from: chifaninva on July 30, 2015, 07:16:11 pm

Did I leave out black church.... Oh, now that is news..

Considering that the shooter made clear he was targeting his victims BECAUSE they were black, and BECAUSE he hoped to start a race war, are you sincerely suggesting the fact that the victims were black, or that the shootings took place in a church with a largely (or even entirely) black congregation should NOT have been given prominent attention in the coverage of the story?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 09:14:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on July 30, 2015, 07:19:07 pm

How about YOU explain in tedious detail the the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.
And while your at it please justify what if anything economic joke Art Laughter has added to ANY discussion on economic policy. Please include Sam shitback's state with the explanation.
That should prove entertaining. Just like the results of voodoo economics called supply side.
I'll wait.....

otto, I am not the one who tried to introduce economic theory into this discussion.  There is no reason for me to address either monetary or fiscal policy (though my undergraduate degree was i economics and I actually could explain the difference).  You, however, posted contentions which would actually require you to understand Keynsian economics, and to distinguish Keynesian economics from other economic schools of thought, and, as expected, you are unable to do so.

Thankyou for once again reaffirming that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 30, 2015, 09:17:01 pm

Homo knows it is true.  He read it in a lefty wingnut blog.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 30, 2015, 09:27:49 pm

 They took "The Dukes Of Hazzard" off TV because a CAR ...


 a **** CAR from the 1970's had a confederate flag painted on it.


 Now how the **** do you go from a nutjob holding confederate flags in photo's to taking reruns of a TV show off the air ?


 Otto,


 Explain the relationship to me sweetheart.  ???


 People were getting royalties checks from reruns and now they are not.


 BECAUSE OF WHAT THAT THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH ??


 ANSWER ME OTTO !!! You gotta justify this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 09:45:19 pm

JJ, you might want to look up their end of world beliefs.  It is a fanatical religious government.  When you have a theocracy you have to throw reason out the window.

Is it reasonable for young men with their whole lives ahead of them to blow themselves up to get 12 virgins in the afterlife?  Maybe if they were just able to get laid in the real world radical islam would go away.

 

   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 09:48:35 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 09:02:01 pm

Jes, he never said the two were the same yet you accused him of doing so...

I just felt I would hold you to the same standard while also giving you the opportunity to make yourself more clear.

Either way racist people tried to kill innocent people.  The media ignores it when it is black on white hate crimes.  They won't shut up about it when it is white on black hate crimes.

Democrat presidential candidate O'Malley got shouted down and had to apologize for saying, "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter".

Is it ok for blacks to be racist just because they are a minority?   

In my last post on this, I asked you if I was "saying because they flew the confederate battle flag they got what they deserved"?  I asked you if such words anywhere in what I wrote, and I asked that in response to your post in which you asked if I was "saying because they flew the confederate battle flag they got what they deserved?" 

Those were your words.  You asked if I was "saying," something and I pointed out that what I was saying was what appeared in my post.  Since you have not pointed to any language in which I did say that, I assume you have now answered your own question with the realization that those words never appeared in my post (nor did such an implication appear).

Now, you write that I "accused him of" saying the "two were the same."

So my question to you this time is whether you can find and cut and paste the language in my post where I "accused him of" saying the two were the same.  The only post of mine at issue would seem to be the one in which I asked if he "genuinely believe(d) that the non-fatal injuries of five people because of something they did is a comparable news story to the fatal shootings of nine people and the injury to another for what they were."

Is a sincere question the same as an accusation?

The rest of your post is off topic.  If you want to discuss it, go right ahead.  That doesn't mean I have any interest in joining in the discussion.

My focus is entirely the first sentence of yours.  (I don't care one way or the other about the lame defense you offer in your second sentence about holding me "to the same standards.")  I would just like to see you point out the language in my post where I "accused him of" saying the "two were the same."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 09:51:24 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 09:45:19 pm

When you have a theocracy you have to throw reason out the window.
   

You are trying to carry on a rational discussion with JJ, and you are commenting on throwing reason out the window?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on July 30, 2015, 10:07:09 pm

 

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 09:51:24 pm

You are trying to carry on a rational discussion with JJ, and you are commenting on throwing reason out the window?

 Duck,


 I think you missed the point ... How does a TV show relate to a mass killing ?


 Bearded Clam,


 I was trying to have a rational discussion with your mother while I was **** her doggy style and shaving the hair off her back.


 Your claims that I am your father cannot be supported by any blood test ...


 except for that fuckin DNA test.  :o

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

Re: Politics, Religion, etc.

« Reply #7468 on: Today at 04:41:25 pm »




Quote from: chifaninva on Today at 11:21:55 am

http://stop-hate-crimes.com/2015/07/29/home-with-confederate-flag-invaded-family-members-shot-and-stabbed/

Not much talk about this




Should there be?  If so, why?

Do you genuinely believe that the non-fatal injuries of five people because of something they did is a comparable news story to the fatal shootings of nine people and the injury to another for what they were?

Just explain your question here just like you are asking me to explain mine to you.  It is just that simple.

I believe they are comparable.  Just because the attackers were not successful does not mean they weren't as heinous.  These folks were lucky enough to be armed and to be able to return fire and kill one of the attackers.  There was a women involved and children were sleeping upstairs. 

Granted it wasn't a church but a person was killed and there were multiple injuries.  This should be a big story.  Black racist tried to kill white people due to them flying a confederate battle flag.

Every time their is a radical Islamic terrorist attack in America it is deemed work hostility and we are all told not to hold the Muslim religion responsible.  When a racist nut job white guy kills black people in a church and had a picture of himself with a Confederate battle flag we have to remove it from society, take TV shows off the air and ban musicians who used it in their shows. Yet when nut job racist black people try and kill white people for flying it?  That is a non-story?  Really?

I would think if we have people targeting people for death for flying a confederate battle flag people should be informed of this.  Don't you?

     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 11:41:58 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

Just explain your question here just like you are asking me to explain mine to you.  It is just that simple.   

In this exchange I have twice asked you to point to language in my posts where I wrote or said what you had claimed.  So far you have failed to do so.  (I would suggest the simple reason for your failure is that I simply did not write or say what you claimed either time.)

Now you tell me to "explain (my) question... just like (I am) asking (you) to explain (yours) to" me.  Can you point out where in any of my posts in this exchange that I asked you to "explain" anything?  I asked you to find and point out to me the language in my posts where I had written as you had claimed.  I asked you to "explain" nothing.  I STILL am not asking you to explain anything.

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

I believe they are comparable.

They are not.  My comment is based on news judgment and nothing more, and the two stories are simply not remotely comparable and should not have been given remotely comparable news coverage.  If you look at anything remotely resembling a true news organization, your will find that the news coverage of the two was not comparable.  This might tell you something.

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

Just because the attackers were not successful does not mean they weren't as heinous.  These folks were lucky enough to be armed and to be able to return fire and kill one of the attackers.  There was a women involved and children were sleeping upstairs. 

Granted it wasn't a church but a person was killed and there were multiple injuries.  This should be a big story.  Black racist tried to kill white people due to them flying a confederate battle flag.

Every time their is a radical Islamic terrorist attack in America it is deemed work hostility and we are all told not to hold the Muslim religion responsible.  When a racist nut job white guy kills black people in a church and had a picture of himself with a Confederate battle flag we have to remove it from society, take TV shows off the air and ban musicians who used it in their shows. Yet when nut job racist black people try and kill white people for flying it?  That is a non-story?  Really?

I would think if we have people targeting people for death for flying a confederate battle flag people should be informed of this.  Don't you?     

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

Just because the attackers were not successful does not mean they weren't as heinous.     

But it does mean it is not as significant a news story.  The heinousness of an act relates to what was in an individuals heart or mind, and that is a relatively insignificant factor in determining its news value or significance.  The actions of the Aurora, CO, movie theatre gunman may not have been "heinous" at all if the guy was nuts and didn't know what he was doing, but that does not alter the news value of the story.  Yes, whether an effort to kill is or is not successful is the primary factor in determining a story's news value.

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

This should be a big story.  Black racist tried to kill white people due to them flying a confederate battle flag. 

No, it shouldn't, an the fact that all real news organizations in the country appear to have shared my opinion would seem to indicate the decision may reflect news judgment and not a liberal agenda.  (I always find it amusing when it is suggested that my positions are a result of a liberal agenda or a liberal perspective on my part.... I am about as liberal as Attila the Hun.)

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

Every time their is a radical Islamic terrorist attack in America it is deemed work hostility and we are all told not to hold the Muslim religion responsible.  When a racist nut job white guy kills black people in a church and had a picture of himself with a Confederate battle flag we have to remove it from society, take TV shows off the air and ban musicians who used it in their shows. Yet when nut job racist black people try and kill white people for flying it?  That is a non-story?  Really?

I would think if we have people targeting people for death for flying a confederate battle flag people should be informed of this.  Don't you?     

Perhaps you should see if the Klan has a news cable channel you could watch, or just contact the Klan to see if they might hire you to put together a Klan news channel.  They would likely agree with you on what factors determine the significance of a news story.

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

Every time their is a radical Islamic terrorist attack in America it is deemed work hostility

Could you point to a single news report or talking head comment about the recent Chattanooga military recruiting station attacks (which would be the most recent such attack) where it was "deemed work(place) hostility"?  Can you point to a single news report or talking head comment about the Boston Marathon bombings where it was "deemed work(place) hostility"?  The 9/11 attacks?  The underwear bomber?  The shoe bomber?  How many more examples would you need to establish that your claim of "every time" is a crock of ****?

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

When a racist nut job white guy kills black people in a church and had a picture of himself with a Confederate battle flag we have to remove it from society, take TV shows off the air and ban musicians who used it in their shows.

"We"?  "We"?  I don't know about you, but THIS "we" didn't "have" to do anything.  The fact that many DID remove the Confederate flag does not mean they HAD to remove the flag.

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

Yet when nut job racist black people try and kill white people for flying it?  That is a non-story?  Really?

Who here has written that it is or was a "non-story"?

I have written that it is not comparable to the Charleston shooting story, that it did not merit comparable coverage.  This is not the same as suggesting that it is a "non-story."

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 10:17:03 pm

I would think if we have people targeting people for death for flying a confederate battle flag people should be informed of this.  Don't you?     

It would think that since we have both been discussing it here, and that it appears we began the discussion with some familiarity with the story, that we have been informed of this.  Don't you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 12:22:36 am

You and your nit picking is beyond ridiculous.  You are so much like Sheldon Cooper that it boggles my mind as to what is going on in your head.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess you have a mental health issue.  At one point or another I am willing to bet you were diagnosed with a mental health problem and prescribed something for it.  I am also willing to bet you are not currently taking the prescription you were prescribed.

I have a dog that goes bat **** crazy with the moon phases.  She is doing so tonight.  I will keep track and see if you continue to act bat **** crazy the same time she does.  Great dog and I love her but **** if she isn't annoying as hell tonight.

I am not a lawyer nor am I in a court of law.  I am a guy posting on a Chicago Bears message board.  When I typed "everytime" I was exaggerating.  It only seems that it is every time.  We have had multiple instances of the Obama administration of calling terrorism workplace violence or some other politically correct BS. 

As far as being newsworthy goes it would be huge if it was reported.  However the leftwing media does not run with anything that does not further their agenda unless they have to.  If a concealed carry guy shoots someone who is innocent it is news.  If they use it to shoot a criminal and save a life it isn't.

A rich dentist who was a Romney supporter, shoots a lion on a safari hunter it is news.  Planned Parenthood caught on tape selling baby parts from the babies they killed, not news.  They only cover it long enough to say, not a story, it is a heavily edited tape.  Which is BS because you can see the full unedited video on their website.

   

       

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2015, 01:41:59 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 12:22:36 am

I am not a lawyer nor am I in a court of law.  I am a guy posting on a Chicago Bears message board.  When I typed "everytime" I was exaggerating.  It only seems that it is every time.  We have had multiple instances of the Obama administration of calling terrorism workplace violence or some other politically correct BS.

It only SEEMS that way to you because that the way you WANT to see it.  As I pointed out, with examples very familiar to you and off the top of my head, your impression is quite clearly wrong.  And I understand that when you typed "everytime" what you typed was not accurate, just as none of your claims about my posts in this exchange were accurate.  You make demonstrably false statements, then get upset when you are called on the falsity and claim I am mentally ill for pointing out that you are making demonstrably false statements.

It's actually amusing, but it is not "nit picking" to point out that the claims you made about my posts were simply false, something you still seem incapable of acknowledging.

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 12:22:36 am

As far as being newsworthy goes it would be huge if it was reported.

It got the coverage in the legitimate news media it deserved, which is to say very, very little.

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 12:22:36 am

However the leftwing media does not run with anything that does not further their agenda unless they have to.

Foxnews also gave the story relatively little coverage.  Are they also "leftwing"?  Is Drudge "leftwing"?

And, of course, one possible reason the story got little coverage is that it did not quite happen the way chifan's link suggested.  According to WBNS in Columbus, it was not a racially motivated attack by blacks on whites upset by a confederate flag, but merely an interrupted home burglary.  http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/07/17/columbus-scales-drive-shooting.html

Of course you did not bother to check on the story, instead accepting at face value the racist agenda of the stop-hate-crimes website.  THAT fit your agenda, and you then pissed and moaned that legitimate news organizations did not run with it.

Sad.  I really hate it when your posts indicate that much of what otto says about you is accurate.

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 12:22:36 am

If a concealed carry guy shoots someone who is innocent it is news.

Can you think of a single example of this, or is this another example of you merely spouting **** which is not true, but which you really don't want to be called on since you are not a lawyer or in court and therefore should feel free to spout whatever nonsense you want?

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 12:22:36 am

A rich dentist who was a Romney supporter, shoots a lion on a safari hunter it is news.

Thank social media for that, not leftwing newsroom agendas.

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 12:22:36 am

Planned Parenthood caught on tape selling baby parts from the babies they killed, not news.  They only cover it long enough to say, not a story, it is a heavily edited tape.  Which is BS because you can see the full unedited video on their website.

Fox News has been covering it extensively.  Are you contending they are not a news organization?  CNN had four different news stories on it just today, with more earlier, and that doesn't even address talking head discussions on CNN about the issue.  http://www.cnn.com/search/?text=Planned+Parenthood  Additionally right now it is the top news story on the CBS news website http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-undercover-video-raises-pressure-on-planned-parenthood/ and is getting coverage on CBS overnight each half hour.  How much coverage do you want for it?  Non-stop except for break-ins with reports on the bogus story out of Columbus about the supposed race-based attack by blacks on a white family because of the Confederate flag?

In summary, you see what you want to see even when it is not there, ignore what you want to ignore even when it is there, and say what you feel like even if it is not true.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2015, 01:45:10 am

My mistake -- CNN had SIX different stories about it today, not four, and that does not address how many times each of those stories aired, since CNN generally runs a story multiple times during the day.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 02:11:08 am

The psychiatrist that killed soldiers at fort hood was called work place violence.  The muslim guy who beheaded a women and almost beheaded another was also deemed workforce violence.  This is just two off the top of my head.  It is not as if I am pulling this stuff out of my ass.

None of this has **** to do with the fact you got butt hurt because I called you out for doing to Chifaninva exactly what you are accusing me of doing to you.

Go take your meds. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 02:13:08 am

By the way do you have a job?  I took a couple days off because we are slow as ****.  Why are you online in the middle of the night?

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 02:38:13 am

By the way I did not check on the story other then reading the link provided just like you didn't.  You only looked it up after I called you out.  Probably didn't even read the small article he linked.

So get off your high horse.

Relax and go to bed Sheldon. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 02:42:30 am

By the way, could I type "by the way" anymore then I already have?

By the way I am going to bed.

Good night.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 31, 2015, 05:47:55 am

Pekin......Pekin......Pekin......

(http://media.giphy.com/media/nKYtROrQ5gX04/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 31, 2015, 05:55:05 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 30, 2015, 09:09:13 pm

Really?  Your mention of it here is the first time I have seen it.

I am not disputing your comment that there were four confederate flags left there (nor am I conceding it -- I simply am entirely unaware either way because I do not recall either seeing it or having heard of it), but simply pointing out that your contention that such a fact was treated as if it were "big news" seems completely at odds with reality.

Considering that the shooter made clear he was targeting his victims BECAUSE they were black, and BECAUSE he hoped to start a race war, are you sincerely suggesting the fact that the victims were black, or that the shootings took place in a church with a largely (or even entirely) black congregation should NOT have been given prominent attention in the coverage of the story?

What the **** are you babbling about? Keep up with current affairs..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/confederate-flags-mlk-center-ebenezer-church-32779705

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 31, 2015, 05:58:46 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 30, 2015, 09:02:01 pm

Jes, he never said the two were the same yet you accused him of doing so...

I just felt I would hold you to the same standard while also giving you the opportunity to make yourself more clear.

Either way racist people tried to kill innocent people.  The media ignores it when it is black on white hate crimes.  They won't shut up about it when it is white on black hate crimes.

Democrat presidential candidate O'Malley got shouted down and had to apologize for saying, "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter".

Is it ok for blacks to be racist just because they are a minority?   

Pekin, I wouldn't bother. Don't feed the troll..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 31, 2015, 06:00:51 am

Every time their is a radical Islamic terrorist attack in America it is deemed work hostility and we are all told not to hold the Muslim religion responsible.  When a racist nut job white guy kills black people in a church and had a picture of himself with a Confederate battle flag we have to remove it from society, take TV shows off the air and ban musicians who used it in their shows. Yet when nut job racist black people try and kill white people for flying it?  That is a non-story?  Really?

Well said, I agree..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on July 31, 2015, 06:07:52 am

(https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/2/005/078/212/3c36c7f.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2015, 06:34:03 am

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 02:38:13 am

By the way I did not check on the story other then reading the link provided just like you didn't.  You only looked it up after I called you out.  Probably didn't even read the small article he linked.

So get off your high horse.

I seldom check stories I consider fairly insignificant, as was the case with that one.  I frequently check stories which I think are significant or when I wonder why major news outlets seemed to ignore it.  You quite clearly thought that story was significant and were ripping major news organizations for ignoring it.

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 02:11:08 am

The psychiatrist that killed soldiers at fort hood was called work place violence.  The muslim guy who beheaded a women and almost beheaded another was also deemed workforce violence.  This is just two off the top of my head.  It is not as if I am pulling this stuff out of my ass.

Two examples are a tad bit short of "always," don't you think?  Sorry, that appears to be the problem here.  It is clear at this point that you did NOT think before you used "always."

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 02:11:08 am

None of this has **** to do with the fact you got butt hurt because I called you out for doing to Chifaninva exactly what you are accusing me of doing to you.

~sigh~ What I have pointed out that you were doing was reading thing that were not in my posts, thinking they were there and then claiming I had written something I did not.  I pointed out you having done that in three consecutive posts.  What I did in my response to Chifaninva was to ask him a question.  My question (which he still has not answered, though you have) did not contend he had written or even suggested anything.  Sorry you can't grasp the difference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on July 31, 2015, 07:55:11 am

"According to Katie Yoder at the Media Research Center, the Big Three–CBS, NBC, and ABC–have devoted 30 minutes covering poor, dead Cecil the Lion, while giving the Planned Parenthood videos a meager 11 minutes and 13 seconds of airtime over the course of two days.  Besieged by negative headlines and a horrified public, Planned Parenthood has hired a crisis PR firm, which is attempting to mitigate the damage via the application of heavy pressure on media outlets (many of which are dominated by abortion supporters) to ignore or soft-pedal the story " -Townhall.com

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on July 31, 2015, 08:08:23 am

There are going to be significant protests at Planned Parenthood locations soon.

PP will portray themselves as the frightened victim, which will actually put those sadists in some bizarre positive light. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 31, 2015, 08:35:14 am

The killing of that lion is way more troubling than anything that happens at PP.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on July 31, 2015, 09:10:39 am

I see. Killing a Lion is more important than killing human babies. Well I don't see it that way. I have a greater problem killing babies than Lions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 31, 2015, 10:48:34 am

Quote from: Cletus on July 31, 2015, 08:35:14 am

The killing of that lion is way more troubling than anything that happens at PP.

That pretty much sums up Cletus in one short post.  What is the big problem with millions of American mothers killing their babies.  The important thing is that someone killed a lion in Africa.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2015, 06:24:15 pm

                                    (https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/545917_398664720266712_729775400_n.jpg?oh=168f8227a20645babd7d54cda6ecc3af&oe=5650EF73)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2015, 06:42:18 pm

(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1469980_10153505157452351_2086836714208146674_n.jpg?oh=952b810b09524c8baa3f6663eae7b43e&oe=5658882B)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2015, 08:32:39 pm

The difficulty the Democratic Party chair might be having with the question is that it is a trick question -- there IS no difference between Democratic positions and Socialist positions.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHpiMv3Sy8Q

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on July 31, 2015, 09:25:31 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on July 31, 2015, 06:24:15 pm

                                    (https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/545917_398664720266712_729775400_n.jpg?oh=168f8227a20645babd7d54cda6ecc3af&oe=5650EF73)

Jes - where did you get that chart?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 09:44:01 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/31/judge-blocks-release-recordings-by-anti-abortion-group/?intcmp=hpbt1

Poor planned parenthood.  They must be protected from people reporting the truth of what they are doing...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 09:49:40 pm

That chart is great.  Also shootings tend to be higher during warmer weather in most places.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/09/warm_weather_homicide_rates_when_ice_cream_sales_rise_homicides_rise_coincidence.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 31, 2015, 10:02:01 pm

There is no way that there were 1800 homicides in Chicago in 2012. Not even close.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 10:10:58 pm

Yeah I think it was a little over 530 that year.  They may be counting outside of Chicago city limits.  Hell the whole state is considered Chicago according to most folks.  :)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 10:14:56 pm

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/illinois/chicago.html

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/texas/houston.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 31, 2015, 10:17:29 pm

Quote from: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 10:10:58 pm

Yeah I think it was a little over 530 that year.  They may be counting outside of Chicago city limits.  Hell the whole state is considered Chicago according to most folks.  :)

It gave a population of 2.7 million. That's the city.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on July 31, 2015, 10:29:59 pm

It is still pretty much two to one.  Gun control only keeps guns out of innocent peoples hands the criminals don't care.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on July 31, 2015, 11:17:44 pm

Houston murders in 2014 - 239

Chicago - 407

Chicago's rate dropped from 2013 while Houston's increased.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 01, 2015, 12:02:58 am

Also border states with Mexico generally have higher rates of violent crime due to illegal immigrants.

Otto, Do you know why Chicago's rate dropped from 2013?  I do.

It is called the concealed carry law.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 01, 2015, 12:34:29 am

Peak

Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lesser per capita rate than do legal residents. So why would concealed carry state Houston increase far more than Chicago decreased?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 01, 2015, 12:42:14 am

Quote

Quote from: Cletus on July 31, 2015, 08:35:14 am

The killing of that lion is way more troubling than anything that happens at PP. 

How does one respond to something such as this?? That killing a innocent baby in the womb is ok and killing a lion is not?!? That it's ok to dismember a baby, crush its skull, suck its brains out, and take it piece by piece from its mothers womb?? It's appalling....horrifying....demonic! I can see now why God created hell......

Jeremiah 17:9  The human heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2015, 02:51:13 am

Quote from: davep on July 31, 2015, 09:25:31 pm

Jes - where did you get that chart?

I simply saw it on facebook.  I checked nothing on it and would not begin to vouch for its accuracy, posting it more as a joke for the kind of reasoning it lampoons than as anything resembling an authoritative source.  It would appear from the other posts here that the numbers in it are inaccurate... something not particularly uncommon for jokes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2015, 03:42:00 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 01, 2015, 12:02:58 am

Also border states with Mexico generally have higher rates of violent crime due to illegal immigrants.

There are four border states with Mexico: Texas, New Mexico, California and Arizona.

What actual data, instead of your assumptions, do you have showing they have higher rates of violent crime, OR that such higher rates generally involve illegal immigrants?

Quote from: otto105 on August 01, 2015, 12:34:29 am

Peak
Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lesser per capita rate than do legal residents. So why would concealed carry state Houston increase far more than Chicago decreased?

otto, I don't believe there is any good data supporting your contention that illegals immigrants commit crimes (violent or otherwise) at a lower rate than legal residents.  Do you have anything establishing that?

And can you perhaps explain how your question would logically flow from the assertion that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than legal residents?  What does that have to do with concealed carry laws of Houston or Chicago, or with the drop in murders which you were asking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 01, 2015, 09:20:46 am

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/20/no-comment-nbc-covers-up-evidence-of-immigration-crime-wave/

Right at the top of this article is a link to the government's own report.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2015, 09:43:01 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 01, 2015, 09:20:46 am

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/20/no-comment-nbc-covers-up-evidence-of-immigration-crime-wave/

Right at the top of this article is a link to the government's own report.

It is a 71 page report, and you are referring me to it after I asked if you have actual data showing illegal immigrants "have higher rates of violent crime, OR that such higher rates generally involve illegal immigrants," so I am assuming you have offered that to show that they do.

Now, if so, could you point me to the page where I will find it?  Or is it even there?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 01, 2015, 09:50:04 am

If you don't want to read the report read the article. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2015, 10:01:07 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 01, 2015, 09:50:04 am

If you don't want to read the report read the article. 

The article is premised on the report.  I HAVE now read 40 pages of the report and simply do not see anything in it either supporting your position, or that of the brietbart report.

That is why I asked if you could point it out to me.  Perhaps I am just missing it.

Or, perhaps, it is simply not there.

So, again, and I ask this only days after three different times you wrote that my posts said things which they did not and when you could not find the language in my post which supported your contention, could you point me to where in the report it supports your position?  I hope you understand how I might think it is entirely possible you are once again seeing what you want to see, even when it is not there.  If it is genuinely there, simply point it out to me so I might also see it.

My position on such issues tends to be fact-driven, and so far I have not seen the facts supporting your conclusions.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2015, 10:05:15 am

For that matter, can you point to any language from the Brietbart report that supported your contention that

Quote from: Pekin on August 01, 2015, 12:02:58 am

border states with Mexico generally have higher rates of violent crime due to illegal immigrants.

Or any language addressing actual data, instead of your assumptions, showing the southern border states have higher rates of violent crime, OR that such higher rates generally involve illegal immigrants?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2015, 10:58:57 am

The 10 highest:
#10 Oklahoma 469.3 Violent Crimes Per 100,000 People
#9 Maryland 476.8 Violent Crimes Per 100,000 People
#8 Florida 487.1 Violent Crimes Per 100,000 people
#7 Louisiana 496.9 Violent Crimes Per 100,000 People
#6 Delaware 547.4 Violent Crimes Per 100,000
#5 South Carolina 558.8 Violent Crimes Per 100,000 People
#4 New Mexico 559.1 Violent Crimes Per 100,000 People
#3 Alaska 603.2 Violent Crimes Per 100,000
#2 Nevada 607.6 Violent Crimes Per 100,000 People
#1 Tennessee 643.6 Violent Crimes Per 100,000 People

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/03/americas-most-dangerous-states_n_5639194.html


The murder rates (not overall violent crime, but just murder rates) for 2013 had New Mexico 8th, Arizona 12th, California 21st, Texas 23rd and Arizona.  http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state  And that is without any data to attribute any of the rate to illegals.  It also only has two of the four states (the smaller of the four) with rates that are higher to any statistically significant degree than the national average, and with Texas actually having a rate lower than the national average.

As for overall violent crime, it would appear that none of the four border states is even in the top 15.  http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 01, 2015, 11:18:29 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 01, 2015, 12:34:29 am

Peak

Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lesser per capita rate than do legal residents. So why would concealed carry state Houston increase far more than Chicago decreased?

Every single illegal immigrant has committed a crime.  For those educated in the University of Wisconsin PS 143, that is 100 percent.  Can you explain how the legal residents exceed that rate?

Talk about idiots.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 01, 2015, 11:22:08 am

Illinois was not in the top ten?

Come on, people, we can do better than that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2015, 11:38:03 am

Quote from: davep on August 01, 2015, 11:18:29 am

Every single illegal immigrant has committed a crime.  For those educated in the University of Wisconsin PS 143, that is 100 percent.  Can you explain how the legal residents exceed that rate?
Talk about idiots.
Enjoy.

And if someone commits two crimes, how would that count on the "crime rate"?  Are we looking at the percentage of a population which has committed ANY crime (which in today's world would likely include virtually every adult), or the frequency which those of a given population commit crimes, which would count twice the person who has committed two crimes?  And if you are wanting to count all of those who are in the country illegally as having committed a crime, you need to be aware that even for the offense of entering the U.S. illegally, intent is required, meaning the significant percentage of those who are HERE illegally but who did not ENTER illegally (such as anyone coming here as a minor with their parents and without the legal capacity to have been entering illegally when doing so with and at the direction of their parents).... so the percentage of illegal aliens who have committed crimes is not going to be close to 100% based on their illegal entry alone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 02, 2015, 09:06:47 pm

Dang.... who could have seen this coming?  http://www.ijreview.com/2015/08/382798-check-happened-socialist-ceo-raised-companys-min-wage-70k-fight-wealth-gap/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 02, 2015, 09:30:26 pm

Nice of him to give raises but he's gotta be smart about it, too. Can't pay em more than the company can even handle, lol. Oh BTW, that 'lol' is 'laughing out loud'. I know you independants and liberals have no idea what that is (laughing), not a clue whatsoever, so thought I'd explain before asked....think both Otts and Jes would shatter their faces entirely if they tried as dead dry and lifeless as they both are....

(http://media.giphy.com/media/YoB1eEFB6FZ1m/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 03, 2015, 04:21:53 pm

 It's YOUR DUTY to take care of the unwanted babies.


 Now stand in line and take RESPONSIBILITY for these unwanted pregnancy's.


 Otherwise SHUT the motherfuckin **** UP.


 Either you stand your ground and raise kids that are going into a hellhole.


 Or you back the **** off ... ain't one of you motherfuckers going to stand by your morals about taking the issue onto yourself.


 You won't adopt ONE child . You motherfuckers make me sick.


 What a bunch of CLOWNS deciding a woman's uterus that you don't even KNOW.


 Who the **** appointed YOU?


 Are you living that woman's life you **** ? ANSWER ME ! ANSWER ME !!!


 Tell me why you are RIGHT to determine a woman's uterus that you don't even know.


 If this fuckin scene was reversed ... MALES would be all over this **** !  ;D :D >:(


 You wouldn't let that happen to you. But you can fuckover your women.


 Imagine that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 03, 2015, 04:46:47 pm

 BTW ... you know whose going to take care of every unwanted baby in the


 UNITED STATES ?


 YOU ARE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER !! Can we expect a tax hike ?


 Define unwanted pregnancy and baby. One is wanted one is not.


 Why isn't one not wanted ? Maybe you should ask the mother that has to raise that


 unwanted pregnancy ... of course you have stepped up to help her out ...


 on the other hand maybe you didn't nor will you ever.


 WHY DO WOMEN GET PREGNANT WHEN THEY DON"T WANT TO ?


 Biology ... in another phrase its called **** ...


 there seems to be alot of it going around.


 There can be some unintended consequence's from it ...


 Either you are making a baby or you are **** ...


 there has and always will be a difference between the two.


 because of the consequences of the one doesn't mean you bear the consequences of the other.


 This isn't anything new on the radar screen. It's human nature.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 03, 2015, 06:13:11 pm

Jackie is right.  It is much better to allow mothers to murder their children than it is to prohibit abortions.  And if we prevent the murder of these children, we deserve to pay for the irresponsibility of these mothers that can't keep their knees together or bother to buy a condom.  Just because these people can't keep their biology under control is no reason to cause them any inconvenience in their livesl

Mea Culpa! 

We are the guilty ones, for trying to prevent slaughter of children.

For that matter, why should women only be allowed to kill their UNBORN children.  If their five year old is a pain in the ass, let them kill him also.  Don't want to let another life inconvenience anyone.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 03, 2015, 06:45:05 pm

Mark's Market Blog
8-2-15: Recession?
by Mark Lawrence
The market continues its unprecedented range bound trading. The markets are basically flat on the year. Meanwhile China is seemingly falling apart before our eyes, world trade is at all time lows, commodities are crashing and the skyrocketing dollar has cost US businesses $250 billion in lost sales and profits so far and counting. And we're getting very very close to that anticipated moment, perhaps at the September meeting, when the fed starts to raise rates.
 
S&P 500 February 3 2014 to July 31 2015
In spite of the Chinese government's bold actions and Goldman Sachs pronouncement that the crash is over, Chinese stocks are back to dropping. 8.5% on Monday, the largest drop in the last eight years. 1500 of the 2247 listed companies hit their 10% limit and trading was stopped. Markets, like your wife, don't like being ordered around and have their own way of getting back. US markets are shook up about this: we've never lived through a period where the planet had two economic powers and one melted down. The fear is a sufficiently severe Chinese recession could tip the world over into recession. And remember: when the chinese restrictions on selling shares inevitably lifts, the government will have lost all trust that the markets will be allowed to function normally.


The Chinese government has just asked all brokerages to hand over all their trading records. The chinese government asking for records is like your wife asking you to take out the garbage: it's going to happen and you'll have less pain of you do it sooner. They're looking for short sellers, people who bet the market would go down, and when they find them it won't be pretty. All financial transactions require two sides, anyone who bought a short position had to pair with someone who sold one; and when the markets go down the short sellers become huge buyers of stocks, locking in their profits and helping stabilize the market. China apparently doesn't care about any of this, they just wanna know who bet against them. They're apparently especially interested in people doing naked shorting, where you sell stock you don't actually have with the idea that you can buy the stock back cheaper before anyone notices.

The Shanghai containerized freight index just hit a record low - 45% lower than it was during the bottom of the 2008 financial crisis. China's electricity growth just dropped to a 30 year low. Commodities are also crashing. A lot of oil, iron and copper has been moving into China to support their building phase, but apparently that's all over. Anyone who tells you the Chinese economy is doing great isn't watching.


Here in the US markets have stagnated at a high level; meanwhile margin accounts - borrowed money to play the markets - has hit levels associated with a crash. There will come a day when the Fed can't or won't continue to inflate this little balloon - likely sometime in the next 12 months or so - and then this could turn very ugly very fast.


Canada's economy has contracted for six of the last seven months, Canada is now officially in a recession. Their housing market has been going crazy driven by oil profits and immigrants, but the oil profits are all gone right now. World wide, Saudi Arabia's unfettered pumping and China's slow down have been very hard on commodities.


Turkey has called an emergency meeting of NATO to discuss the security threat posed by ISIL. Turkey claims that their security situation "has deteriorated dramatically," said Bruno Lete, senior officer for foreign and security policy at the German Marshall Fund. "The rise of Islamic State in northern Iraq, in northern Syria, has effectively destabilized the southern border of Turkey. But also domestically, the threat of terrorism has become very real." Unfortunately Turkey is up to their standard trick: just as they used the confusion of WW I to kill a million Armenians, they're using the confusion of the ISIL war to attack Kurds in S.Turkey and N.Iraq. Meanwhile there's growing evidence that they're helping ISIL sell oil on the black market. The Kurds represent a real threat to Turkey: although a plurality of Kurds are sunni muslim, there are strong minorities of shiite muslim, christians, zoroastrians and yazids, all living in peace and harmony. Such an example of coexistence cannot be tolerated, of course.

It turns out that there are secret side deals to Obama's Iran deal. One is between the International Atomic Eenergy Agency and Iran. The IAEA says no American official will ever read it. Apparently it includes a clause that Iran is to do their own soil sampling for the IAEA, and that Iran must be notified of all inspections in advance and can refuse. We're being sold a bill of goods. On the plus side it's calculated that Iran will be buying 90 large aircraft per year for about the next five years from Boeing and Airbus, so when Israel and Saudi Arabia go up in mushroom clouds, at least Seattle will be able to afford their new $15/hr minimum wage.

Just a few months ago I reported that Switzerland had an election to decide if their central bank should be required to own gold. The Swiss central bank just put out their results for the first six months of this year and they lost $51 billion. They had large stores of gold and the euro, and both nose dived. Most of the damage was from the euro.

Puerto Rico has defaulted on their bonds. Hedge funds - those wonderful wacky billionaire narcissists who are holding the entire country of Argentina hostage to their demands to make yet more billions - now say Puerto Rico should "raise taxes, sell public buildings, close schools and lay off teachers" to pay them back. There is a consortium of half a dozen hedge funds that specialize in buying up distressed debt for pennies on the dollar then harassing companies, cities, states, countries to get the money. Puerto Rica has massive problems and no doubt the schools are one of them - in the last decade school enrollment dropped by 25% as families fled Puerto Rico poverty to move to the US, meanwhile school spending increased by $1.4 billion. However the idea that wall street hedge fund guys are the people to help them restructure is something I think should be actionable. These are some of the same wall street money guys who will, quietly behind the scenes, use their money to substantially determine who the next presidential candidates will be.

How debt works: You (meaning Goldman Sachs and friends) get some country to issue a bunch of bonds. You don't really care if they can afford to pay them back or not, but you do keep careful track of that. You sell the bonds to a bunch of pension funds for a nice profit. The riskier the bonds the higher the interest rate and the higher the commission. Later the country can't afford the interest payments. Then you get them to issue a bunch of junk bonds to raise money to stave off default assuring them that good times are just around the corner, and you make an even nicer profit selling those. Then they default. You make money advising them on the best way to restructure their debt, meaning screw the pension funds that were your customers. While the negotiations are going on and the bonds are plummeting in price, you go to the pension funds and buy them back for pennies on the dollar. Then when the restructuring is done the bonds go up in value a bit and you sell them, making money yet again. And then you advise the new government (the old one got voted out due to their mishandling of the crisis) on how to rebuild their economy, issuing yet more bonds for the infrastructure projects that will employ their people and make them rich, making yet more money. The whole cycle of dept - crisis - negotiation - default - recovery is one long zero risk profit making opportunity for you, and default is a big part of the profitability. Begging the question, "Why is this legal?"

There are seven tech companies worth over $100 billion. IBM and Intel are not among them.

Company Year founded Market Cap
Apple 1976 $703 billion
Google 1998 $443 billion
Microsoft 1975 $368 billion
Facebook 2004 $269 billion
Amazon 1994 $247 billion
Oracle 1977 $246 billion
Cisco 1984 $171 billion

A couple of weeks ago a muslim, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, walked onto a military base in Chattanooga and shot and killed five servicemen. The Obama regime is pressing criminal charges against heroic Naval Officer Lt. Commander Timothy White who fired back at islamic jihadist Mohammed Abdulazeez. Lt. Cmdr White, who bravely fired back against Abdulazeez with his personal firearm and arguably drove him off the base will now face criminal charges for carrying and discharging a gun on federal property. It's illegal for our servicemen to be armed.

Bonus chart: ask any parent, they'll tell you that you get the behavior you tolerate. . . I wonder why the Chicago politicians aren't charged with negligent homicide.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 03, 2015, 08:33:00 pm

The motto of every anti-choice stooge on the planet...

Love the fetus, forget the child.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 03, 2015, 08:53:11 pm

I am not sure how anyone can defend planned parenthoods practices after watching the videos.  It makes me sick.

How can you honestly say it is better to kill the baby in the womb then allow it to be born?  There are huge waiting lists of people wanting to adopt babies.  If a women does not want a child then use birth control or don't have sex.  At the very least take the morning after pill. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 03, 2015, 09:08:55 pm

I comes from the childlike lack of morals and maturity pervasive in modern society.

living by  the theme "whatever I want is right"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 03, 2015, 10:02:00 pm

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/wing_nut_conspiracy_theorists_have_done_it_again_the_truth_about_the_planned_parenthood_hoax_revealed/ (http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/wing_nut_conspiracy_theorists_have_done_it_again_the_truth_about_the_planned_parenthood_hoax_revealed/)

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 03, 2015, 10:26:49 pm

No federal funds can be used for abortions is total BS.  When money is given they use the money how they want.  Money is money.  Any federal money given them they can spend on the rent, electricity bills or salaries.  However it frees up money to be used on abortion.  It is a total BS shell game that is nothing but a bunch of political speak that means nothing.

Same with no sale of baby parts for profit.  They charge for transport and their costs.  It is just double speak for selling baby parts.  The videos prove that they are changing the abortion process to harvest organs.

Otto do you know what a partial birth abortion is?  They deliver the baby except the head then kill the baby. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 03, 2015, 10:32:20 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 03, 2015, 10:02:00 pm

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/wing_nut_conspiracy_theorists_have_done_it_again_the_truth_about_the_planned_parenthood_hoax_revealed/ (http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/wing_nut_conspiracy_theorists_have_done_it_again_the_truth_about_the_planned_parenthood_hoax_revealed/)

Enjoy

According to the article two different states have "exonerated" Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing.  The article then quotes the AG of Massachusets as saying the following: “Over the past week, my office has conducted a thorough review and found that Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts’ health care centers are fully compliant with state and federal laws regarding the disposition of fetal tissue. Although donation of fetal tissue is permissible under state and federal law, PPLM does not have a tissue donation program. There is no evidence that PPLM is involved in any way in the buying or selling of tissue. As such, our review is complete.”

Wow.

First the only thing Massachusetts would investigate is what has happened in Massachusetts, meaning there is no exoneration of PP, just of PP activity in MA.

Next, the initial reports raising concerns were only released about two weeks ago, and it appears that any investigation which began a week ago could not possibly have considered all of the issues the Center for Medical Progress has found, since not all of the reports have been made public.  But in a related though even more significant vein, no investigation by the Massachusetts AG begun a week ago could possibly in just one week fully review all of the records at issue and talk to all of the witnesses it would need to talk to in order to determine whether any PP conduct in Massachusetts was "involved in any way in the buying or selling of tissue."  About the only thing the AG could do in one week was to issue a whitewash report saying PP did nothing wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 03, 2015, 11:04:37 pm

PP has hired a big PR company to dust off the allegations, poo poo them and strongly coerce the media to ignore the story altogether. The attempt to discredit the videos, of which the full videos are available, is truly disgusting. The light has shown on the cockroaches and they're scurrying for cover....let em burn....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 03, 2015, 11:11:59 pm

Quote from: packrat on August 03, 2015, 06:45:05 pm

Mark's Market Blog
8-2-15: Recession?
by Mark Lawrence

A couple of weeks ago a muslim, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, walked onto a military base in Chattanooga and shot and killed five servicemen. The Obama regime is pressing criminal charges against heroic Naval Officer Lt. Commander Timothy White who fired back at islamic jihadist Mohammed Abdulazeez. Lt. Cmdr White, who bravely fired back against Abdulazeez with his personal firearm and arguably drove him off the base will now face criminal charges for carrying and discharging a gun on federal property. It's illegal for our servicemen to be armed.

The problem I have with this guy is that he reports rumors as if they are established facts, and the is no one that calls him on it.  In spite of a couple of rumors from sources that are not likely to know, he never mentions that the Navy has flat out denied the rumors.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 03, 2015, 11:22:25 pm

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/aug/03/navy-officer-has-not-been-charged-firing-personal-weapon-chattanooga-gunman/317947/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 03, 2015, 11:47:16 pm

Sometimes spreading word that they are planning to charge him allows public outcry to keep it from happening.  I have no clue if this is the case here but as messed up as our government and military are right now nothing surprises me.

I feel like anyone with common sense in this country is under assault by stupidity 24/7.  Makes a person want to just check out.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 04, 2015, 05:00:02 am

And look no further than someone like otto...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 05:42:48 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 03, 2015, 11:47:16 pm

Sometimes spreading word that they are planning to charge him allows public outcry to keep it from happening.  I have no clue if this is the case here but as messed up as our government and military are right now nothing surprises me.

I feel like anyone with common sense in this country is under assault by stupidity 24/7.  Makes a person want to just check out.   

And sometimes reports that someone is being charged are simply completely and total wrong and were being made without any basis in fact.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 05:58:42 am

(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11825989_10153170580512568_778710868207018003_n.jpg?oh=286db8662973ca144246b8b5230b1303&oe=56490793)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 06:11:39 am

Stupid, stupid, stupid....  http://truthinmedia.com/grandfather-still-serving-life-for-pot-following-mo-governors-commutation/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 04, 2015, 11:34:04 am

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/157529/large/tissuegate720.png?1438640731)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 04, 2015, 12:05:12 pm

legal aid to nobody

What crime has Senator/Secretary of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton committed that would lead to jail as opposed to the AG to Texas?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 04, 2015, 01:24:25 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 06:11:39 am

Stupid, stupid, stupid....  http://truthinmedia.com/grandfather-still-serving-life-for-pot-following-mo-governors-commutation/

You didn't explain what you thought was stupid, or why.

I have no problem with a law that gives permanent jail time for a person that has committed his third felony.

I think that recreational drugs should be legalized.  But until they are, if a person is convicted of his third felony, he should get life in prison if the law calls for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 04, 2015, 03:04:09 pm

What part of the whole thing is a problem for you?





And now for something completely different.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2015/08/03/if-republican-men-could-get-pregnant-would-they-be-so-anti-abortion/?hpid=z3 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2015/08/03/if-republican-men-could-get-pregnant-would-they-be-so-anti-abortion/?hpid=z3)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 04, 2015, 03:37:39 pm

The answer to that is certainly yes.

Now, along a similar vein, if a homosexual liked girls, would he still be in favor of homosexual marriage?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 04, 2015, 04:14:41 pm

They would be in favor of Bi-Sexual Marriage.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 06:53:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 04, 2015, 12:05:12 pm

What crime has Senator/Secretary of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton committed that would lead to jail as opposed to the AG to Texas?

otto, I believe I have established a track record of responding to any of you coherent questions either directed to me, or, as here, in response to something I have posted.  And I would respond to your question above, too, if I were able to make sense of it.

Could you try again, because it makes no sense whatsoever when you include the last seven words there.  I am specifically referring to the following: as opposed to the AG to Texas.  I thought I understood the question, until I looked at that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 06:59:32 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 04, 2015, 03:04:09 pm

What part of the whole thing is a problem for you?

And I thought your last question was bad.....

Who is the "you" to whom you are directing the question, and what is the "whole thing" you are asking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 04, 2015, 07:17:29 pm

This shooting could have been avoided if Toronto had strict gun control laws.

Toronto nightclub shooting leaves at least 2 dead, 3 wounded

TORONTO (AP) — A shooting that started at a Toronto nightclub event hosted by rapper Drake and then spilled outside onto the streets left at least two people dead and three others wounded, police said. It wasn't clear if Drake was present during the shooting.

Toronto Deputy Police Chief Peter Sloly said shots were fired inside the Muzik nightclub on the Exhibition Place grounds in downtown Toronto, despite a large police presence outside the venue. The shooting took place at about 3:20 a.m. Tuesday when the nightclub was shutting down.

Sloly said at least one victim was shot inside the club, before the shooting moved outside. "This was a brazen, large-scale, ongoing firearm incident where our officers and members of the public were directly in the line of fire," Sloly said. "We are very lucky that this is not a larger body count, quite frankly."

The club said in a statement that its last patrons of the night were exiting the building as gunshots were heard. Spokesman Jeff Chatterton said the lights were on, the music was off and the club had stopped serving alcohol 90 minutes earlier. The club said it had over 70 security guards on duty and that visitors were inspected with metal-detecting wands.

Police said no arrests have been made, but Inspector Peter Moreira said police are looking to talk to two persons of interest. Moreira said up to 4,000 people were in and around the club and there was a "crush" of people leaving in "quite a hurry."

Sloly told a local television station there were "high-profile entertainment figures" at the party, but he couldn't say whether Drake and rapper Kanye West were there at the time of the shooting. Both earlier performed at Drake's OVO Fest at a concert venue not far from the club. Muzik hosted the after-party. Chatterton said he understands the two were not at the club when the shooting occurred but said they were definitely at Muzik earlier in the night.

Representatives for Drake didn't respond to messages seeking comment. Moreira said the victims were a man and woman in their early to mid-20s. The man was pronounced dead on the patio of the club. The woman was found about a block away; Moreira said it "appears she didn't have a role to play in any of the events of the shooting." Police declined to release their names.

Three people were hospitalized with various injuries and one female has been treated and released. One of the injured men flagged down an ambulance several blocks from the club and police believe he was helped to that location. Sloly said their injuries are not life-threatening.

Sloly said police fired no shots. "Our officers were present when the initial shots went off. They were within meters of the initial shooting," he said. "Literally our officers were running toward live-fire incidents."

A similar incident occurred in front of Muzik last year when a 28-year-old man was shot after OVO Fest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 07:19:59 pm

Quote from: davep on August 04, 2015, 01:24:25 pm

You didn't explain what you thought was stupid, or why. 

Well, what part, if any, of it do YOU consider stupid?

I somehow suspect that there is a rather broad consensus on the issue, and I believe my comments were in line with that consensus.

What part, if any, of it do you consider stupid?

Quote from: davep on August 04, 2015, 01:24:25 pm

I have no problem with a law that gives permanent jail time for a person that has committed his third felony.

I think that recreational drugs should be legalized.  But until they are, if a person is convicted of his third felony, he should get life in prison if the law calls for it.

In many states steal property or services totally $100 is a felony, and in some any physical assault causing physical injury, regardless now slight (even a bloody nose) is a felony, as is any effort to flee from a police officer (which includes refusing to pull over immediately for speeding), and includes possession of purely recreational drugs in strictly personal amounts, making withdrawals or deposits of your own money into or out of bank accounts in amounts intended to avoid triggering the federal reporting of the bank activity, making any false statements to federal investigators, using a switch on a child for corporal punishment even when the switch causes no injury, and in some states can include failing to pick up a child promptly after school even if the failure causes no injury.

Take any combination of three of those and you have just said you believe it is perfectly appropriate to incarcerate the "criminal" for life at an expense of more than $30,000 a year.

The United States now has more people incarcerated than any other nation in history.  I believe we now have a higher percentage of our population incarcerated than any other nation on the planet.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 04, 2015, 08:54:10 pm

Incarcerating for one felony might be considered stupid.

Incarcerating for two felonies might be considered stupid.

But there comes a time when incarcerating someone for repeated felonies makes sense.

I have no problem with the third time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 09:07:17 pm

I am unaware of anyone having a problem or making a comment on the issue of incarcerating for one felony.  Could you point me to that in case I have missed it?

I thought the question was one of lifetime sentences without the possibility of parole for a third felony, without regard to how serious any of the felonies were.

Please let me know if I have somehow misunderstood the discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 04, 2015, 09:13:47 pm

You misunderstand just about every discussion.  Presumably on purpose.

And I answered your question.  I see nothing stupid about incarcerating a person for any length at all if he commits a third felony.  It may be too harsh.  It may be too inflexible.  But I see nothing stupid about it.  If the guy committed the same crime three times knowing the penalty for the third, it is hard to feel sorry about him.

What about it do you consider stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2015, 05:31:35 am

Quote from: davep on August 04, 2015, 09:13:47 pm

You misunderstand just about every discussion.  Presumably on purpose.

Really?  Let's focus on this discussion.  What is it in this discussion that you believe I have misunderstood?  You can even ignore the "on purpose," and just address what it is that I have misunderstood, without regard to divining the reason for any alleged misunderstanding.

Or look at any of my last half dozen posts here where I have been responding to someone else (in other words taking part in a discussion, or my last half dozen exchanges with just you -- what is it in any of those discussions that you believe I have understood?

Quote from: davep on August 04, 2015, 09:13:47 pm

And I answered your question.

Really?  Which question?  The last question I asked was as follows:

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 04, 2015, 09:07:17 pm

I am unaware of anyone having a problem or making a comment on the issue of incarcerating for one felony.  Could you point me to that in case I have missed it?

Your last response does not even begin to answer that question, though the fact that you actually ignore it while contending you have answered it might suggest that no one was having a problem or making a comment on the issue of incarcerating for one felony.

The focus of our discussion has been exclusively on the imposition of sentences of life without the possibility of parole for a third felony conviction without regard to how serious those felonies might be or whether anyone else was injured by those felonies.

Quote from: davep on August 04, 2015, 09:13:47 pm

It may be too harsh.  It may be too inflexible.  But I see nothing stupid about it.

It may be too harsh... and it may be too inflexible... but that is not stupid?

What would something have to be to qualify as stupid?

Too harsh, too inflexible, punishing an individual for conduct which is not injuring others (and when even you have posted that you believe the conduct resulting in each of his convictions should be legal), lifetime without the possibility of parole with no record in his prior behavior that future conduct would hurt any others, continuing the lifetime incarceration even after the statute resulting in the sentence is repealed and such a sentence would no longer be possible in a similar case, and incarceration costs of $30K or more a year when that incarceration does not benefit society... and that, to you, does not qualify as stupid.

I do.  I consider each of those things individually to be stupid.  I look at all of them collectively present in the same case as constituting stupidity on stilts -- stupidity making an aggressive effort to call conspicuous attention to itself.

Quote from: davep on August 04, 2015, 09:13:47 pm

If the guy committed the same crime three times knowing the penalty for the third, it is hard to feel sorry about him.

Nothing in any of my comments addressed in any way or to any degree any sympathy for the guy, nor in any way indicated I felt "sorry about (or for) him."

Quote from: davep on August 04, 2015, 09:13:47 pm

What about it do you consider stupid.

That rather beautifully bookends your post -- you begin by writing that I "misunderstand just about every discussion," when I have misunderstood nothing here, and you end by asking what I consider stupid about the sentence, when my prior post presented a litany of things which were stupid about it, and rather clearly expressed my sentiment that they were.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2015, 06:08:36 am

One of the worst things about the Trump candidacy is that it likely is actually helping the most traditional, most establishment Republican candidates in the race, by attracting such a huge chunk of the anti-establishment base, with little chance of ever actually winning enough support to take the nomination.  As "The Donald" sucks up all of the oxygen in the room, some of the other anti-establishment candidates are likely to fairly early fall by the wayside, while Jeb Bush, as establishment a candidate as can be found, will certainly continue to chug along.  And for many who oppose the idea of a 3rd Bush candidacy, if the choice is seen as one between Bush and Trump, Bush will likely win the nomination, even if he would be far less likely to do so in a primary ultimately narrowing itself down to head to head race against most of the other candidates.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/04/the-mindlessness-of-donald-trumpand-what

The Mindlessness of Donald Trump—and What It Reveals About the GOP
The candidate's lack of a traditional political agenda is key to his anti-political appeal.
Peter Suderman|Aug. 4, 2015 1:27 pm

The most striking thing about Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is how mindless it is. There is no plan behind it, no grand strategy or driving ideological goal, no political mission statement to speak of. The campaign seems to consist almost entirely of Trump—now leading the GOP field by a solid 10 point margin—roaming from microphone to microphone saying whatever ridiculous thing comes to his mind at the moment. He is calculating only in the sense that he gravitates toward attention-grabbing overstatement. Trump, who is fond of calling enemies morons, dummies, and lightweights, is running the stupidest presidential campaign in memory.

The empty bravado of Trump’s presidential campaign is captured nicely in this revealing quasi-profile from National Journal’s Andy Kroll. I call it a quasi-profile because mostly what it reveals is how little there is to learn about Donald Trump, presidential candidate.

Like any decent journalist, Kroll initially resisted the Trump phenomena, believing it to be a sideshow. But as Trump gained popularity in the GOP primary polls, Kroll set out with a somewhat novel plan to investigate the candidate: Rather than focus on the circus, he would make an earnest attempt to determine what Trump actually wanted to do as president.

Kroll flew to Laredo, Texas to watch a few of Trump’s media events near the border, and he contacted Trump’s not-particularly-responsive campaign team in a fruitless attempt to obtain responses to a few fairly basic questions ("Aside from immigration, if you were to put your name on one piece of domestic-policy legislation, what would it be?”).

Ultimately Kroll came up empty. Not because he didn’t put in the effort, but because there’s simply nothing to find.

Kroll’s conclusion: “I have zero to report about Trump's plans for actually being president—except that, from all available evidence, he hasn't given it a moment's thought.” Outside of immigration, Trump is uniqely agendaless, lacking even dumb policy gimmicks (even Herman Cain had 9-9-9). His campaign is an end unto itself.

What this means is that you cannot talk about the substance of Trump’s campaign, because, aside from a kind of generalized angry nativism, there isn’t any. Trump’s past record of support for liberal policies (gun restrictions, government-run health care, special taxes for the very wealthy) only tell us how little his support for any particular position matters. Even if there was any policy substance to be found, it would be beside the point.

So why is it that so many Republicans seem to like Donald Trump? Why does his mindless, brazenly uninformed approach to campaigning resonate so much with so many? What, if not his policy ideas and plans for the presidency, explains his appeal?

For many, it seems, it’s more about style, and a sense that Trump stands outside the political status quo—that he is more like a everyday person than a scripted political actor. (Trump himself has talked up his refusal to rely on pollsters and political consultants.)

Talking to The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan last week, one Trump admirer—a anonymous 60ish woman from Georgia—put it like this:

“The whole country will be in better shape. And ISIS won’t like it that he’s in charge. He’s very wealthy and can turn around the economy. He’ll get things moving. The Donald will kick a—.” She knows other supporters locally and among friends of her son, an Iraq vet. “They’re completely disgusted and just furious, and he’s igniting their passion. He’s telling them ‘I will make this country great again,’ and they believe him.” Mr. Trump is dismissed as exciting, but “we have to get excited to get up out of the chair to vote.”

It’s easy to make too much out of an interview with a single individual, and no doubt others would characterize their interest in Trump differently. But this tracks closely with the explanations from other admirers as well as my own interactions with Trump supporters. And what it suggests is that the Trump crowd has thoroughly tired of conventional politics and conventional politicians. The draw of Trump’s candidacy is that he is so very obviously not bound by these conventions—that he is not a conventional politician, nor even really a politician at all. He doesn’t have policy ideas or governing plans to speak of? So what? Those are for politicians. Trump’s politics are a kind of anti-politics, and his lack of a traditional political agenda only adds to his anti-political appeal.

The rise of anti-politics, at least on the right, can be traced at least in part to a distrust in Republican elites, suggests The Weekly Standard’s Jay Cost:

Since 2010, the actions of congressional Republicans have mostly fallen shy of campaign promises. From a short-term perspective, this may have been necessary. It is hard to mobilize your voters by saying, “Vote for me to stop the president from doing worse.” It is better to say, “Vote for me to roll back the president’s actions.” But over time this rhetorical overreach has facilitated a climate of distrust. Republican voters increasingly believe that their leaders, even if they had complete control of government, would not do half of what they promise on the campaign trail.

Trump’s campaign solves this problem by effectively promising to do nothing in particular, which I suppose is about what one could expect from a Trump presidency, to the extent that one can even imagine such a thing.

I suspect, though, that most of Trump’s supporters, rather like Trump himself, have put very little effort into imagining a Trump presidency, except to idly fantasize about all the ways that it would be different and awesome and better. He would be an exciting, deal-making, ass-kicker who would strike fear into the hearts of America’s enemies, and he would do this simply by virtue of being Donald Trump, in all his glorious, exciting Trumpiness.

What Trump offers is a fantasy of governance without negotiation, of economic success without policy detail, of a president who does not particularly feel the need to act presidential. It’s a fantasy of politics without politics, for people who just don’t want to think about it too much. In this view, the fact that Trump has clearly put so little thought into it himself makes him seem sensible and relatable. All of which is to say that the mindlessness and stupidity of Trump’s presidential campaign are not incidental to the candidate’s recent success. On the contrary, they are key to his appeal.

All of this is, in some sense, an outgrowth of the Republican party's own mindlessless during the Obama era. The party has consistently refused to be clear about its domestic policy goals, and what it plausibly expects from government. And while it has not, as a general rule, fully embraced Trump levels of of vapidity, it has embraced figures like Trump, and allowed them to rise within the party.

This was clearly evident, albeit in a much milder form, in Mitt Romney's 2012 run as the GOP nominee, which was marked by its consistent lack of policy detail, and by Romney's unwillingness to provide clarity about his policy plans. Romney did, however, praise Trump's "extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works and to create jobs" as he accepted Trump's endorsement.

It's evident still, in the party's ongoing inability to unify around an Obamacare replacement, to reckon with the realities of immigration, to discuss in detail what cutting the federal budget would really entail. It is telling, I think, that a top priority for one of the major intellectual movements on the right is simply to encourage Republicans to engage with policy ideas, at all.

Trump's candidacy is what a refusal to engage with policy and its practical realities looks like when taken to an extreme. He is a mindless candidate for a party that for years has casually courted mindlessness, and is now faced with the worrying possibility that it might prevail.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 05, 2015, 03:43:34 pm

Illinoisans have voted with their feet. The winner? Anywhere else.

The Land of Lincoln lost head-to-head migration battles with every single state plus Washington, D.C., in tax year 2011, according to new taxpayer migration data released by the Internal Revenue Service. The 2011 tax year was the first year of Illinois’ 67 percent income-tax hike.

Illinois lost 24,000 taxpayers along with 26,000 dependents on net that year, for a total net loss of 50,000 people to other states. And when these taxpayers left, they took their incomes with them. The net loss of adjusted gross income for the state of Illinois was $2.5 billion in the 2011 tax year. Illinois’ loss of annual income jumped by $600 million from the 2010 migration data, when Illinois had a net loss of $1.9 billion.
 
 
 
 
Those who left Illinois tended to make more money than those who entered the state. The average adjusted gross income of those who left Illinois was $63,100, compared to an average adjusted gross income of $53,500 for those who moved into Illinois. So not only was Illinois losing more taxpayers than it gained, but those who left Illinois earned 18 percent more than those who came in.
 
 
 
 
However, the really shocking news from this IRS data release is the fact that Illinois lost residents to every single state plus Washington, D.C. The historical trend was for Illinois to lose people to 43 of 49 states but to gain a few people from Rust Belt peers such as Michigan and Ohio, as well as from New Jersey. That trend appears to have changed. Illinois hit a new low and lost people to every other place in America, with the biggest losses being to Sun Belt states and surrounding states.
 
 
 
 
The loss of taxpayers and their dependents was largely correlated with the loss of annual income. Illinois had a net loss of annual income to 40 out of 50 states plus Washington, D.C. The top 10 recipients of Illinois earnings include large states such as Florida, California and Texas, and also all of Illinois' border states.
 
 
 
 
This new data release can be described as nothing other than a complete embarrassment for Illinois. It’s only possible for one state to sweep the board by losing taxpayers and their dependents to every other state, and that sorry distinction goes to Illinois. To lose people to every state is a resounding no-confidence vote in the status quo.

It’s not surprising then that a population so disenchanted with the status quo voted to change leadership at the top by electing Gov. Bruce Rauner. It’s also not surprising that the reforms proposed by Rauner, which are completely in line with what neighboring states have been doing, are perceived as such a major shift by the entrenched leadership of the Illinois General Assembly. Those leaders, particularly House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton, have shepherded decades of misguided policies that drove up debt and pushed out taxpayers.

There’s a reason Illinoisans took an “anywhere but here” approach to their beloved home state as early as 2011, many years before Rauner was even a candidate for governor. Illinois’ legislative bosses should take note of the fact that every other place in the country is being chosen over the turf they control. If they care to change that, Rauner’s five clear legislative reforms are on the table, waiting to be called for a vote.
 
 

Michael Lucci
Director of Jobs + Growth 
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2015, 05:19:51 pm

No sure where the olde tacit racist sourced his information, but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/upshot/mapping-migration-in-the-united-states-since-1900.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/upshot/mapping-migration-in-the-united-states-since-1900.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0)


Migration must be Obama's fault...


Standard thinking from inside an echo chamber.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 05, 2015, 05:32:43 pm

Can Homo explain how his chart contradicts the following from the post in question?

The Land of Lincoln lost head-to-head migration battles with every single state plus Washington, D.C., in tax year 2011, according to new taxpayer migration data released by the Internal Revenue Service.

Or did he fail, as usual, to read either the original post or the one he used to contradict it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2015, 06:23:11 pm

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/08/toles08062015.jpg&w=480 (https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/08/toles08062015.jpg&w=480)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 05, 2015, 06:29:38 pm

Quote from: davep on August 05, 2015, 05:32:43 pm

Can Homo explain how his chart contradicts the following from the post in question?

The Land of Lincoln lost head-to-head migration battles with every single state plus Washington, D.C., in tax year 2011, according to new taxpayer migration data released by the Internal Revenue Service.

Or did he fail, as usual, to read either the original post or the one he used to contradict it?

Speaking of clowns, did Homo ever explain how his chart disproves the one Pekin put up?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2015, 06:31:11 pm

Daveybart

Not sure what point you're making or saying that idiot racist is making.

Are you saying migration is bad?

Or the governor of Illinois should keep downstate hicks and corporations from relocating?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2015, 06:57:29 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 05, 2015, 06:31:11 pm

Daveybart
Not sure what point you're making or saying that idiot racist is making.
Are you saying migration is bad?
Or the governor of Illinois should keep downstate hicks and corporations from relocating?

davep offered no suggestion as to what point anyone here was or wasn't making, and made no suggestion that he was making a point.

He simply asked if you had explained how your chart disproved anything in the chart Pekin had posted.  Now, I don't even know what chart Pekin posted or what chart davep was talking about, but that was all his post addressed.  It mentioned nothing related to any of the issues you ask questions about above.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2015, 07:11:52 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 05, 2015, 05:19:51 pm

No sure where the olde tacit racist sourced his information, but...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/upshot/mapping-migration-in-the-united-states-since-1900.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/upshot/mapping-migration-in-the-united-states-since-1900.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0)

Migration must be Obama's fault...

I'm wondering where otto got the line about it being Obama's fault... or does he simply personally believe Obama is responsible for people leaving Illinois?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 05, 2015, 07:12:33 pm

I posted a chart?  I think they might be talking about Packrats post talking about migration from Illinois to other states.

Our Republican Governor Rauner is trying very hard to undo the terrible policies of the Democrats.  If he is able to do so people will stop leaving the state.

However the Democrats have a lock on this state due to their voter fraud, corruption and are fighting him at every turn. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 05, 2015, 07:34:35 pm

Yep.  I meant Packrat's post.  All you posters look alike to me.

Your post was about people moving out if Illinois in 2011 because of the liberal policies.  Homo rebutted with a chart about migration in 1905 for some reason.  About as rational a response as we can expect from someone that neither reads nor understands what he posts.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on August 05, 2015, 08:41:34 pm

The chart otto put up shows the percent origin of current residents in each state.  It says nothing about the numbers up or down.  As an extreme example, If Illinois had 100 people and 67 were born in state, the chart would still be true. Ignoring the millions that left.  The work is leaving the state, and people with it. The only way to reverse the trend is to make it attractive to companies to locate in Illinois.  Dems aren't so good at that. Reference my old state, Michigan. My new state, Tennessee, had attracted Nissan, Volkswagon, Verizon, and is the virtual epicenter of health care companies.  Easy to see due to a couple of things: 1. roads are being expanded and repaved (money from sales taxes Tn has no income tax )  and massive single family home building. You should visit Otto, you'd be surprised. The occasional unfortunate Packer fan is tolerated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2015, 08:43:56 pm

http://reason.com/archives/2015/08/05/gun-control-lies

Gun Control Lies
In New York City, you can't even wield a fake gun on TV... unless you're making anti-gun propaganda.
John Stossel | August 5, 2015

My town, New York City, enforces rigid gun laws. Police refused to assign me a gun permit. The law doesn't even let me hold a fake gun on TV to demonstrate something.

But New York politicians are so eager to vilify gun ownership that they granted an exception to the anti-gun group States United to Prevent Gun Violence. New York allowed States United to set up a fake gun store, where cameras filmed potential gun customers being spoofed by an actor pretending to be a gun-seller.

"This a nine millimeter semi-automatic. It's a very handy gun. It's easy to use," he says. "You can carry it in a purse like that gal from Wal-Mart. Her two-year-old son reaches into her pocketbook, pulls it out, shoots her. Dead, gone, no Mom!"

States United then made that footage into an anti-gun public service announcement. "Over 60 percent of Americans think owning a gun will make them safer. In fact, owning a gun increases the risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional death," says the video.

It's a powerful message. But it's a lie, says John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He says that gun control advocates lie all the time.

Lott acknowledges the tragedies. Sometimes a gun in the home is used in a homicide or suicide, or leads to accidental death, but he adds, "It also makes it easier for people to defend themselves—women and the elderly in particular."

Lott says, "Every place in the world that's tried to ban guns... has seen big increases in murder rates. You'd think at least one time, some place, when they banned guns, murder rates would go down. But that hasn't been the case."

I pushed back: what about people harming themselves?

"There are lots of different ways for people to commit suicide," Lott said, and researchers have looked at how those tragedies are affected by access to guns. "We find that people commit suicide in other ways if they don't have guns."

What about accidents? Lott replies that accidental shooting deaths are relatively rare: "about 500 a year." That sounds bad, but about 400 Americans are killed by overdosing on acetaminophen each year (most of them suicides), and almost as many Americans drown in swimming pools.

"It would be nice if it was zero (but) consider that 120 million Americans own guns," Lott says.

Often those guns are used to prevent crime. The homeowner pulls out the gun and the attacker flees. No one knows how often this happens because these prevented crimes don't become news and don't get reported to the government, but an estimate from the Violence Policy Center suggests crimes may be prevented by guns tens of thousands of times per year.

Add politics to the mix and the anti-gun statistics get even more misleading. Gang members in their late teens or early adulthood killing each other get called "children." Fights between gangs near schools get called school "mass shootings."

The number of mass shootings in America has been roughly level over the past 40 years, but The New York Times still runs headlines like, "FBI Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000." That headline is absolutely true, but only because they deceitfully picked the year 2000 as their start point, and that was a year with unusually few mass shootings. It's as if the paper wants to make it seem as if mass shootings are always on the rise, even as crime keeps going down.

It all helps stoke paranoia about guns. Some people respond by calling for more controls. Others, fearing the government may ban gun sales, respond by buying more weapons. The number of people holding permits to carry concealed weapons has skyrocketed to 12.8 million, up from 4.6 million just before President Obama took office. Since 40 percent of American households now own guns, anyone who wants to take them away will have a fight on his hands.

Has the increased gun ownership and carrying of guns led to more violence? Not at all. "Violent crime across the board has plummeted," says Lott. "In 1991, the murder rate was about 9.8 (people) per 100,000. (Now) it's down to about 4.2."

I can't convince my friends in New York City, but it's just a fact: More guns—less crime.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2015, 08:59:58 pm

davep, from your recent comments, I take it you would have no problem in a sentence of life without the possibility of parole if someone like Iannicelli were to repeatedly press the issue he is addressing and in the process got convicted three different times for standing outside a courthouse and handing out to prospective jurors flyers which accurately stated the law, telling them they have the legal authority to not only judge the facts in the case, but also the law, and to essentially nullify the law.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/05/denver-activist-arrested-for-passing-out

Denver Activist Arrested for Passing Out Pamphlets, Which Apparently Is a Felony in Colorado
Mark Iannicelli could go to prison for advocating jury nullification.
Jacob Sullum|Aug. 5, 2015 6:30 am

Last week Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey charged a local political activist, Mark Iannicelli, with seven counts of jury tampering, a felony punishable by one to three years in prison, for handing out pamphlets in front of the Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse. Morrissey's office says "Iannicelli set up a small booth with a sign that said 'Juror Info' in front of the courthouse and provided jury nullification flyers to jury pool members." According to the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), Iannicelli distributed a FIJA brochure explaining that jurors have a "right to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to conscience," along with "a flyer from another organization."

You may wonder how threatening someone with prison for passing out political literature can possibly be consistent with the First Amendment. The short answer is that it's not. The longer answer is that local and federal officials periodically harass activists like Iannicelli under the pretense of preventing unlawful interference with jury deliberations. The statute cited by Morrissey makes it a Class 5 felony to "communicate with a juror" outside of judicial proceedings with the intent to influence the juror's "vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case." But Iannicelli was not trying to affect the outcome of any specific trial at the courthouse. He was merely passing out pamphlets with general information about the rights of jurors.

A few years ago, as FIJA points out, U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood ruled that such activity does not qualify as jury tampering under federal law. The case involved Julian Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor who distributed FIJA pamphlets near the entrace to the federal courthouse in Manhattan while holding a sign that said "Juror Info." Heicklen was accused of violating Title 18, Section 1504 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes a jail sentence of up to six months for anyone who "attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter." Kimba concluded that Heicklen's general advocacy of a jury's right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case before it, a.k.a. jury nullification, did not violate this statute, which "criminalizes efforts to influence the outcome of a case, but exempts the broad categories of journalistic, academic, political, and other writings that discuss the roles and responsibilities of jurors in general."

Wood added that "a broad reading of 18 U.S.C. § 1504 could raise First Amendment problems because of its potential to chill speech about judicial proceedings." She observed that "the relevant cases establish that the First Amendment squarely protects speech concerning judicial proceedings and public debate regarding the functioning of the judicial system, so long as that speech does not interfere with the fair and impartial administration of justice." Wood said First Amendment concerns reinforced her conclusion, based on "the plain meaning of the text" and the history of its interpretation, that "a person violates the statute only when he knowingly attempts to influence the action or decision of a juror upon an issue or matter pending before that juror or pertaining to that juror's duties by means of written communication made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror or in relation to a point in dispute between the parties before that juror."

Wood's First Amendment concerns were not at all fanciful, as illustrated not only by Heicklen's prosecution but by the astonishingly broad view of jury tampering advocated by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. In a brief supporting their case against Heicklen, Bharara's underlings claimed that "advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred." As George Washington University law professor Paul Butler pointed out in a 2011 New York Times op-ed piece, that position makes a criminal out of him and anyone else who dares to write favorably about jury nullification.

It's safe to say that respect for freedom of speech is not a high priority at Bharara's office. But Morrissey, who claims to be enforcing a Colorado law with specific intent language similar to the federal statute's, may want to reconsider his prosecution of Mark Iannicelli for doing essentially the same thing that Julian Heicklen did, which was clearly protected by the First Amendment. Lawyers reportedly were eager to represent Iannicelli, presumably because his constitutional claim is so strong. And if Iannicelli's case ever goes to trial, FIJA's Kirsten Tynan notes, prosecutors will face an additional challenge in making their case. "If it did go before a jury," she writes, "one would imagine that the FIJA brochure and other flyer would be evidence that would be presented to the jury, thereby fully informing every juror of their right to vote Not Guilty for any reason they believe is just."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2015, 10:00:46 pm

Disbarred legal aid


Put YOUR own money up for the trial and stop with the lost cause libertarian legal puff pieces.

You're going to get a round mouth eating those meals.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 05, 2015, 10:04:24 pm

Daveyvart


If ever you could actually have a real thought.


1905 or something....

**** moron

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 05, 2015, 10:36:11 pm

Homo is resorting to obscenities again.  My 5 year old grandson does the same thing when he wants to act like a grown up without understanding what growing up entails.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on August 05, 2015, 10:40:00 pm

46, shhhhhhhhhhhhh! We don't need Otto or his ilk down here...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 08:18:28 am

https://youtu.be/4IH2SRYykW8 (https://youtu.be/4IH2SRYykW8)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 06, 2015, 08:24:24 am

JJ, we looked into adoption, due to fertility issues. There was a 2-3 year wait to adopt an infant at the time. You could get one faster from another country (as many Americans do ) but that was about $10k in the late 90's. The fact is that folks that aren't ready for kids shouldn't be engaging in the activity that produces them, especially unprotected. They can get birth control from the health dept for free. People have to learn to take responsibility for their actions. We make It too easy to end the life of the innocent but yet get all bent out of shape over the most trivial things.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 08:40:36 am

Quote

We make It too easy to end the life of the innocent

You're referring to the easy excess to guns.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 08:41:31 am

https://youtu.be/uhY9Zxv1-oo (https://youtu.be/uhY9Zxv1-oo)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 02:57:21 pm

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/157762/large/GOPBingo.jpg?1438788057)



Please copy and keep track!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2015, 06:05:33 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 08:40:36 am

You're referring to the easy excess to guns.....

Excess, access... a bit like tomato (long "a"), tomato (short "a").... or like knowing the English language versus being otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 06:18:01 pm

I stand by the meaning of the word while once again pointing out the hopelessly BAD in your posting.

Which is tedious and not really worthy of message  board material.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 06, 2015, 07:09:21 pm

Homo is a product of the Wisconsin Public School System.  It makes me so proud.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 07:23:34 pm

Daveybart

You being from the south, actually pronouncing the words right would impress you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 06, 2015, 08:40:00 pm

Interesting that Homo would refer to Chicago as the South.  I guess geography wasn't taught in the Wisconsin Public School system.

But then, obviously, very little WAS taught there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2015, 08:44:59 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 07:23:34 pm

Daveybart

You being from the south, actually pronouncing the words right would impress you.

Which words?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 09:20:01 pm

Wow, the clown car phaznews circus just drove off a cliff.

Awesomely bad.

Guys yell into the microphone a little faster and scream Hillary.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 06, 2015, 09:38:07 pm

The only reason why Homo watched it was to cheer on his hero, Scott Walker.

He has always been hot for him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 09:40:46 pm

Listed below is a picture of the governor referred to.

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/157905/large/head_in_the_sand.jpg?1438845444)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 06, 2015, 10:17:40 pm

A position that seems to appeal to Oddo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 10:23:22 pm

(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt95/ravensmimi/head_up_your_ass21.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 06, 2015, 10:29:15 pm

Get yours today!


(http://darnwi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/image-300x223.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 06, 2015, 11:02:53 pm

I would be fine with Cruz, Carson, Walker, Rubio in that order.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 07, 2015, 04:55:28 am

I'm starting to thing Trump is pulling this garbage to totally **** the Republicans and help Hillary get elected..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2015, 06:02:10 am

Quote from: chifaninva on August 07, 2015, 04:55:28 am

I'm starting to thing Trump is pulling this garbage to totally **** the Republicans and help Hillary get elected..

If Republicans either nominate Trump, or he runs as a 3rd party candidate and enough vote for him that a Democrat wins, the Republicans will have gotten what they deserve.  I suspect that even if he stays in the race thru all of the primaries, Trump would be unable to get the nomination and the convention would be brokered.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2015, 10:53:05 am

Trump can not get elected.  But he can get a democrat elected by running as a third party.

And you are right.  If Republicans allow that, they deserve to lose.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 11:41:01 am

I would be fine with an arrogant Canadian, a clarence thomas wannabe, an intellectually challenged dolt and a bit player in that order.


Fixed it for you peak.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 11:54:31 am

(http://mx1.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/bd150805.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2015, 01:30:15 pm

Isn't it cute that Homo can refer to someone as an intellectually challenged dolt?

Pot, meet kettle.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 07, 2015, 01:46:05 pm

WORK ETHIC WE INHERITED GROWING UP HAS FALLEN PREY TO THE "WELFARE" SYSTEM

Perhaps we need to change the Welfare system back to the Great Depression days where they received clothing, food and shoes rather than cash, debit cards and cell phones.

 

http://joeforamerica.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/14-0301-Welfare-to-Work.jpg



The Cato Institute released an updated 2013 study (original study in 1955) showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour in 13 states.

According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home and watch TV than its to earn an honest day’s pay.

Hawaii is the biggest offender, where welfare recipients earn $29.13 per hour, or a $60,590 yearly salary, all for doing nothing.

Here is the list of the states where the per-tax equivalent salary that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:

1.  Hawaii: $60,590

2.  District of Columbia: $50,820

3.  Massachusetts: $50,540

4.  Connecticut: $44,370

5.  New York: $43,700

6.  New Jersey: $43,450

7.  Rhode Island: $43,330

8.  Vermont: $42,350

9.  New Hampshire: $39,750

10.Maryland: $38,160

11.California: $37,160

12.Oregon: $34,300

13.Wyoming: $32,620

14.Nevada: $29,820

15.Minnesota: $29,350

16.Delaware: $29,220

17.Washington: $28,840

18.North Dakota: $28,830

19.Pennsylvania: $28,670

20. New Mexico: $27,900

21.Montana: $26,930

22.South Dakota: $26,610

23.Kansas: $26,490

24.Michigan: $26,430

25.Alaska: $26,400

26.Ohio: $26,200

27.North Carolina: $25,760

28.West Virginia: $24,900

29.Alabama: $23,310

30.Indiana: $22,900

31.Missouri: $22,800

32.Oklahoma: $22,480

33.Louisiana: $22,250

34.South Carolina:$21,910



As a point of reference the average "Middle Class" annual income today is $50,000, down from $54,000 at the beginning of the Great Recession (part of Obama's great economic recovery).

Hawaii, DC, and Massachusetts pay more in welfare than the average working folks earn there. Is it any wonder that they stay home rather than look for a job? Time for a drastic change. America is virtually bankrupt.

Note: looks like of the 34 states, seven are red states and the remainder are blue states

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 02:00:44 pm

Would love to see what "joe" considers welfare in the olde tacit racists post.

Can somebody ask the fossil?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 02:05:42 pm

daveybart

http://anewdomain.net/2015/07/12/ted-rall-why-scott-walker-is-an-idiot/ (http://anewdomain.net/2015/07/12/ted-rall-why-scott-walker-is-an-idiot/)


Yes, governor weasel is an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 02:18:50 pm

daveybart

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/02/02/scott-walker-presidential-bid-self-destructs-on-abcs-this-week/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/02/02/scott-walker-presidential-bid-self-destructs-on-abcs-this-week/)


Polls show governor weasel is still an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2015, 02:33:05 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 02:05:42 pm

daveybart

http://anewdomain.net/2015/07/12/ted-rall-why-scott-walker-is-an-idiot/ (http://anewdomain.net/2015/07/12/ted-rall-why-scott-walker-is-an-idiot/)


Yes, governor weasel is an idiot.

It isn't surprising that Homo is a fool when this is the typical source of his information and the foundation of his viewpoints.

It must be difficult for him since he has a crush on Walker.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 07, 2015, 02:34:46 pm

What did Walker do to you Homo? Did he cut your welfare benefits? Or did he make you work for a living?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 02:58:54 pm

Why is it for conservatives that all politics is a personal me first discussion?

Why is it that conservatives view all government actions as how does it benefits me or not.


Why can't conservative discuss politics without being emotional?


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 03:01:08 pm

Quote

It isn't surprising that Homo is a fool when this is the typical source of his information and the foundation of his viewpoint

Besides the English problem, can you point to any other posts that I have made which sourced either of the links provided? And I hardly think Forbes has been a foundation viewpoint for me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 03:15:48 pm

Would it be this scott walker...

(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11752513_10152959605127967_6636206383028855776_n.jpg?oh=ef2e2046c10bee727effb18fccc05946&oe=564E12E6)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2015, 03:25:25 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 02:58:54 pm

Why is it for conservatives that all politics is a personal me first discussion?

Why is it that conservatives view all government actions as how does it benefits me or not.


Why can't conservative discuss politics without being emotional?


 

Good Lord.  The guy that calls everyone a racist and creates a diminutive nickname for every poster, is concerned about making the posts personal?

The odd thing about liberals is that they can criticise everyone for doing exactly what they do, and never see any hypocrisy in it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 03:28:31 pm

daveybart

I'm not posting about making postspersonal, but rather government policy and actions.

You can tell the difference right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 03:43:39 pm

I have classified the following poster(s) as racists. Just for future reference.

The olde tacit racist
Sporty


I have called posts and some positions as racist for the following poster(s).

Peak
daveybart
and that moron in Virginia.


The more you know.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2015, 04:21:16 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 02:58:54 pm

Why is it for conservatives that all politics is a personal me first discussion?

Why is it that conservatives view all government actions as how does it benefits me or not.

Why can't conservative discuss politics without being emotional?

otto, could you possibly explain how the post from WshflThinking would meet the the criteria any of your three questions involve?  Here is his post again to make it easy for you:

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 07, 2015, 02:34:46 pm

What did Walker do to you Homo? Did he cut your welfare benefits? Or did he make you work for a living?

Or how would the post from davep meet those criteria?  Again, here for the sake of easy reference is his post right before yours above:

Quote from: davep on August 07, 2015, 02:33:05 pm

It isn't surprising that Homo is a fool when this is the typical source of his information and the foundation of his viewpoints.

It must be difficult for him since he has a crush on Walker.

Or packrat's post?  Or do you not view any of them as being conservative?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2015, 04:30:32 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 03:43:39 pm

I have classified the following poster(s) as racists. Just for future reference.

The olde tacit racist
Sporty


I have called posts and some positions as racist for the following poster(s).

Peak
daveybart
and that moron in Virginia.

The more you know.

 :'(.....  ~sniff~  I feel left out.  otto was tossing out group insults and didn't even include me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 07, 2015, 04:35:29 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 03:01:08 pm

Besides the English problem, can you point to any other posts that I have made which sourced either of the links provided? And I hardly think Forbes has been a foundation viewpoint for me.

Besides the English problem....
Ah, the irony.... Just today I was covering misplaced modifiers in class.  otto, you might want to work on that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2015, 05:24:58 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 03:28:31 pm

daveybart

I'm not posting about making postspersonal, but rather government policy and actions.

You can tell the difference right?

Homo - the vast majority of your posts are personal.  Calling someone a racist is personal.  Calling dismissive names is personal.  You NEVER restrict your comments to Government policies and actions, other than to use them as a jumping off point for ad Hominem comments about the politician.  When have you ever discussed the policies or actions of Walker without degenerating into childish name calling.

If you ever take the time to actually grow up and act like man, people might take you and your posts more seriously, rather than respond with name calling of their own.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2015, 05:26:55 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 07, 2015, 03:15:48 pm

Would it be this scott walker...

If it is, it would explain why you can't keep it in your pants when  you think and write of him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 07, 2015, 08:47:19 pm

Lol. And our Homo is probably double jointed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 07, 2015, 09:37:50 pm

 I WANT TO BE IN CHARGE OF EVERY WOMAN"S UTERUS IN THE U.S.


 I WANT TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. BECAUSE I'VE DECIDED I'M RIGHT.


 They must submit to me. Because my morals outweigh their morals.


 Because I know whats best for everyone. You heard it here first ...


 JACKIEJOKEMAN IS MOTHERFUCKING GOD OVER EVERYTHING.


 My morals are always right ... your morals are always wrong.


 IT"S GOOD TO BE DA KING ! Especially self appointed.


 Ok some of you greasy **** was making Hot Dogs the wrong way ...


 you filthy **** were putting ketchup (catsup) on a hot dog ...


 you know the penalty for that ... I ... **** I decided it.


 Now just line up in front of that outward bound bus door and present identification ...


 to the authorities ... leave your luggage here ... it will be sent along later.  ;D


 REPUBLICANS done **** up when they decided they control women's uterus's.


 You just lost the next election you stupid **** ****.


 I WOULD RATHER SEE MY WIFE DEAD,


 and save the unborn fetus of an unwanted pregnancy ...


 now what the **** kind of DRAWGS are you tripping on ?


 Not anybody is going to back that scene and you know goddamn good and well you wont.


 So let's cut to the chase ...


 WHERES THE JOBS THAT PAY DECENT MONEY IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE CREATED?


 Well ... where are they? Other than overseas? For pennies on the dollar.


 You who you trusted are getting rich ... you on the other hand ...


 can pretty much go **** yourselves ...


 DON'T FORGET TO BUY OUR PRODUCTS MADE OVERSEAS !!!


 HA - HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 07, 2015, 09:57:32 pm

Must be the week end.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 07, 2015, 10:04:43 pm

If a women doesn't want to have a baby take birth control or don't have sex.  Take the morning after pill each time you have unprotected sex to be sure you don't have a baby.  Don't wait until a child develops arms, legs, heart and lungs then decide to have it aborted.  That is just **** sick. 

Especially the partial birth abortions.  They deliver the baby except the head then reach in side the women's **** with scissors and cut off the **** head of the live baby.



 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 07, 2015, 10:23:55 pm

I am all about personal freedom but I am also all about personal responsibility.

Abortion is the law of the land and it is not changing.  Planned Parenthood changing abortion procedures to harvest baby parts to sell is against the law.  When we can't even get an organization committing felonies defunded by the federal government how can we ever stop the runaway spending that is going to destroy this country?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 08, 2015, 12:39:26 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 07, 2015, 10:23:55 pm

Abortion is the law of the land and it is not changing.

I see no reason at all to accept that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 08, 2015, 02:42:43 am

I don't like it but the **** up lawyers, courts and judges have made the decision.  What are you going to do when activist judges over step their bounds?  Absolutely nothing from what I have come to understand.  Nothing to be done if you don't want to overthrow the government.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 08, 2015, 03:30:11 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 08, 2015, 02:42:43 am

I don't like it but the **** up lawyers, courts and judges have made the decision.  What are you going to do when activist judges over step their bounds?  Absolutely nothing from what I have come to understand.  Nothing to be done if you don't want to overthrow the government.

The "courts" make no decisions.  The "lawyers" made no decisions.  The Supreme Court made the decision, and with a couple of changes in the Court's composition, that decision can change.  Of course, for it to change will require more of the "activism" which you criticize without understanding what activism is.  There is no need to "overthrow the government," and doing so would not come close to assuring there would be any change on the issue of abortion.

You quite routinely criticize "activist judges."  How would you define "activism" or an "activist judge"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 08, 2015, 08:50:17 am

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/black-pastors-ask-smithsonian-remove-bust-planned-parenthood-founder#.VcWUnzooHT4.facebook
Black Pastors Ask Smithsonian to Remove Bust of Planned Parenthood Founder

By Penny Starr | August 7, 2015 | 4:14 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – A group of black pastors sent a letter to the director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery asking that the bust of Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger be removed from the museum’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, citing her support for eugenics and the targeting of minorities by the nation’s largest abortion provider.

"Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies, an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as ‘the feeble minded;’ speaking at a rally of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers," the letter from Ministers Taking a Stand states.

“Also the notorious ‘Negro Project,’ which sought to limit, if not eliminate black births, was her brainchild,” the letter states. “Despite these well- documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice.

“The obvious incongruity is staggering!” the letter states.
 
The group says that Sanger should not be part of an exhibit that features the real “champions” of the civil rights movement, including Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks.
 
“How can a person like Sanger, who found common cause with the racial agenda of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), be ranked among true champions of ‘justice?’” the letter states. “She was a purveyor of grave injustice against the most innocent and vulnerable among us.”

The letter states that it is the first “in a series of actions we will be taking to expose the evil of honoring Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.”

The letter also notes the current scandal surrounding Planned Parenthood with the release of undercover videos showing top medical officials in the organization discussing harvesting and selling the organs and other body parts from aborted babies.

“The fact is that the behavior of these abortionists, their callous and cavalier attitude toward these babies, is completely in keeping with Sanger’s perverse vision for America,” the letter states.

The letter also states that 70 percent of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods and provides a link to a map documenting this fact.

In the gallery exhibit, the signage states that Sanger was a nurse who was “profoundly affected by the physical and mental toll exacted on women by frequent childbirth, miscarriage and self-induced abortion,” but it also notes her connection to eugenics.

“During her campaign, Sanger became associated with the eugenics movement – which promoted, among other practices, the forced sterilization of those deemed mentally unfit and for a time was endorsed by many of the era’s prominent thinkers,” the signage states.

The description of Sanger on the gallery’s website also notes her eugenics-supporting history.

“Adding to her life of controversy is her association with the eugenics movement – which included promotion of forced sterilization for those deemed mentally unfit – a movement that for a time was endorsed by many of the era’s prominent thinkers,” the online text states.

The letter from Ministers Taking a Stand refers to a letter Sanger sent to Dr. C.J. Gamble of the Eugenics Society in 1939.

“The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach,” Sanger wrote. “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
 
In a paper entitled “Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda” written by Sanger in 1921, she praises eugenics as “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

She then explains the role birth control plays in eugenics.

“The eugenic and civilizational (sic) value of birth control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent,” Sanger wrote.

The basis of birth control propaganda, Sanger said, “indicate that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of eugenics,” Sanger wrote.

In her book “The Pivot of Civilization,” Sanger wrote extensively about eugenics, including in Chapter 18, “Dangers of Cradle Competition.”

“We should not minimize the great outstanding service of Eugenics for critical and diagnostic investigations,” Sanger wrote. “It demonstrates, not in terms of glittering generalization but in statistical studies of investigations reduced to measurement and number, that uncontrolled fertility is universally correlated with disease, poverty, overcrowding and the transmission of hereditable taints.”

The letter is signed by Bishop E.W. Jackson, MTS founder and president and bishop THE CALLED Church; Pastor Cecil Blye, Jr., MTS President Kentucky and senior pastor, More Grace Ministries; Pastor Iverson Jackson, MTS state President Arkansas and senior pastor, Zoe Bible Church; Apostle Stanley Jacobs, MTS State President Delaware and senior pastor, Greater Works Ministry; Pastor Marlin Sharp, MTS president Tidewater Virginia and senior pastor, Landstown Community Church; Dr. Leon Threatt, MTS president North Carolina and senior pastor, Joy Christian Fellowship; Pastor Garfield Williams, MTS President Maryland and senior pastor, Kingdom Equippers Ministries; Rev. Steven L. Craft, MTS president New York/New Jersey and executive director Christian Citizenship Ministries; Dr. Melvin Johnson, MTS state president Texas and Heart of Christ Community Church; and Pastor Michael Smith, MTS President southwest Virginia and senior pastor Mountain View Union Church.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 08, 2015, 08:50:30 am

http://liveactionnews.org/7-shocking-quotes-by-planned-parenthoods-founder/
Shocking quotes by Planned Parenthood’s founder
5:34 PM, FEB 21, 2015 BECKY YEH 2002

We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. – Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939

As the founder of America’s largest abortion chain, Margaret Sanger’s ideology for Planned Parenthood was cemented in eugenics, the belief and practice that aims to eliminate certain groups of people.

As a eugenicist, Sanger encouraged the sterilization of persons with less desirable qualities, and strongly encouraged the reproduction of groups with more desirable qualities. Sanger’s disdain for blacks, minority groups, and the diseased and disabled spawned the birth of an abortion corporation that profits off the killing of the weakest and most vulnerable. From its conception, Planned Parenthood was built upon the roots of exterminating individuals deemed “unfit” for the human family.

Today, the spirit of Sanger lives on. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the former pro-abortion research division of Planned Parenthood, African-American women are five times more likely to choose abortion over white women. Planned Parenthood clinics are strategically planted in minority communities, targeting blacks and impoverished minority groups, and abortion remains the leading cause of death for the black community.

Below is a compilation of shocking quotes from Sanger, a famed eugenicist who birthed America’s largest abortion-on-demand corporation.

1) “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

In a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble in December, 19, 1939, Sanger exposited her vision for the “Negro Project,” a freshly launched collaboration between the American Birth Control League and Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau. The letter echoes the eugenic ideologies still visible within the corporate vein of Planned Parenthood today.

It seems to me from my experience…that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.

We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

2) “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan.”

In 1926, Sanger spoke at a meeting hosted by the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. Following the invitation, Sanger describes her elation after receiving multiple speaking requests from white supremacy groups. She writes of the experience on page 366 of her book, An Autobiography:

I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.

3) “They are…human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

In “Pivot of Civilization,” Sanger penned her thoughts regarding immigrants, the poor, and the error of philanthropy. Sanger’s ideology of racial and social hygiene bleeds through her writings on breeding an ideal human race:

They are…human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning… human beings who never should have been born.
Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.

4) “Birth control is nothing more or less than…weeding out the unfit.”

Sanger famously coined the term “birth control” with the intention of eliminating the reproduction of human beings who were considered “less fit.” In her writings from “Morality and Birth Control” and “Birth Control and the New Race,” the Planned Parenthood founder noted that the chief aim of the practice of birth control is to produce a “cleaner race.” Sanger’s vision for birth control was to prevent the birth of individuals whom she believed were unfit for mankind:

Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.

Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.

5) “Human beings who never should have been born at all.”

In “The Pivot of Civilization” and “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger describes the eugenic value of eliminating persons – minorities, the sick, and the disabled – through sterilization or segregation:

Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.

Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 08, 2015, 10:20:17 am

Very entertaining readin the last couple of days.

Otto on total meltdown after the debates and he sees what real competent presidential material looks like.

He's foaming at the mouth realizing the pants suit felon won't be coronated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 08, 2015, 10:34:13 am

It is starting to look like she may not even be nominated by her party.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 08, 2015, 11:01:44 am

Quote from: davep on August 08, 2015, 10:34:13 am

It is starting to look like she may not even be nominated by her party.

And that may be unfortunate for the Republicans, because Hillary is about the worst candidate the Democrats have a real chance of fielding.  Other candidates with some chance of getting the nomination would likely be much stronger in the general election.  I don't believe Hillary will even come as close to the nomination this time as 2008.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 08, 2015, 03:27:36 pm

Tempting as it might be to look at this and dismiss it because no one would really deliberately do something like this and face the prospect of serving time in prison for contempt o court or for obstruction of justice just for one of the Clintons, now, would they?   Anyone remember Susan McDougal?  http://observer.com/2015/08/breaking-cheryl-mills-to-destroy-emails-about-hillary-clinton/#ixzz3iBGOasdu

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on August 09, 2015, 06:51:51 am

Seems to me that if you want Trump out of contention, the Republicans should cut him now and stop giving him a platform.  Every time he speaks he colors the Republican party just a bit with his opinion and behavior.  Let the Republican party define themselves to the independent voter without his voice being a part of it.  If he has to run as an independent, let him do it starting now for the next 15 months.  Don't cover him.  The Republicans need to paint Trump as an independent now because it is not the independents that are pushing his numbers.  It is the far right.  Get the message out there that the party hears their concerns, and that a vote for Trump in November hurts the party.

One thing Trump has done is bring to focus the issues that the voters are tired of.  People are tired of the King, the no action stalemate in Congress, and the behavior of "if I don't get my way I'll just executive order my way" anyway.  The economy, border security, and national security are the issues for the Republicans to create their vision.  Get that out there.  That is what has given Trump his rise. 

Hillary can not be the voice of the poor when she has never been.  No one relates to her and every time she opens her mouth, she drowns a little more.  Trump was right, Biden is the Democrats only hope of winning the election and if he is the nominee it will be a battle.  Biden is likeable. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2015, 08:06:32 am

Quote from: Grizzlybear34 on August 09, 2015, 06:51:51 am

Seems to me that if you want Trump out of contention, the Republicans should cut him now and stop giving him a platform.  Every time he speaks he colors the Republican party just a bit with his opinion and behavior.  Let the Republican party define themselves to the independent voter without his voice being a part of it.  If he has to run as an independent, let him do it starting now for the next 15 months.  Don't cover him.  The Republicans need to paint Trump as an independent now because it is not the independents that are pushing his numbers.  It is the far right.  Get the message out there that the party hears their concerns, and that a vote for Trump in November hurts the party.

One thing Trump has done is bring to focus the issues that the voters are tired of.  People are tired of the King, the no action stalemate in Congress, and the behavior of "if I don't get my way I'll just executive order my way" anyway.  The economy, border security, and national security are the issues for the Republicans to create their vision.  Get that out there.  That is what has given Trump his rise. 

Hillary can not be the voice of the poor when she has never been.  No one relates to her and every time she opens her mouth, she drowns a little more.  Trump was right, Biden is the Democrats only hope of winning the election and if he is the nominee it will be a battle.  Biden is likeable.

So are you suggesting that the Republican Party should somehow prevent Trump from speaking out and claiming to be a Republican himself, that they should ignore the party rules which determine who should be entitled to appear at party debates and that once the primaries start it should simply remove him from the ballot even if he meets the requirements to appear on it?

Despite what anyone might think, the Republican Party is not monolithic.  Being Republican is something determined by self-identification.  If Trump wants to call himself a Republican and try to persuade others to believe that he is and that they should support his candidacy, he gets to do so, and the party does not get to determine what the news media is going to cover.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 09, 2015, 11:33:14 am

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/smoke-and-mirrors-the-truth-about-us-unemployment/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 09, 2015, 11:47:22 am

Quote from: chifaninva on August 09, 2015, 11:33:14 am

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/smoke-and-mirrors-the-truth-about-us-unemployment/

A very good piece there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 09, 2015, 03:13:14 pm

 If women really are 53% of the vote ...


 and the Republicans haven't carried them as a majority since 1988 ...


 why do you think that is ?


 BTW ... as many of you know ... JJ has an I.Q. of 65 ... AND ...


 I just **** your daughter.


 Now as all of you know ... The ZYGOTE is the most important specimen of my sperm introduction.


 This must be kept alive under any circumstances.


 Your definition of life supersedes all other logic.


 IF YOUR DAUGHTER MUST DIE SO THAT MY CHILD MAY LIVE ... then ...


 HEY BUDDY WELCOME ME TO YOUR FAMILY !!!


 Are we going to have turkey or ham at Thanksgiving ?


 Who's doing the breastfeeding for my kid since the woman I **** is dead ?


 JJ needs a wet nurse ! How do you hire them? I HAVE RIGHTS !!!


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvNc24yQZA


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 09, 2015, 03:22:54 pm

Wow.  Usually he is sober by Sunday afternoon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 09, 2015, 03:35:55 pm

 

Quote from: davep on August 09, 2015, 03:22:54 pm

Wow.  Usually he is sober by Sunday afternoon.

 Dave,


 The junk you sent me was bogus dude. There was no high there.


 I may have to move over to Beard or Otto for quality.


 I'm really disappointed.  >:(

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 09, 2015, 03:38:36 pm

"Biden is likeable."

Except when he steps on his tongue, which is often. Biden is a beatable senile old man.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 09, 2015, 09:17:50 pm

Mark's Market Blog
8-9-15: Oil, that is. Black gold. Texas tea.
by Mark Lawrence
More jobs, unemployment falling, the markets remain flat. We've been treading water all year. Meanwhile much of the rest of the world is slipping into recession, most notably China, Germany, Brazil, Canada. And the Fed is almost certainly going to raise rates next month.
 
S&P 500 February 10 2014 to August 7 2015
The S&P 500 index is weighted by capitalization - larger companies get more weight. The Guggenheim Equal Weight index (RSP) adds up the prices of the same stocks but without weighting by company size. SPY is up on the year, RSP is down nearly 2% on the year. This bull market has less and less breadth as the big money moves to the largest companies in a flight to safety. This narrowing of breadth has happened several times in the last 50 years, and in every case the markets are lower both one and two years later. Fasten your seat belts, 2016 is shaping up to be a rough ride.

The jobs report came out and was pretty good - 215,000 new jobs, unemployment 5.3%. It's considered all but certain the Fed will raise rates in their next meeting in September. The party is ending, the punch bowl is all but empty and all the guacamole is gone. The markets never nose dive on the first rate rise - there may be a dip but it will be short lived. It's the second or third rate rise that really sends everyone home.

Oil is on the way back down. Saudi Arabia continues to pump oil to maintain market share and keep pressure on US producers; meanwhile US producers are learning quickly how to get more oil out of fewer fracking wells. Arabian bull-headedness v. US ingenuity: an interesting contest.



Greek PMI is falling off a cliff. At this point it's hard to see how Greece will avoid a complete crash - in fact, they're in a deeper crash right now than the US was in the Great Depression. Greece is negotiating another bailout right now, but I guarantee you it won't be enough, not nearly enough.


China's exports fell 9% in July compared to last year. Imports fell 8.6%. China is cutting interest rates to stimulate demand, to make large construction projects more affordable, to support the stock market; but it's not working: the yuan is maintaining a high value which is making their exports unprofitable and uncompetitive. Foreign companies are finding it much more difficult to sell to China both due to reduced demand and increased hostile laws, and are also finding it more profitable to do a lot of their work in Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines.

Capital, that is money, is fleeing China at record rates. The Chinese know very well that if things get a lot worse anyone with money might well be at mortal risk. Many of them have significant assets and homes prepared in Canada, the US and other countries.


Meanwhile, Foxconn, with 1.3 million employees the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer, has committed to investing $5 billion to make production facilities in India. Chinese workers are getting too expensive, even for Chinese.

Brazil, the world's seventh largest economy, seems to be slipping into recession. They have companies that run rather fast and furious and there are innumerable reports of bribery, cutting corners, slipshod behavior. They need to clean up their act a bit. HSBC has announced that they're pulling out of Brazil entirely.

And now Germany, the powerhouse of Europe, is experiencing falling industrial production - 1.4% down in June. That leaves Spain as the only growing nation in Europe. When Spain is your engine of growth you're in real trouble - imagine if Alabama and Mississippi were the only two US states that had growing economies.

A lot of my friends are very excited about Elon Musk's giga factory. They like the idea of batteries in houses; you generate solar power from 9am to 3pm, charge up your battery, then live off the battery until tomorrow morning. Yah, but will it work? Here's a sobering number: the entire projected output from Musk's giga factory for a year will store enough electricity to power the US for five minutes. Batteries aren't happening on any large scale. Real engineers talk about pumping water up hills, or heating up special fluids in caves, or compressing a lot of air into caves. There's also been a lot of excitement about converting the US to electric cars. This is also not happening. It takes a lot of voltage and current to give a decent charge to a Tesla in 30 minutes. If you imagine interstate 80 with several hundred charging stations, each charging a couple dozen Tesla-type cars, we're talking about moving energy around at a scale that will certainly lead to Fox-news level tragedies. Remember, the energy you get into your Tesla in about 30 minutes is roughly equivalent to the energy in about 8 gallons of gasoline.

A study done this year by Ohio State U found that the more selfies you take and post, the more narcissistic you are and the more likely to have psychopathic tendencies. Dr. Peggy Drexler said, "It's like looking in the mirror all day long and letting others see you do it."

Can't wait for the next election, an end of Obama, and a return to a republican president? Trump is doing the country a huge favor, in my estimation: he's showing everyone that immigration is the issue for this election. A topic that was previously unspeakable is now the central topic. However, if his ego is as big as I fear he'll run as a third party candidate and, just as Perot threw the election to a Clinton, Trump will throw the election to a Clinton. Meanwhile just as Cadillac, Lincoln and Buick found they were car companies for white haired retired people, so is the republican party as it's currently formulated. Perhaps the next president will be a republican, but republican voters are old and dying. Things will be changing dramatically in the next ten years. And immigration will be a huge part of that change. Of course the guys on Wall Street and in boardrooms are licking their chops over this: the lower classes are poorly informed and easily manipulated by populists, leaving big money unfettered in their goal of buying up every election and law that matters to them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 10, 2015, 06:32:23 pm

Or about 27.5K more than governor weasel's campaign stops.

(http://www.pamplinmedia.com/images/artimg/00003522048007.jpg)

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/269002-143736-sanders-rally-you-have-done-it-better-than-anyone-else (http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/269002-143736-sanders-rally-you-have-done-it-better-than-anyone-else)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 10, 2015, 06:41:05 pm

According to BuzzFeed, some Breitbart staffers think something's fishy about their "news" site's glowing coverage of presidential candidate and walking professional parody Donald Trump...


(http://images.dailykos.com/images/150358/large/RTX1GZCO.jpg?1435250433)


Your reactionary dog whistles can be bought. Get over it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 10, 2015, 07:03:07 pm

Homo's man crush on Scott Walker is starting to be embarrassing.  But he has good reason to be proud of him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 10, 2015, 07:28:32 pm

Bernie Sanders popularity with Democrats says more about their lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton then anything about Scott Walker.

Bernie Sanders has zero shot at winning the presidency. 

I keep expecting Trumps numbers to drop so a good candidate like Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, or even Scott Walker can get some traction.  However I guarantee you Trump would beat Sanders if the choice was between those two.

It is early but if Hillary's numbers continue to drop Biden or Kerry are going to throw their hat in the ring.  Maybe Gore.  The Democrat party elite don't want Bernie Sanders as their candidate any more then the Republican party elite want Trump.

Sanders is honest about being a socialist (which I respect).  Democrats like their politicians to lie about it. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 10, 2015, 07:34:00 pm

Biden WILL become a candidate, with a very good chance of beating Hillary.

It would be interesting to see the two clowns, Biden and Trump, running against each other.  No matter who wins, we lose.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 10, 2015, 08:12:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 10, 2015, 06:32:23 pm

Or about 27.5K more than governor weasel's campaign stops.

(http://www.pamplinmedia.com/images/artimg/00003522048007.jpg)

I would love to see Sanders get the Democratic nomination.  I might even vote in the Democratic primary to see if I can help it along....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 10, 2015, 08:24:56 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 10, 2015, 07:28:32 pm

.
Bernie Sanders has zero shot at winning the presidency....  However I guarantee you Trump would beat Sanders if the choice was between those two.
 

I really sort of doubt it. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 10, 2015, 08:33:14 pm

I'm not sure which one I would vote for.  Hopefully, Jesse Ventura would run on a third party ticket and give me a decent alternative.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 10, 2015, 09:17:35 pm

Right now an attorney for Trump is on Fox saying all Trump wants right now is to be treated fairly, "LIKE ANY OTHER CANDIDATE"....

Trump in the last four hours has had more than two and a half of favorable coverage.  Carson had his name mentioned a couple of times, but NO coverage.  Santorum and Lindsey, not even mentioned.  Perry, mentioned a couple of times, but no coverage.  Paul and appearance, but only to discuss Trump, not to discuss his plans on anything.  Fiorina, perhaps 45 seconds of coverage.  Ted Cruz, mentioned a few times, but no coverage about him.

Trump has NEVER, at any point in his life, wanted to be treated either "fairly" or "like anyone else."

His attorney was telling Hannity that the after debate polls showed Trump's numbers climbed, and that no one else's numbers move at all, that they were "all flat."

When Hannity pointed out that Cruz's numbers had doubled, Trump's spokesman (the lawyer, one who would appear to give the profession a bad name) shift his position, saying, but his numbers were so low to start with that his increase really didn't matter.  When Hannity pointed out that Cruz was now at 13% and in 2nd place, the spokesman shifted his position again, saying that Cruz's numbers were less than 20%, and that no one other than Trump had ever been above 20%, so they were simply insignificant as candidates compared to Trump.

It is amazing anyone can be taken in by a buffoon like Trump.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 10, 2015, 09:51:43 pm

legal aid to no one

Which "poll" has cruz at 13%? The coming out your ass?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 10, 2015, 10:12:50 pm

Probably a poll of democrats

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 10, 2015, 11:11:06 pm

I am pretty sure Trump is running to help Clinton and Bush.  He will be paid back political favors from whichever one wins.   Those two are different sides of the same coin. 

However the political elite misunderstood just how pissed the American people are.  The angry uninformed are getting behind Trump in droves.  I think even Trump is shocked by how high up in the polls he is.  And now Carson, Cruz and Fiorina are rising in the polls while Bush drops.  I am guessing this is due to those who are more tuned in.  The ones more likely to actually vote in a primary.

Hopefully one of them catches fire and Trump will disappear.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 11, 2015, 04:54:17 am

Bush isn't the candidate that some thought he'd be, and, he's a Bush. Very few can stand the thought of another Bush in the white house.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2015, 05:18:36 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 10, 2015, 09:51:43 pm

legal aid to no one

Which "poll" has cruz at 13%? The coming out your ass?

Reading comprehension, otto.... it is a learned skill.  With a bit of effort, you might still be able to master it.

When did I ever write that any poll had Cruz at 13%?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2015, 05:33:25 am

(http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_32/1164986/nbcnews_survey_monkey_5b2da2cbab79888b31f921f884a59e27.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2015, 05:41:06 am

Sportster is going to love this -- http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/08/humans_should_be_able_to_marry_robots.single.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 11, 2015, 06:59:34 am

"It is amazing anyone can be taken in by a buffoon like Trump."

If we were talking about an informed electorate I would agree with that. But we are talking about a desperate electorate, an electorate desperate for real change, not socialistic change either.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 11, 2015, 08:32:43 am

Homosexuality is sinful. Robotics is not. Marrying a piece of machinery simply means you need to be admitted to a psych ward for serious evaluation.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 11, 2015, 08:44:08 am

YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

(https://s.yimg.com/nn/fp/rsz/081115/images/smush/sanders_635x250_1439292965.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on August 11, 2015, 10:41:59 am

Quote from: Sportster on August 11, 2015, 08:32:43 am

Homosexuality is sinful. Robotics is not. Marrying a piece of machinery simply means you need to be admitted to a psych ward for serious evaluation.....

u

I hope all your kids are gay and you are forced to deal with your backwards world view and bigotry head on in a situation that really matters.  I doubt you'll make the right choice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 11, 2015, 11:27:15 am

My kids are normal and very blessed, thanks for the concern....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 11, 2015, 11:30:09 am

Quote from: Cletus on August 11, 2015, 10:41:59 am

u

I hope all your kids are gay and you are forced to deal with your backwards world view and bigotry head on in a situation that really matters.  I doubt you'll make the right choice.

Looks like you and your kids will all burn in Hell soon, that is, even if you are capable of them

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 11, 2015, 11:33:55 am

Idiot legal aid

You post **** from phaxnew's handity citing "polls show" cruz now at 13% and you have no idea where the **** they came from. So you retreat to some lame ass 'who won the debate' crap????

You post ****,you own it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jack Birdbath on August 11, 2015, 02:48:24 pm

Quote from: Sportster on August 11, 2015, 11:27:15 am

My kids are normal and very blessed, thanks for the concern....

That seems unlikely. Nature and nurture are conspiring against them. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 11, 2015, 03:39:30 pm

Trump is indeed a buffoon.  But his comments about being treated fairly had nothing to do with the media, but were directed at the Republican Party.  Specifically, in the original interview, he was talking about the ability of the Republican party to leave him off the primary ticket in several states (I believe about 20 states, but I am sure that is not an exact number).  They did this in the past with Colin Powell among others, and he was asked what he would do if they took the same tactic with him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 11, 2015, 04:29:00 pm

 Dave,Jes,Otto,


 I think we are overlooking a profit motive here ...


 can Ferguson Missouri become an entertainment destination like Branson Missouri ?


 A place where once a year anarchists can gather ... protest ... loot and burn?


 Grandstands can be build to accommodate the paying ticket holders as they watch ...


 we could work a deal with various TV outlets to cover it live.


 Every year the town can be looted and burnt down ... and rebuilt for next year.


 IF ... there's a dollar market there ... I need your input, is this feasible ?


 Get back to me on my secured lines between us. I'm smellin money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2015, 04:53:59 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 11, 2015, 11:33:55 am

Idiot legal aid

You post **** from phaxnew's handity citing "polls show" cruz now at 13% and you have no idea where the **** they came from. So you retreat to some lame ass 'who won the debate' crap????

You post ****,you own it.

It should be easy, otto, cut and paste something I wrote where I said Cruz is now at 13%.  So far it would appear you can not do so.  If you can, cut and paste it ans show that I am entirely wrong to suggest you do not understand what you read.

I could actually answer your underlying question, seeking a source for the 13% figure, but at the moment you asked me to provide a source for MY claim that Cruz was at 13%... and I never wrote that he was.

Of course, if you simply cut and paste where I did write that, you could quite clearly establish I am a blowhard.

And, if you can't, you might want to look for an adult education course to help you with your reading comprehension.

Have at it.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2015, 04:57:04 pm

Quote from: davep on August 11, 2015, 03:39:30 pm

Trump is indeed a buffoon.  But his comments about being treated fairly had nothing to do with the media, but were directed at the Republican Party.  Specifically, in the original interview, he was talking about the ability of the Republican party to leave him off the primary ticket in several states (I believe about 20 states, but I am sure that is not an exact number).  They did this in the past with Colin Powell among others, and he was asked what he would do if they took the same tactic with him.

No, davep, while I agree that the buffoon has claimed that the Republican party has treated him unfairly (though it actually HAS treated him fairly), the comments I have seen from both him AND his stooge lawyer was that he was also treated unfairly, and THAT was what I was addressing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2015, 05:07:29 pm

Quote from: Sportster on August 11, 2015, 08:32:43 am

Homosexuality is sinful. Robotics is not. Marrying a piece of machinery simply means you need to be admitted to a psych ward for serious evaluation.....

So sex with machinery would not be sinful?  What you think is a god would approve of that?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 11, 2015, 06:15:13 pm

Boring legal aid


Stop drilling, you hit the blowhard gusher when you first started posting here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 11, 2015, 06:31:29 pm

Homo the troll hates to be asked to actually prove or justify what he says.  Something most liberals shy away from.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2015, 07:50:53 pm

And if his claim were accurate it would be remarkably easy to show I am wrong.  A simply cut and paste would do it.

Of course otto CAN'T show that I ever wrote that Cruz had polled at 13% after the debate.

NBC has, but I haven't.  http://www.pdf.investintech.com/preview/33f7458c-3ec9-11e5-9555-002590d31986/index.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 12, 2015, 06:24:00 am

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-massive-failure-delivered-trump-093000496.html

A lot of truth...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2015, 06:34:16 am

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/scott-walker-to-commit-400-million-in-ta

Scott Walker To Commit $400 Million in Taxpayer Dollars for NBA Stadium Deal
Meet the new fiscally responsible Republican, same as the old fiscally responsible Republican.
Nick Gillespie|Aug. 11, 2015 8:12 pm

While ongoing reportage of the Donald Trump Traveling Tijuana Donkey Show crashes into the latest revelations from Hillary Clinton's Personal Email Server Fun Times Revue, there's a more pedestrian scandal taking place in plain sight.

This one involves Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who's running on his tough-as-nails budget-cutting credentials. Come tomorrow, Walker will commit no less than $400 million of taxpayer money to a stadium deal to keep the NBA Bucks in Milwaukee:

The state would put $250 million toward the arena, with interest adding up over decades. The subsidy, approved last month with bipartisan support in Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature, wasn’t addressed in the first presidential debate Thursday. That might change in future forums—or attack ads.

That's bad enough, of course. But what makes the situation even worse is that Walker is actually trying to sell it as something other politically motivated corporate welfare of the basest sort:

Walker, 47, argues that the subsidy is a "good deal," partly because Wisconsin would lose revenue if the Bucks leave, as they had threatened. The owners of the Bucks, a team whose value Forbes pegged at $600 million, will pick up half the cost of the $500 million arena.

You got that? A business worth $600 million doesn't have the cash or the credit to build its own damn palace (despite covering just half of costs, the Bucks will get virtually all revenue generated by venue forever and ever amen).

The plain fact is that professional sports teams do not increase economic activity, especially when they play in taxpayer-financed stadiums. As Dennis Coates and other economists have shown, pro sports teams are generally a net drag on local economies because they suck so hard at the public teat. Coates and a colleague found that on average, residents of cities with major sports franchises have about $40 less per capita income that folks lucky enough to live in pro-sports-free zones.

Walker's plan was denounced by the Koch-brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity and a wide range of other groups who prefer not to see economics bent to political expediency.

“How does [Walker] explain it to undecided or Republican primary voters?” asks Kenneth Mayer, a University of Wisconsin poli-sci prof. The short answer: He doesn't, any more than he explains his late-breaking conversion in favor of ethanol subsidies.

Record numbers of people think that politicians are full of ****. This sort of deal, especially when coming from somebody who claims to be a brutal cost-cutter and tough guy, is one of the many reasons for that. A Republican who lays down for wealthy businesses while bossing around the poors (recall that Walker not so long ago floated the unconstitutional idea of making welfare recipients **** into cups despite high costs and no clear benefit) is a cliche that never goes out of fashion.

For a thorough understanding of how Walker plays fast and loose with cronyism via a pile of money known as the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, read Peter Suderman's profile from the July issue of Reason. A snippet:

Walker [claims] that "in the areas where government has an appropriate role to play...taxpayers not only deserve but should expect and demand that government carry out its functions exceptionally well." The WEDC is technically not a government agency, but it was created by government, funded by taxpayers, and overseen by elected officials—with Scott Walker chief among them. It is hard to make a case that the WEDC has functioned well, let alone exceptionally.

Reason TV recently asked the question: "Sports Stadiums are Bad Public Investments. So Why Are Cities Still Paying for Them?" (Spoiler alert: BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE POLITICIANS' MONEY!). Take a look, why don't you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1LDjTgMEGU

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 12, 2015, 07:01:26 am

A lot of city's and states pay for sports arena's, venues, to keep teams. Is it right to use taxpayer dollars for that? Probably not, but it goes on all the time..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2015, 07:25:53 am

Bribery, graft, corruption, ****, and and murder also go on all the time.

Dismissing terribly misguided policy decisions simply because they go on all the time is one of the reasons they go on all the time.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 12, 2015, 07:50:15 am

There's nothing corrupt about building sports stadiums and they absolutly do increase economic activity.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 12, 2015, 09:16:09 am

Quote

People are angry and are willing to champion a bombastic billionaire best known for insulting people as our next president. Trump’s “campaign message” is vitriol unleashed – towards our enemies, undocumented immigrants and anyone else who crosses his path. His supporters see him breaking free of political correctness, or correctness itself for that matter, and they love Trump for voicing their outrage. They view him as the perfect antidote to President Obama.

Newflash liz. People aren't angry. The same sorry ass tea-bagging **** are and they're the only ones who support him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 12, 2015, 11:00:20 am

Quote from: davebear on August 12, 2015, 07:50:15 am

There's nothing corrupt about building sports stadiums and they absolutly do increase economic activity.

Assuming there are no kickbacks involved, it is not corrupt.  But it is a horrible misuse of taxpayers funds, since it helps some taxpayers substantially while giving absolutely no benefit to the majority of taxpayers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 12, 2015, 11:20:33 am

I don't know the numbers, but sports teams do bring revenue back to states and city's. Honestly, if it was up to me, I would say everyone boycott all sports 'til they came back down to earth. Sports are loaded with greed. You mean to tell me for a top player (in any sport) to make 5 mil a year isn't enough? I understand supply and demand, I say cut the demand and watch it all plummet. Have any players suffered due to the Obama recession? I certainly haven't heard of any..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 12, 2015, 11:24:29 am

Agreed, Chif. The salaries have gotten way too ridiculous. It's becoming a rich mans sport just to watch in person. Tickets are absurd and it doesn't help when scalpers buy them all up and raise em even more.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2015, 03:51:27 pm

Quote from: davebear on August 12, 2015, 07:50:15 am

There's nothing corrupt about building sports stadiums and they absolutly do increase economic activity.

ll

Well, no one has yet said there is anything corrupt about it, but I will be hay to say now that using government dollars taken forcibly from people to build a sports stadium is a corruption of the system, and claims that they increase economic activity are bull.

Did you either read the article or watch the video?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2015, 04:02:44 pm

Quote from: davep on August 12, 2015, 11:00:20 am

Assuming there are no kickbacks involved, it is not corrupt.

This depends on how you define "corrupt."  The system instelf in these cases is corrupt.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2015, 04:05:12 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 12, 2015, 09:16:09 am

Newflash liz. People aren't angry. The same sorry ass tea-bagging **** are and they're the only ones who support him.

Classic otto.  He has essentially said that those he disagrees with politically arr not people.  Classic, otto.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 12, 2015, 08:21:41 pm

Record 93,770,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 38-Year Low
By Susan Jones | August 7, 2015 | 9:11 AM EDT

 

(CNSNews.com) - A record 93,770,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month, and the labor force participation rate remained at 62.6 percent, exactly where it was in June -- a 38-year low, the Labor Department reported on Friday.

In 1975, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping such records, 58,627,000 Americans were not in the labor force, and the number has grown steadily since then, breaking the 80-million mark at the end of George W. Bush's presidency; and the 90-million mark in July 2013, during Barack Obama's second term. The number of Americans not in the labor force has continued to rise since then.

According to the Congressional Budget Office's 2015 long-term outlook, the number of working Americans is expected to increase more slowly in coming decades, as more workers exit the labor force, many of them retiring baby-boomers; and fewer workers enter it -- given declining birth rates and a levelling-off of women in the labor force.

In July, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 250,876,000. Of those, 157,106,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 157,106,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 250,876,000 civilian noninstitutional population -- the same as it was in June. Not since October 1977, when the participation rate dropped to 62.4, has the percentage been this low.

Other notes from Friday's jobs report:

-- The economy added an estimated 215,000 jobs in July, in line with economists' expectations, but not enough to change the nation's civilian unemployment rate, which remained at 5.3 percent.

-- Among the major demographic groups, the unemployment rate for adult men (4.8 percent), adult women (4.9 percent), whites (4.6 percent), blacks (9.1 percent), Asians (4.0 percent), and Hispanics (6.8 percent) showed little or no change.

-- 6,325,000  million people were employed part time for economic reasons (involuntary part-time workers) in July, These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

-- The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2,180,000 in July (up from 2,121,000 in June). These individuals accounted for 26.9 percent of the unemployed.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 12, 2015, 08:30:11 pm

Stadiums generate no economic activity?

1.  teams pay millions in rent to the city for use of the stadium

2.  The city usually gets the parking and concessions revenue.  In my city the stadium has 19,000 parking spaces which are sold out at $25 each game.  That's $475,000 per game to
     the city.  The concessions are a big profit as well.

3.  Visiting fans use airlines, rental cars hotel rooms, restaurants.

4.  stadiums employ at least a couple hundred full time employees and many more event employees.

5.  local businesses provide services and supplies to stadiums.

6.  most if not all stadiums have many other events at stadiums through the year.  See above.

7.  There are businesses who choose to be located in a "major league" city.  They have employees and pay taxes as well.

The city I live in is trying to build a new stadium.  Believe me I've seen dozens of studies attempting to prove and disprove the profitability of building stadiums.  Ultimately you simply cannot place a dollar figure on the economic activity to determine if its a big loss or profit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 12, 2015, 08:44:24 pm

My little town built a pressurized dome for softball and soccer.  No professional team.

I would say it is a success.  A hotel went up next to it and more restaurants were built.  When the city wanted out they sold it to a local Italian restaurant chain that has their business right next door to it.  They now run concessions at the dome and cater events there.

Damn near every weekend I see tons of teams and their parents in the local restaurants.  I am sure they are staying in the local hotel/motels and spending money in town.  I have no doubt that in the long run it is better for the town.  Even if the city took a loss selling it.  They are making up for it in tax revenue and property taxes.  Of course the local restaurant is doing a much better job of running it then the city ever did.  More concerts, tournaments and activities generating money then when the city ran it.

I suspect the same is true for bigger cities and bigger stadiums.   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 12, 2015, 09:07:12 pm

Trump Fails to Back Up Misogynist Slurs with Anti-Woman Proposals, Rivals Say

BY ANDY BOROWITZ
AUGUST 8, 2015


CLEVELAND (The Borowitz Report)—Tempers flared in the aftermath of Thursday night’s Republican debate, as rival candidates accused the billionaire Donald Trump of failing to back up his misogynist slurs with concrete and workable anti-woman proposals.

Florida governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker led the charge, as both of them asserted that Trump’s sexist rhetoric paled in comparison with their own strong records of opposition to women’s rights.

“As governor of Florida, I defunded Planned Parenthood,” Bush said. “Donald Trump is good at creating misogynist sound bites, but I’ve actually rolled up my sleeves and gotten things done.”

Governor Walker piled on, touting his own anti-woman achievements during his time in office. “In Wisconsin, I used my power as governor to repeal a law supporting equal pay for women,” he said. “No offense to Mr. Trump, but nothing on his résumé compares with that.”

The attacks by Trump’s rivals seemed to sting the hotheaded billionaire, who hit back hard on Friday. “When it comes to coming up with solid anti-woman solutions, I do not intend to be lectured by Jeb Bush and Scott Walker,” he said, noting that the wall he intends to build on the border with Mexico would keep out many women.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 12, 2015, 09:12:37 pm

Peak-a-boo

Are you referring to the Louisville slugger sports dome in your pathetic little town?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 12, 2015, 09:17:24 pm

You must be a real joy at parties.

I can picture you following people around like Terrell Owens on Donovan McNabb.... "hey did you hear my new joke about republicans???  hey stop a minute"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 12, 2015, 09:24:40 pm

Nope.  That is in Peoria and has been pushed back several times I don't think it has even opened.  If it has it is only barely opened and what they are planning has not come to fruition.   

I am talking about the Avanti's Dome in Pekin.

http://avantisdome.com/

The city built it and sold it to them.  It has done much better under Avanti's. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2015, 09:33:17 pm

Quote from: davebear on August 12, 2015, 08:30:11 pm

Believe me I've seen dozens of studies attempting to prove and disprove the profitability of building stadiums.  Ultimately you simply cannot place a dollar figure on the economic activity to determine if its a big loss or profit.

Yes you can, and numerous economic studies have done so.  Public finances stadiums are economic losers for communities.

Quote from: Pekin on August 12, 2015, 08:44:24 pm

My little town built a pressurized dome for softball and soccer.  No professional team.

I would say it is a success.  A hotel went up next to it and more restaurants were built.  When the city wanted out they sold it to a local Italian restaurant chain that has their business right next door to it.  They now run concessions at the dome and cater events there.

Damn near every weekend I see tons of teams and their parents in the local restaurants.  I am sure they are staying in the local hotel/motels and spending money in town.  I have no doubt that in the long run it is better for the town.  Even if the city took a loss selling it.  They are making up for it in tax revenue and property taxes.  Of course the local restaurant is doing a much better job of running it then the city ever did.  More concerts, tournaments and activities generating money then when the city ran it.

I suspect the same is true for bigger cities and bigger stadiums.

You may suspect it... but it is not.

If a city spends $800M on a stadium, breaking even would require an increase in tax revenue of about $160M a year.  Let the marketplace work.  Subsidies distort the market and result in decisions which are less beneficial to society than the results which would result if government did nothing to encourage or discourage decisions one way or another.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 12, 2015, 09:52:25 pm

Quote

If a city spends $800M on a stadium, breaking even would require an increase in tax revenue of about $160M a year.  Let the marketplace work.  Subsidies distort the market and result in decisions which are less beneficial to society than the results which would result if government did nothing to encourage or discourage decisions one way or another.

What kind of idiotic bliss do you live in?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 12, 2015, 09:53:55 pm

If your city doesn't do it another will.  Make a law that no government funding can go to stadiums and perhaps you can let the free market work.

Politicians however won't ever let that happen.  Just like there will not be a flat tax.  They like their power as that is how they make their money. 

Cities are in competition with other cities for the teams that bring in dollars and get politicians re-elected and rich.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2015, 10:05:48 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 12, 2015, 09:53:55 pm

If your city doesn't do it another will.  Make a law that no government funding can go to stadiums and perhaps you can let the free market work.

True, some other city might.  LET THEM.  The city which has the sense not to **** away tax dollars on such nonsense will still benefit.

Thinking your city should waste its money because otherwise some other city will otherwise is rather bizarre.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 12, 2015, 10:19:40 pm

That is jobs lost, tax revenue lost.  Do you have proof it doesn't work out in favor of the city in the long run with every factor taken into consideration?

I am sure some cities made bad deals but do all cities make bad deals?  I am guessing it goes both ways.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 12, 2015, 10:34:42 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 12, 2015, 10:19:40 pm

That is jobs lost, tax revenue lost.  Do you have proof it doesn't work out in favor of the city in the long run with every factor taken into consideration?

I am sure some cities made bad deals but do all cities make bad deals?  I am guessing it goes both ways.

There are several legitimate studies which have concluded they are almost always bad deals.  Do I have one in my hands at the moment, no, but I have read them.  The studies claiming there are benefits are virtually always funded by the folks trying to persuade government to subsidize the stadiums and seldom make any sense on careful reading.

But if it makes no sense to subsidize Solyndra because it is a mistake to think government can make such decisions better than the market place, it makes no more sense to subsidize sports teams and athletes by building their stadiums.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 12, 2015, 10:51:51 pm

Isn't it cute that a guy like Homo from a hick town in a backwards state can call another town "pathetic"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 13, 2015, 01:03:19 am

Quote from: Jackiejokeman on July 14, 2015, 04:12:12 am

 **** CALIFORNIA BY GUESS WHO ...


 Every refinery has decided to shut down at the same time in California.


 To convert over to the California "summer blend".


 Usually this takes a few weeks ... not a few MONTHS.


 The EXXON-Mobil refinery has not made one drop of gasoline since February.


 ARCO is down conveniently at the same time.


 So is Chevron.


 NO ... we are not being **** over in California ... if they can get away with it here,


 you're next.


 JJ is paying over $4.00 dollars a gallon for gasoline ... last week is was $3.33.


 Which is totally outrageous to the national average of $2.58 per gallon.


 You think it cant happen to you ? Keep dreaming sweetheart. >:(


 I can see MAKING A BUCK ... BUT I CANT SEE **** A COUNTRY!


 Maybe it's just me.  ::) ??? :-\ :-X >:(

 Oops. You just joined the California Club.


 Lemme know where the gas prices are going in the Midwest.


 A BP refinery in Whiting Indiana is suddenly in "trouble".


 In the past that didnt mean **** because the whole country just moved gas around as easy as hitting a switch.


 Now it's time to **** over individual regions with a "crisis" to clean your wallet.


 You saw it being played out in California ... and it worked ... they got away with it.


 Now it's your turn.


 Gas is still ridicules at $3.69 a gallon in California with OIL trading at $43.00 a barrel.


 The east coast will be next with some "problem" coming to New Jersey refinery's.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 13, 2015, 06:27:35 am

A few studies on the economic effects of sports stadiums, and a few reports on those studies:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/20/1365048/-Sports-Stadiums-Have-No-Impact-on-Municipal-Economies-So-Why-is-it-We-Still-Subsidize-the-NFL#

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/04/01/4822/nine-out-of-ten-economists-agree-sports-stadium-subsidies-are-dumb/

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/economic-impact-of-sport-stadiums-teams-events

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/municipal/impact-stadiums-teams-case-minor-league-baseball

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1997/06/summer-taxes-noll

http://news.heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/3075.pdf

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp89.pdf?_ga=1.199255470.1441433545.1439437282

http://econjwatch.org/articles/do-economists-reach-a-conclusion-on-subsidies-for-sports-franchises-stadiums-and-mega-events?_ga=1.199255470.1441433545.1439437282

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 13, 2015, 07:24:13 am

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/the-phenomenal-incoherence-of-donald-trump-121309.html?ml=m_pm#.VcwER_lViko

"My colleague Jonah Goldberg famously described Mitt Romney as speaking conservatism as if it’s a second language. Trump speaks it as if he needs help from a translator."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 13, 2015, 08:17:19 am

Economists can only study what they can quantify.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 13, 2015, 08:52:25 am

Yep, JJ, they're pulling the same crap here. Gas shot up in two days time almost a dollar a gallon. It was $2.29/gal on Monday and they were posting all sorts of articles about how we'd see gas around $2/gal soon or even lower. The VERY next day, bam all of a sudden a "outage" at Whiting. Gas jumped to $2.59. Wednesday? Gas up to $3.19!! Sent off a flurry of angry letters to my Reps about it. Funny how California is going months now with ridiculous gas prices, ain't it? I mentioned I work in steel and we have outages as well but they NEVER run a month much less months! The bosses head would be hanging on the nearest pole if that happened. Not with oil. Nope. They go down, the prices go up. Steel doesn't do that. You don't suddenly see a 'spike' in the price of steel with a outage. But it happens in oil. Pretty disgusted.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on August 13, 2015, 09:34:08 am

I just filled up for $2.14.

Sounds like you guys need to move...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 13, 2015, 10:17:28 am

Depends if moving involves crappy weather.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 13, 2015, 10:27:59 am

Canada has great weather, and their gasoline is barely twice as much as ours.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 13, 2015, 10:38:53 am

It was on the news last night, refinery down in Indiana. Gas here is $2.05..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 13, 2015, 11:19:18 am

Funny how the first indications were it was a short outage lasting no more than a week and prices would spike 25c/gal. That didn't even last a day before it went higher than that. And now they're saying it could be a month and I've even heard one prognosticator saying might last till Christmas! Crazy......how convenient when the price of oil is at its lowest in months and gas should be coming down....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 13, 2015, 02:35:02 pm

It is coming down, just not where you live.. Like I said, we're close to 2 bucks..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 13, 2015, 04:32:22 pm

Quote from: davebear on August 13, 2015, 08:17:19 am

Economists can only study what they can quantify.

And economic benefit or loss is exactly what economist study.  Contending they can not quantify economic benefit or loss suggests a lack of understanding of the words being used.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 13, 2015, 04:33:26 pm

(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11822706_905168489549313_3990311412500004074_n.jpg?oh=48864e617315cd21e1471a6551312e0e&oe=564BAA2A)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 13, 2015, 06:09:44 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carsons-tortured-defense-of-his-research-with-fetal-tissue/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carsons-tortured-defense-of-his-research-with-fetal-tissue/)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 13, 2015, 07:52:12 pm

Well, Jes, of course the obligatory cendescending jab didn't take long.

Economists, although I agree they are very smart people,  cannot quantify some of the, oops, dare I say "economic activity" a stadium generates.

As I posted before, tourists and fans of out of town teams that fly in use hotels, restaurants, airports etc are an unknown.  Cities make money on their presence.
However the number of out of towners, and how much they spend is not known and can't be included in any study.  I know, I know the economists in the articles you posted say no tourists and fans from other cities travel to out of town games, but all sports fans know that is not true.

I've already posted the other examples of income.

Again, I am not contending sports stadiums turn a profit just that there is no way to know the complete profit or loss.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 13, 2015, 08:11:52 pm

Quote from: davebear on August 13, 2015, 07:52:12 pm

Well, Jes, of course the obligatory cendescending jab didn't take long.

Economists, although I agree they are very smart people,  cannot quantify some of the, oops, dare I say "economic activity" a stadium generates.

As I posted before, tourists and fans of out of town teams that fly in use hotels, restaurants, airports etc are an unknown.  Cities make money on their presence.
However the number of out of towners, and how much they spend is not known and can't be included in any study.  I know, I know the economists in the articles you posted say no tourists and fans from other cities travel to out of town games, but all sports fans know that is not true.

I've already posted the other examples of income.

Again, I am not contending sports stadiums turn a profit just that there is no way to know the complete profit or loss.

Okay, I apologize.  It is not that you do not understand the meaning of the words.

It appears you simply do not understand that economist quite routinely quantify and calculate precisely what you say they do not.

Now, if you were to argue that not all of the benefit to a community is economic, and that the "psychic" or emotional benefit to a community is beyond measure and tilts the scale in favor of subsidies, you would at least have a defensible argument.

I actually expected you to make that one, but you did not.    You instead made an argument clearly establishing you have no idea what you are talking about, and you demonstrate that you have not even begun to read the studies you try to dismiss when you write, " I know, I know the economists in the articles you posted say no tourists and fans from other cities travel to out of town games, but all sports fans know that is not true."  The one thing that is not true is your claim that the economists "say no tourists and fans from other cities travel to out of town games."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 13, 2015, 08:19:57 pm

With your initial comment  "and claims that they increase economic activity are bull."  it became obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 13, 2015, 08:24:20 pm

I can't speak on big stadiums but the little dome here in town has been the only reason a new hotel and several new restaurants have been built and continue to prosper.  As well as helping the existing ones. 

I don't have the numbers so I can not guarantee it was a win for the city but I am pretty sure in the long run it is a winner.  Who knew how crazy people are about girls softball.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 13, 2015, 09:09:47 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 13, 2015, 08:24:20 pm

I can't speak on big stadiums but the little dome here in town has been the only reason a new hotel and several new restaurants have been built and continue to prosper.  As well as helping the existing ones. 

I don't have the numbers so I can not guarantee it was a win for the city but I am pretty sure in the long run it is a winner.  Who knew how crazy people are about girls softball.

Pekin, neither I, nor any economist I am aware of, would ever suggest that no one enjoys economic benefits from such subsidies, just as there are people who enjoyed economic benefits from subsidies to Solyndra.  That fact that SOMEONE enjoyed identifiable benefit is vastly different from saying there is a net benefit.

Read the studies.  The economic benefit to the communities granting subsidies for sports stadiums is at best a wash, and that is pretty much the best case scenario.  Generally the communities suffer a serious economic loss.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 13, 2015, 09:20:20 pm

If I was voting on such a deal I would read them.  Since I am not I am not going to waste my time.  I will take your word for it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 13, 2015, 09:52:36 pm

I wanted to use our time tonight to directly deal with an attack launched on me today by the left and the media. A couple questions came in on this subject, so I want to address it head on.

Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors.

I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study.

I am sickened by the attack that I, after having spent my entire life caring for children, had something to do with aborting a child and harvesting organs. My medical specialty is the human brain and even I am amazed at what it is capable of doing. Please know these attacks are pathetic attempts to blunt our progress.

Now lets get to answering your questions.

Nancy in Arkansas wants to know how my mother is doing.

Nancy, you know my mother is the only reason I stand here today. I surely would have been lost if it were not for her. She is an amazing woman. If she were the Secretary of Treasury, I assure you we would have a surplus. My mother was very ill when I announced my candidacy. The family was called in by her doctors. We surrounded her and prayed as did millions of you. She began to eat again. She has her strength back. She is doing as well as we can expect. Thank you for asking.

The next question is from Bill. He wanted to know if it was true that I was offered a slot at West Point after high school.

Bill, that is true. I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point. But I knew medicine is what I wanted to do. So I applied to only one school. (it was all the money I had). I applied to Yale and thank God they accepted me. I often wonder what might have happened had they said no.

Last question as it is getting late. A young nurse in Ohio wants to know how many patients did I treat during my career.

I treated over 15,000 patients in some 57 countries. We lived in Australia for a while as well. One of the most gratifying moments of each day is when I run into a former patient like I did tonight. My patients were all quite ill. I love seeing them with their families living normal lives. I think it is more gratifying than serving in Congress.

Speaking of serving in Congress. I constantly get asked how could I possibly become President when I have no political experience. Here is what I say. The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,788 years of political experience. How is that working out? People forget that of our 56 founding fathers who risked it all to sign the Declaration of Independence, Five were Doctors.

 Good night,
 Ben

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 13, 2015, 09:53:32 pm

Otto the above was from Ben Carson.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 13, 2015, 11:57:14 pm

You think Homo will be swayed by the truth.  He will merely say you are wrong, call you a few names, and think he has proven you wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2015, 02:58:14 am

Quote from: davep on August 13, 2015, 11:57:14 pm

You think Homo will be swayed by the truth.  He will merely say you are wrong, call you a few names, and think he has proven you wrong.

otto posted a link without comment on it.  There is nothing at all wrong with it.   Pekin has posted the content of a link without either comment or the actual link.  The content is an absolutely uncooroborated statement from Carson responding to the substance of the claims made at the link otto posted.

Anyone believing that either has "proven" the accuracy of either the original claims made at the post otto offered, or the rebuttal from Carson only helps to establish the validity of my oft-made comment that proof is merely whatever is required to convince... and for those strongly wanting to believe anything, it doesn't take much to "prove" it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2015, 03:45:18 am

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/how-greece-can-rise-from-the-ashes-the-kiwi-plan

How Economies Can Rise from the Ashes: The Kiwi Plan
Yes, You Can Save Democracy from Itself

BILL FREZZA   August 12, 2015

The signs of floundering entitlement democracies are everywhere these days — from poster child Greece to bankrupt Puerto Rico.

Runaway deficit spending, calamitous monetary policies, bloated public employee payrolls, incentive-killing welfare programs, confiscatory taxation, unfunded entitlements, dishonest government accounting, corporate cronyism, and job-killing regulations have mired most Western democracies in such a deep quagmire of voters’ own making that one despairs of finding a cure.

And yet, a cure has not only been found but has already been put into practice with great effect, offering practical lessons for any reformist who cares to look. New Zealand today stands as a beacon of freedom and prosperity, ranking number three in the Legatum Prosperity Index.

It wasn’t always so. In fact, few know the story of how that country transformed itself from a socialist basket case into one of the world’s most prosperous nations.

That story is updated and retold, with practical advice for activists, in my new monograph published by the Antigua Forum, New Zealand’s Far-Reaching Reforms: A Case Study on How to Save Democracy from Itself.

Two prime movers stand out, finance ministers from opposing political parties who made common cause to rescue the country they loved: Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson. It was a privilege to interview these elder statesmen in depth, capturing their remembrances, recording their advice, and putting it all in the context of the voluminous legislation they championed together.

The story of how they defied their own party leaders and convinced voters to endorse a radical overhaul of New Zealand’s body politic stands as perhaps history’s greatest national transformation that didn’t first involve a country being bombed into rubble. Like life-saving surgery, it involved nothing less than cutting out the parts of democracy that had grown cancerous in order to save the whole.

Predictions that voters would rebel when special privileges, subsidies, and entitlements were taken away were all proven wrong.

What Douglas, Richardson, and their allies bequeathed us was a virtual how-to recipe for saving a government that had, as Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, “run out of other people’s money.” Their accomplishments are too many to list in depth, but here is a brief rundown. While it took years of hard work, at the end of the day, they

privatized most state-owned enterprises, allowing competition to both stop the fiscal bleeding and raise the level of service
ended phony accounting practices designed to hide the truth from voters by shifting reporting of government finances to GAAP standards used in private industry
opened the government’s books, publishing monthly departmental income statements and balance sheets for all to see
repealed protective tariffs and eliminated farm subsidies, ushering in an era of free trade and a boom in agricultural productivity and export prowess
put the civil service bureaucracy on pay-for-performance contracts, while giving career administrators a free hand in hiring, firing, compensation, and outsourcing
halved top marginal income tax rates from 66 percent to 33 percent, while eliminating capital gains and estate taxes and shifting to a growth-friendly consumption tax regime
eliminated foreign exchange controls, allowing the New Zealand dollar — popularly known as the “kiwi” — to float
put the central bank under contract with the finance minister to deliver a published, targeted level of inflation
gave every employer and employee the right of free contract by eliminating forced-unionization labor laws and industry-wide multiemployer contracts
broke the public-education monopoly by shifting to an all-charter school system that allows any child to attend any school, determined only by parental choice
These changes took a decade to enact across the 1980s and early ’90s, a decade of political upheaval that nonetheless delivered results that have stood the test of time.

Most remarkably, predictions that voters would rebel when special privileges, subsidies, and entitlements were taken away were all proven wrong when New Zealanders were presented with a coherent plan boldly executed by competent leaders. The study reveals the precise political tactics used to overcome the fierce opposition from entrenched special interests.

The results remain clear for all to see. GDP increased fourfold, while the government debt-to-GDP ratio dropped to 30 percent (despite a short-term debt spike in the aftermath of the 2007–08 global recession).

Today, New Zealand operates under a system described as being designed by Hayekians, run by pragmatists, and populated by socialists.

Today, New Zealand operates under a system described as being designed by Hayekians, run by pragmatists, and populated by socialists. But because the rules of the game were permanently changed, there has been little backsliding to the electoral malaise described by H.L. Mencken as “a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

In fact, thanks to the fiscal transparency brought about by GAAP accounting and open books, most elections since the mid-1990s have seen the unusual — and pleasing — spectacle of both parties trying to outdo each other over who will be more fiscally responsible.

There is no reason why the same remedies couldn’t be applied across the bankrupt southern zone of the European Union, or even in the United States. All it takes is the will to make it happen, the courage to stand up to politicians and cronies devoted to protecting the status quo, and a little Kiwi know-how.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 10:15:05 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/)


(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oBW3JqM3Q6c/UmilBNHQLJI/AAAAAAAABg4/EqTnyTcOLKQ/s1600/Dr.+Ben+2.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 10:16:22 am

(https://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/ben-carson-i-got-mine-go-****-yourself.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 14, 2015, 10:19:59 am

So What?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 10:21:10 am

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Znmee-8rh7U/VMBcSDfoTmI/AAAAAAAAIhM/agXjFFJLBX4/s1600/Conservative%2BLogic.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 14, 2015, 11:00:08 am

Conservatives don't want money given to the rich.  It is Democrats and liberal Republicans that do that.  Obama's policies have given lots of our tax money to rich people.   

We just want the government to stop taking so much of our money to spend foolishly.  Don't give rich people money just stop taking so much from them and me.  Stop giving poor people so much also.  When it makes more financial sense to have children, don't get married and don't work what do you expect the results to be?  Of course we are going to end up with a permanent under class.  Which is exactly what the Democrats want because they need a permanent underclass to vote them in.

People on welfare should be surviving not living in luxury.  They shouldn't have smart phones, cable, and money to drink and smoke.  If they want those luxuries they should need to get a job.


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 11:55:22 am

An article about New Zealand with all the flavor of moldy bread.

What is it about New Zealand that we want here?  We need to model after a country with more income disparity, poverty,  crime, less social mobility and a government increasingly run by oligarchy?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/NZ_Govt_debt_1990-2011.svg/220px-NZ_Govt_debt_1990-2011.svg.png)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 14, 2015, 12:00:29 pm

Mostly, we have to get rid of the liberal idiots currently in charge of many key areas of the country.  Perhaps with more effective politicians, the east and west coasts can make the same progress that Wisconsin has made under Scott Walker.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 14, 2015, 12:04:29 pm

LOL

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 12:13:49 pm

What progress are you actually referring too?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 14, 2015, 12:18:27 pm

The levelling of the playing field with respect to the Government Unions is one critical aspect, allowing local governments to bargain on an equal basis with their employees.  Of course the restoration of the economy was also important.

But the biggest thing is probably breaking the hold on the state by the hick town capital city.  It was time to have the adults take over the state, instead of the whiney little ivory tower fools.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 14, 2015, 12:33:35 pm

Charter schools may be nice in theory but the one operating by us is under performing some regular schools.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2015, 12:50:46 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 12:13:49 pm

What progress are you actually referring too?

I have to join otto in asking that question, davep.  Has Walker gotten otto to move out of the state?  If he has not accomplished that, how can he really claim Wisconsin has made any progress?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2015, 12:53:38 pm

Quote from: Sportster on August 14, 2015, 12:33:35 pm

Charter schools may be nice in theory but the one operating by us is under performing some regular schools.

So don't send your kids to it.

There will be plenty of charter or private schools which do worse than other schools.  And if we allow the marketplace to work, they will fairly quickly lose money, either change and improve, or fail to change and go out of business.

The difference is that traditional public schools are allowed to continue even when they are terrible and neither parents nor students would choose to go there if they had any real options.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 14, 2015, 02:25:22 pm

 WHAT is anybody paying for a gallon of gasoline?


 Lemme know brothers.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 14, 2015, 02:26:47 pm

3.09 at the local Sam's club in Aurora, Illinois.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 14, 2015, 02:30:59 pm

2.66 yesterday.  Just a few days ago it was 2.25.  The refinery being down that is causing the gas prices to go up near Sporty are affecting us downstate as well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on August 14, 2015, 03:49:11 pm

2.07 at Kroger last night...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 14, 2015, 04:10:41 pm

 

Quote from: Dave23 on August 14, 2015, 03:49:11 pm

2.07 at Kroger last night...

 Dude that is so far from reality for what we are paying in California that it's not even funny.


 Try $3.69 a gallon.


 They stuck it to us ... found out they could get away with it ...


 that's where the price stands.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 14, 2015, 04:19:39 pm

JJ, we have been through this.  The reason your gas is so high is because of your politicians and the regulations they have on the oil/gas companies.

We have "just in time" refining which means any disruption causes prices to spike.  If you don't like it elect conservatives that will allow new refineries to be built and to relax or at least not force stricter pollution controls.

Electricity is going to go sky high in price if Obama goes through with his EPA regulations.  It is the same thing.  It is politicians causing the problem.  Then complaining about the evil rich companies screwing us.  They then tax them more and enact more regulations which causes the price to go up even further.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 07:58:13 pm

An idiot posts while ignoring the costs on society that pollution imposes.

Also, why would petroleum companies invest money when they are doing just fine with the current situation?  They already have conservative politicians working hard to continue private profits while socializing losses.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2015, 08:10:37 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 07:58:13 pm

An idiot posts while ignoring the costs on society that pollution imposes.

Also, why would petroleum companies invest money when they are doing just fine with the current situation?  They already have conservative politicians working hard to continue private profits while socializing losses.

I might respond to the first sentence if it made any sense, but since it doesn't, I will move on to the question in your second sentence -- why would petroleum companies invest money when they are doing just fine with the current situation?

The answer is quite simple -- because if they were allowed to expand production (which would require new refineries), they could make more money.

Greed is good.

And it motivates both individuals and businesses to do things which benefit society, since providing society with things society values enough to pay beyond the cost of production is the way to make a profit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 14, 2015, 08:56:37 pm

Otto, I am not a fan of pollution.  However we have won that war.  We are not polluting that much. Meeting these regulations will drop our pollution by 2% which is a drop in the bucket and even your global warming "experts" say that is not enough to matter.  China and India are the big polluters and they are doing next to nothing to curb their pollution.   Hell the biggest polluter in the US right now appears to be the EPA with their **** up.

The Obama administration is pushing EPA regulations that we do not have the technology to meet. This causes uncertainty and makes creating power very expensive.  If it is not changed we will have the price of electricity become ridiculous.  When that happens there really will be a gap between the rich and the poor.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 08:57:28 pm

Legally suspended

When do your insanely simpleton libertarian theories meet real world experience?

Can you point to example that doesn't require 100 year time travel?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2015, 09:40:51 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 14, 2015, 08:57:28 pm

Legally suspended

When do your insanely simpleton libertarian theories meet real world experience?

Can you point to example that doesn't require 100 year time travel?

Which libertarian theory is it you would like me to address?  The theory that it is morally wrong to initiate force against another person?  That is the core belief of libertarianism... and you reject it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2015, 09:42:06 pm

I am sitting here watching an hour-long interview of Donald Trump on Hannity.... and Trump's incoherence is absolutely stunning.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 14, 2015, 10:36:56 pm

And yet if he runs on a third party ticket, he will help elect an idiot like Al Gore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 14, 2015, 11:12:54 pm

Here is my theory.

The Clinton and Bush families are good friends.  They are both friendly with Trump so they make this plan.

Trump running helps the status quo.  Trump sucks all the air from the non-establishment candidates.  When their money runs out they are forced to drop out.  Once it is to late for another candidate to jump in Trump can drop out and give his support to whoever is willing to give him the most favors and is most likely to win.  If that is Jeb or Hillary makes no difference.

They are pretty much the same candidate.  They could run as president and VP if they did not have an R and D after their name their platform is that close.

However I think they underestimated just how pissed off the American people are at politicians from both parties.  I think they are shocked that Sanders and Trump are doing so well.  They are also shocked that Cruz, Carson and Fiorina are also pulling decent numbers as well.  That is how pissed off people are at the "ruling political/donor class".

On top of this you have Obama who is trying to force Hillary out so he can continue his agenda through a puppet.  We certainly live in interesting times. 



   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 12:52:43 am

Cruz is the guy they are most afraid of which is exactly why he is the guy I want more then any other.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 03:17:47 am

I have inserted sentence #s for reference.

Quote from: Pekin on August 14, 2015, 11:12:54 pm

1Here is my theory.

2The Clinton and Bush families are good friends.  3They are both friendly with Trump so they make this plan.

4Trump running helps the status quo.  5Trump sucks all the air from the non-establishment candidates.  6When their money runs out they are forced to drop out. 7Once it is to late for another candidate to jump in Trump can drop out and give his support to whoever is willing to give him the most favors and is most likely to win.  8If that is Jeb or Hillary makes no difference.

9They are pretty much the same candidate.  10They could run as president and VP if they did not have an R and D after their name their platform is that close.

11However I think they underestimated just how pissed off the American people are at politicians from both parties.  12I think they are shocked that Sanders and Trump are doing so well.  13They are also shocked that Cruz, Carson and Fiorina are also pulling decent numbers as well.  14That is how pissed off people are at the "ruling political/donor class".

15On top of this you have Obama who is trying to force Hillary out so he can continue his agenda through a puppet.  16We certainly live in interesting times.     

Here is my theory.

You are wrong.

You offered 16 different sentences, the first and 16th really make no difference for discussion purposes, and while most of those in between are matters of opinion and not really subject to being proven right or wrong, they involve such a degree of assumption, embracing conspiracy theories, and conclusion, that they can be reasonably addressed as "right" or "wrong" and each of the 2nd thru the 4th are wrong, though you are right in your 5th sentence that, "Trump sucks all the air from the non-establishment candidates."  After that you again wrong with your 6th, 7th and 8th sentences (though you are correct in your 7th sentence that Trump COULD "give his support to whoever is willing to give him the most favors and is most likely to win," there is far less reason to think that is his intent than there is to believe his candidacy is simply the result of his perfectly sincere narcissism).  Your 9th and 10th sentences are correct -- they are pretty much the same candidate and their positions are similar enough they could run together as president and VP (keep in mind that as the Constitution was originally written it was intended that opposing candidates WOULD serve together as president and VP after the election).  Your 11th, 12th and 13th sentences are wrong in that those sentences each include a reference to an indefinite "they" which indicates a true level of paranoia, the kind having a vision of a conspiratorial oligarchy running everything in the United States.  Your 14th sentence, about how "people (being) pissed off... at the 'ruling political/donor class" is both correct (they are) and incorrect (even those pissed off voters are expressing very strong support for on the the nation's best examples of the "ruling political/donor class" -- Donald Trump) and irrelevant.  Your 15th sentence exhibits yet another conspiracy theory, and one ignoring the fact that Obama could have sunk Hillary's candidacy at any point, and far easier months ago than now, and also ignoring the fact that once he is out of office his opportunity to control the next president is close to non-existent, and that even if he controlled the president, that would leave him far short of being able to control the national agenda.  Your 16th sentence is correct -- we do live in interesting times, though being bent toward paranoid conspiracy theories will make any time more interesting.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 09:31:01 am

Still nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r= (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=)0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 10:13:31 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 09:31:01 am

Still nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r= (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=)0

And yet her trustworthiness in public opinion polls, and her overall support, just keep falling.

Imagine that.

otto, you need to get to work and make sure more voters read the links you post.  You have to save your girl.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 10:24:10 am

Jes, I am not neccesarily wrong because I gave it as a theory not as a fact.  I am simply making an educated guess.

When I say "they" I am talking about the political elite and the donor class.  The people who run the Democrat and Republican parties.  These people hold much more power then they should.  We the people can take this power from them but it would mean more people would have to actually pay attention and vote for a candidate based on more then just name recognition and amount of commercials they run.

The Obama's and Clinton's hate each other.  This has been reported.  Obama can end her run at any point with this server fiasco.  However what is on that server that hurts Obama?  Also if it becomes known he was behind bringing her down it could hurt his legacy.  Which lets face it what this president really cares about at this point.   

If you think he can't control Biden or Kerry by helping one of them win the white house you are kidding yourself.  If a Democrat wins we would know almost immediately if they are simply an Obama puppet by whom they keep from his administration.  If Valerie Jarret still holds her position you have the smoking gun.  Of course when I say control I do not mean complete control.  He would not be involved in day to day matters.  He would however have influence over the big issues that matter to him and his legacy like Obamacare. 

I guarantee you if Clinton wins they clean house.  Of course the new people will be just as bad as those they replace.  They will just be loyal to a different corrupt egomaniac. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 15, 2015, 11:11:10 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 14, 2015, 11:12:54 pm

Here is my theory.

The Clinton and Bush families are good friends.  They are both friendly with Trump so they make this plan.

Trump running helps the status quo.  Trump sucks all the air from the non-establishment candidates.  When their money runs out they are forced to drop out.  Once it is to late for another candidate to jump in Trump can drop out and give his support to whoever is willing to give him the most favors and is most likely to win.  If that is Jeb or Hillary makes no difference.

They are pretty much the same candidate.  They could run as president and VP if they did not have an R and D after their name their platform is that close.

However I think they underestimated just how pissed off the American people are at politicians from both parties.  I think they are shocked that Sanders and Trump are doing so well.  They are also shocked that Cruz, Carson and Fiorina are also pulling decent numbers as well.  That is how pissed off people are at the "ruling political/donor class".

On top of this you have Obama who is trying to force Hillary out so he can continue his agenda through a puppet.  We certainly live in interesting times.     

It sounds pretty good, but you left out the part where the guy on the grassy knoll is the second cousin of both the Bush family and the Clintons who wanted JFK dead so that they could be elected in 30 years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 11:25:15 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 10:24:10 am

Jes, I am not neccesarily wrong because I gave it as a theory not as a fact

When the THEORY is wrong, AND it is your theory.... then you are wrong.  Your offering it as a theory makes you no less wrong.

Quote from: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 10:24:10 am

If you think he can't control Biden or Kerry by helping one of them win the white house you are kidding yourself.

And if you think he CAN control either of them after he leaves the White House, you need to re-read the first three articles of the Constitution.

Quote from: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 10:24:10 am

I guarantee you if Clinton wins they clean house.

Incoming presidents ALWAYS "clean house" when they come in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 11:35:38 am

You don't know it is wrong.  Just because you claim it is doesn't mean it is. 

Has anything Obama ever done make you think he gives two **** about the constitution?  If Biden wins I guarantee you Obama will have a ton of influence over his administration and there would lots of Obama holdovers.  You are naive if you think otherwise.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 12:02:57 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 11:35:38 am

You don't know it is wrong.  Just because you claim it is doesn't mean it is. 

Has anything Obama ever done make you think he gives two **** about the constitution?  If Biden wins I guarantee you Obama will have a ton of influence over his administration and there would lots of Obama holdovers.  You are naive if you think otherwise.

Well, I won't say you are naive... just a conspiratorial nutjob.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 01:12:58 pm

It is not far fetched at all.  I find it amusing that you don't realize this is how politics works.  It is all about influence.  If you help someone get elected they owe you. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 02:02:23 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 01:12:58 pm

It is not far fetched at all.  I find it amusing that you don't realize this is how politics works.  It is all about influence.  If you help someone get elected they owe you. 

Amusing.

So tell me about your great depth of experience in the political system.  Have you held office?  Have you regularly covered anyone who did or regularly covered the electoral or legislative process or the executive branch of any government or worked for anyone holding office?  Have you studied it in an academic setting?  Have you written or reported on it?

Before we go any further, please tell me about the depth and breadth of your knowledge.

Impress me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 02:25:51 pm

So you think big donors to politicians just do it out of the goodness of their hearts?  They don't want anything in return?  Really?

Even you don't believe that. 

After your next post where you will insult my intelligence, how about you go find somewhere else to troll for awhile?   Your act is getting repetitive and boring.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 03:13:34 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 15, 2015, 02:25:51 pm

So you think big donors to politicians just do it out of the goodness of their hearts?  They don't want anything in return?  Really?

Even you don't believe that. 

After your next post where you will insult my intelligence, how about you go find somewhere else to troll for awhile?   Your act is getting repetitive and boring.

My last post did not insult your intelligence, but your judgement.  Now your two consecutive posts to me where you were calling me naive were an attempt to insult my intelligence, but I don't get insulted so easily.

Now, while I am more than willing to continue, including answering your question (though I do have to hit the road for an 800 mile trip here shortly and might not respond right away), I would genuinely like to see you first answer the questions I asked of you regarding your experience or study.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 04:57:37 pm

(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11202853_10207429851887185_8524655283373655140_n.jpg?oh=4035f4c239b04a403ccaf10603bc729d&oe=5642A870)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 06:44:59 pm

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaTv2W7hFAuQjUxkCebqGxgJAHugT8cLr7-GaYsbSXcy705C1A)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 06:47:03 pm

(http://www.bolgernow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Rand-Paul-idiot-of-the-day.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 07:52:50 pm

No, otto, actually it does not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2015, 07:56:48 pm

Oh, otto, earlier you asked me to point to and explain libertarian theories working in the real world.  I response I asked the following:

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 14, 2015, 09:40:51 pm

Which libertarian theory is it you would like me to address?  The theory that it is morally wrong to initiate force against another person?  That is the core belief of libertarianism... and you reject it.

Did I miss your response?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 15, 2015, 08:09:18 pm

Depending upon how you define "initiate force", I would expect that is pretty much the core belief of most every moral theory.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 08:40:55 pm

Lets see simpleton libertarian

law breaking guys set up a claim on public land and your "initiate force" farce would do what?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/oath-keepers-white-hope-mine (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/oath-keepers-white-hope-mine)

Later we can move on to that feller Hitler and wonder what libertarian farce offers us there.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 09:54:59 pm

The Closing of the Canadian Mind


By STEPHEN MARCHE
AUG. 14, 2015


Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, is creating a legacy of secrecy and ignorance.

THE prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has called an election for Oct. 19, but he doesn’t want anyone to talk about it.

He has chosen not to participate in the traditional series of debates on national television, confronting his opponents in quieter, less public venues, like the scholarly Munk Debates and CPAC, Canada’s equivalent of CSPAN. His own campaign events were subject to gag orders until a public outcry forced him to rescind the forced silence of his supporters.

Mr. Harper’s campaign for re-election has so far been utterly consistent with the personality trait that has defined his tenure as prime minister: his peculiar hatred for sharing information.

Americans have traditionally looked to Canada as a liberal haven, with gun control, universal health care and good public education.

But the nine and half years of Mr. Harper’s tenure have seen the slow-motion erosion of that reputation for open, responsible government. His stance has been a know-nothing conservatism, applied broadly and effectively. He has consistently limited the capacity of the public to understand what its government is doing, cloaking himself and his Conservative Party in an entitled secrecy, and the country in ignorance.

His relationship to the press is one of outright hostility. At his notoriously brief news conferences, his handlers vet every journalist, picking and choosing who can ask questions. In the usual give-and-take between press and politicians, the hurly-burly of any healthy democracy, he has simply removed the give.

Mr. Harper’s war against science has been even more damaging to the capacity of Canadians to know what their government is doing. The prime minister’s base of support is Alberta, a western province financially dependent on the oil industry, and he has been dedicated to protecting petrochemical companies from having their feelings hurt by any inconvenient research.

In 2012, he tried to defund government research centers in the High Arctic, and placed Canadian environmental scientists under gag orders. That year, National Research Council members were barred from discussing their work on snowfall with the media. Scientists for the governmental agency Environment Canada, under threat of losing their jobs, have been banned from discussing their research without political approval. Mentions of federal climate change research in the Canadian press have dropped 80 percent. The union that represents federal scientists and other professionals has, for the first time in its history, abandoned neutrality to campaign against Mr. Harper.

His active promotion of ignorance extends into the functions of government itself. Most shockingly, he ended the mandatory long-form census, a decision protested by nearly 500 organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Catholic Council of Bishops. In the age of information, he has stripped Canada of its capacity to gather information about itself. The Harper years have seen a subtle darkening of Canadian life.

The darkness has resulted, organically, in one of the most scandal-plagued administrations in Canadian history. Mr. Harper’s tenure coincided with the scandal of Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto who admitted to smoking crack while in office and whose secret life came to light only when Gawker, an American website, broke the story. In a famous video at a Ford family barbecue, Mr. Harper praised the Fords as a “Conservative political dynasty.”

Mr. Harper’s appointments to the Senate — which in Canada is a mercifully impotent body employed strictly for political payoffs — have proved greedier than the norm. Mr. Harper’s chief of staff was forced out for paying off a senator who fudged his expenses. The Mounties have pressed criminal charges.

After the 2011 election, a Conservative staffer, Michael Sona, was convicted of using robocalls to send voters to the wrong polling places in Guelph, Ontario. In the words of the judge, he was guilty of “callous and blatant disregard for the right of people to vote.” In advance of this election, instead of such petty ploys, the Canadian Conservatives have passed the Fair Elections Act, a law with a classically Orwellian title, which not only needlessly tightens the requirements for voting but also has restricted the chief executive of Elections Canada from promoting the act of voting. Mr. Harper seems to think that his job is to prevent democracy.

But the worst of the Harper years is that all this secrecy and informational control have been at the service of no larger vision for the country. The policies that he has undertaken have been negligible — more irritating distractions than substantial changes. He is “tough on crime,” and so he has built more prisons at great expense at the exact moment when even American conservatives have realized that over-incarceration causes more problems than it solves. Then there is a new law that allows the government to revoke citizenship for dual citizens convicted of terrorism or high treason — effectively creating levels of Canadianness and problems where none existed.

For a man who insists on such intense control, the prime minister has not managed to control much that matters. The argument for all this secrecy was a technocratic impulse — he imagined Canada as a kind of Singapore, only more polite and rule abiding.

The major foreign policy goal of his tenure was the Keystone Pipeline, which Mr. Harper ultimately failed to deliver. The Canadian dollar has returned to the low levels that once earned it the title of the northern peso. Despite being left in a luxurious position of strength after the global recession, he coasted on what he knew: oil. In the run-up to the election, the Bank of Canada has announced that Canada just had two straight quarters of contraction — the technical definition of a recession. He has been a poor manager by any metric.

The early polls show Mr. Harper trailing, but he’s beaten bad polls before. He has been prime minister for nearly a decade for a reason: He promised a steady and quiet life, undisturbed by painful facts. The Harper years have not been terrible; they’ve just been bland and purposeless. Mr. Harper represents the politics of willful ignorance. It has its attractions.

Whether or not he loses, he will leave Canada more ignorant than he found it. The real question for the coming election is a simple but grand one:

Do Canadians like their country like that?


Typical conservative results.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 15, 2015, 10:35:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 09:54:59 pm

The Closing of the Canadian Mind


By STEPHEN MARCHE
AUG. 14, 2015

His relationship to the press is one of outright hostility. At his notoriously brief news conferences, his handlers vet every journalist, picking and choosing who can ask questions. In the usual give-and-take between press and politicians, the hurly-burly of any healthy democracy, he has simply removed the give.

Typical conservative results.

And people thought you couldn't learn anything from Hillary.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 10:44:17 pm

How long have you been suffering from Clinton Derangement syndrome?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 15, 2015, 11:41:11 pm

Cute.  Steal the Bush derangement syndrome and pretend it is your own.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 16, 2015, 03:45:11 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 15, 2015, 08:40:55 pm

Lets see simpleton libertarian

law breaking guys set up a claim on public land and your "initiate force" farce would do what?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/oath-keepers-white-hope-mine (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/oath-keepers-white-hope-mine)

Later we can move on to that feller Hitler and wonder what libertarian farce offers us there.

I'm sorry, otto.  I only speak English.  I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say.  Could you find someone to translate for you

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 10:03:34 am

Typical.

The answer (if there was one) was only going to be long, tedious and repetitive anyway.

Well, why don't point to the nation which has the libertarian theory that you espouse so we can all look at the results.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 11:21:05 am

Well, he certainly couldn't point to Greece.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 12:18:03 pm

davepbart


All that you think you know about the Greece situation, you learned from phaxnews.

That disqualifies you from discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 01:08:34 pm

It is really a struggle for Homo to maintain his ignorance in the face of actual facts.  His only choice is to dismiss the facts by attacking the messenger.  Probably a result of being educated in a hick town in a backwoods state.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 01:10:04 pm

What phax have you presented?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 01:14:24 pm

Greece is a socialist country that has promised it's citizens more than it can provide.  Can you rebut that without calling names or using diminutive nicknames?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 01:30:54 pm

Greece is a unitary parliamentary republic.


Can you prove "Greece is a socialist country" before you crap your pants.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 01:33:38 pm

jeb?


(http://i0.wp.com/www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Wilmore-Jeb-Iraq.png?resize=490%2C344)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 16, 2015, 01:37:48 pm

Simple, Hillary voted for it, not Jeb.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 01:38:17 pm

Idiot.  I am talking about their economic system, and you rebut by talking about their political system.

Didn't University of Wisconsin PS 132 teach you anything in the third grade?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 01:53:55 pm

So, your not able to provide information to support your "Greece is a socialist country" statement so you turned tail and ran.

Greece is actually capitalist economy with a public sector accounting for about 40% of GDP and with per capita GDP about two-thirds that of the leading euro-zone economies. Tourism provides 18% of GDP. Immigrants make up nearly one-fifth of the work force, mainly in agricultural and unskilled jobs.

The current economic situation in Greece was caused by the government engaging in unreported credit default swaps, unreported debt (which caused interest rates to balloon) and wide spread tax evasion by the wealthy.

Now it's your turn to post stupid ass phaxnews **** that you learned from them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 02:40:48 pm

A country that has 40 percent of GDP coming from the public sector is pretty much the result of socialistic policies.

The current problems with their economy are the result of spending much more than they are able to take in in taxation.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 02:57:59 pm

That's the weak response that I would expect from you, a phaxnews old white guy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 03:28:15 pm

That's the weak response that I would expect from you, an idiotic liberal homo who is unable to go beyond his limited education.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 05:46:38 pm

davepbart

Try this article if you would to improve a very poor understanding of Greece.

http://www.businessinsider.com/greece-referendum-result-and-the-meaning-of-debt-2015-7?r=UK&IR=T (http://www.businessinsider.com/greece-referendum-result-and-the-meaning-of-debt-2015-7?r=UK&IR=T)

But, I'm not hopeful that your phaxnews firewall will allow the popup screen to load in your head.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 05:59:58 pm

As usual idiot Homo, you fail to understand the problem.

Greece defaulted on their debts.  I have no problem with that.  Many people do that through bankruptcy or other means.  So what.

The problem is that Greece HAD to default on their debts because they irresponsibly spent more than they can repay.  They had to default because their economic system allowed them no other choice but to do so.

I don't much care that many countries and banks lost money on the default.  As the article says, and as I totally agree, lending money to people like that is risky, and anyone taking risks have to accept the consequences of their actions.

So the result is that Greece is a failed country with a failed government, asking the adults in the world to bail them out of their own stupidity.  It didn't happen, and now all the promises the failed government made to the citizens of the failed country will go unfulfilled.  Workers can not be hired and pensions can not be paid.  Banks and countries will lose a little money, and Greek citizens will suffer the consequences of the foolish policies that they demanded from those they voted for.

I have no doubt that the rest of Europe will help out a little.  Responsible adults seldom allow foolish ones to suffer all that they bring upon themselves.  But unless a Greek "Scott Walker" comes to their rescue as the real one is trying to do with Wisconsin, the suffering will be substantial.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 06:10:15 pm

Weasel walker is owned by koch industries and currently is borrowing state money like crazy with a 2.2 billion deficit in the next budget.

So I suppose you think the weasel is irresponsible.

Also, in regard to your myopic response which focuses just on spending. If just lowering spending is great for economic activity...how do you conservsplain kansas?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 16, 2015, 06:34:50 pm

Walker is trying to make up for Democrat policies that put Wisconsin in the hole they are in. 

My god you are thick!

Rauner here in Illinois is trying to do the same thing and the Unions and Democrats are fighting him at every turn.  You can't continue to spend money you don't have indefinitely.  At some point you have to cut the spending.  Either do it before you default or do it after but it will happen.  Doing it before is the smart move.  Better yet keep a balanced budget except for times of hardship then go right back to balancing the budget when the hardship passes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 07:03:13 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 06:10:15 pm

Weasel walker is owned by koch industries and currently is borrowing state money like crazy with a 2.2 billion deficit in the next budget.

So I suppose you think the weasel is irresponsible.

Also, in regard to your myopic response which focuses just on spending. If just lowering spending is great for economic activity...how do you conservsplain kansas?

The latest budget (which was held up by the liberals for months) results in a balanced budget by the end of the year.  When was the last time a democratic governor had a balanced budget in Wisconsin?

And if I understand your rather oddly phrased question about Kansas, no one that I know of ever said that reducing spending would result in immediate economic advantage.  Years of irresponsible governing can not be mended by one year of responsible governing.  But Kansas seems to be heading in the direction of solvency, which often happens when the adults take over.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 08:05:13 pm

Moron davepbart

Wisconsin law requires a balanced budget, so every one of them. But again, phaxless news doesn't disseminate that type of information.

To "balance" the the budget this year governor weasel has upped borrowing 1 BILLION dollars, took the Bucks stadium off budget and still has not included any highway spending.

Kansas has been a disaster for years because of conservative polices and there is not end in site. They deserve the government they vote for as religious idiots.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/barbara-shelly/article24432004.html (http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/barbara-shelly/article24432004.html)


Every time conservative is put in power they shift the cost of funding state government onto low- and-middle income people. The weasel-lite ratner is no exception.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 08:12:03 pm

And BTW way simpleton davepbart...

The Wisconsin state budget (like kansas) wasn't HELD up by Democratic lawmakers, but by infighting republic pols. pols who wanted to line the budget with crazy-ass policy items without debate.

But again, your phaxless news doesn't deal in facts or truth to you old white dickheads.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 08:23:04 pm

davepbart

Some more enlightening reading for you.

http://www.kansasbudget.com/ (http://www.kansasbudget.com/)

Excerpt;

Now, three years in, Kansans and the nation are realizing how high the costs of our tax experiment have been.  The income tax cuts were indeed not free.  “Pay-fors” have definitely been required.

The most visible pay-fors have been tax increases.  The 2012 income tax cuts blew such a hole in the state budget that lawmakers had no real choice during the 2015 legislative session but to raise taxes somewhere.  They chose the sales tax, cigarette tax, and a few others.  The state sales tax has increased to 6.5 percent, and only Mississippians pay a higher sales tax rate on food than Kansans.  Unwilling to challenge a veto threat from the governor, legislators could not correct the income tax policy that unfairly gives huge tax cuts to some of the wealthiest, but still requires working Kansans to pay.

The income tax cuts have also been paid for by cutting back state services.  The most prominent example is the switch of school aid to a block grant formula.  The block grant lowered classroom funding and then froze that diminished funding in place for the next two years.  The block grant was not implemented because it was a better, fairer way to distribute funds.  Rather, the key purpose was to put a chokehold on school finance in order to make up for a portion of the revenue loss from the income tax cuts.   In response, school districts have shortened their school year, chopped programs, and raised property taxes.  And in ongoing school finance litigation, the Kansas district court has already ruled the block grant system inadequately funds schools, thus violating the state constitution.

One of the biggest costs of the Kansas experiment, although not as easily quantifiable, has been stagnation.  With the state in financial crisis, all thoughts go toward surviving the chaos, pulling back, and making do.  The Kansas political environment currently offers no capacity to consider questions like:  How do we make our schools world-class?  What are the next steps for our road system?  Can we improve the health of our citizens?  Progress requires a stable budget and fiscal situation which Kansas still does not have.  While Kansas lawmakers were spending a record-long legislative session agonizing over finances, other states were thinking about their future and passing us by.


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 08:29:36 pm

More reading ignorant davepbart

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2015/07/02/lessons-on-how-not-to-run-your-state-government/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2015/07/02/lessons-on-how-not-to-run-your-state-government/)


Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 08:40:13 pm

And idiot davepbart

How do YOU explain that the first budget weasel-lite ratner proposed for Illinois would spend 3 BILLION more than revenues?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 08:47:43 pm

Idiot Homo.  Read the article next time.

The problem with Kansas was not that they cut taxes too much.  The problem with Kansas was that they did not cut spending enough.

No conservative advocates cutting taxes without also cutting spending even more, in order to balance the budget.  Something that has been lost on liberals that want to mischaracterize the side then can not defeat.  If you want to see a disaster, just look south of your border, where Illinois is fast becoming the Greece of the United States.  They elected an adult governor, but failed to elect adult legislatures, with the result that not even the current governor has been able to get all the reforms that are needed.

Wisconsin is gaining credibility under Walker that it never had under many of the idiots that wandered in and out of the People's Republic of Madison.  Given time, if the voters do not give in to the loonie left and fail to continue the reforms that have been created by decades of mismanagement of the liberals.

But with the government finally breaking the iron grip of the public worker's union, there is still hope for not only the state, but also the local governments that are thriving under the ability to bargain on an equal basis.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 08:58:38 pm

davepbart

After your last post (dripping with phaxnews mindless platitudes) surely your god agrees with me that your nothing but an idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 09:13:36 pm

Moron davepbart

Quote

The problem with Kansas was not that they cut taxes too much.  The problem with Kansas was that they did not cut spending enough.

That is NOT what art laffer and the conservative trickle down supply-side voodoo advocates claim. That is your rationalization to a failed kansas experiment.

Your side claims the following;
Tax cuts pay for themselves.

The answer– yet again– is a resounding no.

We’ve tried this experiment time and again. And tax cut proponents such as economist Art Laffer continue to insist they can turn fiscal dross to gold: Cut taxes deeply enough and the resultant boom in economic activity will boost revenues. Magic. Painless. Everything a politician would ever want.

And that brings us to the bottom line. Since the first round of tax cuts, job growth in Kansas has lagged the U.S. economy. So have personal incomes. While more small businesses were formed, many of them were merely individuals taking advantage of the newly tax-free status of those firms by redefining themselves as businesses.

The business boom predicted by tax cut advocates has not happened, and it certainly has not come remotely close to offsetting the static revenue loss from the legislated tax cuts.

One can argue whether cutting taxes is a good thing. One can argue about whether government is too big. One can even argue about whether low taxes increase business activity. But one cannot credibly argue that tax cuts increase revenue or even pay for themselves. They didn’t for Ronald Reagan. They don’t for Sam Brownback. They won’t for the next politician who tries—whether he (or she) is in Washington, D.C. or in some state capital.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/07/15/whats-the-matter-with-kansas-and-its-tax-cuts-it-cant-do-math/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/07/15/whats-the-matter-with-kansas-and-its-tax-cuts-it-cant-do-math/)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 16, 2015, 09:39:27 pm

You are incorrect.  Laffer says that cutting taxes are a good thing, but only half the equation.  He is wrong.  Cutting taxes are probably less than a quarter of the equation.

I would explain what an equation was, but it would exceed your third grade understanding of math, as well as economics, history, and for that matter, English.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 10:11:04 pm

A simpleton trying to avoid explaining a simplistic economic tax theory.


Entertainment

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 16, 2015, 11:03:01 pm

Is it the bank's fault when you overdraw your checking account? Or do you cut your spending back so your balance and your imput match? Good grief even a third grader understands that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 16, 2015, 11:05:43 pm

I suppose Oddo blames his employer because he doesn't have enough in his checking account and is overdrawn.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 11:38:41 pm

Another phaxnews simpleton in for a post or two.

isfullofit

Why is it that for conservatives everything is always black and white?  To balance a budget or balance sheet one just needs to cut spending?

Does any  business operate in the matter you simpletons suggest? Hell no.

If a business can only cut spending to continue operations, they are going out of business and fast.

God, you guys are stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 16, 2015, 11:42:37 pm

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/159516/large/Screen_Shot_2015-08-16_at_2.47.58_PM.png?1439761781)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2015, 12:27:16 am

Otto, the spending is out of control.  That has to be reduced.

You can only raise taxes so far until you hurt economic growth.  When that happens you are in a death spiral. 

We are in a death spiral.  Spending has to be cut drastically.  If we did not let the spending get so far out of control we would not be in as bad of shape as we are.  Our taxes are so high it is killing our economy.  So we have to cut spending and lower taxes.  When we do this the economy will pick up and tax revenue will actually increase even though the tax rate is lower.

However right now the spending is the biggest problem.

If I give my daughter a credit card for emergencies and she maxes it out buying her friends free stuff to make her popular do I increase her allowance and give her another credit card or do I take the credit card away and make her get a job to pay it off?   

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 17, 2015, 01:10:07 am

If anyone needed further proof that conservatives are idiots, you just read it.

Lets try this. What spending is out of control? The spending on your imaginary credit card for emergency food purchases in case race wars break out because Black Lives Matter deterred a few white cops from shooting first and asking questions later?

That has to be reduced. What that? What spending have you identified and what proof have you offered to support the conclusion that it needs to be reduced?

Quote

We are in a death spiral.  Spending has to be cut drastically.  If we did not let the spending get so far out of control we would not be in as bad of shape as we are.  Our taxes are so high it is killing our economy.  So we have to cut spending and lower taxes.  When we do this the economy will pick up and tax revenue will actually increase even though the tax rate is lower.

This whole paragraph is a joke right?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2015, 07:30:16 am

Damn..... Who could have seen this coming?  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/minimum-wage-offensive-could-speed-arrival-of-robot-powered-restaurants/2015/08/16/35f284ea-3f6f-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html?hpid=z1

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 17, 2015, 07:58:56 am

Quote

We are in a death spiral.  Spending has to be cut drastically.  If we did not let the spending get so far out of control we would not be in as bad of shape as we are.  Our taxes are so high it is killing our economy.  So we have to cut spending and lower taxes.  When we do this the economy will pick up and tax revenue will actually increase even though the tax rate is lower.



This whole paragraph is a joke right?

No its not a joke. Its correct. Spending has to be cut. Its just seems there isn't enough politicians that want to do that. All the politicians want to do is spend more. Right now deficit spending like Greece and Spain has them between a rock and a hard place. Its getting to the point here that just the interest alone on our national debt is killing us. That has to be reversed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 17, 2015, 10:55:26 am

I would start with pensions for government employees.  Pay what is owed but freeze all of them where they are and don't give them to any future employees.  Give them 401K's just like the private sector does.  This includes the politicians. 

Do away with a lot government agencies.  Some of them are redundant or simply not needed. 

Stop the ridiculous budget process.  Currently if you don't use all of your budget it gets lowered.  If you use all it gets increased.  That is stupid.  Give incentives for managers to not use the entire budget.

Simply stop raising the amount they can spend.  Hold the line on it and make the agencies you don't cut, live with in their means.  Currently when our politicians say they cut spending by 5% what they really mean is they cut the spending increase by 5%.  Freeze budgets where they are so their is zero increase in spending is better then what they are doing now.

In the private sector companies get fat in the good times.  However when times get tough they start cutting or go out of business.  In government the fat never gets cut.  It just keeps getting more and more bloated.         

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2015, 11:12:05 am

Quote from: Pekin on August 17, 2015, 10:55:26 am

I would start with pensions for government employees.  Pay what is owed but freeze all of them where they are and don't give them to any future employees.  Give them 401K's just like the private sector does.  This includes the politicians. 

That is the most important reform that we can make.  Defined benefit pensions have destroyed the automotive industry and are becoming a thing of the past in the private economy.  It has to be eliminated in the public sector.

Notice how Homo goes through the same cycle in all arguments.  First he calls names.  Then he quotes loony left blogs.  Then he calls more names.  We should expect to see quotes from more loony left blogs soon.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 17, 2015, 01:06:40 pm

davepbart

Forbes is now a left loony site....and you so desperately want to be taken seriously.


Can somebody post any proof that our spending rivals the spending of either Greece or Spain. And idiots the number your looking for is spending to GDP.


I will wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 17, 2015, 05:34:54 pm

 Hows the gasoline prices in your neighborhood ? Say where yer at.


 In regards to Trump and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution Of The United States,


 can anybody post that Amendment in full on this forum ? Thanks.  :)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 17, 2015, 08:17:19 pm

2.99 to 3.05 now in N.Indiana, J....you??

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 17, 2015, 10:27:08 pm

Mark's Market Blog
8-16-15: China Employment.
by Mark Lawrence
The 50 day moving average on the Dow is now below the 200 day moving average - the so-called "death cross." This is a predictor of bad times ahead in the stock market. Gold has temporarily bottomed and is heading higher, a sign of discomfort with markets. Junk bonds are imploding, a sign that people want less risk.
 
S&P 500 February 20 2014 to August 14 2015
For fifteen years we had a deal with China: they shipped us crap to sell at Walmart, and we shipped them crap bonds. That deal is over. China is now net sellers of US treasury bills. They're starting to unload some of their nearly $4 trillion in foreign reserves, built up when they were on their way to dominating the world. Their reserves are down 16% in the last year due in part to capital flight. Now they have their nose just out of water and they need to keep it that way. Any Chinese recession must be shallow and short lived or the government will be in question. Right now the Chinese government finds themselves with no good options: do nothing and jobs disappear, or devalue the currency and capital flees. These are communists at heart, so jobs always win. They devalued their currency this week a total of about 3%, so we may expect their capital flight problem to increase. The Bank of China says they will "severely punish" anyone involved in taking capital out of China. The luster is off this economy.


There are growing fears that China's devaluation will lead to a currency war. They have just made imports from their majos trading partners like Japan, Korea, SE Asia, Europe and the US more expensive and their own goods cheaper. The US will not react to this - we seem happy to ship them jobs in return for their crap - but other countries more likely will react. If will be completely unsurprising to find other countries lowering their currencies in response. Here in the US I expect the Fed will go ahead and raise rates next month, but the point of this is to fight inflation and if everyone else in the world is making their stuff cheaper for us we'll have deflation, not inflation. The Fed may find there is no normal world economy into which they can normalize our interest rates.

Last week I noted that Foxconn, the maker of Apple phones among other parts, is opening a major factory in India. This week we learn that Xiaomi, who has 14% of China's smart phone market, is also opening a factory in India. Xiaomi is driving the price of smart phones down so fast that HTC is nearly bankrupt and Samsung is losing money on every phone it sells. The first Xiaomi smart phone to sell in India will be the Redmi 2, for about $100. Xiaomi doesn't currently sell phones in the US and Europe, but that will change soon enough. If they open a factory in Mexico or the US that will be extremely telling.

China has yet another problem - their population is aging. The one child policy is not only showing up in unmarriageable men - China has more 20-something men with no corresponding female they might marry than California has people - but also in a shortage of young workers. Starting this year China's working population goes into long-term decline as they find themselves with a growing number of old people retiring and a shrinking number of young working people to support the society.


It seems every single company in Europe is gearing up for a massive sales effort into Iran. With their oil exports freed and access to their money, Iran looks like a massive profit opportunity. Of course the more these companies gear up, the less likely we can stop the Iran deal and the less likely we can continue sanctions or snap them back into place if there's non-compliance. There will be a lot of noise about congress voting and democrats abandoning Obama and a veto and the potential for a veto over-ride, but this is all a side show: if the sanctions come down, the deal is done.

"I really regret that all of a sudden copy-paste is coming up again," Jaguar Land Rover CEO Ralph Speth told the press at the Shanghai Auto Show. "That will not help the reputation of China, of Chinese industry at all." However, JLR believes China's intellectual-property laws won't be able to provide the company with sufficient legal recourse. "There are no laws to protect us, so we have to take it as it is," Speth told reporters in April. "In Europe, we can be protected against this kind of copy-paste in the design language, in the features but also the technology." "You can't be protected in China," Speth added.


We're all aware that Greece has too much debt - even the IMF says it's unsustainable and they won't participate in any further bailouts until there is discussion of debt relief. And as a result of this debt Greece is now imploding, their businesses are shutting down, unemployment is rising, social cohesion is failing. How much debt did this? About 185% of GDP. For most countries debt hovers about 100% of GDP. Who else besides Greece has out of control debt? Here's the list: Japan, S.Korea, Spain, France, China, in order of increasing debt. Japan's debt is mostly owed to Japanese; intelligently the Japanese never went big for trying to attract foreign money. Those other countries, not so much. China's debt is now over 200% of GDP and a lot of it is owed to foreigners. The Fed is about to raise interest rates, and they will likely raise them several times. In time this will attract money from other countries to the US. Debt is a good idea when the economy is expanding and there is inflation, meaning you pay the debt back with cheaper dollars. Now China, France, Spain, N.Korea find themselves on the edge of recession or actually in recession and in a deflationary environment where debt is repaid with more expensive money. China's producer prices have been falling for 41 months. Will this all end spectacularly, with fire, not ice? Many assure us no, because "this time it's different."

From 2005-2010 the EPA mandated pollution standards that reduced ozone by 20%. Nearly half of that gain is gone now. We've a new import: Chinese ozone is blowing across the ocean to the west coast. Ozone in the upper atmosphere helps block ultra-violet light, but this is ozone in the lower atmosphere which is a main component of smog and has significant human health hazards. LA is looking smoggy again. UC Berkeley physicists calculate that China's air pollution kills 1.6 million each year from heart, lung and stroke problems; most of their deadly pollution is linked to burning coal. The worst air in the US is in the city of Madera, CA; 99.9% of the air in the eastern half China is worse. For those who believe in global warming, China is #1 at carbon emissions by a large margin. We cleaned up our air with a combination of tough EPA regulations and moving our heavy industry out of the US - Pittsburgh could not have cleaned up without losing their steel industry, for example. How will China clean up? Perhaps in part by moving electricity generation from coal to solar, but what about their steel and manufacturing industries? Will those move to India, who already has the world's most polutted air?


Last week I noted that Turkey was using the ISIL war as cover to move against the Kurds. This week the US Air Force has come to the same conclusion: they calculate that in the last three weeks Turkey has conducted 300 raids against the Kurds and 9 raids against ISIL. Meanwhile, Obama is hoping to improve relations with Turkey so there's no administration response to this.

The US has lost 48 million chickens and turkeys to bird flu. Iowa, the #1 egg producing state, has no more chickens. Zero. Panda Express is now putting corn in their fried rice instead of eggs as the price of eggs has more than doubled. It will take the chicken industry two years to recover.

Oil continues to drop, into the mid 40s this week. Many are projecting that as China continues to move towards recession and Iran comes on line with their production, oil could drop all the way to $30 per barrel. And Americans are respondign to cheaper gas by seeing the USA in their Chevrolet.



LEDs - those fantastic lights that color match the sun or are even bluer and are nearly free to operate - are being used by cities for street lights now. Photos from the International Space Station show two things clearly: cities switching to LEDs are noticeably brighter and noticeably bluer. More light pollution is the bane of astronomers everywhere, and bluer lights at night keep people awake longer and tend to disrupt sleep patterns. You can get LEDs with any color temperature you wish - imho, street lights should use the cooler colors like 2500°; instead it appears cities are going for the hotter colors like 5000°. Below we see Milan in 2006 and in 2013, after they switched the city over to LED lights.


The number of Americans living in slums - places where 40% or more of the people are below the federal poverty line - has doubled since 2000 to 13.8 million. From 1990 to 2000 that number fell 25% from 9.6 million to 7 million. Obama has presided over a huge increase in slum living - likely this is why Jesse Jackson says Obama has "failed black people." In Obama's defense, so long as the government has minorities addicted to free handouts and single parenthood, for just so long will minorities fail to thrive.


Meanwhile here in the US states have been on a borrowing / spending / taxing spree, with all three components raising at double the rate of inflation. Personal wages, salaries and consumption has only barely kept up with inflation, real household incomes are down 8.5% since 2000. This has to lead to a downward spiral where state and local governments will have to raise taxes to maintain their trend of higher spending. Higher taxes reduce household spending, which reduces income and sales tax revenues. In response, state and local governments raise taxes again. This further suppresses disposable income and consumption. In other words, soon raising taxes will have diminishing returns. Eventually state and local spending will have to be cut in a crisis "no one saw coming."


You know how your insurance company told you they would lower your rates if you plugged in a little thingy in your car that let them see what a great driver you are? Well, those thingies have been hacked. If you have a driving tracker, hackers can now remotely control your windshield wipers and your brakes, turning your brakes off and on.

There's a new process for making opioids using baker's yeast instead of poppies. The yeast was genetically engineered to generate hydrocodone and thebaine from sugar, which takes the yeast about three days. Stanford has patented the process. It's not yet commercially viable - it takes 4400 gallons of yeast to make one dose of heroin substitute. If research continues on this we can expect the collapse of the Afghanistan economy and even more people in the world getting addicted to demerol, vicodin, oxycontin, heroin, etc.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 17, 2015, 10:45:18 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 17, 2015, 01:06:40 pm

davepbart

Can somebody post any proof that our spending rivals the spending of either Greece or Spain. And idiots the number your looking for is spending to GDP.


I will wait.

Who was it that said that the United States currently spends as much of their GDP as Greece?  Can you paste and post it?

I will wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 12:27:00 pm

davepbart

Don't YOU **** about the legal aid and minutia?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 18, 2015, 01:11:51 pm

I dispute with Jesbeard when I think he is wrong.

But you post doesn't answer my question.  I will ask it again.

Homo - Who was it that said that the United States currently spends as much of their GDP as Greece?  Can you paste and post it?

Surely you weren't just trying to change the subject.

I will wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 01:18:38 pm

Surely you're just full of ****.

Routinely, you conservative t-baggers compare our spending to Greece then congraduate yourselves on it. Isfullofit just did it a post.

And your asking for proof of anything?

Question for you old crusty white phaxnews blathering fool, when do YOU not think our spending is worst than Greece?

I'll wait for an answer.






























Which will be underwhelming at best.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 18, 2015, 01:30:34 pm

Not surprising that our resident Homo should be so hung up on tea baggers.

But I didn't see your answer.  When did I post that the United States currently spends as much of their GDP as Greece?  Can you paste and post it?

I will wait.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 01:43:31 pm

Do you really think that you're actually making a point?


And you can wait all you want.

Because you think this guy has something to offer.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KeHEFbhfPyw/VNz4LZlD4gI/AAAAAAAANwY/PIKpknF9P-w/s1600/Scott%2BWalker%2Bstupid.gif)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gQSJgSo7A50/TWVpr8L4KVI/AAAAAAAAFI8/-75HV9x0D78/s1600/walker+prince+albert.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 01:47:25 pm

(http://media.cagle.com/10/2015/02/25/160586_600.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 01:54:24 pm

Walker pledges to 'fight' unions 'for the American people' even though Americans don't want that

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/159686/large/Screen_Shot_2015-08-17_at_4.33.23_PM.png?1439856367)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184622/americans-support-labor-unions-continues-recover.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication (http://www.gallup.com/poll/184622/americans-support-labor-unions-continues-recover.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication)

(http://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/KNWfs-XcqhxWewkz8sV0IgPcUF3DfcE9f1tRBMxkJZk.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 18, 2015, 02:07:29 pm

So Teabagger Oddo doesn't even try to prove he isn't a liar. 

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 18, 2015, 02:08:15 pm

That line of questioning, all gotcha questions, is what's wrong with our debate system. Instead of asking important questions like how will you balance the budget of the United States, how will you protect the citizens of the United States, how will you grow jobs, help kids with college, etc, it's stupid crap like 'will you support gay marriage?' or 'will you support a woman's right to choose' or 'do you think the Muslim President is a Christian?'. Stupid crap like that...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 02:13:04 pm

I'm not a minutia driven debater and you're clearly unable to debate anything.


So again, when do you actually think that our President Barack Hussein Obama DOES NOT spend like Greece?






Of course by answering YOU will have to prove some fact to support.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 02:22:20 pm

davepbart


All you are on this board is a reactionary stiff old white guy who follows every word said on phaxnews.

You offered nothing outside of the standard reactionary stiff old white grandpa stuff blathered at your family gatherings. In which the younger and more informed hope they don't grow old like that.

Enjoy

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 18, 2015, 03:25:09 pm

Now we know that Teabagger Homo can call names, but he seems unable to prove his contention.  Not surprising, since he learned all he knows in a hick town in a backwards state.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 18, 2015, 05:09:53 pm

Isfullofit just did it a post.

If you are referring to me you better post exactly what I said. While I did post a comparison to Greece, I never posted figures.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 06:42:35 pm

I asked you for figures to back your stupid assertions on spending.


**** learn to read old white fossils.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 18, 2015, 07:16:18 pm

"Mittens" we have seen your picture you are white in case you had not noticed.  Just because we don't feel guilty about it does not make you better then us.  In fact unless you personally owned a slave you need to get over it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 18, 2015, 07:20:02 pm

Oh and no one has said we are comparable to Greece right now.

I don't know how long it will take but we are headed down that path and will end up there eventually if we do not start balancing the budget.  This is pretty much a fact.  No country can spend money they do not have indefinitely. At some point the piper must be paid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 18, 2015, 07:46:37 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 06:42:35 pm

I asked you for figures to back your stupid assertions on spending.
**** learn to read old white fossils.

Speaking of reading, can our resident teabagging Homo tell us when I said that the United States is spending as high a percentage of GNP as Greece.  He claims that I posted it, but seems unable to find it.  Are all liberals liars, or only Teabagging Homos?

Discuss.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2015, 08:30:11 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on August 17, 2015, 07:58:56 am

Quote

We are in a death spiral.  Spending has to be cut drastically.  If we did not let the spending get so far out of control we would not be in as bad of shape as we are.  Our taxes are so high it is killing our economy.  So we have to cut spending and lower taxes.  When we do this the economy will pick up and tax revenue will actually increase even though the tax rate is lower.

This whole paragraph is a joke right?

No its not a joke. Its correct. Spending has to be cut. Its just seems there isn't enough politicians that want to do that. All the politicians want to do is spend more. Right now deficit spending like Greece and Spain has them between a rock and a hard place. Its getting to the point here that just the interest alone on our national debt is killing us. That has to be reversed.

Marginal tax rates right now are far lower than they were when Reagan took office, and spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than under Bush.

Please not that I am NOT a liberal offering those two facts to oppose proposed tax cuts or spending cuts.  I would like to see federal spending to to less than half of what it now is, and for taxes to be cut even more sharply.  I am merely trying to get the discussion to remain at least loosely tethered to reality.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2015, 08:32:36 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 01:43:31 pm

Do you really think that you're actually making a point?

He's got you there, davep.

It seems that your only point is that otto is a hypocritical, lying, name-calling idiot... and everyone hear has long known that, so it doesn't appear that you actually are making a point.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2015, 08:45:06 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 01:54:24 pm

Walker pledges to 'fight' unions 'for the American people' even though Americans don't want that

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/159686/large/Screen_Shot_2015-08-17_at_4.33.23_PM.png?1439856367)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184622/americans-support-labor-unions-continues-recover.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication (http://www.gallup.com/poll/184622/americans-support-labor-unions-continues-recover.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication)

(http://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/KNWfs-XcqhxWewkz8sV0IgPcUF3DfcE9f1tRBMxkJZk.jpg)

otto, your big, bold-faced comment does not seem to match your poll results.  Did you perhaps fail to include the poll results which support your comment and cut and pasted the wrong thing?

I mean *I* approve of labor unions, while still strongly support any candidate committed to fighting them.  So how is it that those poll results would indicate that the American people do not support his pledge to fight them.

One thing I do have to say, though, otto, the more I see you become apoplectic about Walker's candidacy.... the better he looks to me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 18, 2015, 08:50:12 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 02:13:04 pm

I'm not a minutia driven debater and you're clearly unable to debate anything.


So again, when do you actually think that our President Barack Hussein Obama DOES NOT spend like Greece?

It does not show any reluctance to engage in debate when a person refuses to argue in support of positions they have never taken.... or to argue against positions which are so incoherent as to make it impossible to dissect them carefully enough to make sense of them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 19, 2015, 01:41:56 pm

 Sporty,


 I'm currently being reamed for $3.65 a gallon in So. Cal.


 It actually went UP $.002 in the past week. Unbelievable.


 OIL is currently at $41.00 a barrel. When you have OIL at $120.00 a barrel,


 you can justify $3.65 a gallon.


 The rest is flat out stealing.


 They can jack it up $.90 a gallon over three days ...


 but take their goddamn good sweet time about lowering it ...


 this has been going on since before April.
 
 It's going to be interesting to see the quarterly profits from California refiners.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 19, 2015, 04:07:35 pm

My guess is that they will be pretty good.  If I were you, I would buy some stock in them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 19, 2015, 04:22:18 pm

Pretty good at the expense of Californians being gouged. They had a refinery issue back in I think it was early spring sometime and the prices have yet to go lower much at all.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 19, 2015, 04:24:08 pm

What is the status of the refinery problem in California?  Is the refinery back on line?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 19, 2015, 04:32:54 pm

http://laist.com/2015/07/22/gas_prices_gouging.php

>For the first half of this year, the California Energy Commission says the refiners have almost doubled the amount of profits they make per gallon, according to the L.A. Times. From 1999 to 2014, refineries made an average of 49.3 cents per gallon, but from the beginning of 2015 they've made an average 88.8 cents, with profits spiking at $1.17 per gallon back in May. The profit spike comes at a time with oil prices falling and gas prices relatively stable across the rest of the country.

"Is it unusual? Absolutely," Gordon Schremp, an analyst at the California Energy Commission, told the Times.

According to the report, the main catalyst for the spike was the explosion at Exxon's Torrance refinery back in February. That incident sent gas prices back on an upward trend after drivers had enjoyed relatively-low prices as the pump at the time. The Torrance refinery produced one-fifth of Southern California's gasoline and isn't expected to be back online until at least Christmas." (Another report has said it'll be back in Sept.) As long as Exxon Mobil is offline, the whole market is going to be at an elevated price point," said Schremp.

Last month, Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit consumer advocacy organization, accused the gas companies of price gouging and manipulation. The group forwarded a study (.pdf) to the office of the attorney general, in which they wrote, "Industry insiders have told Consumer Watchdog that this is an unprecedented pricing strategy to keep California gasoline prices artificially high."<



Exxon Fined for California Refinery Fire
 by Wochit  0:55 mins

A California regulator said Exxon Mobil skirted its responsibility as a refinery company by ignoring hazardous conditions at its Torrance refinery.

YOU don't say???......

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 19, 2015, 05:45:53 pm

That means the price will remain high till they make enough cash to pay the fine and fix the plant

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 19, 2015, 07:14:50 pm

When you make it difficult to increase refinery capacity, you run the risk of higher prices when problems occur.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2015, 09:01:15 pm

I Mittens would like to take this moment to once again point out that I Mittens took the time to meet Austin City Limits and party with him for 3 hours. While I Mittens was a little to the Left of him politically, we had a very good time.

RIP Austin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2015, 09:04:01 pm

ATTENTION RELIGIOUS FANATIC


Can you give me an example of a "gotcha" question for Senator/Secretary of State/ First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton that YOU would find out of line?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 19, 2015, 09:36:09 pm

Fricking Obama's gonna make it difficult to build even a NG power plant the way his ridiculous regs are headed!

Otts.....you're so twisted in your liberal views you can't see past your own nose. Don't care to debate you....you'll never change...I'm positive you support that wicked Planned Parenthood, you know, the group that cuts through babies faces to get to their intact brain while their heart is still beating?...if you support that kind of wickedness, God help your vile soul....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 19, 2015, 09:39:23 pm

You were a lot left of him but nice of you to share a memory.

By the way I don't think you are as big of an ass as you let on here in real life.  He got along with you and beerfan in real life when they met but did not get along with either of you here even after buying you guys dinner from what I can remember. 

He and I never met in person and I gave him **** about it.  I think he and I would have gotten along famously.  I sent a long e-mail to him after his passing hoping his wife or kids would read it.  I never got a response but feel better for having written and sent it.  He was a good guy. 

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2015, 10:03:38 pm

Actually peak, Austin and I met at a Packer tailgate that my friends and I put on.

We never had a problem on this board because Austin could see both sides and admit when he was wrong or right.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 19, 2015, 10:18:33 pm

Yeah that sounds right. 

But you and he still had lots of disagreements even after meeting in person.  He was a conservative and you are about as big of a liberal as I have ever ran into.  Hell we call you mittens because of him and the pictures he posted making fun of you.  Which you so richly deserved by the way!  :)

Mittens and beer huggies in freezing weather.  funny ****!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2015, 10:28:51 pm

ATTENTION RELIGIOUS FANATIC

Like the majority of Americans, I do support Planned Parenthood. Can you tell me what law they have broken?

So no question aimed at Democratic politicians is "gotcha" while all questions of substance aimed at republic ones are.



Gotcha

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 19, 2015, 10:31:12 pm

peak

He posted the picture as proof that we met.

He also thought beerfan was a nervous little barky dog.

And yes, you and I would get along just fine over a beer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 19, 2015, 10:55:40 pm

Yeah but he kept posting them to bust your balls.  Especially when you were arguing. 

He most definitely got along better with you then Beerfan.

I am pretty sure I can get along with just about anyone over a beer.  Even you!  ;) 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on August 20, 2015, 04:52:00 am

Okie doke...

[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2015, 07:48:30 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 18, 2015, 06:42:35 pm

**** learn to read old white fossils.

Why  would someone want to read an old white fossil?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2015, 07:54:15 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 19, 2015, 10:28:51 pm

Like the majority of Americans, I do support Planned Parenthood. Can you tell me what law they have broken?

Actually, I suspect the majority of Americans do NOT support what Planned Parenthood has been doing in aborting the unborn.  Do you have any poll data from the last month (since the current controversy arose) suggesting otherwise?

And I may have missed it, but I don't recall Sportster writing that Planned Parenthood has broken any law.  Could you point out any post where he did?  Or are you suggesting that you will support any group unless it can be shown the croup broke some law?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 20, 2015, 11:29:39 am

Quote from: otto105 on August 19, 2015, 09:01:15 pm

I Mittens would like to take this moment to once again point out that I Mittens took the time to meet Austin City Limits and party with him for 3 hours. While I Mittens was a little to the Left of him politically, we had a very good time.

RIP Austin.

Is there a translator in the house?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 20, 2015, 02:49:20 pm

 Thank's Sporty,


 You said about California gasoline prices what I was trying to say.


 It looks like the blowover of the BP Whiting refinery Indiana issues didn't blow up as much as they did in California.


 And that's just it ... how come we got backed stabbed and continue to be back stabbed,


 while if something else goes on across the nation you get a weeks worth of bump ...


 but in a week it's back to normal?


 California is the test ground as to where and when you can play the angle.


 If it doesn't fly in two parts of the same country ... back off on one of them.


 Continue to milk the cow on the other one.


 $3.65 a gallon in California ... give me the prices you are paying where you live.


 I'd like to hear from you everywhere about gasoline prices in your neck of the woods.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 20, 2015, 02:52:25 pm

3.36 in Aurora, Illinois.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 20, 2015, 02:57:31 pm

davepbart


I'm not sure that I can translate my posts in He Haw for you. What dialect of Florida He Haw are you?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 20, 2015, 03:03:39 pm

 

Quote from: davep on August 20, 2015, 02:52:25 pm

3.36 in Aurora, Illinois.

 Dave that's pushing California ... think it's the BP refinery in Indiana ?


 Which area will be next ? I'm guessing New Jersey.


 There should be a convenient shutdown there.  ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 20, 2015, 03:14:47 pm

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/160136/large/8768-fig-12.png?1440081353)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 20, 2015, 03:25:01 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 20, 2015, 02:57:31 pm

davepbart


I'm not sure that I can translate my posts in He Haw for you. What dialect of Florida He Haw are you?

Cute.  A Homo from the backwoods of a backwards state talking about He Haw.

Remember when homosexuals were supposed to be the best and the brightest?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on August 20, 2015, 03:53:38 pm

Gas has gone up to $2.13 in Memphis...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 20, 2015, 04:16:34 pm

It's trickling down here.... $2.89. Down from a high of $3.19. Was almost at $2.19 before this all happened so we got a ways to go yet before it gets back down to where it was.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 20, 2015, 05:14:38 pm

Not to change the subject but today I got an email from grassfire which will shock Oddo out of his britches:

HILLARY PRISON: YES OR NO?

Click here or on the "YES" image below if you think Hillary Clinton should face a criminal investigation and possible jail time for her abuse of government secrets.

Click here or on the "NO" image below if you think the former First Lady and Senator should NOT face a criminal investigation and possible jail time for her abuse of government secrets.

If you are undecided, click here.

Click here to vote "Yes!"Click here to vote "No!"

 Again, if you are UNDECIDED, please click here.

 Thank you, in advance, for voting.

 The Grassfire Team

Oh and so far its 93% to prison

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2015, 07:30:16 pm

why would otto, or anyone else, be "shocked" by that?  Is there any reason to believe the "poll" outcome is at all remotely close to a representative sample of voters or of the nation as a whole?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on August 22, 2015, 08:04:56 am

I think it was 2.02 at the local Wawa last night in Spotsylvania VA.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 22, 2015, 03:06:36 pm

 WML,


 Man they are playing the game on us for maximum profits ...


 still $3.65 per gallon **** scene in So Cal.


 These motherfuckers ain't giving up a penny.


 Oh yeah , we shut down to do maintenance in motherfucking May ...


 Fuckin scumballs. It's AUGUST !


 If yer fuckin refinery takes 4 MONTHS to shut down and get yer ASS back on line ...


 somebody else ought to be running the **** CALIFORNIA refinery's !!


 But we know what this is REALLY all about.


 GREED!!




 There ought to be a conscience here about **** your OWN PEOPLE over ...


 but that doesn't work when you are not an AMERICAN anymore.


 Now you are just a Globalist ... you take profits where you can ...


 AMERICA is a non thought except for profit.
 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 07:25:15 pm

Quote

There ought to be a conscience here about **** your OWN PEOPLE over ...

JJ


You have to remember most jerks in here are conservative...

Who have never used their grey matter.

https://youtu.be/GSsVIY5mqdg (https://youtu.be/GSsVIY5mqdg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 07:35:39 pm

Because once you're a republic...

https://youtu.be/sS-KpwEj3qo (https://youtu.be/sS-KpwEj3qo)


One has to turn off their brain and not relent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 22, 2015, 07:47:49 pm

Conservatives use facts and reason.  Liberals use emotion.

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 08:06:30 pm

Peak

When does that actually happen here?

Can you provide an example?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 22, 2015, 08:14:39 pm

Every single time you get proven wrong (which is often) you get angry and start name calling (which is often).

High taxes hurt the economy.  There is a sweet spot of taxes high enough to pay for needed services that allows for the economy to continue to grow.  Liberals don't think it is fair that some people have more then others so they want the rich taxed and the income distributed.  Even though it has been proven that once taxes get to a certain level it harms the economy and less revenue gets taken in.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 08:39:38 pm

Peak


AgaIn, when can you provide a fact based response?

You inventing straw man arguments is not going to prove any point.

Liberals don't care how much money people make. We believe in a progressive tax on the income. Why is that hard for idiot conservatives to understand? Kansas is a prime example of your advocated low tax polices and they have massive budget deficits, low growth and a reduced standard if living. Can YOU disprove any if those assertions?

Can you provide an actual tax rate which would prove you point?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 08:44:50 pm

And Peak


July was the hottest month ever recorded since humans began measuring and 2015 will be warner than 2014. Can YOU provide a fact based response to this warming?

Response should include actual science and not speculation from phaxless news sources.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 22, 2015, 08:45:53 pm

Look at the economy under Carter, and the economy under Reagan.  That good economy lasted all the way until liberal policies of forcing the banks to give bad loans to minorities lead to the economic crash that we are still dealing with. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 22, 2015, 08:49:33 pm

Otto no it wasn't.  This summer has been once of the coolest I have ever experienced. 

Globally the world is cooling and has not warmed for at least 17 years.

I can tell you how this ends.  You will post a link to a left wing site.  I will post a link with factual information which you will say was paid for by right wingers and then call me names.

The whole time having no problem with the fact "your" scientists are making money by spreading the global warming hoax.  However the scientist getting paid by the other side are somehow evil.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 08:55:16 pm

Really, when do facts enter this discussion?

President Jimmy Carter had two good first years if his administration economically until the 1978 oil embargo. Then all crap broke loose, but he never ran high deficits and hired Paul Volcker to the Fed. Volcker was an inflation fighter and clamped on monetary policy leading to very high interest rates.

Reagan came in and started the every republic since him crusade to always have deficits. Reagon had the highest deficits until Bush senior....then gwb who turned 3 YEARS of surplus to massive deficit and a Great Recession


Prove any of that wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 09:00:59 pm

Go ahead and try to disprove.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201507 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201507)

Is your accounting for weather just in your backyard?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 09:25:59 pm

Waiting for that factual link....


No phaxless news (maybe just opinion) source available?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 22, 2015, 09:39:52 pm

I am watching the Bears game.  You can wait.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 22, 2015, 09:42:16 pm

You need to return to your cage Oddo.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 09:46:33 pm

Sure, I'm certain you can recover something....


Isfulofit has offered a support from fact less republics.

Just look at the fact based offering by him.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 22, 2015, 10:27:32 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 22, 2015, 10:43:41 pm

Otto, Obama's administration has politicized every aspect of government.  This is the reason we have had the IRS scandal of them targeting conservative groups.  Patraeus was indicted for much less then what Hillary has done.  He was against the pull out in Iraq which led to ISIS.  He was right.  He was targeted because of it.

Hillary will be taken down the moment Obama thinks he can get his puppet Biden elected.  The Obama administration is controlling the global warming BS we are all getting from the government.  They do this so they can enact ridiculous taxes and regulations that kill the economy.     

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 22, 2015, 11:57:05 pm

Quote

Otto, Obama's administration has politicized every aspect of government.  This is the reason we have had the IRS scandal of them targeting conservative groups.  Patraeus was gone after for much less then what Hillary has done.  He was against the pull out in Iraq which led to ISIS.  He was right.  He was targeted because of it.

Hillary will be taken down the moment Obama thinks he can get his puppet Biden elected.  The Obama administration is controlling the global warming BS we are all getting from the government.  They do this so they can enact ridiculous taxes and regulations that kill the economy.

This is all that you can offer? Am I to take this as a serious effort to provide facts over emotion? Rumor and innuendo and several non-related conservative canards?

Ok, can YOU provide any facts which support your assertion on our President taking over NOAA?

Can you provide ANY facts that our President had the IRS target stupid t-baggers?

Gen. Petraeus was having an extra marital affair with a MARRIED women while he was passing classified information to her. How is that the same as the supposed email controversy involving Hillary Clinton?

Can you explain how YOU have come to believe the Obama Administration is controlling the global climate. Also, what methods are they using.

Can you cite the taxes and regulations involved? Ya know, since they are so overwhelming...


https://youtu.be/sS-KpwEj3qo (https://youtu.be/sS-KpwEj3qo)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 23, 2015, 12:06:28 am

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

Wow.  Forbes is the magazine that Homo quoted in support of some of his theories.  Certainly this should be enough to change a mind as open as his.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 12:11:16 am

She was his biographer and was writing a book about his life.  While that was wrong and I have no problem with him being penalized for it I absolutely guarantee that what he did was 100% less wrong then Hillary Clinton running her own private server.  She claims she never sent or received classified information through it but then can anyone explain how she sent and received classified information?  Carrier pigeons?  Fed Ex?  How?

She is lying and should be indicted.  Hell just for answering the question, "Did you wipe your server?" with, "What?  With a cloth?"  Means she is to stupid to be president.

She either is to stupid to realize how a computer works or so stupid she thought that it was funny or clever.  There is zero doubt in my mind that multiple foreign countries were reading her e-mails due to her private server.

She will get indicted if Obama thinks he has a better puppet candidate.  If he doesn't he will continue to let the FBI trickle info slowly to make sure she is unelectable so another candidate he can have more influence over wins.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 12:28:39 am

Obama is simply playing dirty Illinois politics which he learned from the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine.  He has taken it to a whole new level though.  He makes Nixon look like a piker.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 23, 2015, 12:45:24 am

Again, when do facts enter your posts?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 01:07:05 am

When can you post facts that refute my posts?

Do you really think Obama has not politicized the DoJ and IRS?  It matters little if it was on purpose or they just felt they got the wink and nod to do what they liked.  No one has ever been held accountable under this administration unless they were not doing what the administration wanted.  No speaking out against them or else.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 01:30:51 am

Research Freddie and Fannie and how they lead to the economic crisis.  The government was forcing banks to make bad loans so minorities could own homes.  This is what led to the problem.  It was Republican and Democrat politicians who caused it.  You can call them progressives or liberals but it is all the same.

Bush did warn against it and it fell on deaf ears.  He was called a racist for trying to stop it.  You can twist or turn and lie but the fact is the economic downturn was caused by liberal policies and the reason we have not recovered from it is because of liberal policies.

I honestly feel it makes no difference if Hillary or Jeb is elected.  They are so close to one another that it makes no difference.  This is why Sanders and Trump are gaining rock star status. 

We are sick of being lied to.

The reason the country is going down the drain is because both partys are being run by liberals.  They are just fighting over which liberal party gets to be in power. This is why Trump is scaring the **** out of both partys.  It is also why uninformed people are flocking to him. 

I know he is just as liberal as the others.  However I like that he has a set of balls and loves America.  That puts him ahead of most politicians. 

Ted Cruz is my favorite though. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 23, 2015, 03:37:36 am

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/21/are-republicans-for-freedom-or-white-identity-politics/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 08:05:13 am

Jes, that article lost me at "white identity politics".   Trump is tapping into anger and it is not just from whites.  A very large segment of the black population is anti-immigrant.  Immigrants take low paying jobs, drive down wages and directly compete with low income people for jobs and government services.

I agree electing Trump would not be a good thing but I don't see how it could possibly be any worse then Obama or Hillary.  Or even Bush for that matter.  It also does not suddenly throw the constitution out the window.  Obama has done about as good a job of that as anyone I have ever seen.  If Trump were elected politicians of both parties would make sure he followed the constitution.  He wouldn't have one party looking the other way and the other pretending to fight it while not doing anything.

Also the 14th amendment was about giving freed slaves children citizenship.  It was not meant for people to illegally sneak into the country so the child could be a citizen.  It is absolutely moronic to allow it to continue.  If an immigrant is here legally and has a child sure.  Illegally?  Why on earth do we give them citizenship?  We are encouraging bad behavior.

Also there is no reason to deport anyone.  Simply enforce the laws and no one will hire them and they will leave.  It has been done before.  You go after the employers not the illegals.  The only ones who need deporting are the criminals.  This president simply has them released into our country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 23, 2015, 01:17:19 pm

Quote from: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 08:05:13 am

Jes, that article lost me at "white identity politics".   Trump is tapping into anger and it is not just from whites.  A very large segment of the black population is anti-immigrant.  Immigrants take low paying jobs, drive down wages and directly compete with low income people for jobs and government services.

So you thing blacks are going to vote for Trump?

Assuming there is any merit to the "immigrants dive down wages" position you offer, the group which should most strong oppose more immigration are those immigrants who have most recently arrived.  Amazingly they tend not to support restricting immigration, and, despite Trump's insane claim that he will win the Latino vote, they are not supporting him.  While you may be true that many immigrants do take low paying jobs, you, and a great many others like you who spout the same argument, seem to forget the fact that they also increase consumption and demand, meaning the idea that they only depress wages by increasing the labor supply is nonsense.  It is nonsense because it ignores reality.

Quote from: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 08:05:13 am

I agree electing Trump would not be a good thing but I don't see how it could possibly be any worse then Obama or Hillary.  Or even Bush for that matter.

I'm sure that a sizable number of Germans who voted to put Hitler in power thought the very same thing. 

Quote from: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 08:05:13 am

It also does not suddenly throw the constitution out the window.  Obama has done about as good a job of that as anyone I have ever seen.  If Trump were elected politicians of both parties would make sure he followed the constitution.  He wouldn't have one party looking the other way and the other pretending to fight it while not doing anything.

He would be elected with a mandate to "do things," and members of Congress, of both parties, would fall in line in lockstep, in fear that the anti-incumbent wave which put Trump in office would sweep them out the next election they faced the voters.

Quote from: Pekin on August 23, 2015, 08:05:13 am

Also the 14th amendment was about giving freed slaves children citizenship.  It was not meant for people to illegally sneak into the country so the child could be a citizen.  It is absolutely moronic to allow it to continue.  If an immigrant is here legally and has a child sure.  Illegally?  Why on earth do we give them citizenship?  We are encouraging bad behavior.

I hear that a lot from those who want to end birthright citizenship, but considering all of the reading comprehension problems I have, I just can't find anything in the 14th Amendment which actually SAYS it.

Perhaps you can find it here:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Strange as it may seem, I just don't see anything in that first sentence which limited it to those born in slavery, or born before the enactment of the amendment in that very simple first sentence:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  I know radio talk show host Mark Levin (and perhaps others) is fond of quoting one of the drafters of the 14th who, pre-ratification, said on the floor of Congress that the language was intended to address citizenship of freed slaves, but Levin should know that such comment only serves to show what HE intended the language to mean.  In the legislative process that would be vastly more important than in interpreting a Constitutional Amendment where the valid question MIGHT be what did those ratifying the Amendment intend the language to mean, but not the intent of a single drafter.  That is why the far better interpretation looks at the situation existing at the time and the plain meaning given to the language.  And it seems pretty damn plain to me that your position is directly at odds with the clear meaning of the language.  Levin argues that those born in this country to illegals are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States... but if that were the case, nether they nor their parents would be required to comply with our laws -- you couldn't prosecute them for **** or murder.  The position is nonsense, and the fact that Levin, who I generally respect, spouts it makes it no less so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on August 23, 2015, 09:31:26 pm

Mark's Market Blog
8-23-15: The Coming Dollar Short Squeeze
by Mark Lawrence
The Shanghai index is back down to 3500 - the level where twice before the Chinese government has stepped in and propped it up. Commodities, especially oil and copper, continue to fall. China's manufacturing came out and were numbers exceptionally poor. In anticipation of the end of the world, US stock markets dropped below their 200 day moving average and their support levels, down 7.5% from the peak a month ago. The VIX, the volatility or so-called fear index, is at 28, the highest it's been since August 2011 when it hit 42. Is this the long-awaited 10%+ correction? Sorry, I'm out of the predicting corrections game. I will say you have to go back to August 2011 to find a drop this steep. That month saw an 18% correction followed by two months of oscillation. I will also say it's not the end of the world, and I continue to think US markets will end the year higher. Housing starts, house prices and house sales are all up, and that's a huge indicator that the overall US economy is ok.
 
S&P 500 February 28 2014 to August 21 2015


I've been saying for several years that the US seems to be following a policy of printing money, importing deflation and exporting financial chaos with the goal of being the last man standing. Now it's starting to look like that's coming to fruition - stock markets, oil, commodities, real estate are dropping all over the world. Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Chili, Columbia, Russia, the various stans are all in trouble. There's $9 trillion outstanding in US dollar denominated bonds, where $7 trillion of that has neither a US borrower nor a US lender. Those companies almost certainly have no substantial US revenue stream, so as the dollar continues to strengthen this debt looks more and more overwhelming in the local currency. When they have to buy dollars to service the debt it's going to get very painful. And there's no central bank backing these bonds, no lender of last resort - when liquidity dries up, too bad, the dollar will shoot through the roof and there will be blood in many foreign streets. This is going to lead to a short squeeze on the US dollar - foreigners are going to find themselves short of dollars and desperate to sell anything to buy dollars. Why do I call this a short squeeze? Imagine you live and work in, say, Brazil. You sell some dollar denominated bonds, meaning people give you dollars now in return for your promise to give them back dollars later. You're making a bet that later the dollar will be no stronger than it is now. If it the dollar goes up, you're in a classic short squeeze: you bet something was going down, and it went up. A simple analysis leads to the result that foreign stock markets are over valued compared to credit default swaps by 40%, so either credit default swaps have to get a lot cheaper (the dollar crashes: not bloody likely) or foreign stock exchanges have to drop precipitously ( <-- this one).


What happens to the US in such a short squeeze? This is not new: we played this game in the early 80s causing the Latin American crisis; in the mid 90s we did it again leading to the Mexican, then Asian, then Russian crises, culminating in the LTCM crash that almost brought down Wall Street. The last two times we did this we were lowering interest rates while the short squeeze was going on. This time our rates are already at zero and the Fed is getting ready to raise rates. Our markets went down pretty much non-stop during the first short squeeze from the late 70s to the early 80s; our markets went up pretty much non-stop during the second short squeeze in the late 90s. This short squeeze will make everything else in the world seem cheap and wipe out US inflation, likely leaving us in a strongly deflationary environment. As this unfolds the Fed will be forced to hold rates low to combat the deflation. Since debt itself is deflationary - you can't spend money on consumption if you're spending your money on debt service - low rates will help in the short run but drive us further into deflation in the long run. Who is at greatest risk? South America and Asia, as usual, are holding 'way too much US dollar denominated debt. And any country that generates substantial income on commodities, like Canada, Australia and the Arabs. Another year or two of this and Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffet and JP Morgan will be ready to step in and buy up entire small countries. And we're going to hear from many countries how we're waging economic war on them. They will be right: the top .001%, the world's billionaire narcissist oligarchs, will be doing just exactly that. This time is different, I think. The last two times we did this I think it was by accident. However this time I think it is by design. Five years ago I was told about this last-man-standing end game by a quantitative analyst who worked for HSBC. Now I'm watching it unfold. Not a coincidence.


Copper is down to $5000 / ton for the first time since the 2008 crisis. This means there are few major construction projects, especially in China. Commodity sales don't lie. Oil is below $40; some think it will stall there, some think it will continue down until it hits 30 or even lower. US and Saudi oil production are both at record levels, and estimates are that in three more months the world will be running out of storage room for excess oil. Before China went on their building spree in 2000 oil was relatively stable around $20-$30; if China is done building bridges to nowhere, airports where no one lands, and cities where no one lives, perhaps oil will return to $20-$30. In the 90s before the China build-out copper was stable around $2000 / ton. It's very possible that commodities have a lot further to fall. Will the Fed raise rates in this environment? My Fed crystal ball is quite cloudy. All I know is here in the P.R. of California I'm still paying $3 / gallon for gas.

Will the Fed raise rates in September? Maybe not. This last week has seen some major damage done to markets all over the world. Oil continues to drop and the outlook seems to be that it will drop further. Oil prices and inflation track each other closely - no surprise to those who maintain the inflation of the 70s was due to the emergence of OPEC, not due to LBJ's and Nixon's bad economic policies. The July Fed minutes came out and there's a lot of dovish voices. It would be unsurprising if the Fed decided to delay until December to see how things played out. If that happens expect a boost in the market for October and November as the drunken party continues.

Canada is clearly having a major housing bubble, where house prices are climbing to absurd levels compared to average family incomes and people believe you always make money on a house. Some think that bubble will be bursting soon, like this year. I don't. Canada is entering a recession and I expect their central bank to cut interest rates and start up their own QE program. We all know what low interest rates and loose money does to house prices. Canada is setting themselves up for some major problems down the road a year or two from now. imho.

Greece's PM Tsipras has resigned and called for new elections. He sure likes to have Greek people voting a lot. He's likely to win again, so this appears to be an exercise in changing coalition members. Tsipras' socialist roots have always been at odds with Greece's demand to remain in the Euro; now that contradiction seems to be splitting Tsipras' party, Syreza. Europe is unhappy over yet more drama and yet more uncertainty.

The US has been bombing a large factory in ISIL's territory that manufactures and stores car bombs - one of ISILs biggest weapons. We're very proud of our precision bombing and making noise about the huge damage we're doing to ISIL. It's worth remembering that no war has ever been won by bombardment - eventually you have to put feet on the ground. Germany's industrial output increased every single year during WW II in spite of ferocious allied bombing. Personally, I continue to think ISIL is winning.

Illinois has failed to appropriate money to a trustee, money earmarked to make a payment on some bonds. They have the money available to make this appropriation but their congress failed their July 1 deadline for a budget. Illinois is, at this instant, in technical default. I imagine the way to bet is that a budget will pass, money will be appropriated, and the technical default will be cured. I imagine that. I also used to hide chocolates telling my kids the Easter Bunny left them, so you may feel free to decide I have an over-active imagination. Illinois is most certainly walking the ragged edge and a misstep could be ruinous.

There's a part of the world that's desert, muslim, and headed for environmental catastrophe. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and northwest China get their water from glaciers in the Himalayas. The glaciers on the Himalayas are melting quickly - they're 27% gone, and by 2050 they may be functionally gone. So in the next 35 years there's a distinct possibility that a huge swath of this part of the world will be uninhabitable. I personally intend to stand outside of Walmart and see if I can collect donations to help these moderate muslims relocate to more habitable countries, where they can assimilate, get educated, become productive and live in peace. And get chocolates from the Easter Bunny.

Free extra, joke of the month: A guy walks into a muslim bookstore and says, "Do you have Donald Trump's new book on Muslim and Mexican immigration?"

The shop keeper turns red and says "What the @#*$&^ ?!?! You're not welcome here. Get the *(&#^$ out and don't come back!"

The guy says, "Yah! That's the book! Do you have it in paperback?"

There was a chemical explosion in China which killed at least 114 people and injured several hundred more. China has a law that dangerous chemicals cannot be stored within 1000 yards of residential property; this warehouse was within 500 yards and operating without proper permits. There were over 2500 tons of chemicals in the plant including ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, sodium and magnesium, and 700 tons of deadly poisons, mainly sodium cyanide. Cyanide levels in the port waters are now 277 times normal, but the government claims drinking water is still safe. 17,000 apartments were damaged. A Chinese newspaper reports that since the explosion inspections of 124 other firms handling dangerous chemicals found that 85 had safety hazards. Next time you're thinking of eating something made in China, remember this is the country that poisons their own children's milk, kills 5,000 people each day due to air pollution and has cyanide levels 277 times their own standards of acceptable; how much do you really think they care about you?


China's Shanghai Index dropped 11% this week to the 3500 level where previously the government has stepped in and propped it up. It seems clear the market wants to keep dropping. China's PMI is down to 47.1, deep in recession territory. We may expect another Chinese rate cut soon; if that's coupled with a US rate increase Chinese money will only flee faster. Can China hold this market up indefinitely? Perhaps - this is China we're talking about, in the extreme case they can simply shut the market down or buy all the shares. However they can only spend their $3.5 trillion in reserves once and that money won't last forever. Some say China can't crash because of their reserves. I say they can't crash until the reserves are nearly spent, and that's now looking like it's only a year or three away. They have major structural problems and loaning out more money on questionable building projects and dying companies and banks makes those problems worse, not better.


China's devaluation is starting to be met by other countries - Kazakhstan, Turkey, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Japan and Korea all lowered their currencies since China acted last week. If the Fed goes ahead and raises rates in September there will be the start of major capital flight from the 3rd world and there's a good chance all out currency warfare will happen. China appears to have a cold and most of the world looks ready to call in sick. What will this do to the US? Not so much. The US direct investment in Ireland is six times that in China. We import a lot from China but that just got cheaper. They have about $1.2 trillion of US treasury notes and they're likely to continue to sell some of those, but there's a huge market in t-bills and we'll never notice that. GM will sell fewer Buicks in China (they sell more Buicks in China than in the US), but soon GM will be importing Buicks from China to the US and getting a better deal on the cost. China never did import much of anything from the US besides stolen military and industry secrets, so whatever happens to them will have little to do with our major companies. So all this market panic this week about China is, imho, overblown. For us. The rest of Asia and South America, this is not so good for them.

In 2008 HP bought EDS, Ross Perot's consulting company, and promptly doubled their employment. GM had bought EDS in 1984 then sold it back to Ross at a huge loss in 1996. HP isn't doing so well either - EDS revenue has been shrinking by double digits year on year for a long time. HP announced a reorganization in 2012, substantially aimed at restoring EDS to financial health; they've laid off 55,000 workers since and have more to go. Ross is 87, I doubt he'll be buying it back again.

The National Labor Relations Board is going to rule, possibly next week, on claims that companies that hire other firms to provide labor have an employer-employee relationship with the workers brought in by those firms. This means McDonalds would be effective employers of people hired by the franchises and companies that use temp firms are employing the temp workers. This would have a profound effect on Obamacare and on union membership. Since the NLRB is dominated by democrats many expect them to rule in favor of Obamacare and unions.

Scientists have announced that they have linked a particular gene, FTO, to obesity. People with two copies of this gene, one from each parent, weigh 7 pounds more on average than people who don't have it. They hope to have a drug in a few years. Bad news, boys: obesity is caused by fats, oils and sugar. We'll get thin again when we clean up our diet. I'm not holding my breath: the population on the whole loves french fries, fried chicken, doughnuts and oreos. And the magic gene? In the US the group with the biggest obesity problem is blacks, but only 5% of the black population has this gene.

Is solar power for you? Google has a new web site that will help you run the numbers. They calculate the amount of your roof that gets sunlight, how much power you can generate, how much money you'll save compared to your local utility. They're still gathering data so it seems they're not ready for most addresses.

Ashley Madison - the web site for cheating when you're married - has been hacked severely. More than 35,000,000 names and emails and associated sexual preferences have been released publicly. So much for anonymous membership. The press is still combing through the names, but several famous people have already been found seeking some extra-marital action. Canada is starting a class action law suit seeking damages which are approximately seven times the entire company's revenue. The UK is readying similar a lawsuit apparently seeking damages of about sixteen times the company's income. Of course the US is the place for class action lawsuits - none has been filed yet, but that's only a matter of time. Divorce lawyers all over the world are saying that Christmas comes in September this year for them as people find their spouse's name in the data and blow up. Blackmailers are also trolling the names - emails are already going out with demands for money from a group that calls itself Team GrayFlay. I'm not married and I have zero interest in having an affair with someone who is, so I guarantee I won't be having any trouble from this. As for Ashley-Madison's 35 million suddenly very public customers, karma's a ****. Hate your spouse? Get a divorce.


World population continues to grow. Essentially all the growth projected for this century is in Africa and India; pretty much everyone else has a shrinking population. Asia's graph would show a much steeper decline absent India. Meanwhile Bill Gates has dedicated his time, intellect and fortune to improving the health and breeding potential of precisely this group. I'd be ok with that if he was also handing out free IUDs and implants.


Here are the 25 biggest "unicorns," privately held startups that are worth more than a billion dollars. Notice that almost all of them are aimed at taking away business from banks. Goldman Sachs, Citi, Bank of America and JP Morgan are going to wind up being forced to step out from behind the banking curtain and be revealed as the stock, bond and currency market manipulators they really are.


25. Mozido, a mobile payment and wallet provider
24. TransferWise, an international money transfer service
23. Jimubox, a Chinese peer-to-peer loan provider
22. Funding Circle, a peer-to-peer loan platform for small businesses
21. Qufenqi, lets Chinese consumers buy electronics in instalments
20. Housing.com, online Indian real estate platform
19. SoFi, a marketplace for student loan refinancing
18. iZettle, makes card readers for smartphones
17. Xero, makes cloud-based accountancy software for small businesses
16. Adyen, an online payment processor?
15. Oscar Health, online health insurance
14. FinancialForce.com, sells cloud-based accounting apps
13. Zuora, software that lets companies take subscriptions
12. Prosper, a peer-to-peer lending platform for consumers
11. One97, India's Paypal
10. CommonBond, a peer-to-peer student loans marketplace
9. Klarna, Swedish online payment processing
8. Powa Technologies, makes mobile payment products
7. Credit Karma, free credit scores
6. Zenefits, free HR software for small businesses
5. Lending Club, America's biggest peer-to-peer consumer loans platform
4. Stripe, online payment processing
3. Markit, financial information and data provider
2. Square, smartphone card readers, small business loans, and online payments
1. Lufax, Chinese peer-to-peer lender

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: method on August 24, 2015, 09:18:16 am

after 18 months of crying wolf... looks like lawrence is right today.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: guest118 on August 24, 2015, 12:14:20 pm

Has Obama been impeached yet?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 24, 2015, 12:32:37 pm

Hey! A barky little dog...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 24, 2015, 12:37:54 pm

Scott Walker’s stunning implosion: Can this dope’s campaign be saved?


JIM NEWELL
MONDAY, AUG 24, 2015 04:58 AM


The impression is fast setting in that Scott Walker, former King of Iowa, is a nonsense person and a ridiculous presidential candidate.

What’s been the hot topic over the past week? Ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. That’s what Donald Trump wants to do, either through constitutional amendment or aggressively court-challenging statute. This isn’t a new conservative idea, and it’s something that plenty of other candidates have happily subscribed to for a conservative leg-up in the field. It’s definitely not what RNC chairman Reince Priebus wants them talking about right now, but Reince Priebus can go suck an egg.

Where’s Scott Walker been on this? Unclear. While many outlets interpreted him earlier this week saying that he did support ending birthright citizenship in an interview with NBC’s Kasie Hunt, to us it read as more of a dodge. The “yeah” below was more of an acknowledgement that a question was directed towards him, rather than a positive reply to that question.

KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended?

SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward —

HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship?

WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country.

HUNT: And you should deport the children of people who are illegal immigrants?

WALKER: I didn’t say that — I said you have to enforce the law, which to me is focusing on E-Verify.

His campaign later “clarified” Walker’s rambling mess by certifying the nonsensical dodge: “We have to enforce the laws, keep people from coming here, enforce E-Verify to stop the jobs magnet, and by addressing the root problems we will end the birthright citizenship problem.”

Scott Walker had a whole several days to sharpen up that position before he was asked again. Does he support ending birthright citizenship or not? This is a yes-or-no question on a constitutional issue. Or, whatever, just pull a Chris Christie and say we’ll have to “reexamine” it. That’s fine!

Either yes, no, or maybe would’ve been a better answer than the one Walker gave CNBC’s John Harwood late last week. Like any great leader, he boldly, defiantly, bravely, ardently held his ground that… he has absolutely no opinion about this thing that he should have an opinion on.


“I’m not taking a position on it one way or the other,” the 2016 Republican presidential hopeful said. Only after securing America’s borders, he explained, is it appropriate to address the issue of birthright citizenship.

Only after the border is secure!, whatever that even means, will he share his opinion on the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is among the better whiffs we’ve seen recently, perhaps going back to Jeb Bush saying he couldn’t give his opinion on the Iraq war because it would offend the troops.

What’s with this dope? It’s even odder because his team had just made a big show of telling the New York Times that it was adjusting from a laconic, walled-off posture to a more assertive, Trumpian, anti-establishment one. “In a blunt self-critique,” the Times reported, “Mr. Walker acknowledged on a private conference call with donors on Monday that voters had found him passionless. He announced a reset of his campaign, according to a participant in the call, in which he would take on the Republican establishment to show that, like Donald J. Trump, he, too, strongly opposed the status quo.”


And how did that “reset” play out in the first few days of his launch?

KASIE HUNT: Do you support ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants?

SCOTT WALKER: I uhh… snarf… *VOMITS*

[three days pass]

JOHN HARWOOD: Do you support ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants?

SCOTT WALKER: Umm so umm… *EXPLOSIVE PROJECTILE VOMIT*
Chin up, Scott.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on August 24, 2015, 02:44:37 pm

JJ - Not good for you but good for me...

My local Wawa is at $1.99 per gallon today.   ;D

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on August 24, 2015, 10:45:41 pm

What is a WaWa??????


I heard Mike Mayock on the NFL channel doing a pre season game say they have the best coffee.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on August 25, 2015, 11:04:24 am

Gas station chain in the Mid-Atlantic states.

https://www.wawa.com/

They do made to order food and stuff too.  They do have some great coffee and sometimes have a free coffee happy hour in the afternoon.  Any Size coffee free.  No purchase necessary.  Just walk in and grab a cup, take it to the counter so they can check you out for tracking purposes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: BearHit on August 25, 2015, 12:01:56 pm

My son loves their lemonade - I saw one WaWa station at $2.05 today

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 25, 2015, 12:10:55 pm

Looks like Midwest gas prices are coming down a bit lately. I filled up in Sturgis Mi at 266.9 yesterday. I also see where Illinois is questioning the gasoline problem in the Midwest to see if its a price gouging situation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on August 25, 2015, 01:19:42 pm

Sturgis. My God.  Hwy 12.  I had a relative who was the fire chief there a loooooong time ago. That right there is your basic middle of nowhere.  I should know. $2.06/gal. in Smyrna.  Grizz is probably filling up everything.  I did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 25, 2015, 03:21:45 pm

$2.09 here. In Charlottesville they were down to $1.85

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on August 25, 2015, 04:56:13 pm

I filled up for 2.59 today.  Prices will starting going down in the Midwest.   The Indiana refinery that was shut down has started production again but is not at full bore yet.  They say the price will drop anywhere from 20 to 50 cents over the next few weeks.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 25, 2015, 05:27:25 pm

2.75 a gallon in Farmington, NM

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 25, 2015, 06:07:13 pm

Quote from: 46 on August 25, 2015, 01:19:42 pm

Sturgis. My God.  Hwy 12.  I had a relative who was the fire chief there a loooooong time ago. That right there is your basic middle of nowhere. I should know. $2.06/gal. in Smyrna.  Grizz is probably filling up everything.  I did.

Yes it is

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on August 25, 2015, 07:30:59 pm

we are running about $2.35 in SE NC. In NE SC, they run about 20 cents cheaper due to lower taxes. I think NC has some of the highest gas taxes in the south.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 27, 2015, 01:11:06 am

 OUCH !! $3.39 a gallon in SO CAL ...


 If you were trying to run from a COUNTRY that you don't have the guts to FIGHT for ...


 why would you go where gas prices are so high ?


 Because we make it easy for you.


 Don't FIGHT for your COUNTRY ... RUN! WE will except you.


 In 1776 you had ZERO OPTIONS to help you ...


 so your ass either ran to Canada or New Spain ...


 or you stood your motherfuckin GROUND ...


 and invented something that the WORLD wants ...


 to this very day ... when they come ON LINE and GET IT ...


 is entirely up to the rest of the WORLD that is busting their BALLS to catch up on.


 IT's US. Nobody want's to be anything but AMERICANS.


 Maybe it's in the water or something.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 27, 2015, 01:54:52 am

 BTW ... concerning another shooting this time by a former news journalist ...


 against his own ...


 IF you can run off a 23 page manifesto and buy a firearm ...


 you can also ask for help. Therein lies the qaundry of mental illness.


 Now ... NOBODY can explain this. You cannot be in that mind ... which is sad.  ???

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: wmljohn on August 27, 2015, 07:49:10 am

Dropped another couple of cents at Wawa to $1.97...

Just in time for me to go on vacation next week!  WOOHOO!  I am sure there will be a bump before the labor day weekend though.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 27, 2015, 02:46:35 pm

Got a notice from Gas Buddy that it was going to drop 20 to 50c in the next couple weeks. It has barely dropped lately at all. Still around the $2.69-$2.74 price range. By that time the speculators will have brought the price of oil back up and it won't drop.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 28, 2015, 06:54:36 am

From the Quinnipiac poll results released yesterday:

15. Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her?
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            39%     9%    76%    28%    34%    44%    43%    37%
Unfavorable          51     88     11     61     57     45     50     51
Hvn't hrd enough      8      3     11      9      7      9      6      9
REFUSED               2      1      2      3      2      2      1      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            40%    41%    39%    37%    27%    35%    31%    83%    58%
Unfavorable          41     51     55     54     66     55     61      6     23
Hvn't hrd enough     16      7      5      7      5      7      6      8     17
REFUSED               2      2      1      2      2      2      2      3      1
 
 
16. What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Hillary Clinton? (Numbers are not percentages. Figures show the number of times each response was given. This table reports only words that were mentioned at least five times.)
                     Tot
 
liar                178
dishonest           123
untrustworthy        93
experience           82
strong               59
Bill                 56
woman                47
smart                31
crook                21
untruthful           19
criminal             18
deceitful            18
Democrat             16
intelligent          15
email                14
politician           13
Benghazi             12
corrupt              12
crooked              11
capable              10
determined           10
good                 10
leader                9
murder                9
qualified             9
trustworthy           9
****                 8
competent             8
phony                 8
president             8
cheat                 7
deceptive             7
honest                7
scandal               7
sneaky                7
ambitious             6
arrogant              6
brilliant             6
dependable            6
fair                  6
sec-of-state          6
thief                 6
confident             5
corporate             5
dedicated             5
devious               5
first-lady            5
lady                  5
liberal               5
unqualified           5

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 28, 2015, 08:00:14 pm

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/1449-brutal-body-cam-video-shows-police-kill-unarmed-man-with-headphones-on

If you watch the entire video, you may want to throw up afterwards.  The cop was not charged.  Not even a grand jury to hear that case.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 28, 2015, 09:27:05 pm

Without resorting to google, does anyone want to try identifying the source of this?

"(W)e must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years ... Washington talked tough but failed to act. (O)ur borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 29, 2015, 11:14:33 am

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/28/texas-deputy-executed-days-after-black-radical-group-calls-for-killing-cops/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 29, 2015, 11:23:15 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on August 28, 2015, 08:00:14 pm

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/1449-brutal-body-cam-video-shows-police-kill-unarmed-man-with-headphones-on

If you watch the entire video, you may want to throw up afterwards.  The cop was not charged.  Not even a grand jury to hear that case.

Pretty brutal, but why in the hell didn't he put his hands up right away. At the very least that cop should never be able to wear a uniform again. With that said, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in some of the situations cops get put in. What I don't get, how and why did the cop single that guy out, and have his gun drawn.

And the libs say just the police and military should be armed.. No thanks!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 29, 2015, 02:27:11 pm

 Fuckin aye Chi.


 You are at a point in time that nobody can make your decision.


 Except you at the better end of a trigger.


 Your home being invaded and you with a firearm in your hand ...


 you would have to have lived it.


 Try that at 15 years old. I did.


 That's why there's a .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson Model 629 next to JJ.


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2015, 03:17:13 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 29, 2015, 11:23:15 am

Pretty brutal, but why in the hell didn't he put his hands up right away.

He didn't put his hands up right away because he was wearing earbuds and listening to music, a perfectly legal, and quite common activity.  He might just as easily have been deaf or not spoken English.  Police can not excuse shooting someone to death because the person failed to respond to an officers command as quickly as the officer would have liked.

Quote from: chifaninva on August 29, 2015, 11:23:15 am

What I don't get, how and why did the cop single that guy out, and have his gun drawn.

According to the report with the video, the officers were responding to a radio call  from dispatch to the effect that someone at that location, and generally matching the victim's description, had been harrassing people with a firearm.  On further investigation (after the officers had shot first, and before the asked questions later), they established that the guy they had shot to death was not only unarmed, but that he had not been threatening anyone with anything.  As I watched the video, it appeared that the cop shot him as soon as he saw the victims hands move, even though the movement appeared to me to be upward, as would have been required for him to comply with the order that he put his hands up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2015, 04:37:08 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on August 29, 2015, 11:14:33 am

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/28/texas-deputy-executed-days-after-black-radical-group-calls-for-killing-cops/

Considering that the call for killing cops came on a radio blog which likely has about a dozen listeners, and that there has been no indication whatsoever the shooter was one of them, or even knew anyone who was one of them, is there any reason at all to believe a relationship exists between the "call" and the action?  If during the next Bears' game you "call" for the Bears to run a particular play on their next possession, and they do so, does that really indicate any relationship between your "call" and the following action?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 29, 2015, 06:51:40 pm

We don't treasure life, whether it's blacks, cops, unborn babies, random white people....whatever. There's no valuing life....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2015, 07:02:00 pm

Quote from: Sportster on August 29, 2015, 06:51:40 pm

We don't treasure life, whether it's blacks, cops, unborn babies, random white people....whatever. There's no valuing life....

What "we," Paleface?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 29, 2015, 08:04:33 pm

This is what the republic party has become.

https://youtu.be/Oeju2SG7UMA (https://youtu.be/Oeju2SG7UMA)

It's not pretty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 29, 2015, 09:20:26 pm

Clinton, Sanders, Gore, Biden. 

And Homo criticizes the Republicans.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2015, 09:30:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 29, 2015, 08:04:33 pm

This is what the republic party has become.

Really?

Two people, one of whom has never held elective office outside of Alaska (with all three of its electoral college votes, and who was only elected once to any office beyond Wasilla, with a population of less than 8K), has held NO elective office in more than six years, and a guy who has never drawn a single vote in ANY election anywhere, on a cable broadcast outlet which is essentially not even carried by the major cable providers and has to be viewed online -- THOSE are "what the republic party has become."

Boy, otto, that is pretty lame even for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 30, 2015, 10:52:50 am

I don't often defend Homo, but I feel that I must step in here.

That is NOT lame, even for Homo.

Even though all of his posts are lame, he has surpassed that one a dozen times just in the past week.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 30, 2015, 11:58:51 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/29/check-out-what-black-lives-matter-protesters-choose-to-chant-during-march-with-police-escort/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on August 30, 2015, 06:38:06 pm

The problem with socialism:

 "An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

 "After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

 "But as the second test rolled around, the students who studied only a little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied less than what they had. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

 "When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

 "All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2015, 07:24:40 pm

Quote from: Sportster on August 30, 2015, 06:38:06 pm

The problem with socialism:

 "An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

 "After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

 "But as the second test rolled around, the students who studied only a little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied less than what they had. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

 "When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

 "All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed."

While the point regarding incentives is valid (and the story old), using it to illustrate the problem with "socialism" indicates someone does not really understand their economic systems.  The story might illustrate the problems with communism, but not quite with socialism.  Socialism is an economic system not where all basic economic tools of production (including land, patents and labor) are owned, controlled or at least directed by the state, for the "betterment of society overall," and not for the narrow self interest of the greedy individual.  Socialism is NOT an economic system where all economic assets are simply shared equally by everyone.  (THAT system would be communism.)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on August 31, 2015, 07:12:22 am

 Americans are **** pissed at getting ripped off for their work.


 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 31, 2015, 11:30:14 am

I see Trump and Carson are tied In Iowa. Didn't everyone on the Republican side **** about Obama's inexperience? I know everyone is anti Washington, but this isn't the local treasurer we're talking about. What's Carson's credentials? He says he'll do a good job? I bet you could get Miley Cyrus to tell you the same thing, but I ain't votin' for her.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on August 31, 2015, 11:52:06 am

I can't get over how Rand Paul fell off the radar. Walker seems to be struggling a bit, as well as Rubio. Everyone said Bush had it in the bag due to the establishment, I don't see it. I'd like to see Fiorina on stage for the primary debate, see how she does with the big boys (she'd probably kick their ass). Perry, Santorum, Christie, they need to bow out..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on August 31, 2015, 12:17:50 pm

I'd like to see Fiorina too. I'd like to see how she stacks up against the big boys. I see where Trump hasn't decided whether or not to run as a 3rd party candidate but is supposedly mulling over the move.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 31, 2015, 04:20:18 pm

If Trump runs as a third party candidate, he will cause the election of Hillary (or whoever is the Democratic candidate), just as that idiot Ross Perot brought us her husband.

Trump (or Carson or Fiorina) has no chance of being the Republican candidate, any more than Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader did for the democrats.  But the interesting thing about Trump is that he is getting the support of conservatives who are frustrated that RINOs like Romney or McCain were nominated.  And yet Trump is the greatest RINO of them all.  I fail to understand why an obnoxious RINO is somehow better than a mild RINO.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 31, 2015, 05:09:37 pm

An interesting commentary on how much America has changed.

An avowed Socialist is polling 30 % in Iowa, a not strongly liberal state.  Granted, it is 30 percent of democrats, and of them, probably the more activist portion of the Democratic Party, but none the less it would have been difficult to foresee something like this 50 years ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2015, 05:23:31 pm

Quote from: davep on August 31, 2015, 05:09:37 pm

An interesting commentary on how much America has changed.

An avowed Socialist is polling 30 % in Iowa, a not strongly liberal state.  Granted, it is 30 percent of democrats, and of them, probably the more activist portion of the Democratic Party, but none the less it would have been difficult to foresee something like this 50 years ago.

SIXTY years ago it might well have gotten him arrested.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2015, 05:37:57 pm

Quote from: davep on August 31, 2015, 04:20:18 pm

If Trump runs as a third party candidate, he will cause the election of Hillary (or whoever is the Democratic candidate), just as that idiot Ross Perot brought us her husband.

Trump (or Carson or Fiorina) has no chance of being the Republican candidate, any more than Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader did for the democrats.  But the interesting thing about Trump is that he is getting the support of conservatives who are frustrated that RINOs like Romney or McCain were nominated.  And yet Trump is the greatest RINO of them all.  I fail to understand why an obnoxious RINO is somehow better than a mild RINO.

While I agree entirely with your first paragraph, and all of the second sentence of your second paragraph, and agree that Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader never had even a remote chance of getting the Democratic nomination for president, I don't thing that is at all the case with Carson, Trump or Fiorina.  I think all three have viable routes to getting the Republican nomination.

As to your last sentence -- they believe Trump because he swears HE will do as he says (which every politician always swears), because they think they know him (even though few actually do know much about him), and because they believe his nonsense that he is so rich no one can "buy him" to get him to do things he opposes.  (Of course this ignores the fact that in politics you have an endless series of trading your support for something you want in order to get the needed support of someone else for something you want even more.)

Quote from: chifaninva on August 31, 2015, 11:52:06 am

I can't get over how Rand Paul fell off the radar. Walker seems to be struggling a bit, as well as Rubio. Everyone said Bush had it in the bag due to the establishment, I don't see it. I'd like to see Fiorina on stage for the primary debate, see how she does with the big boys (she'd probably kick their ass). Perry, Santorum, Christie, they need to bow out..

Santorum will likely stick thru the end.  He did four years ago when he similarly had no chance.  He seems to think he is "on a mission from god," and might well see sticking around as a route to get the VP nod.

As to "everybody" saying Bush "had it in the bag," I really don't know what "everybody" you are talking about.

Quote from: chifaninva on August 31, 2015, 11:30:14 am

I see Trump and Carson are tied In Iowa. Didn't everyone on the Republican side **** about Obama's inexperience? I know everyone is anti Washington, but this isn't the local treasurer we're talking about. What's Carson's credentials? He says he'll do a good job?

Obama had never run ANYTHING (other than the Harvard Law Review, which was actually "led" by committee, and he did little on it.)

I agree that Carson's "leadership" and political experience are very, very thin, and that is a major reservation I have about him.  But he HAS had more leadership experience than Obama had.  One of the reasons I suspect many white conservative Republicans are at least strongly considering Carson is to show they are not racist, to prove untrue, at least to themselves if no one else, that the mantra from the left that opposition to Obama is entirely a result of racism.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 31, 2015, 06:08:23 pm

I think you republic fascists need to understand what Socialism is....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/aug/26/bernie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/aug/26/bernie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/)

Again, old, white wrinkled phaxnews types....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 31, 2015, 06:21:43 pm

Homo calling names again.  You would think he had another arrow in his quiver.

What makes Homo think that anyone on this board is not aware of what a Socialist is?  Jes posted the definition earlier and Homo didn't bother to quibble with it, partly because he didn't understand it and partly because he probably didn't read it.  But it was essentially identical to the definition used in the article.

He seems to make a distinction by saying democratic socialist, but that is irrelevant.  Socialist is an economic term while democratic is a political term.  I have not seen anyone on this board that disagrees with Sanders on the "democratic" portion of his definition.  The fact remains that Sanders believes and wants to install a Socialist economic system. 

Perhaps Homo can look that up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 31, 2015, 06:37:36 pm

Quite the contrary davepbart,


I would far more interested what shithead republic fascists believe "installing Democratic Economic Socialism" to be.


Since the article stated that it was mainstream 1950's Democratic position.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 31, 2015, 07:37:11 pm

Democratic Socialism is identical to every other kind of socialism as far as the economic system is concerned.  You seem to feel that a despotic dictator in charge of a socialistic country is somehow worse economically than a democratically elected president in charge of a socialistic country.  As far as liberty and the economic system are concerned, they are identical.

Home, did you ever take a course in Economics?  We know you never took a  course in logic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2015, 08:03:55 pm

Quote from: otto105 on August 31, 2015, 06:37:36 pm

Quite the contrary davepbart,

I would far more interested what shithead republic fascists believe "installing Democratic Economic Socialism" to be.

Since the article stated that it was mainstream 1950's Democratic position.

otto, I teach special ed.  After reading your attempt at writing in your last post, I am betting that if you checked with my principal, he might be able to squeeze you in.  You need serious help.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2015, 08:24:28 pm

This was one seriously, seriously sick puppy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216957/When-heads-stop-turning-s-AWFUL-TV-gunman-complained-lack-sex-lamented-glory-days-2-000-night-prostitute-suicide-letter.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2015, 09:06:36 pm

You know.... at this point, what difference does it all make?


The State Department has deemed roughly 150 more of Hillary Clinton's email messages to be classified, a move certain to fuel the roiling controversy over her use of a private email server instead of an official government account when she served as secretary of state.

The new classifications will more than triple the previous total of 63 classified messages on Clinton's account, but State Department spokesman Mark Toner stressed that the information was not marked classified at the time it was sent several years ago. He also said the decisions to classify the information did not represent a determination that it should have been marked or handled that way back then.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/clintonemail-batch4-213164#ixzz3kRokoZuz

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on August 31, 2015, 09:39:19 pm

Context idoit legal aid.

Context is that something special Ed teachers such as you understand?

Context yah know are the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

Did your funny little post using politico do that legal aid?

Like, if you could bring that lane ass case you just **** all over to a judge....

No, no it can't

Move on dipshit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on August 31, 2015, 09:43:55 pm

Homo is rambling again.  Is there a translator in the house?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Grizzlybear34 on September 01, 2015, 04:32:58 am

Is 30% support of Sanders more of a "no" vote for Clinton?  And if yes, would that no vote roll to Clinton is she were the candidate next November?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 07:10:00 am

Quote from: Grizzlybear34 on September 01, 2015, 04:32:58 am

Is 30% support of Sanders more of a "no" vote for Clinton?  And if yes, would that no vote roll to Clinton is she were the candidate next November?

The support for Sanders among Dems is not really a rejection of Clinto so much as it is a true embrace of socialism, and much of that Sanders support would likely either stay home if Clinton gets the nomination or look for another true socialist among 3rd party candidates in the general.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2015, 07:41:51 am

I think that 30% would vote for Clinton beings she would be a lesser of two evils. They wouldn't vote for an evil Republican. She is closer to what they believe than a Republican

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 01, 2015, 08:32:20 am

davepbart

Can you name A Socialistic and a Democratic Socialistic country?

So I can laugh at your answer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2015, 08:34:49 am

What a moronic question. LOL. Oh and thanks for the laugh.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2015, 11:35:51 am

Quote from: Grizzlybear34 on September 01, 2015, 04:32:58 am

Is 30% support of Sanders more of a "no" vote for Clinton?  And if yes, would that no vote roll to Clinton is she were the candidate next November?

Yes.  Politically, liberals are much smarter than conservatives.  Last election, three and one half million conservative voters stayed home rather than vote for Romney, giving the election to Obama.  Democrats would vote for Hitler if they thought he would be more liberal than his rival.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2015, 11:38:06 am

Quote from: otto105 on September 01, 2015, 08:32:20 am

davepbart

Can you name A Socialistic and a Democratic Socialistic country?

So I can laugh at your answer.

Sorry Homo.  I didn't think that even you were unaware of Sweden and most of the European countries.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 01, 2015, 04:27:41 pm

BBBWWWAAHHHHHHHH!

Who is the despotic dictator of Sweden?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2015, 04:30:01 pm

I love it when Homo get's involved.

You didn't say that the socialist country had to be a despotic dictator, but if that is what turns you on, who was the "President for Life" in the socialist country of Venezuela?

Don't you love it when Homo makes himself look like an idiot.  And he didn't even use a mirror.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 05:41:50 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2015, 07:41:51 am

I think that 30% would vote for Clinton beings she would be a lesser of two evils. They wouldn't vote for an evil Republican. She is closer to what they believe than a Republican

As with many Christian conservatives in 2012 who had difficulty with Romney being a Mormon, many of the 30% now supporting Sanders would stay home.  As with many of the Republicans who voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996, man will vote, but support someone who they believe is more in line with their positions on policy issues.  In all three of those elections, those decisions were made with full knowledge that (when taken in aggregate) they could result in the "greater of two evils" being elected.  And in at least two of those three elections that is exactly what happened.  It may well have also happened when lefties supported "green" candidates or Nader in 2000 and 2004.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 05:43:47 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 01, 2015, 04:27:41 pm

BBBWWWAAHHHHHHHH!

Who is the despotic dictator of Sweden?

What part of your original question asked for the identification of any "despotic dictator"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 01, 2015, 06:23:02 pm

Yea, 'wonderful' Sweden...

http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/criminalizing-christianity-swedens-hate-speech-law-1277601.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2015, 07:08:14 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 05:43:47 pm

What part of your original question asked for the identification of any "despotic dictator"?

Homo has been trying to make a distinction between a "socialist government" which is led by a despot, and a "Democratic Socialist government" which is led by an elected official.  For some reason he thinks that if it is led by an elected official, it is somehow all right.

By his reasoning, slavery was perfectly all right since the president was an elected official.

But that is probably an unfair statement, because it assumes that Homo is capable of reasoning.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2015, 07:16:00 pm

Yup...LOL

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 01, 2015, 07:18:47 pm

The prime difference between Communism and Socialism is that Communism requires that dictatorship. So if that said country actually had a dictator it would be Communist and not Socialist in nature.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2015, 07:26:27 pm

Communism does not require a dictator.  Like Socialism, it is strictly an economic system and in theory can function under any form of government, just as capitalism can function under a democracy, dictatorship or kingship.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 07:56:16 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 01, 2015, 06:23:02 pm

Yea, 'wonderful' Sweden...

http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/criminalizing-christianity-swedens-hate-speech-law-1277601.html

Are folks here obsessed with fighting straw men?

NO ONE suggested that Sweden was wonderful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 07:58:15 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 01, 2015, 07:18:47 pm

The prime difference between Communism and Socialism is that Communism requires that dictatorship. So if that said country actually had a dictator it would be Communist and not Socialist in nature.

No, communism does NOT require a dictatorship.  You seem to have difficulty understanding both governmental and economic systems.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 08:12:05 pm

Oh the times, they are-a-changing.... http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150901/us--marijuana_life_sentence-bd7e585e25.html

Man who got life for marijuana charge goes free in Missouri
Sep 1, 7:38 PM (ET)
By SUMMER BALLENTINE

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A man sentenced to life without parole on a marijuana-related charge was freed Tuesday from a Missouri prison after being behind bars for more than two decades — a period in which the nation's attitudes toward pot steadily softened.
Family, friends, supporters and reporters flocked to meet Jeff Mizanskey as he stepped out of the Jefferson City Correctional Center into a sunny morning, wearing a new pair of white tennis shoes and a shirt that read "I'm Jeff & I'm free."
"I spent a third of my life in prison," said Mizanskey, now 62, who was greeted by his infant great-granddaughter. "It's a shame."
After a breakfast of steak and eggs with family, Mizanskey said, he planned to spend his post-prison life seeking a job and advocating for the legalization of marijuana. He criticized sentencing for some drug-related crimes as unfair and described his time behind bars as "hell."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2015, 08:56:43 pm

I have long felt that marijuana should be legal (in fact I believe all recreational drugs should be legal for adults).  However, I have little sympathy for those who knowingly broke the law and were caught and punished.

The term "marijuana-related" crime is a little vague.  I assume that he was a dealer, since I don't believe that there were too many life imprisonment sentences for merely the use of marijuana.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 10:35:58 pm

I have complete sympathy for those who break unjust laws and are wrongly punished for them, whether the unjust laws were the Fugitive Slave Act, laws allowing slavery itself or criminalizing those giving aid to runaway slaves, Jim Crow laws, **** laws, draft laws, or criminalizing marijuana use or sale.  Of his three convictions, two were for sale and one was for simple possession

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 10:41:52 pm

oopsie.....  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-wrote-classified-e-mails-sent-using-private-server/2015/09/01/5d456616-50bd-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2015, 10:46:06 pm

The the Fugitive Slave Act, laws allowing slavery itself or criminalizing those giving aid to runaway slaves, was certainly an unjust law. Jim Crow laws, descriminating against certain citizens was also an unjust law.

The laws criminalizing marijuana and the anti-**** laws were certainly foolish laws, but were merely public policy laws and were not in the least unjust, except in the respect that the anti-**** laws in practice only applied to women.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 11:11:40 pm

Punishing someone for doing something which hurts no one else is unjust.  I did not write "unfair," but "unjust.  You last post indicates you are using "unjust" as synonymous with "unfair."  Fairness is a separate issue.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 01, 2015, 11:24:41 pm

Sorry, I meant to write unjust.

The laws against marijuana were foolish, but not unjust.  Laws to protect people are usually stupid, but they are not unjust.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2015, 11:30:17 pm

Quote from: davep on September 01, 2015, 11:24:41 pm

Sorry, I meant to write unjust.

The laws against marijuana were foolish, but not unjust.  Laws to protect people are usually stupid, but they are not unjust.

Then please offer your definition of "unjust."  I am not asking for a dictionary definition, but your definition as you are using it in this exchange, which includes calling "unjust" "laws (which) in practice only applied to women," something to me which smacks of being "unfair," but not necessarily "unjust."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2015, 11:03:13 am

You were the one that used the word.  What is your definition?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 02, 2015, 11:10:38 am

I find people are too judgmental and are hypocrites. The same person that thinks pot should be illegal will get out on the expressway and do 20 miles over the speed limit and not think a thing about it. To them "it's just the speed limit", when in reality they're jeopardizing other motorist on the road. The same one's will condemn gays "they'll go to hell for that", then they themselves will turn around and cheat on their spouse and think nothing of it. The biggest lie ever told was that somehow smoking pot will make you want to do **** or heroin. Pot is like anything else, it's a problem when it's not done in moderation. Sound familiar?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 02, 2015, 02:59:53 pm

It's well known pot is a gateway drug. Most of those I knew years ago that smoked also got into **** and acid. They aren't satisfied with just pot after awhile and need a stronger buzz....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 02, 2015, 03:22:49 pm

Whoopie...legal aid


Please post something when the meat is on the bone.

Quote

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department.

Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office, they could complicate her efforts to move beyond the political fallout from the controversy.

Tell us all, what is to see here?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 02, 2015, 03:26:23 pm

ATTENTION RELIGIOUS FANATIC


Coffee is a gateway drug to you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 02, 2015, 05:49:45 pm

No, coffee is fine and good, even.... put down the bong and walk away, it's fried your cerebral cortex....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 06:22:46 pm

Quote from: davep on September 02, 2015, 11:03:13 am

You were the one that used the word.  What is your definition?

Well, I already know I agree with my definition.  In order to understand your position, I simply asked what your definition is.  I am not trying to force you to agree with mine.

To me it is unjust to use the power of the state to criminally punish, thru incarceration or other means, any person whose conduct did not directly injure another person or pose a rather serious risk of injury to another person.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 06:31:00 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 02, 2015, 02:59:53 pm

It's well known pot is a gateway drug. Most of those I knew years ago that smoked also got into **** and acid. They aren't satisfied with just pot after awhile and need a stronger buzz....

21 years ago a federal study found that while pot was a "gateway drug," so is alcohol, and so is tobacco.  http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol20/vol20_iss10/record2010.24.html

But so what?  Even coke and acid do not involve injury to anyone other than the use.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 06:36:28 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 02, 2015, 03:22:49 pm

Please post something when the meat is on the bone.
While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department.

Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office, they could complicate her efforts to move beyond the political fallout from the controversy.

Tell us all, what is to see here?

~sigh~ Classification of government documents or anything written by anyone in government is generally done AFTER the fact.

So OF COURSE it is very unlikely that any of her email messages (which were not reviewed by anyone else before she sent them) was not "classified" at the moment she sent it.  That did NOT mean that the information she included in those emails was actually for public consumption at the time.

Hillary knows this.  Any thinking person knows this.  I would say that even YOU know this, but I am not at all sure you reach the category of a thinking person.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 02, 2015, 06:48:25 pm

Even Judicial Watch knows this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 07:01:45 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2015, 06:48:25 pm

Even Judicial Watch knows this.

Judicial Watch has rather conservative leanings.  You would expect them to oppose Hillary's position on this, and citing them is not likely to be at all persuasive to anyone left of center.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 02, 2015, 07:23:08 pm

Who was trying to persuade anyone? Was there a hint of persuasion in my post? I didn't think so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2015, 08:35:52 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 06:22:46 pm

To me it is unjust to use the power of the state to criminally punish, thru incarceration or other means, any person whose conduct did not directly injure another person or pose a rather serious risk of injury to another person.

I don't consider that to be unjust.  Stupid, maybe.  Certainly unnecessary.  If the law discriminates against a portion of the citizenry, I would not consider it unjust.  If it violated a basic human right, such as slavery, I would consider it unjust.  But although I think the seat belt law requiring adults to wear them is a terrible law, I do not consider it unjust.

I wear seat belts on the highway, but seldom in the city.  I have probably gotten more than half dozen tickets for it over the years.  I have paid each of them.  I have the right to disobey a law that I don't agree with, but if it is not an unjust law, I do not have the right to avoid the punishment for breaking that law.  If the punishment were incarceration, I would not knowingly break the law, for that would be incredibly stupid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 09:28:36 pm

Quote from: davep on September 02, 2015, 08:35:52 pm

I don't consider that to be unjust.  Stupid, maybe.  Certainly unnecessary.  If the law discriminates against a portion of the citizenry, I would not consider it unjust.  If it violated a basic human right, such as slavery, I would consider it unjust.  But although I think the seat belt law requiring adults to wear them is a terrible law, I do not consider it unjust.

I wear seat belts on the highway, but seldom in the city.  I have probably gotten more than half dozen tickets for it over the years.  I have paid each of them.  I have the right to disobey a law that I don't agree with, but if it is not an unjust law, I do not have the right to avoid the punishment for breaking that law.  If the punishment were incarceration, I would not knowingly break the law, for that would be incredibly stupid.

You have offered examples, but no definition.  Yes, I know you did say that you would consider it unjust if a law violated a "basic human right," but you offer no definition of what might be a "basic human right," and make comments which make pretty clear your definition of that would clearly be at odds with my definition of the phrase.  I believe it is a "basic human right" to live your life as you wish, so long as you are not directly injuring another person, or initiating the use of force against them, and yes, though I do not use either pot or other street drugs (or much of any drugs), I believe there is a basic human right to do so.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 10:25:12 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 02, 2015, 07:23:08 pm

Who was trying to persuade anyone? Was there a hint of persuasion in my post? I didn't think so.

Who said you were trying to persuade anyone?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 02, 2015, 10:30:48 pm

In general, I consider a law unjust if it is not applied equally to all citizens or if it directly violates a basic human right such as slavery or free speech without justification.

To save time, when one basic freedom may conflict with another basic freedom (the right to free speech conflicting with the right to be safe from foreseeable injury, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, laws may limit one of the basic human freedoms.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 02, 2015, 10:32:21 pm

While Cruz is my first choice I would like all of you to take a look at Ben Carson.

While I always have liked him every time I have seen him speak I didn't think he was ready for primetime.  He did a good job in the last debate which won me over but after I became a fan of him on facebook and have read his nightly Q&A I like him even more.  I would suggest you guys do the same if you are not sure who to support.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 02, 2015, 11:08:02 pm

IMHO its too early to get behind a specific candidate at this time as views and issues will change and develop as we get into the primaries in 2016.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 02, 2015, 11:13:16 pm

I am just asking people to check him out.  Candidates will move up and down but he is a serious candidate.  Don't dismiss him.

I still stand by being in favor of Cruz, Carson and Fiorina.  Rubio and Walker are the two behind them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 03, 2015, 08:11:47 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 10:25:12 pm

Who said you were trying to persuade anyone?

I believe that was your insinuation which was wrong. But you aren't man enough to admit that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on September 03, 2015, 08:25:48 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 02, 2015, 06:31:00 pm

21 years ago a federal study found that while pot was a "gateway drug," so is alcohol, and so is tobacco.  http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol20/vol20_iss10/record2010.24.html

But so what?  Even coke and acid do not involve injury to anyone other than the use.

unless those addicts break into your house and harm your family to get money to buy drugs or if some junkie hits your family head on in a car accident, or they end up unable to  work and end up on the welfare system.  I expect most crime in America today is drug related.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on September 03, 2015, 09:46:27 am

"coke and acid do not involve injury to anyone other than the use".  You quite obviously haven't been forced to be around a user have you? Ever ridden with anyone completely impared? Ever wonder what happens to all the stuff that disappears from the home? You still have to feed those useless retches, clean up after them, listen to the screaming rants. The shrieking "help me!" when the images in what they call a brain get to big.  Always after midnight and before 6 am. always. We have to help them for what they did to themselves. No sleep. No stuff. Bad smells. Infections. No money. EVERYONE around those fuckers suffers. EVERYONE. Dumbass.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 03, 2015, 04:29:24 pm

See republics this is how gay marriage works....

The white old guy fossil party just married a racist xenophobic other white guy.


Salute!


You may now go back to your rural white trash heroin discussion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 04:50:43 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 03, 2015, 08:11:47 am

I believe that was your insinuation which was wrong. But you aren't man enough to admit that.

And I believe your insinuation in using the word "even" was to try to persuade others to join in your opinion, but you aren't man enough to admit that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 03, 2015, 04:51:16 pm

You're deceived, taken captive, by the devil and don't even know it, Otts. You're doing his will....not something to be proud of....

2 Timothy 2:26 ... that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

2 Corinthians 4:3
3But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4In whom the god of this world, Satan,hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 04:53:29 pm

Quote from: navigator on September 03, 2015, 08:25:48 am

unless those addicts break into your house and harm your family to get money to buy drugs or if some junkie hits your family head on in a car accident, or they end up unable to  work and end up on the welfare system.  I expect most crime in America today is drug related.

Probably not most, but certainly a great deal of it.  At the same time the only reason there is a willingness to "break into your house" to steal to pay for drugs is that making the drugs illegal results in absurdly high prices.  Legalize it and drug related theft, robbery or fraud would nearly vanish.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 05:04:25 pm

Quote from: 46 on September 03, 2015, 09:46:27 am

"coke and acid do not involve injury to anyone other than the use".  You quite obviously haven't been forced to be around a user have you?

Quite true.  Just as with everyone else, I am free to leave, and would chose to do so.  I am not only not sure what you are talking about in referencing "hav(ing) been forced to be around a user," but I would bet you aren't quite sure of it either.

Quote from: 46 on September 03, 2015, 09:46:27 am

Ever ridden with anyone completely impared?....  Dumbass.

Wait a minute.  You apparently choose to remain in a vehicle operated by someone who is "completely impaired," and you call ME a "Dumbass"?

That's rich.

Quote from: 46 on September 03, 2015, 09:46:27 am

Ever wonder what happens to all the stuff that disappears from the home?

I changed the locks and let them know that if they returned I would have them arrested.  I didn't wonder what happened with anything that disappeared.  It really isn't hard to figure out when it happens.

Quote from: 46 on September 03, 2015, 09:46:27 am

You still have to feed those useless retches, clean up after them, listen to the screaming rants.

No, you do NOT have to feed them, or clean up after them, OR listen to them.  You apparently not only DID all of this, but are DOING all of this.... and then calling ME the "Dumbass"?

Quote from: 46 on September 03, 2015, 09:46:27 am

EVERYONE around those fuckers suffers. EVERYONE.

Well, the ones bright enough not to let them hang around certainly don't suffer long.... and you call ME the "Dumbass."

What IS dumb is continuing to support a policy which has quite clearly failed and resulted in you dealing with the problems you complain of... and refusing to even consider a change, despite the fact that your comments make it quite clear you believe the current approach is an utter failure.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on September 03, 2015, 07:12:20 pm

If it is a Sibling and the caregiver is trying to clean the user up, yes, yes you DO still around, sit in the back seat with an older sibling, and lose stuff.  I do know of what I speak. And no, it didn't work. He died. Thanks for asking.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 07:46:37 pm

I never said you didn't know of what you spoke.  I said what you did was stupid.  The outcome might support that.  And I didn't ask, nor would I, but if you come out calling someone else a "Dumbass," don't get your panties in a wad when they point out would would seem to be your own foolishness or cry that a response is too personal when you are the one bringing any of it front and center.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 03, 2015, 07:51:13 pm

Jes,

You couldn't even say, "sorry for your loss."?

Internet arguments do not ever get won so stop trying.  Just be a human being for once.

46,  Sorry for your loss.  I luckily have never had to go through something like that.  Sorry you did.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davebear on September 03, 2015, 08:12:57 pm

So if you do legalize drugs, where do you go to get away from the drug users?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 08:19:23 pm

Quote from: Pekin on September 03, 2015, 07:51:13 pm

Jes,

You couldn't even say, "sorry for your loss."?

If I were sorry for it, I would say it.  I did nothing to cause his loss, and he did not quite present himself or his loss in anything remotely resembling a sympathetic manner.

No expression of sorrow for his loss here.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 08:20:34 pm

Quote from: davebear on September 03, 2015, 08:12:57 pm

So if you do legalize drugs, where do you go to get away from the drug users?

Is that a serious question?

Does your home not have doors or walls?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 03, 2015, 08:25:24 pm

So if you do legalize drugs, where do you go to get away from the drug users?

That is an excellent question. Lets see if the resident genius can answer that

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: 46 on September 03, 2015, 08:33:11 pm

Thanks Peke.  As for you Jes, I couldn't do anything about it . Family. Get it? Parents.  And no, , I couldn't do anything at age 10.  My parents did what they could. But they weren't going to pitch family in the street. the death was in a car with others just as loaded.  Acutally not far from Goshen Ind., which, being a Mishawaka man I'm sure you know of. Not big city, very rural America.  And just as deadly.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 03, 2015, 08:45:53 pm

Know all about Goshen and Mishawaka. Go Maroons

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 08:53:54 pm

Quote from: 46 on September 03, 2015, 08:33:11 pm

Thanks Peke.  As for you Jes, I couldn't do anything about it . Family. Get it? Parents.  And no, , I couldn't do anything at age 10.  My parents did what they could. But they weren't going to pitch family in the street. the death was in a car with others just as loaded.  Acutally not far from Goshen Ind., which, being a Mishawaka man I'm sure you know of. Not big city, very rural America.  And just as deadly.

But try for a moment to follow this.

Your brother died as a result of abusing a substance which was illegal, and which he still rather obviously was able to get and use, even though it was illegal.  From your post it also appears that he died as a result of it being used in a manner making it further illegal ("death in a car with others just as loaded" sounds as if there was both a DUI and a reckless endangerment involved), and as a result you want to keep in place the laws which rather clearly did nothing whatsoever to prevent your brother's death.... AND you call someone a "Dumbass" for supporting a different approach.

Criminalization has not worked.  It has been a colossal failure just as a policy matter, and without even looking at the issue of personal freedoms.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 08:54:53 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 03, 2015, 08:25:24 pm

So if you do legalize drugs, where do you go to get away from the drug users?

That is an excellent question. Lets see if the resident genius can answer that

Wshflthinking's home apparently has neither doors nor walls.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 03, 2015, 09:06:36 pm

Criminals breakdown doors and walls. They don't make you safe anymore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 03, 2015, 09:41:14 pm

Quote from: davebear on September 03, 2015, 08:12:57 pm

So if you do legalize drugs, where do you go to get away from the drug users?

The same place you go to get away from the alcohol users.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 04, 2015, 07:23:28 am

We don't need more stoners and potheads and worse running around legally in this Country. It's a freaking stupid idea. Go ask some employer if they want Joe Pothead as his employee. I sure wouldn't. This is why they do drug testing. I do not want some idiot running a crane with a 20 ton coil on it. I wouldnt' hire a known drunk, either. If you can't handle life and need some drug to get your through, you're not stable enough to be driving a truck, or running a crane or whatever.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on September 04, 2015, 08:05:40 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 03, 2015, 08:53:54 pm

........Criminalization has not worked.  It has been a colossal failure just as a policy matter, and without even looking at the issue of personal freedoms.

so I wonder if there are more drunk drivers and people killed by drunk drivers now than there were before alcohol was made legal? Alcohol related issues cost our country a great deal, it affects everyone. If you make drugs legal there will be a host of people trying them that would have never even tried them before. When those users get hooked and cannot hold down a job, they will steal to get what they need.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 04, 2015, 09:19:13 am

The drug laws are a failure, period. Once again, the abuse, or the failure of a few to control themselves should condemn the use for all. Someone comes to take my beer there is going to be a big problem..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 04, 2015, 10:03:24 am

"The 157,065,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 251,096,000 civilian noninstitutional population -- the same as it was in July and June. Not since October 1977, when the participation rate dropped to 62.4, has the percentage been this low."

HMMMmmmm...who was President in October 77? Yep, it was good ol Jimmy Carter, the second worse President we've had who used to be the worst in recent memory until our present day individual at 1600 Pennsylvania...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 04, 2015, 10:50:32 am

Quote from: navigator on September 04, 2015, 08:05:40 am

so I wonder if there are more drunk drivers and people killed by drunk drivers now than there were before alcohol was made legal? Alcohol related issues cost our country a great deal, it affects everyone. If you make drugs legal there will be a host of people trying them that would have never even tried them before. When those users get hooked and cannot hold down a job, they will steal to get what they need.

The studies that I have seen indicate that neither alcoholism nor casual drinking did not increase after the end of prohibition, since anyone that really wanted a drink could get one during prohibition anyway.  And the same applies today.  I assume that Sportster does not drink alcohol, but if he wanted one, he could do so at any time.  The same applies to recreational drugs.  There is no one in the country that couldn't get some on a half hours notice.  Anyone that wants to take drugs is already taking drugs.

However, I would strongly support raising penalties for driving while drunk or under the influence of drugs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 04, 2015, 11:05:27 am

Quote

  Anyone that wants to take drugs is already taking drugs.

Couldn't disagree more. IF it becomes legal and people are openly smoking, snorting whatever out in the open, then those who would not dare touch it due to its legality and availability might be more inclined to try it and thereby become hooked by it. It's not nearly as 'easy' to acquire now as it would be if it were legal and selling in shops in our downtowns.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 04, 2015, 03:26:10 pm

 Legalize ALL DRUGS and TAX it except for ALCOHOL ... NICOTINE & CAFFEINE !!


 Oh wait ................................................................  :D   ;D


 Anybody got any of Brett Favres favorite drug?


 Email them to me if you got them ... I'll pay by PayPal.  ;)


 And here's the first one being handed through the screen now !


 Thanks Jes !

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2015, 04:47:50 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 04, 2015, 07:23:28 am

We don't need more stoners and potheads and worse running around legally in this Country. It's a freaking stupid idea. Go ask some employer if they want Joe Pothead as his employee. I sure wouldn't. This is why they do drug testing. I do not want some idiot running a crane with a 20 ton coil on it. I wouldnt' hire a known drunk, either. If you can't handle life and need some drug to get your through, you're not stable enough to be driving a truck, or running a crane or whatever.

Employers would still be allowed to drug screen employees and dismiss employees who tested positive.  There is no question about this under the law.  Legalization alone does nothing on this front.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2015, 04:49:32 pm

Quote from: navigator on September 04, 2015, 08:05:40 am

so I wonder if there are more drunk drivers and people killed by drunk drivers now than there were before alcohol was made legal? Alcohol related issues cost our country a great deal, it affects everyone. If you make drugs legal there will be a host of people trying them that would have never even tried them before. When those users get hooked and cannot hold down a job, they will steal to get what they need.

In places where drugs have been legalized you tend to see LESS theft, robbery and burglary, not more.  This is because when legal the drugs are so cheap it makes little sense to run the risk of a prison sentence to steal to pay for them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2015, 04:51:19 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 04, 2015, 11:05:27 am

Couldn't disagree more..

Disagreeing and being right are two very different things.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2015, 04:52:47 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 04, 2015, 10:03:24 am

"The 157,065,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 251,096,000 civilian noninstitutional population -- the same as it was in July and June. Not since October 1977, when the participation rate dropped to 62.4, has the percentage been this low."

HMMMmmmm...who was President in October 77? Yep, it was good ol Jimmy Carter, the second worse President we've had who used to be the worst in recent memory until our present day individual at 1600 Pennsylvania...

While Carter was president in '77, he had only taken office in January of that year and virtually nothing he had done by that time in any meaningful way contributed to the economic conditions in October of 1977.  That needs to rest of the shoulders of Ford and of Nixon.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 04, 2015, 05:13:34 pm

Employers would still be allowed to drug screen employees and dismiss employees who tested positive.  There is no question about this under the law.  Legalization alone does nothing on this front.

Watch for that to be challenged in court if drugs were declared legal. It used to be hard to fire those caught in a drug screen. They get counceling and drug treatment programs, plus 2md and 3rd chances.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2015, 06:32:19 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 04, 2015, 05:13:34 pm

Employers would still be allowed to drug screen employees and dismiss employees who tested positive.  There is no question about this under the law.  Legalization alone does nothing on this front.

Watch for that to be challenged in court if drugs were declared legal. It used to be hard to fire those caught in a drug screen. They get counceling and drug treatment programs, plus 2md and 3rd chances.

It already has been challenged and the challenges have failed.  In fact an employer can fire you if the test indicates you have consumed alcohol or tobacco, both perfectly legal products.  As to your comment that "it used to be hard to fire those caught in a drug screen," you are wrong.  It has NEVER been difficult, under the law, to fire anyone testing positive for drug use.  Any exceptions to that are based on union contracts or other contract law provisions and are entirely unrelated to whether drugs are legal or not.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 04, 2015, 06:37:34 pm

What in Hell?

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/09/11/jason-amerine-bowe-bergdahl-fbi-taliban-afghanistan-367787.html#.VefErhsYJf4.mailto

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 09:04:29 am

Legitimate question here, for those supporting the Kentucky county clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, since the Christian objection to same sex marriage is premised on the interpretation that their religion prohibits "sodomy" (even though Jesus never once in the Bible is quoted as saying anything remotely to that effect), should a gay couple be allowed to marry if both of them happen to have been paralyzed from the waist down? Or if they are not paralyzed but have undergone a surgical procedure making it impossible for them to have sex? Or if they both swear they will not have sex once they are married? Or if they both swear they will not have sex after getting married, but that if they are NOT allowed to marry, they will sodomize each other daily? Do Christians actually think that not allowing them to marry will prevent them from having sex? Or that not allowing them to marry will make them become straight? Or that the actions of a clerk in issuing a marriage license somehow morally implicate the clerk in the "sin" between the gay couple?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 09:08:13 am

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/939687696124285/?fref=nf&pnref=story (https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/939687696124285/?fref=nf&pnref=story)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 09:12:52 am

The issue is in changing the meaning of marriage. Had they left it alone, with unions with benefits similar to marriage, most Christians would have been fine with it. But they went after marriage. Marriage was created by God. Sodomy is a sin, yes, but so is lying and that can keep you out of heaven, too. 'All liars will have their part in the lake which burns with fire.' Pretty serious stuff! But had they left marriage alone, this wouldn't have happened. Christians understand sin happens, sinners will sin. But don't ask a Christian clerk to violate her conscience to give out marriage licenses to those who in all rights and intents are not able to get married-gays, a dog and his owner, a owner and a tree, stuff like that. In God's eyes, this is no marriage at all and can be downright sinful.

And, once again, ALL scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, for reproof, for instruction....not just the red letter items....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 09:18:42 am

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 09:12:52 am

And, once again, ALL scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, for reproof, for instruction....not just the red letter items....

So why in the world do you seem obsessed with the "red letter items" addressing homosexuality, and so damn willing to ignore the others?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 05, 2015, 10:30:46 am

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-trump-beats-hillary-head-to-head/ar-AAdXQUs

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton head-to-head, according to a new poll released Friday.


The poll by SurveyUSA finds that matched up directly, Trump garners 45 percent to Clinton’s 40 percent.

In other head-to-head matchups, Trump beats out Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) by 44 percent to 40 percent; Vice President Joe Biden by 44 percent to 42 percent; and former Vice President Al Gore by 44 percent to 41 percent.

The poll also found that 30 percent of respondents believe Trump will eventually be the Republican nominee, leading the field.


Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush came in second, with 20 percent saying they expect him to win the nomination. Following Bush in order were retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).


The poll surveyed 1,000 adults across the nation Sept. 2-3, and it had a margin of error of 3.3 percent.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 10:43:29 am

Quote

So why in the world do you seem obsessed with the "red letter items" addressing homosexuality, and so damn willing to ignore the others?

Anyone else decipher this?? When did I become 'obsessed' with 'red letter items'?? And how am I 'ignoring the others'?? You are sounding very much like Otts incoherent babbling here....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 12:24:48 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 10:43:29 am

Anyone else decipher this?? When did I become 'obsessed' with 'red letter items'?? And how am I 'ignoring the others'?? You are sounding very much like Otts incoherent babbling here....

The fact that you responded coherently rather strongly suggests that my post asking you the question was coherent.

Despite that, since you profess a lack of ability to follow what I asked, I will re-state it to make it more clear for you.

The portion of your post which I quoted in mine referenced "red letter items."  That is not a phrase I made up, nor is it one I would use.  You used it.  In the context of your post it would appear you were referencing sodomy, though in the very same line you wrote that, "ALL scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, for reproof, for instruction."  At the same time your repeated posts on the issue, to the point of constituting an obsession with it, certainly seem to ignore the rest of the text, not only those verses referenced by my favorite liberal president (even if fictional)
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/939687696124285/?fref=nf&pnref=story (https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/939687696124285/?fref=nf&pnref=story)
but also Jesus's call for he who is without sin to cast the first stone, as well as 2nd Corinthians 5:17-19 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" Ephesians 1:7 "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace," Psalms 103:11-12 "For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us."  and finally (though there are many other similar passages) Hebrews 10:17 "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 
 
You make the comment that the entire Bible needs to be read and considered as a whole in order to have any understanding of it, and yet you make clear in brushing aside the central teachings of the figure you call a Christ that you yourself do not even begin to do so.  The central teachings of Jesus were about love, compassion and forgiveness, and despite your occasional lip service otherwise, it appears you ignore those to focus instead on condemnation, invective and the things YOU consider to be sin.

Was that coherent enough for your ass?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 01:04:55 pm

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/939687696124285/?pnref=story

Democratic Blues

Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression—even if Hillary wins.
By Jeff Greenfield  08/20/15, 07:53 PM EDT   Updated 08/21/15, 08:11 AM EDT

s historians begin to assess Barack Obama’s record as president, there’s at least one legacy he’ll leave that will indeed be historic—but not in the way he would have hoped. Even as Democrats look favorably ahead to the presidential landscape of 2016, the strength in the Electoral College belies huge losses across much of the country. In fact, no president in modern times has presided over so disastrous a stretch for his party, at almost every level of politics.
Legacies are often tough to measure. If you want to see just how tricky they can be, consider the campaign to get Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill 178 years after he left the White House. Working class hero? How about slave owner and champion of Native American genocide? Or watch how JFK went from beloved martyr to the man whose imperial overreach entrapped us in Vietnam, and then back to the president whose prudence kept the Cuban Missile Crisis from turning into World War III.

Yet when you move from policy to politics, the task is a lot simpler—just measure the clout of the president’s party when he took office and when he left it. By that measure, Obama’s six years have been terrible.
Under Obama, the party started strong. “When Obama was elected in 2008, Democrats were at a high water mark,” says David Axelrod, who served as one of Obama’s top strategists. “Driven by antipathy to George W. Bush and then the Obama wave, Democrats had enjoyed two banner elections in ’06 and ’08. We won dozens of improbable congressional elections in states and districts that normally would tack Republican, and that effect trickled down to other offices. You add to that the fact that we would take office in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, and it was apparent, from Day One, that we had nowhere to go but down.”
The first signs of the slowly unfolding debacle that has meant the decimation of the Democratic Party nationally began early—with the special election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s empty Senate seat in Massachusetts. That early loss, even though the seat was won back eventually by Elizabeth Warren, presaged the 2010 midterms, which saw the loss of 63 House and six Senate seats. It was disaster that came as no surprise to the White House, but also proved a signal of what was to come.
The party’s record over the past six years has made clear that when Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017 the Democratic Party will have ceded vast sections of the country to Republicans, and will be left with a weak bench of high-level elected officials. It is, in fact, so bleak a record that even if the Democrats hold the White House and retake the Senate in 2016, the party’s wounds will remain deep and enduring, threatening the enactment of anything like a “progressive” agenda across much of the nation and eliminating nearly a decade’s worth of rising stars who might help strengthen the party in elections ahead.
When Obama came into the White House, it seemed like the Democrats had turned a corner generationally; at just 47, he was one of the youngest men to be elected as president. But the party has struggled to build a new generation of leaders around him. Eight years later, when he leaves office in 2017 at 55, he’ll actually be one of the party’s only leaders not eligible for Social Security. Even as the party has recently captured more young voters at the ballot box in presidential elections, its leaders are increasingly of an entirely different generation; most of the party’s leaders will fade from the national scene in the years ahead. Its two leading presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are 67 and 73. The sitting vice president, Joe Biden, is 72. The Democratic House leader, Nancy Pelosi, is 75; House Whip Steny Hoyer is 76 and caucus Chair James Clyburn is 75, as is Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, who will retire next year. It’s a party that will be turning to a new generation of leaders in the coming years—and yet, there are precious few looking around the nation’s state houses, U.S. House or Senate seats.
***
Barack Obama took office in 2009 with 60 Democrats in the Senate—counting two independents who caucused with the party—and 257 House members. Today, there are 46 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, the worst showing since the first year after the Reagan landslide. Across the Capitol, there are 188 Democrats in the House, giving Republicans their best showing since Herbert Hoover took the White House in 1929.
This is, however, the tip of the iceberg. When you look at the states, the collapse of the party’s fortunes are worse. Republicans now hold 31 governorships, nine more than they held when Obama was inaugurated. During the last six years the GOP has won governorships in purple and even deep blue states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio. In the last midterms, only one endangered Republican governor—Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania—was replaced by a Democrat. (Sean Parnell in Alaska lost to an independent.) Every other endangered Republican returned to office.

Now turn to state legislatures—although if you’re a loyal Democrat, you may want to avert your eyes. In 2009, Democrats were in full control of 27 state legislatures; Republicans held full power in 14. Now? The GOP is in full control of 30 state legislatures; Democrats hold full power in just 11. In 24 states, Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature—giving them total control over the political process. That increased power at the state level has already led to serious consequences for Democrats, for their political future and for their goals.
“It’s almost a crime,” Democratic Party Vice Chair Donna Brazile says. “We have been absolutely decimated at the state and local level.”
Taken as a whole, these six years have been almost historically awful for Democrats. You have to go back to the Great Depression and the Watergate years to find so dramatic a reversal of fortunes for a party. And this time, there’s neither a Great Depression nor a criminal conspiracy in the White House to explain what has happened.
Some of the party’s national erosion may well have been inevitable. The transformation of the South from a one-party Democratic region to a (virtual) one-party Republican region accounts for some of the losses to the Democratic ranks. That 2010 election gave Republicans in nine states control over redistricting, which gave them more seats in the U.S. House and state legislatures four years later. And the dramatic fallout in support from white working-class voters can be explained, in some progressives’ eyes, by a failure to address the plight of what was once the party’s base.
“These voters,” pollster Stan Greenberg wrote recently in the Washington Monthly, “are open to an expansive Democratic economic agenda—to more benefits for child care and higher education, to tax hikes on the wealthy, to investment in infrastructure spending, and to economic policies that lead employers to boost salaries for middle- and working-class Americans, especially women. Yet they are only ready to listen when they think that Democrats understand their deeply held belief that politics has been corrupted and government has failed. Championing reform of government and the political process is the price of admission with these voters.”
Whatever the explanations, there is an unsettling reality for Democrats: While they may warm themselves over presidential prospects—demographic shifts and a Republican Party deeply at war with itself and consumed by a chaotic primary highlighted by the debate earlier this month, starring Donald Trump at the center of the stage—the weather where so much of our politics and policies will be shaped looks distinctly chiller.

State Legislatures Turn Red
Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures in 2009; Republicans held full power in 14. Now? The GOP is in full control of 30 state legislatures; Democrats hold full power in just 11.
“We are fooling ourselves,” says one well-placed Democratic operative, “if we think we can advance a progressive agenda in Washington, if half the Congress and half the states are controlled by a Republican Party enthusiastically working to undo every trace of progressive policy.”
***
In facing midterms headwinds, every two-term president has had to reckon with his party’s misfortune. The “six-year itch,” when voters punish the president’s party with congressional losses, has afflicted every president since Theodore Roosevelt with just one exception: Bill Clinton in 1998. In Clinton’s case, though, voters had dealt Democrats a crushing midterm loss four years earlier, capturing the Senate and—for the first time in 40 years—the House of Representatives as well. And since 1928, only one president—Ronald Reagan—has managed to leave the White House in the hands of an elected successor of the same party.
This historical record, however, offers little comfort to today’s Democrats or to Obama’s down-ballot legacy. No two-term president in recent times has seen his party clobbered in both midterm elections. In one case—the 1986 midterms—Reagan’s Republican Party did relatively well in the House, losing only five seats. But it lost the Senate when seven GOP seats turned over, some by very narrow margins. Democrats gained five House seats in 1998, even though their president was in the middle of a major scandal. And while only Reagan saw his party hold the White House, three other presidents—Eisenhower, Johnson, Clinton—all saw their party’s nominee come within a whisker of victory. Not only did Gore win the popular vote, but Democrats in 2000 picked up five Senate seats.
Wait, you are asking: Don’t Democrats, with the demographic wind at their backs, have a good chance of holding the White House? Doesn’t the Senate map give them a real shot at retaking the Senate? Don’t national polls show that the GOP is far more unpopular than the Democratic Party?
Yes—and a third term for Democrats along with a recaptured Senate would clearly affect Obama’s political legacy. Even with those victories, however, the afflictions of Democrats at every other level would ensure enduring political trouble.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 05, 2015, 01:29:07 pm

Jes - you mentioned that Jesus never said anything about sodemy.  Sportster replied with the statement that not only the red letter lines in the Bible are valid.

Perhaps you are not aware that many Bibles print the words of Jesus in red letters, and the rest in black letters, so Sportster was merely saying that the words of Jesus in the Bible have no more weight to many Christians than the words of Paul, John, or the writers of the Old Testament.  For this reason, he and others believe that the fact that Jesus did not specifically say anything about sodemy is irrelevant since there are other portions of the Bible that do talk about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 02:42:29 pm

Sometimes I forget the fact that people are Biblically illiterate and don't know what the 'red letters' term means.
And in ref to your statement about forgiveness, it is not given merely by being human. One must first repent of their sins, very clear in the Bible, and then accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour to receive forgiveness. Jesus did not go around saying 'you are forgiven' to everyone He saw. If they came to Him asking for it, He gave it. He stands at the door and knocks, if any man opens the door, He will enter in and sup-eat with him-and he with they. The forgiveness is solely for the children of God....
I still don't think you'll ever figure this out, more than likely due to your intransigence towards all things God and Christian....it's your right, do as you please....Matthew 13 The Parable of the Sower.... 19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side......
You are quite vehemently a anti Christian bigot.....yes, you are....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 03:55:18 pm

Quote from: davep on September 05, 2015, 01:29:07 pm

Jes - you mentioned that Jesus never said anything about sodemy.  Sportster replied with the statement that not only the red letter lines in the Bible are valid.

Perhaps you are not aware that many Bibles print the words of Jesus in red letters, and the rest in black letters, so Sportster was merely saying that the words of Jesus in the Bible have no more weight to many Christians than the words of Paul, John, or the writers of the Old Testament.  For this reason, he and others believe that the fact that Jesus did not specifically say anything about sodemy is irrelevant since there are other portions of the Bible that do talk about it.

A valid point about Sportster's possible meaning with reference to "red letter lines."  Done of the 20 or so Bibles I have read over the years have done that, but I am aware some Bibles do.  I trust you are also aware that "red letter items" would have its own independent meaning separate and independent of the Bible.

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 02:42:29 pm

Sometimes I forget the fact that people are Biblically illiterate and don't know what the 'red letters' term means.

Biblical literacy is not related to the colors used on the font in the book, though I can understand how you (not a normal person, but you) might think so, color of the font, after all, being so much more important than the content of the text.

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 02:42:29 pm

And in ref to your statement about forgiveness, it is not given merely by being human. One must first repent of their sins, very clear in the Bible, and then accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour to receive forgiveness.

You have absolutely no idea whether a same sex couple does or does not repent for what you consider their sins.  For that matter, even with a same sex married couple, you do not know whether they have in fact "sinned."  The fact that they get married does not mean they are engaging in sexual relations with themselves, with each other, or with anyone else.  As I understand it, your concern is not with the love or affection they feel or display for each other, but merely with their homosexual sexual conduct.  Marriage is about much more than sex, and a good number of very sound marriages exist in the complete absence of it.

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 02:42:29 pm

Jesus did not go around saying 'you are forgiven' to everyone He saw. If they came to Him asking for it, He gave it. He stands at the door and knocks, if any man opens the door, He will enter in and sup-eat with him-and he with they. The forgiveness is solely for the children of God....

And for all you know any same-sex couple you see are truly children of god and ask Jesus quite regularly and quite sincerely for forgiveness.  The FACT that you do not know, and yet are so intent to shout their condemnation and that they are going to "burn in hell," is very strong evidence that your insistence that your hostility toward gays is not based on the Bible but is instead personal bigotry, and that you merely use the Bible (and not well) to excuse your bigotry.

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 02:42:29 pm

I still don't think you'll ever figure this out, more than likely due to your intransigence towards all things God and Christian....it's your right, do as you please....Matthew 13 The Parable of the Sower.... 19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side......

Sportster, really, there is a big, big difference between understanding something and buying into the nonsense which it represents.  I understood that passage the first time I read the Bible cover to cover, at about age 13.  I didn't accept it then any more than I accept it now, but I understood it.

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 02:42:29 pm

You are quite vehemently a anti Christian bigot.....yes, you are....

Poor boy, I don't dislike you and consider you an ass because you are a Christian.  I dislike you and consider you an ass because you are a disgusting excuse for a human being and an ass.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 05, 2015, 04:36:41 pm

Because lying is considered a sin by most everyone and some deny that homosexuality is a sin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 04:41:44 pm

Matthew 5:11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

If you have a problem with homosexuality being a sin, take it up with God. It's His word and He is the one who determined it....not I....I'm sure he'll listen to a former Lawyer and change His mind.... ::)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 05:09:45 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 04:41:44 pm

Matthew 5:11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

If you have a problem with homosexuality being a sin, take it up with God. It's His word and He is the one who determined it....not I....I'm sure he'll listen to a former Lawyer and change His mind.... ::)   

Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality described as a sin.  Sodomy is, **** is, sex out of wedlock is, and wearing clothing made out of two different types of cloth are all referenced as since, but loving someone of the same sex is not.  Once again, Sportster, your posts provide further evidence for my belief that your position is not a result of the Bible, but instead you reach out for the Bible like a drowning man for anything floating in an effort to find something, anything, which supports your bigotry, your true hatred of homosexuals, not just a belief that the homosexual conduct is a sin, but that homosexuality itself, the love of someone of the same sex, is a sin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 05:10:55 pm

Quote from: packrat on September 05, 2015, 04:36:41 pm

Because lying is considered a sin by most everyone and some deny that homosexuality is a sin.

packrat, you might have had a thought there, but it just didn't make it all the way out.

Could you try again, and this time could you post a complete sentence?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 05:14:18 pm

Heck of an idea -- http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/nbc-should-release-raw-footage-of-the-apprentice/403744/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 05:24:43 pm

Wrong......again.....

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 05, 2015, 05:42:20 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 05:09:45 pm

Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality described as a sin.  Sodomy is, **** is, sex out of wedlock is, and wearing clothing made out of two different types of cloth are all referenced as since, but loving someone of the same sex is not. 

True.  The Bible does not proscribe homosexuality, AS IT IS DEFINED TODAY.  But today's definition is a relatively recent one, beginning in the late 50s and 60s.  It is only then that homosexuality was defined as a DESIRE or love for the same sex.  Prior to that, the common definition of a homosexual was someone who performed sexual acts with someone of the same sex.

In the Bible, there is absolutely no prohibition against the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex, but rather the prohibition is against the act itself.  Someone that is in love with someone of the same sex is not committing a sin, unless they act upon their desires.

Most fundamentalist christians still use the old definition, which often is not understood by those using the more modern one.  It is a rather new belief that if you want to do something, you MUST do it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 05:44:24 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 05:24:43 pm

Wrong......again.....

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

davep saved me the time of bothering to respond to this.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 05, 2015, 10:23:42 pm

God does not specify the act. He is concerned with the heart and its intent: DaveP, you are wrong....

Matthew 5

27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This is intent, it is NOT the act. And it is the same with homosexuality. Having the intent or desire to do the act is wrong. This is why Jesus states it is a change of HEART that is needed. He will put a new spirit WITHIN you, having new desires.

And

Matthew 15

18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20These are the things which defile a man...

Again....
Romans 1:(26) For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, (27) and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (28) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. (29) They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, (30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, (31) senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. (32) Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 05, 2015, 11:17:20 pm

The key words there of course are "lust after".  A teen aged boy that is attracted to girls has not committed adultery.  Nor has a teen aged boy that is attracted to boys.  There is a great difference between attraction and 'lusting after", which implies that you would carry out your lust if possible.

We have no reason to believe that a boy with homosexual attractions is any more lustful than a boy with heterosexual attractions.

And the Romans selection you quote talks about RELATIONS, which are actions, rather than feelings.  It goes on to talk about those who PRACTICE homosexuality, not those who do NOT practice it.

But of course, you already knew that.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 05, 2015, 11:27:15 pm

So being "attracted to" and "lust after" are different?

Or does it coming down to actually chasing the person you are attracted to?  Admiring them from afar is ok? 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 05, 2015, 11:33:09 pm

Quote from: Pekin on September 05, 2015, 11:27:15 pm

So being "attracted to" and "lust after" are different?

If not, then there is no point in virginity, since being attracted to someone is identical to committing adultery with them.  You might as well just go ahead and do it. 

How would any person know if they were heterosexual if they were not attracted to the opposite sex.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 06, 2015, 06:18:26 am

There is a difference between attraction and acting on that attraction. But we cannot simply give a passing nod at Matthew 5, either. God is interested in our motives that cause actions. He wants to get to the root of the problem, which begins inside us and then produces the actions.
Hebrews 4:12 says For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 06, 2015, 06:22:57 am

Quote from: davep on September 05, 2015, 11:17:20 pm

The key words there of course are "lust after".  A teen aged boy that is attracted to girls has not committed adultery.  Nor has a teen aged boy that is attracted to boys.  There is a great difference between attraction and 'lusting after", which implies that you would carry out your lust if possible.

We have no reason to believe that a boy with homosexual attractions is any more lustful than a boy with heterosexual attractions.

And the Romans selection you quote talks about RELATIONS, which are actions, rather than feelings.  It goes on to talk about those who PRACTICE homosexuality, not those who do NOT practice it.

But of course, you already knew that.

davep, you need to remember that Sportster does not really know or understand the Bible.  He simply finds and recites passages which support his bigotry and hared.  Of course, those passages which run counter to his bigotry he ignores.  He is a good old-fashioned hell-fire and brimstone type of Christian, far less interested in reading and understanding the Bible for guidance on how to live his own life than he is interested in scanning it for excuses to condemn others.

Trying in this discussion to get him to grasp that intent, action and desire are all three different things is a bridge too far.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 06, 2015, 06:30:47 am

To Jes, simply stating something is right or wrong is condemnation. We must live and let live and not say a thing. Well, Jesus said we are to be SALT and LIGHT. Salt is a preservative. Light exposes darkness. If you think speaking out against sin is condemning someone to hell, you're wrong. Jesus said He came to seek and to save that which was lost. But to know you're lost, you must first be convicted of your sins. Otherwise, you cannot repent of what you do not know you've done wrong. But again, to Jes, this is condemnation. He is in error of the Word of God. The law is a task master, assigned to us to bring us to God. It is the flashlight to the soul, shining on the evil heart of man so that man is brought first to conviction, and then to redemption as he confesses and repents to God. The hope is that this is the course of things, but too many simply ignore the working of the law, shrugging it off and going on in their sins and finding the wrath of God at the end. The law is the barking dog that leads us back to the great Sheppard of our souls....we are all like sheep who have gone astray, each to our own ways.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 06, 2015, 09:01:09 am

Quote from: Sportster on September 06, 2015, 06:18:26 am

There is a difference between attraction and acting on that attraction. But we cannot simply give a passing nod at Matthew 5, either. God is interested in our motives that cause actions. He wants to get to the root of the problem, which begins inside us and then produces the actions.
Hebrews 4:12 says For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

A person is heterosexual when he is attracted to the opposite sex.  A person is homosexual if he is attracted to the same sex.  What you are saying is that according to the Bible, a person is committing a sin if he is either one.  That is foolish.

Lusting after something (a person, money, a possession, anything) is an abnormal desire for something to the point of a fixation, and is a sin whatever the target.  But a normal desire to gain something through normal processes is not lust.  If you are negotiating for a job, are you greedy if you ask for more money?  When your daughter goes on a first date, is she lusting after her date?  I think God has much more reason and balance than you have.  Sexual attraction is a gift from God, and it is only sinful if it is perverted, not when it is part of your normal life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 06, 2015, 09:10:06 am

Quote from: Sportster on September 06, 2015, 06:30:47 am

To Jes, simply stating something is right or wrong is condemnation. We must live and let live and not say a thing.

Bullshit.

Sportster, either you have a remarkably short memory, a very selective memory, or are even denser than your prior posts have indicated.

I quite frequently condemn both behavior and those engaging in it.  In fact that is a common complaint of others here.  I also have more than once here been critical of the idea some have that we should not judge others.  I strongly disagree with such notions, such as right now, when I judge you to be a bigoted, hate-filled, idiot.

Quote from: davep on September 06, 2015, 09:01:09 am

That is foolish.

You were talking about something from Sportster.  You really could have trimmed everything else away and stuck with just three words.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 06, 2015, 11:09:27 am

I'm beginning to think DaveP and Jes are the same individual. At least they both play the same part.

Quote

What you are saying is that according to the Bible, a person is committing a sin if he is either one. That is foolish.

Why do I even bother with either of you? You are both set in your ways, and no amount of discussing this with either of you will change your attitudes. Look, it's pretty simple. If you are attracted to the same sex, something is wrong! Even your conscience should tell you that. It is not normal, folks. If you go to God and tell Him, Lord, I have this attraction that is not right. Will you please help me? You'll find more grace than if you simply go on and live wrong and do wrong. That is a fact. Will God judge a person for having wrongful sexual urges? Take it up with Him if you're having that problem. You certainly can't go wrong discussing it seriously with God. The one standing on the corner not looking up to heaven but beating his breast saying 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner' will find grace.....the one hardened and inpenitent in his sin and shaking his fist at heaven, will not....end of story. Now Jes can go be a idiot and harrass someone else about something else....he's a pro at it...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 06, 2015, 11:24:37 am

Why indeed do you bother with me?  Your mind is so closed that you can not possibly see the foolishness of some of your views.  You are the reason why fundamentalist Christians are looked on as idiots by the world in general.  You search for a word or two that supports your opinion, and disregard the entire context of the Bible.  You complain about Jes, but you ARE Jes, assigning meanings to words that support your view, instead of looking for the truth.  It has nothing to do with your religion.  Your comments on the economy in general and the oil industry in specific show the extent of your ignorance.  The sad thing is that, unlike Otto, you are not stupid.  But you take such pride in your ignorance that there is little hope for you.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 06, 2015, 11:35:26 am

Why do you bother trying to interpret something you have no understanding of but try vainly to, thinking your intelligence has any bearing on something that is spiritually understood?? If you don't have the spirit of God IN you, you won't understand spiritual things and they'll seem foolish to you. This is how it was with Jesus. He faced much opposition from people like you, intellectuals who thought they had it all figured out. They didn't, much like you. I take the word of God and tell you what IT says, you repudiate it. Fine, your choice. You can even come at me for it. Again, your choice. Something simple to understand, spiritually, to you makes no sense. Jesus said He would bring to naught the wisdom of man because you trust in your own wisdom and not God's....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 06, 2015, 11:44:14 am

And, of course, Sportster, has "the spirit of God IN" him."

How does he know?  The same way he KNOWS there is a god -- because he, Sportster, says so, and if you don't agree with him, then you OBVIOUSLY don't "have the spirit f God in you," and you are a sinner and going to burn in hell... not that Sportster is condemning you, mind you.... it's just this big god-guy in the sky doing it.

What a disgusting excuse for human flesh.

One thing I do have to give Sportster credit for, though, he does correctly appear to understand that he is not an intellectual.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 06, 2015, 11:45:22 am

I could definitely see you, Jes and Otts the jester sitting in the Agora in ancient Greece, beating each other over the head with your high and grandiose verbage and assailing each other endlessly over trivial nonsense trying to outdo each other. I think most here would rather you take ten paces with a Dillinger and get it over with....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 06, 2015, 11:48:09 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223674/Britain-wants-quit-Europe-Shock-new-poll-shows-EU-no-camp-ahead-time-Cameron-prepares-face-Tory-rebels.html

The U.S. should offer them statehood if the Brits were to ask really nice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 06, 2015, 11:58:26 am

It would be nice to have a state that is even more liberal than Massachusetts. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 01:14:08 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/sunday-review/the-collateral-victims-of-criminal-justice.html?smid=fb-share

The Collateral Victims of Criminal Justice
By SHAILA DEWANSEPT. 5, 2015

SINCE the financial crisis, complaints that corporate wrongdoers suffer light penalties have become routine. One reason is the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy that prosecutors must consider the “collateral consequences” that pursuing a corporation might have on innocent employees, shareholders, pensioners and even the financial system at large.

Amid public outrage, Congress has hauled in prosecutors to ask precisely how often collateral consequences have led them to give the banks a pass. Last spring, when four of the country’s biggest banks pleaded guilty to felonies, raising the issue again, I had a different question. As a reporter covering the criminal justice system’s impact on both the accused and their families, I wondered why we don’t give more consideration to collateral consequences when prosecuting individuals.

We think of punishment as calibrated to the offense, measured out in fines levied and time served. But collateral damage begins for many defendants and their families at the time of arrest, not conviction, and continues long afterward. And it does not spare those with minor charges, including many that do not result in conviction.

My notebooks are filled with stories like that of Markeisha Brown, forced to drop out of school when her boyfriend, who took care of her kids, was held on bail he could not afford, for a case that was later dismissed. I met Ryleigh, 9 months old, whose mother, a McDonald’s worker, served 40 days for failure to pay a $432 fine. I read a handwritten plea for help from Lakayla Evans, a 17-year-old held in an adult jail for more than four months awaiting the resolution of charges that she trespassed on a high school campus.

“We’ve got to start being at least as interested in helping people reform and get their lives back as we are in this concept of permanent punishment,” said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut, who has enacted reforms under an initiative called Second Chance Society. “If somebody makes a stupid mistake when they’re young, why should they be denied a decent job for the rest of their life, be denied housing for the rest of their life and not even be eligible for a student loan?”

“It is the rough equivalent,” he continued, “of cutting off your own nose to spite your face, but society is doing it to itself on a mass basis.”

Collateral damage is not limited to the guilty party. When money for fines or bail is needed, often a relative pays. When prisoners are released, often with no job prospects, no driver’s license, and crippling court debt, their families bear the burden.

“Prosecutors are attuned to collateral consequences in prosecuting a corporation because of the unfair economic consequences that it can have on third parties,” said Jenny Roberts, a law professor at American University who has studied the repercussions of misdemeanor charges. “It’s not exactly the same for individuals — but remember that an individual is part of a family, a community, a society and a country.”

There has been a gradual move toward addressing the issue. More than a dozen states, most recently Georgia, Oregon, Ohio and Virginia, have limited the use of criminal background checks in hiring. Some, including Colorado and Maryland, are allowing more criminal records to be suppressed. But such remedies often remain out of reach for those who need them most — in Tennessee, for example, expunging a conviction costs $450 — and they ignore what many critics say is the root problem: too many arrests and too little due process.

Some collateral consequences make obvious sense, like barring a violent felon from possessing a gun, or a child molester from working as a teacher. In other cases the connection to public safety is less clear. The American Bar Association has compiled a database of 45,000 regulations that prohibit individuals with criminal histories from civic activities like voting and jobs like cutting hair. Oregon is considering a bill on collateral consequences — not to make them less harsh, but simply to list them all in one place.

The word “collateral” means “secondary,” but millions of children affected by incarceration suffer a primary loss. Between 1991 and 2007, the percentage of children with mothers in prison more than doubled, according to federal data — and that does not count the many more mothers who spent time in jail. It doesn’t take statistics to grasp how damaging separation can be, but even so, the data shows these children have more depression, aggression, delinquency, absenteeism, asthma and migraines. As adults, their earnings are reduced and their chances of homelessness are higher. The problem is so pervasive that “Sesame Street” produced a series of videos to help children cope with a parent’s incarceration.

Collateral effects can rear up years later, said Patricia Warth, an advocate for indigent defense in New York. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten a call from someone who says, ‘I’m a parent; my daughter’s 10 years old; she’s in the school ballet, but the school says I can’t volunteer because I have a conviction from 15 years ago,’ ” Ms. Warth said.

Some argue that offenders should weigh the harm to their families before breaking the law rather than expecting prosecutors to consider it. But that does not make a child any guiltier than a corporate shareholder. True, the downfall of a low-income parent is not going to bring down the world financial system. But consider the aggregate: Almost one in three Americans has a rap sheet of some kind, according to a 2001 federal estimate, and even an arrest that does not result in conviction can reduce the chances of finding work or an apartment. The harm disproportionately affects African-Americans, who are routinely stopped more, arrested more and receive higher bails and longer sentences.

Then there is the collateral damage to public safety. Study after study has shown that punishment can backfire, increasing the chances that low-risk offenders will commit new crimes. One study by the Arnold Foundation of 150,000 pretrial defendants — who are legally innocent — found that even a brief stay in jail increased their chances of rearrest, most likely because it disrupted the very factors, such as stable housing and employment, that made them lower risk in the first place.

At a Pennsylvania legislative hearing in June, Ms. Roberts of American University raised an economic argument for more forgiving policies. She pointed out that neighboring Maryland was about to allow many misdemeanor convictions to be suppressed, giving that state’s workers an edge. “Other countries incarcerate far less,” Ms. Roberts said. “When we think about who’s going to be able to get jobs and who’s going to be able to work, I think we better think about that in light of the competition we’re going to have in a global economy, and every state needs to think about it in light of what’s going on across the border.”

Punishment is supposed to be proportional to the severity of the offense, but collateral consequences are often unmoored from such considerations, obscuring their true cost. “We’re just beginning to acknowledge the extent to which we’re not just punishing individuals, we’re punishing entire communities,” Ms. Warth said. “Sometimes we become so harsh that we’re punishing ourselves.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 07, 2015, 11:43:58 am

http://news.yahoo.com/immigrants-u-speak-american-ex-vp-nominee-palin-010032008.html

Palin's not even in public office anymore and the media hangs on her every word. There is no doubt she's a dumb ass. Record Palin and Biden having dinner together and you'd have a years worth of laughs.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 01:07:06 pm

Meanwhile Hillary compares Republican presidential candidates' attitudes toward women to the way ISIS terrorists regard women... and the media largely ignores it.  http://video.foxnews.com/v/4450199900001/kurtz-hillary-goes-nuclear-little-fallout/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4450199900001/kurtz-hillary-goes-nuclear-little-fallout/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 07, 2015, 01:25:46 pm

37 people shot this weekend alone in Chicago which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.  Yet liberals think the answer is more gun control laws...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/weekend-shootings-leave-6-dead-31-wounded/ar-AAe2eB4

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 07, 2015, 02:02:48 pm

Acting like heartless animals.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 07, 2015, 02:24:34 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 05, 2015, 05:10:55 pm

packrat, you might have had a thought there, but it just didn't make it all the way out.

Could you try again, and this time could you post a complete sentence?

Could you please make some point instead of a vague comment?

That was a sentence.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 07, 2015, 02:26:29 pm

Mark's Market Blog
9-6-15: China Celebrates Anti-Japan day
by Mark Lawrence
China had a huge celebration last week, so they dumped major money into the markets. They managed to boost the Shanghai composite up to the neighborhood of 3050 - 3200. Ours went up a bit too. That's all over now and next week I predict this week China will resume their ongoing market crash and we'll resume our descent for a while. The People's Bank of China says their stock market drop is almost over. If by that he means they should hit about 2000 within a week or three, I agree. If he means they will stick in the range of 3000-3200 for a bit then start to recover, I think they have not yet learned their lessons about standing in front of freight trains and markets. As you can easily see in the chart below, we have now had the dreaded death cross in the S&P where the 50 day moving average drops below the 200 day. We had that same thing happen to the Dow two weeks ago.
 
S&P 500 March 14 2014 to September 4 2015
On tuesday the market plunged 2% and once again at the open I saw bid/ask spreads get enormously wide and stay that way for about 40 minutes. There's a huge liquidity crunch out there - people wanna sell, no one has cash to buy. This could result in a flash crash, like in '87 when the markets plunged 25% in one day. If the markets do that again I'm buying everything I can get my hands on. I remember in '87 one news dweeb emoting wildly while interviewing a Berkeley economist: "25%!!! 25%!!! In One DAY!!! 25% IN ONE DAY!!! How Long Can This Go On?!?!!?" The economist calmly answered, "About three more days."

It appears the market found a bottom on Monday around 1860; I'm fairly confident we'll be revisiting that low later this month, perhaps dropping through it as far as 1815, a key support level. Some witch doctors technicians think we may go down another 7% from there to 1700 or the high 1600s; some are even forecasting 1575 as the ultimate low, a 24% drop off recent highs. We've had a prolonged "bearish divergence," where the RSI is trending down while the markets were trending up. All things considered, I don't think right now is the time to buy lotsa stocks.

 
It's said that the recessions cause stock market crashes, but stock market crashes don't cause recessions. Is it true? If it's true, 1) why did the Fed take on $5 trillion in bonds to pump up the stock market? and 2) how come every time the markets drop my phone quits ringing? The current economic conditions index has been heading down in small uneven increments. Today’s reading dropped another two points to -8, down 13 points from January. But the index for future economic conditions has plummeted 31 points since January, 10 points in the past two weeks alone, to -25, the worst level since July last year. Just 23% of Americans rated the current economy as excellent or good; while 31% rated it as poor. In terms of economic outlook, 37% said the economy is getting better, but 60% said it is getting worse. And my sales are 'way down. And it's not just me, businesses everywhere is slow. Especially China. None the less, I believe the market will recover this year and the US economy will too. China, not so much. . .


Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF, said, "The U.S. Federal Reserve should not rush its decision to raise interest rates and should move only when it is sure the decision is unlikely to be reversed later." Her eyes are on the 3rd world and she apparently sees the same commodity price crash likely leading to financial crisis that I and many others do. The Fed raising rates will only substantially increase pressure on emerging markets. But the Fed isn't charged with caring about emerging markets; they're charged with guaranteeing profits at America's top ten banks and keeping the US economy on track. Labor statistics point to a time to wean ourselves off these ridiculous zero interest rates. Inflation numbers seem to council caution, but inflation is low because of cheap oil and energy and imports. Meanwhile house prices are taking off again, something that these days we all consider a bit worrisome. I have no measure of Ms.Yellen so I'll be as surprised as anyone no matter what she decides.

Korean exports dropped 15% year on year last month. Korea is considered "the canary in the coal mine." Evidence continues to stack up that Asia is going to have a huge recession. China's rail traffic and electricity consumption are collapsing. China has huge overcapacity in cement, steel, autos and manufacturing, and the government won't let anything die - instead they're cutting interest rates and lending more money to zombie companies. This will make the other Asian central banks want to cut interest rates and drop the values of their currencies, and that will be fuel for the coming dollar short squeeze. Brazil is easily the sickest kid in the classroom; when the dominoes start to drop, I expect Brazil will be the first with Mexico hot on their heels. The short squeeze I'm forecasting will not be a single event, it will be a rolling crisis that slowly spreads from country to country. Each time we think we have it contained it will pop up somewhere else. I continue to believe the US is doing fine. I'm not clear how Europe is doing.

China spent nearly $100 billion last month propping up their stock markets, banks, zombie companies and currency. That's double the July burn rate of $50 billion. At this rate their $3.6 trillion in foreign reserves will last about 3 years. In fact that math is flawed - much of those foreign reserves are illiquid. As China spends their foreign reserves, much of which are held in US t-bills, t-bill prices will drop and our interest rates will increase. Perhaps the Fed will choose to let China raise our interest rates instead of them doing it. China's foreign reserves have been shrinking for two years now. While many continue to say this is the Chinese century, I've always had my doubts about the sustainability of their model of central planning and control and massive pollution of their land, water and air. Now with their economy faltering, their working age population peaked and dropping, 60% of their ground water polluted, I find it hard to be rosy about their future prospects. Japan did this and grew at an unprecedented rate from 1960 to 1990, but has had zero net growth since; and the meticulous Japanese made a name for themselves for high quality long lasting products. The Chinese are still low cost / low quality producers and have absolutely no brands in the category of Lexus or Honda or Sony.

China is serious about bucking up their stock markets. The big four stock brokerages have been "asked" to contribute $16 billion to a stock bailout fund. They've also agreed not to sell their own holdings until the market hits 4,500. I can't imagine this market hitting 4,500 anytime this decade, and not very likely next decade. Since the government is the largest single stockholder in the brokerages it's all but certain this will happen. Every day this week the markets plummeted at the open, and were revived in the last half hour or so, obviously due to state intervention. The markets drifted sideways, closing around 3150, until Wednesday, then they closed for the week in observance of China's biggest holiday, the celebration of the end of WW II and kicking out the Japanese. This week there will be far less intervention and we'll resume our normal programming: a continuation of the crash to 2000. Monday saw the program of last week reversed: we had been dropping at the opening then rising at the end of each session; today we opened high and spent the rest of the day dropping. Goldman Sachs, unofficial apologist for the Chinese Communists, disagrees with me: they say soon, very soon good growth numbers will come out and stocks will shoot up, so they're a great buy right now. I hope Goldman gets themselves into a class action suit for this advice.

CalPERS, the P.R. of California's Public Employee Retirement System which is charged with the fantastically important job of making sure our hard working and diligent public servants have the retirement that, if not what they deserve is at least what they dream of, is running at a loss. Last year they put out $5 billion more than they took in from employees and taxes. They have $300 billion under management so they're not going broke anytime soon, but they're concerned about another stock downturn. They're working on a new plan to improve their financial stability. You'll be shocked, shocked to hear that the plan involves high taxes on the rest of us. Well, not so much me: my last kid just graduated from college and I'm outta here soon. Anyway, they've always maintained that the system is sound because they're going to make 7.5% per year on their investments; never mind that no one alive does that well, and last year Calpers only made 2.4%. But now they've decided they need to get more conservative, invest more in bonds and less in stocks. Now we're talking like 2% return. And of course the contributions of public employees hired before 2013 won't be touched, 'cause, well, that just wouldn't be right. Cities and local governments are cutting back on street repairs and other services to keep up with their ever-increasing Calpers contributions, which are expected to rise by 50% over the next six years. Some cities are already paying 40% of their employees wages in retirement contributions. The most expensive employees are, of course, police, firemen and prison guards, who retire around age 50 at nearly full pay. Question: when's the last time you saw a house on fire? My firemen spend all their time inspecting businesses and raising business fees, and attending car crashes. The employee unions are all for the plan; in my estimation that's all you need to know. Last year Calpers spent $18 billion on retirements. Employee contributions covered $3.8 billion; taxpayers chipped in $8.8 billion; and $5 billion was drawn down from assets. Now you know why California loves illegals: more democrat voters and taxpayers, most uneducated.

We've all seen the heart breaking pictures of Syrian and Iraqi refugees. When I listen to the news it seems the conversation is about how many of these refugees Europe and the US must accept. I think this insanity. For two generations the arabs have been having six children per woman. Now their over population is straining food, water, jobs, politics, and is, imho, the proximate cause of most of their wars. So the answer to their over population is for the west to take in hundreds of thousands of their semi-illiterate unskilled religious fanatic breeders? Why on earth would we wish to make their problem our problem? The solution to the world's over population problem is not wholesale movement of people, it's for most women to have one kid, two max, until the Earth starts to recover.

This year 46 weaned elephant seal children have washed up dead on the beaches around San Francisco between April 20 and August 1. A bit over a third of them died of leukemia. I continue to have serious concerns about Fukushima and the Pacific. Also in August this year radiation from Fukushima was detected on S.California beaches - 7bq to 8.5bq per square meter of cesium 137. Cesium 137 has a half life of 30 years and simply cannot exist in measurable quantities without some kind of nuclear accident. Woods Hole scientist Ken Buesseler said, "As the plume begins to arrive along the West Coast [it] will actually increase in concentration. . . no public agency in the US is monitoring the activities in the Pacific. Without careful, extensive, consistent monitoring, we'll have no way of knowing how much radiation from Fukushima is reaching our shores, and how it could affect life in the ocean."

Oil has been especially volatile lately, down below $50, back up to $60, back down below $50. Some are predicting $80 oil by the end of the year. Some are predicting $25 oil within 18 months or so. I dunno, but $80 oil just doesn't square with Saudi Arabia pumping like mad and Iran coming back on line and the US getting highly efficient at fracking and China slowing down and the other emerging markets seemingly on the edge of crashing.


Alberta, the center of Canada's oil boom / oil bust, is really taking it on the chin. Home sales are down almost 30%, prices are down 8%. Car sales are dropping. Employment is plummeting. Business optimism and consumer confidence are down to levels last seen during the 2008 crisis. Saskatchewan and Manitoba aren't doing so great either. Canada is entering a major recession that could easily lead to a housing bust and a financial crisis.


Unemployment is down to 5.1%. The US labor market is tightening. Generally the number of days it takes to fill a job opening ranges between about 24 days in good economic times to 15 days in deep recessions. It's at 27 right now. We're at about 1.5 workers per job opening, down from 6 in 2009. Construction companies report that they have a labor shortage at the highest rate this century. The Fed is in a tight stop: labor is telling them it's time to raise rates; commodities and emerging world markets are telling them we're on the edge of a historic deflation; world markets warn of impending recession and market chaos. What's a non-elected academic bank shill to do? I don't think we've seen Yellen under pressure, so for the next several months we're going to get a measure of her.

Illinois continues to have no budget, so winners of the Illinois state lottery are getting IOUs instead of checks. The state lottery is run by the government and the state comptroller has no authority to release funds in the absence of a budget.

Intel has announced a new family of processor chips, "Skylake." We've been stuck for the last dozen years or so around 2 gigahertz clock rate - they can't go much faster without radiating too much power. So now Intel is reducing power while enhancing add on compute like graphics processing. With these new chips PCs should get as thin and light as tablets and laptops quickly - the line between PCs and laptops and large tablets is going to blur and then disappear in the next few years. But that's just temporary - there are already prototype phones that accept add-on keyboards and external monitors and run Windows 10, so they can run Office.

Windows 10 has Continuum, a piece of software that lets a smartphone transform into a Windows 10 PC when connected to a monitor. Windows 10 runs on phones, tablets and PCs and Microsoft is making their apps run on all of them. Acer is leading the charge with the Jade Primo, a 5.5-inch device that the company is unofficially calling a "PC Phone." The Jade Primo comes with a docking station, wireless mouse and keyboard. Later on in October, Microsoft is expected to announce the Lumia 950 and 950XL. Google will obviously have to respond to this, so expect android phones to merge with the Nexus notepads and chromebooks. Soon your phone will be your computer.


The Birmingham library has what is considered the oldest copy of the koran. They just carbon dated it: it's from between 545 and 568. The Koran was handed down by God directly to Mohammed. . . except Mohammed was born in 570, and muslims tell us no one produced a written copy until 653. Some, no doubt heretics who will burn in hell fire, claim the Koran was existing writings assembled by Mohammed for his own purposes.

Typical phones have camera with about 8 megapixels. Typical DSLR cameras these days have around 20 megapixels. Cannon has just released a new chip with 250 megapixels. They say with their chip and a good lens you can resolve the writing on the side of a commercial airplane at 11 miles. The NSA and CIA are going to have a field day with this. And perhaps your neighbors: think seriously about keeping your curtains closed in the evenings.

A great quote: "Crime is generated by a lack of values that has gone largely unaddressed in our nation as a whole and in the black community in particular. Soaring unwed birthrates, absentee fathers, an aversion to work, an unwillingness to embrace societal standards and time-honored discipline -- all these factors have contributed to the problems we must now confront." Obama's legacy is a huge spike in the murder rate in America's cities. Anyone who thinks that a democrat has the answers for this problem hasn't been paying attention. For the record: pandering to civil servant unions is not the same as supporting the police. Oh, and our great quote? From a speech given in 1994 by Eric Holder. The Attorney General who presided over the huge metropolitan killing spree of the last six years.

I got an email from a Chinese supplier this week: "Dear Customer, Because of 2015.9.3 is China people's Anti Japanese War and the 70 anniversary of the victory of the world anti fascist war memorial day. September 3 to 5 is China National holiday, a total of three days, the logistics company will also rest three days, Logistics may be extended, please be patient." Next time you're wondering why there's tension between Japan and other Asian countries, there's a big hint.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 04:16:15 pm

Quote from: packrat on September 07, 2015, 02:24:34 pm

Could you please make some point instead of a vague comment?

That was a sentence.

I made no point in response to your post because your post made no sense.  I was simply asking that you try again to get out whatever you intended to say, but, since you want to be a bit of a smart ass about it, let's look closely at what you wrote:

Quote from: packrat on September 05, 2015, 04:36:41 pm

Because lying is considered a sin by most everyone and some deny that homosexuality is a sin.

You start the sentence with "Because," which despite every Jr. High English teacher telling their students can never be done, can be done, though doing so invites trouble, as your sentence demonstrates. 

Every sentence must have two things: 1) a complete thought; 2) a subject and a predicate, the predicate being the verb showing what the subject does, or is, or has done to it.

Your "sentence" fails on both counts.  I lacks a complete thought, and it is impossible to find either a subject or a predicate in the whole mess.

It appears you started a thought and simply failed to finish it.

If you had omitted the word "Because" at the start, you would have come close to having a viable sentence in the following: "Lying is considered a sin by most everyone and some deny that homosexuality is a sin."  "Lying" would constitute a noun and the phrase "is considered a sin," could constitute the predicate, telling us what "lying" is -- its state of being.  Unfortunately, since you continued with a new possible subject, "some," and a new possible predicate, "deny that homosexuality is a sin," you would have needed a comma after "everyone" to separate the two independent clauses which you appear to join with the conjunction "and."  Your failure to use a comma after "everyone" would create a run-on sentence, except for the fact that the first half of it really is not an independent clause at all, since you begin it with "Because," meaning that clause requires a true independent clause.... which never appears.  All of that is compounded by the fact that NONE of what you wrote, as you wrote it, appears to flow in the context of any prior discussion... and it certainly doesn't stand on its own when it begins with, "Because."

All of that is why I invited you to start over and try to actually make your point.  My post in response to your was not at all a vague comment, but instead clearly stated the problem and encouraged you to try again: "packrat, you might have had a thought there, but it just didn't make it all the way out.  Could you try again, and this time could you post a complete sentence?"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 07, 2015, 05:45:40 pm

I honestly believe he doesn't think he is insulting people because he feels he is simply stating the truth.  I would find it amusing if it didn't get so tiresome.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 06:32:47 pm

Oh, no, Pekin, I am fully aware that my second and longer post was insulting.

The first one, however, genuinely wasn't.  It simply assumed that packrat actually had some point he was trying to make and asking him to try again to make it since his first attempt failed.  If you look in the series of four posts in the exchange between me and packrat, the first insult did not come from me.

Perhaps I should have taken the safer approach and simply assumed that packrat had no point to begin with, and that if he would never be able to articulate it clearly even if he had one, letting it go at that.  Instead I assumed that he DID have a point, and that if he tried again he might actually be able to get it across.

I will admit that it appears I was wrong.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 06:33:14 pm

Remember how Global Warming was going to result in more severe and more frequent hurricanes?  http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Study-Are-We-Shifting-to-Fewer-Weaker-Atlantic-Hurricanes-325419431.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 06:39:25 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFD8Ju-lLo0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 07, 2015, 07:34:00 pm

Can you post where Global Climate was supposed to produce more Atlantic hurricanes?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 08:44:13 pm

Watch Al Gore's fictional film -- An Inconvenient Truth.

otto, they aren't even called hurricanes in the Pacific.  Anyone contending there would be an increase in hurricanes had to have been talking about storms in the Atlantic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 07, 2015, 10:12:51 pm

Damb it Jes.  When Homo asks a question, the last thing he wants is an answer.  Especially a factual one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 07, 2015, 11:10:00 pm

He is so brilliant even if you spelled it out he couldn't understand it anyways.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2015, 12:23:09 am

It looks as if Fiorina has full embraced the anti-establishment mood and decided to do so with a somewhat saner tone that Trump.  It should server her well in the race for the nomination, and for the White House after the nomination process is over. http://time.com/4024066/carly-fiorina-mitch-mcconnell-john-boehner-abortion/?xid=homepage

Fiorina: GOP Leaders ‘Should Go’ if They Don’t Pass Anti-Abortion Bill

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said Sunday she is disappointed in congressional GOP leadership, arguing that if they don’t move swiftly to pass conservative legislation, they “should go.”

Mentioning Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell by name, Fiorina said at a campaign stop in Bedford, N.H., that the Republican leaders haven’t done enough since the 2014 election.

“Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, I know them both, they’re good men,” she said to a gathering of about 30 supporters. “But perhaps they’ve been captured by the status quo.”

Fiorina said the Republican-controlled Congress should pass bills to institute a 20-week abortion ban and defund Planned Parenthood, secure the border, and rein in government regulations regardless of whether President Obama threatens to veto the legislation, adding that if they can’t do it, the GOP leadership should step aside.

“I think if they would did those three things I would be satisfied that leadership is producing results,” Fiorina said. “And if they can’t produce results then unfortunately leadership should go.”

Speaking to reporters after the event, Fiorina, who is banking her candidacy on voter frustrations with “career politicians,” said Americans are frustrated by the mismatch between the promises made in 2014 and the results in Washington.

“I think voters worked hard to return a historic Republican majority to the House and to restore a Republican majority to the Senate, and I think people haven’t seen much result from that,” she said.

Fiorina added that Republican lawmakers should couple a measure to defund Planned Parenthood with legislation to keep the government operating into the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, even if it provokes a government shutdown.

“If President Obama is prepared to shut down the government because he cares so much about Planned Parenthood, then let him do that,” Fiorina said. “But I think this gets to the core of our nation’s character, and I also know that the vast majority of Americans agree with me on that.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 08, 2015, 07:05:27 am

So now they're going to have a gay character in the new Star Wars......really?? You've got to stick your frickin perversions in every little aspect of life? In STAR WARS?? So now it's on our TV shows, dang near every one, in the movies, on the web, in our sports teams and IN OUR FACES constantly!? 3 percent of the population, dictating to the remaining 97%??
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/PVdzDjjCopDK8/200.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2015, 07:18:35 am

Quote from: Sportster on September 08, 2015, 07:05:27 am

So now they're going to have a gay character in the new Star Wars......really?? You've got to stick your frickin perversions in every little aspect of life? In STAR WARS?? So now it's on our TV shows, dang near every one, in the movies, on the web, in our sports teams and IN OUR FACES constantly!? 3 percent of the population, dictating to the remaining 97%??

And you pretend not to be a hate-filled homophobe, but are instead merely sharing the gospel....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 08, 2015, 07:24:23 am

Did I ask you to comment?? Don't you have another gay pride parade to host? Get lost, troll....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 08, 2015, 07:39:19 am

Good price for a killer movie, Gladiator. http://www.gohastings.com/product/MOVIE/Gladiator/sku/290194731.uts (http://images.gohastings.com/coverart/LRG/movie/u84872keqfl.jpg)


Here's one for Jessy..... (http://images.gohastings.com/coverart/LRG/movie/v77491tknay.jpg)http://www.gohastings.com/product/MOVIE/Frozen/sku/293998029.uts
Enjoy!
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/xTiTnKRq25N7Mkaruw/200.gif)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 08, 2015, 08:16:03 am

Fiorina said the Republican-controlled Congress should pass bills to institute a 20-week abortion ban

Even people that don't agree with abortion still feel a woman should have the choice..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 08, 2015, 08:49:03 am

20wks is plenty of time and should be banned after that. Late term abortions are wrong. If you're gonna do it, do it asap. I am not saying do it...I'm saying if YOU'RE gonna do it, do it asap. IF you were ****, get checked out and taken care of asap.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2015, 08:49:36 am

Quote from: chifaninva on September 08, 2015, 08:16:03 am

Fiorina said the Republican-controlled Congress should pass bills to institute a 20-week abortion ban

Even people that don't agree with abortion still feel a woman should have the choice..

Say what?  What "choice" are you talking about?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2015, 08:50:26 am

Quote from: Sportster on September 08, 2015, 07:24:23 am

Did I ask you to comment?? Don't you have another gay pride parade to host? Get lost, troll....

How amusing... you now think I have to wait for you to "ask" me to comment.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 08, 2015, 09:27:59 am

I hear they have 'Hairspray' on DVD over at Amazon...why don't you prance on over and get yourself one.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 08, 2015, 10:11:07 am

Isn't Christian Love wonderful.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 08, 2015, 11:14:06 am

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 04:16:15 pm

I made no point in response to your post because your post made no sense.  I was simply asking that you try again to get out whatever you intended to say, but, since you want to be a bit of a smart ass about it, let's look closely at what you wrote:

You start the sentence with "Because," which despite every Jr. High English teacher telling their students can never be done, can be done, though doing so invites trouble, as your sentence demonstrates. 

Every sentence must have two things: 1) a complete thought; 2) a subject and a predicate, the predicate being the verb showing what the subject does, or is, or has done to it.

Your "sentence" fails on both counts.  I lacks a complete thought, and it is impossible to find either a subject or a predicate in the whole mess.

It appears you started a thought and simply failed to finish it.

If you had omitted the word "Because" at the start, you would have come close to having a viable sentence in the following: "Lying is considered a sin by most everyone and some deny that homosexuality is a sin."  "Lying" would constitute a noun and the phrase "is considered a sin," could constitute the predicate, telling us what "lying" is -- its state of being.  Unfortunately, since you continued with a new possible subject, "some," and a new possible predicate, "deny that homosexuality is a sin," you would have needed a comma after "everyone" to separate the two independent clauses which you appear to join with the conjunction "and."  Your failure to use a comma after "everyone" would create a run-on sentence, except for the fact that the first half of it really is not an independent clause at all, since you begin it with "Because," meaning that clause requires a true independent clause.... which never appears.  All of that is compounded by the fact that NONE of what you wrote, as you wrote it, appears to flow in the context of any prior discussion... and it certainly doesn't stand on its own when it begins with, "Because."

All of that is why I invited you to start over and try to actually make your point.  My post in response to your was not at all a vague comment, but instead clearly stated the problem and encouraged you to try again: "packrat, you might have had a thought there, but it just didn't make it all the way out.  Could you try again, and this time could you post a complete sentence?"

In this case the response to your post the subject was your snotty and mean post which served as a noun.
I'm through with this silly banter.  I would expect more from you,  Jes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Dave23 on September 08, 2015, 11:59:52 am

Why?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 08, 2015, 12:55:02 pm

A leopard cant change its spots

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 08, 2015, 04:02:16 pm

Quote from: Jes Beard on September 07, 2015, 01:14:08 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/sunday-review/the-collateral-victims-of-criminal-justice.html?smid=fb-share

The Collateral Victims of Criminal Justice
By SHAILA DEWANSEPT. 5, 2015

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the collateral damage that is caused by the criminal himself, but there are some points that I agree with.

First and foremost, if a person has to pay bail and then charges are dropped, he should be repaid all the money he paid for bail, not just a portion of it.  The same applies to those that are found not guilty.  All bail costs should be repaid.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 08, 2015, 05:21:47 pm

Quote

A leopard cant change its spots

....or a skunk its stench.....     In 'Christian love', DaveP.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 08, 2015, 05:26:10 pm

Interesting.  You are willing to joke about some biblical precepts, but not others.  And you wonder why the rest of the world doesn't take you seriously.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jackiejokeman on September 08, 2015, 05:31:41 pm

 I woke up ... got out of bed ... had a cup of coffee ... and mixed a speedball of heroin & **** ... which was sent to me by unnamed sources on this forum.


 Clearing my head out I watched the movie "Kon Tiki" on DVR.


 Not bad for 7:00 AM PST.  :D


 Why ? What are you doing ?


 I'm not saying you guys are keeping me hooked on this ****.


 That last batch was awesome ! Can you email me anymore?


 Dave/Jes ? Otto ... dude I'm needing ... how fast can you send it?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 08, 2015, 08:21:53 pm

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?ref=politics&_r=2

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2015, 09:08:02 pm

Still nothing.


Let me know when Valarie Plane's name comes up.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2015, 09:24:13 pm

Hey senate Neanderthal republics!


Welcome to the Iran resolution filibuster.


Enjoy it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2015, 09:27:32 pm

And senator chinless from kentucky....


Enjoy the filibuster even more....may be you can still make President Barack Hussein Obama a one term president


Salute!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2015, 09:31:10 pm

Legal aid


You post something about the hoax called climate change denial?

What was that again? Some weather in your back yard...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2015, 09:39:34 pm

jan mickelson


Anyone.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 08, 2015, 09:44:14 pm

Homo comes through with his usual wit.

"So's yer old man." 

"No they didn't."

"He hit me back first".

A proud product of the Wisconsin Teacher's Union.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2015, 09:57:32 pm

More mindless blather from the conservative right.


When do you guys make sense again?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 08, 2015, 10:15:27 pm

I hate it when Homo sulks.  It is a lot better when he comes out of hiding to make a fool of himself.

I thought he was supposed to be the best and the brightest.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Pekin on September 08, 2015, 10:38:02 pm

It is ok Otto.  Just get behind Bernie Sanders.  He is closer to your actual views then Hillary was anyway.

He can't win a general election but he is honest.  A Biden/Warren campaign coming soon is my guess. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2015, 11:19:08 pm

Seriously


When do you guys make sense again?

Don trumptrump wants to round up and deport 11 million folks including American citizens.

Mike Huckabee thinks his god's law supercedes the US Constitution.

Jan Mickelson conservative blowhard in Iowa wants the state to enslave immigrants.

Scott Walker wants to build a wall on the Canadian border.



And on and on...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2015, 11:30:19 pm

Quote from: packrat on September 08, 2015, 11:14:06 am

In this case the response to your post the subject was your snotty and mean post which served as a noun.

On second thought, it appears that even when you make a second effort and sincerely try, you can't write something which makes any sense.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2015, 11:33:21 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 08, 2015, 09:31:10 pm

Legal aid


You post something about the hoax called climate change denial?

What was that again? Some weather in your back yard...

At least you are no longer asking who predicted Global Warming would produce a greater number of, and more severe, hurricanes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2015, 11:44:02 pm

Quote from: davep on September 08, 2015, 05:26:10 pm

Interesting.  You are willing to joke about some biblical precepts, but not others.  And you wonder why the rest of the world doesn't take you seriously.

Nah, davep, he doesn't wonder why anyone doesn't take him seriously or ridicules him.  He self-righteously knows it is because he is a true Christian and because Christians have always been persecuted by demon-possessed sinners like you and me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 09, 2015, 06:20:41 am

How about the nut job in Kentucky. I'm sure there was nothing brought up about religious beliefs when she ran for the job..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 07:28:35 am

Legal aid

I didn't ask because you have already established your ignorance on topic.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: navigator on September 09, 2015, 07:53:26 am

Quote from: chifaninva on September 09, 2015, 06:20:41 am

How about the nut job in Kentucky. I'm sure there was nothing brought up about religious beliefs when she ran for the job..

Didn't the law change after she was elected? I still don't understand how federal law can override state law in this matter. Federal law should only override state law when state law violates the constitution. It would seem that religious freedom is protected by the constitution. Honestly our federal govt is way too far reaching. They should stay out of moral issues and let the states handle them independently. This allows folks the don't like how states handle things to move to another state more aligned with their thinking.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 08:12:05 am

The Supreme Court had no say in what the definition of marriage is. They seriously overstepped their bounds in this ruling. And the Constitution does not protect deviant behavior. That was NEVER the intent of the founders. They'd be rolling in their graves if they knew about this misuse of their document! And she broke no law. In fact she embraced the law. Kentucky state constitution amendment, which passed with 75% of the vote, says 'Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.' States have rights. This fight is far from over. And I stand with this lady. More and more Christians are awakening to what's happening in this land and are taking a stand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 08:16:01 am

Quote

Nah, davep, he doesn't wonder why anyone doesn't take him seriously or ridicules him.  He self-righteously knows it is because he is a true Christian and because Christians have always been persecuted by demon-possessed sinners like you and me. 

Quote

Interesting.  You are willing to joke about some biblical precepts, but not others.  And you wonder why the rest of the world doesn't take you seriously.

Whatever....you two can gnash your teeth and foam at the mouth with your hatred of all things Christian and God, that's fine. Doesn't faze me in the least and Jesus said to expect opposition. It's pretty obvious you think those who believe the Bible to be true are foolish, backwards, whatever. Just remember, they mocked Noah once, too, until the flood came and took them all away. This is not a joke, it's very much real. If you choose not to believe God's word, that's your choice. But it has eternal ramifications for you and you alone....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 09, 2015, 09:35:59 am

Quote from: navigator on September 09, 2015, 07:53:26 am

Didn't the law change after she was elected? I still don't understand how federal law can override state law in this matter. Federal law should only override state law when state law violates the constitution. It would seem that religious freedom is protected by the constitution. Honestly our federal govt is way too far reaching. They should stay out of moral issues and let the states handle them independently. This allows folks the don't like how states handle things to move to another state more aligned with their thinking.

I also think that the Supreme Court overreached itself in interfering with the states definition of marriage.

Regardless, an elected official can not decide for herself what the law should be.  If she believes that the law is wrong, she may resign her office and sue in Federal Court to get the Supreme Court to change it's decision.  But she MAY NOT choose on her own what laws to follow and what not to follow, while still retaining her job.

The judge was wrong to let her out of jail under these circumstances.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 09:49:05 am

Funny since there IS no law she broke. And the Supreme Court cannot make laws. She in fact supported Kentucky law clearly stating gay marriage wasn't allowed. I think the judge saw the firestorm of protest coming and this is why he let her out when a huge protest was to happen that day. I don't believe she will back down and neither should she if she is forced to go against her conscience and sign a document for gay marriage when it is clearly against her beliefs and was is taught in the Bible. Even Lincoln clearly stated the freedom of conscience found in the Constitution when he said '” the guarantee of the right of conscience, as found in our Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable, and one that belongs no less to the Catholic than to the Protestant,” and that “all attempts to abridge or interfere with these rights, either of Catholics or Protestants, directly or indirectly, have our decided disapprobation and shall have our most effective opposition.”

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: davep on September 09, 2015, 09:58:34 am

Of course there are laws broken.  The Supreme court has decided that denying a license to someone is illegal discrimination, just as denying a black entry to a white school is illegal discrimination.  Public employees can not discriminate in their public actions.

She was given a legal court order to fulfil her duties without discrimination, and she has refused to follow that legal court order.

Courts do not make law, but they can and do prevent laws from discriminating on the bases of race, sexual orientation or other factors.  Public officials can not decide not to give someone a licence just because they are black.  Or female.  Or homosexual.  Merely because their religion tells them so.  Slave owners in the south often justified slavery by quoting their religion.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 10:01:16 am

Congress made no such law and the Supreme Court, once again, cannot dictate to the other two branches of Government. NOR again can they make law. And there is not one single word spoken in the Constitution of freedom for gay behaviour or gay marriage, not one.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 10:08:57 am

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/09/09/as-wal-mart-cuts-hours-problems-emerge-with-new-pa.aspx?source=eogyholnk0000001

Poor poor Wally world. If there's a company screwing it up, it's them. They give dishonest pay raises to their employees and then take some of their hours away, effectively nullifying the raise, but giving a vain attempt at showing how 'they care for their employees'. Riiight. If you do things right, good things come. Costco pays their employees well and they are doing well as a Company. Walmart is screwing their employees over and definatley not winning the public opinion war doing so. This is a multi billion dollar company that can definitely afford to pay its employees better and treat them better.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 10:41:17 am

ATTENTION RELIGIOUS FANATIC!!!


Laws that are declared unconstitutional are NOT laws. That idiot clerk in Kentucky has no right to discrimination in public office. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 11:00:42 am

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COBx2GEXAAAncdF.png)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 09, 2015, 11:48:20 am

Quote from: chifaninva on September 08, 2015, 08:16:03 am

Fiorina said the Republican-controlled Congress should pass bills to institute a 20-week abortion ban

Even people that don't agree with abortion still feel a woman should have the choice..

I read that quote wrong. I agree that late term abortion should be outlawed. Actually, I don't agree with abortion at all, and that's where I was saying even people that don't agree with it still feel the woman should have the choice. I say she had the choice when she got pregnant, contraceptives are cheap and plentiful. With that said, I feel ****, incest, mothers life, etc. should always be taken in consideration..

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 12:16:04 pm

So are you saying you're going to start forcing Muslims to sell you pork? Oh and BTW, she was at the job long before this stupid ruling came down from 'on high'....judicial branch out of control.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 12:49:34 pm

ATTENTION RELIGIOUS FANATIC!!!


How many christian divorces happened while on the job?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 01:13:47 pm

There is no such thing as 'Christian divorce'. It's simply divorce. And yes, it happens to Christians as well. If you're referring to her divorces, she was only saved in 2011.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 09, 2015, 05:08:10 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 10:41:17 am

ATTENTION RELIGIOUS FANATIC!!!


Laws that are declared unconstitutional are NOT laws. That idiot clerk in Kentucky has no right to discrimination in public office. 

Attm Homo fanatic: Suppose a polygamist went to that Kenucky clerk with 20 females and a dog and wanted to marry them should she discriminate against him or issue marriage licences to the 20 females and dog too? Isnt the law the law?  Or is it discrimination if she refuses to issue a marriage license?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 05:19:18 pm

Isfulofit


How is that post germane to the conversation regarding whether an individual can impose their religious beliefs over constitutional law?

Ignorance on parade....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: WshflThinking on September 09, 2015, 05:25:29 pm

That law was never made by the body responsible for making law. It was made law by SCOTUS, not Congress. And they violated God's Law. If God's Law can be violated by SCOTUS why cant they further violate it by making polygamy and bestiality law?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 05:31:08 pm

Like I posted, ignorance on parade...


BTW Moron, if the Supreme Court stuck down the PPACA would you wonder who passed a law?

Idiot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2015, 05:59:31 pm

Quote from: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 07:28:35 am

Legal aid

I didn't ask because you have already established your ignorance on topic.

Let's clarify things.  You asked before.  I answered and in my answer pointed out the foolishness of your question.

If there was any ignorance I established in my answer it was in thinking you would actually engage in a conversation.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2015, 06:00:59 pm

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/arctic-has-gained-hundreds-of-miles-of-ice-the-last-three-years/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2015, 06:20:29 pm

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 09, 2015, 05:08:10 pm

Attm Homo fanatic: Suppose a polygamist went to that Kenucky clerk with 20 females and a dog and wanted to marry them should she discriminate against him or issue marriage licences to the 20 females and dog too? Isnt the law the law?  Or is it discrimination if she refuses to issue a marriage license?

Since Kentucky law would not allow such a marriage, and since the Supreme Court has not (yet) held that such laws are unconstitutional, while such an action on her part would unquestionably constitute discrimination (which merely amounts to making a conscious choice between available options), it would not be a form of discrimination prohibited under the Constitution on any other law.  It would in fact have been a discrimination mandated under state law.  Is this actually hard for anyone to follow, or are some folks just being deliberately thick on the issue?

Quote from: WshflThinking on September 09, 2015, 05:25:29 pm

That law was never made by the body responsible for making law. It was made law by SCOTUS, not Congress.

Actually the law was made by Congress, and then by the states themselves, as the 14th Amendment went thru the process of ratification.  The law is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Contending it is "judge made law" is nonsense.

Quote from: navigator on September 09, 2015, 07:53:26 am

Didn't the law change after she was elected?

It happens all of the time.  Laws change.  The public official holding office is required to enforce, apply and observe the law as it exists, or that person can always resign.  The don't get to take the position that when they were elected or took office, the law was different and that is the way they will enforce it.

Quote from: navigator on September 09, 2015, 07:53:26 am

I still don't understand how federal law can override state law in this matter. Federal law should only override state law when state law violates the constitution.

That is exactly what the Supreme Court decided the law was doing in states like KY -- it was violating the Constitution.

Quote from: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 08:12:05 am

The Supreme Court had no say in what the definition of marriage is.

And they did define it here.  They simply decided that states will not be allowed to discriminate based on gender who the states allow to get married.

Quote from: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 08:12:05 am

And the Constitution does not protect deviant behavior.

That is precisely what the Constitution does protect and what it was designed and intended to protect.  "Deviant behavior" is behavior which deviates from societal norms, but behavior which conforms to societal norms does not NEED protection.  Deviant behavior would also include deviant speech, such as advocating a position which is extremely unpopular with society, the very speech which the Supreme Court has made clear time after time is exactly what is protected by the Constitution.

Quote from: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 08:12:05 am

And I stand with this lady.

If there were any concerns I had that this would should not have been jailed and that the Federal judge ore-reached in jailing her, on hearing that you "stand with her," those concerns are gone now.

Quote from: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 09:49:05 am

Funny since there IS no law she broke.

She was not jailed for "breaking the law," but instead for contempt of court -- violate a court order and the court has the authority to jail you until you comply.

Quote from: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 10:01:16 am

Congress made no such law and the Supreme Court, once again, cannot dictate to the other two branches of Government. NOR again can they make law. And there is not one single word spoken in the Constitution of freedom for gay behaviour or gay marriage, not one.

If a state wanted to eliminate state sanctioning of marriage altogether, a state could do so, but the equal protection clause prohibits allowing it based on gender or sexual preference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2015, 06:25:39 pm

Quote from: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 08:16:01 am

Whatever....you two can gnash your teeth and foam at the mouth with your hatred of all things Christian and God

I hate neither Christians, nor a non-existent god.  Could you find anything I have written which suggests otherwise?

I have made clear that I have no use for YOU, and believe your existence is a waste of atoms which could better be spent filling the bottom of an outhouse, but that is not at all because you are Christian, but because you are you.

Quote from: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 08:16:01 am

It's pretty obvious you think those who believe the Bible to be true are foolish, backwards, whatever....  If you choose not to believe God's word, that's your choice.

It is also pretty obvious that you pick and choose what Bible passages you want to embrace and what ones you want to reject or ignore.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 09, 2015, 06:31:32 pm

Quote from: chifaninva on September 09, 2015, 11:48:20 am

I read that quote wrong. I agree that late term abortion should be outlawed. Actually, I don't agree with abortion at all, and that's where I was saying even people that don't agree with it still feel the woman should have the choice. I say she had the choice when she got pregnant, contraceptives are cheap and plentiful. With that said, I feel ****, incest, mothers life, etc. should always be taken in consideration..

Contraceptives are indeed cheap and plentiful.... and a long way from foolproof.

And if you oppose abortion because you believe the unborn child is a human life, and as such is entitled to the protection of law, what difference could it possibly make whether the child is a result of ****, or incest or a failed contraceptive?

If a married woman became pregnant about the same time she was **** by a man using a condom, she might quite reasonably believe the pregnancy would have been a result of her unprotected sex with her husband around the same time.  If she carried the child to term and five years later some medical testing conclusively established that hubby was not the papa, that would not entitle her to kill her four-year-old child.  What difference do either **** or incest or failed contraceptives have in this?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: packrat on September 09, 2015, 06:54:08 pm

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cheney-nuke-deal-enables-iran-to-eradicate-israel-in-one-day/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 07:53:46 pm

(http://i0.wp.com/www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bd150909.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=320%2C240)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: otto105 on September 09, 2015, 07:57:04 pm

Legal aid


The only thing that you have established in regard to Global Climate is your ignorance of it.


98%of scientists agree with that fact.

Now either post actual science in regard to the issue or stop posting about it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Sportster on September 09, 2015, 08:00:38 pm

Jes, you have effective alienated darned near every poster on this board at one time or another.....for you to say the crap you do about me is a badge of honor I wear proudly. We all know your propensity for spewing venom in every direction.... it's something you enjoy.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: chifaninva on September 10, 2015, 06:03:02 am

http://news.yahoo.com/martyr-lawbreaker-kim-davis-case-roils-republicans-161224273.html#

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 10, 2015, 06:19:25 am

Ah the irony, this administration has a Secretary of State who ran for president on a campaign which amounted to the false claim, "Bush lied -- people died," while more than 50 current intelligence analysts have joined in a formal complaint that the current administration is lying about the threat posed by ISIS.

This is too rich.  And libs like otto will predictably rally around their prez, while entirely ignoring the irony.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
Post by: Jes Beard on September 10, 2015, 06:45:54 am

Donald Trump mocks rival Carly Fiorina's face: 'Look at that face, would anyone vote for that?'
Bryan Logan

Real-estate mogul Donald Trump made disparaging remarks in an interview published Wednesday night about GOP presidential rival Carly Fiorina's appearance.

In the interview with Rolling Stone, Trump took a tone of "disgust" describing Fiorina's appearance during a television interview.

"Look at that face," he said, according to Rolling Stone. "Would anyone vote for that?"

"Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" he added.

It's far from the first time Trump has made inflammatory remarks during his three-month-long presidential campaign — especially regarding women.

In the weeks after the first Republican debate last month, he launched an on-and-off attack on Fox News host Megyn Kelly, whom he accused of asking him unfair questions as a debate moderator.

The feud between Trump and Kelly included episodes in which the real-estate magnate retweeted supporters who had called Kelly a "bimbo."

He also said during one interview that Kelly had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever" during the debate, a comment many interpreted as a lewd remark referring to menstruation. (Trump later insisted he meant "nose" or "ears." "Only a deviant would think anything else," he added.)

Fiorina, who appeared on Kelly's Fox News show Wednesday night, said Trump's comments "speak for themselves."

"Maybe I'm getting under his skin a little bit," she said.

Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, has surged in polls after a strong performance in the first lower-tier GOP debate. Last week, CNN changed its rules for next week's debate, meaning she will almost certainly be on the main stage.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-carly-fiorina-face-insult-2015-9#ixzz3lKqY47rj